Cracking Google Books, a public service announcement

This isn't rocket science, but as per a request, I am posting the following.

A friend of mine, Mar Gavriel, remembered a funny sort of thing. In one of the volumes of the 24-volume strong Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, its editor James Strachey allowed himself a prim little indulgence, a confession. If he had the chance to redo the project "today" he would have omitted the tedious hyphen in "psycho-analysis," which is no longer used, but for the sake of consistency, the project continued to hyphenate it, perpetuating the archaism. Wait, was it the "tedious hyphen?" Or something else? My friend did not recall and wanted to find the exact words. He came across the page in Google Books - here - and was "pretty sure it used to be searchable," but no longer was. In fact, this happens with Google Books all the time. A book I could search in 2008, now it is a gan na'ul, searchable no more.

However, in no time I showed this to him:

This isn't amazing - it's just that I know that Google often scans multiple copies of the same work, and has an absolutely awful search function. For no good reason that I know you can search for a work by title and Google may give you two copies which it has. Or it may give you one. Or on some days it may give you none. Or if you click the "more editions" link it may give you eleven versions of the same work. Or none. And some may have a "snippet" view, and some may have a regular Preview, and some may have nothing. There seems to be little rhyme or reason. But the point is to know it. If you know it, then you could do as I did: search for The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Volume 24 even after you have already come across a version which allows no snippets to appear. And if that didn't work, I would have tried something else. Once I found that this book allows a snippet, I simply put in the word hyphen. And the text was right there. But if it hadn't, then I would have tried tedious, tired, tiresome, as well as words like starting and urge. The idea is to tease Google Books into giving you what you need. You can't always do it, but you can far more often than you'd think, and it's worth trying more than once before prematurely concluding that there is nothing there.

For added fun, now that I know the term is "tiresome hyphen" - and how fun is it that Strachey writes this while he also writes "to-day"? - I searched Google Books again, this time the phrase "tiresome hyphen," and was rewarded with these.

On a guide to decoding Jewish documents and letters (for merchants, you understand) from 1792

Here are a couple of interesting excerpts from a book printed in Leipzig in 1792, the Lehrbuch zur gründlichen Erlernung der jüdischdeutschen Sprache für Beamte, Gerichtsverwandte, Advocaten und insbesondere für Kaufleute* by Gottfried Selig (link).

* Guide for Learning the Jewish-German Language for Civil Servants, Court Officials, Lawyers and Especially Merchants.

It's an absolutely fascinating book (fascinating being relative, I know). As you will understand, the point of this book is to teach one to understand business documents and correspondence written by Jews in Yiddish (oder Judeo-German).

This piece describes the way Hebrew words are given diminutive forms or change gender in Judeo-German; "Rebbe" (Rabbi) becomes Rebbezen, and so on.

This piece, obviously, concerns names. It is interesting because of - the names - and also sometimes how they are written. For example, "Jaunosson," is explained to be Jonathan, David is "Dowid" and so on.

It also includes an extensive abbreviation dictionary, dozens and dozens of examples. We are told, for example, that בל"ט stands for בלשון טומאה, or, Latin, and we see that Groschen were called גדולים, as in ג"ג, or ג' גדולים. German script? גלחות, perhaps meaning "Gothic." It gives עכו"ם as both עובדים כוכבים ומזלות and העובדים כריסטוס ומרים (about this, I blogged here). It also explains ס"ט as סימן טוב.

The dictionary proper includes many interesting entries, naturally, including one for . . . אדוק בזנות (der hurerey nachlausen). For the entry on בענשין there are many examples, in the form of phrases, such as this one: הערט צו רבותי מיר וועלין בענשן.

And so on.

On Yiddish and German, from 1829

Here's an interesting excerpt from a much lengthier multi-part article from 1829, illustrating the differences between Yiddish and German.

One part of the article gives encouragement to Christians in learning how to read and understand Yiddish literature, which is says would be easier than Rabbinic literature:

From The Jews, and Jewish Literature in the Christian Review of 1829 (link).

A rather unsympathetic portrait of the Rebbe of Sadigur from 1887

Here is a rather interesting article, to say the least, about Rabbi Avraham Yaakov Friedmann of Sadigura, from the Salt Lake Weekly Tribune (Jan. 20, 1887). They are not very impressed, is basically the summary. The contents of the article come from the Viennese correspondent in London.

Increase Mather on Gynecandrical Dancing

This is just too much fun.

Here is Increase Mather's pamphlet An Arrow Against Profane and Promiscuous Dancing Drawn out of the Quiver of Scriptures (Boston 1684). You understand, he's against mixed dancing because it may lead to mixed dancing.

Of interest, on p.12 he points out that in the description of Jacob's marriage in Genesis, we read of a marriage, but no dancing! On p. 21 he rhetorically asks, Is this a time for Jigs and Galiards! On p. 23 he explains that David and Miriam's dances were "Religious Dances accomodated to the State of the Old Testament-Church." And, of course, those were not "mixt" dances.

Printing in Roedelheim before Heidenheim?

Who knew?

Shadal series #16 - A partial translation of Shadal's letter about the Samaritans and their script

Actually, I plan to complete the translation, but for today it is partial.

In 1851 Raphael Kirchheim - see here about Kirchheim and his cholent - was working on his annotated edition of the Seven Minor Tractates (link) as well as a work about the Samaritans, intended as an introduction to Massekhet Kutim (link). Before these works were finalized at the printer, he asked Shadal to look it over and give comment. Shadal replied that he did not have the time for that, but he would be happy to send him whatever material he had written about the Samaritans, based on his own researches. Most of it was written in Italian, but Shadal rewrote it in Hebrew. Kirchheim printed the entire letter as an appendix in his Karmei Shomron. It contains some interesting thoughts, and here is my partial translation:

I was overjoyed when I heard the news that you are publishing the Seven Minor Tractates, which for many generations languished in obscurity. Today is a holiday! - to find that you are printing them with explanations and notes; among them, your great book Karmei Shomron which, through your broad learning, you elaborated on the history of the Samaritans and all that pertains to them. In your humility, you asked if I would present you with all that I have to say on your words. However, dear friend, time is short, and your printer is demanding. How can I carefully look over and plumb the depths of your work with all the research that your 'pleasant garden' requires [and respond in time]? Therefore, I thought that it would be sufficient for me to present you with all that I have already written (in Italian, for my Grammar of Hebrew, which has yet to be printed) regarding the Samaritan or Old Hebrew script, and on the very old debate about whether the Hebrew script was changed or not. Without elaborating on the matters well known, I will add to that which the researchers have already stated, that if the script was not changed, then it is incomprehensible on what grounds some of the Mishnaic and Talmudic sages would say, from their own minds, such a strange opinion as this, to say that the script with which we write Holy Scriptures is not the original which the Prophets used. Quite the contrary, if the script truly was changed, and some of those sages denied it, we can understand why they would say it: to remove a stumbling block before the masses, for if our Torah is written in a different script from the one Moshe wrote in, this would be bizarre to the weak minded.

However, this proof is external, meaning that it relies on the testimony of the Mishnaic and Talmudic sages. I have an internal proof, from the Holy Scriptures themselves. In my researches, plumbing the depths of our Prophets and Sages, using the critical method, which seeks the truth alone, [this method] not appealing to the old [i.e., traditional Jews] and also not popular among the new [i.e., the Reform Jews], I looked all over the Bible (specifically in the Prophets and Hagiographa, which is not known to them, due to their excess love for the Torah) and found certain words which are errors due to the incompetence of the scribes who copied the books. I did not rush to disclose my findings to the public, because I know about the challenge which such critical research poses, and the many errors which are easy to make. Many scholars and so-called scholars, both uncircumcised and circumcised, boast that they make emendations, but they make errors. In many biblical passages I found what I myself thought was a scribal error, but after days and years I changed my mind and saw that the books' reading was true and correct. With all this, a small bit of the readings which I established in the texts still seem to me correct (now, as a 50 year old man, and after I have passed the passion of my youth) and sustained, above all doubt. Now, of some of these, I discovered that the mistakes happened through the similar appearance of letters, but not in our Hebrew script, but in the Samaritan script.

See how different is the appearance of a yud and a tzade in our Hebrew script (ketav ashuri), but it is the opposite in the Samaritan script, the two letters are almost identical. In Isaiah (11:15) we find: וְהֵנִיף יָדוֹ עַל-הַנָּהָר בַּעְיָם רוּחוֹ (and with His scorching wind will He shake His hand over the River). The root עים is neither Hebrew, nor one of its cognate languages. Therefore it seems to me that Isaiah did not write בעים, but בּעֹצֶם. I wrote this in my notes to Isaiah which I sent the scholar Rosenmueller, alav ha-shalom, and he printed in his 1835 book. Gesenius, in his W?rterbuch, explained עים (following Rabbi Jonah [ibn Janach]) from אָיֹם, but he reversed himself in his great Lexicon, and he took this explanation from me, and wrote that it seems that be-ayam ought to be emended to be-otzem, due to the graphic similarity between the yud and tzade in the Samaritan and other early Near Eastern scripts. [1]

[1] If someone says, maybe Gesenius did not see what you wrote and came up with it independently, much the same way you yourself, [Shadal], in your youth derived "tanur" from "aton nora" without seeing Gesenius - the response is, I have a Latin letter from Rosenmueller dated 24 April 1835, and he wrote this: "Gesenius reviewed all the pages, including your notes, and approved of them." This is not the only thing which Gesenius took from me [Shadal gives three more examples, and the places they can be found in Gesenius' writings - S.]. 

Also the aleph and tav are of similar appearance in the Samaritan alphabet, and from this we can understand what we find in Jeremiah 3:8, "  וָאֵרֶא, כִּי עַל-כָּל-אֹדוֹת אֲשֶׁר נִאֲפָה מְשֻׁבָה יִשְׂרָאֵל, שִׁלַּחְתִּיהָ, וָאֶתֵּן אֶת-סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻתֶיהָ אֵלֶיהָ; וְלֹא יָרְאָה בֹּגֵדָה יְהוּדָה, אֲחוֹתָהּ--וַתֵּלֶךְ, וַתִּזֶן גַּם-הִיא," "And I saw, when, forasmuch as backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a bill of divorcement, that yet treacherous Judah her sister feared not; but she also went and played the harlot." There is no doubt that Jeremiah did not write "וָאֵרֶא," "And I saw," but ותרא, "And she saw." The opposite (e.g., a tav replacing a proper aleph) occurs in 1 Samuel 24:11[sic; it's actually 10]: "וְאָמַר לַהֲרָגְךָ, וַתָּחָס עָלֶיךָ," "and some bade me kill thee; but mine eye spared thee." But its true reading is "."

Next follows quite a few other example, which I will return to and translate, but in the meantime, the two (one and a half, actually) above will suffice. 

Returning to our subject, that the scribal errors we mentioned arose, without a doubt, because of the graphic similarity of letters [only] in the Samaritan alphabet, is in my view a faithful witness that the script changed and that our books were not originally written in our Ashuri script, but in the one which remained in use among the Samaritans. It is true that changing the script, and writing the holy books in a new script, not previously used by the Prophets for their books, does seem extremely odd. Not for nothing was the matter difficult to accept for many Jewish scholars and non-Jewish ones, so it seemed to them false, and they accepted the wrong opinion [i.e., that Ashuri was older]. But all this is because they didn't understand the reason, they merely heard the idea that the Jews changed the script, but lacked any idea about why, until they were left with the wrong view, that it never happened. If they had known the reason, and the circumstances which caused the Jewish sages to change the script, they would have been able to accept it, and would actually have thanked their predecessors [i.e., the sages, for changing it]. For it is known that the Samaritans tampered with their Torah and introduced many changes into it, large and small. This thing was a stumbling block for the simple Jews, because the Samaritans could, for example, point to what is written in their Torah at the end of the Ten Commandments, "And it will be when the Lord, your God, will bring you to the land of Canaan, which you have come to inherit, and you will establish large stone monuments and write this song upon them, etc. and when you will cross the Jordan you should establish these stones which I command you this day on Mt. Gerizim and build their an altar, etc. - from here is proof to say that their Temple [on Mt. Gerizim] was the spot chosen by God, and not the Temple in Jerusalem. So because of such changes by the Samaritans, the Jewish sages were smart and figured out a way to stop this problem and make a clear, lasting change between our proper books and their improper ones. They found no greater change than to write our scrolls in another script, so that even a simple person could see a Torah of a Samaritan and discern immediately that it is unfit. 

This reason for the change of script was hypothesized by my beloved son Ohev Ger, the Lord keep and strengthen him. It is possible that this was what was intended by Jerome on Ezra (from his version of the Chronicon by Eusebius): "[Ezra] collected the holy Scripture, that they might not be mingled with the Samaritans, [and] changed the Jewish letters." [I reject] the understanding of this passage in Eusebius by Rabbi Azariah, that the  script was changed in order to prevent the physical mixing of the Jews and Samaritans, but in order that the Torahs should not mix! - as he wrote, "divinas scripturas"  

Actually, the change in the script did not occur in the days of Ezra, but later, for we find also in the book of Ezra and Chronicles scribal errors which are due to the similarity of lettes in the Samaritan script. Furthermore, when they changed the script they only prohibited its use for Scriptures, but they still used it for other writing (like the rabbis said, it was left for the plain folk). This is the cause of why we find coins from the Hasmonean era in the Samaritan script. In those times there were two Jewish scripts, one used for secular and one for holy writing. In the end the holy script prevailed, and the earlier script which was left for plain folk, was also abandoned, and remained in use among the Samaritans only. 

Now we will discuss the names which the Samaritan script was known by in earlier times. In the Talmud we find it called Ktav Ivri, and also the Samaritans themselves called it Ktav Ivri, for they called our script Ktav Ezra; see their letter to Scaliger of the year 5349 (1589), which was printed in the book Repertorium fur biblische und Morgendlaendische Litteratur vol. 13 [pp. 257 - &c.]. Now, Rashi to Sanhedrin 21 explained "Ktav Ivri" as "of the people who dwelled over the river [i.e., Euphrates]." This explanation is justified on account of Sabbath 115 and Megillah 18, which refer to Coptic, Ivrit, Elamit, Medite, and Greek, and the intention there is to foreign languages. But how could this explanation pertain to the script in which the Torah was given, which was the ancient Jewish script, similar to the Phoenician script used by the people of Tyre and Sidon? Perhaps Rashi believed that the Samaritan script truly came from over the river, and was used in Eretz Yisrael in the time of Abraham, and from their it came to Israel, only he did not know (and it was impossible for him to know) that also the people of Tyre and Sidon used this script. And when I looked into it, and realized that Ktav Ivri [in this Talmudic text] did not mean a script used in the Land of Israel, and this was at the beginning of the Second Temple era, when Israel was reigned by the Persians. The Persians, who dwelled in the east, called the land of Israel and her environs to the west, "Ever Nahara" (Ezra 4, 5, 6, 7). From the expression of the king and the nobles, the Jews themselves, as well as the Samaritans, began calling their script by the name Ktav Ivri; note that the expression "ever ha-nahar" doesn't refer to any one side of the river. It's primary meaning is either side of the river, and depends upon the perspective of the speaker or listener. (To learn more in depth about "ever" see Gesenius' Thesaurus p. 986 and also what I wrote in Hamishtadel at the beginning of Deuteronomy) After the dissolution of the Persian Empire, the term "Ivri" returned slowly but surely to its original meaning, Aram Naharayim (hence the Talmudic list, Ivrit, Elamit, Medit) and the word "Ivri" as referring to Israel was from then only used in the phrase "eved Ivri" (for so it is called in the Torah), and Ktav Ivri (for this was its name as it was used by the Samaritans, who actually used the script). For this reason R. Abraham de Balmes, R. Azariah de Rossi and others who did not call the Samaritan script "Ivri" but "Ktav Ever Hanahar" were being inexact. 

Sanhedrin 22, we find Ktav Ivri called "Ro'etz," and in Yerushalmi Megillah (first chapter) we find it called "Ra'atz" (i.e., without the vav). The scholar R. Moses Landau writes in his book Geist und Sprache, p. 104, that Ra'atz is like La'az. However, the word "la'az" was well known and used constantly in the language of the Mishnah and Talmud, so who could believe that it was mistakenly changed to ra'atz? Or to say, as a few scholars do, that the idea of ra'atz means a broken script (Fractur) is impossible, since the root of ra'atz doesn't mean broken in scriputral Hebrew, but only in the Hebrew language of the Mishnah and Talmud. When I looked into it, this is what I concluded. Now, the Samaritans refer to our script as "Ktav Ezra Ha-arur", the Script of Ezra the Accursed, (see their letter in the aforementioned Repertorium 13 pg. 273). Therefore the Jews, to retaliate, also coined a term of opprobrium for their script, and took the name of Ezra, which they used in referring to ours, and changed the letters around, also exchanging the letter zayin for a tzade, and came up with the term ra etz, intending "breaking." What is this like? Like Bar Kokhba, whose name they changed to Bar Koziva, or like Evangelion, which they changed to Even Gilyon - even though the terms "kazav" and "aven" are atypical for Mishnaic language, and are only used in Biblical Hebrew. [i.e., so it does mean "Broken" after all, and a clever inversion of "Ktav Ezra"] 

When the Talmud asked, "What is Ktav Ivri?" Rav Hisda replied, "Ktav Livuna'ah." Many think this is one of the names for Ktav Ivri (including Gesenius). To me it seems that as the Samaritans lived in Israel, and not in Babylonia, and Ktav Ivri was unknown in Babylonia, so when they asked Rav Hisda "what are the hedyotot" he answered "the Samaritans." Then they asked him, "What is Ktav Ivri" but Rav Hisda did not know to answer "the Samaritan script," since he was unfamiliar with it. So he answered "Ktav Livuna'ah," which did not mean exclusively the Samaritan script, and it must have been a script known at the time in Babylonia, and [perhaps] it was somewhat similar to the Samaritan. And truly these writings are found in the ruins of Babylon and Nineveh on bricks. Some of these [=cuneiform] slightly resemble the Phoenician and Samaritan (see Kopp "Bilder und Schriften" II 152, 154) and Layard in "Nineveh" (Paris 1850) p. 173). R. Moses Landau in his book Ma'archei Lashon (p. 875) explained the word "Livuna'ah" from the term "levenah," (brick), but this is impossible. First, because of the vav after the beit, as it is written in the earlier printed editions, as well as my old manuscript of the Aruch, under the entry Ktav. The second reason is that the bricks [=tablets] in Babylon are not at all similar to the Samaritan, most are written in cuneiform, only the tiniest fraction are alphabetic. So I say that the term Livuna'ah does not refer to the Samaritan alphabet, but another script, and the true meaning of it is not possible for us to determine.

After this follows several pages on the poetic language of the Samaritans.

This is sufficient because of the lack of time. You my dear lerned friend, rejoice in your work, and rejoice all who love Torah and her aids. Peace to you and yours, signed Padua 9 Sivan 5611, your friend Shadal.

An execution by guillotine described in 1818

The execution of a Jew by guillotine - I assume - is described here. Note that the Jews accompanying the man "carefully removed ... even the smallest traces of blood" - to bury with the body.

A Detroit family's conversion to Judaism in 1916

This story is from the Tageblatt (English section) exactly 94 years ago - Jan. 1, 1917.

Kalman Wagner of Brisk came to this country as a child. An orphan, he became a Christian, married, and had five children. One night, he said, his father appeared to him in a dream and told him to return to Judaism. After some resistance from his wife, she agreed, and she and his children were converted. And that is how a whole Detroit family converted to Judaism in December of 1916.

Must have been some concert - a night of leining in 1844

This is an ad for a fun night out in Boston, November 12, 1844. As you can see, Mr. Henry Phillips was to be assisted by Miss Stone and put on a real show, featuring Irish songs and a performance of leining, as taught to him by a Polish rabbi, Dr. Herschel. Afterwards he was to prove that the te'amim are ancient, sing Az Yashir, and then some more songs, including one about Robin Hood.



Detail:

Bareheaded Polish Jews in traditional garb in a Polish church?

This is the demonstrations to which it refers.

Dr. Yastrow is, of course, Marcus Jastrow. See here about this incident.

From the Israelite.

Haftarat Lincoln

From the Israelite March 1, 1861.

Germans*

Ha. From Buxtorf's Abbreviaturis Hebraicis.

* Okay, Swiss.

On winter birthdays

It was my birthday recently (thank you, thank you) and a friend of mine suggested I post about birthdays.

What better way than to record Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela's 12th century observation of a Christmas celebration in Constantinople?

"There is a place of amusement for the king there called Hippodrome. Each year the king makes a great public celebration there on the birthday of Jesus of Nazareth. All types of people from all over the world appear before the king and his queen, a spellbinding display. They bring lions, bears, leopards, wild donkeys, which combat each other, and also birds, which fight. Nothing like this show can be seen in all the world."

Could it be?

Ever seen this before?

Link.

On King Arthur ballads

Here's an interesting paragraph about King Arthur in Zemach David (Prague 1592), interesting really for the end.

"Arthus: the great king of Angleterra, that is England, who is known of throughout the world. He made a great defeat of the Romans and the Gauls in the year [4]297, that is 537 in the Christian date. This is the Arthus whom they composed ballads about which are still popular today among the German minstrels."

So, any experts in German King Arthur ballads?

An English elegy on the death of the much Lamented Death of R. Nosson Adler's rebbe

Here's a fantastic item. This sheet is what it says it is: an elegy printed upon the death of R. David Tevele Schiff, Chief Rabbi of the Duke's Place Synagogue in London. As the post title indicates, R. Tevele Schiff was the rabbi of R. Nosson Adler, who was of course the revered rebbe of the Chasam Sofer.

This ephemeral piece is reproduced from Arthur B. Hyman's A collection of Anglo-Jewish ephemera  in Jewish Historical Studies, Vol. 33, (1992-1994), pp. 97-123:

Lord George Gordon's comment about the meaning of Ben Bag Bag

In the Bristol Journal (Dec. 15, 1787) there appears a piece called Lord George Gordon Turned Jew. It contains an account of his initial interrogation by the apprehending officer, a Mr. MacManus. The account is interesting in its own right - Gordon acted with decorum toward MacManus, but told him that he has no authority over him, or any Jew - but especially one part, which perhaps shows some of the instruction in Judaism that Gordon had heard from whichever Jews it was that he heard it from - it is some lore about converts to Judaism.

That is, Gordon had explained that "Ben Bag Bag" is a notarikon for "Ben Ger, Ben Gera [sic]." Ben Bag Bag is a name that appears in the Mishnah Avot - in fact, is the source for one of its most famous teachings - - and this name certainly does seem like a pseudonym or nickname, rather than the name of an actual person. 

Most commentators have assumed that he was a convert or descended from converts, and some suggested that Bag Bag does stand for "Ben Ger, Ben Giyoret," which is what Gordon says here. (A complementary version is that Ben Heh Heh means the same thing, and perhaps the same person. There are two versions of this, in one these two men are meant to be the same person, the idea is that Heh is the gematriya of Bag = 5.) 

The idea is mentioned in two prominent 18th century sources, both of which were probably fairly popular in Gordon's time, R. Yaakov Emden's commentary on the Mishnah, as well as R. Yechiel Halperin's Seder Ha-dorot, which ascribes it to the Ma'arikh. At first I thought he meant R. Menachem di Lonzano, whose magnum opus Shtei Yadot contains a section called Ma'arikh. However, I think it does not appear in his book at all. I looked it up, and then I looked at another book by that title, and it does indeed appear there. This book was printed in Paris in 1629, and the author was Philip D'aquin. It may be of interest to some that his Ma'arikh Ha-ma'arakhot was dedicated to Cardinal Richelieu of Three Musketeers fame. D'aquin was a Jew named Michael (according to Siftei Yeshenim) or Mordechai according to others, who converted to Christianity and became a professor of Hebrew in Paris; much of his book actually is based on the work of the similar name by Lonzano (see intro to Arukh Hashalem; Kohut says that most of D'aquin's original material is bad. Also see Ohev Ger (p. 133) where Shadal dismisses the book as second rate, saying that it is "only an abridged compendium of the Shorashim by Radak, the Arukh, Meturgeman and Ma'arikh [by Lonzano]." He then points out an error made by Judah Leib Benzeev who conflated the Ma'arikh of Lonzano with this Ma'arikh, by D'aquin, thereby "mixing the holy and the profane." Of course, D'aquin himself wrote that the book consists of gleanings from others - "kolel leket shikcha u-fe'ah" appears on the title page - yet surely he did not credit Lonzano..

At any rate, here is the entry in this book:

Unless his source was Lonzano (and I overlooked it) then his source may have been the abbreviation dictionary by Johann Buxtorf  published in 1613, or some of the Jewish sources to be mentioned below. Here is Buxtorf:

Perhaps the first time it appeared in print was in Zacuto's Sefer Yuchasin, at approximately the end of the 15th century. Zacuto writes in his entry for Ben Heh Heh that he heard that this is the same person as Ben Bag Bag, and the gematriya of Ba"g is Heh, 5. He further identifies Ben Bag Bag with Yochanan Ben Bag Bag, who is mentioned in the Talmud, and says that he heard that Ben Bag Bag means "Ben Ger, Ben Giyoret. Another16th century source, the Midrash Shmuel on Avot, quotes this explanation in the name of  R. Joseph ibn Nahmias (although often this is quoted in the name of the famous "Some Say"). Midrash Shmuel continues and cites the Rashbam, who says it was a pseudonym meant to protect the convert from persecution. which is dismissed by R. Yaakov Emden because he too assumes that Yochanan Ben Bag Bag was the same person (rather than, say, the son of this person or persons using the pseudonym). In addition to the Rashbam, Tosafot Chagigah 9b “Bar Heh Heh Le-Hillel” quotes Some Say as explaining that this mysteriously named person was a convert, and the Heh alludes to the letters Heh added to Abram and Sarai’s names and Ben Bag Bag too apparently because of the gematriya. If memory serves, the Machzor Vitry also mentions the Avraham/Sarah connection to Bar Heh Heh, firmly establishing this in Ashkenazic rabbinic tradition.

Incidentally, this whole matter is also discussed in a learned footnote in an article by Y. S. Spiegel (Yeshurun 10) and in his opinion D'aquin's book is packed with exceedingly strange explanations for roshei tevot. Spiegel also calls attention to the endorsement of D'aquin's book by the Pri Megadim.

Finally, I'd like to call attention to the Tamudic term דיירא בר דיירתא - stranger/convert son of a convert, although I'm not sure of the significance - or lack of - this yet. 

Getting back to Gordon, I do think it is possible that he heard this from one of his Jewish friends, but I also found it to be not exactly common, but not completely obscure, knowledge in non-Jewish sources in the 18th century, so it is also possible that Gordon discovered this out of his own understandable interest in converting to Judaism. The fact that he also relates it to Paul's "Hebrew of the Hebrews," explaining it to mean "Jewish on both sides" as opposed to Hebrew (from one parent) needn't mean that he had not heard this from Jews. I would argue that this is exactly the sort of thing a learned 18th century English Jew would say. 

Here is the whole Gordon article (click or right-click to enlarge and read):

A description of the asceticism of yeshiva bochurim at the Pressburg Yeshiva in a Protestant journal from New York in 1842

Isaac Nordheimer (1809-1842) was a 19th century Hebraist, notable today chiefly for having adopted America as his place of domicile. He was also a former student at the Pressburg Yeshiva. As far as I know there is only one account of his life, and this was written upon his death by a friend, Edward Robinson (yes, of Robinson's Arch fame), in the latter's journal the Bibliotheca Sacra and Theological Review. This account was published upon Nordheimer's untimely death due to tuberculosis and, to give an idea of how he was seen as a scholar in his own time, the notice about Nordheimer follows one about another recently departed Hebraist, no less than Gesenius. Of course this does not mean that Robinson considered Nordheimer the equal of Wilhelm Gesenius, but he was seen as worthy of mention in the same breath ("Biographical Notices of Gesenius and Nordheimer").

In any case, in the  biography (link) some aspects of Nordheimer's years at the Pressburg Yeshiva are recorded, told to Robinson by the late scholar. For example, Nordheimer had told him that he made the [nearly 400 mile] journey from his hometown in Bavaria to Pressburg at age 13, partly on foot. Robinson says that the Chatam Sofer took a personal interest in the boy.

There is the following description of what some of the bochurim did to make sure they did not oversleep after staying up late to learn in the Beit Midrash:

Famous printers

Came across this interesting picture. Here is the Widow and one of the Brothers Romm, Menachem Gavriel, of the Vilna Romms.