II. After the Babylonish Captivity there was such an alteration of things, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Hebrew Tongue became the Language beyond the River, or the Chaldee Tongue. This is plain from those several words, Bethesda, Golgotha, Akeldama, &c. which are said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be so called in the Hebrew Tongue, and yet every one knows the words to be meer Chaldee. The old and pure Hebrew Language at that time was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Assyrian Tongue: and the Syriac and Chaldee 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Hebrew Tongue or (as themselves interpret it) the Language beyond the River. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In the Hebrew Language, i. e. in the Language beyond the River. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Assyrian Tongue, i. e. in the holy Language.
We cannot but observe by the way that the Doctors distinguish betwixt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the He∣brew Tongue and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Syriac, in the mean time distinguishing both from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Assyrian, or Holy Language. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Syrian Tongue is sit for lamentation. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Hebrew tongue for speech. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and there are that say, the Assyrian Tongue is good for writing. This distinction between the Hebrew Tongue, or that beyond the River, and the Syrian which really are the same Language; is much such another distinction as between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Syriac, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Aramean. Babbi saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 why the Syrian Tongue in the Land of Israel? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when either the Holy Language, or the Greek should rather be used. R. Jose saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 why the Aramean Tongue in Babylon? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when rather, either the Holy Language, or the Persian should be used. The Gloss is, because the Greek is more elegant than the Syriac, and the Persian than the Aramean.
We see first, how they distinguish here betwixt the Syriac Tongue and the Ara∣mean, and the Gloss upon the place tells us upon what account they do it, in these words. Behold, whereas he takes notice that the Syriac is used in the Land of Israel, and the Aramean in Babylon, therefore he doth it as saith R. Tam, because there is some varia∣tion and difference between them: as it happens in any common Language, which they spake much finer in one Country than in another. For as to those words, Gen. XXX. 52. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 This heap be witness. Onkelos renders them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when Laban saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But now we must say that Laban spoke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Syrias Tongue, which is so called from Syria. Now Syria was Aram Naharim, and Aram Zobab which David subdued. And because that is nearer to the Land of Israel, the Aramean Language of it, is not so pure. Gloss in Sotah, The Syriac Tongue is near a kin to the Aramean. And I say that that is the Language of the Jerusalem Talmud.
We see secondly, that the Syriac was the Mother-Tongue of the Land of Israel, and the Aramean (which is almost the same) was that of Babylon, rather than the Greek or Persic which were more elegant, nay rather than the Holy Language which was the noblest of all. And that (as to the Holy Language) for a reason very obvious, viz. that it was every where lost as to common use, and was generally unknown. As to the two other Languages, why they were not in use, the Gloss gives the reason, which we have also given us elsewhere. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lest the Syriac Tongue should be vile in thine eyes [Bereshith Rabba by a mistake of the Printer hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Persic, instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Syriac.] For behold, God doth give it honour in the Law, in the Prophets, and in the Hagiographa. In the Law, for it is said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The heap of witness, Gen. XXXI. 47. In the Prophets, for it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Thus shall ye say unto them, Jerem. X. 11. and in the Hagiogropha, for it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And the Chaldeans spake to the King in Syriac. Dan. II. 4.
The Syriac therefore or the Aramean Tongue under the second Temple was that which went under the name of the Hebrew Tongue, that is, the Language beyond the Ri∣ver. Whence they were at that time called Hebrews upon the account of the common use of that Tongue. But whether all to whom that was their Mother-Tongue were called Hebrews, may be a little questioned; and for what reasons it may be so, I shall shew, after I have said something concerning the Hellenists.
I. It is not denied by any but that the Hebrews were Jews in their original: whether the Hellenists were Jews too, is called in question by some. Beza upon the place de∣nies it. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Lucas hoc loco vocat genere quidem profanos, &c. The Hellenist. St. Luke means in this place, are those who were of a prophane stock, but adopted into the Na∣tion of the Jews by Circumcision, called therefore Proselytes. For they are mi••••aken who think those Jews that were dispersed amongst other Nations were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Hellenists. He thinks this opinion of his is countenanced by that of Act. XI. 19, 20. Preaching the word to none, but to the Jews only. And some of them were men of Cyprus, and Cy∣rene, who when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Hellenists. From whence Beza infers, Cum hoc loco opponi videantur 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Judeis, &c. Whereas the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Hellenists seem to be opposed to the Jews in this place—it is plain, that by the name of Hellenists not only the provincial or proselite Jews are to be understood 〈…〉〈…〉