Admitting this, the difficulty will re- | Hebrew,-meaning, respectively, 'father main the same as before, to account of the king,' 'king of righteousness,' for the fact of the Canaanites and Pho-lord of righteousness,' the last two nicians speaking Hebrew, or, at least, being, in fact, identical. So the names a language substantially the same as of many of the Canaanite cities in the Hebrew, if they were, indeed, des- Joshua,-e.g. 'Kirjath-sepher' = city of cendants of Ham. the book, Jo.xv.15, and see those in 1253. That they did this, is clearly Jo.xv.21-62,- -are pure Hebrew. Nay, implied in the narrative, where the He-in Isaiah's time, the Jews,-speaking brews are represented as having had no Hebrew, of course, since their Prophets difficulty at any time in communicating addressed them in that tongue,-did freely, by word of mouth, with the not generally understand the Syrian or aboriginal inhabitants of Canaan. In Aramæan tongue, 2K.xviii.26, Ïs.xxxvi. Egypt we find Joseph's brethren speak- 11. Hence it is impossible to suppose ing with their brother, supposed to be that the Hebrew was merely such a an Egyptian, by means of an interpreter, slight modification of the Aramæan, as xlii.23. The Hamite language of Egypt, might have sprung up among the memthen, was very different as, of course, bers of one particular family. And, in we know it was-from the Hebrew. fact, we know that the two languages, But we find Abram conversing freely though closely allied, are very different with the Canaanite King of Sodom in form, and quite as distinct from each and with Melchizedek, the Jebusite other, as Dutch from German, or Spanish King of Salem, xiv.19–24,—(who, however, has been supposed by some to have been no other than the Patriarch | Shem, and who, in that case, of course, would speak Hebrew, if that was the original tongue,)-as also Lot with the people of Sodom, xix.5-9, Abraham and Isaac with the Philistine King of Gerar, xx.9-15, xxi. 22-32, xxvi. 7-10, 26-29, Abraham with the Hittites, xxiii.3-16, Jacob, with the Hivites, xxxiv.8-12.

from Portuguese; though, says Mr. TWISLETON, SMITH'S Dict. of the Bible, ii.p.863,

It seems to be admitted by philologers that neither Hebrew, Aramaic, nor Arabic, is derived the one from the other, just as the same may be said of Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese.

that the tribes of Canaan themselves 1256. In short, there can be no doubt spoke substantially the Hebrew language, which the descendants of Abratherefore called the language of Caham adopted from them, and which is naan,' Is.xix. 18. And so writes BLEEK, Einl.p.61:

nations, and had a kindred speech, which, in

1254. It may be suggested that these three Patriarchs had, perhaps, lived so long among the Canaanites, as to have acquired the power of speaking their tongue, supposed to be Hamitic, without having lost their own Aramæan, or that between the Aramaic and Arabian tribes, The geographical position also of Canaan, form of it, the Hebrew, into which it would lead one to assume beforehand that the had become modified among the mem-Canaanites belonged to the same family of bers of their families, who were originally, for the most part, also Aramæans. But then we find also the harlot Rahab in Jo.ii talking freely with the Hebrew spies, and the Hivites of Gibeon with Joshua, Jo.ix.6-13, and the man of Luz with the spies in Ju.i.24: so that these different natives of Canaan are represented as speaking a language substantially the same as that of the Hebrews.

1255. Again, the names of the Philistine King, Abimelech, G.xx.2, and of the Jebusite Kings, Melchizedek and Adonizedek, G.xiv.18, Jo.x.1, are pure

respect of its character and dialectic peculiarities, would lie between the Aramaic and Arabian dialects, as in fact, the Hebrew does. That, however, the Canaanites-(that is, the arrival)-spoke one and the same tongue with the Israelites, or, at least, a tongue much more nearly related to the Hebrew than the Aramaic was, may be concluded from the fact, that, so numerous and intimate as were the relations of the Hebrews with these people, we find no indication whatever of any difference in their language, which either hindered them from mutually understanding one another, or made an interpreter necessary. Lastly, the Proper Names of Canaanitish persons and places are pure Hebrew, and ex

people inhabiting the land before Abraham's

It

pressed in Hebrew not Aramaic forms. cannot be doubted, then, that the Canaanites

(iii) Inscriptions on coins of the Phoenicians and their colonies;

spoke substantially the same language as the | Pan.v.1-10,ii.35, &c., as speeches of the CarHebrews. But it cannot be supposed that thaginian Hanno in the Punic tongue; they adopted it from the solitary stranger, Abraham. Hence it is obvious that he must have adopted it from them, after settling in the country, having dropped gradually by disuse the Aramaic dialect, which he spoke in his father's house. This language must the Israelites have taken with them to Egypt, and brought back again into the land of Canaan.

1257. But, beside the indications thus afforded, that the vernacular language of the Canaanites was substantially the same as the Scripture Hebrew, we have other positive proof in the case of the Phoenicians, who are spoken of as Canaanites in Obad. 20:

And the Captivity of this host of the children of Israel shall possess that of the Ca

naanites even unto Zarephath,' i.e. Sarepta, a city of Sidon,' Luke iv.26.

(iv) Inscriptions on engraved stones and vessels, pillars, votive tablets, and sepulchral monuments;

(v) Especially the two very important, newly-discovered, Phoenician relics, viz. an altar of the fourth century B.C., discovered in June 1845, by the fall of part of a house in Marseilles, the ancient port Massilia, and the sarcophagus of the Sidonian king, Eschmunazar, with a very perfect inscription, discovered at Sidon, Jan. 15, 1855.

And for full proof of the substantial identity of the two languages reference may be made to the Phoenician Inscriptions, lately published by the authorities of the British Museum.

1260. Prof. RAWLINSON, however, Aids to Faith, p.269, maintains that the Phoenicians were an entirely different race from the other inhabitants of Canaan, and were, in fact, Shemites,— so that they might speak the same

So, in Matt.xv.22, we read of the 'woman of Canaan,' who came out of the coasts of Tyre and Sidon; and Sidon is named in G.x.15 as the first-language as the Hebrews, while the born son of Canaan.

1258. Accordingly, AUGUSTINE, speaking of the rural population of the Phoenician colony of Carthage, writes as follows, Ep. Meh. ad Rom. xiii:

Our rustics being asked who they are, answering in Punic Chananites,' what else do they answer than 'Canaanites?'

So, Hept. quæst. 16, he writes: Those tongues (Punic and Hebrew) do not differ much from one another.

And, Tract. in Joh. Evang.xv.27:Those tongues are allied, and belong to neighbouring people, the Hebrew, and Punic, and Syrian.

And, Locut.i.24, ad Gen. viii.9,

It is an expression, which I consider to be Hebrew for this reason, that it is also very familiar to the Punic tongue, in which we find many words agreeing with Hebrew.

And contr.lit.Petil.ii.239,

Which word (Messias) corresponds with the Punic tongue, as do very many other, and, indeed, almost all Hebrew words.

Canaanites, generally, were Hamites :

As for the argument from the presumed identity of the Canaanites with the Phonicians, though it has great names in its for it. Phoenicia, as a country, is distinfavour, there is really very little to be said

guishable from Canaan, in which it may, perhaps, have been included, but of which it was, at any rate, only a part. And the Phoenician people present in many respects a strong and marked contrast to the Canaanites, so that there is great reason to believe that they were an entirely different race.

But, if the Phoenicians were Shemites, what, then, becomes of the Scripture statement in G.x.15, that Sidon was the 'first-born' of Canaan and brother of the Hittite, Jebusite' Amorite, &c.?

1261. Prof. RAWLINSON seeks to confirm his view, by noting

Whereas between the real Canaanites and the Jews there was deadly and perpetual hostility, until the former were utterly rooted out and destroyed, the Jews and Phoenicians were on terms of perpetual amity,—an amity encouraged by the best princes, who would the accursed race. scarcely have contracted a friendship with

But he here only draws attention to another of the difficulties, which embarrass the traditionary view. If the laws of the Pentateuch, as we now find them in E.xxiii.31-33-

1259. But our actual knowledge of the ancient Phoenician tongue has been greatly extended of late, and leaves no doubt whatever on this point. It is derived from the following sources:— (i) Words quoted by old authors as Phonician or Punic, such as names of persons, places, &c., as well as many other words; (ii) The passages produced by PLAUTUS, into your hand, and thou shalt drive them out

'I will deliver the inhabitants of the land

from before thee: thou shalt make no covenant | try, philology, history, geography, mathemawith them, nor with their gods: they shall not tics, and especially astronomy. The Arabic dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin grammarians produce one thousand different against me:'words for 'sword,' five hundred for 'lion,'

had really been in existence, and re-two hundred for serpent,' four hundred for 'misfortune.' BLEEK, p.42. cognised as of Divine authority, in the days of David and Solomon, it can hardly be believed that these, among the best princes,' would have contracted such close alliance with the Phoenicians, who are expressly named in Ju.iii.3 among the nations of Canaan which were not yet exterminated, but 'left' for a while to prove Israel'— five lords of the Philistines, and all the Canaanites, and the Sidonians, and the Hivites that dwelt in mount Lebanon,'

is a Semitic dialect, akin to the Arabic and

Hebrew.

There is no reason to doubt,' says PRICHARD, "that the people, for whose use these books were written, and whose vernacular tongue was the Gheez, were a Semitic race.' The Gheez is now extant merely as a dead language. The Amharic, a modern Abyssinian, has been the vernacular of the country ever since the It is not a dialect of the Gheez or Ethiopic, as some have supposed, but is now recognised to be, as PRICHARD affirms, a language fundamentally distinct.' It was, probably, an ancient African tongue, and one of the abori

extinction of the Gheez.

1269. But we must here notice ano

ginal idioms of the SE. provinces of Abys-ther point bearing upon the question of

sinia. PRICHARD winds up his investigation with the following emphatic avowal, The the Mosaic authorship of the story of languages of all these nations are essentially the Exodus. That story represents the distinct from the Gheez and every other people of Israel, when coming out of Semitic dialect.' In other words, we have here the Egypt, after a residence there of, at Semitic Gheez language becoming ex- least, two centuries, speaking perfectly tinct, while the African or Hamitic pure Hebrew, without the slightest interAmharic is still spoken,-in contradic-mixture of either Aramaic or Egyptian tion to DELITZSCH's theory.

idioms. Moses, throughout the Pentateuch-and not merely in the later book of Deuteronomy-speaks to the people always in the purest Hebrew,—makes his addresses, writes his song, E.xv.1-18, and delivers his laws, in pure Hebrew; nay, the Ten Commandments, as recorded to have been uttered on Sinai, are the first four Books, with the exception expressed in pure Hebrew. Throughout

1267. It is, of course, impossible to disprove the assertion, that the whole body of Canaanites were Hamites, who once spoke the same language, substantially, as the Egyptians, but became Semitised, by dwelling among the (assumed) aboriginal Semitic tribes of the future Canaan, or by tarrying long among the Semitic tribes, through which they are supposed to have passed of one or two Aramaan words, as Laon their way from the eastern districts ban's expression, yegar shahădutha, westward,much longer than their bre-heap of witness,' G.xxxi.47, and one thren, the primary founders of the Egyp- or two Egyptian words, as avrech, 'bow tian race. But the assertion is supported by no evidence, and is altogether improbable.

the knee,' xli.43,-introduced, however, with special reference to Aramæan or Egyptian circumstances,―the language is

pure Hebrew, perfectly uncorrupted by Aramaan or Egyptian peculiarities.

1270. Now let us consider for a mo

ment the circumstances under which Pentateuch is supposed to have been this perfectly pure Hebrew of the written. We find Jacob, as we have said (1250), on his return from Haran to the land of Canaan, returning also to the use of the Hebrew tongue, which we may suppose him to have been fahis father Isaac's house, during the miliar with, as the language spoken in

first

seventy-seven years of his life, and not to have lost, though he had but little opportunity of speaking it, during the twenty years of his sojourn with Laban. But his four wives, and all the servants, male and female, which

he brought with him into Canaan, must all have been Aramæans, -must all have spoken the same language as Laban, viz. the Syrian or Aramæan tongue; and we must suppose that the young children, of whom the eldest was not more than twelve years old, brought up with their mothers and these servants, must have spoken Aramæan also.

assume that their children, brought up among Canaanitish servants, may have learned from them and from their fathers, to speak the language of the land. And so the majority of the seventy souls,' who went down with Jacob, may be regarded as speaking Hebrew, though scarcely, we should suppose, pure Hebrew.

1273. But how could this small community of 70 souls, surrounded, as they were, by Egyptians, with whom they were continually in contact,―as friends, in the first instance, during the first hundred years of their sojourn,-as

1271. We may, indeed, assume that during the thirty years which they spent in Canaan, before going down to settle in Egypt, they may have changed their language, as Abraham did, and, dropping the Aramaan, have slaves, afterwards, for (at least) the acquired the Hebrew tongue of the tribes of Canaan. But it is not easy to understand how they should have changed it so completely, as to have lost all trace of the Aramæan, or how, going down into Egypt, as they did, and living there, under the circumstances described in the book of Exodus, for two hundred and fifteen years at least, they should have retained the Hebrew tongue, if they took it with them, in perfect purity, without the slightest intermixture of any foreign element. As to the first point, the captives in Babylon, we know, had their tongue soon corrupted, so that Chaldaisms abound in later Hebrew. But Jacob's family (we must suppose) exchanged the Aramæan for the Hebrew completely in thirty years, although for every one of those, who came into Canaan, except Jacob himself, for all the adult women and servants, as well-must have been brought up under as the young children, the Aramæan was their mother-tongue, which they had spoken from their birth.

last eighty years,—have maintained
during all this time that perfect purity
of language, which we find exhibited
in the Pentateuch, uncorrupted by
the slightest influx of Egyptian, or
any other foriegn, idioms? They may
have intermarried among themselves,
or taken wives from the Egyptians or
other foreigners, or from their old
Syrian home but they could only
have been reinforced, in respect of
maintaining the pure Hebrew tongue
among them, by marrying Canaanites.
Some Hebrew women may have mar-
ried Egyptians, 1Ch.ii.34,35, and their
offspring would be reckoned as Hebrews:
Moses himself married an Ethiopian
woman, N.xii.1: a 'mixed multitude'
went up with them out of Egypt, E.xii.
38. The children and grandchildren of
Joseph, we must suppose, at least,
during the 80 years of Joseph's dignity,

Egyptian influences, and in intimate
connection with the members of the
high Egyptian family, to which Joseph's
wife belonged, G.xli.45. And, indeed,
the expression in G.1.23,—
the children of Machir, the son of Manasseh,
were brought up on Joseph's knees,-
implies his close relations with them.

1272. We will suppose, however, that Jacob's children, being so young, may have acquired the new tongue perfectly, through intercourse with Canaanites, as Hamor, G.xxxiv, and others. Thus Jacob himself, and his sons, and his 1274. Under these circumstances, daughter Dinah, may have spoken during all this time, for more than two Hebrew, when they went down into centuries, it would indeed be strange Egypt. And, though his son's wives, if they could maintain their language unless taken from the Canaanites as identically the same pure Hebrew, as Judah's, xxxviii. 2, and Simeon's, xlvi. that which their forefathers, - Abra10-(both these two, however, seem to ham, Isaac, and Jacob,-spoke, while be noted rather as exceptional cases)-living in daily contact with the tribes would not have spoken Hebrew, we may of Canaan. It may, perhaps, be alleged