תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

it is distinguished by these three striking features. Firstly, it is the very model of what a teaching grammar should be. There are exercises upon every section of the grammar, upon the alphabet and its classification-upon the dagesh, the sheva, the accents, the distinction between kamets and kamets chatuph; upon the article, the pronouns; upon the cases, and states, and genders, and numbers, and inflexion of the nouns; upon the different parts of the verbs ; upon all the more important irregular verbs; upon all the subdivisions of the syntax. In all there are 114 exercises, besides seventeen selections for reading and translation, and a double vocabulary, contained in this first part. They are not only exercises, but exercises selected and arranged with such consummate skill and care, that the very pith and marrow of the language is embodied in their construction. Let any of our readers work out some of Dr. Kalisch's examples first, and then turn to Arnold's First Hebrew Book, and the vast difference between these works, in their most elementary portions, will be obvious at once. There is no mannerism about Dr. Kalisch's teaching. He is a thorough master of his subject; therefore in the simplest way, he can emphatically teach and make plain the fundamental principles of the language. We repeat, Dr. Kalisch's Grammar is a model teaching grammar. Secondly, it brings into a small compass the whole body, as well as the more recent developments of Hebrew criticism. The great Christian, no less than the great Jewish Hebraists, are pressed by Dr. Kalisch into his service. Unintentionally and by the way many of the false assertions of superficial critics are utterly repudiated. If the grammatical statements put forth by Hävernick in his "Introduction to the Old Testament," be worked out with Dr. Kalisch's Grammar for reference, the untenable nature of many of his propositions will be seen at once. The reflective reader of that most miserable book-miserable although not rationalistic-will soon form an opinion that Hävernick's knowledge of Hebrew was on a level with his knowledge of the ancient versions of the Old Testament. The book before us, is then an epitome and a record of the advance of Hebrew criticism up to the present date. The third and greatest merit of the three, is the complete key which it affords to the interpretation of the Old Testament Scriptures. "We have searched again and again," writes Dr. Kalisch (Vol. ii. Pref., p. 5), " the text of the Old Testament; and we have consulted every grammarian of note, both Jewish and Christian, from the earliest writers in the middle ages down to those of the present time. It was our aim not to omit any form or construction, deviating however slightly from the fundamental laws of the language. It was our desire to offer to the conscientious student every aid of which he may stand in need for a critical study of the Hebrew original." A list is given, with sometimes more than one reference to the Grammar itself, of considerably

1

more than four thousand exceptional forms or constructions. Of the irregular nouns there is a classified and explanatory note, which embraces upwards of 600 words. The defective and irregular verbs receive a like classification. In short, the Old Testament Scriptures are riddled through and through. With the requisite knowledge and patience, every single word therein contained can be analyzed and parsed. This Grammar is indeed a vast storehouse of profound and genuine Biblical criticism. A thorough master of Dr. Kalisch's Grammar would be so strengthened to interpret the exact meaning of the original text of the Old Testament, that he would be enabled to use his literal Hebrew knowledge as a foundation upon which to plant the higher spiritual teaching of the Fathers. Such are the three more marked excellencies of Dr. Kalisch's Hebrew Grammar.

We would now point out another use to which the first part of this book may be put with immediate advantage. Many persons would like to be able to look out for a particular and marked word in the Hebrew Lexicon, who have neither the inclination nor time to study the language very deeply. Such words can only be known by finding their roots; and the roots can be obtained by subtracting the prefixes and suffixes according to certain laws pointed out in the Grammar. Many of the earlier exercises are designed to teach the laws of this word-building, and they afford a very pleasing, nay an amusing study. It would really be far from an uninviting pursuit for a man to learn his Hebrew letters, and then proceed day by day to work out some of the examples which are given to illustrate every successive point in the construction and pronunciation of these words. There are no gaps-no things left to be understood in Dr. Kalisch's book. Hence it is so delightful a companion, it can be used without a teacher. One can feel one's way so entirely over the ground we travel with Dr. Kalisch, and we can be certain of every step that we take. In short, leaving our other books behind us in a sojourn from home, we could spend many a pleasant and a useful hour with this one self-contained volume. To the mind at all accustomed to the acquisition of knowledge, such a plan as that just mentioned would bring its own reward, and its own feeling of intense mental satisfaction. The Hebrew language is by a common consent taken up late in life, after the classical studies have been long concluded, and have become consolidated as part of one's current intellectual acquire

ments.

Upon comparing, with considerable care, Dr. Kalisch's Grammar with Schultens' "Intitutiones ad Fundamenta Linguæ Hebrææ" (A.D. 1737), and Dr. Lee's "Grammar of the Hebrew Language" (A.D. 1846), and lastly with Rödiger's "Gesenius's Hebrew Grammar" (1852), we find that each writer has his own peculiar excellency, and that Dr. Kalisch has judiciously availed himself of

VOL. XXVI.

the fruits which were gathered in by former Hebraists in the same field. Both Schultens and Dr. Lee are too much addicted to overstrain every analogy between the Hebrew and the Arabic constructions, yet many of the conjectures which were thrown out by Schultens appear in Dr. Kalisch's work as fundamental laws of the Hebrew language. It would be uninteresting to our readers, we fear, were we to place before them the results of our technical criticism, or to endeavour to signify the minor points, in which we heartily agree with, or feel inclined somewhat to modify the statements of Dr. Kalisch. Passing by these purely technical matters, there remain some broad phenomena of the language, contained in its syntax, which as applied to the Old Testament, may afford some matter of interest to the general reader who is no Hebrew scholar. The etymology of the Hebrew, as of all the Semitic languages, died out as the syntax acquired vigour and importance. This change does not imply any degeneracy of idiom. It is simply an exchange, not a loss, and it is very often such an exchange as serves as an index to mark an advance both in science of the language itself, and in the social culture to which that advance is due. The first state of a language is represented by the structure of the Sanscrit, which has a most highly organized and living etymology, its inflexions being most perfect and symmetrical, with hardly any or a most imperfect syntax; the second state is marked by the possession of a full and defined syntax, with a certain but small loss in the power of inflexion. Ancient Greek represents a language in this second state. When a language has but few inflexions, and small power of composition; when the characteristic differences of declension and conjugation have all but melted away; when its syntax is augmented by the resources of logic; and when syntactical contrivances of various kinds have usurped the place once held by a copious etymology; then is a language in the third state, which state is well represented by Hebrew and the other Semitic languages. Yet the Hebrew has enshrined within it a cumbrous etymology of a later growth; it involves a minute recognition of certain lost forms, by a fragment only of the old familiar token; an etymology bound up with points and accents; that it requires the utmost precision to master thoroughly, and an almost unlimited patience to be bestowed over matters that appear to be of no moment if but observed from the surface. It is the subjugation of this, what we could well call spurious etymology, that constitutes the great difficulty and the length of time which is required to learn the language. These things must be learnedprobed to their very core-there is a reason for the variation in every vowel point, for the slightest change of accent, and this reason must be known, understood, and remembered. Never were words more true than those written by Dr. Kalisch in the Preface (p. viii.) to the Second Part of the Grammar. "Such is

the peculiar character of Hebrew, and especially of its laws of inflexion, that unless the rudiments are thoroughly and firmly impressed on the mind and the memory, a reading of Hebrew, even for many successive years, will not ensure confidence and accuracy; and this view is confirmed by the circumstance that many able scholars who have neglected the earliest foundations, frequently exhibit a surprising vagueness and ambiguity in their criticism of the Hebrew text, a defect which not even varied erudition and great penetration are able either to conceal or to counterbalance." Dr. Kalisch candidly confesses that Hebrew is not an easy language to learn, and he calls as witnesses to this statement "the vast and almost incredible number of grammars, guides, dissertations, and anthologies which have been prepared from the ninth century up to this day."

Before giving a few illustrations of the syntactical peculiarities of Hebrew, we would notice the recent attempts which have been made to determine the age of the sacred books upon the internal evidence of the grammatical form of their words. We hold such attempts in considerable suspicion, and we place small confidence in the results so obtained. In many cases Dr. Kalisch's grammar demolishes incidentally all such attempted generalizations of style. For example, the personal pronouns hu he, and hi she, are said to be confounded with each other in the Pentateuch. Hävernick says, ("Introduction," Clark's Trans. p. 160,) "The making no distinction of gender in the pronoun hu is regular in the Pentateuch, the hi belongs here to the anomalies of diction." The former part of this statement is explicit, if the latter be somewhat obscure. Dr. Kalisch says, "In many passages of the Pentateuch we find intended by the Masorites to be read, though the consonants point to the form which was originally epicene. However occurs also in the Pentateuch (Gen. xx. 5, xxxviii. 25, Numb. xiii. 14,) and sometimes promiscuously with ii. p. 102.) No one who has read the Pentateuch can have failed to notice the fact that there are certain words and forms of words which are almost, if not entirely, confined to these books. The shortened él for the usual éleh these, the nachnu for the anachnu we; the uncontracted form of suffix hu; the frequent use of strong noun forms in m and om instead of on and on; the constant termination in prose only: many things like these are peculiar to these books. They are facts that ought not to be overlooked, but then too much ought not to be made of them. Håvernick has brought forward instances of particular forms of words, the construction of which as our recovering of the Hebrew language goes on will be no marvel. "Perfectly unique and primitive is the verbal suffix - Exod. xv. 5." (Introduct. p. 16.) The word is yechasyumu for yechasyumo, "they will cover them."

" (Vol.

[ocr errors]

Now besides mentioning this form (Vol. ii. p. 190,) Dr. Kalisch has produced (Vol. ii. p. 173) a dozen examples, where a word has been altered for the sake of the similarity of sound with the proper nouns which it is intended to explain. Examples of a change similar in its nature to that of Exodus xv. 5, are to be met with in the books of Nehemiah, Jeremiah, Amos, Micah, Ezekiel, 1 Chronicles, Psalms, 2 Samuel; and therefore such a change cannot be of any avail as a distinctive argument in the case of the Pentateuch. To take another case: Hävernick writes (p. 162), "The abstract formation with m prefixed is found in reference to relations of time only in the Pent. Comp. Gen. xxxviii. 24, mishlosh, a space of three (months), Exod. xii. 40, moshob the time of residence." Writing of min which drops its final n, Dr. Kalisch notes: "Occasionally it denotes the time since or after, as mikkadmay eretz (Prov. viii. 23), 'from the beginning of the earth;' miyamim rabbim (Josh. xxiii. 1) after many days.'" (Vol. ii. p. 297.) He refers us in a note to Jer. xli. 1, "at the end of two full years ;" and to Josh. iii. 10. We could add Job xxxviii. 12, "from the beginning of thy days," Ps. lxxiii. 20, Hos. vi. 2, "after two days." The "abstract formation" which is declared to be so peculiar to the Pentateuch is admirably illustrated by Dr. Kalisch from some of the other books of Holy Scripture. What really proves the great antiquity of the Pentateuch is the figurative expressions with which it is studded, its truly poetical expression. Some instances out of a very large number appeal to the mind by their singular beauty. We read Numb. xiv. 9, "Their defence is departed from them," Dy, i.e. their shadow has set, the shadow of their mighty men is gone from them, and so they are left helpless, defenceless. Under the shadow of the captain the people rejoiced. Virgil seized the thought, "Magnum reginæ nomen obumbrat." The mere use of the word shadow for help is common in all Hebrew poetry. In the Psalms and in Isaiah the shadow of GOD,-of the wings of His protection, is often spoken of, and the latter writer, uses the expression "shadow of Egypt," (Isa. xxx. 2, 3,) A ya. Dy The poetical idea so strongly marked consists in the notion of desolation which is implied in the withdrawal of this shadow or protection, the sun is set, the glory and the might are all gone by. Another very charming figure has quite lost its force in our translation. In Ex. x. 5, the plague of locusts is thus described, "And they shall cover the face of the earth that one cannot be able to see the earth;" "for they covered the face of the whole earth." In Numb. xxii. 5, 11, the Egyptians are spoken of as covering the "face of the earth." The Hebrew phrase is TV, "The is, i.e. the eye of the earth. Here Hävernick has laid hold of the true meaning, he says, "to cover the eye of the earth [is] a poetical representative pictorial expression in which the earth is personified as a woman with a veiled countenance," (Introd. p. 166:) the

« הקודםהמשך »