THE

BIBLICAL REPOSITORY.

No. IX.

JANUARY, 1833.

.

ART. I.-ON THE SOURCES OF HEBREW PHILOLOGY AND LEX

ICOGRAPHY.

By William Gesenius, Professor of Theology in the University of Halle. Translated from the German by the Editor.

INTRODUCTORY NOTICE.

THE following article has been selected for publication in this work, as presenting the best condensed view extant of the whole subject on which it treats; including a particular account of all the Shemitish languages and dialects, and a critical review and estimate of their philology and general literature, and of the best aids for gaining an acquaintance with them. It may truly be regarded, as is said in the text, as an outline, and a valuable one, of the philological hermeneutics of the Old Testament. The object of the writer, however, having more particular reserence to Hebrew lexicography, I have ventured occasionally in the notes to designate also the more important grammatical helps, in order that the reader may have the whole field at once before his view. And as it is often important for the student to * know, whether the works referred to are accessible in this country, I have printed in Italic the titles of all those works which are found in the library of the Andover Theological Seminary; and which it will be seen constitute a very great proportion of the whole. In the notes, the references by figures are preserved, for the accommodation of those who may wish to compare the original.-The present dissertation was first prefixed by Gesenius to the second edition of his Manual Hebrew and VOL. III. No. 9.

1

German Lexicon, Leipz. 1823; and again reprinted before the third edition of the same work, Leipz. 1828. It has never yet appeared in an English dress. EDITOR.

SOURCES OF HEBREW LEXICOGRAPHY.

THE object of this dissertation, which may be regarded as a concise sketch of the philological hermeneutics of the Old Testament, is to lead on the youthful philologist to the habit of independent investigation, by introducing him at once as it were into the workshop of Hebrew philology, and making him acquainted with all the instruments and helps by which he is to be aided in his progress.

When we examine the ultimate sources of our knowledge of the significations of Hebrew words, we find that they may properly be traced back to the following three:

I. The usage of the Old Testament itself, so far as this can be determined from the connexion of single passages, and the comparison of all those places in which a word or phrase occurs.

II. The traditional knowledge of the Hebrew language which has been retained by the Jews, and which is now to be sought, partly in the ancient versions, and partly in the Jewish commentaries and lexicons.

III. The comparison of the kindred languages, all of which, it is true, in the monuments of them now extant, are younger than the Hebrew of the Old Testament; but yet are in fact more copious than the Biblical Hebrew, and are either living languages, or have been grammatically and lexically* treated of by native grammarians, or at least are extant in several writers; so that in regard to the signification of words, there can be in them comparatively much less doubt, than in the Hebrew.

To make use of all these sources with critical judgment and with a correct estimate of the value of each; and, in the special

I have ventured here and elsewhere to make use of the words lerical and lexically, as being regularly formed from the Greek λɛğınós, just as grammatical comes from youuuatixos. The word lexical refers to the theory or principles on which a lexicon should properly be constructed; while lexicographical has reference to the application of this theory or these principles to practice, i. e. to the actual compilation of a lexicon. We can therefore speak of the lexical character and aspect of a language, in distinction from the grammatical; while the lexicography of a language is something quite different.-EDITOR.

cases where they sometimes are discordant with each other, to search out and establish the proper relation among them and also with the context;-this is the office and the duty of the truly learned lexicographer, who investigates for himself, and who then assuredly cannot rest satisfied with merely making use of his immediate predecessors."

I. Usus Loquendi of the Old Testament.

If now we consider these three sources separately, the first, or the use of the Bible itself, is of the highest importance, and must necessarily constitute the basis of every lexicon. Indeed, this is entirely sufficient for determining the usage in respect to all words of frequent occurrence, whether they are found in the kindred dialects or not. It suffices also for the specification of the constructions and phrases which are formed with different words; and affords a multitude of fine philological observations, of which many an interpreter, who makes a great show with versións, has not the least idea. This source however must often fail the inquirer, when he seeks for the fundamental idea or for the etymology of words; where anağ leyóueva and words of infrequent occurrence are to be illustrated, and the context leaves him in the lurch; to say nothing of the circumstance, that a knowledge of only one limited dialect, studied without connexion with the whole stock to which it pertains, can never admit of a vivid apprehension of the sense. To what results the exclusive or partial use of this source leads, is shewn by the lexicons of Stock and Gusset, which, partly on theological grounds, have been restricted to this source, because forsooth the Bible must be intelligible in and through itself; not to mention the by-paths into which Neumann and others1 have in this manner fallen.

Although every comparison must in some degree be lame, yet the task of illustrating philologically the Old Testament, has not inappropriately been compared with that which an interpreter of some monument of the ancient German language would undertake, e. g. of Ulphilas or of the Niebelunglied; where, besides the context and the connexion of the piece itself, he would have, on the one hand, the aid of ancient, though not cotemporary, and of course not entirely authentic, versions; and, on the other hand, would be able to compare all the modern languages which have sprung from the ancient German stock.

1 Fabre d' Olivet, Le Hebraisme devoilé, Paris 1815, 16. 2 vols 4to. -See the Jen. Allg. L. Z. 1818, No. 216, 217.