Letter from Unknown Author to Wiley, S. R. San Francisco, CA; Oct 1874 · Sabato Morais Digital Repository · Legacy Projects from Judaica DH at Penn Libraries

Title

Letter from Unknown Author to Wiley, S. R. San Francisco, CA; Oct 1874

Author

Wiley, S. R.

Date Created

28 October 1874

Location(s)

United States -- California -- San Francisco

United States -- California

Format

3 pages on 3 sheets

Rights

http://rightsstatements.org/page/NoC-US/1.0/?

Language(s)

English

Source

Katz Center for Advanced Judaic Studies

Sabato Morais Collection, Box 2, Folder 1

Has Format

https://colenda.library.upenn.edu/items/ark:/81431/p3bz61t9j/manifest.json

Link to Colenda

https://colenda.library.upenn.edu/catalog/81431-p3bz61t9j

Provenance

Transfer of Custody from the Hebrew Education Society, 10 March 1913.

Is Format Of

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/judaicadh/morais/main/TEI/SMBx2FF1_19a.xml

content

S.R.Wiley Oct.28th 1874.
Dear Sir,
.....I perfectly agree in the opinion that the derivation of names is not a valuable criterion, and that a decision based on it regard-ing the original language, might be proved hasty and erroneous. But I am pleased to observe from your quotations that Le Clerc shares the views that I have advanced. He also thinks that the socalled Semitic languages sprung from a common source, and gradually separated. You may have misunder-stood what I wrote or possibly I was at fault in my expressions, touching Philo. I revere his memory because I believe him a learned and true Israel-ite; nevertheless I say, what men infinitely my superiors have detected, that he was not a Hebraist in the sense we Jews attach to that term. The passage in Genesis 10.20 may be considered a general description, prefatory as it were to the narrative of the confusion of tongues. Respecting the latter Julius Schaliger and Isaac Abarbanel have hit upon the same idea; thoug h the context does not seem to bear it out. I see no evidence of "the Aramaic being impregnated with Hebrew after the Exodus." Pardon my saying that the burden of proof rests with yourself. I am open to conviction and always glad to learn. I still claim that during the Babylonish captivity the knowledge of the sacred tongue was lost, because idolatrous mothers prefer-ed to train their children in their respective languages, or dialects, which though originally may have been one and the same, at the period of history we allude to, were distinct. Permit me to call your attention to the fact that the staying of Jacob's descendants in Egypt was no more than two centuries, and as acknowledged by our commentators, and by the Septuagint the four generations spoken of in the Bible commenced with the wanderings of the patriarchs through various lands. Without assigning the result to a miraculous interposition, we may believe that a people, inhabiting a s separate locality, strongly bound together by ties of blood, of faith and

common suffering, retained the ancestral language. Witness the mere effect of locality in the Pennsylvania Dutch enjoying perfect freedom civily and religiously. You are right of course in stating the "languages are formed from adventitious circumstances" and that what is very ancient in history an almost impenetrable darkness hides it from our vision. Every one tries to draw aside the veil, and professes that a greater insight into matters has been vouchsafed to him than to others, but all deal in sheer speculations Moses however wrote down his book in Hebrew, and millions of his enfranchised brethren heard it, if they all could not read it. You ask, how could he write I answer, some hold that the caste of priests in Mizraim knew the art of representing "the utterance of the lips" by characters. Others again contend that the Deity who inspiredthe arch prophet taught it to him, for we read after the battle of Amalek "Write this for a memorial in a book, and put it in the hearing(ears) of Joshua." (Possibly the latter could not understand writing, which circumstance necessitated the oral exposition of the contents.) Your objection derived from the fact that the Decalogue was tora "written by the finger of God" does not carry sufficient weight. The summary of all the laws, intended to be shrined in the Holy Ark, was to have inspired all minds with reverential awe. How fitting then that they should be dilineated miraculously by the Supreme Intelligence. The theory that Solomon composed the Iliad is preposterous. Equally absurd is it to presume that the Greek poet drew his name from "Omar" the sayer or speaker. We know that the wildest vagaries have met with followers. Let everyone that chooses to adopt follies, hug them, I shall find no faults. But I believe you too sensible to admit freaks of the mind as well sub-stantiated facts. I possess sufficient evidence of your learning, and the very communication I am discussing attests your discernment as well as your erudition. Yet excuse my candor, "Your personal views on the subject at issue are antagonistic to mine. Nevertheless no other proof than the

song of Moses, to demonstrate that the leader and his flock understood and spoke Hebrew, I would deem that quite enough. No, it is a maxim of our sages which I heartily endorse, that the Deity does not work miracles, unless natural means are inadequate to carry out His wise purpose. The "wonders wrought in the land of Ham" those upon the sea and in Marah, the glorious revelation on the summit of Horeb, and prophetic inspiration, were essential, but a miraculous imparting of a language, would have been useless, because the observance of the laws and not the speaking of this tongue or of another was to distinguish the house of Israel from the day of Sinai and thenceforth forever. That now during a long and far reaching dispersion the Hebrew is amighty link I fully grant, but when a nation in Palestine, it did not subserve our present object. The Hebrew became our fathers vernacular tongue, as a natural consequence of its having been inherited from the 70 persons who went down to Egypt. And if Nehemiah deprecated its ignorance among the rising generation, the just complain arose from the fear that together with the language of pagans, the worship of paganism would be embraced. I regret that the pen is not always the best exponent of our sentiments. Could we face to face exchange words we might comprehend each other better. Let me say however that as far as i can judge, your ideas emanate from a pious desire to magnify the dealings of the Lord with His chosen witnesses. As such I appreciate them highly, but approving the intention I disagree with the results of your reflections.
Respectfully

Identifier

p3bz61t9j

identifier

SMBx2FF1_19a