haracter. There are two kinds of Hebrew characters; the ancient, called also the square; and the modern, or rabbinical character.

The Square Hebrew takes its denomination from the figure of its characters, which stand more square, and Hebrew have their angles more exact and precise, than the other. This character is used in the text of Scripture, and in other principal and important writings. When both this and the rabbinitic character are employed in the same work, the former is used for the text, and the latter for the accessory part, as the gloss, notes, commentaries, and so forth.

The best and most beautiful characters of this kind are those copied from the characters used in the Spanish manuscripts; next, those from the Italian manuscripts; then those from the French; and, lastly, those of the Germans, whose characters are much the same, with respect to the other genuine square Hebrew characters, as the Gothic or Dutch characters are with respect to the Roman.

Several authors contend, that the square character is not the real ancient Hebrew character, written from the beginning of the language till the time of the Babylonian captivity; but that it is the Assyrian or Chaldaic character, which the Jews having become accustomed to during the captivity, afterwards retained. They allege, that the Jews, during their captivity, had quite disused their ancient character; so that Ezra found it necessary to have the sacred books transcribed into the Chaldaic square character. These authors also contend, that what we call the Samaritan character is in reality the genuine ancient Hebrew. Of this opinion are Scaliger, Bochart, Casaubon, Vossius, Grotius, Walton, Capellus, and, amongst the ancients, Jerome and Eusebius. It is urged, that the present characters are called Assyrian by the ancient Jewish writers of the Talmud, and therefore must have been brought from Assyria. But to this argument it is replied, that there were two sorts of characters anciently in use, viz. the sacred or present square character, and the profane or civil, which we call Samaritan; and that the sacred is called Assyrian, because it first began in Assyria to come into common use. It is further alleged, that the Chaldaic letters, which the Jews now use, were unknown to the ancient Jews before the captivity (Dan. i. 4). Moreover, it is inferred from a passage in Second Kings (xvii. 28), where we learn that a Jewish priest was sent to teach the Samaritans the worship of Jehovah, that on this occasion he must have taught them the law; and yet no mention occurs of his teaching them the language or character in which the law was then written, namely, the character which the Samaritans used. But the chief argument is derived from some ancient Jewish shekels, having a legend on one side, "The shekel of Israel," and on the other, "Jerusalem the holy," both in Samaritan characters. These shekels, it is said, must have been coined before the division of the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel, or at least before the Assyrian captivity, because the Samaritans never afterwards reckoned Jerusalem holy. On the other side, namely, in favour of the primitive antiquity of the square character, are the two Buxtorfs, Leusden, Calovius, Hottinger, Spanheim, Lightfoot, and others, who urge (from Matthew, v. 18) that jod is really the least of the consonants in the present Hebrew, whereas it is one of the largest characters in the Samaritan alphabet; but Walton replies, that if our Saviour here speaks of the least letter of the alphabet, we can only infer that the Chaldaic character was used, in our Saviour's time, which is not denied by those who maintain the Samaritan to be the original. They also allege that the Jews were too obstinate and superstitious to allow their sacred character to be altered; but if this was effected under the direction and authority of Ezra, the argument will be much invalidated. Further, they maintain that Ezra could not alter the ancient character, because it was impossible to make the alterations in all their copies. This argument, however, is contradicted by fact, since the old English black letter is actually changed for the Roman. They likewise allege that Ezra was not disposed to profane the sacred writings with a heathen character; but this supposes that Ezra was so superstitious as to imagine that there was some peculiar sanctity in the shape of the letters. However, the advocates of this opinion appeal to ancient coins found in Judea, with a legend in the Chaldaic or Assyrian character. But the genuineness of these coins is much disputed. The learned Soucet maintains that the ancient Hebrew character is that found on the medals of Simon, and others, commonly called Samaritan medals, but which, he affirms, were really Hebrew medals, struck by the Jews, and not by the Samaritans.

Buxtorf endeavours to reconcile these two opinions by producing a variety of passages from the Rabbin to prove that both these characters were anciently used; the present square character being that in which the tables of the law, and the copy deposited in the ark, were written, and the other character being used in the copies of the law which were written for private and common use, and in civil affairs in general; and that after the captivity, Ezra ordered the former to be used by the Jews on all occasions, leaving the latter to the Samaritans and apostates. But it can scarcely be allowed by any who consider the difference between the Chaldaic and Samaritan characters, with respect to convenience and beauty, that they were ever used at the same time. After all, it is of no great moment which of these, or whether either of them, formed the original characters; since it appears that no change of the words has arisen from the manner of writing them, because the Samaritan and Jewish Pentateuch almost invariably agree. It is most probable that the form of these characters has varied at different periods. This appears from the testimony of Montfaucon (Hexapla Originis, vol. i. p. 22), and is implied in Dr Kennicot's making the characters in which manuscripts are written one test of their age.

The Modern, or Rabbinical, is a good, neat character, formed of the square Hebrew, by rounding it, and retrenching most of the angles or corners of the letters, to render it more easy and flowing. The letters used by the Germans are very different from the rabbinical character employed everywhere else, though all formed alike from the square character, but in a more slovenly manner than the rest. The Rabbin frequently make use either of their own, or the square Hebrew character, to write the modern languages in. There are even books in the vulgar tongues printed in Hebrew characters, instances of which are seen in the king's library at Paris.

**Hebrew Language**, that spoken by the Hebrews, and in which the books of the Old Testament are written.

The books of the Old Testament are the only compositions to be found, in all antiquity, written in pure Hebrew; and the language of many of them is extremely sublime. It appears perfectly regular, particularly in its conjugations; indeed, properly speaking, it has but one conjugation, but this is varied in each seven or eight different ways, which has the effect of so many different conjugations, and affords a great variety of expressions to represent by a single word the different modifications of a verb, and many ideas which in the modern and in many of the ancient and learned languages cannot be expressed without a periphrasis.

The primitive words, which are called roots, have seldom more than three letters or two syllables.

In this language there are twenty-two letters, only five of which are usually reckoned vowels; but then each vowel is divided into two, a long and a short; the sound of the former being somewhat grave and long, and that of the latter short and acute. It must however be remarked, that the two last vowels have sounds which differ in other respects besides quantity and a greater or less elevation. To these ten or twelve vowels may be added others, called semi-vowels, which serve to connect the consonants, and to render easier the transitions from one to another. The number of accents in this language is prodigious. Of these there are nearly forty, the use of some of which, notwithstanding all the inquiries of the learned, is not yet perfectly known. We know, in general, that they serve to distinguish the sentences, like the points called commas, semicolons, and colons in our language; to determine the quantity of the syllables; and to mark the tone with which they are to be spoken or sung. It is no wonder, then, that there are more accents in the Hebrew than in other languages, since they perform three offices, which in other languages are called by different names.

As we have no Hebrew but that which is contained in the Scripture, the language wants a great many words; not only because in those primitive times languages were not so copious as at present; but also on this account, that the inspired writers had no occasion to mention many of the terms which might be in use in the language.

The Chaldaic, Syriac, and Ethiopic languages, are by some held to be dialects of the Hebrew; as the French, Italian, and Spanish, are dialects of the Latin. It has been supposed by many learned men, that the Hebrew characters or letters were often used hieroglyphically, and that each had its several distinct sense understood as a hieroglyphic. Neumann, who seems to have taken infinite pains to find out the secret meaning of these letters, gives the following explication: \( \aleph \), aleph, he says, is a character denoting motion, readiness, and activity; \( \beth \), beth, signifies matter, body, substance, thing, also place, space, or capacity; and lastly, in, within, or contained; \( \ghimel \), ghimel, stands for flexion, bending, or obliquity of any kind; \( \dhaleth \), dhaloth, signifies any protrusion made from without, or any promotion of any kind; \( \he \), he, stands for the presence or demonstrative essence of any thing; \( \vau \), vau, stands for copulation, or the growing together of things; \( \tesh \), tesha, expresses vehement protrusion and violent compression, such as is occasioned by at once violently discharging and constringing a thing; and sometimes the straitening of any figure into a narrow point at the end; \( \chet \), cheth, expresses association, society, or any kind of composition or combination of things; \( \tet \), tet, stands for the withdrawing, drawing back, or recession of any thing; \( \jod \), jod, signifies extension and length, whether in matter or in time; \( \kop \), kop, expresses a turning, incursion, or concavity; \( \lamed \), lamed, stands for an addition, accession, impulse, or adversion, and sometimes for pressure; \( \mem \), mem, expresses amplitude, or the amplifying any thing in whatever sense, and in regard to contiguous qualities it also signifies the adding length, breadth, and circumference, lastly, multitude; \( \nun \), nun, signifies the propagation of one thing from another, or of the same thing from one person to another; \( \samech \), samech, expresses encirclement and coarctation; \( \ain \), ain, stands for observation, objection, or obviation; \( \pe \) or \( \phey \), stands for a crookedness or an angle of any figure; \( \tsaddi \), tsaddi, expresses contiguity and close succession; \( \kop \), kop, expresses a circuit or ambit; \( \resh \), resh, expresses the egress of any thing, as also the exterior part of a thing, and the extremity or end of any thing; \( \sin \), shin or sin, signifies the number three, or the third degree, or the utmost perfection of any thing; and \( \tauau \), tau, expresses a sequel, continuation, or succession of any thing.

As, according to this explication, the several letters of the Hebrew alphabet separately convey ideas of motion, matter, space, and several modifications of matter, space, and motion; it follows that a language, the words of which are composed of such expressive characters, must necessarily be of all languages the most perfect and expressive; as the words formed of such letters, according to their determinate separate significations, must convey the idea of all the matters contained in the sense of the several characters, and be at once a name and a definition, or succinct description, of the subject; and all things material as well as spiritual, all objects in the natural and moral world, Hebrides, must be known as soon as their names are known, and their separate letters considered.

The words urim and thummim are thus easily explained, and found to be perhaps the most apposite and expressive words that ever were formed.

Robbinical or Modern Hebrew, is the language used by the Rabbins in the writings they have composed. Its basis or body is the Hebrew and Chaldaic, with various alterations in the words of these two languages, the meanings of which they have considerably enlarged and extended. They have borrowed freely from the Arabic; and the rest is composed of words and expressions, chiefly from the Greek, some from the Latin, and others from the modern tongues, particularly that spoken in the place where each Rabbi lived or wrote.