books in the pointed Hebrew, the credit for it is principally, if not entirely, due to the Reverend Gentleman above named, who was kind enough to revise the proof-sheets after they had passed the hands of the Editor, and to correct such misprints as had escaped his eye. Note to page v. of the Preface. It is not unusual in this country to hear it asked, even by educated men, in other respects well informed: Whether there are any Hebrew books beside the Bible?—A question of this nature, proceeding from such respectable quarters, is sufficient to convince any one that (excepting the few very eminent Hebrew Scholars that this country can boast) an erroneous impression generally prevails upon the public mind on matters relating to Hebrew Literature. It will surprise many when told, that, independently of Bibles and Prayer-books, the number of Hebrew books that are printed abroad is enormous. There is scarcely a subject, religious, moral, or scientific, but which has occupied, and, in all probability, at this moment occupies, the Hebrew press on the Continent. The Talmudical, or (as it is now the fashion to call it) the Rabbinical Hebrew, is a very extensive language. To this, indeed, recourse must be had, in scientific Works, for terms that are no where met with in the Bible; yet will any one undertake to prove, that the same terms would not have been used by the Inspired Writers themselves, if they had had occasion for them in the Sacred Subjects that engaged their pen? What is the Talmudic language, but Hebrew copiously saturated with words and idioms of its cognates, the Chaldee and the Syriac? And do we not find words and idioms of the cognate languages occasionally adopted also by the Authors of the Hebrew Bible? Further, the Talmud, as comprehending the Mishnah and the b Gemara, is the first Commentary written by the Hebrews on the Hebrew Bible; and, since the Mishnah was committed to writing by Rabbi Judah in the latter part of the second Century, and taught long previously by word of mouth, it seems more than probable that the language of the Mishnah, or the so-called Rabbinic, was the vernacular idiom of the Hebrews in the time of Christ, when they had still their Priesthood and their Templeservice, and in so far retained the distinctive features of a nation. The Editor, without desiring to obtrude his own opinion upon others, would humbly state his impression, that Christ spoke and preached, and that he argued with his opponents the Scribes, the Pharisees, and the Sadducees, not, as is commonly supposed, in East or West Aramaan, but in the Talmudic, at that time the vernacular idiom of the Hebrews. * He was called Rabbi and Rabboni; and, in all probability, expostulated with the Rabbins in that very Rabbinical Hebrew, by some in this country so slightingly regarded. * Such words as NɔN (Abba, Mark xiv. 36; Rom. viii. 15, &c.), ND↑ SPM (Aceldama, Acts i. 19), (Talitha, Mark v. 41), xp or xp (Raca, Matt. v. 22), np (sabachthani, Matt. xxvii. 46, &c.), occurring in the New Testament, may be said to be Aramaan, as well as Talmudic; so great is the affinity between these dialects: they cannot, therefore, be pressed into the argument on either side. It may, however, be worth noticing, that the word p is of frequent use among the Rabbins as a term of reproach. And surely the words (Maran-atha, the Lord, or our Lord cometh, 1 Cor. xvi. 22), used by one who was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, are not so likely to be meant for Aramæan as for the language of the School of Gamaliel,—the Talmudic. As a single instance of the advantages that the Talmudic writings afford for illustrating the New Testament, the following is subjoined from Bab. Talmud, Treatise Erchin, sect. 3: D 2 TON אם יש בדור הזה מי שיוכל להוכיח אם אמר טול קיסם מבין עיניך אמר לו טול קורה מבין עיניך. “Rabbi Tarphon said: I wonder whether there is in this generation any one who could [with propriety] reprove [others]? If he were to say [to any person], Take out the mote from thine eyes; [the other] would say to him, Take thou out the beam from thine eyes." Compare this passage with Matt. vii. 3-5. books in the pointed Hebrew, the credit for it is principally, if not entirely, due to the Reverend Gentleman above named, who was kind enough to revise the proof-sheets after they had passed the hands of the Editor, and to correct such misprints as had escaped his eye. Note to page v. of the Preface. It is not unusual in this country to hear it asked, even by educated men, in other respects well informed: Whether there are any Hebrew books beside the Bible?—A question of this nature, proceeding from such respectable quarters, is sufficient to convince any one that (excepting the few very eminent Hebrew Scholars that this country can boast) an erroneous impression generally prevails upon the public mind on matters relating to Hebrew Literature. It will surprise many when told, that, independently of Bibles and Prayer-books, the number of Hebrew books that are printed abroad is enormous. There is scarcely a subject, religious, moral, or scientific, but which has occupied, and, in all probability, at this moment occupies, the Hebrew press on the Continent. The Talmudical, or (as it is now the fashion to call it) the Rabbinical Hebrew, is a very extensive language. To this, indeed, recourse must be had, in scientific Works, for terms that are no where met with in the Bible; yet will any one undertake to prove, that the same terms would not have been used by the Inspired Writers themselves, if they had had occasion for them in the Sacred Subjects that engaged their pen? What is the Talmudic language, but Hebrew copiously saturated with words and idioms of its cognates, the Chaldee and the Syriac? And do we not find words and idioms of the cognate languages occasionally adopted also by the Authors of the Hebrew Bible? Further, the Talmud, as comprehending the Mishnah and the b Gemara, is the first Commentary written by the Hebrews on the Hebrew Bible; and, since the Mishnah was committed to writing by Rabbi Judah in the latter part of the second Century, and taught long previously by word of mouth, it seems more than probable that the language of the Mishnah, or the so-called Rabbinic, was the vernacular idiom of the Hebrews in the time of Christ, when they had still their Priesthood and their Templeservice, and in so far retained the distinctive features of a nation. The Editor, without desiring to obtrude his own opinion upon others, would humbly state his impression, that Christ spoke and preached, and that he argued with his opponents the Scribes, the Pharisees, and the Sadducees, not, as is commonly supposed, in East or West Aramaan, but in the Talmudic, at that time the vernacular idiom of the Hebrews. * He was called Rabbi and Rabboni; and, in all probability, expostulated with the Rabbins in that very Rabbinical Hebrew, by some in this country so slight ingly regarded. * Such words as NN (Abba, Mark xiv. 36; Rom. viii. 15, &c.), 207 5pm (Aceldama, Acts i. 19), no (Talitha, Mark v. 41), p or xp (Raca, Matt. v. 22), np (sabachthani, Matt. xxvii. 46, &c.), occurring in the New Testament, may be said to be Aramæan, as well as Talmudic; so great is the affinity between these dialects: they cannot, therefore, be pressed into the argument on either side. It may, however, be worth noticing, that the word p is of frequent use among the Rabbins as a term of reproach. And surely the words n (Maran-atha, the Lord, or our Lord cometh, 1 Cor. xvi. 22), used by one who was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, are not so likely to be meant for Aramaan as for the language of the School of Gamaliel, the Talmudic. As a single instance of the advantages that the Talmudic writings afford for illustrating the New Testament, the following is subjoined from Bab. Talmud, Treatise Erchin, sect. 3: " mon po '17 DON אם יש בדור הזה מי שיוכל להוכיח אם אמר טול קיסם מבין עיניך אמר לו טול קורה מבין עיניך. “Rabbi Tarphon said: I wonder whether there is in this generation any one who could [with propriety] reprove [others]? If he were to say [to any person], Take out the mote from thine eyes; [the other] would say to him, Take thou out the beam from thine eyes." Compare this passage with Matt. vii. 3-5. On the Continent, the question is viewed in quite a different light; where the opinion is unanimous, that the so-called Rabbinical Hebrew stamps the Hebrew Scholar. Divest him of his Rabbinical Hebrew (be his acquaintance with it greater or less), and he is not able to construe a Hebrew title-page, not even that of a common Prayer-book, or a penny Almanac. Divest him of his Rabbinical Hebrew, and he stands aghast at the Commentaries on the Hebrew Bible, nay, at the very Marginal Notes that crowd its pages. The Buxtorfs, the Rosenmüllers, the Wolfsfohns, the Ben Zeebs, the Chiarinis,-all the Hebraists on the Continent, will shrug their shoulders, and disown him in their learned fraternity.* * It must, however, be admitted, that the Rabbinical Hebrew has not been without its votaries and advocates even in this country. The Rev. Dr. French and the Rev. George Skinner, in the Preface to their masterly Translation of the Book of Psalms, acknowledge to have consulted the Rabbins. Bishop Lowth quotes passages communicated to him by Dr. Kennicott from the Mishnah and the Gemara of Babylon, which explained satisfactorily to his mind Isaiah liii. 8 (first part). It is well known what use Dr. Lightfoot has made of the Talmudical writings in his elaborate works. Of the Rabbins he gives this character, "That the doctrine of the Gospel had no more bitter enemies than they, and yet the text no more plain interpreters." The Rev. George Phillips, in the Preface to his very valuable Syriac Grammar, strongly recommends the study of the Talmud and other Rabbinical works, and supports his commendation by cogent arguments. A perusal of this Preface will richly repay the Hebrew Student. The Editor would conclude this note by a quotation from Bishop Marsh's Michaelis; who, speaking of the language of the Rabbins, thus remarks: "This new Hebrew language is called Talmudical, or Rabbinical, from the writings in which it is used. It is true that all these writings are of a much later date than the New Testament; but it appears, from the coincidence of expressions, that even in the time of Christ this was the learned language of the Rabbins. In the New Testament we find a considerable mixture of this Rabbinical language, especially in passages where matters of learning are the subjects of discourse; and though the assistance which it affords in explaining the Hebrew of the Old Testament is very uncertain, as we cannot argue from the modern use of a dead language to its ancient use among the classic writers, it is yet absolutely necessary for explaining the New Testament. The Sermon on the Mount, the conversations |