:)VV- U^^f'-iflu 7^ '/ ^- //...: /l^M. if. y- PROOFS INTERPOLATION OF THE -VOWEL-LETTERS TEXT OF THE HEBREW BIBLE*, AND GEOUNDS THENCE DEEIVED A EEYISION OF ITS AUTHOKIZED ENGLISH YEESION. BY 4i^ CHARLES WILLIAM WALL, D. D., VICE-PROVOST OF TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." Ps. cxix. 105. LONDON: WHITTAKEE AND CO. DUBLIN: HODGES, SMITH, AND CO., GRAFTON-STREET. MDCCCLVII. DUBLIN : ^rlntetf at tl)c niUersitB ^ress, BY M. H. GILL. :d^ i m . TO THE PROVOST, MY BROTHER-FELLOWS, AND THE EX-FELLOWS OF TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN, IS DEDICATED, AS A PARTING TRIBUTE OF AFFECTION AND ESTEEM, BY THEIR AGED FRIEND, THE AUTHOR. Trinity College, Dublin, July 1, 1857. 436598 CONTENTS ERRATA. Page 6, line 7, read 1638, instead of 1658. 54, 1, ,, is it. 57, 13, u Henoch Henoch. 67, 26, )> Aa-v-id Da-vid. 85, 127, 14, 12, >> you exhibited your, exhibit. 168, 19, >> DK HN ,, 329, 9, n in our of our. ., 444, 34, n addition edition. 483, 11, ) said read. 490, 29, >> Tanaitis Tanaiitis. 491, 33, ) ^T 502, 25-6, > chapters passages. 507, 31, >5 quibus uibus. 520, 3, ,, occurs occur. 538, 36, names name. 553, 17, H actions action. 568, 24, TTBipSJvrai TreipuiTcii. tal powers ol some oi me neorew leiiers. xvemaijs.B ui^ tuc vu..at values of certain Hebrew letters. Some illustration of the evil effects of the diaphonism of W. Analogy of the Hebrew accents to the oldest Grecian musical notes. New classification suggested of the Masoretic vowel-points. Corrupt state of pronunciation of the Syriac matres lectionis. On some peculiarities of English pronun- ciation of vowels. On the present, compared with the former, powers of J and V- A requisite change in the English transcrip- tions of Hebrew names. Use in Hebrew writing of the JVaw con- versive of the future. Analysis of the strict meaning of the Waw conversive of the past Brief notice of the Hebiew prophetic future, First class of faults in the Authorized English Version. Second class of faults in the Authorized English Version. Third class of faults, and benefit of an additional use of Italics. Fourth class of faults in the Authorized English Version CONTENTS. INTRODUCTION. Page. 1. General view of the advantages of the discovery here unfolded. 2. Some prepossessions endeavoured to be removed. 3. Traces of a providential interference for the protection of the Bible. 4. Two circumstances in the Gospel history explained by means of the pre- sent discovery. 5. Brief notice of some points relating to the plan of the following Treatise. v CHAPTER I. PRELIMINARY PHILOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS. Brief review of the progress of Hebrew philology. Analysis of successive changes in the pronunciation of Hebrew. On the earlier consonan- tal powers of some of the Hebrew letters. Remarks on the vocal values of certain Hebrew letters. Some illustration of the evil effects of the diaphonism of W. Analogy of the Hebrew accents to the oldest Grecian musical notes. New classification suggested of the Masoretic vowel-points. Corrupt state of pronunciation of the Syriac matres lectionis. On some peculiarities of English pronun- ciation of vowels. On the present, compared with the former, powers of J and F. A requisite change in the English transcrip- tions of Hebrew names. Use in Hebrew writing of the JVaw con- versive of the future Analysis of the strict meaning of the Waw conversive of the past. Brief notice of the }lebrew prophetic future, First class of faults in the Authorized English Version. Second class of faults in the Authorized English Version. Third class of faults, and benefit of an additional use of Italics. Fourth class of faults in the Authorized English Version CONTENTS. CHAPTER 11. PROOFS OF THE SPURIOUSNESS OF THE MATRE8 LECTIONIS IN THE SACRED TEXT DERIVED FROM THE USES MADE OF THEM IN ITS NOMENCLATURE. Page. Spuriousness of those letters proved upon general grounds. Why this investigation begins with an analysis of proper names. Examina- tion of the Hebrew designations of David, Miriam, Sarah, Joshua, a namesake of Joshua's companion, Joshua's first name, Isaiah, Jeremiah. Adventitious nature of the Nun Paragogic in the He- brew text. Examination of the Hebrew designations of Jethro, Nun, Samaria, Solomon. Vowel-letters proved spurious more clearly by names of rare use. How far the same written name im- plies the same spoken one. Agreement restored between Amos, ix. 12, and Acts, xv. 17. Of Shammuah, Shammua, Shimeah, Shi- mea, Shammah, Shamma, Shimma, and Shimei, transcripts in our version of one and the same original group. A few more instances adduced of contradictory vocalization. Of the foreign names tran- scribed in our version, respectively. On and Aven, Poti-Pherah, Potiphar, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Darius. Of the designation of Jerusalem, why classed with foreign ones On the correct pronun- ciation of the four-lettered name of God 115 CHAPTER m. PROOFS OF THE SPURIOUSNESS OF THE MATRES LECTIONIS IN THE SACRED TEXT, DERIVED FROM THE USES MADE OF THEM IN THE STRUCTURE OF ITS LANGUAGE. Anomalies of a certain pronoun not attributable to copyists. Nor can they be ascribed to the inspired authors of the Bible The Hebrew pronoun in question had originally but a single form. Curious pe- culiarity of Shemitic languages thereby accounted for. Supple- mental vocalization of Jewish edition of the Pentateuch. This additional vocalization executed with the greatest haste. Conse- quent change of structure illustrated by an English example. Remains of masculine affix He after nouns singular. Analysis of Hos. iv. 17-19, through the aid of the present discovery. Analysis of Hos. x. 5, by means of the same discovery. Remains of mascu- line affix He after an epenthetic Nun. Vocalized forms of affix He after nouns plural. Various treatment by vocalizers of masculine affix He after verbs. Correction of Gen. xvii. 16, suggested by pre- ceding analysis 219 CONTENTS. iii CHAPTER IV. CONTINUATION OF THE ARGUMENT DERIVED FROM THE STRUCTURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. Page. Original use recovered of the Paragogic He. Haleph and He often mis- taken one for the other in the sacred text Original forms of the Hebrew and Chaldee pronouns of the first person singular. Original forms of whole Hebrew pronoun, and its affix, of the first person plural. Original forms of the parts of the pronoun of first person singular used as affixes. Original ambiguity of ^e affixed to nouns, illustrated by examples. Formerly a hint not always given of / or sound at the end of words. A difficulty cleared up in the exist- ing state of the Peshitah. The paragogic He after A now used oftener than is commonly supposed. Paragogic He formerly used after verbs ending in / or U sound. Mode proposed of ascertain- ing poetic use of the Hebrew tenses. Many differences can be re- moved from the two copies of 18th Psalm. Instance of erroneous Masoretic change of an older vocalization 305 CHAPTER V. FINAL PART OF THE ARGUMENT DERIVED FROM THE STRUCTURE OF THE LANGUAGE. A fourth class of omissions of the letter He by the old vocalizers. Some objections to the spuriousness of the matres lectionis removed. The Hebrew text formerly was not divided into words Inco- herency removed from Ps. xi. 1, by means of the present discovery. ^The Hebrew text was formerly not distributed into verses. nb could formerly be read LiH^ ' to me,' as well as LoH, ' to him,' or LwH, * pray.' ^^3 and 1D, at first written JlD, which was read either KiH, * because,' or KoH, ' thus.' Analysis of the structure of the Hebrew verse Gen. xxvii. 36. Cause of confusion between first and and second person singular of preterites. Analysis reconsidered of part of the verse Judg. xi. 34 417 CHAPTER VI. CORROBORATION OF FOREGOING ARGUMENT DERIVED FROM A FOREIGN SOURCE. Result of inquiries of Gesenius about Phoenician vowel-letters Some remarks on the foregoing extract from the work of Gesenius. Ex- amination of the principal inscription in his collection. General iv CONTENTS. Page, limitations of age to two kinds of Phojnician titnli. No matres lec- tionis earlier inserted in Shemitic writing. Analysis of the epi- graph and age of a Cilician coin. My views no way inconsistent with recent discoveries. Analysis of three Bilingual Inscriptions found in Attica. Exposure of our author's fundamental error in ac- counting He a mater lectionis. Analysis concluded of the three Bilingual Inscriptions Invention of vowel-signs due to Grecian sagacity Nature of the process through which this invention was arrived at Why the credit of this invention was not claimed by the Greeks 487 APPENDIX. SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS. Indications of unfair design which the first vocalization of the sacred text betrays. 2. The Christians utterly ignorant of Hebrew dur- ing by far the greater part of the second century. 3. Investigation of the date of the first vocalization of the Hebrew text. 4. Of the spurious Greek versions of the Old Testament that were written, most of them, in the second century. 5. A brief review of the con- duct of the Jewish rulers during the second century, and a few of those next ensuing. 6. Of the Peshitah, or first Syriac version. 7. Of the Samaritan text and version. 8. Of the Chaldee versions, strictly so called, that is, the older Targums. 9. Value of the pre- sent discovery illustrated by one more example 545 INTRODUCTION. 1. GENERAL VIEW OF THE ADVANTAGES OF THE DISCOVERY HERE UN- FOLDED 2. SOME PREPOSSESSIONS ENDEAVOURED TO BE RE- MOVED 3. TRACES OF A PROVIDENTIAL INTERFERENCE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE BIBLE 4. TWO CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE GOS- PEL HISTORY EXPLAINED BY MEANS OF THE PRESENT DISCOVERY 6. BRIEF NOTICE OF SOME POINTS RELATING TO THE PLAN OF THE FOLLOWING TREATISE. WHEN through the publication of the Arcanum punctatio- This revelatum byCapellus in 1624, the comparatively mo- dern origin of the vowel-points in Hebrew writing was clearly exposed, vast advantages were expected to result from this disclosure. These anticipations, however, have not been rea- lized. In fact, the Masoretic system was the gradual produc- tion of a long* series of ages extending from about the seventh or eighth to the twelfth century of our era ; and the Masorets pointed their Scriptures, not only with great care and delibe- ration, but also with the most scrupulous honesty : so that the misreadings to be laid exclusively to their charge, which have been detected by Hebraists since the period of its having been found that the pointing of the sacred text is to be treated as a work of uninspired, fallible men, are neither extremely numerous nor of the very highest importance. But the case is widely different with regard to the further disclosures made in the following Essay, namely, that the Hebrew Bible, as it issued from the pens of its inspired authors, was written with- out vowel-signs of any kind, whether points or letters : that where Haleph^ Yod, and Waw are now to be seen in the pointed text useless, and in the unpointed one diverted from vi INTEODUCTION. their primary and proper use (of the same general nature as that of all the other elements of the Hebrew alphabet) to the occasional service of denoting vowels, they there constitute no part of the original writing, but were interpolated in it not long after the commencement of the second century ; that this interpolation of vowel-letters, in the main correctly executed, and which contributed essentially to preserving the legibility of the Word of God in the original tongue after the ancient Hebrew had ceased to be spoken as a living language, was yet due to an improvement in orthography which, as of foreign and of Pagan growth, the Jews were at first reluctant to admit even into their ordinary writing, and of which they were at length induced to extend the use to their Scriptures solely from violent aversion to Christianity, and with a view to evade the force of prophecies bearing on the divinity of Jesus and on his identity with the promised Messiah ; that, accordingly, it is in several passages of Holy Writ designedly wrong, and in a great many more is so with- out design, through the haste with which, from a desire of concealment, the operation was conducted ; that the Samari- tans having also, in imitation of the Jews, introduced vowel- letters by stealth into the Pentateuch, with like precipitation and from like motives, their vocalization abounds with similar faults, both intentional and unintentional ; but that these faults are frequently neither the very same, nor occurring in the same places, as those committed by the Jewish vocalizers ; the two sets of scribes having scarcely agreed with each other, in any other respect but in the feeling they entertained in com- mon, of bitter hostility to the Christian religion. If these par- ticulars be really founded in truth, it is evident that a dis- covery which, in bringing them to light, strips the vowel- letters or matres lectionis^ as they are called, of the inspired authority they have, up to the present day, been invested with, and enables us to judge of the readings they confine the original groups to, with the same freedom as we should ex- amine any other merely human exposition of Scripture, must INTRODUCTION. vii lead to consequences of the greatest value and deepest interest. These consequences, which serve likewise as proofs, while the matter is analytically investigated, include both the restora- tion of the true sense of corrupted prophecies, and also the accounting for discrepancies of various sorts, that have hither- to proved most vexatious and perplexing to the learned, between the Old and New Testaments, between parallel pas- sages of the Old Testament, between the Hebrew and Sama- ritan copies of the Pentateuch, and between the Hebrew text at large and the translations of it that were made before it was vocalized, namely, the first Greek and Syriac versions. 2. To prepare the reader for an unbiassed consideration of the subject, I shall endeavour to remove a few objections, likely to occur to him at his entrance on this discussion ; and which, for the sake of brevity, I put in the form of questions, with an answer subjoined to each. In the first place, then, it may be asked, when was there a possibility of introducing vowel- letters into the inspired volume secretly and without detection ? In reply to this I admit, that such an operation could not have been attempted while any of the Christians were acquainted with Hebrew, and, consequently, was not practicable in either the first century, or after Origen had in the third century inserted the Hebrew text in one of the columns of his Hexapla ; but in the intervening time the Old Testament in the original language was exclusively in the hands of the Jews, and the use of it confined solely to their learned men ; the great body of the nation being then utterly unable to read, and having the Scriptures read to them only in Greek. The interpolations objected to, may, therefore, have been efi*ected during that interval, with the privacy of but a very small number of individuals. In the second place, how can the Jews be supposed to have availed themselves of this opportunity to tamper in secret with any part of Holy Writ, men who have ever shown such a high veneration for the Hebrew Bible and such a scrupulous regard to its exact preservation ? I reply that b2 Yiii INTRODUCTION. they certainly are entitled to the credit of having been most faithful guardians of this Book at every known period of their history except the one here referred to ; and that it is, at first blush, very unlikely that their conduct should have been, at this conjuncture, wholly at variance with what it constantly and uniformly was for numerous ages before and after. But, however strange a fact may appear, before its circumstances are investigated, it must yet be assented to, if sustained by sufficient evidence ; and there is connected with this very case a still stranger fact, of whose reality we, not- Avithstanding, cannot have the slightest doubt. The Jewish priesthood have been clearly convicted of having at the period in question, from hatred of Christianity, yielded to the temp- tation of corrupting their Greek Scriptures, in prophecies relating to the Messiah ; and it surely required a more extra- ordinary and unaccountable degree of rashness on their part, to take liberties with a translation under the public eye, than to make free with the original in secret. Justin Martyr, who wrote in the second century, has transmitted to us some ex- amples of their suppressing, and others of their altering, pas- sages of the Septuagint which the Christians brought forward to identify our Lord with the predicted Messiah ; and his charge against them on the latter point is fully verified by remnants of certain Greek versions made about that time by apostates from Christianity, or Judaizing heretics, and which were introduced into the synagogues to supply the place of the one first composed in that language. For instance, the above-mentioned author, in the account still extant of his dis- putation with Trypho at Ephesus, expressly accuses the Jews of having, in the remarkable prophecy of Isaiah commencing with the declaration that a virgin should bring forth a son, substituted veaul^, the Greek for ' a young woman,' instead of 7ra/)^ei/o9, which denotes ' a virgin,' a substitution which ob- viously violates the context in divesting the predicted event of a miraculous nature, and this corruption of the Septuagint, besides being commented on by Jerome, is actually found in INTKODUCTION. ix extracts from the spurious versions just alluded to, which are preserved in the writings of Eusebius. The very same corrup- tion, indeed, is attested specially to have existed in the ver- sions of Aquila and Theodotion, by Irenaeus, who, as well as Justin Martyr, was a writer nearly contemporary with those translators. In the third place, if the vowel-letters were introduced surreptitiously into the original text of the Old Testament during the earlier part of the second century, how is it possi- ble that the Christians could have failed to detect this change in the orthography of the books on their return to the culti- vation of Hebrew in the course of the third century? My answer is, that we are now able to learn this written language, and the mode of reading it, quite independently of the Jews, by means of grammars founded on information derived from the second and more complete vocalization of the Bible with the system of points gradually invented by the Masorets: but,' at the early period under discussion, the Christians had no such aid; and Origen, who led the way in the return to this study, was forced to get all his instruction in it from the Jews, that is, from the very party who were interested in concealing the fact of the interpolations in question having been com- mitted. From the same party also he took the Hebrew text inserted in the first column of his Hexapla; and so highly were his learning and talents then estimated, that what passed current with him on this subject was never after disputed, or thought to require any further examination. In the fourth place, the reader, even without admitting the divine origin of alphabetic writing, may ask, if the Hebrew sys- tem of letters, in its primitive state, was as I have in a former Essay endeavoured to prove it a miraculous gift from God, how could it be supposed to have been imperfect in that state ? To this I reply, that there is no inconsistency between the two suppositions : the first of them could, indeed, be hardly recon- ciled with the existence in the system in question, as originally constituted, of positive faults (such as the employment of the X INTRODUCTION. same character with powers of different kinds); but it may, surely, with that of mere defects. The external gifts conferred by the Aljnighty through natural means are not supplied to us in the state fittest for use, but require the vigilant exertion of our talents in their cultivation and improvement, in order to their producing all the advantages they are capable of affording. Where, then, is the wonder, if the full benefit of one originally conveyed to our species from the same gracious Being, though in a different manner, should be made to de- pend upon the same proviso ? That in this, as in other cases, what we are qualified naturally to effect, we should be left to ourselves to accomplish, is entirely in accordance with the general plan of God's government of the present world, as taught to us by experience : and it is gratifying to observe the benevolence of his designs which is thus indicated ; for the exercise of our natural faculties to which he encourages, and, in some measure, compels us, tends to the strengthening and enlarging of those faculties, and thereby contributes to our advancement in the scale of intellectual creatures. Of this even a Pagan writer must have been aware, when he de- scribed the manner in which he conceived the Supreme Ruler of mankind to be occupied, in the following terms : " curis acuens mortalia corda." Had man been unable to rise by his own efforts from a sylla- bary to a superior alphabet, no doubt this grand instrument of human knowledge would have been given to him from the first, in the state best adapted for preserving the divine reve- lations. For this purpose, indeed, a more complicated miracle would have been required than that actually wrought, and, while the notion was suggested to the first alphabetic writer of expressing his thoughts by signs of things wholly different from thoughts, there would have been impressed on his mind not only the subdivision of significant words into syllabic sounds destitute of signification, but also the still more subtile decompasition of those sounds again, each of them, into two INTEODUCTION. xi parts, one of which (i.e. the consonantal part), taken by itself, is destitute even of sound. But accounts are to be found in the Bible of compound miracles having been displayed, when there were strong reasons for their being of this description. Such, for example, were all those worked by our Lord, in giv- ing sight or speech to persons born blind or deaf Thus, in performing each of the former class, he conferred on some blind individual not only the faculty of immediately perceiv- ing light and colours, but also the power of instantaneously inferring from the various appearances of those qualities the shapes, sizes, and distances of the surrounding objects ; a power which is naturally acquired but by slow degrees in infancy, and afterwards comes to be exerted with rapidity through the force of habit.^ Had he, in a case of this sort, granted only sight without the judgment respecting external things which, in the course of nature, is after some time con- nected with its immediate perceptions, the man he had to deal with would indeed eventually have arrived at the full use of this sense, but in the first instance would have groped about in the same manner as if he was still blind, and have thought everything he saw to be in immediate contact with him, just as those do on whom the surgical operation of couching has been performed, when first the cataracts are removed from their eyes. But in the latter class of miracles referred to, as worked by our Lord, the complexity is perhaps more obvious. * In the instance recorded in Mark, viii. 23-5, of a complex miracle of the above description, our Lord performed the parts of it separately, having con- ferred at the first touch sight alone, and at the second the judgment neces- sary to render that sight available for immediate use. The motive for his making this separation may, possibly, have been to afford a very striking ad- ditional indication of the veracity of the historian, as soon as the perceptions employed in the ordinary process of vision should come to be better under- stood. For the composite nature of those perceptions was entirely unknown to mankind at the period when this account was written ; and, therefore, its conformity with that nature could have arisen solely from the strict adhe- rence of the writer to the circumstances of the case, just as they actually came under human observation. xii INTRODUCTION. In the case of each of these he at once bestowed to the person he operated on, 1st, the sense of hearing ; 2ndly, the power of articulation which, in the usual course of things, is learned but very slowly in childhood, and, if not then acquired, is never after naturally attained to in perfection ; 3rdly, the knowledge of a language before utterly unknown, and so fa- miliar an acquaintance with it as to both speak and understand the words, with the same fluency and readiness as if he had been accustomed to each use of them all along from his earliest years. But when a miracle of either class was to be performed, if a single one of its ingredients had been omitted, the crowd of ignorant bystanders would not have perceived that any at all had been wrought. So, where the object was to convince the fair-minded spectators of the divinity of our Saviour, there was, in the case of both classes, an obvious reason for the mul- tifold exertion of his almighty power.* And, in like manner, if a syllabary had not sufficed for preserving at first the Word of God, it may, I submit, be concluded, that the miracle by which the use of syllabic letters was conveyed to the intellect of Moses, would have been carried a step farther ; so as to make him understand a superior mode of writing, and convert his alphabet into one consisting of consonants and vowel-signs. 3. The inferior system, however, answered the purpose for which it was given, during a great length of time, and even for some centuries after the period when the ancient Hebrew became a dead language; though the difficulty of reading the divine record, while therewith written, increased of necessity, according as men lived at a greater distance from that period. But while, on the one hand, writing which contained no vowel- signs of any kind must be admitted to have been peculiarly defective in reference to a tongue in which the inflexions of * It was not the mere performance of miracles, however stupendous, that proved the divinity of our Lord, but the circumstance of his working them as of himself and by his own authority; in which respect they differ promi- nently from those recorded in the Bible as wrought by any other person. INTEODUCTION. xiii the words depend chiefly on their vowels, so that, if that of the Hebrew Bible had always remained such, the sacred text must at length have become quite illegible ; it is worth while, on the other hand, to trace the steps by which frail human beings were made to be unconsciously the agents in averting this evil, as well as in furnishing the means of eventually re- moving others, in the first instance, resulting from the mode in which the antidote made use of was applied. In the first place, then, about two centuries after the ter- mination of the Babylonian captivity, and while a considerable number of persons still continued to speak pure Hebrew as their vernacular dialect, Asia was invaded by a people who had introduced into the original alphabet the vast improve- ment of vowel-letters ; and the Jews were, in consequence, forced in spite of their prejudices to learn a species of writing that made them acquainted with the use of such letters. In the second place, their Scriptures were very soon after- wards translated into the tongue connected with this writing, by the order, as tradition tells us, of a Pagan government, and at any rate in a country in which they and their religion were peculiarly hated and despised. This rendering of the Old Testament into Greek ^ a language at the time under- stood throughout the civilized portion of the world has * It is a curious and interesting circumstance which is well assorted, too, with those noticed in my text that the Greek character, which was origi- nally the same as that of the Phoenicians, and therefore must after its intro- duction into Europe have undergone great alteration, has been scarcely in the slightest degree changed, since the Bible was first translated into Greek, that is, during a length of time which now exceeds two thousand years. TheRosetta inscription, which is about the same age as the oldest part of the Septuagint, exhibits the elements of its alphabetic portion almost exactly the same as the Greek capitals employed at the present day ; the chief difference consisting in the want of cross lines in the Alphas and of central points in the Thetas of that portion a defect which most probably did not exist at first, and is to be considered as the mere effect of age. On the contrary, in every kind of ancient Shemitic writing whereof specimens of ascertained dif- ferent ages have reached us, the letters have been considerably changed in shape within an interval which is very short in comparison with that just referred to. xiv INTRODUCTION. always been considered most providential in serving the im- portant use of preparing the minds of the Gentiles for the reception of the Gospel; for, though but little studied by heathens of distinguished learning, it was not so neglected by others. Most of those called by St. Luke devout an epithet which, with a slight variation in the form of the original word, he applies to great numbers of both men and women were converts from Paganism, who, without conforming to the rites and ceremonies of the Jews, had yet become more or less acquainted with the doctrines of true religion, through this very translation, and were led by it to expect the advent of a divine instructor and Saviour of mankind. But a further ser- vice may now be perceived to have been performed by the Septuagint, in tending to reconcile the Jews to the use of the Greek alphabet, and render them less averse to borrowing thence, in like manner as other Shemitic nations had pre- viously done, a very important improvement of their ordinary writing. Accordingly, the legends upon extant coins of their country that were stamped during the high priesthood of Simon of the Hasmonean race, show that they occasionally employed Waw and Yod as vowel-letters within less than two centuries after the death of Alexander the Macedonian con- queror; and if Hebrew inscriptions of ascertained greater age"^ could be procured, we should most probably find that they commenced this alteration of their original practice still sooner and nearer to that epoch. In the third place, all their scruples were at length over- * When Jewish coins dug out of the ruins of Jerusalem were brought un- der the notice of the public about two hundred years ago, the writers of that day assigned to them an extravagant antiquity; but, after some had been identified as belonging to the number of those which, in accordance with historic information (1 Mac. xv. 6), were stamped during the independent government of Simon, brother of Judas Maccabeus, it was found from a com- parison of the characters on these and the rest, that none of them could be so old, as was at first imagined. This conclusion is fully confirmed by the present discovery ; for, although some other Asiatic nations making use of syllabaries may have been induced, by observation of Grecian practice, volun- INTRODUCTION. xv come by the violence of their enmity to Christians ; and they were induced to extend the benefit of this Pagan innovation from their ordinary to their sacred writings in the early part of the second century of our era, on account of the opportu- nity it afforded them of perverting the sense of prophecies relating to the divinity of Jesus, and to the fact of his being the Christ ; as well as from an eager desire to throw discredit on the Septuagint, and thereby weaken or evade the force of arguments drawn from that version in support of Christian doctrines. Their primary object is exposed by the parts of their vocalization that are absolutely unfair ; while their secon- dary one, and less direct attack upon Christianity, is betrayed by the parts that are fair in effect, though very unfair in the motive to which they can be traced : for, wherever the words of the text in its original state could be read in any respect variously without altering the general purport of a sentence, they almost constantly vocalized the groups for a difierent form of expression from that indicated by their Greek rendering ; and so contrived to give the Septuagint the appearance of a loose, inaccurate translation, where it did not, in the remotest degree, deserve that character. But by far the greater num- ber of their intentional deviations from this version are of the latter description, those of the former kind being, compara- tively speaking, very few ; and the consequence has most pro- videntially resulted that, in spite of the extreme culpability of the motives by which they were actuated, their work was in the main con^ectly done. It deserves further to be noticed tarily to change them into alphabets of a superior order through the intro- duction of the irregular species of vowel-letters technically called matres lectionis, yet the Jews, who were particularly averse to holding any commu- nication with Pagans, cannot be supposed to have adopted this improvement till they were compelled to learn the benefit of it, by being subjected to the dominion of the Greeks. But all their extant coins exhibit either Waiv, or Yod, or both of these letters, employed as vowel-signs ; and, therefore, each must have been stamped subsequently to the period when they came under the yoke of that people. xvi INTRODUCTION. mth respect to the change thus made in the orthography of the Hebrew Bible, that they were induced to adopt it, at a period when Greek had become the mother tongue of the great majority of their nation as it continued to be for above four centuries after^ and when even those of the Jews who still spoke a Shemitic dialect had been making use of vowel- letters in their ordinary writing for above 250 years, and, therefore, could scarcely have retained any longer the power of reading the sacred text, if it remained unvocalized, or in a species of writing, as well as in a language, with which they had long ceased to be familiar. That I have rightly assigned the period when this vocalization of the Bible took place, can be easily proved : for, on the one hand, it certainly was not effected till after the S3rriac version was written, and, indeed, could not have been attempted as long as either the Asiatic or European Christians were acquainted with the Hebrew Scriptures, nor, consequently, till after the end of the first cen- tury; while, on the other hand, it must have preceded the framing of the spurious Greek versions of the second century, which can now be clearly shown, by their extant remains, to have been fabricated for the very purpose of supporting its unfair parts. But the most remarkable of those versions, and the one in greatest repute with the Jews while they continued * In an edict of Justinian, passed in the year of our Lord 551 being the 146th of the ' Novelise Constitutiones,' and which is also extant in the origi- nal Greek it is enacted that, whereas great tumults had been caused by an attempt of the Archipherecitce^ or Jewish chiefs, to innovate upon the established practice, the Jews should not be compelled to hear the Bible in the original Hebrew, but should continue to have it read to them in their synagogues in Greek, or in whatever language might be the vernacular one of each congre- gation. Hence it appears that, for a considerable length of time, which reached down at any rate to some date later than the middle of the sixth century, Hebrew was an unknown tongue to the great body of the Jews ; though the knowledge of it was all along kept up among the more learned class of their priests a result to which the vocalization of the inspired text about the commencement of this interval must, no doubt, have mainly con- tributed. INTKODUCTION. xvii to make use of any Greek translation, namely that of Aquila, was composed during the reign of the Emperor Hadrian, and, therefore, before the year of our era 139. In the fourth place, the vocalization of the Hebrew record with letters having been by far too scanty to keep it perma- nently legible, we find that, according as a fuller system of vowel-signs became requisite for this purpose, a second one was gradually formed to supply the defects of the first. The Masoretic punctuation being founded on the older vocalization of the text, retains nearly all the errors of that vocalization, and has superadded some of its own : but the latter class of faults the system itself supplies the means of correcting ; and what is of immense advantage to the Hebrew student it has preserved and transmitted to us the inflexions of the words, and through them, the grammatic structure of the an- cient language. This system, indeed, was framed under the direction of the Jewish priesthood solely for their own use ; but at length it got into the hands of the Christians, who have thereby been rendered quite independent of Rabbinical in- struction, and have, in fact, outstripped their first instructors in this study, and attained to a much superior knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures ; so that the custody of those Scrip- tures has been virtually transferred to them from the Jews. At every step of this train of events, as far as we have as yet traced them, the hand of an overruling Providence may, I submit, be discerned protecting the Bible, and, for this end, turning even the bad passions of mankind to good account. But there yet remains to be considered a further step, which places this interference in a still more striking light. However valuable the first vocalization was, not only in itself, but also on account of its constituting the groundwork of the second, it, notwithstanding, was attended with the serious evil of the perversion of the sense of certain prophecies of the highest im- portance. In the fifth place, then, I have to state that provi- sion was made fi^om the very commencement of this evil, for its eventual removal, through the manifestation of the adven- xviii INTRODUCTION. titious nature of the matres lectionis ; by means of which ex- posure we are enabled to treat the use made of them in the Hebrew Scriptures as an uninspired work, and retain only the good parts of it, separated and purified from the bad. But, although the perverted prophecies aiFord a strong confirmation of the truth of the discovery in question, when once it has been arrived at through other channels, yet they do not in the first instance lead to it ; because, in the case of obscure pas- sages, we could not venture to trust our judgment in pro- nouncing them corrupted, till the letters confining them to apparently objectionable senses were previously known to be interpolated elements. Still less would the other class of unfair readings already noticed conduct us at first to this dis- covery ; because, each of these being consistent with the con- text, it is only by viewing them in the aggregate that their systematic deviation from the interpretation of the Seventy can be perceived ; but it would never occur to a reader to search for their collective bearing in this direction, till after it was found out, or at least till after some suspicion had arisen, that the letters restricting them to their present meanings, were introduced into the text, since the period when the Septuagint was finished. In order, therefore, that the writing of the sacred record should of itself lead to the detection of the spuriousness of its vowel-letters, it was necessary that it should betray, in its present state, more obvious and glaring instances of their misuse than are exhibited under either of the above heads ; and, consequently, it was requisite to this end, that very gross blunders should have been committed in the first vocalization of the Hebrew Bible, and also that those blunders should have been afterwards retained in all the successive transcriptions of this book, till they answered the purpose for which their oc- currence therein appears to have been at first permitted. Now, both these conditions have been completely fulfilled, as will be shown with regard to each, upon frequent occasions, in the foUomng Essay, and, moreover, fulfilled in ways which it would be very difficult to account for, upon the ground of human motives. INTRODUCTION. xix With respect to the mistakes above alluded to, an imme- diate cause, indeed, can be assigned for them, in the precipi- tation wdth which the old vocalizers executed their task from an anxious desire for its concealment. But what was it that impelled them, through this desire, to such haste ? They had, at the time, the original text entirely to themselves : the very language in which it was written was then understood by none of the Christians, and by very few of their own nation, of whom still fewer could decipher it ; as its orthography had become obsolete not only to those habituated to Greek, but even to such of them as still continued to make use of Shemitic writ- ing. Truly, the shrewdness for which the Jews are in general distinguished, failed their priests on this occasion in a very re- markable manner. Again, the mistakes I refer to, are of so obvious a nature and so manifestly at variance with the con- text of the passages in which they occur, that they would have been left uncorrected by no other series of transcribers that ever existed :* yet they have, by the Jewish scribes, been fixed, and, as it were, stereotyped ; so that the Hebrew text displays them now in very nearly the same state as when it was first * The framers of our English version indirectly support me in the descrip- tion above given of the subject" in question ; as they have taken no notice whatever, in their translation, of the irregularities of the kind alluded to, which are at present to be seen in the Hebrew text, a mode of proceeding which can be justified solely on the ground of those irregularities being obvious mistakes ; and on the same ground that, as translators, they have ab- stained from intimating those errors, they evidently would, if they had been transcribers of the original record, have removed them. The Masorets, though they have constantly, in such cases, pointed the Hebrew words as if the ob- jectionable letters were not in them, have yet never ventured to omit those letters. The corresponding line of conduct, on the part of our translators, would have been, while they inserted, as they have done, in the body of their work the renderings required by the context, to have subjoined others in the margin, agreeing exactly with the sacred text in its existing state. The con- trast here drawn between the Masorets and the English translators does not warrant any censure of the latter party; but it certainly places in a very prominent light the over-scrupulous honesty of the former one. XX INTKODUCTION. vocalized. The immediate cause of this fixedness, I admit, is to be found in the scrupulous editorial honesty shown in every instance but one by the scribes in question. But what was it that induced them, in violation of common sense, thus to push their scrupulousness to an extreme that actually amounts to the weakest superstition ? or how did it come to pass, that men of this description should have abandoned their habitual line of conduct, just at the moment when, if they had not done so, the Bible in the original language must have ceased, in the natural course of things, to be any longer legible ; and that they should have directly after returned to, and ever since persevered in that line, as the faithful, though blind guardians of this record ? Surely, such extraordinary coincidences and combinations of events indicate a design quite distinct from the intentions of those through whose instrumentality it was put in execution ; the design of bringing about an important good, and of providing at the same time means for eventually cleansing it of the evil with which its introduction was at first polluted. I now pass on to later times and a very different class of agents, not at all chargeable with the same culpability of mo- tives, but still so far of the same character, inasmuch as they were engaged in the execution of part of the same gene- ral plan, and had just as little conception, as their predecessors, of the noble end to the achievement of which they were thus contributing. It is evident, that the provision which had been made for the writing of the sacred text leading of itself to the detection of its interpolated elements, could not take effect, till the attention of the learned among the Christians, which had been long drawn off from that writing, should be directed to it again. In the sixth place, then, I have to bring under notice the unqualified preference which Luther and subsequent Protestant writers, while translating the Bible, gave to the original record over all its ancient versions ; a preference which of necessity revived the study of the origi- nal language of the Old Testament, and that too under the most INTRODUCTION. xxi favourable circumstances, after the labours of the Masorets en- abled men to acquire a critical knowledge of its structure, quite independently of Jewish instruction. For the dislike of the older translations, shown by the leaders of the Protes- tant Reformation, it is attempted to account, by the corrup- tions introduced into the Yulgate with a view to countenanc- ing Papal errors. But, surely, this afforded them no ground of objection against the Septuagint or the Peshitah,* neither of which had been so corrupted ; while, on the other hand, those learned men must have been well aware, that these two versions had greatly the advantage over the Hebrew text, in its existing state, with regard to several of the prophecies respecting the Messiah ; an advantage sustained not only by internal and external evidence of ordinary kinds, but also in some instances by even the inspired authority of the New Testament. Undoubtedly, their proper course would have been, to make the sacred text the principal standard for their modern translations, but still to deviate thence, whenever the weight of evidence bears decisively against it in favour of its oldest and best versions. But the zeal of our Reformers car- ried them far beyond this point, in their adherence to the original record as it now stands. To such an extent, indeed, did they, in this respect, stray beyond the bounds of prudence. * No part of the Peshitah was printed till about thirty years after the publication of Luther's Bible; but the whole of it, if not in print, at least in manuscript, was in the hands of the learned, while several of the principal modern versions due to Protestants were not as yet framed, and in particular before our present authorized English translation came out in the year 1611. Archbishop Ussher, for instance, who was then past the age of thirty, and had been some years previously appointed Professor of Divinity in the University of Dublin, makes frequent reference in his writings to the Syriac version of the Old as well of the New Testament. And, to go further back, Andrew Masius, who published his Commentary on the Book of Joshua in the year 1574, mentions in his Dedicatory Epistle that in framing it he made use of a Syriac version, and that he had also in his possession, taken from the same version most probably the Peshitah a translation of Judges, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and of a good part of Deuteronomy. C xxii INTKODUCTION. that they, in many instances, unwittingly rendered themselves the aiders and abettors of the Judaizing translators of the second century in supporting the fraudulent parts of the vo- calization of the Hebrew Scriptures. Still, it is to be observed, in this as well as in every preceding instance, that the tem- porary evil of the course here brought under notice is greatly overbalanced by the good which has thence arisen ; namely, the increased spirit of inquiry, with regard to the original text, and increased ability to examine it, which are so emi- nently calculated, in combination with the other specified means, to lead to the one grand result, the detection of the cause of the present anomalies of that text. The last step in this series of events to which I shall here advert, as indicating the same design and tending to the same result as those which precede it, is the re-introduction into Europe of the Samaritan Pentateuch, through the exertions of Archbishop Ussher and other eminent scholars, nearly two centuries and a half ago, after the learned had lost sight of it for about a thousand years. Of the high degree in which this event actually drew attention, at first, to the very fea- tures of the Jewish copy of the Hebrew text best adapted to disclose the fact of its having been interpolated, we may judge, by the great importance which Bishop Walton attached to a judicious classification of the different sorts of discrepan- cies subsisting between the tAvo editions of the original Pen- tateuch, as well as between them and the Septuagint ; and by the anxious desire he expressed, that such a work should be undertaken by some scholar of sufiicient ability to give reasonable prospect of its being well executed.* He had not, * The following are the Bishop's words, above referred to " Quod enim de editione Gr^eca tojv d diximus, idem de exemplari Samaritano optandum, utdoctus aliquis judicio et linguarum cognitione pollens, et partium studio non abreptus, cui otium et ingenium ad rem tantam aggrediendum suppetit, accurate discrepantias has exarainaret, et qusenam ex scribarum errore, quse- nam ex codicum Hebraeorum varietate ortai sint, qurenam de industria mu- tationes factaj, distingueret. Certe qui hoc opus perficeret, magnam a grata posteritate laudem reportarct." ProJegom. xi. 16. INTRODUCTION. xxiii indeed, the slightest notion that a principle should ever be arrived at, which would account for and virtually remove, all at once, the vast majority of the discrepancies in question. But still, the analysis he recommended had a tendency to conduct to this unexpected result : for, if diligently gone through, it must have sho^vn the analyzer that, in the main, the tw^o texts were exactly the same in point of consonants, and differed only in vowel-letters ; an observation that would have placed him in the direct road to the present dis- covery, and which now serves powerfully to corroborate the proofs of its truth derived from other sources. But what likelihood was there, in the ordinary course of human affairs, that the Samaritan Pentateuch should have been preserved to answer this end ? or how can we account, upon the ground of ordinary motives, for the conduct of its vocalizers, in suffer- ing it to yield such decisive evidence as it does of the inter- polations they committed ? The Samaritans were, through the earlier portion of their history, scarcely better than Pagans, having, while Antiochus Epiphanes reigned over Syria, gone so far in abandoning the worship of the true God, as to de- dicate their temple on Mount Gerizim to the Grecian Jupiter ; and, in later times, severely oppressed, first by the sovereigns of the eastern division of the Roman empire, and afterwards by their Mohammedan rulers, they sunk into the lowest depth of ignorance, and their population dwindled into the most insignificant number ; so that Bishop Walton describes them and their religion as nearly extinct about the middle of the seventeenth century.^ Yet still, not only did they retain, and continue to read their edition of the Pentateuch, but also full evidence is afforded to us, of their having guarded it with the strictest fidelity during the thousand years that it was left in their sole keeping : for Jerome, and some later authors ' " . . . sub Imperatoribus ita fracti et dissipati sunt, ut pauca) ipsorum reliquise hodie supersint ita ut tarn gens quam ipsoruin religio pene extincta esse videatur." Prolegom. xi. o. xxiv INTRODUCTION. extending as far down as the latter end of the sixth century, noticed several points of agreement or disagreement between it and the Jewish edition, which points were found, almost without exception, to hold exactly in the same way between the two texts, on the recovery of the Samaritan one by Euro- peans, after it had been for so very long an interval out of their possession. Again, the Samaritan scribes, when framing their own vocalization of the Pentateuch, had to a certainty under their inspection that previously applied to it by the Jews ; from which they could not deviate, without affording to those who might at any subsequent period compare the differently vocalized texts, a strong ground of suspicion against the genuineness of the matres lectionis in each. To what cause, then, can w^e attribute their permitting a vast multitude of discrepancies to appear between the two series of interpolations ? It is true, they hated the Jews ; but they could not expose the Jewish fraud without affording at the same time evidence of that committed by themselves. To me, I confess, it appears that the difficulties involved in the consideration of the several occurrences here brought to- gether under view, cannot, any of them, and still less all, be satisfactorily explained, except by referring those events, and the manner in which they have been interwoven and com- bined, to the interposition of the Almighty, directing natural means to the protection of the Bible ; an interposition which, as it was more called for, so it has been likewise rendered more visible, by the very defectiveness of the alphabetic sys- tem with which he permitted his revealed Word to be, in the first instance, committed to writing.^ Some points in the above historic sketch will be more fully discussed, and others therein omitted will be supplied on a future occasion, if it should please God, in the exercise of his gracious providence, to grant me a continu- ance of life and health sufficient for writing a supplementary volume, to com- plete this Treatise. There are, indeed, certain portions of the investigation itself on which also I would wish to enlarge, if an opportunity of so doing should be thus allowed me. INTRODUCTION. xxv 4. Here I take the opportunity of noticing two points connected with the Gospel-history of our Lord, not at all as proofs that the Hebrew Scriptures were unvocalized at the period when he dwelt in human form upon earth, but as fully according with, and accounted for, by that fact. The first is the great difficulty there was then found in deciphering the in- spired text, as indicated not only by the multitudes of scribes and lawyers mentioned in the New Testament (of whom the former class had to read, as well as write that text, and the latter to expound it), but also by the extreme surprise which the Jews expressed, at seeing part of it read by a person in the humble station of life in which Jesus was brought up. " Whence hath this man this wisdom is not this the carpenter's son T In the case, indeed, of the incident which drew forth this exclamation from them, and which is related by three of the Evangelists, their astonish- ment is, by St. Matthew and St. Mark, described only in general terms, as produced by what he taught upon the occa- sion (Matt. xiii. 54, and Mark, vi. 2) ; but St. Luke more particularly informs us of that teaching, that it commenced with the reading out of a passage of Isaiah (Luke, iv. 16) ; and St. John, in recording a similar transaction, expressly states that the amazement of his countrymen was excited by their perceiving that our Saviour understood the use of the elements of the sacred writing : " Now, about the midst of the feast, Jesus went up into the temple, and taught : and the Jews marvelled, saying. How knoweth this man letters . . . . ?"_John vii. 14, 15. The other point to which I request attention, is the circum- stance recorded by St. Luke, of our Lord's addressing to a certain lawyer two questions regarding the ' Law,' or Hebrew Pentateuch, which, if the text of that work was then in the same state as it now is, would have been in effect identical, and, consequently, one of them superfluous : *' He said unto him, What is written in the Law? how readest thou ?" (Luke, X. 26). Nor can the second question, for the sake of getting xxvi INTEODUCTION. rid of its apparent redundancy, be assumed to mean, ^ What construction puttest thou on that which is written ?' For, to judge by the style of the Evangelist, the verb used by him, to give such a signification to the clause, would have been liepjirj' vevei9 or eKTiOrj^ ; while the one which occurs in this place, dpayivw(7Kei9^ and which is always employed by him to denote the act of reading, is in many passages of his confined beyond a doubt by the context exclusively to that act."" Still, it is extremely improbable that any sentence ever dropped use- lessly from the mouth of Jesus Christ,^ of whom it was allowed, even by his enemies, that he expressed himself as no being, merely human, ever spake. The difficulty, however, of this case is wholly removed by considering the state of the sacred text at the period referred to : for each line, being then utterly unvocalized, admitted of having its several words pronounced with difibrent inflexions, and of thereby conveying a variety of meanings ; so that, granting the lawyer questioned in this instance to have known the series of alphabetic characters written on the subject of his own inquiry, he had yet to exert his judgment in determining by the context, how that portion of the Hebrew Scriptures was to be read ; and the second question he was asked by our Lord thus turns out to have been quite distinct from the first. 5. I shall close this Introduction with a few remarks on the ensuing investigation. In the first place, no interpolation of the Hebrew text is therein brought under the reader's notice, * As, for instance, the question of Philip, the deacon, to the eunuch "Un- derstandest thou what thou readest ?" (Acts, viii. 30) is, in the original writing of St. Luke, Spd ^e ^ivtLaKei^ a apar^ivivaKeis ; where ava^[ivu)(TKeiaryX, 70) rj^aTrTjaa avTov, Kui e^ Ai- f/VTrrof yuere/caAe- aa Ta reicva aVTov. *lffpa7j\ eVaXt- aa vlov juov. The initials heading the last four columns are used to de- * This extract, Bishop Walton states, is written in the margin of the above- mentioned Barberini MS., and, therefore, is probably not as old as the text of that manuscript. Chap. I.] IN THE PRONUNCIATION OF HEBREW. 1 1 note Aquila, Symmachus, the LXX. translators, and Theodo- tion. The two circumstances above mentioned tend to sup- port the correctness of the whole of this extract, as well as of the part of it I am now going to make use of; and, before doing so, I subjoin some additional particulars which have the like tendency. First, the order of the columns of the Hexapla is here exhibited the same as it is described by Jerome, in his commentary on the third chapter of the Epistle to Titus: "Unde et nobis curas fuit omnes veteris Legis libros, quos vir doctus Adamantius [i. e. Origenes] in Hexapla digesserat, de Caesa- riensi bibliotheca descriptos, ex ipsis authenticis emendare ; in quibus et ipsa Hebraea propriis sunt characteribus verba descripta ; et Graecis litteris tramite expressa vicino. Aquila etiam et Symmachus, Septuaginta quoque et Theodotio suum ordinem tenent. Nonnulli vero libri, et maxime hi qui apud HebraBOS versu compositi sunt, tres alias editiones additas habent ; quam Quintam, et Sextam, et Septimam translatio- nem vocant, auctoritatem sine nominibus interpretum conse- quutas." S. Hieron, Opera^ Ed"". Benedic, tom. iv., col. 437. Secondly, the extract from the Septuagint is here quoted ex- actly as it is written in the Vatican copy, with the sole excep- tion of lioTL substituted for its equivalent otl. Thirdly, the final part of Aquila's translation of the verse, where it differs from the Septuagint, is transmitted to us in the same words by Eusebius : " hovXevaa^ rw KppatKW e^ AiyvTiTov ehoXeaa TOP vlov fxov e^ehwKev 6 A/rt'Xa?." Euseb, de Demon, Evang,, lib. ix., sec. 4. Fourthly, the representation in Greek cha- racters of the Hebrew verse referred to agrees, as far as Greek orthography admits, with the letters of the original text in its present state, except in the absence of the prefix to the last word ; a prefix which the context obliges us to treat as an unmeaning redundant, and whose omission, consequently, pro- duces no alteration in the sense of the passage. This much being premised, let us now compare the first column of the foregoing extracts, Xi vep laparjK ovea^rjov ov- fjLefijuLeapa'iiJL KapaOt pavi, with the Masoretic reading of the 12 ANALYSIS OF SUCCESSIVE CHANGES [Chap. I. same verse, KI NaHaR YiSUaUeL WalloHaBeHU WwMeMm?SRaYiM QaRaHThI LzBNI f and we ^haU find in like manner, as in my first example, an agreement in essentials, and difference only in matters of very inferior importance. The circumstance of Origen's pronouncing the second word as a monosyllable can be accounted for, by the facility with which two vowels of the same sound, with only a weak aspiration intervening, glide into one in the rapid utterance of ordinary reading ; whereas in the Masoretic pointing, which is adapted to the more solemn mode of recitation used in divine service, this word has pre- served its dissyllabic form. Besides this difference, some change of pronunciation is here presented to our notice in the interior parts of the words, but not in, what is the main thing to be considered, their inflexions. There is but one exception to this remark : it occurs in the instance of the preformative of HaliaB, which has been regularly vocalized by Origen with a short E, while the Masorets have substituted a long 0, to compensate for the weak power of the initial letter ; a sub- stitution not always adhered to by them in such cases, and which is of very little consequence, as having a reference merely to sound. In the entire passage there is but one inno- vation of theirs, or their predecessors, which has any effect on the sense ; namely, their vocalizing the conjunction Waw with an A^ when employed before a verb in a future form with an influence on the tense ; whereas, in whatever way it may be used, Origen is found to have constantly pronounced it Wu or Z7,^ not only here, but also in every other extant instance * If we should, in accordance with Origen's representation of the matter, omit the prefix to the last word of the Hebrew verse, then the Masoretic reading of this word would be lieNI, and would scarcely differ from his ex- pression of its sound. ^ Origen's mode of denoting the sounds Wu and U was of necessity the same; as Greek orthography admits of no way of expressing the semi-conso- nant W before U; and, consequently, he was compelled to represent each of the two sounds in question be the very same combination ov. For a like Chap. I.] IN THE PEONUNCIATION OF HEBREW. 13 of his expression of its sound by means of Greek letters.^ The distinction thus shown to have been introduced since his time cannot, upon the whole, be deemed injurious ; because, if the mode of applying it should give a wrong meaning to a passage, the context would clearly expose the mistake ; and, on the other hand, when rightly applied, it is of use, to the extent of pointing out to a reader the tense of a verb at once, and with- out the trouble of reflection. My last example shall be from the writings of Jerome. The fullest specimen I have met with, of his mode of reading Hebrew, occurs in an epistle he Avrote to Evangelius, a Pres- byter, on the subject of the different opinions that were formed respecting Melchizedek ; where, coming to that of the Jews, he says : " Ponam et Hebrseorum opinionem ; et ne quid desit curiositati, ipsa Hebraica verba subnectam." He then expresses the original words of Gen. xiv. 18-20, in Roman capitals, as follows : " umelchisedec meleC salem hosi le- HEM, VAIAIN, UHU CHOEN LEEL ELION : VAIBARCHEU, VAIOMER ; BARUCH ABRAM LEEL ELION CONE SAMAIM VAARES : UBARUCH reason he could make no distinction between the sounds Yi and /, but was obliged to denote both of them in common by the Greek vowel *. * The reader, on finding that the prefix Waw was formerly pronounced the same way in all its different applications, may perhaps be amused with the primitive origin, assigned by gramnaarians to the distinctive sound with which it is now uttered, when used as Waw conversive ofthefuture. " Ortum est hoc pra3fixum ex verbo substantive HIH, ita ut primitus piene dictum sit "nMl btD)T,/M^ (ut) interjiceret, dein n (quod etiam Syri in hoc vocabulo suppri- munt, jOCn) abjectum, et btD)7^ HI, ope Dagesch fortis conjunctivi, contrac- tum in btDpfV" Gesenii Lexicon Manuale Heb. et Chald. in loco. The evi- dence adduced in my text upon this subject plainly exposes the absurdity of the Rabinnical view of it here presented to us by Gesenius and adopted by him. But he betrays nearly as great a defect of judgment in his Syriac illustration of this view. For the linea occultans (warning the reader to avoid uttering the letters it is placed under), which his explanation requires us to suppose co- eval with Syriac writing, could not have been introduced into that writing till after the words of the language had undergone a considerable alteration of sound. 14 ANALYSIS OF SUCCESSIVE CHANGES [Chap. I. EL ELION, ESER MAGGEN SARACH BIADACH, VAIETHEN LO MAASER MECCHOL." S. Hieronymi Opera^ Ed. Benedict., torn, ii., col. 572. But the Masoretic reading of the same passage runs thus : Wt^MaLKISeDeQ MeLeK ShaLeM HOSIH LeHeM WaY- YiN, WeHUH KoHeN LeHeL HeLYON : WaYyeBaRgKeHU, WaYyoH- MaR; BaRUK H^BR^M LeHeL HeLYON QoNEH ShaMaYzM WaHa- ReS: WwBaRUK HeL HeLYON HaSheR M/GgeN SaREKa BeYaDKA.* WaYyzTteN LO MaHaSER MiKkoL. The Benedictine monk, Martianay, whose edition I am making use of, observes in a note upon Jerome^s reading of this passage, that he had found several corruptions of it in former printed editions, which he corrected from ancient ma- nuscripts ; the tendency of those corruptions being to approxi- mate the words to their Masoretic pronunciation.^ But no errors of a like nature can be supposed to have crept into the manuscript copies he consulted ; as they were produced in times when the study of Hebrew was very little attended to in the Western Church, and when, consequently, the repre- sentations made in them of Hebrew groups in Roman charac- ters were exposed only to ordinary faults of transcription, not affecting the vowels in particular, but leaving those letters as * The learned reader may perceive that, in the above word, I have omitted a sign, between d and k, for the Segol interposed by the Masorets on account of the pause immediately following ; and have preferred giving the reading of this compound, as it is in general pronounced, in order the more strongly to mark the distinction between the utterance of its final part after a singu- lar and after a plural noun. An instance occurs, in the note after next, of my taking the same liberty in my representation of the Masoretic reading of a like compound in another passage. In the pointed original the Segol is suf- ficiently distinct from the Seri ; but the difference could not easily be expressed in Roman letters. ^ The following is part of the note above referred to: "Nullum fere in hac pericope recitata extat verbum, quod non sit corruptum apud Erasmum et Marianum, et contra antiquorum patrum consuetudinem positum. Non enim exemplaria Hieronymi manuscripta sequenda sibi proponunt ; sed regu- las hodiernorum grammaticorum longe diversas ab usu veterum Hebrajorum atque ecclesiasticorum scriptorum." Chap. I.] IN THE PRONUNCIATION OF HEBREW. 15 little liable to alteration as the consonants. Of one vocalic corruption, however, in our editor's exhibition of the above reading, there can scarcely be a doubt ; though the proper mode of correcting it is not quite so certain. In the case of SARACH BiADACH, which Jeromc construes inimicos tuos in manu tua, the affix for the second person singular is made ach after the plural noun, the same as after the singular one ; al- though in another place he informs us that ach is not an affix to nouns in the plural number.* Perhaps the letter / dropped out of the first of those groups of capitals in the course of successive transcriptions, and that it was written by Jerome SARAICH : certainly, he has inserted a vowel for Yod^ when used as a mater lectionis, in every other place of its occurrence The passage of Jerome, above referred to, occurs in his commentary on Habakkuk, iii. 13, and is as follows: "Sciendum ^utem, ut supra dixi- mus, quod ubi posuerunt LXX. plurali numero, ut salvares Christos tuos, ibi esse in Hebraico LAIESUA ETH MESSIACH [in"^tt?D nS ^W'b, read by the Masorets LeYeShaH HeTh MeShlHKa]^ quod Aquila transtulit, in salutem cum Christo tuo."*' Hieronymi Opera, Ed. Benedict, torn, iii., col. 1633. The anti- thesis here drawn, in reference to the number of a noun, between its transla- tion in the Septuagint and Jerome's reading of it in the original, shows ACH in that reading to have been an affix for the singular number alone. With regard to the discrepance upon this point between the version of the LXX. and that of Aquila, I may here by anticipation observe, what would more regularly come under the head of the discovery unfolded in the ensuing chap- ters, that the Hebrew word to which those translators assigned different numbers, was written along with its affix, in the time of the older party, without any vowel-letter ^nt27^; which admitted of being read in either the plural or singular number, whichever the context should be deemed to re- quire. But after the introduction of matres lectionis into the sacred text, the omission of a Yod between the last two letters of this compound restricted its leading part to the singular number. Thus, Aquila's translation, in this as well as in other instances, got the credit of being the more literal one; whereas, in point of fact, it is here closer, not to the original text, but merely to the construction put upon that text by its first vocalizers : and the question still remains to be determined by the context, which rendering of the disputed compound is more correct, a question left entirely undecided in our Authorized Version, in which this combination is translated " thine anointed." 16 ANALYSIS OF SUCCESSIVE CHANGES [Chap. I. with that use, throughout the entire passage ; and, therefore, it is very unlikely that he should have omitted a sign for it here. It is, however, immaterial to ascertain what was exactly the termination of this group, as it came from his pen : it was, at all events, different from what it now is, and from that of the group next following it. If the emendation I have sug- gested be the correct one, then the pronunciation of the affix of the second person singular was, in his time, the same for the masculine, as it still is for the feminine gender after plural nouns ; and, at any rate, was very nearly so, after singular nouns f- whence it would appear that the distinction of gender at present applied to this case is of modern origin ; a con- clusion which is not only completely accordant with the un- pointed text, wherein no such distinction appears, but also is in part supported by even the Masoretic system, which attaches a common vocalization for both genders to the affix in ques- tion, when it is subjoined to verbs, or certain prepositions, at the close of a sentence. I should add, that the common read- ing of the affix retained by the Masorets for those peculiar situations, is precisely the same as was given to it by Jerome after nouns singular ; which shows that, even where the mo- dern pronunciation is different from the older one, it is still grounded thereon, and has been gradually thence derived. I may also observe of the innovation just discussed, as I have already done with respect to those previously brought under consideration, that the superfluously minute degree of dis- tinctness thereby introduced of marking the gender of prono- minal affixes for the second person, occasions no mischief; for, were it in any case erroneously applied, the context would at once enable a reader to detect the mistake. Before concluding my examination of Jerome^s mode of " The affix of the second person singular masculine in Jerome's time was after nouns singular, ACH, and, according to the above emendation, after nouns plural, AICH ; or, in my way of transcribing the same Hebrew syllables, oK and alK, respectively. But the corresponding affix for the feminine gender is at present, in the former site, eK, and in the latter, aXiK which would be more regularly sounded oTK. Chap. L] IN THE PRONUNCIATION OF HEBREW. 17 reading Hebrew, I have to remark that the old Latin power of V was that which we now connect with W: and althouo^h the change of this power had commenced before his time, yet there is no certainty of its having come into general use till a later period. It may, therefore, be inferred from this circum- stance, combined with his knowledge of Hebrew, that he em- ployed the character with its original phonetic value, as being the correct equivalent of that of 1, wdien used as a consonant. It should also be noticed that Greek still continued to be gene- rally spoken in the western parts of Asia, in the age when he visited Palestine ; and, consequently, it Avas in all probability through the medium of this language that he w^as taught He- brew by the Jews ; which accounts for his following the Gre- cian mode of expressing Hebrew words, in not using any sign for the consonantal part of the syllables Wu and Yi, and also in frequently omitting a letter with which Latin orthography supplied him for the Hebrew aspirates. Moreover Sh is not a Latin combination, and, therefore, he w^as precluded by Latin as well as Greek orthography from giving a just representation of the power of SIwi. By making due allowance for these particulars, we are led to two results. First, we shall find that, in all probability, Jerome's reading of Gen. xiv. 18-20, in the sacred text is, in the main, correctly preserved in the copy given of it in the Benedictine edition of his works : as the consonants, it is thus shown, certainly are so ; and there is no reason to suspect that the copyists were less careful in their transcription of the vowels, or that they dealt at all differently with the two sets of letters, in the case of words whose Hebrew originals where wholly unknown to them. Secondly, it will be hereby perceived, that the greater part of the difference between Jerome's reading of the passage in question and that of the Masorets is only apparent, and that the small portion of it which is real has, with the single exception of the peculiarity no- ticed respecting the pronominal affix for the second person sin- gular, a reference merely to euphony and to nice, but unneces- sary, distinctions of sound. In the Latin author's reading of this E 2 18 ANALYSIS OF SUCCESSIVE CHANGES [Chap. I. passage, the Masoretic form of the Waw conversive of the future begins to make its appearance, but is not there complete, as the duplication of the power of the following letter is still wanted ; also the Waw^ when used simply as a conjunction, is pronounced with other vowels besides U; but the distinction of uttering it with the last-mentioned vowel, only before labials or consonants sounded with a very short E, had not yet commenced. In short, there is in the case before us just enough of difference, in point of sound, to show that the Ma- soretic system was not established till after the age in which Jerome wrote f while there is none which affects the sense, as even the alteration with the notice of which I commenced the discussion of this example, does not at all influence the mean- ing, but merely tends to render the expression of it more defi- nite. All the other grammatical forms throughout the pas- sage, of which there are several both regular and irregular, are vocalized by him precisely as they might be at present ; nor do I make any abatement of this general assertion, either on account of his occasional omission of a letter to correspond with the sounded Shewa of the Masorets (which is now also slurred over, so as to be nearly imperceptible in familiar reci- tation), or for his reading the verb ]J^ after the pronoun governing it, in the infinitive instead of the preterite form ; as, although this anomaly has been avoided by the Masorets here, it is found in other parts of their pointing. The particulars in which the modern way of reading He- brew differs from that which prevailed in the age of Jerome, or from the methods used in still earlier times, I call Masore- tic innovations, because first committed to writing by the Ma- sorets, through the application of their points to the letters of the Hebrew text. But, from the strict attention of those cri- tics to fidelity of transcription, it is most likely that they did " The use of the above limit to the age of the Masoretic system is super- seded by the stricter one arrived at in a preceding part of this chapter: it, however, as far as it goes, agrees with and corroborates that closer limit. Chap. I.] IN THE PRONUNCIATION OF HEBREW. 19 not originate, but merely transmit, the innovations in ques- tion ; and that they conveyed the pronunciation of Hebrew with scrupulous care exactly as it existed in their days, the changes in the vocalic part of the words having gradually taken place, while as yet that part was, either not at all repre- sented with separate signs, or only very imperfectly denoted by letters. Even since their time some minor variations of the vowel sounds have crept into use ; but they are such as no kind of writing could prevent ; and if the previous greater alterations exerted no material influence on the grammatic structure of the language, of course the lesser ones could not seriously affect it. The ancient modes of pronunciation I have traced as far back as external evidence has enabled me to go, in order to show the real state of the case, but not with the slightest wish to revert to the use of any of them. In fact, as the Masoretic utterance of Hebrew substantially agrees with the older ways of pronouncing it, no advantage of importance could arise from going back to any such; while, on the other hand, great inconvenience would result from deviating in any respect from the at present received sounds of the words. In reading, therefore, even unpointed Hebrew, we still should do so according to rules deduced from the Masoretic system of punctuation ; but where points are known to have been in- serted with skilfulness and care, as in the case of the Bible, the use of a pointed text is to be preferred, as saving trouble ; only we are to bear in mind that the Masorets, though very useful, were not infallible commentators on that text ; and, consequently, when we meet with a sentence of obscure or dis- puted meaning, it is better to examine it divested of points ; a remark which, I may here by anticipation add, will be found equally to apply to the matres lectionis, after it shall have been proved that those letters do not, any more than the points, constitute part of the Hebrew Scriptures as originally written. From the investigation of the ancient modes of pronounc- ing Hebrew words, I naturally proceed to inquire into the ancient powers of the Hebrew letters, as far back as they have 20 ON THE EAKLIER CONSONANT POWERS [Chap. I. been looked upon and treated as consonants, or into the initial part of those powers, supposing them to have been at any time employed as syllabic signs. It is evident that, if the Old Tes- tament was originally written without any separate represen- tatives of vowels, whether letters or points, then, in order that the groups of characters should fully denote words, as they were obviously intended to do, their several elements must have been employed to express entire syllables, composed of consonants, and of the vowels with which the context and a knowledge of the language showed that those consonants were in each instance to be uttered. This state of the case, how- ever, it would be premature as yet to discuss ; and I shall for the present consider only the consonantal powers of the He- brew letters, as if from the very commencement the whole of the phonetic values of those characters what they certainly have been at as remote a period as it can be proved through external evidence that there were matres lectionis in the sacred text, that is, as far back, at any rate, as the days of Origen.^ But before entering on this inquiry I have to pre- mise that, while I hold in great estimation the vocalic part of the Masoretic system of punctuation, on which our know- ledge of the grammar of the language mainly depends, and which, in the comparatively few instances wherein it is erro- neously applied, furnishes itself the means of due correction, I do not at all value so highly that part of it which affects the powers of the consonants, or either part as employed in the pointing of foreign names or names of rare occurrence, but, in reference to these subjects, attach far greater weight to the evidence of the Jews who composed the Septuagint. In thus preferring the more ancient testimony I find myself supported to a certain extent by the example of the very learned framers of our Authorized English Version, who, though they wrote before the comparatively modern origin of the Hebrew points " The above point will be found proved fully in a subsequent chapter. Chap. I.] OF SOME OF THE HEBEEW LETTERS. 21 was completely established, have yet transcribed D^H^7D, for instance, after its Greek transcription c^vXiaTiei/uL, Pliilis- timSj'' rather than Felishtims, in accordance with the Masoretic reading of this name. It is, however, chiefly with a \dew to arriving at as correct a mode as I can get of transcribing He- brew groups denoting proper names, that I inquire into the more ancient consonantal powers of the characters. In regard to the mode of reading the general text of the sacred record, I would, with a single exception presently to be noticed, ad- here to the choice of powers assigned to its elements by the Masorets, as far as they have left us means of ascertaining that choice ; and where they have not, I would conform to the modern practice of the Jews, as far as it is consistent with itself, and not in other respects objectionable. But in those instances in which neither the testimony of the Seventy Jews nor that of the Masorets is sufficient for the precise determi- nation of consonantal powers, and in which the mutual disa- greements of the modern Jews prove them to be no longer known with exactness, as also in those in which double powers have been transmitted to us without any criterion whereby to ascertain which of them should in each instance be selected, in all such cases I make use of certain distinguishing marks ; since it is necessary to have some fixed standard of notation at least (where one of pronunciation cannot be obtained), for the sake of uniformity of transcription. The marks in ques- tion have been already employed in the volumes of an earlier work of mine ; but for the convenience of readers who may The above name is so written in the first edition ofKing James's Bible, though it came in later editions to be changed into Philistines^ by a latitude of choice which custom has permitted with regard to the terminations of words. A stricter transcription of the commencement of this name would have been Phylish; as the vowel at present inserted in the first syllable devi- ates unnecessarily from both Greek and Masoretic authority ; and with respect to the Hebrew sibilant tt?, its ancient power was always Sh^ though repre- sented in the Septuagint by a letter equivalent to S, merely because Greek orthography supplies no means of expressing the former power. 22 ON THE EARLIER CONSONANT POWERS [Chap. I. not have met with those volumes, their explanation is here repeated. The letters on which I have to offer remarks, fall under the heads of 1st, the gutturals, or rather the aspirates ; 2ndly, the quiescents ; 3rdly, those technically called Begad- kephath ; and, 4thly, the dentals, or rather the sibilants, of the Hebrew alphabet. 1. There are no less than four aspirates in Hebrew writing, which have been classed together by the Jewish grammarians under the denomination of gutturals, namely ^ (when treated as a consonant), H, H, andi/."" Their powers, taken in the same order, are denoted respectively in this work, by JT, ZT, H, and H; a notation which of course is not intended for popu- lar use, any more than the other specimens of peculiar mark- ing that follow, and which, even for the purposes of more accurate transcription to which it is applied, is adopted merely to distinguish those powers from each other, as different aspi- rations, the precise nature of three of which can now no longer be determined. The four letters are, however, known to have had a close affinity to each other, as they are frequently inter- changed in the Hebrew Scriptures. With respect to K, the circumstance of its being at present unsounded as a consonant does not at all bear out the prevailing opinion, that it was always the weakest of those so-called gutturals : it must, on the contrary, have been formerly uttered with a stronger aspi- ration than n ; since it is nowhere found changed or sup- pressed to prevent a hiatus, as H is. Thus, for instance, ^^1, HaYaH, when inflected for the third person singular femi- nine, and the third person plural, of the preterite tense, be- comes tltVtlj HaYeTAaH, and 1^1, HaYU ; while, on the other hand, ^V^, MaSaH, in the corresponding inflexions, retains its third radical, and is written n^)iD^ MaSeHH, and 1*^^^, MaSeHU. In regard to the two last letters of this class, H and i^. * n and V are sometimes uttered with guttural powers blended with their respective aspirations; which was probably the cause of all the four letters above considered being ranked in the class of gutturals. Chap. I.] OF SOME OF THE HEBEEW LETTERS. 23 they appear to have become, each of them, diaphonous, before the Septuagint was written, and to have been uttered either with simple aspirations of some kind or other, or with such aspirations compounded, for the former letter, with the power of /r, and for the latter with that of G. As examples of their simpler powers we find mn, HeWaH, and T^^H, HeNOK, repre- sented in the Greek version of the Seventy by Eua and Ei/^x, also ^W^ HeSaW, and y'^V i HaMaLeK, by Haav and AfjLoXrjK ; and as examples of their compound powers, we have DH, HaM, and /ni, RaHeL, expressed by Xa/m and Pa^T/A, also nWj JHaZaH, and nniO;;, HoMoRraH, by Ta^a and TojULoppa,^ The possession, I may here by the way observe, of double powers by characters is one of the grossest faults to which they are liable as phonetic signs ; since it not only is pro- ductive of much inconvenience, but also frequently misleads. Admitting, then, the first alphabet to have been derived im- mediately from inspiration, it can hardly be conceived to have contained diaphones in its original state. Though proceeding directly from a divine source, it may, indeed, like the exter- nal benefits that are conferred through natural means, have been given in a rude, imperfect condition, for the purpose of inciting man to exertion, room being afibrded for its improve- ment through diligence and care as well as for its deterioration through indolence and neglect. Derived, then, from this source, it may be conceded to have had in its primitive con- struction, wants and faults of defect, but not faults of a posi- tively vicious nature, such as diaphones undoubtedly are.^ This ^ The character % is equivalent to an aspirated K; but the Greek alphabet supplies no representative of an aspirated 7. The circumstance, therefore, of the Seventy Jews sometimes denoting the power of the fourth element of the class under consideration by simply a gamma is to be attributed merely to a defect of Grecian orthography, and does not tell against the Shemitic evidence which shows that the Hebrew letter always includes an aspiration in its pho- netic value. ^ The Arabians, whose alphabet is, through the medium of the Syriac one, derived from that of the Jews, have corrected the diaphonism of the above 24 REMARKS ON THE VOCAL VALUES [Chap. 1. conclusion, however, rests only on probable grounds, and the full establishment of its truth is by no means essential to the support of my views ; it is at least unlikely that the two let- ters above referred to were invested at first with more than one phonetic value each ; but we are unable to trace with cer- tainty the nature of their powers farther back than the date of the Septuagint, since which epoch they have beyond all ques- tion been diaphones. 2. Of the four quiescents, ^, H, 1, '^, the second alone is ever naturally so, namely, at the end of syllables, when, like our H^ to which it is equivalent, its power is not rendered per- ceptible in utterance except in a few instances, the other three are, contrary to their nature, degraded to the rank of mutes in places where in reality they were formerly employed as vowel-letters, and still constitute the matres lectionis of the unpointed text, the Masorets having put them to silence in such situations, in order to avoid the confusion that would arise from the simultaneous use of two systems of vocali- zation which do not always agree mth each other in their application to the Hebrew Scriptures. This mode of dealing with the earlier system, I may here by the way remark, is evidently unwarranted, except on the supposition of that sys- tem being, just as much as the later one, the mere work of uninspired men. But the grammarians, after the time of the Masorets, went a step farther, which can on no ground be jus- tified ; and with a view to concealing this treatment of what they conceived to be genuine elements of the original text of noticed letters by distinguishing each with diacritical points into two ; both their Hha and Kha (denoted respectively by ^ and ^) being descended from the Hebrew Heth^ and also their Ain and Ghain (denoted by J;_and g- ) hav- ing in like manner sprung from the Hayin. As to the triple phonetic value which the Jews at present attach to this last-mentioned letter, of gn in the beginning, h in the middle, and ng at the end of a word, it is not at all war- ranted, either by the modern use of the corresponding element of any of the kinds of writing belonging to the cognate dialects, or by the ancient testimony of the Septuagint. Chap. I.] OF CERTAIN HEBREW LETTERS. 25 the Bible, as well as for the purpose of more completely pre- venting the disturbing eiFects of those letters on the Masoretic pointing, feigned them to be consonants in the sites in ques- tion, as they certainly are everywhere else, but still consonants there divested of their powers f a fiction which, on the face of it, betrays gross improbability, and imposes on no one who can read the unpointed text. Neither have the later gram- marians altogether abstained from misrepresentation on this subject. Thus, while Gesenius (in section 7 of Conant's transla- tion of his Grammar) admits that Halepli^ Yod, SindWatu were, before the Hebrew Bible came to be pointed, occasionally diverted from their appropriate use as consonants to that of denotino; vowels, he endeavours to account for the number of letters so applied being limited to three, by maintaining that of the five sounds contained in the common scale of vowels only three are in strictness vowels, the other two being diph- thongs ; a position which he defends chiefly on the authority of the Sanscrit system of orthography, in which the sound E is represented as composed of those of A and/, and the sound 0, of those of A and U, But the two sounds thus deducted from the five are clearly not diphthongal or less simple than any of the other three ;^ and the attempt made by this author to ex- "* Another motive of the grammarians in maintaining that the characters silenced by them in the middle of syllables were consonants, and denying the existence of any vowel-letters among the elements of the sacred text, may have been the desire to make out a necessity for the use of the Hebrew points in that text from the time when it was first written. But on this sub- ject, mere reasoning cannot outweigh the force of testimony; and the latter species of proof decidedly forbids the concession of such great antiquity to those points. ^ When there exists any composition in a vocalic sound, its want of sim- plicity can be shown by a prolongation of its utterance, which is thus found to terminate in the final, separated from the initial part of the compound. In this manner composition can sometimes be detected, where it is not exhibited in the writing. Thus, for instance, the English sound of /is in reality a diph- thong terminating in a pure /, which is in English orthography written ^^; and, accordingly, if an Englishman pronounces /with a lengthened utterance, he unavoidably gets into a continuous sound which he would, in his mode of 26 KEMARKS ON THE VOCAL VALUES. [Chap. 1. tend the application of a false principle of the Sanscrit system of vocalization to that of the Hebrew vowel-letters can hardly be ascribed to any other motive than a design of reducing the latter system to a derivative from the former one, and thereby giving countenance to the delusion at present so popular of the Sanscrit alphabet being of enormous antiquity. He, indeed, in further support of the above position, appeals also to the example of the French, who, in their written language, read the combination of A and / as E, and that of A and U as O. But the connexion between the orthography and pronuncia- tion of the French language is extremely capricious, and to such an extent subject to this charge in the adduced instances, that Frenchmen never undertake a formal vindication of them by attempting to resolve the sound of ^ into those of ^ and /, or the sound of into those of A and JJ; resolutions which the Brahmans affect to make only through sheer ignorance of the subject. As to his examples of the Hebrew preposition I'^n, BEN, ' between,' and the Hebrew noun 01^ yom, '- sl day,' being pronounced respectively in Arabic baina and yaum, they afford him no aid whatever ; as they are not specimens of the asserted transitions of sound occurring in Hebrew considered by itself, but merely in Hebrew compared with one of the kindred dialects. But the strangest point connected with his writing, denote by the combination EE, repeated a greater or less number of times, in proportion as he wishes to represent the time of the continued ut- terance longer or shorter. On the other hand, a combination of letters appa- rently expressing a diphthong may in reality denote a simple uncompounded vowel. Thus A Vis, in English orthography, equivalent to A used with one of its pure open values, and therefore can be pronounced continuously for any length of time without the slightest alteration of its sound : it may also be treated in like manner with just a similar result in French writing, in which it is equivalent to a pure open 0; but if in German, wherein it is equivalent to OU in English, its pronuhciation be continued beyond a second, the sound of it is changed to that of a pure ?7, written in English 00 \ and to renew its original sound, the speaker must break off the drawl and recommence his enunciation of that sound. If this criterion be applied to the open sounds of E and the sounds above referred to as examined by Gesenius they will be found as simple and devoid of composition as any of the other vowels. Chap. I.] OF CERTAIN HEBREW LETTERS. 27 argument is that, immediately after venturing upon the account of the matter whose fallacy has been just exposed, he notices the very circumstance which furnishes the true reason of there being no more than three matres lectionis in unpointed He- brew writing ; namely, that Yod is therein used indiiFerently to represent either /or E, and Waw^ in like manner, to denote either Z7or 0. In fact, the paucity of these clumsy substitutes for vowel-letters is not to be attributed to a limitation of the number of primary vowel-sounds that is quite imaginary, but to the rude simplicity and imperfection of the attempt made by Shemitic nations to express those sounds by means of let- ters a rudeness and imperfection that may be observed in their use of alphabetic writing even up to the present day. Another position of modern date, which appears to be equally unsound, though not so from any intentional fallacy on the part of its advocates, is that the vocal values oiHaleph^ Yod, and Waw, have sprung from the softened consonantal powers of those letters. How the vowel A could ever have been conceived to be derived from the softening of any modi- fication of ZT power, it is not very easy to understand : it might possibly have been deduced from the vowel-sound in the first syllable of the name {Haleph) with which the letter express- ing one of the modifications in question happens to be desig- nated in the Hebrew alphabet, but certainly not from any state, whether hardened or softened, of that modification itself. As to Yod and Waw, they are, though usually termed conso- nants, in strictness but semi-consonants ; so that the vowels / and ?7might possibly be derived respectively from their powers ; not, however, from those powers softened, but decomposed. For, if / preceding any vowel different from itself, as for in- stance A, should, therewith united, be contracted in utterance into a single syllable, the resulting sound would be that of YA ; and, consequently, YA could in turn be resolved by diaeresis into the vowels / and A : and through a similar process WA could be decomposed into ZJand A, From what source the vocal uses of the matres lectionis were actually derived, it 28 REMAKKS ON THE VOCAL VALUES [Chap. I. would be premature as yet to inquire ; since I am here treat- ing of them in accordance with, or at least without question- ing, the at present received opinion, that they are, in such application of them, coeval with the other elements of the sa- cred text, and that the Hebrew alphabet was from the first composition of that text employed as a system of consonants and vowel-letters. With respect to the phonetic values of Yod and Waw consonants, the former was at first denoted in Eng- lish transcriptions of Hebrew names by /, and afterwards, for the sake of distinguishing between the consonant and vowel, by /; but since the time that / has been corrupted among us into an equivalent of soft (?, it has become requisite still fur- ther to change the representative character into Y. On the other hand, the latter value has (probably on account of the difficulty of pronouncing TF immediately after some vowels, more especially after /) had its Enghsh indicator very gene- rally altered from W to V; but still it is useful to bear in mind the older power, for the preservation, as far as it is within our reach, of the correct sounds of ancient proper names, as well as to enable the reader to perceive the con- nexion between the vocal and consonantal values of the He- brew letter referred to. Wherever in an unpointed edition of the Hebrew Scrip- tures the Halepli^ Yod, and Waw are known with certainty to be used as vowel-signs, and should, according to a just appli- cation of the Masoretic theory, be treated as quiescents, they are, in the quotations in this work of the words they occur in, printed in an open type, ^, '^, 1, to distinguish them from the same letters when employed as consonants, a distinction which is sufficiently indicated in correctly pointed writing without the aid of this contrivance, but where there is the least room for doubting in which way they are used, they are exhibited in black lines, K, "^, 1, like the other elements of the Hebrew text. Great mischief has resulted from the employ- ment hitherto of the latter set of characters with two such very difibrent uses ; and even the Masorets, though complete mas- Chap. I.] OF CERTAIN HEBREW LETTERS. 29 ters of the language, will be shown in the ensuing investigation to have, in the case of rare and foreign names, committed nu- merous mistakes in pointing these letters, where they should, according to their own theory, have been left quiescent, and again in failing to point them, where they ought to have been dealt Avith as sounded consonants. Such readers as agree with me in the inference I have, in the course of my observa- tions on the aspirates, drawn from the divine origin of the Hebrew alphabet, with respect to the original powers of its elements, will perceive in the evils thus resulting from the extreme diaphonism of the above three letters^ good reason for suspecting their genuineness when employed as vowel-signs. I do not, however, wish to dwell on this first indication of the spurious nature of the matres lectionis ; as abundance of stronger and more direct grounds for rejecting them as origi- nal ingredients of the sacred text will be given in subsequent chapters ; besides that my present object is to treat of the vowel-sounds occasionally attached to the characters in ques- tion, without yet entering into the inquiry, whether they can, when invested with this secondary set of phonetic values, be included among the series of letters actually employed by the inspired penmen. 3. Although the six letters technically called Begad-keplu ath^ 3, J, 1, D, D, n, are at present invested with the double powers denoted respectively by b, g, d, k, p, t, and by the same letters aspirated, the last two are known to a certainty to have had in former times but single phonetic values ; and, therefore, the probability is that none of the rest originally had more. This argument, however, from analogy for the primitive sin- gleness of the powers of the first four letters of the class, is put forward only in the absence of all ancient testimony on either * F is used with the ambiguity of a mater lecticnis in English orthogra- phy; but no evil consequence thence arises, as its position sufficiently indi- cates its phonetic value, it being always employed in that orthography as a consonant in the beginning of a syllable, and as a vowel-letter in the middle or end of one. 30 ON THE EARLIEK CONSONANT POWERS [Chap. I. side of the question, and cannot, I admit, be relied on with any degree of confidence. But, with regard to D and )1, the evidence is perfectly clear. Thus, J /D, Gen. x. 25, and t1^r\, Ezek. viii. 14, read by the Masorets VeLeG and TaMmUZ, have been transcribed in the Septuagint (paXey or ^oXe/r, and 0a/x- juLov^ ; and D and H were confined to their original powers of Ph and Th as late at all events as the age of Jerome, who ex- pressly tells us in his commentary on Isaiah, that there was no letter of P power in the Hebrew system,^ and states when com- menting on Ezekiel, in reference to the second example, that the Hebrew pronunciation of its initial character was Th} In the transcription, therefore, of Hebrew names, I employ solely Ph"^ and Th as the respective equivalents of those two letters ; and, on the point which is uncertain with regard to the other four ingredients of the class, H, J, 1, D, availing myself of the latitude of selection which fairly arises from that uncertainty, I assign to them also but single powers, namely, the un aspi- rated values which are, in English pronunciation, attached to their respective derivatives, B, G, D, K. But, in reference to the use of the same letters in the general text of the Hebrew Scriptures in which the Masoretic pointing could not be now altered without great trouble, I do not provided it be borne in mind that the application of the double powers is, certainly in the instance of two of those letters, and very possibly in * " P litteram sermo Hebraicus non habet ; sed pro ea Phi Graeco uti- tur." Opera Hieronymi, Ed. Benedict., torn, iii., col. 24. ^ ** quem nos Adonidem interpretati sumus, et Hebragus et Syrus sermo Thamuz vocat." Opera Hieronymi, Ed Benedict., torn, iii., col. 750. *= The ancient and modern powers of the combination P^ are different: the former probably approached near to that of Xfj, which is the aspirate of Xf (p) in the Sanscrit system ; while the latter value of the same combina- tion is identical with that of P, and, therefore, would be more correctly represented by Vh than Ph; as F is the aspirate, not of P, but of V. I do not, however, make this observation with any desire of getting the ancient power of P^ restored, which would be a vain attempt; but merely with a view to justify the classification made by the Hebrew grammarians of the letter Q as a labial when used with either of the powers they assign to it. Chap. I.] OF SOME OF THE HEBREW LETTERS. 31 that of all of them, an innovation on the ancient mode of read- ing see any objection to retaining this distinction ; as it re- lates only to niceties of pronunciation which have no bearing whatever on the sense of Scripture ; and as the diaphonism it introduces, extending no farther than the exchange of powers closely connected, is not calculated to produce any confusion of sounds. Neither do I object to the modern exponents of the aspirated consonantal values of the six letters, except to that of the first of them, which was till of late years repre- sented by Bh^ but at present is by F, a letter whose modern power is totally different from that oiB^^ and such as no aspi- ration of B could possibly produce. The attaching to H so gross a diaphonism leads to the double evil of confounding its power frequently with that of 1, and breaking off the connexion that subsists in phonetic value between it and B : for, no mat- ter what efforts we may make, we can articulate the latter character only with a certain power, or, at any rate, mth but a very slight variation of that power ; and, consequently, if the former character be uttered with quite a different articula- tion, it must cease to be viewed, even in thought, as the pro- totype of the Roman letter. A modern Greek, indeed, who attaches to the second letter of his alphabet the same power that we do to FJ can very consistently pronounce 1 with the modern consonantal value of Vi so one person may correctly read the Hebrew letter in question as B^ and another as V\ but neither party has a right to pronounce it in both ways, and thus throw upon the Hebrew alphabet the discredit of a gross fault which cannot be justly imputed to that system of letters. Of course it would be requisite, for the purpose of holding personal intercourse with the Jews, to make ourselves * The consonants 2 and 1 are ranked by Hebrew grammarians in the same class, namely that of labials: and they certainly are to this extent con- nected, as long as the latter of them is used with its IFvalue, or the ancient power of V: but when 1 is employed, as it now is in general, with the modern value of V, it is no longer a pure labial, but chiefly a dental, and becomes wholly unconnected in power with 3. F 32 SOME ILLUSTRATION OF THE EVIL [Chap. I. acquainted with the present corrupt Rabbinical mode of speak- ing Hebrew, just as it is necessary to learn the peculiarities of Romaic pronunciation in order to be able to converse with the modern Greeks. But, as no classical scholar would allow him- self to be guided by the latter authority in his mode of reading ancient Grecian authors, so neither should the Hebraist be directed by the former, in his pronunciation of Scriptural He- brew. In the case of the letter Hayin^ the pronunciation of the Rabbins has been very generally and very justly aban- doned ; surely, then, we are at least equally warranted, in that of Beth^ to avoid an innovation introduced at a still later pe- riod by the same party, and attended with more injurious effects. 4. The Hebrew sibilants, T, D, V, t^*,^ are, in my represen- tation of the sounds of ancient names, transcribed respectively Z^ S, aS', Sh. The power of the third is usually Avritten TS; and very possibly some approach to it may be made by utter- ing the letters T and S together, in like manner as the simple articulation of Z is in some measure similar to that produced by pronouncing D in connexion with and immediately before S. But the Jews do not, except in the case of the aspirates n and I/, appear to have made use of any complex articula- tions : even BE, whose power is as easily articulated as any other composite one, is uttered by them with an intervening Shewa, whereby is indicated their severance of the compound into its simple phonetic elements. As, then, DS would be an inaccurate exponent of the power of the first Hebrew sibilant, because of its implying some composition therein, so for like reason TS is not a correct representative of that of the third. The English alphabet supplies the letter Z to express the for- mer simple consonantal value, but none to denote the latter ; The sibilants, or consonants whose phonetic values are modifications of S power, are called by the Hebrew grammarians Dentals. But this is a wrong designation of them, as it includes too much. For instance, the letter \ when used with its modern consonantal power, is chiefly, or at least partly a dental, though it has no connexion whatever with the class of letters here referred to. Chap. I.] EFFECTS OF THE DIAPHONISM OF tL\ 33 and, therefore, I venture to write it S. At the same time I admit that, in works intended for popular use, wherein the employment of peculiar signs is not allowable, it would be better, in accordance with the practice of the framers of our Authorized Version of the Bible, to transcribe the third He- brew sibilant indiiferently either S or Z, as it appears to be intermediate in power between those two letters. The simple power of the fourth Hebrew sibilant I represent by the com- bination of letters Sh, in like manner as I denote the ancient consonantal values, though simple, of ^ and il by Fh and Th ; because the eye of the English reader is accustomed to these combinations as the exponents of certain simple powers. But the second of the combined letters is, in each instance, uni- formly printed in the ordinary Roman type, for the same rea- son that, in the case of a Hebrew character being dageshed^ or marked for double utterance, the second sign of its power is likewise, according to my plan of notation, exhibited in this form ; namely, in order to keep the number of capitals iden- tical with that of the elements of the original group. The Seventy Jews, in their transcriptions of Hebrew names, have represented the fourth sibilant by the Greek letter of /S power; but upon this point the original is evidently entitled to greater attention than even its very best version ; more especially as the discrepance here noticed can be easily accounted for by a defect of the alphabet with which that version is written. When, however, a name containing the Hebrew sibilant in question is transcribed in the Greek Testament, I feel myself warranted by the inspired authority of that portion of the original Scriptures to exhibit it, as far as regards this sibi- lant, in the way most familiar to the English reader. Thus, for instance, though I am compelled by my method to give YeRUShaLeM as the immediate transcription of the Hebrew group D7t^'i")\ yet I would drop the li in the ordinary expres- sion of this name, and ^vrite it Yerusalem, The letter ti^ was diaphonous as long ago as the time of the Masorets, and has remained so ever since, being at present F 2 34 SOME ILLUSTRATION OF THE EVIL [Chap. I. treated as equivalent, not only to Sh, but also to S, which is the proper power of a different Hebrew letter ; but it was at first invested solely with the former consonantal value, and did not acquire the latter, that of Samek^ till at any rate after the Book of Judges was written, as is clearly shown by the pas- sage xii. 6, of that book. For the groups TOI'^ (tr2BboLeTh) and Tt/HD (o^BboLeTh) are therein represented as quite dis- tinct in sound, though they differ only by the two letters in question ; and, consequently, those letters could not then, as now, have been sometimes employed to denote the very same articulation. This singleness of the power of ^ must have continued at all events down to the age of Jerome, who de- clares in his commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to Titus, that while Latin and Greek in common possessed but one letter of >S power, there were in Hebrew no less than three, representing modifications of this power which are different from each other, namely Samec\ Sade, and Sin.^ It is obvious that he could not have represented in so unqualified a manner the powers of J^ and D as different, if those powers were in his time, as at present, occasionally identical. Besides, it may be remarked, Shin in Syriac writing continues to this day restricted to the original power of the letter ; a power which neither Greek nor Latin orthography enabled Jerome to express, but which is appropriately denoted by the English combination aSA, or the German one Sch; and it is further to be noticed that, where Shin is now uttered in a Hebrew group with the articulation of aS, and the sound of the word in which it occurs is the same in Syriac, in such cases the letter Samek is employed instead of it, in the derivative writing. Thus, for instance, the proper names, Sarah, Esau, and Israel, are pronounced in Hebrew, as well as in Syriac, with the power of aS (not with that oiSh) ; but while that articulation is now denoted in the three Hebrew a nos et Graeci unam tantum litteram S habemus, illi vero tres Sa- mech, Sade, et Sin; quaj diversos sonos possident." Ilieronymi Opera, Ed". Benedict., torn, iv., col. 437. Chap. I.] EFFECTS OF THE DIAPHONISM OF ^. 35 groups by Shin^ it is expressed by Samek in the corresponding Syriac ones/ Hence it is most likely that the Hebrew copy- ists, in times very remote but subsequent to the period when the S}T:*iac version was ^ratten, substituted inadvertently Shin for Samek in some instances,^ in like manner as they are well known to have occasionally interchanged other cognate letters ; and that afterwards, in the case of the two under considera- tion, they extended this accidental substitution, so as to ren- der the spelling of the words it had partly affected, uniform throughout. Now, although the changes of pronunciation, previously noticed, may be acquiesced in, as relating solely to phonetic distinctions that have no bearing on the sense of Scripture, yet we would not, 1 submit, be warranted in so dealing with the one here brought under consideration, which seriously alters the meaning of passages ; besides that it pro- duces unnecessary confusion in the unpointed text, while even a The above observation may be verified by appellative words as well as by proper names, and extends in a great measure to the Chaldee as well as the Syriac dialect. Thus ^27, the Hebrew for a gray-headed or old man, is read SaB, instead of ShaB, while this same word is written in Syriac (*nCY), and in Chaldee HD, or emphatically MDD. Again, J^Hti?, ' was satiated,' is pro- nounced as a Hebrew verb SaBaH instead of ShaBaH ; but it is written, in accordance with this pronunciation, in Syriac MClCD, and in Chaldee 3?I3D. Again, S227 (or TllVO) ' was increased,' is pronounced in Hebrew SaGaH in- stead of ShaGaH ; but it is written in Syriac i-if-^? and in Chaldee either N:iD or S2tt7. Again, "f^.tJ?, ' a branch,' is pronounced in Hebrew SOK instead of ShOK ; but it is written in Syriac |ociCO, and in Chaldee "f^D, or empha- tically either S^'iD or WD'itt;. This rule holds always in Syriac, and for the most part in Chaldee; as is admitted in the Manual Lexicon of Gesenius in the following sentence, which occurs in his initial observations upon the letter in question : " Pro Hebrgeo W Chaldaei plerumque, Syri (utpote littera Sin carentes) semper substituunt D." ^ When the reader comes to examine what is stated in the next chapter respecting the designation of Sarah, the wife of the great progenitor of the Jews, he may perhaps be led to suspect that the substitution above discussed was intentional rather than accidental, and had its origin in the desire to con- ceal the circumstance that the first form of her name signified ' an emigrant,' and that it was only the second form of it which denoted ' a princess.' 36 SOME ILLUSTEATION OF THE EVIL [Chap. I. in the case of pointed books the Masorets have not, with all their skill and carefulness, been able to remedy the entire of the evils thence resulting. To illustrate some of those evils a single Hebrew word will suffice, though I must, for the sake of brevity, confine myself to but a few instances of the misin- terpretation of it which have been thus occasioned. The acknowledged significations of the root ")D, when vocahzed with a Waw between its elements, and pronounced SUR, are, to depart from^ to turn aside (that is, depart from the high way); or, if followed by the particle 7^^, to turn aside into some habitation, or unto some person to receive from him the ser- vices of hospitality ; or, if ^vritten without the intervening vowel-letter, and pronounced SaR, contumacious^ degenerate ; all which meanings are more or less connected with each other. But besides these significations, the context, corroborated by ancient testimony, sometimes requires others including the idea of command or power; which, notwithstanding, are re- jected by the Eabbins, with the view of upholding the perfect correctness of the Hebrew text in various places in which the word of this sound is, for the latter class of significations, now written with Shin instead of Samek as its initial element. Let us try, then, whether they have not, by such rejection, actually corrupted the sense of Scripture, in some passages in which the substitution in question happens to have been overlooked, and this root has been sufi'ered to remain still commencing with a Samek, 1. AVhen Agag was brought before Samuel for instant exe- cution, 1 Sam. XV. 32, and approached him ' delicately,' as is stated in the authorized English version, or ' trembling,' according to the Septuagint and Vulgate, the terrified culprit, in the presence of the indignant prophet ready with a drawn sword to hew him in pieces, uttered an exclamation in which the word under discussion occurs, and which our translators have, in compliance with received opinion, construed " Surely the bitterness of death is past ;" a speech of defiance utterly inconsistent with the position in which Agag stood. But if Chap. 1.] EFFECTS OF THE DIAPHONISM OF ^, 37 *1D be here rendered, " is overpowering," the expression of his feelings will be quite in keeping with the rest of the nar- rative. But, however imperatively this correction may be demanded by the context, I still should not venture to bring it forward, if it had not the support of ancient testimony. This support, I admit, is not as powerful as I usually adduce, in consequence of some mutilation of the evidence of my princi- pal witnesses ; yet still it is, I submit, entitled to considerable weight. But to enable the reader to form his own judgment on this point, I here place before him the original exclamation and its oldest Greek, Syriac, and Chaldee renderings, as they at present stand, with the literal meaning of each subjoined to it. Original text^ m^n "ID ID ]2.^ Surely, predominating [or has predominated] the bitterness of death. Septuagint El [potius Al'^] ovtw TriKpo^ 6 Oavaro^. If [or, rather, alas!] thus bitter is death. Peshitah U^^^ i-p^ A-il^^^ Surely, bitter is death. Targum of Jonathan i^niD nnD- ^iini ,^;;n2 With entreaty, my Lord, oh the bitterness of death. When the reader examines the meaning of the first two ad- duced translations of this passage, he will see that ID was omitted in the Hebrew copies consulted by the framers of the Septuagint and Peshitah an omission that may possibly have been occasioned by the similarity of this and the short word * The above extract, I may here by anticipation observe, is in the strictest sense a part of the original text; for there is not a single vowel-letter in the entire exclamation, and it is in this respect written in the very way in which, as I hope to satisfy the reader in subsequent chapters, the whole of the sacred text was originally composed. ^ The above correction of the Greek passage has been suggested to me by comparing it with the original Hebrew, by which means it may be perceived that, in former times, when the words of the sacred text were not separated from each other, as now, by intervening vacancies, the Seventy Jews mistook the last two letters of "JDM for a word which is by itself equivalent to the 38 SOME ILLUSTRATION OF THE EVIL [Chap. I. next following. The Greek and Syriac renderings, therefore, of the clause have no direct bearing on the question at issue, nor even an indirect one, except inasmuch as they give a dolefal rather than a triumphant turn to the exclamation of the captive king. But the Chaldee translation of the same passage affords strong evidence in favour of my view of the subject : it is looser, indeed, than the preceding ones, and par- takes more of the nature of a paraphrase, in which the dis- jointed state of the ingredients of the sentence serves to por- tray in a very striking light the agitation of Agag's feelings ; but still we are bound to attend to its substance, though not attaching much importance to its form. Now here the origi- nal word in question is rendered by an expression ("^^121, my Lord) which clearly includes in its meaning the idea of mas- tery or dominion ; and as "ID admits of being used not only as a noun, but also as a verb or participle, its Chaldee translation may be put in either of the latter forms of construction, and then fully bears out the sense I have assigned to it in this place. We thus find that the exclusion of this word from any meaning connected with the ideas of rank or power, in order to justify the denoting of its sound for such meanings by the group ns^, is a rabbinical conceit that it did not arise till after the first part of the Targum of Jonathan had been written. 2. Let us look to the excuse of Ahimelech to Saul for having given the shew-bread and a sword to David, n'^^n inm ,]f2^: .nH^ t^^-^ ^^^ '^^^ which is rendered in our Authorized Version : " And who is so Greek adverb ovtw ; and that, consequently, they must have looked on its first letter S, Ha, as also constituting a complete word. But what that word could have been, except the interjection expressive of violent emotion which is common to most languages, and is written Ac in Greek and Ah/ in English, I am unable to conceive. I admit, however, that no such interjection has been noticed and recorded by the Hebrew grammarians ; and I propose my Greek emendation only as a conjectural one, which may perhaps be interest- ing in itself to some scholars, but on which I lay no stress in relation to my argument. Chap. I.] EFFECTS OF THE DIAPHONISM OF tT. 39 faithful among all thy servants as David, which is the king's son-in-law, and goeth at thy bidding, and is honourable in thine house ?" 1 Sam. xxii. 14. If ^ID be confined in this passage to the class of its acknowledged meanings, the clause wherein it occurs, and in which it is followed by the particle 7^^, should be literally translated, " and turneth in to reside (not with thee or in thy house, but) in thy bidding," words of which it would be very difficult to make any sense. Our English translators, therefore, as they followed the received notions on the subject, were compelled to adopt a very loose render- ing of this clause "and goeth at thy bidding;" in taking which liberty, however, with the original, they were, I ad- mit, countenanced by the framers of the Peshitah, who with still greater looseness have construed the same expression 5^-i-3j-oa) i-feJo, 'and observing thy commands.' But if "ID be here translated ' a prince,' the propriety and force of Ahime- lech's defence will be at once made conspicuous, by the gra- dual ascent, in point of dignity, of the attributes with which he invests the character of David ; and the meaning of the whole passage can thereby, without any necessity for para- phrase, be given strictly as follows : " And who among all thy servants is as David, faithful, and a son-in-law of the king, and a prince at thy command, and one to be honoured in thy house?" a rendering which agrees word for word with that transmitted to us in the Septuagint : Kal rl? Iv Trdai to?? Eou- \oL9 GOV 0)9 Aavlhj TTfo-To?, Kul yajuL^po^ rov paaiXew^j Kal apj^^ujv 7rai/T09 TrapayyeXjULaro^ aov, Kal evho^o? ev rw olku) gov) After the complete vindication thus afforded by the Seventy Jews of my interpretation of ID in the original passage, it is scarcely requisite to add that in the Targum of Jonathan this word is here rendered 2"), which usually means ' a preceptor,' but may also signify ' a master,' or ' Lord,' a more appropriate, title to enter into the description of David ; and so we find here likewise supplied the attestation of the author of this an- cient paraphrase, that the Hebrew term before us, though not made to commence with a SUn^ must still be understood to 40 SOME ILLUSTRATION OF THE EVIL [Chap. I. have a reference to authority or rank, whenever the context requires the application to it of any such meaning. 3. Having so far ilhistrated my position, I select Hos. iv. 17, 18, as a third example, not only for a further confirmation of what I have already laid down upon the subject, but also with a view to try to extricate from extreme obscurity a sen- tence which, I will venture to assert, has been misunderstood by every modern expositor. If I succeed in this effort, I trust I shall be enabled by the aid of my discovery to clear up, in a subsequent chapter, the remaining difficulties, and remove the apparent incoherencies of a much longer passage comprehending the one now under consideration, and so to exhibit the whole in a clear, intelligible light, without a single alteration of the original Hebrew text, except that of supply- ing a letter which can be clearly proved to have dropped thence, both by the context and the united evidence of the Septuagint and the Peshitah. In the shorter sentence above specified, and of which only a part is at present to be ex- amined, the prophet upbraids the Israelites with their vices, speaking of them figuratively in the singular number, under the designation and character of an individual, the progenitor of their principal tribe. This much is rendered in the Autho- rized English version as follows : "Ephraim is joined to idols; let him alone : their drink is sour ; " or, according to the marginal note, " their drink is gone." The original words of the last clause are D^^I1D *)D, of which the second may be read and construed, 1st, SoBHaM, 'their drink,' or their 'drink- ing ;' 2ndly, SoBeRiM. 'drinkers,' or 'drunkards ;' 3rdly, SeBaHiM, ' Sabeans,' whether by this be meant the inhabitants of a cer- tain district, or the adherents of a certain false religion. Our translators have followed the first reading, which in the ab- stract, indeed, admits of two constructions, but in the place before us only of one, namely, ' their drinking ;' as Hosea is here speaking not of the possessions of Ephraim, but solely of his actions. Now while we retain this sense of one ingredient of the clause, the other, surely, cannot be construed 'is gone,' Chap. I.] EFFECTS OF THE DIAPHONISM OF i:;. 41 but should rather have its interpretation taken from the second class of meanings of the root, and be rendered ' predo- minates,' or ' has gained the ascendancy ;' since the prophet's declaration is obviously intended, not for praise, but for cen- sure. The drift of D^^^D "ID thus comes out, 'their drunken- ness has got dominion over them ; a reproach cast upon the Israelites by our author less obscurely in another place, "the children of Israel, who look to other gods, and love flagons of wine." Hos. iii. 1. This construction, however, produces an incoherence between the above clause and what immediately precedes it, by the abrupt enallage of number and sudden transition from an individual to the people by him represented an objection which is obviated by the second of the cited readings of D^^DD, whereby we are enabled to translate the two words under discussion, so as to have the same meaning as before, but without any obscurity thence arising, " lie is prince [or chief] of drunkards." It remains to be inquired whether this interpretation de- rives any support from antiquity. Now, I admit that the bearing of the ancient versions on this point is neither unani- mous nor by itself convincing ; but when it is combined with the internal evidence of the context, they constitute a proof by no means destitute of weight. In the Peshitah, either the clause in question was from the first passed over without any attempt to interpret it, or the words made use of for the pur- pose have since dropped from this version. In the Septuagint, the translation is ijpenae Xavavaiov^^ ' he has joined the sect of Canaanites ;' a rendering whose connexion with the origi- nal it is not very easy to penetrate. All that plainly follows from this Greek is that the Seventy Jews read <^i^2D in the third of the cited ways ; so that, if in their copy of the Hebrew text the particle 7^^ came after "ID, they might have understood the literal meaning to be, ' he has deviated/r(?m the right path, to associate with the Sabeans,' with which construction their interpretation can be brought in some measure to agree in sense. But the forcedness of that interpretation, joined to the 42 SOME ILLUSTRATION OF THE EVIL [Chap. I. circumstance of its requiring an alteration of the original text, deprives the Septuagint in this place of the authority to which it is in general entitled,'' and compels me to resort to a record of far inferior weight, which is called the second part of the Targum of Jonathan, but must evidently, from the greater corruptness of its language, have been written many ages later than the lirst part, and consequently by quite a different author. In this work the clause referred to is loosely rendered as foUows : DJIiS ]D ]M^^ I.^^JD.^ IIH^Illo'?::', ' their princes have multiplied feasts supplied from plunder ;^ a paraphrase which, if we look only to its substance, fully warrants me, as far as the authority of this Targum in the absence of older tes- timony goes, in translating the first word of the original clause ' a prince,' and in representing its two united ingredients to convey a reproach against the descendants of Ephraimfor ex- cessive drinking a vice which is evidently included under the more general description of excessive feasting. Some further corroboration of my construction of this very difficult clause will, I am in hopes, be obtained by means of the light which the different parts of the longer passage alluded to will be found to reflect on each other, when a new translation of the whole of it comes to be submitted to the reader in one of the ensuing chapters. Mistakes, it thus appears, have arisen even from the mere incompleteness of the substitution of J^ for D, and of course may be expected to have been produced with still more inju- rious consequences by the actual substitution itself Of the latter class I here subjoin, furnished from the same word "ID, a curious example, although its explanation compels me to Supposing the Greek construction of the clause in question to be cor- rect, this circumstance would not in the slightest degree bear against the general view of the subject which has been advocated in the preceding para- graphs ; its only effect would be to withdraw this particular clause from the class of examples illustrative of the point under discussion, namely, that ID is sometimes used in the Hebrew Bible with a different set of meanings from that at present conceded to it. Chap. I.] EFFECTS OF THE DIAPHONISM OF m^ 43 avail myself, by anticipation, of the discovery unfolded in the subsequent chapters. When David attacked the fortress of the Jebusites situated upon Zion, and which afterwards became the citadel or more elevated portion of Jerusalem, he promised that whoever first entered the place and slew a Jebusite "should become head of the whole army^ and governor of the city^"^ or, as it is written in the original, "It^^l t^i^")? ^^T 1 Chron. xi. 6. Now, the first part of this promise was immediately carried out, as is recorded to the following efibct : " So Joab, the son of Zeruiah, got up first, and became head of the whole army^^ J^^^l? ^1'^^ , while the fulfilment of the second part was deferred till the new city was built around the citadel, in the manner described in the beginning of the eighth verse ; just after which we find at the conclusion of the same verse, through the alteration of only a single letter of the original to one of very nearly the same shape, the ensuing statement to be made: "And Joab became the governor of the city" n^;;n ^^^^i; n.^ ^^n^ n.^^^* By means of this sole change of n into n in the verb il'^n\ the accomplishment of each part of David's promise comes out recorded in the very identical words in which it had been previously announced, with the exception that, in the case of the latter portion of the promise, * The terms tt?M"1, ' head,' and "Iti?, * chief,' may each of them denote in the abstract one presiding in any department, whether military or civil ; but it is immaterial to the argument above used, in what sense precisely either was intended to be understood in the portion of Scripture referred to. 'J'he supplement by which I have distinguished the first of them is drawn from the description given by Josephus of David's promise: Ttp hirl -rrfv uKpav ava^avn kuI Tavrrjv eXovTi ffTparrj'^iav arravTO^ too \aod Btxiaeiv eTrnfy- ^eiXaTo (Antiq. Jud. lib. vii. cap. iii. sec. 1); where the historian, for the sake of brevity, mentions only the first, or principal part of that promise. The supplement subjoined to my translation of the second term is taken from the meaning of the word by which that term is accompanied on its second occur- rence ; where, indeed, it is written ("l|^K7) fuller than at first, but is shown by the context to be meant for the very same designation. '' Joab was previously general of the soldiers of the tribe of Judah ; but on the above occasion he was promoted to the post of commander-in-chief of aVai/Tos Tov Xaov the united armies of Judah and Israel. 44 SOME ILLUSTRATION OF THE EVIL [Chap. L an additional term is subjoined to l^ti^, to indicate what kind of chief or prince was thereby intended. This identity is per- fectly obvious in reference to the first pair of corresponding parts of promise and fulfilment, but is obscured with regard to the second pair by the capricious conduct of the interpo- lators of the matres lectionis, the first vocalizers of the sacred text, in placing an Haleph between the letters of "IC^, to ex- press the vowels, in one place of the occurrence of this title, and not in the other an inconsistency which appears to have arisen from the great precipitation mth which they executed their work. But in consequence of the rarity of the use of Haleph as a mater lectionis in the Hebrew text, it came in the course of time to be, in the group here referred to, mistaken for a consonant, whereby this word was misread ShellaE, ' a remainder,' instead of SAE, ' a prince, or governor ;' an error which of necessity brought with it a second, as ^^'^'', '- became,"" makes no sense in the final part of the eighth verse when con- nected with l^t^ understood to signify ' a residue ;' whence the verb was conceived to be TVTV^ 'vivified,' through the change of only a single letter, and the substitution for it of one with which, from similarity of shape, it might easily be con- founded. Yet, even with this alteration, the clause, as it stands at present, cannot be at all reconciled with the context : for, if it be translated, ' and Joab spared (or saved alive) the remnant of the garrison,' the statement will be found quite at variance with the sanguinary character of the man and the circumstances of the case, more especially with the conditions on which David founded his promise, and his mode of express- ing them in the parallel passage, "Whosoever . . . smiteththe Jebusites, and the lame and the blind, that a?^^ hated of David's soul" 2 Sam. v. 8 ; and if, on the other hand, we look to the rendering of it in our Authorized Version, " And Joab re- paired the rest of the city" here, independently of the very " The Waw conversive of the future, as it is called, is in the above in- stance prefixed, not to Wr\^, but to the noun governing that verb. Chap. I.] EFFECTS OF THE DIAPHONISM OF ^, 45 forced construction put upon the verb H^TI*', to make it signify * repaired/ it is utterly inconsistent with the narrative to say that Joab repaired a city which had been only just built, and to talk of ' the rest of the city/ where it was previously spoken of as a whole, and no one part of it separately specified. Most of these objections against the only plausible renderings of the original clause in its present state have been already urged with much ability by Dr. Kennicott in his first Dissertation, pp. 53-4 ; though he considerably weakened the force of his argument against the first of those renderings, by admitting, as I conceive, erroneously, that it is supported by the Syriac version. He, however, advanced a great way in the true ex- position of the matter ; but it is evident that the direct grounds for the correct reading and interpretation of the above clause could not be arrived at, without the aid of the discovery which has now been applied to the investigation. The Septuagint in this instance afibrds us no assistance, as the translation of the clause in question has totally disappeared from the Vatican copy ; and that in the Alexandrian copy KOL eTToXejULy^aeu kol eXapev tP/u ttoXiv is obviously corrupted, as having no relation to the original sentence. The Peshitah has also undergone some corruption in this place, as it pre- sents to us two interpretations of the clause under discussion quite at variance Avith each other, one of which, consequently, must be spurious ; but when that one is detected, as it can be by means of the discovery above brought to bear upon the in- ternal evidence of the case,^ the explanation I have submitted * The word JD5 , ' a master,' in the Syriac interpretation of the clause in question first quoted in my text, shows that the Hebrew group to which it refers, must, when that translation of the clause was made, have been read sar, ' a chief,' and that, whenever a Haleph made its appearance in that group, it must have been therein used as a mater lectionis to denote the vowel A. On the other hand, the word P;- , 'a remainder,' by which the same He- brew term is interpreted in the second quoted translation, shows that it must, at the time of that translation being introduced, have been read shehar, ' a remainder,' with a Haleph so long inserted therein, that its use in that place 46 SOME ILLUSTRATION OF THE EVIL [Chap. I. to the reader's judgment will be found clearly supported by the other interpretation which is included in the sixth verse of the same chapter. This verse runs to the following effect: " Then said David, whosoever first slays a Jebusitish man, he SHALL BE THE HEAD of the wJloU army AND MASTER OF POWER lL->- *^'0 "Ulj? 1ooij 001 : and Joab, son of Suriah, got up first ; so King David appointed him the head of the whole army and master of power" ]1->..k> ^5o Xm-^h . Here we may perceive that the narrative of the fulfilment of the second part of David's promise is shifted from the end of the eighth to the end of the sixth verse, in order that the two parts of the fulfilment may, like the two parts of the promise, be recorded together; while, in the second instance, just as in the first, the promotion conferred is related in precisely the terms in which it was antecedently promised ; a circumstance which powerfully sustains the view I have put forward. The vacuum, indeed, occasioned by the dislocation just described, is at present filled up by another very different rendering of the same clause, which is as follows : ]->5onn Aj1> \mJ\ . i in? t;-^ ]) V) j-.05 sOituo " And David gave the right hand to the rest of the sons of men that were in the city." But this very loose paraphrase, which attributes to David an act of clemency that is, according to was forgotten, and that it came to be there mistaken for a consonant. The second, therefore, of the quoted Syriac translations of the original clause could not have been framed till long after the insertion of the matres lectionis in the sacred text, and, consequently, not till a still longer period after the com- position of the Peshitah, which can be clearly proved to have been written before the introduction of vowel-letters into the Hebrew Bible. The great probability is that, after shehar came to be generally adopted as the reading of I^D? in the original clause, some Syriac scribe, finding no term of like meaning in or near the corresponding part of the Peshitah, and moreover missing the translation of this clause in its proper place, rashly took it for granted that either it was overlooked by the translators, or that their render- ing of it was subsequently lost, and in consequence interpolated the very in- accurate paraphrase of it which now appears in the final part of the eighth verse. Chap. I.] EFFECTS OF THE DIAPHONISM OF ^. 47 the present reading of the original, ascribed in another form to Joab, is proved in the last note to be an interpolation of a date long subsequent to that of the Peshitah ; and, conse- quently, it does not in the least weaken the force of the evi- dence which the genuine part of this version supplies upon the same subject. To come now to the point for the illustra- tion of which this example has been selected, it is evident that, if the initial element of the group ID had not been changed into ti^, there would have been no room for the primary mis- take here committed (or, consequently, for the secondary one thereon depending) ; as there is not in the Hebrew language any dissyllabic word written "I^^D, with which the monosylla- ble *n^D could have been confounded. It would detain me too long to enter into a more general illustration of this subject; and I shall here only add that the Samaritans, though for the most part agreeing with the Jews in the changing of D into tl/ in the case of certain words, have not been quite as guarded and vigilant in carrying out this alteration.^ Thus, for instance, the Hebrew noun read Sar in Gen. xl. 9, where it signifies ^the chief,' and is now written ")2i^ in the Jewish edition of the Pentateuch, still preserves a Samek as its initial element in the Samaritan edition ; and, in like manner, the Hebrew compound group read saqqo ' his sack,' which in every place of its occurrence in the former edition is now written Ipl^, has been left to commence with a /Sam^^ in the verse. Gen. xlii. 25, of the latter. Independently of the more serious evils that have resulted from the corrup- tion just exposed, the inconvenience it produces in an un- pointed copy of the sacred text is particularly obvious ; as a reader who is not perfect master of the language cannot always be certain with what power the character t^ is therein * If the corruption in question originated, as it very possibly did, in the design of concealing the circumstance that Sarah's name in its primary form denoted ' a wanderer,' or ' an emigrant,' there would be nothing surprising in the agreement of the Samaritans with the Jews in its perpetration, as they too claimed the credit of descent from Abraham and Sarah. 48 ANALOGY OF THE HEBREW ACCENTS TO [Chap. 1. used, whether mth that ofSh or that shnply of S, Where this character, then, is in such copies employed with the latter power, I would venture to recommend a little circle the Ma^ soretic sign of something ^vrong or at least questionable to be placed over it, and a Samek to be inserted in the opposite part of the margin. But this correction is rendered unneces- sary in pointed Hebrew Bibles, by the care with which the Masorets have, through the varied position of a diacritical point, indicated with which of the two powers the character is in each instance to be articulated ; and all that is requisite is to bear in mind that, where it is to be read with the power of Samek, it should be called Samek, and considered as a secon- dary form of that letter. Thus would be removed from the system of pointed writing, not only the letter Sin, which is on all sides admitted to be of comparatively modern date, but also much of the evil consequent upon its introduction ; and we should in this way return to the sole use of the two letters Samek and Shin to which the Hebrew alphabet was originally confined for the expression of S and Sh powers, through the mere precaution of treating i^, as well as D, as a form belong- ing to the first of those letters. Some advance towards this step was made by Gesenius ; as he separated from each other in his Dictionary the words commencing with '^ and t^ respec- tively, and placed them under distinct heads ; but, to complete the improvement, he should not only have detached il/ from t^, but also have united it with D, and classed the words com- mencing with il^ and D under one and the same common head. The medieval character of the combined system of Hebrew accents and vowel-points is indicated by the degree of con- nexion that subsists between them. In this system the open vowels are not shortened by the absence of an accent, as in modern writing ; and, on the other hand, the close vowels are sometimes lengthened, or exchanged for open ones, in conse- quence of the presence of an accent, an eff*ect that was never thus produced in the kinds of ancient writing which we have Chap. I.] THE OLDEST GRECIAN MUSICAL NOTES. 49 means for examining in reference to this subject. The in- creased influence that accents have in the course of time acquired over the length of syllables cannot, I apprehend, be accounted for, otherwise than by an alteration which has gradually taken place in their nature. Formerly, indeed, as well as at present, the circumflex accent was essentially asso- ciated with a lengthened pronunciation ; but the acute and grave accents appear to have at first denoted solely, one of them a raising, and the other a lowering or non-raising of the voice ; at least, neither of them had then any connexion what- ever with the quantity, as it is technically called, of the sylla- bles to which they were attached ; as may be clearly perceived in the case of ancient Greek that is accented, in which those accents are continually seen placed over short vowels. But in modern kinds of writing the application of the acute accent, which is that in most general use, is entirely altered ; and what it now chiefly denotes is a stress of the voice laid on the sylla- ble marked with it, by which that syllable is of necessity length- ened ; so that in Romaic even the vowels fj and w may become short ; as, for instance, the middle syllable of avOpwno^^ if I have been rightly informed, is pronounced short by the modern Greeks. But, while the degree of influence exerted by the accents on the vowels of the Hebrew system agrees not exactly with either ancient r modern usage, it in some measure ap- proximates to the latter ; a circumstance which squares with the limit to the age of the older portion of this combined sys- tem already arrived at through external evidence ; by means of which it has been shown that the Masoretic plan of vocaliza- tion was not completed, at the very earliest, before the mid- dle of the twelfth century, and the Rabbins could hardly have thought of applying signs to any modulation of vowels, till they had first made up their collection of signs for the vowels themselves. Be this, however, as it may, the Hebrew accents, as they are termed, are far too numerous to have been intended solely for the purpose of accentuation. They were applied, indeed, to this purpose, as also to that of indicating the various g2 50 ANALOGY OF THE HEBREW ACCENTS TO [Chap. I. pauses to be made between the different parts of sentences ; but these are shown to have been quite subordinate uses of them, from the very imperfect manner in which they answer each end. They were principally employed as musical notes to regulate the chanting of the parts of Scripture recited during divine service in the Synagogues; a view of the matter now- very generally assented to, and which is strongly corroborated by the close analogy of these marks to others introduced some- what earlier, for a similar purpose, first into Greek, and soon after into Latin rituals. Montfaucon, in his treatise on Gre- cian Palaeography, gives specimens of accented Greek manu- scripts as far back as the seventh or eighth century, in the earliest of which the secondary marks attached to the words scarcely differ in shape or use from the signs of aspiration and accentuation which are inserted in modern editions of Greek books. But in the specimens of subsequent centuries those marks are found gradually increasing in variety and number according as the system of musical notation improved, till, in one exhibited at the bottom of the 357th page of the learned work referred to, and taken from a manuscript of the eleventh century containing the services of the Greek Church for the entire round of the year, they may be seen almost as diversi- fied in form and as numerous as those of the corresponding collection superadded to the Masoretic vowels in pointed He- brew writing. No doubt, the Jews in their flight from Baby- lonia to Spain brought with them a full recollection of the modulations and inflexions of voice with which they used to read out the text of their Bible in the East, where the custom is still very prevalent of chanting sacred writings or uttering them in a species of recitative ; and when once they got the notion of representing the elements of those modulations by written signs, the little figures selected by them for the pur- pose were, in all likelihood, of their own invention. Still they would appear to have taken the hint for the formation of their system from one of the older cognate kinds to which it displays so striking a correspondence ; but whether it Chap. L] THE OLDEST GRECIAN MUSICAL NOTES. 51 was the Greek or Latin branch of the art that they made this use of, must have depended on the circumstance, which of those kinds of musical notation first came under their ob- servation. What sounds in music the Hebrew notes in question were originally intended to convey is now utterly unknown, as is evident from the total disagreement in this respect between the Hebraists who lay claim to any knowledge of the subject. Such, for instance, of the Polish and the German Jews as pre- tend to have preserved the original musical values of those notes do not chant even a single series of them in the same manner. It is also to be remarked that these same notes often fail to point out the accented part of a word ; as no less than seven of them are fixed in their respective sites without any reference to the place of the tone syllable : and not only do they afford but slight assistance to a reader as signs of pauses or stops, from the numerous and scarcely consistent rules to which he must attend for the purpose of enabling him to ap- ply them to this service, but also, when thus applied, they frequently mislead him, by actually separating parts of sen- tences in direct opposition to their grammatical connexion and the bearing of the context. As, then, their principal use is irrecoverably lost, and the two subordinate applications of them are either productive of scarcely any benefit, or posi- tively injurious, I would venture to recommend the disembar- rassing the pointed text of this cumbrous addition to the Masoretic collection of vowel-signs, and the retention of but one accentual mark, to be employed solely in the less usual instances of the accent falling on the penultimate, instead of on the last syllable of words ; while the requisite stops might be far better expressed by means of the ordinary modern points, with merely the tails of the commas and semicolons turned, to suit the direction of the Hebrew writing. A vast deal of useless trouble would be thus avoided, and the reading of the sacred text be greatly facilitated ; while, at the same 52 NEW CLASSIFIC ATION SUGGESTED [Chap. I. time, no liberty, not even the slightest, would be taken with any of its original elements. Up to a recent period the vowels of the Masoretic system were distinguished from each other by the epithets of long ^ short, and very short. But it having been noticed by the later grammarians that some of those which come under the head of the second epithet are occasionally long, it becomes neces- sary to alter this series of names for the three classes ; and I would, in consequence, venture to recommend calling them, taken in the same order as before, open, close, and imperfect; a classification which is arrived at, by first dividing the whole number into perfect and imperfect, and then subdivid- ing the former class into open and close. By imperfect vowels I mean such as diff*er from the perfect ones not absolutely, but only in reference to the mode of utterance applied to them. The 0, for instance, of ivory, is imperfect; as it is so indis- tinctly pronounced that an illiterate person, who had never seen this word written, and was only acquainted with its sound, might be easily conceived to employ any one of the ^ve Roman vowel- letters for the expression of its second vowel. The open A, of which there are two kinds, and the close one, are exempli- fied by the vocal part of the sounds of all, art, and hat, respec- tively. The open and close E may be compared in the words they and then; the open and close /, in machine and chin; the open and close 0, in mope and mop ; the open and close U in rule and run. A reader accustomed to the use of the Roman alphabet might, perhaps, be induced, at first view of the mat- ter, to think the vocal elements of each set of words here com- pared the same, because denoted by the same character ; but they are to be found in other systems represented respectively by difi*erent letters or marks ; and a little consideration will serve to show that in each instance, if not absolutely difierent vowels, they are at least quite difierent modifications of the same vowel. The distribution I propose of the perfect vowels into open and close, is analogous to that formerly made by Chap. I.] OF THE MASORETIC VOWEL-POINTS. 53 the Greeks, whose judgment on the subject is entitled to some weight; since they were, as will be shown in the course of this Essay, the original inventors of vowel-signs. In the case of the vowels whose names, in the alphabet of this people, are partly formed of epithets, the distinction thereby drawn between them indicates an opposition, not of fxa/cpov to ppa')(v^ or of long to short, but that of fieya to fjuKpov or ^iKov, that is, oi great, broad, or open, to small, narrow, or close; and although the open vowels, rj and w, were in ancient pronunci- ation uniformly long, yet it is quite a mistake to distinguish from them the corresponding close ones, e and o, as constantly or essentially short. Thus, for example, in the line of Homer in which iEneas is describing the swiftness of his horses to Pandarus, KpaiTTva /idX' evOa Koi evOa BiiCKSfiev rjSe (jie^eaOai, II. v. 223 the of ev6a is just as long as the t] of rfie ; and it is not by their quantity, but by their sound, that these vowels are here to be distinguished. Again, in a line of the same poem, that follows soon after Toi/ ^' up\ virohpa iBvov, 7rpoae(pi] Kpaiepo s^ ' Esau,' which is now read HISaW, though the transcription of its Hebrew origin by the Seventy, H^au, clearly proves that it must in ancient times have been pronounced HESaW; and * Upon the above point Asseman expresses himself very candidly as fol- lows: "Veriim pro Orientalibus tota antiquitas clamat, eosque priscum legend! Syriace morem retinere suadent tum voces, quae apud veteres scrip- tores Graece et Latine e Syriaco sermone expressfe leguntur, ut Abba, Talitha^ Fhadana, Haceldama; tum urbium pagorumque nomina in Assyria, Mesopo- tamia, et Phoenicia, quae Orientalium more usque in praesentem diem pro- nunciantur, ut "jjO-Kii-^LO, Caphar-Aura, IZuj^-^LO, Caphar-Hata ; et caitera hujusmodi, quae a Syris Maronitis atque Jacobitis secundum propriam illorum dialectum aliter proferri deberent." Bihliotheca Orientalis, torn. in. pars ii. pp. 379-80. Chap. I.] OF THE SYRIAC MATRES LECTIONIS. 57 in like manner that the Syriac Waw was not at first, any more than the Hebrew one, confined, as it now is, to expressing the sound C/, but occasionally represented that of 0, may be ex- emplified by the name *^qj-k , ' Enoch,' which is read by modern Syrians HaNUK, or HeNUK, but is proved by the corresponding Greek transcription in the Septuagint, Ei/^x, to have been formerly uttered HeNOK. The modern pronun- ciation, indeed, of either or both classes of Syrians, in the in- stance of the three names here adduced as samples, is so ob- viously corrupted that, although Gabriel Sionita has pointed them for respectively the sounds Don^ Hisu^ and Wniik^ yet has he in his own Latin version transcribed them Dan^ Esau^ and Henoch For my o^vn part, I follow as far as I can the older pronunciation of Syriac, not only as the more correct one, but also as that which more strikingly exhibits the close ana- logy that subsists between the Hebrew and Syriac tongues. In fine, I take this opportunity of stating why I deviate from the commonly received pronunciation of the name of the first Syriac version, |^ i a^, ^ the pure,' which is usually transcribed PeShlTO, in accordance with the western mode of reading, and as if the Haleph at the end of the word was a mater lectionis. But this letter is evidently here employed as a consonant (to give the epithet an emphatic signification); for which reason, as well as on account of the preference to be conceded to the eastern pronunciation, I read the same group PeShlTaH. Al- though the consonant Haleph is unsounded in modern utter- ance, yet surely, where it serves to convey so important a part of the meaning of the title, a sign for it should not be omitted in the transcription of this name. I have now to ofier a few remarks on the peculiarities of the English mode of pronouncing some of the vowels. I am aware that, in venturing to touch upon this subject, I run the risk of appearing presumptuous, and of giving offence where I should be very sorry to do so: yet, surely, useful improve- ments may at times occur to individuals who are neither the most likely in point of talent to hit upon them, nor placed in 58 ON SOME PECULIARITIES OF ENGLISH [Chap. L the most favourable circumstances for their discovery; and an inquiry should not be considered as hostile, upon which I by no means enter with a view to disparage the English tongue, but solely for the purpose of contributing, as far as very limited powers enable me, to the removal of what I conceive to be a great blemish in this noble language, and a great impediment to its more general diiFusion. Besides the two principal phonetic values attached to each of the five Roman vowel-letters, according as it is used to denote an open or close sound, there are a great many subor- dinate ones, arising from various causes, and prevailing in dif- ferent countries, which render, indeed, the niceties of pro- nunciation in each language very difficult of attainment to foreigners, but still produce no confusion as long as the powers of different vowel-letters are not interchanged, by the occa- sional assignment to any one of them of a sound which falls under the general class of those belonging to another. Thus, for example, there can be no objection to the open sound attached by the English to /, as it is never given by them ex- cept to this vowel-letter, nor by other nations using the Roman character to any single letter. The English use, therefore, of this vowel-sign may, indeed, strike foreigners as a peculiarity, but causes them no embarrassment : it prevails still more than with us among the Anglo-Americans, who employ it in many words which we utter with the close /, as, for instance, in the word genuine. The sound in question, however, is not a sim- ple vowel; and the Germans and Greeks, in whose language it occurs as well as in ours, are quite justified in representing it as a diphthong. The complex nature of this sound can, as I have already observed in the present chapter, be clearly evinced by prolonging its utterance, through which means it is stripped of its other ingredients, and reduced to a pure open /, or that which is, in English orthography, expressed by the combination EE ; whereas a vowel really simple does not by any prolongation of its sound undergo the least alteration of its phonetic value. I have here only to add respecting the Chap. I.] PRONUNCIATION OF VOWELS. 59 English open /, that its employment does no harm in the pronunciation of Latin, but is injurious in reading out Greek ; as an important distinction in the utterance of the latter lan- guage, namely, that between the sounds of ei and i, is thereby annulled. A similar exposition vindicates with still more force the use of U in England, where, indeed, the open sound given to the character is, for the most part, diphthongal ; but so, likewise, is it in other countries, different nations blending with the pure vowel diiferent ingredients in the formation of the open complex sounds they respectively denote by this letter. Moreover, the irregularity of varying, to a certain extent, the open power of this character is not confined to England, analogous liberties being taken with it elsewhere. In English orthogi'aphy, the pure open sound of U is usually expressed by 00, as in the words boot, cool, root, but is also represented in some instances by the character itself, as in brute, flute ; while the open value in general annexed to this vowel-letter is compounded of the pure ones belonging to it and to /, as may be perceived by comparing the words mute and pure with, respectively, moot and poor. But the English betray no direct inconsistency in their pronunciation of U, and never transfer to any other letter the designation of either of the open sounds they attach to it ; so that the inaccuracies they can be charged with, respecting its employment, are not greater than those committed by other nations who make use of the Roman character. But what can be pleaded in defence of their practice with regard to A and E, to the first of which they give, not only both of its own proper open sounds, but also the single one of the second ; and again, to the second for the most part, that of the third Roman vowel-letter ? The shifting of those letters to the designation of sounds expressed quite difierently by all the other nations, without exception, that make use^of the Ro- man character, causes the greatest perplexity to foreigners, and throws unnecessary difiiculties in the way of learning to read,* 60 ON SOME PECULIARITIES OF ENGLISH [Chap. I. even in the case of natives. Thus, for instance, how embar- rassing must it not be to a child to be taught to caU the first letter of his alphabet by the open sound of E^ and yet to be made frequently to pronounce it with one or other of two open powers of a totally different kind ! If it be said that the English have a right to intermix and interchange the sounds of their vowel-letters in any manner they please, no matter what inconveniencies may thence result to themselves or to others, I do not dispute such right, I only question the policy of exercising it. Surely, it is not the part of a great and en- lightened people to endeavour to insulate their language, and prevent the spread of it beyond their own country. The na- tions, indeed, of Eastern Asia think it becoming their dignity, as I have elscAvhere shown, to have each of them an alphabet quite different, at least in the shape of its elements, from that employed by any of the rest ; in consequence of which the number of derivatives from the Sanscrit collection of letters is almost endless. "What an obstruction this multiplicity of alphabetic systems opposes to mutual intercourse, to the pro- gress of civilization, and to the diffusion of knowledge in that quarter of the world, I need not insist on ; as the evils it ne- cessarily produces must be obvious upon the slightest consider- ation. But it is evident that the adoption of a new set of characters cannot be more detrimental, in any respect, than an arbitrary and inconsistent use of an old set. Here it should, however, be noted that the English are not more irregular in their designation of the open vowels, than the French are in that of the close ones. In the case of vowels of the latter sort, or rather, perhaps, in the latter state, a Frenchman attaches to E the sound of 0, and to /that of ^ ; as, for instance, en fin is pronounced by him on fang. Strange, that the greatest two nations in the world, which have done more for the advance- ment of learning than all the rest besides, should yet, through faulty and capricious alterations of vowel sounds, have ren- 'dered their respective systems of orthography, compared with Chap. I.] PRONUNCIATION OF VOWELS. 61 existing modes of pronunciation, the very worst of all those in which the Roman character is employed !* The English misuse of A and E is not of very old stand- ing, and was not fully estabhshed till some time after our pre- sent Authorized Version of the Bible was framed ; in the early editions of which many traces are preserved of an older pro- nunciation of those letters. Thus the pronouns Jie^ she, we, me, and the verb be, which, we may be certain from their shortness and continual use, were all along pronounced just as they are at present, are found occasionally printed in the editions re- ferred to, hee, shee, wee, mee, and bee, in like manner as thee is still written to distinguish its sound from that of the article the. But when they were uniformly so written in every in- stance, as was the case not long before the age in which our translators lived, the sound of the single E must have been dilFerent from that oiEE ; since, otherwise, writers would not * The most obvious methods, as far as they are practicable, of remedying the evil above complained of would be, either to return to the older pronun- ciation of words suited to their orthography, or to alter this orthography in accommodation to existing pronunciation. But those modes of proceeding are frequently not within our reach ; and, even when they are, it is very dif- ficult to determine how far each of them should be resorted to. There is, however, a third remedy more under human control, and yet of considerable efficacy, which consists in a uniform adherence to whatever system of vocali- zation may be adopted, and a constant representation of the same articulate sounds, wherever they may occur, by respectively the same combinations of letters. It is chiefly through the observance of this last plan that the Ita- lians have got the credit of employing a better system of spelling than any other nation which makes use of the Roman alphabet. But they appear to have carried too far their application of the second of the methods just enu- merated, more especially in the alterations they have introduced into their written designations of scriptural names. With regard to the pushing of that method to its utmost extent, as is recommended by some modern advocates of what is termed ' the phonetic system,' it would besides tending to with- draw all traces of the etymology of words render them as variable and fluc- tuating in their written, as in their spoken forms ; and so remove the check to the continual variation of language which alphabetic writing, in the case of every system of orthography not thus tampered with, more or less sup- plies. 62 ON SOME PECULIARITIES OF ENGLISH [Chap. I. have taken the trouble of constantly adding the second E in the designation of those monosyllables : and, as long as they were sometimes spelled in the one way, and sometimes in the other, the process of change was going forward and the mode of pronouncing this vowel-letter was in a state of transition. Hence it may be concluded that, in England, E did not quite lose its old open sound, and become identified in open power, as it now is, with EE, till those editions of our Authorized Version came out in which the second E was entirely dropped, in the spelling of the words in question : but, according as the single letter was deprived of the open phonetic value formerly attached to it, this value was transferred to the class of sounds denoted by ^. In Ireland at least in the country parts of it in which I passed the earlier portion of my life the old pro- nunciation of^ and ^ held its ground, even among persons of education, till a later period, and was not altogether aban- doned to the humbler classes much before the end of the last century ; all changes making their way more slowly in the remote provinces of a great empire than in its central districts. At present, the modern abuse of the above letters, particularly of the first, is not only very generally adopted by my coun- trymen, but also appears to be, from their disposition to run into extremes, carried farther by many of them than by its original introducers ; A being not unfrequently pronounced by them as E^ in words in which it still retains its proper sound in English utterance. But as fashions, when pushed to extremes, have a tendency to correct themselves, it is to be hoped that the natural good sense of the Enghsh people will bring back the practice under consideration to a fitter and juster state. Should they return to a use of their vowel signs more in accordance with the general practice of European nations, the change will probably commence in foreign proper names ; and in these some im- provement has already taken place ; as, for instance, Athens and Acre are now pronounced correctly by well-educated Eng- lishmen, and no longer uttered by them with sounds that Chap. I.] PRONUNCIATION OF VOWELS. 63 would have been expressed two hundred years ago in England by writing those words Athens and jE^cre. The universities and greater classical schools might contribute much to the forwarding of a more extensive improvement in this respect, by obliging their students to read A and E in Latin, and the corresponding letters in Greek, with the phonetic values for- merly attached to them in England ; and, surely, even were the correcting of the modern pronunciation of Latin the only object in view, a barbarism that confounds in speech such words as musd and musce, and thereby abolishes an important distinction in that language, ought to be put an end to. This barbarism has not yet reached the English pronunciation of He- brew ; and, therefore, it might, I apprehend, be easily removed from the enunciation of Scriptural proper names. The ma- jority of our clergymen are, I believe, in some degree, ac- quainted with the Old Testament in the tongue in which it was originally written, while a considerable number of them are well versed in that tongue, and familiar with the Hebrew Bible. When, therefore, they read in the Church service such words, for instance, as Satan^ Sahaoth^ and Abraham, with sounds which, if unchanged since former times, would indicate that they were written (as in point of fact they never were) in the earlier editions of our Bible and Prayer-book, S^tan, Sab^oth, and ^-braham, it is only necessary to remind them how they themselves pronounce the very same words in the sacred lan- guage. The present mode of uttering in English the last-men- tioned word is peculiarly oiFensive to a Hebrew scholar. For the name is a composite term of which the parts are separately significant in the original writing ; but, in order to shift the initial A from a close to an open state, and so leave room for the favourite transmutation of it into an open E, the next let- ter B is severed from the first ingredient of the compound, and, in consequence, united to the second, whereby both ingre- dients are rendered wholly unmeaning ; while, at the same time, the B and R that are by this contrivance brought toge- ther, being uttered without any intervening vowel, form a H 64 ON THE PRESENT COMPARED WITH [Chap. I. complex articulation which has no place in Hebrew speech. Surely, a capricious practice which leads to so gross a viola- tion of both the sense and sound of an important name, ought to be discontinued, even if no other instance could be adduced of its injurious effects. As /and F, in the times when they were respectively used with the powers that are now assigned to Fand W^ had a close connexion with vowels, I shall here offer a few remarks on each pair of corresponding letters, in addition to those I have already made on their Hebrew prototypes Tod and Waw. The character J was originally introduced into European writing to serve the purpose of contraction, and subsequently, after a long interval of disuse, was reverted to for that of caligraphy, it being found substituted, in ancient Latin inscriptions, for //, and in modern writing and print of, however, not very re- cent date, for the second element of that combination, merely to vary its shape without elFecting any alteration of its sound. The first use of this character as a single letter different from / commenced as soon as it came to be substituted for that sign, where placed immediately before another vowel-letter in the same syllable ; an innovation adopted for the convenience of getting distinct signs for the semiconsonantal and vocal va- lues of/, which thenceforward was confined to the latter value. Thus, for instance, the proper names, Jacob, Jehu, Jidlaph, Joseph, Judah, and the pronoun ejus, were, previously to this change, written Jacob, Jehu, lidlaph, Joseph, Judah, and eius ; and as the words of the latter series were obviously of the same length in utterance as the corresponding ones of the for- mer, their ingredients la, Je, Jid, Jo, lu, and ius, must have been pronounced as single syllables, and consequently their common initial must have been articulated with the power which is now expressed by F But when /was substituted for /, so placed, it must evidently have been employed with the same power as was just before attached to that /; and, there- fore, / too must have then been equivalent to our present F, a result, indeed, which might be more directly arrived at, Chap. I.] THE FORMER POWERS OF J AND V. Q5 with regard to the proper names, by an immediate comparison of them, as now written, with the sounds of their Hebrew ori- ginals. In order to make some approach to the time of the above described change, I shall here notice a few works pub- lished at dates not far asunder, which yet are at different sides of that under inquiry. On the one side, I submit to the rea- der's inspection a passage of theVulgate, exactly as it is exhibited both in a Hebrew, Greek, and Latin Bible, printed at Heidel- berg in the year 1616, and likewise (with the sole exception of its being given, as a quotation, in Italics) in a commentary on the Old Testament by Fahritius Paulutius^ edited at Rome, in the year 1625. The following is a reprint of the verse re- ferred to : " Et ingressus est Noe & filij eius, vxor eius & vxores filiorum eius cum eo in arcam, propter aquas diluuij." Gen. vii. 7. Here we have ocular proof of the older uses of/ and /having been retained as late as the year 1625 ; while, on the other side, I find those uses of the two characters discon- tinued, and each of them employed, as it ever since has been, as a letter quite distinct from the other, in an edition of the Authorized English Version of the Bible printed at Cambridge in 1629. This alteration in European typography may very possibly be traced to a prior date, though certainly not to one a great deal earlier ; as the improvement could scarcely have made its way to Rome till after the commentary of Fabritius Paulutius had been printed, and it is not at all likely to have commenced in any other part of Europe much sooner than in that city. / still continues equivalent to our semiconsonant Yin German and Italian writing ; but its phonetic value has de- generated into modifications of that of G soft, or Gh in French,^ English, Portuguese, and Spanish ; while the pronunciation of it somewhat varies in the first three of those written languages compared with each other, and more prominently differs in * The French corruption of the original power of /may, perhaps, be bet- ter represented by Zh than by GA; but even so, it still appears to be con- nected with the other corruptions of /power with which it is above compared. H 2 6G ON THE PRESENT COMPARED WITH [Chap. I. each of them from what it is in the fourth, in which it has nearly lost the guttural, and retains scarcely more than the aspirate part of the composite power. These curious adulte- rations of the value which was attached to J on its first intro- duction into alphabets of the Roman class, have so much in common as to show that they are mutually connected, and the probability is that the French corruption is the parent of the rest ; as the people of France have for a great length of time past taken a prominent lead in regulating matters of taste and fancy, the changes thus introduced by them being very gene- rally adopted with more or less modification by the surround- ing nations. But as only about two centuries and a quarter have elapsed since the origin of the IT power of e7, the corrup- tions of that power in different countries must have occurred still later,^ and be referred to dates which, however unknown they may be in other respects, at all events fall within the spe- cified interval. As the letter B had in remote times the power now as- signed to F, so likewise V had formerly that which we now attach to W. For instance, the ancient power of B in the Latin verb habere is preserved in avere and avoir^ its Italian and French derivatives, respectively ; while that of V in the Latin noun vinum may be detected in its English derivative wine and (though perhaps not so clearly) in its Greek original oLvo^y Both changes, however, are too well known to require "^ The change of the power of J among the French the people by whom this corruption appears to have been introduced did not commence till after the year 1665 ; as may be plainly collected from a French version of the Bible published that year at Geneva, in which the pronoun of the first person sin- gular is printed as often ie Sisje. For, when this pronoun was written indif- ferently in either way, it is evident that ie and je must have expressed the very same sound, and that a monosyllabic one in the case of the former, as well as of the latter combination. But the initial element of ie, read as a monosyllable, can be uttered with no other power than that attached to y in English orthography ; and, consequently, the initial element ofje must also have been used with that power at the date referred to. ^ Although it is possible that the sound of the Greek diphthong oi formerly bore some resemblance to that of a syllable commencing with W, yet from Chap. I.] THE FOEMER POWEES OF J AND V. 67 any lengthened illustration or proof in this place. The old power of B still maintains its ground in Greek, and did so likewise till a recent period in Spanish f but the case is very different with respect to the old power of F, which, though of such frequent occurrence in the ancient Latin, has no direct representative in the alphabet of any of the modern languages thence descended, and is itself entirely banished from all those languages, as now spoken, except the French. In a few words of the last-mentioned tongue this W power is to be met with, as, for example, in oui and avjourd'-hui^ and the ease mth which a native of France can articulate it is well evinced by the ra- pidity with which he utters such words : a whole volley of owi's may be heard issuing from his mouth in the time that an Englishman would take to pronounce one solitary ' yes.' And yet, should he have occasion to utter a foreign word, whose written expression he knows to contain a IF, he is very apt either to substitute for the articulation thereby denoted the modern one belonging to F, or, like the ancient Greeks, to resolve the syllable which includes it into simpler elements both in writing and in speech.^ This striking inconsistency is. our ignorance of the ancient pronunciation of Greek, this resemblance cannot be insisted on with much confidence. In general the Greek writers of old ap- pear to have decomposed by diaeresis into simpler elements the powers of TF'and F, when occurring in foreign words, whose sounds they had occasion to ex- press. Thus, the Hebrew names IH (DaWz'D) and HD*' (YPheTh) were tran- scribed by the Seventy T)a-vih and \-a(jie6 ; transcriptions which we now can, indeed, by the contraction in each instance of two syllables into one, get to convey the W and Y articulations respectively ; but it is not at all likely that, in the use of the ancient Greek, this recomposition was ever actually made. The probability rather seems to be, that persons who had separated the powers in question into distinct parts in the writing of this language, did always adhere to a corresponding separation in its pronunciation. ^ Thus Badajos^ a name rendered familiar to the English public by the events of the war conducted by Wellington in Spain, was, at the time when our troops took the place by storm, very generally pronounced by the Spa- niards Vadahose instead of Badahose. ^ As, for msX^ncQ, Edward is written in French Edouard^ and lengthened in pronunciation into a word of three syllables. 68 ON THE PRESENT COMPARED WITH [Chap. I. perhaps, to be accounted for by the circumstance of his not being habituated to the use of the letter W ; for although of late years introduced into learned French works to facilitate the representation of sounds occurring in some Oriental lan- guages, it has hardly yet become naturalized in the French alphabet. An Italian, in like manner, but not with the same inconsistency, either substitutes for the TF articulation that of a different consonant, or decomposes it, in his pronunciation of foreign names ; while, in transcribing those names, he changes the W into F, in the former case, and into U in the latter. The Spaniards and Portuguese, on the other hand, in imitating the sounds of foreign words, endeavour to form the IF articulation, although as utterly unconnected with their dialects as it is with Italian, and represent it in their respec- tive systems of writing by combinations of vowels, principally by Z7, and more rarely by 0, before other vowels. The power which a Spaniard at present attaches to J, together with his mode of denoting that of IF, may be illustrated to an English reader by the following examples. To convey the sounds of what, where, when, which, through the medium of Spanish or- thography, these words should be written respectively, joat, joer, joen, juich. Thus, it turns out that, while V has lost its original power in every modern alphabet without exception of which it constitutes an element, that power itself has been completely excluded from all the principal modern dialects of Latin but one, and the letter now serving to denote it is also banished from their respective alphabets; whence it seems desirable to inquire into the commencement, and trace, as far as we can, the progress of this change. Now this object may be effected with, I conceive, some approach to exactness, by means of coins still extant in great numbers, which the Roman emperors of the first four centuries of our era had got stamped with Greek legends, for the accommodation of their eastern subjects. Thus, in the ample stock of them of which engrav- ings are supplied in the Thesaurus Rei Antiquarice of Galtzius, Vitellius is constantly represented in Greek, by the group Chap. I.] THE FORMER POWERS OF J AND F. 69 OvLTeXKLo^] Vespasianus, by OveGTraaiapo^ ; Vespasianus, the surname of Titus, by OveaTraaiai'o^ or Yea-Traatavo^; JSTerva, by Nepova^; Nerva^ tbe surname of Trajan, by Ne/ooua?; Verus^ the surname of L. Aurelius, by Ovrjpo^ ; and Helvius^ the prae- nomen of Pertinax, HXoufo?. Hence it would appear that the Roman letter V was always used with its ancient W power, till the end of the second century. No vestige of the modern power of this letter is presented to us in the above-mentioned collection, in any older name than that oi Severus^ who was the first emperor of the third century ; wherein, as might be ex- pected at the beginning of the change, it is found but very sparingly used, the pronunciation of the word being expressed by ^eovripo^ in fifteen of the legends referred to, and only in three of them by 2e/3i;|0o?. The same mode of investigation will enable a reader to see that the ancient power of F continued to predominate at all events as late as the commencement of the fourth century. Galtzius gives three Greek legends from coins of Flavins Valerius Severus^ who held part of the Roman empire for a short time, just before Constantine mounted the throne: namely, Xa. OuaXep. ^eovrjpo^ Kaiaap^ ^\. BaX. llepfjpo?. Kaf?., Airy. K. OA. ^eovypo^ ; in two of which the sounds of the Latin words are expressed according to the ancient mode of articulating the letter in question. The sepa- ration, afterwards, of the Roman dominions into two empires, which put an end to the practice of issuing Roman coins with Greek legends, deprives us of any positive proof derived from that source, of the subsequent employment of V with its ori- ginal power ; but the great probability is, both from the gene- ral nature of habit, and the particular rate of alteration here depicted, that this power of the letter continued its principal one for some time longer, and then remained in partial use for many centuries after. Direct evidence, indeed, to this efiect might be drawn from a comparison of names of no great antiquity (such as ' Edward,^ for instance) with their Latin representatives. But I have no motive for conducting the inquiry lower down than the time Avhen the Vulgate was 70 ON THE PKESENT COMPARED WITH [Chap. I. written. As late, at any rate, as that date, F, it has been above shown probable, was chiefly used with W power ; and, therefore, in all likelihood was so employed in Jerome's Latin transcriptions of Hebrew names. It is a curious circumstance that the Hebrew 1 and the Latin F underwent, quite independently of each other, the very same change of power. If we compare Aa-u/5 (contracted in pronunciation into a dissyllable), the Greek transcription of the name of the Royal Psalmist made by the framers of the Septuagint, with that given of it by the authors of the New Testament, Aa/3i8, we shall find that the central letter of the original designation, 11*7, was shifted from the ancient to the modern power of F, in the interval between the ages in which the two sets of writers lived. This alteration, however, of the power of Waw did not take place till after Hebrew had lost its purity, and degenerated into the corrupt dialect spoken by the Jews in the time of the Evangelists. As long as J retained its original aflinity to /, it was per- fectly justifiable to rank under the same head in dictionaries the words which commenced with those letters ; but the total change of power which the former character has undergone in the writing of, I believe, every language but Italian and Ger- man, in which it is employed, renders the continuation of the practice very absurd, except in the dictionaries of those two languages. In any others, the words having G and 7, or ZT and /, for their respective initials, might just as rationally be now classed together. The same observation applies to the present arrangement in dictionaries of vocables commencing with Fand ?7 under the same head; which, indeed, was quite warranted when F was equivalent to TF, but is now just as unmeaning as would be the placing of words beginning with B and U in the same class. The latter mistake is of wider extent than the former ; since it is to be seen as well in Italian and German dictionaries, as in all others written with systems of letters derived from the Roman alphabet. Here, I may, in addition, notice an anomaly with regard to the two letters in Chap. I.] THE FORMER POWERS OF J AND F. 71 question which is confined to the English system of writing. The W and Y of this system are not denominated, like its other elements, from their powers ; but the first is called from its shape, and that too, by a distinctive appellation which, since the interchange of the characters Fand fT, is no longer ap- plicable to it, as it should obviously from its present figure be termed, not double-u^ but double-vee ; and, moreover, the name which it ought by analogy to have from its power, is strangely transferred to the second letter, which thus comes to be called after a power different from its own, Wi instead of Yi. The earliest date to which we can trace back the power of the Hebrew 1, through external evidence, is the time when the Septuagint was \vritten ; and its phonetic value at that period (or the initial part of this value, supposing the character to have been then used as a syllabic sign) is exactly represented by our W. This circumstance gives a great advantage to the English system of orthography over others, in recording the sounds of Scriptural names : for in most of the modern Euro- pean alphabets the letter TTis entirely wanting ; and, although it is to be found in th^ German collection of letters, it no longer therein retains its original value, but is employed with a power more nearly approaching that which is at present attached to y. On the other hand, the German and Italian systems are better adapted for the above purpose than any of the other derivatives of the old Latin alphabet, in the circumstance that they preserve uncorrupted, the power assigned to t/ when first it was introduced into modern ^vriting as a letter distinct from /; a power exactly agreeing with that which has invariably been, as far back as we have means of tracing it, the semi- consonantal value of "^ (or the initial part of that value when the Hebrew letter was a syllabic sign, supposing it to have been ever so employed). This advantage, however, the Italians have, in a great measure, forfeited, by the strange liberties they take with Hebrew names whose originals commence with "^ ; such, for instance, as Jacoh^ Joseph^ Jerusalem^ which, de- 72 REQUISITE CHANGE IN THE ENGLISH [Chap. I. viating from their older practice,* they now transcribe Gia- cobbe, Giuseppe, Gerusalemme. This unwarrantable alteration of the initial part of the sounds of Hebrew denominations is obviously of foreign origin, as it could not have been derived from their previous transcriptions of those names consistently with their own system of orthography, and was most probably borrowed by them from the practice of the French, with whom they have had more intercourse than with any of the other nations who have fallen into the like corruption. It may be further observed, that the extent to which they indulge in this corruption depends upon the degree of familiarity they have with the transcribed names. Thus, the initial part of the three above specified is always changed by them ; but Jericho, which is not of such frequent occurrence in Scripture, they write only in some passages Gerico, and in others more correctly Jerico ; while they never tamper with Jehus^ a name very seldom mentioned in the Bible, but sufi'er it to remain, wherever it occurs, with the initial /unchanged. From combining these considerations it would, I think, appear, that the Italians de- ^ In an edition of Diodati's Italian version of the Bible printed at Geneva in the year 1641, the above names are written lacoh, losef, lerusalem. Nor is the alteration of Italian orthography, thus shown to have taken place, con- fined to Scriptural names. For instance, the Pagan name Jupiter or Jove, which is printed in the same edition of 1641, loue^ is in more modern Italian books transformed into Giove. ^ In the present state of the sacred text, the Hebrew group for the above name (omitting its prefixes) is written in Josh, xviii. 28, '^Dlll'^ (YeBUSi); of which the final element can be clearly shown to be spurious by the con- curring independent testimonies of the Septuagint and Peshitah ; it being transcribed here, as well as in every other place of its occurrence, as the name of a town, without any letter to correspond to that element, le^ovs in the for- mer version, and CDO*^ i (YeBUS) in the latter. But, indeed, the interpo- lation of the Yod at the end of the word in question in this verse is also proved by the clearest internal evidence; both by the circumstance of the group being written without it, wherever else it is intended to designate a place (as, for instance, twice in the eleventh chapter of the First Book of Chroni- cles), and also by the analogies of the Hebrew tongue, according to which ^=10^11^ is an inhabitant of 0^2"^, i. e., a ' Jebusite,' and is so rendered elsewhere I Chap. I.] TRANSCRIPTIONS OF HEBREW NAMES. 73 siring to imitate a Frencli mispronunciation with which they had become familiar in the case of certain names commencing with J, and unable to make this letter of their alphabet accom- modate itself to the change, were induced to substitute for it a soft G (equivalent to our Gh) in transcribing those names. Whether the corruption in question be thus sufficiently ac- counted for or not, its existence in the Italian writing of the present day is, at aU events, unquestionable. The English corruption of the sounds of Scriptural names whose originals begin with Yod cannot be proved of foreign descent in the same manner as the Italian one : and yet it is most probably derived from the same external source ; as dif- ferent nations could hardly have adopted a very arbitrary and in our Authorized Version; but the specified verse expressly relates to towns, and not to their inhabitants. Certainly, the inserters of the matres lectionis in the Hebrew text have betrayed great precipitation in the case before us, in which they acted so contrary to their own practice with regard to the same group in other passages of Scripture, while they, at the same time, grossly violated, either the grammar of their language, or the demands of the con- text; and, although the interpolation of those letters is a subject not yet regularly entered upon, yet, meeting incidentally with so glaring an instance of it, I could hardly pass it over without notice. Unaided by the discovery which is unfolded in the ensuing volume, the framers of our Authorized Ver- sion were reduced to a state of great perplexity in the passage referred to. They could not render ^0^3"^ here, as they correctly have in other passages, ' Jebusite' (what would according to the present powers of the English letters be written ' Yebusite'), because such rendering would have violated sense in this place: nor could they, on the other hand, transcribe it * Jebus,' as they would thus have abandoned their favourite maxim of the ' Hebrew verity' (and, in truth, the Yod at the end of the above group in Josh, xviii. 28, could not fairly be laid to the fault of transcribers, as there is not a single known copy without it in this passage; at least not one among the vast number ex- amined by Kennicott and De Rossi: the former author, indeed, specifies several copies in which the Waw is omitted in this group, but none in which the second Yod is wanting). Under these circumstances our translators in this instance entered into rather a strange compromise between right and wrong, and transcribed the group, neither Jebus nor Jebusite^ but Jebusi, a word which they have not ventured to make use of anywhere else through the entire range of their version. 74 REQUISITE CHANGE IN THE ENGLISH [Chap. I. capricious change of the power of / quite independently of each other ; and, for a reason already stated, the English are far more likely to have taken it from the French, than the French from the English. But, however this may be, the fact is undeniable that, in English orthography, the power of the letter in question has been altered, and its original value trans- ferred to Y. To correct, therefore, the injurious effect of this alteration upon the pronunciation of Scriptural words, it be- comes necessary to substitute the latter character for the for- mer in the English transcriptions of Hebrew names."" Changes fully as great, if not greater, have already been made in our Authorized Version of the Bible ; as may at once be perceived upon consulting the Oxford reprint in 1833 of the first edition of it, or that which was published in 1611. Let us, for in- stance, compare the following extract from this edition with the same 'passage of Scripture, as it is printed in the Bibles of the present day : " Hierusalem, Hierusalem, which killest the Prophets, and stonest them that are sent vnto thee : how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a henne doeth gather^ her brood vnder her wings, & ye would not ? Behold, your house is left vnto you desolate. And verely I say vnto you, ye shall not see me, vntill the time come when yee shall say, Blessed is hee that commeth in the Name of the Lord." Luke, xiii. 34-5. As all the words of this and the corresponding extract from any modern edition are either * The change above recommended has already been made in the Hebrew- expression transcribed into Roman letters Hallelujah, which is now more usually, as well as more correctly, presented to us in English hymn-books Hallelwjah (" praise ye Yah") ; although the name of the Deity herein em- ployed is still suffered to remain in our Bible written Jah instead of Yah. ^ The words of the above extract from the first edition, doeth gather, her before * wings,' and the time, are not printed in Italics, as they are in modern editions, though such words (namely, that are introduced to render the sense complete, without having any to correspond to them in the original text) are occasionally so pointed out in the same edition ; a circumstance which shows that this valuable improvement upon older versions was not all at once accom- plished, but was gradually brought to its present state. Chap. I.] TEANSCRIPTIONS OF HEBEEW NAMES. 75 exactly or virtually the same (though many of them are dif- ferently spelled, and some even differently pronounced^), those extracts are justly considered as parts of the same version ; nor is this identity aifected by even the changes of the proper name, though so much greater than those undergone by any of the other ingredients of the compared extracts. In the first place, the H was very properly dropped, as soon as a reference to the original Hebrew designation of the name showed that the accentuators were mistaken in prefixing the spiritus asper to its Greek transcription ; and, secondly, the /, which thus became the initial element of the w^ord, was with equal pro- priety changed to J^ as soon as the semiconsonantal part of the phonetic value of the former character was transferred to the latter. But if two alterations of this name could be made without disturbing the identity of the version, surely a third may, which rests now upon the very same ground as the second did at the time of its introduction, and which, more- over, does away with the corruption that followed that second alteration, and brings us back again to the previously correct pronunciation of the initial syllable. Here it may, perhaps, be objected that Jerusalem is not only an ancient name, but also a modern one in general use, which it would be mere afi*ectation to deviate from the received mode of writing or pronouncing ; and I admit this remark to be just, in reference to the mode of dealing with such words in ordinary books or in ordinary conversation. But in the transcription of ancient names in our Bible, and in the solemn recitation of them when therein occurring, we are, as I conceive, bound to pay more attention to ancient pronunciation, and to approach, as nearly as we can, to their original sounds : besides which, it is to be observed, that the great majority of names of men and places in Scripture are such that the objection cannot in any way * For instance, ' doeth,' though above used as an auxiliary verb, is given in a dissyllabic form; but in modern writing and speech it is always, when so used, reduced to a monosyllable. 76 REQUISITE CHANGE IN THE ENGLISH [Chap. I. reach them, seeing that they are to be met with only in the works of very ancient authors, and a large proportion of them in the Bible alone. To place the foregoing observations in a stronger light, I will venture to apply them to a name which is, indeed, in modern and frequent, but not in familiar use, and which never should be written or uttered but with feelings of the utmost ve- neration, I mean, Jesus, the appropriate designation of our Lord, given to him, before the time of his birth, by an angel. We surely have no right to tamper with the pronunciation of this sacred name, or to vary it with the varying fashion of the day ; and the present spelling of it in our Authorized Bible and Prayer-book, which misleads the public as to its an- cient sound, ought to be corrected. The original sound, in- deed, of this word both in Hebrew and in Syriac (which ap- proaches nearer than pure Hebrew to the vernacular dialect of the Jews in the age when our Saviour dwelt in human form upon earth), viz., that denoted by Yeshuh or YesJmdh, was changed into one which I-e-soos expresses, by the authors of the New Testament, to suit its pronunciation to the genius of the Greek language, as well as to meet the deficiencies of the Greek alphabet, which contains no consonants equivalent to F, aS%, or H. But those authors were inspired men, and, therefore. Christians of subsequent ages were fully justified in adopting the whole or any part of the alteration thus intro- duced. Accordingly, the fathers of the Western Church, not having the use of the combination Sh in the system of writing employed by them, followed the Greek termination of the name in question ; but, as the Latin / was capable of being used with I^power,* they adhered to the original sound of the * " Ab Jove principium generis, Jove Dardana pubes Gaudet avo." ^n. vii. 219-20. This extract from Virgil is quite sufficient to show that, in the ancient language of the Eomans, Jove^ or rather love (according to the older mode of writing the word), was dissyllabic, and, consequently, that the first two letters of this group, as constituting but a single syllable, must have been equivalent Chap. I.] TKANSCRIPTIONS OF HEBREW NAMES, 77 initial syllable, and so came to write this name lesus ; a form of the word which was thence communicated to all the modern languages written with derivatives of the Eoman alphabet,"* and retained therein till the introduction by the printers of cT as a letter distinct from /. Now, though the Greek transcrip- tion of the first part of the above name does not express the true sound of its initial syllable, it still enables us to ascertain that sound ; because, when we undo the diasresis into which the Evangelists were driven by the defects of Grecian ortho- graphy, and recompound the two syllables / and rj into one, we shall find their combination to yield the sound, not of Ghe^ but of Ye ; so that the inspired Greek Testament confirms the testimony of its Syriac version, as to the modern corruption of the initial syllable of this name. The final part of the word, I admit, is changed, but it is so on the authority of inspired writers; while, on the other hand, the modern change of its com- mencement rests on no ground whatever but that of French caprice. As long as this name was ^vritten lesus or lesu^ there could be no material alteration of the initial part of its sound, as there is but one consonantal power that has any affinity with the vowel /; but when /was substituted for /as its ini- tial letter, it then became liable to change according as the power of / was changed. Where people have been thus led to an altered pronunciation of the name, they may have been unconscious of its corruption, the spelling of it remaining un- varied ; but no such excuse can be pleaded for the Italians, who must have been perfectly aware of its alteration of sound, when they changed the initial letter from / to G^ that is, to one which, in their system of orthography, is of an entirely in sound to the modern English combination To. The ancient pronunciation of the entire word would, according to the present use of the elements of our alphabet, be expressed by the series of letters To-we. * In Italian the above Latin name was at first transcribed lesu^ which came as near to the Syriac sound of the original expressed by Yeshuh as the Italians could reach to ; as their orthography does not admit of the combina- tion of letters sli^ nor of the occurrence of h at the end of a word. 78 USE IN HEBKEW WRITING OF THE [Chap. I. different power. If, however, we should still adhere to our present mode of pronouncing this name after having become sensible of its incorrectness, I confess I do not see how our treatment of the word could be considered more excusable than theirs ; for, on this supposition, the case would stand as fol- lows. The Italians intentionally altered the first letter of the name for the express purpose of introducing a French corrup- tion of its sound ; while the English, on the other hand, retain that letter in its place, although they thereby continue the same French corruption, into which, indeed, they had at first glided unconsciously, but now wittingly persevere in it. I can hardly bring myself to think that in English practice this course will be much longer adhered to. At present, however, the Germans are the only people who avoid corrupting the sound of this holy name ; as they have neither followed the French in the alteration of the power of J, nor the Italians in the substitution for it of G soft ; a circumstance which gives a great advantage to the books written by them on religious subjects. But why should our version of the Bible, or our formularies of devotion, be suffered to remain, in this respect, inferior to those of the Germans, or of any other nation upon earth ? The removal of this blemish falls in a great measure within the province of our clergy. If they should, in the per- formance of divine service, deem it right to pronounce the name Jesus in the same manner as if it were written Yesoos^ which, I conceive, they are fully warranted in doing, by the example of the entire German nation, as well as by the origi- nal English power of the initial letter, that letter would soon come to be changed, both in writing and in print, so as, in accordance with the present powers of the elements of the English alphabet, to accommodate the spelling of this word to its corrected pronunciation. I take this opportunity of submitting a few observations on the Waw conversive^ as it is termed, to the judgment of my reader, with the hope of contributing somewhat to the eluci- dation of points involved in the subject, which, I believe, have Chap. I.] WAW CONVERSIVE OF THE FUTURE. 79 not as yet been sufficiently considered or explained. The ge- neral nature of this Waw is already well understood; namely, that coming between two verbs in different tenses it commu- nicates that of the preceding to the following verb, so as to make the tense of the latter verb a compound one, of which its owTi separate tense constitutes only a subordinate part. Thus, when the preceding verb is in a past tense, the Waw prefixed to the following one in a future form is called Waw conversive of the future; because it turns that future into a tense that bears chiefly on the past, its original reference to the future being preserved merely so far as to indicate, that the narrated event took place after that just previously men- tioned. This compound tense cannot be translated literally into our language ; because the combination of auxiliaries in the expression, ' and did shall (or will) perform,' does not make sense in English. But if the same compound be para- phrased, ' and did next (or subsequently) perform,' it becomes perfectly intelligible to an English reader, and might be termed a continuative preterite , from its serving expressly to denote a continuation of the narrative. The framers of our authorized translation of the Bible have not placed outside their text the literal construction of this, as they have of other idiomatic forms of expression ; since the continuative tense is of such frequent occurrence that the requisite repetition of the idiom would have quite overloaded the margin ; neither have they, in the body of their version, distinguished it from a simple preterite ; as, in modern composition, the order of narration sufficiently indicates the order of occurrence, except when it is expressly stated that no such arrangement is ad- hered to. Where, then, is the use of the continuative prete- rite in the original Bible ? To answer this query, I must observe that the indication of the commencement of a new subject which is afforded by the non-employment or disconti- nuance of the tense in question, though it would be quite superfluous in an English version, was by no means so in the Hebrew text, when written, as it formerly was, without any I 80 ANALYSIS OF THE STRICT MEANING [Chap. I. separation of the words from each other, or marks of pauses at the end of sentences. Nay, even since the introduction into that text of stops and blank spaces of greater length after pas- sages closing subjects, the aid of this tense is still wanted to obviate the ill effects of the ambiguity of the Hebrew conjunc- tion Waw^ which considered by itself has the force of either a continuative or inceptive particle ; and it is yet more required for the purpose of supplying us with authoritative ground for the due correction of erroneous divisions, from whatever cause they may have arisen, but which are not so likely to have been made by the immediate translators of the sacred record, as by subsequent copyists of their versions. Thus, the continuative style which, in the original, per- vades the first chapter of Genesis, does not commence till the third verse of that chapter, and is carried on without interrup- tion to the end of the third verse of the next chapter. We have, therefore, the inspired authority of Moses himself for making this chapter begin at what is at present its second verse, and include the first three verses of the following chap- ter. Had the author mtended to connect the second verse with the preceding one, he would have employed in it a con- tinuative tense, instead of the simple preterite which he has actually made use of He, consequently, meant to keep the first verse quite distinct by itself, as an introduction to his re- cord ; and it well deserves this prominent and conspicuous site, from the very important truth it reveals, the production of this earth and all the great bodies of the universe out of nothing by the mighty power of God ; a truth discovered by none of the Pagan philosophers of antiquity, who universally held that nothing can be produced out of nothing, in accord- ance with the Latin maxim, ex nihilo nihil jit. The Waw^ then, at the beginning of the second verse of the first chapter is not employed as a continuative, but an inceptive particle ; exactly as it is at the beginning of the first verse of the third chapter, where, indicating the commencement of a new subject, it is correctly rendered ' now,' instead of ' and,' by our translators ; Chap.I.] of the WAW CONVERSIVE of the past. 81 and it ought, precisely for the same reason, to have been con- strued likewise ' now' in the former of the two places just com- pared. Thus, again, the third chapter of Genesis commences one verse earlier in the Septuagint than in our Authorized Version : but a reference to the original of the second chap- ter, in which the continuative style is kept up to the end of that verse, decides the point here at issue between the two versions in favour of the English division, and against the Greek one. The verse in question describes the state of inno- cence in which Adam and Eve lived, before they yielded to temptation : and, supposing the scribes Avho arranged the Sep- tuagint in the manner in which it is at present distributed into chapters, to have confined their attention solely to the sub- stance of the narrative, they may have been induced to insert this verse at the head of the third chapter, for the purpose of bringing into more immediate contrast the states in which the first human pair were placed before and after their fall. But the very form of expression here used by the inspired author of the Pentateuch forbids this mode of dividing the subject. My limits preclude me from dwelling at present any longer on the use of the Waw conversive of the future ; and I proceed to the consideration of the Waw conversive of the preterite, which, coming after a future or an imperative (reckoned by He- brew grammarians as a species of future), has the effect of changing the preterite tense of the verb to which it is prefixed, into a future combined with a subordinate reference to the past. In the instance of the former compound tense, the meaning is perfectly understood, though the form of expres- sion cannot be rendered literally in correct English ; but, on the other hand, in the instance of one species of the latter compound, the form is strictly conveyed by the English com- bination ' shall (or will) have done,' while in that of both species of it the meaning has, I suspect, come to be forgotten through disuse, and is not at present known. With a view, then, of making some effort to recover this meaning, I proceed to inquire whether modern translators are w^arranted in the I 2 82 ANALYSIS OF THE STRICT MEANING [Chap. I. practice universally observed by them of drawing no distinc- tion in their respective versions between the compound future and the simple future (or compound imperative and simple imperative) of the Hebrew tongue, in like manner as I admit they are in not distinguishing, as to the mere relations of time, between the compound preterite and simple preterite of that language. To assist the English reader in forming his own judgment on this point, I lay before him rather a long extract from our Bible, selected simply for the circumstance of its containing several of the futures or imperatives under consi- deration ; and in which I deviate from the English translation solely in giving a more literal rendering of those compound forms, with the single exception of restoring one of them that has been overlooked by the framers of our version, the ground of which correction is given in a note upon the place. " Haste ye, and go up to my father, and ye shall have SAID unto 'him. Thus saith thy son Joseph, God hath made me lord of all Egypt ; come down unto me, tarry not ; and thou SHALT HAVE DWELT in the land of Goshen, and thou shalt HAVE BEEN near unto me, thou, and thy children, and thy children's children, and thy flocks, and thy herds, and all that thou hast ; and there will I have nourished thee, AND ye shall have TOLD my father of all my glory in Egypt, and of aU that ye have seen ; and ye shall have MADE haste, and SHALL HAVE BROUGHT DOWN my father hither And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Say unto thy brethren, This do ye ; lead your beasts, and go, get you unto the land of Canaan ; and take your father and your households, and come unto me ; and I mil give you the good of the land of Egypt, and ye shall eat the fat of the land : AND THOU SHALT HAVE COMMANDED them^ This do ye ;* take * The above sentence is rendered in our version, " Now thou art com- manded, this do ye," between the parts of which translation there is no con- nexion, and from which I have found myself compelled to deviate, not only in form, but also in substance. The room for diversity of construction, in Chap. I.J OF THE WAW CONVERSIVE OF THE PAST. 83 you waggons out of the land of Egypt for your little ones, and for your wives ; and ye shall have brought your father, AND SHALL HAVE COME." Gen. xlv. 9-11, 13, 17-19. Now I request my reader to consider this extract with art- tention, and there are multitudes of passages in the Bible of a similar nature, in which such repeated use is made of a very idiomatic form of expression, intermixed with another in some measure corresponding, but still quite free from all idiom ; and I then beg him to ask himself whether the origi- nals of those forms can be wholly equivalent (as they are re- presented to be, not only in, I believe, every modern European translation, but also, for the most part, in the Latin Vulgate), or if they be really so, what could possibly have been the motive of the inspired historian in resorting, and more espe- cially in resorting so often, to the, under this supposition, un- natural, and, at any rate, more complicated form ? To my mind, I confess, it has long appeared almost certain, that there must be some difference of meaning between the two forms, though by no means so clear in what that difference consists. As I was reflecting on this difficulty a few years past, a phrase came to my recollection which I had frequently heard in the days of my boyhood in a remote part of the country, where the common people were not at that time as familiarly ac- this instance, has arisen from an ambiguity in the first clause of the original, ^n^^^^ nnSX For, according as the second word, which is a verb, is read in an active voice SiVvIThaH, *thou hast commanded,' or in the corre- sponding passive one SVvEThaH, ' thou hast been commanded,' this clause admits of being rendered either, " and thou shalt have commanded," or " Now thou hast been commanded." The Masorets have pointed the verb in question for the latter reading, the insurmountable objection to which is, that it makes the whole sentence incoherent, and destroys all connexion between the two constituent clauses. Yet our translators, misguided by the authority of those critics, adopted this reading; which is proved erroneous, not only by the context, but also by the very superior authority of the Jewish framers of the Septuagint, as well as by that, likewise entitled to more weight, of Onkelos, who in their respective renderings of the verb in this place have assigned to it an active signification. 84 ANALYSIS OF THE STEICT MEANING [Chap. I. quainted with English as they now are, and were in the habit of thinking in Irish and afterwards mentally translating the expressions so formed into what was then to them a foreign lan- guage. Under these circumstances, when a gentleman has called out to one of them to carry a message, or do some other piece of service for him quickly, I have constantly heard the answer given, " Please your worship," or " Please your reve- rence,*" as the case might be, " Fll he after doing it for your honour;" by which he was understood to convey the assu- rance, that he would execute the commission intrusted to him with such expedition, that his employer might look upon it in the same light as if it was already fulfilled. I have since inquired from competent Irish scholars, and find there is no such pauld post futurum tense in Irish ; nor does any such exist in English ; and yet certainly, this one appears to have resulted from the combination of the two languages in the manner I have stated. But in whatever way this Anglo-Hi- bernian phrase came into existence, every reader must, I think, be struck with the close resemblance it bears to the Hebrew compound tense under examination, in that they both of them unite a reference to the future with a subordinate one to the past. It, therefore, very naturally occurred to me to try, whe- ther, thus corresponding in form, they might not also agree in meaning ; and, after numerous trials, I can safely affirm, that I never found the signification, so attributed to the Hebrew idiom, at variance with the context ; while, on the other hand, it frequently tended to increase the force and expressiveness of the style. To illustrate this point I revert to the extract from our English Bible already given, from which I deviate, as before, only in the case of the compound tense under in- quiry. But instead of substituting a stricter rendering of the Hebrew form of this tense, I now introduce, in each place of its occurrence, the meaning for it which has been suggested to me by the corresponding Anglo- Irish expression. " Haste ye, and go up to my father, and instantly say unto him. Thus saith thy son Joseph, God hath made me lord of all Chap.L] OFTHEWAWCONVEESIVEOFTHEPAST. 85 Egypt ; come down unto me, tarry not : and thou shalt in- stantly dwell in the land of Goshen, and thou shalt instantly be near unto me, thou, and thy children, and thy children's children, and thy flocks, and thy herds, and all that thou hast : and there will I instantly nourish thee, And ye shall instantly tell my father of all my glory in Egypt, and of all that ye have seen ; and ye shall instantly haste, and in- stantly bring down my father hither And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Say unto thy brethren. This do ye ; lade your beasts, and go, get you unto the land of Canaan ; and take your father and your households, and come unto me ; and I will give you the good of the land of Egypt, and ye shall eat the fat of the land. And instantly command them^ This do ye ; take your waggons out of the land of Egypt for your little ones, and for your wives, and instantly bring your father, and instantly come." Excepting the correction of the short sentence already no- ticed as a mistranslation, the extract from our Authorized Version here referred to is altered, in this quotation of it, solely by the insertion of a supplementary adverb before each of the verbs whose originals are written in the compound tense under discussion, which additional word is printed in Roman characters instead of Italics ; because, though not ex- pressed by the verbs themselves, it is, I conceive, by the pecu- liar form in which they are exhibited. The frequent repetition of this adverb may, perhaps, offend the taste of modern readers ; but they are requested to bear in mind, that a very idiomatic form of expression is just as often repeated, and lies fully as open to the charge of tautology in the original He- brew ; while, on the other hand, the marked repetition of this very supplement serves to place in a more prominent and conspicuous point of view the filial piety of Joseph and the gratitude of Pharaoh. Upon the eagerness of the former to see a beloved, long-lost parent, and upon his delight at the thoughts of instantly pressing to his breast that parent, who was ever after to live near him, of instantly rescuing from 86 ANALYSIS OF THE STRICT MEANING [Chap. I. famine, and thenceforward sustaining with abundance of food that venerated object of his affection, upon these and other like feelings of the son, which, by means of the peculiar form of construction here brought under observation, are so art- lessly and yet so graphically described, it is unnecessary that I should dwell. But in the picture similarly drawn of the second character, there is a trait to which I must beg to direct attention, as it is wholly lost in the Authorized Enghsh Ver- sion, in consequence of the error therein committed which has been above alluded to. In the latter part, then, of the extract in the altered state in which it has just been presented to view, we may perceive displayed the anxiety of Pharaoh to antici- pate the wishes of an able minister of state to whom he and the country at large were deeply indebted, not merely by de- siring that officer to say to his brothers, ' This do ye,' after which follow some special directions which it must have been most gratifying to Joseph to communicate, but also by repeat- ing the injunction in a still more urgent manner, and requir- ing him instantly and without loss of time to command his brothers, ' This do ye,' ^the very words with which he was before desired to begin his address to them, followed by orders closely connected with those previously specified, and which he must have been equally delighted to convey. I may add that the gratification, here depicted, as intended for him, is considerably heightened, not only by the speed with which he was directed to issue those orders, but also by the speed he was required to enjoin upon his brothers in their execution, ^ instantly bring your father and instantly come.' As far, then, as this example goes, my conjecture is, I submit, clearly borne out, that the compared compound tenses, which have so strik- ing a correspondence in form, would be found to agree also in sense. But to prosecute the investigation farther on the same plan would require more time and space than I can Sevote to it ; and I must, therefore, leave the learned to satisfy them- selves upon this point by further trials of the same kind and of their own selection. Chap. I.] OF THE WAW CONVERSIVE OF THE PAST. 87 The Jews, after the corruption of their language produced by the Babylonian captivity, appear to have gradually dropt and at length wholly abandoned the compound tense which has been just examined. This remarkable change commenced among them at any rate before they framed the Septuagint, in which the sense in question is frequently interpreted, not as a compound, but as a simple one ; and it was completed before the times when they composed the Targums, which, written in the dialect then spoken by them, do not exhibit any vestige whatever of this tense. Hence we need not be surprised that this people should now, in reading the Hebrew Bible, make no distinction between the above tense and a simple imperative or simple future, considering that they have so long since lost the use of it in their national dialect. But, surely, we are bound, as far as lies in our power, to look to the sense in which this tense was employed by the original authors of the inspired text, rather than to that in which it has come to be more loosely interpreted, and confounded with other tenses, by modern Jews. The restored distinction is not, I admit, essen- tially necessary to our understanding the general bearing of Scripture ; but it is, to our recovering a nicety in the struc- ture of the ancient language which, as I conceive, is well entitled to attention. When the Seventy Interpreters exhibit the meaning of the tense before us in a future form, they represent it as one quite simple and uncompounded ; but when they translate it in the form of an imperative, they for the most part employ for the purpose one or other of the Greek indeterminate tenses called aorists, whereby a compound tense is produced, in which the futurition essentially connected with the imperative mood is combined with one or other of two kinds of indefinite reference to time which is chiefly the past. Thus, to confine myself to the case in which imperatives are used in the Greek translation of the Hebrew tense in question in the places of its occurrence in the original passage of Genesis above referred to, the in- junctions which, in my first modification of the rendering given 88 ANALYSIS OF THE STEICT MEANING [Chap. I. of this passage in the Authorized English Version, are con- strued as follows : 1. " And ye shall have said unto him" 2. " and ye shall have told my father" 3. " and thou shalt have commanded" * have their bearing represented in the Sep- tuagint through, respectively, the clauses, 1. Kal eiirare avTw, 2. aTrayyeiXaTe ovv rtp Trarpc fiov 3. 2u ^e eureiXai, But when two clauses containing verbs in such forms come imme- diately together, the first of those verbs is in general denoted in the Greek version by a participle belonging to one of the aorists, which gets included in its meaning partly the sense of a future by means of its immediate connexion with the subse- quent imperative : as, for instance, the originals of the sentences in my first rendering of the same passage 4. " and ye shall have made haste, and shall have brought down my father hither" 5. " and ye shall have brought your father, and shall have come" are construed respectively in the Septuagint 4. Kol Ta-)(vuapTe9, Karayayere top Trarepa /jlou whe 5. teal auaXa- jSoj/Te? Tou Trarepa vjulwu TrapayiueaOe. The last of the Greek verbs in these five examples is the only one exhibited in the present * I have been obliged to make the verbs in the above clauses compound futures, for want of compound imperatives in the English language. I could not, for instance, write the last of those clauses, " and do thou have com- manded ;" as the two auxiliaries thus brought together are, I conceive, at variance with each other, the first of them implying that the required act has not, and the second that it has, been already performed. The Anglo-Irish idiom alluded to, in a preceding paragraph, as often heard by me about sixty years ago, supplies the species of imperative here wanted quite free from any incoherence, *' and do thou be after commanding;" while even, in the case of the Hebrew compound future, which admits of a strict English rendering, the same idiom presents the advantage of a closer approach to the original tense. For the translation, "and thou shalt have commanded," gives the form of this tense without the meaning; while the rendering, "and thou shalt instantly command," gives the meaning without the form; but the con- struction, " and thou shalt be after commanding," yields, in the acceptation in which I have heard it employed, the meaning, at the same time, that it in a great measure agrees with the form of the Hebrew tense. But, notwith- standing this advantage of the mongrel phrase, I could not venture to adopt myself, or recommend to others, the use of such broken English. Chap. I.] OF THE W AW CON VERSIVE OF THE PAST. 89 imperative, or, as I should prefer calling it, the simple impe- rative form.^ I must, however, add that the verb in the first example (etTrare), though strictly in a compound imperative form, came in the course of time to be used as a simple impe- rative, in consequence of the present tense of this verb having fallen into disuse. The other verbs and the participles are employed in compound tenses, one part of whose composition was indeterminate from the very first, and whose totalities are now to the apprehension of moderns particularly vague, in consequence of there being no forms of expression precisely equivalent to them in any of the modern European tongues.^ As far, however, as the meaning of these compound tenses has been ascertained, it is not identical with that I have detected The imperative of the second aorist, or compound imperative, 7rapa<^ev- eaOe, may be easily conceived to have been changed by oversight of copyists into vrapar^iveaOe, differing as it does therefrom only by a single letter. I do not, however, lay much stress on the possibility of this alteration having taken place; as the likelihood of its having done so is, I admit, greatly diminished, by the circumstance of the verb being, in this site, written in the present tense, in both the Vatican and Alexandrian copies of the Septuagint. ^ It is extremely hard for persons who make use of but one tense in the imperative mood to conceive how the several tenses of that mood in the an- cient Greek language differed from each other. This difficulty is strongly indicated in the attempt of the learned French authors of the Port-Royal Greek Grammar to distinguish between the first aorist imperative and preterperfect imperative, by translating rvyjrov, fac verberaveris, and t6ti;06, verheraveris ; where, in point of fact, they have madB a distinction without a difference. For the word inserted before verheraveris in the former instance is equally wanted in the latter, to give an imperative turn to the expression ; for which purpose it, or some equivalent one, as not written, must be there understood. The same difficulty may be further illustrated by the very forced explanation they have given of their rendering of TeTi;0e, which is as follows, verheraveris, i. e. hoc age ut postniodum verherasse dicaris. The application of the idiom already noticed to this case would at least yield a more intelligible meaning for the two imperatives, and convey some difference of tense. Their interpre- tation would thus come out tv^ov, ' do thou be after beating' T6Ti;0e, ' do thou be after having beaten.' I do not, however, pretend to assert, these are correct renderings of the two Greek words ; nor, indeed, am I able to adduce their exact equivalents. 90 ANALYSIS OF THE STRICT M EANING [Chap. I. for the Hebrew form, to the interpretation of which they have been applied. The Seventy Jews, therefore, must be considered as having, for want of a Greek inflexion exactly corresponding in sense with the Hebrew compound,"" selected the Grecian tenses which approached nearest to it in form ; and as they frequently introduced into their version Hebrew idioms in a corrupt Grecian dress, so, in the instances here referred to, they appear to have employed pure Greek forms in, not their native, but a foreign acceptation. Hence, although there is a Latin inflexion which somewhat answers to the specified Greek ones, namely, the tense of the optative or subjunctive mood which is used indifi*erently as a preterite or a future, and is in some measure compounded of both ; yet this inflexion is not, I beheve, ever employed in the Vulgate in the translation of the Hebrew tense in question. As far as my trials happen to have reached, that tense is always therein rendered by simple imperatives or simple futures (with scarcely ever any supple- mentary words added to remedy the simplicity of those forms) ; in consequence of which it came to be translated in all the modern versions of the Vulgate also in the same loose manner : and even when the German and English Reformers turned to the original Hebrew Bible, for the purpose of obtaining cor- recter translations of it, they did not attempt to revive the strict meaning of this tense, partly from its not having been preserved by the Jews, in whose critical knowledge of the ancient language, as originally used, they placed too implicit a rehance ; and partly from their having no forms in their respective tongues exactly agreeing with the compound He- brew imperatives. I shall conclude this discussion with comparing the several representations of the last sentence of the examined passage of Scripture as it is exhibited in the Hebrew text, and in the principal versions that were written, either immediately by * The Greek paulo post futiiriim was of no use to the Seventy for the above purpose, as it is confined to the passive voice. Chap.L] OFTHEWAWCONVEESIVEOFTHEPAST. 91 Jews, or under their superintendence ; placing under each representation its meaning, as closely as I can. Hebrew, . . DMi^m .DD^ni^Tl^ ^nmy\ D And do ye instantly bring your father, and instantly come. Septuagint, . koI dvaXa^ovre^ TOP iraTepa viJLwp\7rapayevea6e?'\ TrapaylveaOe. And do ye, instantly taking up your father, [instantly?] come hither. Vvlgate, . . Tollite patrem vestrum, et properate quant- ocyus venientes. Do ye take up your father, and hasten as quickly as possible coming. And ye shall take up your father, and shall come. I have here expressed the meaning of the translation given by the Seventy Jews of this sentence, not according to the Grecian use, as far as it can now be ascertained, of the com- pound tense employed in its first member, but according to that made of the corresponding compound in the original ; and I have marked only as possible, the use of the same Greek tense in the second member. But I Avish to direct the atten- tion of the reader, in the first instance, not so much to the meaning of this tense as to the composite nature attached to it by the combination of the participle of the second aoristwith the verb in the imperative mood, whether that verb be also in the second aorist or not. With regard to Jerome's translation of the sentence, it must be considered as virtually that of his Jewish instructors, on whom he was totally dependent for any knowledge he possessed of Hebrew ; as he had not the advan- tage now afforded by the Masoretic system, which, by laying the grammar of the language open to inspection, would have enabled him to judge for himself of the bearing of each passage in the original Scriptures. It is only by taking into account the state of subserviency to the dogmatic teaching of his He- brew masters in which he was thus placed, that I can form any 92 A BRIEF NOTICE OF THE [Chap. I. conception how a man of his great ability came, after he had once been taught the full signification of the Hebrew compound tense, to refrain, as he has done, from applying that significa- tion wherever the context required it. Thus, for instance, to return for a moment to the whole of the quoted passage of Genesis terminating with the sentence just brought under view, surely, Joseph must have been more eager for the arrival of Jacob in Egypt than Pharaoh could by any possibility have been ; yet, in the version now referred to, a graphic descrip- tion of this eagerness is given in the latter case, while it is omitted in the former, wherein the attribution of such a feel- ing to the speaker would have been far more in keeping with the character of the man and the circumstances of the narra- tive ; and this omission, I may also remark, is made, though the very same idiomatic structure in the original warranted the translator in the use of the same description in both cases. As to the very slight attention paid to the idiom in question by the instructors of Jerome, it is, I conceive, to be accounted for by the total absence of this form of expression from both the Chaldee and Syriac, the former of which languages was identical with, and the latter had a close affinity to, that long employed only as the sacerdotal dialect of the Jews ; so that the above idiomatic tense must have been discontinued in this dialect, at all events before the date of the composition of any of the Targums, and probably before that of the Peshitah ; a discontinuance, indeed, which, as I have already stated, seems to have commenced even before the Septuagint was written. Accordingly, we may perceive symptoms of a gradually in- creasing neglect of the proper bearing of this tense in their interpretations of it, on our comparing the several portions of the last example. The inspired author presents to us a verb with a Waw conversive of the preterite prefixed to it in each member of the Hebrew sentence : while, in their respective translations thereof, the circumstance of this combination being invested with a peculiar force is indicated, by the Seventy Jews, in reference to at least one, if not both clauses ; by Chap. I.] HEBREW PROPHETIC FUTURE. 93 Jerome, in unquestionably the case but of one ; and by On- kelos, in that of neither clause ; from whose time onward all distinction between the tense so constructed and a simple im- perative, or simple future, appears to have been overlooked or abandoned by his countrymen in their interpretation of the sacred text. In fine, with respect to the proof to be derived from ancient testimony in support of the meaning I have re- covered for this tense, the evidence of the Seventy Jews, I ad- mit, goes barely to the extent of attesting that it differs from the simpler tenses with which it is at present confounded, but conveys to us that difference only through combinations of tenses which are now but very imperfectly understood, even if we could be secure (which we are not) that they were em- ployed by those writers in a purely Grecian acceptation. This deficiency, however, is, in some degree, made up for by the testimony of Jerome, who, in his rendering of the second clause of the original sentence, fully bears out the correctness of the assigned meaning, as must at once be seen on comparing his and my translations of that clause. Besides the peculiar use of the Hebrew preterite investi- gated in the foregoing paragraphs, by which, as I have endea- voured to prove, it is converted into a species ofpaulo post futurum tense, it is also employed in the original Scriptures with a reference to the future (even when unconnected with any preceding verb in the future tense), in order to indicate that we may be as certain of the fulfilment of a prediction thus conveyed, as if the predicted event had already come to pass. It is by the prophets that the preterite is chiefly used in the latter sense, in consequence of which it may be denominated, when so applied, the prophetic future. The occurrence of this idiomatic species of future tense in the sacred text is now so generally admitted, that I shall not detain the reader with any proof of its actual existence therein ; but, assuming this point to have been already established, will confine myself to noticing two others relating to the same subject. In the first place, then, it would, I submit, be an improvement to our Au- 94 A BRIEF NOTICE OF THE [Chap. I. thorized Version, if a distinction were to be introduced into it between the prophetic and the simple future ; which might be clearly effected by uniformly joining to the English rendering of the former future some adverb expressive of certainty, and by steadily abstaining from any other use of that adverb. In this way, not only would the English reader be supplied with a correcter interpretation of the prophetic future than is at present afforded to him, but he would also be apprised of the places of its occurrence in the Hebrew text of which aU indi- cation has been hitherto withheld from him. In the second place, there is an instance in which I think I can show that an employment in Scripture of the idiomatic future in question has been overlooked, not only by the framers of our Authorized Version, but also by all the modern com- mentators on the Hebrew text, even, as far as I can find, up to the present day. The instance to which I allude, will be found in the parallel passages which are rendered in our ver- sion as foUows : " By thy messengers thou hast reproached the Lord, and hast said, ' With the multitude of my chariots I AM COME UP to the height of the mountains, to the sides of Lebanon;'" 2 Kings, xix. 23. "By thy servants hast thou reproached the Lord, and hast said, ' By the multitude of my chariots am I come up to the height of the mountains, to the sides of Lebanon ;' " Isaiah, xxxvii. 24. I do not here com- plain of these renderings being only equivalent and not iden- tical, though their originals (with the exception of a single letter, on all sides admitted to be redundant in one of them) are exactly the same ; but, turning attention to the words of each rendering which are printed in Italics, and are the trans- lations of one and the same expression in the original passages, "^TvliJ "^Jb^, I would observe that, besides the omission in these translations of all notice of the boasting insertion in the original of the Hebrew pronoun of the first person, where not wanted to convey the sense, and which consequently ought to have been here interpreted ' I, even I,' or 'I myself,' the tense in them assigned to the verb is compounded of the present Chap. I.] HEBREW PROPHETIC FUTURE. 95 and the past, and terminates in a reference to a time just past, a bearing of it which in the adduced passages is utterly in- admissible. It would obviously have been an absurd act of Sennacherib to boast of his having already driven the multi- tude of his chariots over the tops of Lebanon, at a period when it was notorious that he had not as yet done so ; and, ac- cordingly, the Hebrew expression here referred to is rendered by the Seventy, in one of the passages in which it is recorded, l And the translation of the same verse in the edition of Cranmer's Bible printed in 1540 (after substituting the Roman for the old English black letter) is as follows : "and Cain spake unto Habell hys brother (let us go forth)^ ^^^ j^ fortuned when they were in the feld Cain rose up agaynst Habel hys brother, & slue hym." ^ The copy of the Samaritan Pentateuch which first reached Europe in modern times appears to have been that purchased from the Samaritans by Pietro della Valle for M. de Sancy, French ambassador at Constantinople, by whom it was sent to Paris in 1616, just five years after the first edition of the Chap.L] of an additional use of italics. 107 fathers of the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries of several of the more striking differences between these and the Jewish copies of the same work. Of such notices an instance is afforded in the case of the very passage just examined ; and Jerome's evidence incidentally given of the virtual agreement in this instance between the Samaritan and Greek records is fully borne out by inspection of the Samaritan text. At pre- sent, however, it is not so material to inquire how far our last set of authorized translators were ansAverable for the faults of commission and omission included in the particular case above brought forward, as to consider in what way those faults may best be removed. Their rendering, then, of the verse. Gen. iv. 8, I would venture to recommend being corrected as fol- lows : " And Cayin said to Habel his brother, let us go into the field ; and it came to pass, while they were in the field, that Cayin rose up against his brother Habel, and slew him." But the alterations here suggested are not, without some fur- ther change, sufiicient to efiect the object in view: as, accord- ing to the use made of Italics in our version, the words therein so printed indicate, not only that there are no corresponding ones in the Jewish edition of the Hebrew text, but also that they are necessarily implied by the context ; of which posi- tions the latter is, in the instance before us, untrue. The con- text, indeed, shows very plainly that some words are wanted in the original passage, but does not (though it excludes any inconsistent with itself) positively determine what are those words ; and to justify the supplement here given, the authori- ties should be specified on which it has been adopted. There should, then, besides, be placed in the margin, as a note upon this supplement, the words ' Samaritan text and Septuagint and Peshitah versions,' or more briefly, ' Samar., Sept., and Pesh.' The insertion in translations of words in a different cha- present Authorized English Version had been published. It is not, however, quite certain whether some of the copies procured by Archbishop Ussher from the East did not reach him at a somewhat earlier date. 108 THIRD CLASS OF FAULTS, AND BENEFIT [Chap. L racter from that employed in the main body of each of them, for the purpose of denoting those necessarily implied by the context, but to which there are none to correspond in the respective originals,"" commenced, as far as I can find, with the authors of the Geneva Bible,^ and constitutes evidently a vast improvement on the previous mode of exhibiting such works ; as it enables translators of ancient ^vritings, and more espe- cially of those composing the several parts of the inspired volume, to give their renderings in a fuller and freer style, and one more accordant to the peculiarities of modern languages, without, at the same time, deviating from a strict representa- tion of the state of the originals respectively undertaken to be interpreted. This improvement has been followed in each of the authorized English versions that were framed since the date of its introduction ; though less accurately in the earlier one, or that called ' Parker's Bible' ; but both its introducers and the two subsequent sets of translators referred to were precluded by their prejudices from the very important exten- sion of its use that has just been pointed out. Now, at length, however, surely sufficient time has been afforded for the sub- siding of the party zeal which gave birth to the prejudices in question, and for allowing the obviously sound principle to come into operation without any abatement or alloy, that, in everything relating to the Bible, the public have a right to be told " the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." I shall here only add that in reference to the Hebrew text, I * Italics were not introduced for the above purpose, till after some editions of the present Authorized Version were printed, at the period when the Roman character came to be substituted in that version, for the old English black letter, '' The English version that was authorized next before Parker's Bible, that is, Cranmer's Bible, is older than the Geneva Bible, and yet has some words printed in a different character from that generally used in it ; but these are not at all words implied by the context, but constitute the translation of Latin expressions in the Vulgate which have none to correspond with them in the Hebrew text as it stands at present. Chap.I.] of an additional use of italics. 109 would insert in the chasm occurring in the examined place the words I have quoted from the Samaritan record, including them, however, between brackets, and putting in the margin, as a note upon them, the words Codex Samar. Prejudices, surely, that interfere in any way with a just representation of the subject should not be deferred to, in the case of Jews any more than in that of Christians. For a second example of the same class of faults and also of the value of the proposed additional use of Italics, I would request attention to the translation in the present Authorized Version of the Bible of the last verse of the twenty-seventh chapter of Deuteronomy, as exhibited in the reprint, published at Oxford in 1833, of the first edition, where it runs thus : " Cursed be hee that confirmeth not all the words of this Law to doe them : and al the people shal say. Amen." The Hebrew for ' all,' on which the whole drift of St. Paul's argument rests, in the place (Gal. iii. 10) where he quotes the meaning of the first clause of this verse, does not appear in the original text in its present state ; and this English word cannot be admitted to be implied by the context, as the clause yields very intelli- gible sense without it, and that too quite a different sense from the one produced by its insertion. Yet, while the verb ' be,' which is so far from being here essentially requisite that it might be erased without either altering the meaning of the passage or rendering it unmeaning, is carefully marked out as having no corresponding word in the Hebrew text, not the slightest intimation is given of the omission of infinitely more importance in the same passage of that text which causes the original, as it stands at present, and its version to have quite different bearings in this place ; and the Hebrew clause is likewise treated as if there was no such omission in it, by all the earlier English translators, excepting the first of them, Wycliffe.^ This misrepresentation of the existing state of Wycliffe's translation of the verse including the above clause, when the characters used by him are changed in the manner described in a preced- ing note, stands thus: " Corsed dwelli^ not i Oe wordis of ^is lawe, ne he i 110 THIRD CLASS OF FAULTS, AND BENEFIT [Chap. I. the original record is, however, more pointed in the English versions that have been ^\Titten since the method was intro- duced of distinguishing by a diiFerence of character between the words in them that have, and those that have not, corre- sponding vocables in the Hebrew text ; and it was continued in its more deceptive form in our present Authorized Version, at any rate, as late as the edition which issued from the Uni- versity Press of Cambridge in the year 1629. How soon after the word ' all' came to be printed in Italics in the place under discussion, I cannot state ; but it has been so exhibited in every edition that has been published for a great length of time past. This correction, however, is not of itself sufficient to remedy the evil of the fallacy previously imposed on the public, and give an adequate view of the subject. It is further necessary, not only to guard the reader from an error into which he might be very apt to be inadvertently drawn by the ordinary use of Italics in our version, that, I mean, of assuming that the supplementary word in the examined place must, from the manner in which it is printed, be implied by the context; but also to inform him, since its introduction into the English translation of the clause is not warranted, either by the exist- ing state of the original text, or by the demands of the context, on what grounds it is there inserted. Both objects would be answered by the marginal reference, ' Samaritan text and Sep- dede fulfiUi^, and all the peple schal sey amen." This is a strictly literal rendering of Jerome's translation in the Vulgate of the same passage (" Ma- ledictus qui non permanet in sermonibus legis hujus, nee eos opere perficit. Et dicet omnis populus, Amen") ; so much so, indeed, that if the reader should be at a loss for the meaning of any of the old English words, he can ascertain it by means of the corresponding words in the Latin verse : as, for instance, *ne he' is the exact translation of 'nee eos,' ' hem' being the old English for ' them.' Here I have further to observe, that the word, ' hee' or * he,' in the translation given of the same passage in the present Authorized- Version, has none exactly corresponding to it in the Hebrew, any more than it has in the Latin verse; so that in order to the observance of perfect accu- racy, this pronoun, just as well as the verb 'be,' ought to be printed in Italics. Chap. I.] OF AN ADDITIONAL USE OF ITALICS. 1 1 1 tuagint,' each of whicli records clearly, and, quite independently of the other, attests, that the sacred text originally contained the Hebrew for ' all' in the place in question, by actually now exhibiting, the former record, the word itself, /D, and the lat- ter, its Greek translation, in that site. Here I may add, as a general remark, that such references would serve the twofold end of distinguishing the new use of ItaUcs here recommended from that to which they have hitherto been applied, and of communicating to the public the defects in the existing state of the Hebrew text, together with the means which a gracious Providence has supplied for their removal. In the instance of the particular passage under discussion, the force of the independent, yet perfectly concordant, testi- monies of the Samaritan text and oldest Greek version is con- firmed in the most convincing manner by the inspired autho- rity of St. Paul, who read and translated this passage in exactly the same manner as did the framers of the latter record. It is in vain here to object that this Apostle quoted but loosely from the Hebrew Scriptures. The objection can be shown, by means of the discovery unfolded in the ensuing investigation, quite erroneous in a vast majority of the passages adduced in its support; but even supposing his practice to have been of this description in other cases, it cannot for a moment be allowed to have been such in that before us. For, if the word 7^ did not exist in his time in the specified site, his quotation in Greek of the meaning of the clause in question would be not merely loose, but absolutely false, and the argument of vital importance in which he makes use of that quotation would have been grounded by him on a falsehood, a view of the matter which is utterly inadmissible. But all-powerful as is the bearing of his quotation on the subject, it still is not by itself sufiicient to prove the existence of a chasm in the above site to every one, as, for instance, to a modern Jew strongly prepossessed with the notion of the perfect preservation of the Hebrew text. A Christian, indeed, might argue, that St. Paul was inspired, therefore his evidence on the point must be L 112 FOURTH CLASS OF FAULTS IN THE [Chap. I. true, and therefore the word 7D must have originally stood in the place alluded to ; but the Jew would, on the other hand, insist on the actual absence of 7^ from that place, and thence infer the falsehood of the adduced evidence. For the latter of these disputants, then, further proof of the point in question is obviously requisite ; and, though not wanted for the former, still, even to him it may be gratifying to find additional au- thorities ex abundanti supplied for the missing word.* Before quitting this example, it may be worth while to consider the manner in which Jerome dealt with it, as afford- ing an additional illustration of the benefit of the proposed extension of the use of Italics. Although this author's judg- ment was greatly fettered by the prejudices of those to whom he was forced to resort for instruction in the mode of reading and interpreting the Hebrew text, yet he at least dimly per- ceived the very grounds above stated for the chasm I have brought under notice, as well as another of minor importance in the same passage, which I had no occasion for my present object to advert to ; and he further was led to suspect those chasms, more especially the principal one, to have been made designedly by Jews of former times for the purpose of fraudu- lently defeating the argument founded on this passage by St. Paul.^ Still, when he came to translate the verse in question, he abandoned this view of the subject, in order that he might a In the example above discussed, the marginal note, Gal. iii. 10, not only points out a parallel passage of Scripture, but also serves to show how a chasm, which it proves to exist in the original of the verse it is annexed to, ought to be filled. When Scriptural references answer this twofold use, it would perhaps be expedient, for the sake of distinctness, to have them printed in Italics. ^ The observations of Jerome above alluded to are conveyed by him in the following terms: " incertum habemus utrum Septuaginta Interpretes ad- diderint, omnis homo, et, in omnibus; an in veteri Hebraico ita fuerit, et postea a Judseis deletum sit. In banc me autem suspicionem ilia res stimulat; quod verbum, omnis, et, in omnibus, quasi sensui suo necessarium, ad probandum illud, quod quicumque ex operibus Legis sunt, sub maledicto sint. Apostolus, vir Hebraeae peritise et^in Lege doctissimus, nunquam protulisset, nisi in He- Chap.L] authorized ENGLISH VERSION. 113 rigidly adhere to what he, upon the whole, notwithstanding his doubts thereon, was eventually persuaded to think the genuine original state of the sentence in the Hebrew text. Hence he was in the end mduced to render this verse as fol- lows : " Maledictus qui non permanet in sermonibus hujus legis, nee eos opere perficit. Et dicet omnis populus. Amen." But had any mode occurred to him, analogous to that just recommended, of distinguishing supplementary words from the rest of his version ^had he, for instance, inserted the word ' omnibus,' between brackets immediately before ' sermonibus,' with a note on it referring to authorities for its insertion which are supplied in his own observations upon the passage ; he might then have avoided a fatal defect in his translation, and done justice to the fairness of St. Paul's argument, consistently with giving at the same time a strictly correct representation of the Hebrew verse in the then existing state of the original text, which was exactly the same as that in which it is exhi- bited at this day. 4. The last class I shall notice of faults in our Authorized Version which, indeed, is common to all the translations framed in modern times immediately from the Hebrew Scrip- tures comprises those occasioned by a strict adherence to the sacred text, as it stands at present, in cases where the read- ings to which it is now confined by the matres lectionis, make braeis voluminibus haberetur. Quam ab causam Samaritanorum Hebraea volumina relegens, inveni chol, quod interpretatur omnis, sive omnibus, scrip- turn esse ; et cum Septuaginta Interpretibus concordare. Frustra igitur illud tulerunt Judasi ; ne viderentur esse sub maledicto, si non possent omnia com- plere quae scrip ta sunt; quum antiquiores alterius quoque gentis litterge id positum fuisse testentur." *S'. Hieronymi Opera, Ed. Benedict., torn, iv., col. 257. Here is a very striking admission from one so strongly impressed as this writer was by his teachers with the notion of the ' Hebrew verity,' or per- fect preservation of the Hebrew text. It may, by the way, be worth here noticing, the attestation given at the end of this extract to the greater anti- quity of the Samaritan, than of the Jewish shapes of the Hebrew letters; a fact which has, since Jerome's time, been fully confirmed by the evidence of coins dug out of the ruins of parts of Jerusalem. L 2 114 FOURTH CLASS OF FAULTS, &c. [Chap. I. it convey senses inconsistent in themselves, as well as at variance with the interpretations given of the same passages in the oldest and best versions. In a few instances, indeed, the erroneously inserted vowel-letters have been branded by the Masorets, or later set of vocalizers, with a little circle, their mark of censure, and left unpointed by them ; in consequence of which those letters have been equally neglected by modern critics, and the words containing them are correctly read and translated, as if quite free from such interpolations. But in the vast majority of cases the discrepancies and inconsistencies produced in this manner have been passed over unnoticed and uncorrected both by the Masorets, and, after their example, by the composers of the modern versions referred to. On this account, however, no blame is to be imputed to either party : for, as long as the disturbing letters were looked upon as genuine elements of the original text, the respect felt for the sacred Word of God must have prevented men from examin- ing with freedom the bearing of passages supposed to be pre- served exactly the same as they were written by their inspired authors. But when the three letters in question are shown to have constituted, in their capacity of vowel-signs, no part of the writing of the Old Testament in its original state, but to have been therein subsequently inserted, we shall be entitled to treat their application to the original text as merely a human commentary, which is, indeed, respectable for its antiquity, and has proved in general of considerable benefit in facilitating the reading of the Hebrew Scriptures, but yet in some places misleads, either from oversight or through design on the part of its framers. A great part of the ensuing argument will be taken up with examples to sustain this view of the matter, which serve not only to confirm the reality of the discovery proposed for discussion, but also to illustrate its usefulness. To adduce, then, any such examples here would be super- fluous as well as premature ; and I shall, therefore, without further preamble, enter at once on the direct investigation of my principal subject. Chap.IL] SPURIOUSNESS of those letters, Etc. 115 CHAPTER II. PROOFS OF THE SPURIOUSNESS OF THE M AIRES LECTIONIS IN THE SACRED TEXT DERIVED FROM THE USES MADE OF THEM IN ITS NOMENCLATURE. SPURIOUSNESS OF THOSE LETTERS PROVED UPON GENERAL GROUNDS WHY THIS INVESTIGATION BEGINS WITH AN ANALYSIS OF PROPER NAMES EXAMINATION OF THE HEBREW DESIGNATIONS OF DAVID, MIRIAM, SARAH, JOSHUA, A NAMESAKE OF JOSHUAH's COMPANION, Joshua's FIRST NAME, isaiah, jeremiah adventitious nature OF the nun PARAGOGIC in the HEBREW TEXT EXAMINATION OF THE HEBREW DESIGNATIONS OF JETHRO, NUN, SAMARIA, SOLOMON VOWEL-LETTERS PROVED SPURIOUS MORE CLEARLY BY NAMES OF RARE USE HOW FAR THE SAME WRITTEN NAME IMPLIES THE SAME SPOKEN ONE AGREEMENT RESTORED BETWEEN AMOS, IX. 12, AND ACTS, XV. 17 OF SHAMMUAH, SHAMMUA, SHIMEAH, SHIMEA, SHAM- MAH, SHAMMA, SHIMMA, AND SHIMEI, TRANSCRIPTS IN OUR VER- SION OF ONE AND THE SAME ORIGINAL GROUP A FEW MORE IN- STANCES ADDUCED OF CONTRADICTORY VOCALIZATION OF THE FOREIGN NAMES TRANSCRIBED IN OUR VERSION, RESPECTIVELY, ON AND AVEN, POTI-PHERAH, POTIPHAR, NEBUCHADNEZZAR, CYRUS, DARIUS OF THE DESIGNATION OF JERUSALEM, WHY CLASSED WITH FOREIGN ONES ON THE CORRECT PRONUNCIATION OF THE FOUR- LETTERED NAME OF GOD. IN the unpointed Hebrew Bible the characters of which the text is composed are not any of them appropriated ex- clusively to the representation of vowels ; they all serve in general to denote either consonants or syllables, according as the reader is or is not familiar with the notion of a consonan- tal power. If the inspired penmen used their letters in the latter way, they were not conscious of leaving any part of the sounds of their words unexpressed by signs ; but, if in the former, they must have been aware that they wrote those words in a very defective manner, a piece of intentional ne- glect which can hardly be imputed to them. Three of the 116 SPURIOUSNESS OF THOSE LETTERS [Chap. 11. characters, however, which, when looked upon as consonants, are equivalent respectively to H^ F, and IT, appear in the pre- sent state of the text to be sometimes divested of their primary powers, whether consonantal or syllabic, and shifted to desig- nating, the first of them an JL or ^ ; the second, an ^ or J ; and the third, an or U, This additional office, indeed, was denied to them by the Masorets, who maintained that they were everywhere employed as consonants, though in some places without any consonantal use, and merely with that of subserviency to the Masoretic points, either in giving length to the vowels thereby denoted, or in other ways ; while they remained themselves unuttered in reading, in consequence of which they got the name of quiescents. But, independently of the consideration that no such application of them is possible in the sites in which they are called otiants, how could they have been anywhere intended for silent dependents upon the points in question before those signs had existence, or were ever thought of? When, therefore, the Rabbinical fable of the Scriptures having been, from the first, written with vowel- points came to be exploded, this concomitant fiction necessa- rily shared the same fate. In reading pointed Hebrew it is, I grant, convenient, for the purpose of avoiding the confusion that would be produced by the simultaneous use of two difi*erent sets of vowel-signs, to pass over the above-mentioned letters in certain situations without utterance ; but it by no means hence follows that they were always so treated : on the contrary, it is now almost universally admitted that they preceded the Masoretic points in the office of expressing vowels, on which account they have been, when thus employed, technically de- nominated matres lectionis, or ' mothers of reading.' Assuming, then, their occasionally vocalic use as a matter already estab- lished, a use, indeed, which the perusal of any single page of an unpointed copy of the Hebrew Bible is quite sufficient to force upon our conviction, I shall proceed to inquire whether, in the places where they are applied to this secon- Chap. II.] PEOVED UPON GENERAL GROUNDS. 117 clary service, they constitute an original part of the sacred .text ; and, if not, how and when they came to be introduced into it. Before entering on a detailed investigation of this subject, I have to observe, that the very nature of the twofold applica- tion, just described, of Halepli^ Yod, and Waw, is directly at variance with the supposition of its being coeval with the first use of alphabetic writing. It is obvious that Moses either did or did not make use of the Hebrew alphabet as a syllabary. If he did, no vowel-letters could have entered the text of the Pentateuch, in the form in which the matres lectionis are at present found there, as signs of parts of syllables. On the other hand, if he did not, he must by some means or other have resolved his syllables into their elements of both kinds ; in which case he would of necessity have got at least as early a conception of vowels as of consonants, and consequently have as primarily and as appropriately applied letters to their desig- nation. It is wholly reversing the natural order of things, to suppose that he would have first apprehended and given signs to the more difficult objects of thought, the consonantal powers, which are, when taken by themselves, unpronounce- able ; and thence have borrowed characters to be transferred, as the matres lectionis are, to denoting, through a secondary application, the vowels. In neither case, therefore, of the alter- native just stated, could the matres lectionis have made their appearance in his original writing, or, consequently, in that of any of the succeeding authors of the Old Testament, who all followed the example he set to them, and adhered exactly to the same method of employing the Hebrew letters. With regard, however, to a question of fact, as is that before us, whether the matres lectionis be spurious or ge- nuine elements of the sacred text, testimony is suited to make a stronger impression on the mind than any sort of abstract reasoning. Upon this point, then, evidence can be brought to bear from various sources, each of which yields a most co- pious and abundant supply of materials to work on. In the 1 18 WHY THIS INVESTIGATION BEGINS [Chap II. first place, we have the Hebrew text itself attesting the spu- riousness of the letters in question, by the numerous discre- pancies and inconsistencies they attach to it, faults which, surely, cannot be imputed to its inspired authors ; neither can they be accounted for by the carelessness of transcribers, or the injuries of time. From casual blemishes so produced, of which I may here by the way observe, there are vastly fewer in the Bible than in any other ancient book, the faults alluded to are distinguished in a very marked way, as well by a certain degree of constancy and uniformity that, in general, prevails among them in other respects, as by the circumstance of their being in every instance confined to three, and mostly to two, letters of the Hebrew alphabet. It only remains, therefore, that the elements of the text which make it betray such faults in its present state, must have been interpolated therein subsequently to the original composition of its several parts. Secondly, we find the Samaritan edition of the Hebrew Pentateuch directly attesting the spuriousness of the matres lectionis in innumera- ble places of the Jewish edition, by exhibiting the text either with no vowel-letters, or with difierent ones in those places. Thirdly, we obtain indirect evidence to the like effect from an endless stock of passages in the Septuagint which indicate that the Greek translators read the corresponding parts of the ori- ginal with different vowels from those at present to be seen therein expressed. Fourthly, we are furnished with the very same kind of indirect testimony, and in similar abundance, by the Peshitah, or oldest of the Syriac versions. These four heads of evidence, I should add, are independent of each other,* * The Jewish vocalization, or reading, of the sacred text was not made without a knowledge of the Septuagint, but still, the two works, having been executed by adverse parties, may so far be considered as mutually indepen- dent; as also may the Samaritan and Jewish vocalizations, for the like reason and to the same extent ; but the Peshitah and the Septuagint are ab- solutely independent of each other. These points will clearly come out on a comparison of the details of evidence drawn from the four sources of informa- tion referred to. Chap. II.] WITH AN ANALYSIS OF PROPER NAMES. 119 yet perfectly agreeing in the result to which they severally conduct. Some of the items under each head may not strike the reader as powerfully as others ; but he is to judge of the force of the argument thus sustained, not by the separate in- stances of attestation which shall be here produced, but by the combined bearing of them all ; and he is to recollect that the funds from which those instances are drawn may be almost said to be inexhaustible, if any further accumulation of evi- dence should be deemed wanting. I shall commence with analyzing proper names, because the testimony of each of the above-mentioned versions bears upon them, with regard to this subject, as directly as that of either of the editions of the ori- ginal ; as also because this branch of the inquiry does not so much require a knowledge of Hebrew, and consequently may be brought under the full and immediate cognizance of a wider circle of readers than the remaining parts of the inves- tigation. 1. The name of the royal Psalmist is constantly written m, DaW/D, Avithout any vowel-letter, in Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel ; and it is at present found as constantly written I'^H, DaWID, with a Yod inserted in its second syllable to express the vowel /, in Chro- nicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, the Song of Solomon, Hosea, Amos, and Zechariah. The difference here exposed affects not, in- deed, the pronunciation of the name, but merely relates to the comparative degree of fulness with which it is written ; yet a variation of it even to this limited extent could hardly have been admitted into the Scriptures in their original state. Not only the high respect in which this name has always been held by the Jews, but also the strict uniformity of its spelling in each of the sacred compositions into which it has been in- troduced,^ precludes the notion that the authors of those * The uniformity above noticed is particularly remarkable in the books of Samuel ; since the name in question is repeated in them above one hundred and seventy times, but never with the Yod inserted in it. On the other hand, this name does not occur more than once, I believe, in either Ruth, Ezra, 120 EXAMINATION OF THE [Chap. II. works, supposing them to have had the option, could have felt indifferent, as to which way they wrote it. Each of them would certainly have looked upon the mode adopted by him- self as the right one. Can it, then, be imagined that prophets differed from prophets on this point, or that Solomon could have considered David an incompetent judge of the proper way of writing his own name? These improbabilities, how- ever, are forced upon us, unless we reject the Yod with which they are essentially connected, and disallow it the rank of an original ingredient of the group in question. Here, by the way, I beg to avail myself of my discovery, though not yet fully developed, to clear up a difficulty con- nected with this case. From the spelling of David's name being different in the Canticles from what it is in the Psalms, and the same as in parts of Scripture that are some hundred years less ancient than the Psalms, Dr. Kennicott inferred (First Dissertation, pp. 20-2), that the poem alluded to must have been written many ages after the lifetime of David; and, consequently, that it was not a work of Solomon's com- position. This inference, though ingeniously supported, yet, from being at variance with the evidence expressly conveyed in the very first sentence of the poem itself, is wholly inadmis- sible ; and would be so, even though we were unable to ac- count for the circumstance on which it is grounded. Now, however, this difficulty will be found entirely removed ; and the phenomenon in question serves to show, not that the Can- ticles were written long after the Psalms, and even after the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, but merely that they happened to be vocalized somewhat later, when the Jewish scribes became a little more familiar with the use of the ma- tres lectionis. The same phenomenon serves also to determine, Hosea, or the Song of Solomon : but as I have, in my observations respecting it, laid some stress on its displaying the fuller mode of spelling in the last mentioned of these works, I should add, that it is to be found so written in the place alluded to, viz. Cant. iv. 4, in every one of the numerous copies of the Hebrew Bible consulted by Dr. Kennicott. Chap. II.] HEBEEW NAME OF DAVID. 121 with respect to all the books of Scripture above enumerated, and distributed into two sets, which set was vocalized before the other. To bring my observations on this name to a close its ancient pronunciation was certainly Dawid; as is proved, with regard to its consonants, by the combined evidence of the Hebrew text and the Septuagint; and, with regard to its vowels, by the combined evidence of the Septuagint and the New Testament. The two Greek records, however, diflfer as to the middle articulation of this word ; it being written in the former Aavil (i)a-w-Z(i) which, contracted into two syllables, becomes Dawid, in conformity with its pure Hebrew pronun- ciation ; and in the latter, Aa^i^ (David), to accord with the change of its sound that had taken place in the corrupt dia- lect spoken by the Jews in the time of the Evangelists. But, while the alteration to this extent in the sound of the word is sanctioned by the authority of inspired writers, and sustained by universal agreement, can the further variation, by which the English have, in opposition to the practice of every other nation, come to pronounce it just as if it were written Devid, be defended upon any rational ground? Surely, whatever liberties we may take with it when used as a modern Christian name, we are bound, where we meet it in Scripture, to ap- proach, as nearly as the general usage of modern nations will allow us, to its ancient pronunciation. The reader will find, as he proceeds, frequent occasions where this observation might be renewed ; but, having here introduced it in the case of a very conspicuous name, I shall not urge it any further by subsequent repetitions. 2. The name of the sister of Moses, D*'")^, MaRYaM, in every place of its occurrence in the sacred text, is, like a great many others, exhibited without any vowel-letter,^ in accordance with * The above name is likewise written in the very same manner without any vowel-letter in the Samaritan text, the first Syriac version, and the Targum of Jonathan. 122 EXAMINATION OF THE HEBREW [Chap. II. the view of the matter I am engaged in disclosing, that the whole of that text was originally so written. This group is transcribed in the Septuagint Ma/o^a/x, and in the " Jewish An- tiquities" of Josephus, MapiajjLfjLfj,'' the augmentation of the lat- ter word having been obtained by treating the final character as a double, or what in pointed Hebrew would be called a dageshed letter ; and both transcriptions are, as far as respects the vowel sounds of the name itself, considered apart from any addition made to it, sanctioned by the authority of the New Testament, in which it is found written either Ma/^fa/x, or, more usually, Mapia, with the last letter cut off, for the same reason that a syllable was added to the second representation of the word,^ to give it a termination suited to the nominative case of Greek nouns of the feminine gender. That Josephus was a priest, and well versed in the Hebrew tongue, is proved by his own attestation. For instance, near the beginning of his treatise against Apio he writes as follows : " For, as I have already said, I have translated my history of antiquity from the sacred writings, being by descent a priest, and participat- ing in the knowledge contained in those writings.'"' And in the preface to his Antiquities he says: " I have taken in hands the present work, thinking it would appear worthy of parti- * In some copies of Josephus the above name is written Mapia/nprj^ in which transcription of the original group, the additional syllable, indeed, is accom- modated to Grecian taste in a more arbitrary manner; but still we may observe in it the same agreement with the testimony of the Septuagint, as to the vowel sounds of the unaugmented Hebrew designation. ^ Although the name of the mother of our Lord is more usually given in the Greek Testament Mapia^ in accommodation to the taste of Greek readers, yet, where a direct reference is made to her name as for instance in the pas- sages, " Is not his mother called Mary?" Mat. xiii. 55; " And the virgin's name was Mary" Luke, i. 27 it is therein written Mapiaju,; whence it would appear that the latter was deemed by St. Matthew and St. Luke to be, even in a Grecian narrative, the more formal and regular representation of this word. ^ T^u /iiev ^np Ap'xaioXor^iai'^ waircp ^(j)r]V^ e/c tuov lepCbv ^{pafifxa^wv fieOep- finvevKa^ rjef^/ovw^ lepev's e/c f^evovs^ icni fie7ea')(r]Kiv9 T-ys (f)iKoffo(pia^ 7rJ9 eu Kilvoii 701$ ^pd/Lifiafft. Flavii Josephi Opera Hudsono edita^ p. 1335. Chap. II.] NAME OF THE SISTER OF MOSES. 123 cular attention to all that are acquainted only with Greek ; for it will contain all our ancient history and the constitution of our government, translated from the Hebrew writings."* Hence we may conclude that he read the name before us in the same manner as the priests of his day, and the few others of his countrymen who then still retained a knowledge of the Scriptures of the Old Testament in their orignal language. His representation, therefore, of this name, divested of the syllable that had been added merely for the purpose of accom- modating its form to Grecian taste, shows that the Jews ad- hered to their ancient pronunciation of it, corresponding with that preserved in the Septuagint, till, at any rate, near the close of the first century of our era ; as the work of his in which the sister of Moses is mentioned, viz. his Antiquities, did not come out till about A.D. 94. That, however, they subse- quently changed one of the vowels in this pronunciation, is rendered evident by the Masoretic pointing of the group in question, according to which it must be read MiRYaM; and this change, which could not have arisen from oblivion or negligence in the case of a name so well known and belonging to a person so highly respected, is to be imputed neither to the Masorets, who have shown the strictest honesty in the mode of annexing their vowel-marks to the Hebrew text, nor to any of their successors in the charge of that text, of which those grammarians likewise have proved themselves most faith- ful guardians. The corruption, then, which has been just ex- posed, must have originated in earlier times ; and was most probably introduced by the Jews of the second century, to whom many offences of a like nature will be brought home in the course of this investigation.^ But at whatever period the * Tavrrjv ^e t^v eveartjoffav e'^KC^eipiaju.ai 7rpa<^/bia7etav, vofiit^wv aTraai ^ave7(r6ai 7o7J< IT. o Trpocpyrrj^. The Hebrew part of this extract was supplied by Montfaucon from modern books: the rest of it was taken by him to use his own words "ex Manuscripto illo antiquissimo R R Patrum Jesuitarum Collegii Ludovici Magni." The latter part informs us that, while the name lepefica^ is written in O, that is, in the Septuagint, without any translation of the word S'^S^H subjoined in this place (as is, indeed, confirmed by the evidence of both the Vatican and Alexandrian copies), there was added in ri, that is, in all the other Greek versions, 6 7rpo(pi^77j9 after Ifpe/nca^, 142 EXAMINATION OF THE HEBREW [Chap. II. may possibly have interpolated the Waw^ in those instances, in order to distinguish the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah from other individuals of respectively the same appellations ; since the context of itself sufficiently marks this distinction, in respect to each name, and the interpolation does not, in the case of either of them : for, as to the first, it is everywhere found with the mater lectionis in question at its termination, no matter to whom it may be applied ; and, with regard to the second, the Hebrew designation of Jeremiah the prophet is, in some places, as in Jer. xxvii. 1, and Dan. ix. 2, exhibited without the additional letter ; while, on the other hand, this appendage is retained in 2 Kings, xxiii. 31, 1 Chron. xii. 13, and Jer. xxxv. 3, where three of his namesakes are referred to, and omitted in 1 Chron. v. 24, xii. 4, xii. 10, and Neh. x. 3, where four more of them are mentioned. In short, the analysis of this subject shows clearly, that it was intended to insert the Waw at the end of both names, no matter to what individuals they were applied, in every place of their occur- rence in the Hebrew text, for the purpose of throwing discre- dit on the Greek representation of their sounds in the Septua- gint : and the omissions must be ascribed to the circumstance of their having been overlooked, from the hurry with which this operation was conducted through fear of detection. The clumsiness of the execution, so completely in accordance with the fraudulence of the design, can, I will venture to assert, be accounted for no otherwise, than by the explanation just given. With regard to the initial letter of Isaiah's designation in Hebrew, the Peshitah determines nothing, as Haleph and Yod are frequently interchanged in Syriac orthography ; but the Greek transcription of this word plainly shows, that it must have commenced with a guttural, in the copies of the original text consulted by the framers of the Septuagint. Whether the variation, thus indicated, be due to the circumstance of the exchanged letters having formerly produced, in rapid utterance, no sensible difi*ercncc of sound, or from whatever Chap. II.] NAMES OF ISAIAH AND JEREMIAH. 143 other cause it may have arisen, we should not be at all war- ranted in its adoption ; for, although the Septuagint is our only secure guide for the vowels of Scriptural names, the Hebrew text must still, where there is no internal evidence of corruption, be referred to, as the main standard for their con- sonantal elements. The composers, therefore, of our autho- rized translation decided rightly in dealing with the group in question, as one headed by Yod ; but it seems very strange that they should have denoted the power of this initial by a vowel, as no Hebrew word was ever written with a mater lec- tionis for its first letter. In the Vulgate, indeed, the prophet's name is translated /^aza^ ; but if Jerome meant to express the syllable Yi^ he could do so in Latin no otherwise than by the vowel /; whereas English orthography affords not any excuse for a like deviation from the Hebrew in our version. Admit- ting that Je was formerly, and consequently that Ye is at pre- sent, the right commencement, in English writing, of the second of the names here examined. Ye must also be the pro- per commencement of the first : for, as the two begin with a common syllable in Hebrew, they ought evidently to do so in every translation likewise. I would, then, write the names in question in the Hebrew text with the Masoretic marks of re- jection over the fraudulently interpolated letters, as follows, o o iniy2i^\ and IH"^^")*' ; and transcribe them into English F^^AamA and Yeremiali. Their strict transcriptions, indeed, are Yeshah- yah and Yeremyah ; but Yeshaiah differs not at all, in the sound it expresses, from the first of these, while Yeremiah differs from the second only by a diaeresis that is in common use ; and the latter forms of the two words appear to be pre- ferable, on account of their receding less from those at present employed. The translation given in the English New Testa- ment of the first name is, of course, not affected by these ob- servations, nor does it require any correction. With a view to investigating interpolations of a certain class to be found in the Hebrew designations of names in the present state of the sacred text, it is necessary that I should N 144 ADVENTITIOUS NATURE OF THE [Chap. II. here premise some remarks upon the Nun paragogic^ as it has been termed ; a letter occasionally placed after a vocalic Yodj or Waw, at the end of Hebrew groups, to indicate a fuller utterance of their final syllable, and, through a delivery thus rendered more emphatic, to communicate greater impres- siveness to their meaning ; though, from a more frequent and indiscriminate application subsequently made of it in Shemitic dialects, its use in them appears to have ceased to produce the second effect, and to have been confined to the first one of merely strengthening the pronunciation of a mater lectionis at the termination of a word. The influence of the character, in this position of it in Hebrew writing, on the sound of the vowel with which it is connected, is attested by the Masorets ; as they have made it draw the accent with it ; and accent in their system, just as in modern ones, implies emphasis.^ Upon this point there is no reason to question their evidence ; and, granting it to be correct, the inference is inevitable, that the paragogic Nun is not an original element of the sacred text ; as it cannot be supposed to have had existence there, sooner than the vowel-letters, to the expression of whose sounds it is subservient, as far as showing when they are to be pro- nounced with peculiar force. This conclusion will be found strongly borne out by a comparison of the Jewish and Sama- ritan editions of the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch ; in each of which several instances are to be seen of verbs having the letter under consideration annexed to them, though they are not so terminated in the other. Of these instances a few are subjoined ; and their number might be increased to any extent that could be desired. * In the systems of known antiquity, the accent was not accompanied with any stress of voice; as it affected not the length of the syllables to which it was affixed, the accented ones being often found short. But in the Masoretic system of accentuation, just as in those of the present day, the accented vowels are always long ; a circumstance which tends obviously to indicate the comparative modernness of this system. Chap.IL] nun PAKAGOGICINTUEHEBBEW text. 145 Gen. XX. 9, IZi^J/^, in the Jewish edition, is written \]tl/p'^ in the Samaritan. xii. 55, "^t^ijn \]t^i;r\ xiii. 20, ^i^^nn jii^^nn Ex. iii. 21, iD^n p^n xiv. 13, i2)Dr\ pSi^Din XV. 14, ^^OT irj-)^i xvii. 2, iiD^n iD::n xviii.22, 1^^^n^ jii^^n^ XX. 23, ]w;;n i:w;n It is unnecessary to pursue this illustration of the subject any further ; as the adduced examples are abundantly sufficient to establish the adventitious nature of the letter in question, each of them supplying the evidence of the edition of this text without this letter, against its genuineness in that which has it. There is, then, very nearly a certainty of the paragogic Nun being a spurious element of the Hebrew Scriptures ; and, as it is therein employed in subservience to the matres lectio- nis, the great probability is, that it was inserted in the sacred text by the same party as they were, namely by the first vo- calizers of that text. It accords with this representation of the matter, that, in proportion as Shemitic writers became more familiar with> vowel-letters, they made a freer use of the paragogic iVwTz; as, for instance, it occurs oftener in the Samaritan than in the Jewish copies of the Hebrew text, and still oftener in the Peshitah and the Chaldee Targums. This letter, indeed, is so much more frequently employed in the latter records, that it is to be seen in them constantly and uniformly annexed to inflexions of verbs to which it is but occasionally appended in the former ones. Thus, the inflexions for the second and third persons masculine plural of the future tense in the several conjugations or voices of Shemitic verbs, which sometimes end in the sound n2 146 EXAMINATION OF THE NAME [Chap. II. of U and at other times in that of UN^ as they are to be read in the Jewish and Samaritan Bibles, always terminate in the latter sound in the Syriac and Chaldee dialects ; in conse- quence of which the Nun paragogic fails to communicate to them in those dialects the impressiveness it occasions in He- brew ; as an addition to words made indiscriminately, what- ever influence it may exert on the force of their utterance, can have no bearing on their sense. The subservience of the letter in question, in the imagination of Shemitic writers, to whatever mater lectionis it was placed after, is illustrated by the use of the anuswara in Sanscrit orthography ; a point which is conceived by the Pundit to connect the articulation of N or NG with the sound of the vowel over which it is placed, without making the combination thus produced a syl- lable, or taking it out of the class of mere vowels. And, as the Syriac system of writing reached India, at the latest, in the fifth century through the hands of the Nestorian Chris- tians, it is very possible that this peculiarity of the Sanscrit system may have taken its rise from the corresponding one under examination, whose use in Shemitic ^vriting it contri- butes to explain. But however this may be, a clearer illus- tration of the nature of the paragogic Nun^ and one supplied by a practice more directly traceable to the Syriac, and thence to the Hebrew employment of this very letter, as its origin, is presented to our observation in the mode pursued of reading pointed Arabic texts. In such documents the vowel-marks at the end of words are sometimes doubled, to intimate that the vowels so denoted are to be pronounced in a more forcible manner. But in what is their increased strength of utterance made to consist ? Simply in articulating Nun immediately after their respective sounds. Hence this process has been denominated nunnation a name that might, perhaps, be still more appropriately given to the operation here investigated ; in which the expression of the Nun is not, as in the case just cited, confined chiefly to its pronunciation, but is also made directly to appear in the writing. I shall now adduce three Chap.IL] of the FATHER-IN-LAW OF MOSES. 147 examples of this nunnation, one of them from the Peshitah; another, from the Peshitah and both editions of the Hebrew text ; and the third, from the same Syriac version and the Jewdsh edition of the text. 8. The name of the father-in-law of Moses is exhibited, in both the Jewish and Samaritan copies of the Hebrew Penta- teuch, 'iin^, Y/ThRO ; but its transcription in the Septuagint, loOop^ proves that the mater lectionis at present terminating the Hebrew group is a spurious letter, and was not interpo- lated in the original text till after the first Greek version was Avritten. Against the genuineness, indeed, of this letter, the sacred text itself, even in its present state, can be made to bear evidence ; as the interpolators, in their hurry, overlooked this group in one passage, Ex. iv. 18, where they suffered it to remain in its original state, nr\\ without any vowel-letter subjoined. If we turn now to the oldest Syriac version, we shall find this name uniformly transcribed in it ^o5A-., Y2ThR0N. But the vocal part of this transcript was evidently not ob- tained from the Septuagint ; and Jewish instruction was the only other source from which the writers of the Peshitah could have derived it. The pronunciation, therefore, which is hereby conveyed must be considered as authorized by the learned class of Jews in their day ; and the nunnation of the final vowel clearly indicates the animus with which these instruc- tors were actuated : they dwelt with peculiar emphasis on the sound added to the name, from an eager desire to establish the correctness of this addition to it. Their immediate object, in- deed, could not in this instance have been to disparage the Septuagint, as the persons they had here to deal with appear to have been whoUy unacquainted with that version ; but still they might have had this end remotely in view, as the Syriac transcription of the word which sprung in reality from their teaching, would have the appearance of a testimony, indepen- dent of theirs, to the erroneousness of its Greek pronunciation, Yothor, with such readers as might be able to consult both versions. But, however this may be, it is evident that the 148 EXAMINATION OF THE NAME [Chap. II. Jewish scribes of the age in which the Peshitah was written not only laid the principal stress on the vowel sound they sub- joined to the above name, but also that they pronounced that vow^el to the Syriac translators in a stronger manner than a later set of them afterwards ventured to express its sound in the vocalized text : for the form in which the entire w^ord is ex- hibited in the Peshitah fully accords with the fact which can be abundantly established from other sources, that this version was written before the introduction of the matres lectionis into the Hebrew Bible ; since, had it been subsequently composed, its framers would obviously have left the vowel-letter here em- ployed in the same state as it is presented to us in the sacred text, without any nunnation. Jethro^ or (as the word should be written to express the sound it formerly conveyed) Yethro, is a pronunciation of the name in question not exactly the same as any of those above considered ; and it is a curious fact that, although this is the one at present most generally received among Christians of all denominations, it yet originated with Aquila, an apostate and most bitter enemy of the Christian faith. In a fragment of his translation of the verse, Exod. xviii. 5, given in the notes at the end of the London edition of the Septuagint, taken from the Vatican MS., the above name may be seen, as written by him, 'leOpw ; which Jerome, imposed upon by his Jewish in- structor, transcribed lethro into the Yulgate ; and Luther, notwithstanding his prejudice against the latter work, adopted this transcript, wherein he has been followed by most, if not all, the Protestant framers of English translations of the Bible. As long as the Jews continued to make use of Greek versions, that of Aquila was by far the greatest favourite with them, and that which best accorded with their views. This version, as well as some others, framed upon a similar plan during the second century, was written at a period when copies of the sacred text and knowledge of its language were wholly confined to the sacerdotal class and the scribes in their interest, together with the few renegades, or Judaizing heretics whom Chap. II.] OF THE FATHER-IN-LAW OF MOSES. 149 they successively employed as translators of the Hebrew Bible, under the impression that works issuing from such authors would incur less suspicion than if composed avowedly by them- selves. Accordingly, the main object of the versions alluded to, and more especially of the first and principal one, may be collected from their extant remains to have been the attach- ment to the Septuagint of an appearance of great inaccuracy ; as may be exemplified even by the word just extracted from a fragment still preserved of Aquila's translation. For, though leBpw does not exactly agree with Yithro, the pronunciation yielded by the Masoretic pointing, it yet completely sustains the alteration of the sound of this name introduced by the vocalizers of the second century, giving the vowel belonging to that alteration its full length, and thereby making the old transcription of the Seventy, lo06p, appear the more incorrect. In the insidious object, however, which has been just adverted to, the above versions most providentially failed ; and then at last the Jewish priesthood, above a hundred years after they had got vowel-letters introduced into the writing of the He- brew Bible, ventured upon a more daring attempt to under- mine the credit of the Septuagint, as well as a more direct mode of attacking Christianity, by resorting to the hazardous expedient of placing a copy of the sacred text in its altered state, and also the means of learning to make use of it, within reach of the orthodox Christians. This, however, is a subject which will require a further discussion than I could here spare room for, and which I hope still to go through, if I be spared long enough to write another volume. For the present I shall confine myself to the remark, that Aquila and some of his feUow-translators have been hitherto supposed to adhere more closely to the sacred text than did the Seventy ; a supposi- tion which has sorely perplexed Hebraists. But the difficulty of this case is now entirely cleared up, and it turns out that the extant fragments of the version written by those suspicious authors do not at all approach nearer than the Septuagint to 150 EXAMINATION OF THE NAME [Chap. II. the original text of the Hebrew Bible, but merely to that text as vocalized during the second century. 9. In my next example of the same class, the nunnation is just as evident as in the first, but the mode of correcting it is not quite as certain. The name of Joshua's father is tran- mitted to us, in both the Jewish and Samaritan copies of the Pentateuch ]1^, NUN, as also in the Peshitah, ^, NUN ; but the older representation of its sound preserved in the Septuagint, Nay>y,'' proves very clearly that the true value of the middle letter of the group is not a vowel, but, according to the concep- tion of the reader, either a TF or a syllable beginning with that consonant, and that the third element, subsequently displaced by the nunnation, was one of the Hebrew aspirates. Which of these aspirates originally occupied the third place, can now no longer be determined to a certainty ; but the great probability is, that it was H, as m^, NWeH, is a Hebrew word signifying ' handsome,' which is very likely to have been employed as a proper name, at a period when characteristic denominations were in general use ; and at all events NaWeH is a correct transcript of this name, provided it be left undetermined which of the aspirates H is here made to stand for. As to the altered form of the same denomination, \\1^ NUN, it is assumed to mean ' a fish,' because ^^i13, NUNaH, has that meaning in Chaldee, and |jqj, NUNaH, in Syriac ; but there is no evidence whatever of its having been significant in the parent Hebrew * Lest it should occur to the reader that 'Havq may possibly have not been the original transcript of this name in the Septuagint, I have to observe that it is found so written in, I believe, every place of its occurrence in the Vatican and Alexandrian copies, except in one passage, 1 Chron. vii. 27, in which it is at present exhibited fiow in the Vatican, and Nov/* in the Alex- andrian copy. But this place, which betrays several discrepancies between the two copies of the Septuagint, is evidently much corrupted in both of them. The Masorets have here added to the confusion of the subject, by vocalizing ]^D in this passage for the pronunciation NON; and the framers of our Authorized Version have actually followed them in this whimsical varia- tion of its sound. Chap. IL] OF THE FATHER OF JOSHUA. 151 language, and, even if it had been so, it could not, with the meaning attributed to it, have been applied to Joshua's father, except as a nickname, a species of opprobrious designation with which there is not the slightest reason to suppose that he was branded. This difference, however, between the two forms of the name is here noticed, merely as falling in with much stronger grounds for preferring the more ancient form. The testimony of the Jews who wrote any part, indeed, of the Sep- tuagint, but more particularly its oldest part, which is that here appealed to, immeasurably outweighs the united evidence of both the Jewish and Samaritan scribes of the second cen- tury. As to the Syriac representation of the word, it can be considered only as Jewish contemporary evidence repeated in another shape ; for, however independent the authors of the Peshitah might be in translating the general text of Scrip- ture, where their judgment could be guided by the bearing of the context, yet in completing the sounds of unvocalized Hebrew denominations, they were under the necessity of lean- ing on external aid ; and, as they were obviously unacquainted with the Septuagint, they must have resorted to the most learned Hebraists they could confer with, as their best autho- rity on this subject. The Syriac transcription, however, of this word serves to show that the Jews tampered, if not in writing, at least in pronunciation, with Joshua's patronymic, before they ventured to meddle with his proper name; as the corruption only of the former part of his designation, and not that of the latter, appears in the Peshitah. Josephus fully corroborates the representation given by the Seventy of the sound of the name of Joshua's father, and at the same time does so in such a manner as to show that he took his conception of this sound, not from them, but from his own immediate reading of the original group, combined with his traditional knowledege of the subject : for what they made Nay?/, he transcribed Nay^i/o?. As the Jews were about 350 years longer accustomed to Greek orthography in his day than when the oldest part of the Septuagint was written, it is no 152 EXAMINATION OF THE HEBREW AND [Chap. II. wonder that he should make a freer use of Grecian termina- tions to Hebrew names than the Seventy did ; and, accordingly^ we here see him adding vo9 to his immediate reading of the original group, Nau>7, which is the same as their entire tran- scription of it ; just as, in an instance previously noticed, we found him subjoining jurj or vrj to Ma/o^a/x, for the like purpose of accommodating the Hebrew denomination to the taste of Greek readers. It may be well here further to observe, that, in his ad libitum choice of a termination in this instance, he employs the Greek N, not in order to represent the occurrence of a nunnation in the original group (for then he would have transcribed the name in question Nouvo?, instead of Nau^/i/os-), but merely to prevent the hiatus which would otherwise arise from so many vowels coming together without any interven- ing consonant ; and he could not make use of the letter more commonly applied to the purpose by the Greeks, the Digamma, in this place, as its power is just before virtually brought into play by the contraction into one syllable of the second and third vowels of his transcription. The full designation of Joshua by Josephus is given in the third book of his Antiqui- ties, fourteenth chapter, Irjaov^ 6 tov Nau^i/ou Trar?, 0u\^? E0- paijjLLTLlo9 ; and from the circumstance of his freely supporting the evidence of the Septuagint both as to the patronymic, and the more immediate denomination of Joshua, it evidently fol- lows that the corruption of neither word commenced, even in the mode of reading them, till after the year 94 or 95 of the first century of the Christian era, when this work was pub- lished ; for, otherwise, the author, from his tenderness to the character of the Jewish priests, would have observed the same reserve with respect to the corrupted words, as we have already seen he did with regard to the misrepresentation which had been introduced before his time of one of the forms of Sarah^s name. o In fine, I would write the name just analyzed ][n]13 in the Hebrew Bible, with the marginal note on the letter substituted for the final one, ' Sept.' an authority, indeed, which, consi- Chap. II.] SYRIAC DESIGNATIONS OF SAMARIA. 153 dered by itself, only shows that the element to be restored is an aspirate, but, when combined with the internal evidence of the case, limits that aspirate to He, But as H may be used to denote indifferently any of the Hebrew aspirates, the evi- dence of the Septuagint alone affords sufficient ground for transcribing this name in an English version Naweh; to which I would recommend subjoining, on its first occurrence, the note ^ Sept. Heb. voc. Nun^^ in order to point out, not only the authority for its correction, but also the source to which its present corruption is to be traced. 10. The name of the capital city of the ancient kingdom of Israel is always, with but one or two exceptions, exhibited ^ajdapela in the Septuagint, and uniformly, without any ex- ception, so written in the original text of the New Testament. This designation, therefore, omitting its final element, which appears to have been added merely for the purpose of giving it a Grecian termination, may be safely referred to, as a stan- dard for determining the correct vowel-sounds of the original name in question. In the existing state of the Hebrew text, this name is at present therein written I'll^t^, and read ShoMeRON. The first two vowels of this readino; are taken from the Masoretic pointing of the adduced Hebrew group. But how little the Masorets can be depended on for the just pronunciation of foreign words, is evinced in the present in- stance, even without any reference to the above standard, by the contradictory nature of their own evidence on the subject. For they pointed the proper name "IDti^, from which the one under examination is, inl Kings, xvi. 24, expressly stated to be derived, so as to be read, not ShoMeR, but SheMeR. The chief blame, however, of the present erroneous pronunciation of the Hebrew derivative name falls upon the first vocalizers of the sacred text, who expressed the principal vowel of this name with a Waw^ instead of a Yod^ and, by subjoining to that mater lectionis a N'un^ attached a greater stress to the utterance of the sound thereby denoted, than they were warranted in doing. The part, indeed, of the mispronunciation which is to 154 EXAMINATION OF THE HEBREW [Chap. II. be traced to their fault is so very gross as to give strong ground for suspecting, that they must have resided at a great distance from Palestine, and most probably somewhere in Europe. For, surely, at the period when they performed their task, that is (as will be shown in a subsequent chapter), within thirty years after the commencement of the second century, they could not have been so ignorant of the vowel portion of the name of a city that had been the metropolis of the ancient kingdom of Israel, if they lived in any of the adjoining countries. The corruption, however, which is here exposed, had partly begun before this time. For the Syriac Christians who framed the Peshitah about the end of the first century (as shall be shown most probable in an ensuing chapter), must be supposed well acquainted with the manner in which the above name was then pronounced, and they transcribed it in their version ^ >;V>* ShaMaRIN, with the third vowel, indeed, correctly selected, but corrupted through a nasal pronunciation which was not applied to it till, at any rate, after the Gospel of St. John had been written. Thus the nunnation of the final vowel of this name made its way into the first Syriac version, as well as into the vocalized text. From what is proved in the chapter after the next, respecting the treatment by the old vocalizers of words ending in a paragogic He^ it will, I think, be found likely that the original form of the name of the town and surrounding district was distinguished from "IDt!', the designation of the man after whom they were called, by the addition of a final He^ which those scribes erased when they subjoined the Waw and Nun thereto. This, however, is suggested merely as a conjecture on a point whose determination is not essential to my theory. Had they acted correctly on their own plan in this instance, they would have put the derivative name in the form "^112^^ ShaMRI, whether there had or had not been ori- ginally annexed to it a He. The framers of our Authorized Version exercised a sound discretion in transcribing this word Samaria in the Old Testament, in order to exhibit the name in the same form in both Testaments. They also acted judi- Chap. II.] NAME OF SOLOMON. 155 ciously in noting Shomeron, as the present Hebrew reading of this name, in the margin of the place (1 Kings, xvi. 24) where its derivation is recorded. But the heading of this note should be changed from ' Heb.' to ' Heb. voc' ; as the specified cor- ruption of the word is not at all warranted by the Hebrew text in its orignal state, but sprung partly from the mistakes of the Masorets, and partly from those of the older set of voca- lizers. 11. Although the names examined in the three preceding articles have been, to a certainty, corrupted by nunnation, yet the peculiar utterance of vowels which gave rise to the pro- cess, just investigated, is not in every instance erroneous. On the contrary, traces of the early existence of such a pronun- ciation can be established, by a comparison of Hebrew deno- minations suffered to remain in their original state, with the transcriptions given of them in the oldest versions ; a pro- nunciation, too, which mil be found, by the same means, not confined to vowels at the very end of words, but to have been applied to them also when followed by a feeble aspiration. Of this a very striking example is afibrded in the Hebrew desig- nation of Solomon, which, from some cause or other, has been left untouched by the first vocalizers ; and whose analysis will enable me, through the aid of the theory above un- folded, to account for a remarkable discrepance, hitherto unexplained, between its sound, as it is now uttered, and, as we know upon unquestionable authority, it was formerly read. This name remains to the present day inscribed in the sacred text, without a single vowel-letter, HDW ; a group which, even with the advantage of the most favour- able vocalization, cannot be made, according to the modern way of reading it, to yield a closer approximation to the sound in question than ShaLoMoH, or ShoLoMoH. But the fact of the initial part of the process of nunnation, or the part relating to pronunciation, having been in very remote times applied to this group, in reading it, is directly attested both by the Seventy Jews and by the framers of the Peshitah, 156 VOWEL-LETTERS PEOVED SPURIOUS [Chap. II. who have transcribed it respectively ^aXwfiwv, and ^V)\, ShoLIMON ; and their attestation to this effect is powerfully supported by the testimony of the inspired authors of the New Testament, who have uniformly written it So\o/xwj/ ; not, in- deed, as an immediate transcript of the Hebrew group, but as an original designation of the name, which, however, shows clearly how they would have read and transcribed that group, if they had quoted from the Old Testament any passage that contained it. The differences between the adduced pronuncia- tions of the name are to be attributed to the emphasis required by the nunnation, which, by throwing the stress of voice on the last syllable, gives a comparative indistinctness to the utterance of the preceding ones ; so that even persons who heard the same authoritative reading of the skeleton group, might still, very possibly, fill up the expression of the less pro- minent portion of its sound with different vowel-letters. These differences, however, prove that the three representations of the sound of this group were made in a great measure inde- pendently of each other ; and yet they all perfectly agree as to the nunnation of its last syllable : so it is quite plain that, if the old vocalizers had ventured to apply their improved method of spelling to the example before us, they would have changed the Hebrew group in question into ]1^7t^. But they having failed to do this, and the Jews having subsequently deprived themselves of the use of the Septuagint, the true pro- nunciation of the original group was in the course of time lost among this people ; so that it came at last to be read by them SheLoMoH, a misreading which has been perpetuated by the Masorets, who did not, in their system of points, reserve to themselves even the bare power of expressing, what the Ara- bic scribes freely represent in their's, the nunnated sound of a final vowel. The framers of our Authorized Version have in this instance deviated from their usual practice of deferring to Masoretic authority, and have rendered the name here analyzed Solomon throughout the English Bible. This rendering is perfectly just Chap. II.] MORE CLEARLY BYNAMES OF RARE USE. 157 in the New Testament, and, though not equally so in the Old, is still there warranted by the advantage of exhibiting the designation in the same form in both ; but, undoubtedly, Sho- lomon would be a more correct transcription of it from the Hebrew record considered alone. I shall only add that, in whichever form this word is exhibited, the stress of voice, in pronouncing it, should be thrown on its last syllable, and not, as is at present the more usual practice, be laid upon the first. The corruptions exposed in most of the examples as yet analyzed having been traced to design, it may at first sight ap- pear surprising, that the individuals who at any time had the charge of the Hebrew Scriptures should have ventured to tamper with names so familiar to the Jews. But a little con- sideration will serve to show, that circumstances were pecu- liarly favourable to the concealment of the operations of the scribes alluded to, while they were engaged in introducing into the sacred text the fuller mode of denoting words which had previously got into general use in writings upon ordinary sub- jects. The number of those individuals was very limited, the number, indeed, of persons who could then read at all, but especially of those who could read a work in a dead language, and in a species of writing that was becoming every day more obsolete, was exceedingly small; so that, with the exception of those few, the Hebrew Bible was to mankind a sealed book during the entire of the second century, and continued so to the Christians, till the time of Origen in the third century, and to the Jews till, at any rate, near the end of the sixth cen- tury ; before which date the latter party certainly did not re- turn to the employment of the Hebrew tongue in divine ser- vice, nor to the practice of hearing the Scriptures read in their original language in the Synagogues. Moreover, the Septua- gint, which might have guarded this nation from tolerating the corruption of any of the names of the class in question, and which was held in the highest repute by their instructors till about the close of the first century, was early in the next 158 HOW FAR THE SAME WEITTEN NAME [Chap. II. one withdrawn from their use, under the pretext of its having been corrupted by the Christians ; and other Greek versions were substituted for it, which countenanced the misapplication of the new and fuller mode of writing, in the cases which have been as yet investigated. In point of fact, therefore, the in- terpolators of the vowel-letters might have taken still greater liberties with Scriptural names than they actually did, with- out incurring any immediate risk of detection. In general, however, their representation of the vocal part of names to which the Jewish ear was familiar, though it is defective, is correct as far as it goes ; and they, for the most part, confined their erroneous or dishonest interpolations to those of rarer occurrence. It is, then, to names of the latter class that we are chiefly to look for proofs of the spuriousness ofthematres lectionis ; and they will be found to supply evidence to this effect, not only in greater abundance, but also of a more con- vincing nature ; as, from the haste with which the operation was conducted, the vocalization of such names frequently be- trays inconsistencies so palpable that they cannot, without absurdity as well as impiety, be attributed to the inspired authors of the Bible. Hence the sacred text itself, as well as its versions, can in those instances be brought to yield evi- dence against the genuineness of its vowel-letters. The same line of research, carried on through a comparison of names of rare occurrence, as written in different passages, will also enable me to restore some of the original letters of the He- brew text, a few of which have been corrupted from other causes in the course of a very long series of ages ; and, like- wise, to correct the corresponding elements of those names in the oldest Greek and Syriac versions. Here, as a preliminary step to the branch of this investi- gation upon which I am about to enter, I have to inquire, how far the principle, that the same written name implies always the same spoken one, which pervades the general class of alphabetic designations (and gives them so vast a superiority over those of an ideagraphic nature), extended also to the Chap. II.] IMPLIES THE SAME SPOKEN ONE. 159 particular species employed in the Hebrew text in its primi- tive state. It is quite obvious that, in the case of a system whose elements originally denoted syllabic sounds that were fixed in their consonantal, and mutable only in their vocal in- gredients, there might, from an identity of the series of letters by which two names were expressed, be at once inferred an identity of pronunciation, at any rate as far as respects the series of articulations employed. But whether this sameness extended, for the most part, to the vowel portions also of the represented words, remains still to be determined. I have already availed myself of an immediate consequence of the above principle, where I assumed that, as the two forms of Sarah's name differed in sound, they must also have exhibited some difference in writing. But I did not put forward as ab- solutely certain the inference I partly thence drew, as to the final letter of the first of those forms ; because I was conscious that, although the principle in question holds very generally with regard to the designations employed in the primitive state of the sacred text, yet it was not therein adhered to in every case without exception. I do not allude now to the changes of pronunciation that are occasioned by difference of nations, or by difference of times. Such changes reach to even the very superior and far more perfectly vocalized writing of Europeans : as, for instance, the same expression of a name in Roman characters may be pronounced very differently by the French from what it is by the English, and again by the English at present from what it was by their ancestors two hundred years ago. But, without taking into consideration the variations so produced, I am obliged to concede that in unpointed Shemitic writing, even at the same period and in the same country, a group of letters used as a name might possibly represent more than one combination of sounds. This is confessedly the case with respect to groups denoting appellative terms of the Hebrew tongue ; and consequently may be equally so in reference to such as are applied to the o 160 HOW FAR THE SAME WRITTEN NAME [Chap. II. expression of proper names, as far as those names are identi- cal with words of the former class. Thus one and the same group D1K stands for two ordinary terms of the language that are also occasionally employed as proper names, viz. HaDaM, which, according to the exigencies of the context, signifies ' man,' or ' mankind,' or ' Adam;' and HaDoM, or HeDoM, which in like manner denotes ' red,' or ' red- ness,' or 'Edom:'^ while for all the significations of the first of these words it remains up to the present time wholly unfur- nished with vowel-letters in every place of its being so applied in the sacred text, and likewise for the general meanings of the second word, in every place but one, namely Cant. v. 10,^ where it is now written in the form Dll^. In this form, how- ever, the group in question is, I grant, at present always ex- hibited for the last meaning of the second word ; but that it was originally framed as bare of vowel-letters for the sixth ap- plication as the five previous ones, is rendered probable even by the manner in which this use of it is first mentioned in Scripture (Gen. XXV. 30), where the Hebrew for ' red' is identified with that for ' Edom,' and yet remains still written D"Ti^, with the article H, indeed, prefixed, but wholly unvocalized. But the absence of the Waw from the above group in its primitive state, for every application of it, is proved nearly to a certainty by what has been already shown of the spuriousness of the matres lectionis ; and the fact of the interpolation of this letter in it in one of the instances in which it is now^ read ' Edom,' ^ D1S admits of being read a third way also, HoDeM, an appellative term signifying ' a ruby ;' but as no proper name is connected with this pronun- ciation of the group, it is not above taken notice of. In every place like- wise of the occurrence of DIM with this signification, it has been left wholly unvocalized by the inserters of the matres lectionis. ^ The above circumstance relative to the Song of Solomon agrees with one previously noticed in this chapter, in its tendency to show that, although this poem is older than several parts of the Bible, it was vocalized later, when the scribes who performed this operation became more accustomed to their work, and in consequence made a freer use of the matres lectionis. Chap. II.] IMPLIES THE SAME SPOKEN ONE. 161 can be established beyond all doubt by the inspired authority of the New Testament. This will be clearly perceived by comparing, in the Authorized English Version of the Bible, the following prophecy of Amos with the reference made to it by St. James (as reported by the Evangelist St. Luke) which is identical mth its translation in the Septuagint. " In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old ; that they MAY POSSESS THE REMNANT OE EdOM AND OF ALL THE HEA- THEN WHICH ARE CALLED BY MY NAME, SAITH THE LORD THAT DOETH THIS." Amos, ix. 11, 12. " as it is written : After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen down ; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up : that the residue of men might SEEK after the LoRD, AND ALL THE GeNTILES UPON WHOM MY NAME IS CALLED, SAITH THE LOE.D, WHO DOETH ALL THESE THINGS." Acts, XV. 15-17. If wc refer both these renderings to the original passage, as at present written, we shall see that its group DH^, transcribed in the first ' Edom,' is construed in the second, ' men,' so must have been read by St. James HaDaM ; and that, consequently, the Waw which now appears in this group is spurious, and could not have been inserted therein, till after the period when an inspired Apostle supplied decisive ground for the rejection of its genuineness in the specified place. It is, therefore, certain that in the pri- mitive state of the sacred text, the series of letters Dlk^, em- ployed as the representation of a proper name, served to denote either ' Adam' or ' Edom,' according to the demands of the context.^ ^ It cannot from the above example be inferred that the context did not always suffice to determine which of the specified spoken names the group in question was intended to denote: because, on examining the original passage referred to in this example, we shall find that the Jewish scribes were forced to introduce into it some additional changes to warrant their vocalizing D"TH o 2 162 HOW FAR THE SAME WRITTEN NAME [Chap. II. Now although this ambiguity in regard to two names as familiar to the Jews as any appellative words of their lan- guage, occasioned no embarrassment, it would have been pro- ductive of much confusion, if it had been extended to many of their written designations of human beings, more especially to many of rare occurrence. There is, however, no ground of the slightest weight for supposing this to have been the real state of the case : for whenever, except in the instance of the above adduced example, the Septuagint, our oldest authority for the vocal part of the sounds of Scriptural names, attests a varied pronunciation of a Hebrew group representing a man, it fails at least in the cases that have come under my obser- vation of being consistent in that evidence ; that is, while it transcribes the primitive group with different vowels to denote different persons, it does not constantly and uniformly tran- scribe that group with the same vowels when applied to the designation of one and the same individual. The variation in question, therefore, would appear to have arisen, not so much from an original difference of spoken names denoted by one group in common, as from the circumstance of the true sound of that group having been lost before the Septuagint came to be written. On the other hand, in a matter which now, I believe, for the first time comes under discussion, with whatever care I may have examined it, I would not venture to pronounce with certainty, that no other instance but that above canvassed can be produced, of the same written name having served in the original state of the sacred text to denote more than a single spoken one. But I conceive myself fully warranted in asserting that, if there be any additional instances of such ambiguity in that text, as originally written, their number must be extremely limited ; and that, being at variance with the distinctness of nominal designations generally obser- vable therein, no one of them can be admitted at least with therein for the name *Edom;' and, consequently, that the context of the passage in its genuine state excluded that signification of the group. Chap. II] IMPLIES THE SAME SPOKEN ONE. 163 any degree of confidence unless its reality be sustained by consistent ancient evidence. In one of the examples, indeed, to be presently brought forward, in which the required con- sistency has been to some extent observed, I have conceded a diversity of the vocal part of the sound of a Hebrew name in its primitive state, without a complete fulfilment of the speci- fied condition ; but I have done so only conventionally, for the mere convenience of distinguishing dififerent persons by some difference of verbal nomenclature, and without pretend- ing to fix to a certainty the correctness of the difi*erence I have adopted. If my leaving the matter in this state of unfixed- ness should give dissatisfaction, I am sorry for it ; but I will not represent our knowledge of the sounds of Scriptural names as greater than it really is ; and, in extenuation of this defi- ciency, I would only beg to remind the reader, that the uncer- tainty here noticed affects solely names of rare occurrence. Wherever it is of more importance to be acquainted with the fuU pronunciation of Hebrew names, in consequence of their frequent occurrence in Scripture, in such cases we are abun- dantly supplied with means of ascertaining that pronunciation with exactness. I shall here add but one more observation, having an immediate reference to the object for which atten- tion will presently be directed to Hebrew names variously transcribed in the Septuagint, without any variation of the persons thereby denoted: viz. that the more diversified the vocalization is of a Greek transcript, while applied to the designation of the same individual, the more striking is the proof thus afforded, that no separate signs for vowels were employed in the original group till after the Septuagint had been written. Having in the preceding paragraphs incidentally touched upon a very important prophecy of the Old Testament, and the reference made to it in the New, which are at present ex- hibited, in their final portions, utterly irreconcilable, as may be seen by comparing the lines of each quotation which are given in capitals, I cannot pass by this remarkable discre- 164 AGREEMENT RESTORED BETWEEN [Chap. 11. pance, which equally holds between the original sentences in the existing state of the Hebrew text, without some further investigation of its cause. It is in vain to urge, with a view to removing the difficulty before us, that St. Luke, Avriting for persons acquainted with the older volume of Scriptures only through the medium of the Septuagint, quoted the pro- phecy referred to from that version ; for, even admitting this to have been the case, surely he would not have substituted for his OAvn translation of the passage that given by the Seventy, if he did not consider it a correct one. We, there- fore, must either adopt the monstrous supposition that St. James and St. Luke entirely mistook the bearing of the second verse of the prophecy in question, and that the latter gave his sanction to an erroneous translation of that verse (whether made by himself or taken from another quarter, need not here be inquired into) ; or we must come to the conclusion that the Hebrew text has been altered in this place since the time when 'the Acts of the Apostles' were written; a conclusion for the arrival at which a way has been paved, by the disclo- sure already effected respecting the very passage under exa- mination ; for, as the Jewish scribes have been convicted of misreading one term in it, we need not be surprised at their having tampered with two more of its words also. And this result is further strengthened by the obvious effect of the cor- ruption here imputed to them, which is to change a prophecy detested by the Jews of the call of the Gentiles to a seeking after the true God and a consequent state of salvation into one in favour of which all the prejudices of this people were enlisted, a prediction of their universal dominion upon earth. To put this matter in a clearer light, I here bring together some quotations to be considered by the reader : 1st. The original passage, with the corrections inserted in it that I shall endeavour to establish, but which I translate in the first in- stance without any reference to those corrections, and in ac- cordance with the sense attributed to it by the Jews ; 2ndly. The paraphrase of this passage in the Targum of Jonathan, to r, ...... .: Chap.II.] VEKSES, AMOS, ix. 12, AND ACTS, xv. 17. 165 show I have given a fair representation of the Jewish con- struction of it ; 3rdly. For the same purpose, the translation of this passage by Hieronymus ; 4thly. The translation of it in the Peshitah; and, 5thly. The translations of it in the Vatican and Alexandrian copies of the Septuagint, compared immediately with each other and with the corresponding pas- sage of the Greek Testament : Hebrew, ,D^ijn-^:3i xn^ ts^^^^ cmn'^i-n.^ i^^nm"^ )}:rdi n^^r [-^D] T]&]: T]^ri^ d^^j ,DiT^;; "^12^ Knp:i -it:\^ d in order that they upon whom my name is called, should inherit possession of (or dominion over) the remnant of Edom and all the Gentiles, saith the Lord who doeth this (or these things).* Targumohrs^'2 ^^;:dqj;^ by\ dhNt ^-^^m T\^ ]in-)n ^na Jonathan, I .Kl lAj; ^^ ^^^^ \'2'2 jJl.T^;/ "^12^1; ""-i^r^^^i h^^m^ D in order that the House of Israel upon whom my name is called, should inherit possession of (or dominion over) the remnant of Edom and all the Gentiles ; wherefore I the Lord do this. Hieronymits, ut possideant reliquias Idumaeae et omnes na^ tiones ; eo quod invocatum sit nomen meum super eos ; dicit Dominus faciens haec.^ * The pronoun nST is, in the Hebrew grammars and lexicons, confined to the singular number ; but that it admitted of a plural, as well as singular appli- cation, is evident from both its Syriac and Greek translation, not only in the very passage under examination, but in other verses of Scripture also. Thus, in Isaiah, v. 25, nST'vDH is translated, in the Peshitah >m\o t NotO, ' in these things all of them,' and in the Septuagint, iv iraai rovrois, ^ The Yod in the above group is at present read as a consonant ; but the analogy which holds between the Syriac and Chaldee dialects shows, that it was originally employed in such sites to denote the vowel E^ for the purpose of distinguishing the plural from the singular emphatic termination of nouns. ^ The translation of the passage by Hieronymus differs from all the others quoted by me, in representing IW^ as therein used, not as a pronoun, but as 166 AGREEMENT RESTORED BETWEEN [Chap. II. Peshitah, v^f-oZlj ]V)Vin ^cru^o ioojij ]d'^ xolyhi ^H^ in order that they may inherit possession of (that is, dominion over) the remnant of Edom and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord that doeth these things. Vatican J ottw^ eK^TjTrjawai ol KaToXotTTOt twv avOpwTTwv Alexan. ottw? av ek-^TjTfjawat ol tcaraXoLTTOL twv avOpw'nwv tov Gt. Test. OTTO)? av eK^TjTfjawatv ol KaraXoiTroL twv avOpwirwv rov Vatican, koI Travra TO, eOvrj l(f> oy? tTriKeKXfjTaL to ovofxa Alexan, Kvpiov, kol Travra to, eOvy e0' ov9 litiKeKK^fai to ovo/jlcl Gt, Test, JivpLOV, KOL TTcivTa Ttt cOvi] k(j) OV9 eTTlKeKXfJTai TO ovojxa Vatican, fxov ctt' avTOV^, Xer/et Kvpio?, 6 iroiwv Travra ravTa, Alexan. fxov Itt' auTou?, \e;Tetaou is likewise directly op- posed to the vocalization of both J/IDti^ and ^J/DJ^. By the same process it can be shown that V^^ was also the name, as originally written, of one of the brothers of David ; though it is, in the present state of the sacred text, exhibited in no less than four different ways, only one of which gives it a common pronunciation for himself and his nephew. This name, in the application of it which now comes under consi- deration, is written in 1 Sam. xvi. 9, and xvii. 13, H^J^, ShaMmaH ; in 2 Sam. xiii. 3 and 32, H;/^:^, ShaMaHaH ; in 2 Sam. xxi. 21, "^V^^, SheMeHI ; in 1 Chron.ii. 13,andxx. 7, ^i/DJ^, ShaMaHA ;^ and is translated by the Seventy, in the first of the quoted places, ^a/uLjua or ^a/uLa^ and in the second, ^a/jLjjLa ; in the third and fourth places, ^a/maa ; in the fifth, Se/xet or Se/xeet ; in the sixth, ^afxaa or 2a/iafa ; in the seventh, ^ The chasms in the first Hebrew vocalization of words are, in my read- ings of the several modifications of the original group examined in the ten sites specified in the present and the preceding paragraph, filled up from the vowel sounds of the Greek transcripts in those sites, as being the only source, though often a neglected and disparaged one, from which the old vocalizers could have derived any correct information on the subject. According to the Masoretic pointing of the same group, as varied in the different sites referred to, it should be read in the first and third of those sites ShaMmUaH, in the second, ninth, and tenth sites, ShiMHaH, in the fourth and fifth, ShaMmaH, in the sixth and seventh, ShiMHaH, and in the eighth, ShtMHa. There is less discrepance between these readings of the several modifications of the group in question than between those given in my text. This difi*erence, however, cannot be attributed to any superior information enjoyed by the Masorets, but merely to the circumstance of their having collated the different parts of their works more carefully than the Seventy. In the eighth of the above sites the reading adopted by them is not supplemental to, but quite eversive of that employed by the first set of Hebrew vocalizers. Chap. II.] AND SHIMEI, EXAMINED & COMPARED. 173 ^afxaa or ^aiaaa? ; and uniformly in every one of those places in the Syriac version, 11cl, ShaMaH, without any vowel-let- ter, and with one guttural substituted for another at the end of the word, by an exchange that is occasionally made in Syriac writing, and which seems to have been adopted in this tran- scription of the name, for the purpose of better distinguishing the uncle from the nephew. In the Hebrew text, however, the two first of this latter set of variations betray faults which should, I grant, be attributed to the copyists rather than to the old vocalizers ; but even with this reduction of their number, the additional instances of inconsistent vocalization here ex- posed, powerfully strengthen my argument. A direct contra- diction as to the vowel part of the last syllable of the name subsists, not only between Sa/xaa, or ^ajuLata, or l^a/uLaa^, and one of the two remaining Hebrew groups, "^j/^I^, and again between Se/xet or 2e/>tee^, and the other m/Ot^, but also imme- diately between those Hebrew groups themselves ; while their common Syriac transcription, ]kL, refutes the existence of matres lectionis in either of them, at the time when the Peshi- tah was written, not as directly, indeed, as the Greek transcrip- tions above compared with them, by displaying different vowel- letters from what they do in respectively the same syllables, but almost as efficaciously, by exhibiting none at all. Surely, if the original groups contained any, at the period referred to, the framers of the S3rriac version could not have omitted them, in transcribing those groups from Hebrew into writing of the same general nature, and that too, writing in which, confes- sedly, a freer use was made of the very letters in question. The main point having been now, I submit, fully estab- lished, that the groups applied to the designation of the two relatives of David alluded to, were at first utterly destitute of vowel-letters, and, consequently, that those persons had, in the original state of the sacred text, the same written name, it remains to be inquired whether they had also the same spoken one, and, if so, what is the verbal denomination that was com- mon to both of them. How, indeed, two individuals were 174 SHAMMUA, SHIMEA, SHAMMA, SHIMMA, [Chap. II. exactly called, of whom not a single act is recorded in Scrip- ture, it is not very material to determine ; and as certainty on this subject is no longer attainable, so neither is it at all wanted in order to the completion of my argument. As, however, the proposed questions relate to points nearly connected with that already established, I shall examine them, and hope to arrive at their most probable solution, through the following consi- derations. In the first place, it is evident from the foregoing analysis, not only that the original group was not vocalized till after the Septuagint was written, but also that its several vocalizations were, all but one of them, derived from this very record. The analysis made use of has, indeed, been hitherto confined to bringing together under view contradictory pro- nunciations of the same group in different verses ; but if it be extended to comparing the Hebrew groups in the ten specified places with the Greek transcriptions of the original group in respectively the same places, we shall find that, in each in- stance, the two representations of the same word, though differ- ing in fulness of vocalization, are not in this respect directly at variance with each other, except in the third place, in which i/IDti^ cannot at all be reconciled in pronunciation with Sa/xaa, or Xa/jLuov, In a matter in which the Hebrew scribes acted so capriciously, it is no longer now discoverable, with any ap- proach to certainty, why they selected this site wherein to deviate from the Greek vocalization. They may, perhaps, have thought the appearance of inaccuracy thrown by such contrivance upon the Septuagint more likely to attract obser- vation, where the group they operated on is put forward at the head of a list of persons of elevated rank and distinguished birth, than in obscurer places of its occurrence ; or they may have honestly considered i/'i^Ci^ more suited to the genius of the Hebrew tongue than i^Dl^ vocalized in any way that could be derived from ^ajxaa or ^ajiaov. But, however that may be, if we pass over this single instance, we may perceive in every other one a striking correspondence between the adduced representations ; as, for example, i/1Dt^, '^i/Dt^, and ^i/Dt^, are Chap. II.] AND SHIMEI, EXAMINED & COMPAKED. 175 presented to us in the one record, in respectively the same places as ^afx/uLov^ or ^a/ui/nove^ 2e/xeV or Se/zee^, and ^afxaa or ^a/jiaa^^ in the two principal copies of the other. It is quite impossible that such coincidences between two series of discordant repre- sentations could have occurred without their mutual com- parison ; and the Hebrew vocalization being that of later date, must in these instances have been borrowed from the Greek one. This example supplies, as far as it goes, internal evidence that, however eagerly the Hebrew vocalizers endea. voured to disparage the Septuagint, it was solely thence they derived their knowledge of the vowel part of the pronuncia- tion of Scriptural names of rare occurrence ; and that, conse- quently, where this source of information failed, they had no other guide or standard to direct them. Accordingly, they, by their vacillating and inconsistent representations, show themselves just as much at a loss as the Seventy were, for the correct pronunciation of the group under examina- tion, in both the applications of it as yet considered. All certainty, indeed, with regard to that pronunciation, having been lost before the Septuagint was written, there could be no human means of recovering it with exactness at any subsequent period. The framers of the Peshitah, therefore, must have been fully as much in the dark on this point, as either the first Greek translators, or first Hebrew vocalizers of the sacred text ; and their consistency, in reading this group always in the same way, when employed as the name of the same individual, merely shows that they attended to what was overlooked by both the other parties a careful collation of the different parts of their work ; while the circumstance of their reading it dif- ferently for the two individuals referred to, is to be attributed to the latitude of choice left open to them by the very uncer- tainty in which they were placed, and to their availing them- selves of this latitude for the convenience of distinguishing between these persons. As this case, then, furnishes no evi- dence deserving credit on the matter here under inquiry, I conclude, in accordance with the general position already laid 176 SHAMMUA, SHIMEA, SHAMMA, SHIMMA, [Chap. II. down upon the subject, that the son and brother of David, who had the same denomination in writing, had likewise the same in speech. In the second place, though there be no certainty as to what was the verbal designation common to the two re- latives in question, yet as it is necessary to pitch upon some one or other, I would venture to propose Shammuah ; not only for its agreement with a very usual mode perhaps the most usual of vocalizing names ending with the guttural Hayin^ as may be illustrated by the instances of Abishua, Elishuah, Jeshua^ Malchishua^ Zerua\ but also for the preference the three parties w^hose dealing with the original group is under examination, appear to have given to it, the Seventy, by em- ploying a correspondent transcription in the first of the three more distinguished applications of this group,"" and the He- brew vocalizers and Syriac translators, by selecting a corre- spondent vocalization, the former set of scribes, in two of these applications, and the latter set, in all three. Hence I infer it to be most likely, that the family name by which the uncle and nephew were called in common was Shammuah In the third-mentioned use of the group in question, wherein it serves to denote a member of the house of Saul and son of Gera, it occurs thrice in 2 Sam. xvi., four times in 2 Sam. xix., and eleven times in 1 Kings, ii.; in every one of Avhich places it is to be seen uniformly vocalized U^DCi^, SheMeHI, in the Hebrew record, as the sacred text at present stands, and also uniformly transcribed 2e/iei in the Septuagint, and . . vvn^ ^ SheMeHI, in thePeshitah. As "^i/^t^ has been already proved to have been at first written without any vowel-letter whatever, the consideration of the third application of the primitive group is here introduced merely in reference to the subordinate inquiry, with what vocal sounds it should be read ' * Although nothing is recorded of the above relatives but their genealo- gies, yet one of them, the son of a very remarkable man and powerful king, may be said to have been, at least by birth, a more distinguished individual than the other, who was son of only a peasant. Chap. II.] AND SHIMEI, EXAMINED & COMPARED. 177 in this' use of it. Now, although the authority of the Septua- gint upon this point is greatly weakened by the vacillation it betrays with regard to the two previous applications of the same group, yet, as its attestation in all the instances of that at present under view is perfectly consistent, and as the He- brew and Syriac vocalizations, here also consistent, quite har- monize, as far as they respectively go, with the fuller Greek one, I do not feel myself at liberty to reject this accumulation of concordant evidence. Taking, then, the powers of the con- sonants, as before, from the Hebrew text, and the remaining elements of the word from the older and more complete re- presentation of its vowels supplied by the first Greek version, I would venture to recommend Shemehi as the pronunciation of this group, when used to designate the son of Gcra. A circumstance may be here noticed ea; ahundanti^ as ac- cordant with the original identity of the above examined group in its references as a proper name to various indivi- duals, that in every place of its occurrence in either of the two first-mentioned applications of it, and in every chapter in which it occurs in the third application, we are expressly told whether it be a son of David, or a brother of David (or, what comes to the same thing, a son of Jesse), or a son of Gera, that is spoken of; a piece of information quite unnecessary to be so often repeated, if the ^vritten name employed to de- note those persons had been at first made in any respect dif- ferent for each of them. The Hebrew group just analyzed, which is constantly vo- calized 'U^^Ci^ in its third application, is for this use of it trans- lated in the Authorized English Version Shimei, with uni- formity, indeed, but not with any degree of close adherence to the expression of its sound derived from its oldest Hebrew vocalization, as filled up and completed from either the Greek transcription of the word, or from its Masoretic pointing : for it ought, according to the former combination of authorities, be read Shemehi, and, according to the latter, Shimhi. With regard to the ten quoted instances of the first and second ap- p2 178 A FEW MORE INSTANCES ADDUCED [Chap. II. plications of this group, the renderings by our Enghsh trans- lators of its several forms, in those instances, exhibit the fol- lowing variations, put in the order of my quotations, the repetitions of the same readings being omitted : Shammuah^ Shimea^ Shammua^ Shammah^ Shimeah, Shimma, and Shamma,^ Though fidehty of transcription is the only conceivable object that could have induced them to adopt such a heap of con- tradictory readings, yet they deviated in some of these read- ings from the ancient authorities which bear upon the subject. The most curious of those instances occurs in 2 Sam. xxi. 21, where the Hebrew group is written in the same way as it always is for its third application, ^^Dtl/^ and where both the Masorets and the Enghsh translators support my view of the spurious nature of the final letter, the former set of writers, by branding it with their little circular mark of censure, and pointing the remainder of the group for the pronunciation Shimha ; the latter set, by transcribing this name Shimea^ which, it may be observed, is at variance with its Masoretic pointing and Greek transcription, as well as with its first He- brew vocahzation. In conformity with the foregoing exposition of the matter, the Hebrew name just examined requires no correction where it is i/lDt^, that is, in the first and third of the specified places, nor does "ll/DC^ in any of the eighteen last referred to. But the vocalized forms of the original group in the second, ninth, and tenth places, in the fourth and fifth, ^in the sixth and seventh, and in the eighth, should be exhibited respec- tively w^'\\i2m^ nc;;^];:::^, r]]:mj2^^ and Vra?:^^^. in an English version, according to the same views, the group in question should be rendered Shammuah in the first ten places, and Shemehi in the last eighteen ; while there ought to be in- serted in the margin opposite Shammuah, in the second, ninth, * The last of the above variations does not appear in the later editions of our Authorized Version ; as, in them, Shamma has been changed into Sham- mah in the margin of 1 Chron. ii. 13. Chap. II.] OF CONTRADICTORY VOCALIZATION. 1 79 and tenth places ' Heb. voc. Shamaha,^ in the fourth and fifth, ' Heb. cop. Shammah,^ in the sixth and seventh, ' Heb. cop. Shamahah^' and in the eighth, ' Heb. voc. ShemehV 13. The following examples of names inconsistently voca- lized may, from the degree of similarity which holds between them, be briefly considered together. The spuriousness of the matres lectionis found in these examples is proved, not only by the evidence of the oldest versions, but also by that of the sacred text itself, on the ground that no direct inco- herency could have existed between any diflerent parts of it in their original state. Moreover, the versions referred to contribute valuable aid to the determination of the vowel or vowels in each conflicting instance to be corrected, as also in some of the cases to the restoration of a genuine element of the text thence dropped. Gen. xxxvi. 22. 1 Chron. i. 39- Hebrew text, .... DD^^, HEMaM. DDIH, HOMaM. Septuagint, .... Al/ului/. Aifxav. Feshitah, i^iSjoooi, HOMaM. :>QiD0C7i, HOMaM. Authorized English Vers., Heman. Homam. Although the two ancient versions concur in j)roving the spu- riousness of the vowel-letters in the Hebrew exhibitions of this name, they disagree as to its proper vocalization, in con- sequence of which a choice must be made between their testi- monies on this point ; and as that of the Septuagint is consis- tent in itself, a decided preference should be given to it on account of its far greater antiquity. The Hebrew group, therefore, requires no correction in Genesis, but should be o exhibited in Chronicles DD1D]il, with the marginal note on its altered vocalization ' Sept. ;' while it ought to be transcribed in both of the corresponding places of the Authorized English Version Hemam, with the marginal note upon this transcript in the second place of its occurrence, ' Heb. voc. Homam' 180 A FEW MORE INSTANCES ADDUCED [Chap. II. Gen. xxxvi. 23. 1 Chron. i. 40. Hebrew text, .... \hi:, HaLON. \bi:, HaLIN. Septuagint, .... TaiKajx YiiiKwjx. AXmv Iw\a/x. Peshitah, ^o\s, HaLON. tt^^^"^? HaNON.^ Fainted text, .... HaLWaN. HaLYaN. Authorized English Vers, Alvan. Allan. From the vacillating Greek vocalization of this name in each copy of the Septuagint, It would appear that all certainty as to the vocal ingredients of its sound was lost before the oldest part of this version was written ; as it can hardly be supposed that the framers of the Peshitah, who lived between three and four hundred years later, could have had better information on this subject. The uniformity, therefore, with which the latter set of translators vocalized this name is, I fear, to be attributed merely to the care with which they collated the different parts of their work. The Syriac vocalization, how- ever, as the best within our reach, and as being in part sup- ported by that of the Seventy, must be here adhered to. The Hebrew name, then, should be left in its present state in Genesis, and altered in Chronicles into the form ^[1]/^/ with the marginal note on the altered part, ' Pesh.^ To change on such uncertain grounds any genuine element of the sacred text would be quite unwarrantable ; but it is to be borne in mind that the correction here recommended affects only an interpolated letter. The vocalization of this name in the two places of its occurrence in the pointed text is here given, to show that the Masorets entirely mistook the nature of the in- troduced letters, which they dealt with as uttered consonants, and not, as they ought according to their own theory, as qui- escents. To determine the best English transcript of the above name which the case admits of, it should be ascertained whe- * The substitution of the Syriac iV for L in the Syrian transcript of the above name in the second place of its occurrence has obviously been occasioned by a mere oversight of the copyists. Chap. II.] OF CONTEADICTOKY VOCALIZATION. 181 ther the diaphonous element of the Hebrew designations be used with its composite or simple power. Now, if the initial letter of the fourth Greek transcript be, as is most likely, a T, which from great age has lost its transverse line, the evidence of the Septuagint is three to one, and at any rate is two to one, in favour of the composite power of the Hayin, This name, I therefore conceive, should be transcribed in both places of its occurrence in a revised English version Ghalon, with the marginal note upon it in the second of those places, * Heb. voc. Ghalin,^ Gen. xxxvi. 23. 1 Chron. i. 40. Hebrew text, .... "lilit^, ShoPhU. "^Dt^, ShoPhl. Septuagint, .... ^axpap Sw^. Sw0t Sw0f. Peshitah, ;^, SlioPhaR. t^L, ShoPhaR. Authorized English Vers, Shepho. Shephi. In the four Greek representations of the name before us, the vocalization of the first syllable is perfectly identical, while no inconsistency can be made out against that of the second syl- lable, which is preserved unmutilated only in one of those representations. The Greek vocalization, therefore, of this name in the first place of its occurrence in the Vatican copy of the Septuagint may be admitted correct ; while the Peshi- tab proves the spuriousness of the vowel-letters in the Hebrew groups, not, as in previous instances, by the use of different vowel-letters in respectively the same syllables, but by abstain- ing from the employment of any vowel-letters whatever in either exhibition of this word. Here a second service of the two versions is presented to us in the restoration of an original letter of the above Hebrew name, of which no trace is to be found in any of the extant copies of the sacred text. In com- mitting to Avriting vowel sounds that had been previously preserved chiefly by means of oral tradition, the later the operation was performed, the less its accuracy could be relied on. So far the authority of the Peshitah is inferior to that of 182 OF THE FOREIGN NAMES TRANSCRIBED [Chap.IL the Septuagint. But with regard to the service which now comes under consideration, the two versions are more upon a par ; for it is possible that the Syriac translators may have had access to as perfect a copy of the original text as any made use of by the Seventy. In reference, indeed, to the present case, they at first view of the matter appear to have obtained a better one ; as they have given a transcript of the lost letter in both Genesis and the Chronicles, which the Seventy have preserved in the former place alone. But the advantage thus shown upon the side of the Peshitah is much more likely to have arisen from the practice observed by its framers, of col- lating the corresponding parts of Scripture, than from any superiority of the copy or copies of it in their possession. But however this may be, the circumstance of the name before us having been originally terminated with a letter of i? power, is established by the joint, and at the same time perfectly inde- pendent, attestations of both versions. I would therefore ven- ture to recommend this name to be written HllDC^ in the first place of its occurrence in the sacred text, and Hl'^^t^ in the second, with the marginal note upon the final letter, ' Sept. et Pesh.^ in the former place, and ' Pesh.' in the latter ; while it should be transcribed in an English version ' Shophar' in both places, with the note, ' Heb. voc. and cop. Shophu,' in the margin of the verse containing it in Genesis, and ' Heb. voc. and cop. Sliophi^ in that of the corresponding verse in Chro- nicles. Gen. xxxvi. 11. 1 Chron. i. 36. Hebrew text, .... "iDV, SoPhU. '^i^V, SoPhl. Septuagint, .... ^w(j)ap ^wcpap. ^w(f)ap ^wcpap, Peshitah, Q.^^, SoPhU. ^^, SoPh. Authorized English Vers, Zepho. Zephi. The circumstances of this case are nearly analogous to those of the last one, with the exception that the final letter of the name here brought under notice appears to have dropped from Chap. II.] IN OUR VERSION ON AND AVEN. 183 the sacred text before the Peshitah was written; in conse- quence of which only the evidence of one of the principal versions is afforded to us, as to the loss of that letter and the proper vocalization of the word. But on each point this evi- dence is perfectly consistent and complete in itself. The name should therefore, I submit, be written HJIDV in the first place of its occurrence in the Hebrew Bible, and Hl^DV in the second, with the marginal note in both places upon the introduced letter, ' Sept. ;' and it should be transcribed in an English ver- sion Zophar in both of the verses containing it, with the note in the margin of the first of them, ' Heb. voc. and cop. Zepho^ and in that of the second, ' Heb. voc. and cop. ZephV 14. The errors of the Masorets, already exposed with regard to the use of the matres lectionis in names of rare occur- rence, can be also exemplified by their treatment of foreign designations, and indeed are therein peculiarly observable. Thus, the power of Waw in I'iK has in two instances been mistaken by them, where that group serves in the Hebrew text to denote localities outside Judea. First, a town of Egypt is mentioned four times in Scripture (Gen. xli. 45, 50, xlvi. 20, and Ezek. xxx. 17) by its Egyptian name, which is con- stantly paraphrased in the Septuagint by the characteristic denomination *H\tou7ro\9, i. e., ' city of the Sun,' on account of the Pagan deity who was principally worshipped there. This name has been allowed to remain, as it was originally penned, ]^^, HoN, in the first and third places of its occurrence in the Jewish edition of the Hebrew text f but, in the second and fourth, it is at present exhibited with a Waic inserted between its genuine elements, to denote the vowel 0. Now the Maso- rets could not be ignorant of the nature of the introduced letter in the second of the four specified places ; because they * In the Samaritan edition the above name is written without a Waw in the second, as well as in the first and third place of its occurrence; a cir- cumstance which affords additional proof, if any were wanting, of that letter being an interpolated one in ]^M, where this group makes its second appear- ance in the Jewish copies. 184 OF THE FOREIGN NAMES TRANSCRIBED [Chap. II. had the word under their eyes only five verses before, written without any such addition. They, in consequence, rightly marked the Waw in that place as, according to their theory, the quiescent accompaniment of a vowel ; whereas, in the fourth place, where they had not the like aid for their guidance, they pointed it as a sounded consonant, and thereby con- verted an Egyptian proper name into a Hebrew word that signifies iniquity ! It is in vain urged, in defence of so extraor-" dinary a transmutation, that Hon was a very wicked, idolatrous city ; for this character might have been given of every place without distinction throughout the entire of Egypt in the days of Ezekiel ; and, therefore, was not calculated to suggest to those whom he addressed the notion of any one town of that country more than another. It is true that Bethhel (house of God), a place where Hebrew was spoken, is sometimes styled by the inspired writers Beth-hawen (house of inquity),for a reason well known to the Jews, namely, the idolatry there practised ; and, upon one occasion, this town is called simply Hawen (iniquity), familiarity with the compound term na- turally leading to the use of its principal ingredient with the same signification, besides that the context of the passage marks out the locality referred to : "the high places also of Aven^ the sin of Israel, shall be destroyed." Hos. x. 8. The worship of a golden calf is emphatically termed in Scripture * the sin of Israel ;' Aven^ therefore, or Hawen^ must here denote one or other of the two cities of Israel in which that sin was habitually committed, and Bethel was the chief one. But Hebrew never was the national dialect of Egypt ; and there is nothing what- ever to countenance the supposition that one of its towns in particular could have been specially known to Ezekiel's coun- trymen under the vague designation of a general term of the Hebrew language, except the assumed identity of the groups of letters with which that term and the proper name of the Egyptian city in question were all along written in the sacred text ; an identity which, it now turns out, did not present itself till many centuries after the lifetime of the Prophet, and Chap.II.] in our version on and AVEN. 185 which is only apparent, and not even to appearance complete, the first vocalizers having, in two cases out of four, over- looked the group employed to express the Egyptian name, and suffered it to remain in its original state. Secondly, another foreign locality a valley or plain in the territories of Damascus is mentioned in Scripture (Amos, i. 5) under the designation of I'li^, the transcription of which in the Septuagint, our oldest and best authority on the subject, is Hi/ ; which clearly shows that it should be read HON, whereas it is pointed by the Masorets for the pronun- ciation HaWeN ; a misreading, however, which did not commence with them, but had a much older origin. The word is not in this, as in the former example, restricted to HON by the internal evidence of the case : for, neither does the group with which it is -written occur with its present application in different parts of the text, by a comparison of which the true reading might be ascertained ; nor, Avhere the language of the Syrians and that of the Jews had so close an affinity, would there have been any absurdity in the supposition of a valley in Syria having been called by a Hebrew name. Accordingly, the Jewish scribes of older times, who took every opportunity they could of throwing discredit on the testimony of the LXX., and had in the instance before us nothing to contend with but that testimony, at an early period adopted HaWeN as the right pronunciation of ]1K, in the verse just referred to. This proceeding of theirs may be collected from the renderings of the group in question in some of the spurious Greek versions, or of new editions of the genuine one, that were published in the course of the second century of our era, under their direction, or that of Judaizing heretics, who, to a certain extent, concurred in their views. The pretended corrections I here allude to are preserved in the Commenta- ries of Jerome, in a passage upon Amos, i. 5, which runs in the following terms : " Campum autem idoli quod Hebraice dicitur Aven, et LXX. et Theodotio interpretati sunt Clu ; Symmachus et quinta editio transtulerunt iniquitatem ; Aquila, 186 OF THE EGYPTIAN NAME TRANSCRIBED [Chap. II. ai/w0e\ou?, id est, inutilem:^^ Hieronymi Opera, Ed. Benedict, torn. iii. col. 1374. In this instance, as well as some others, the spurious Greek versions of the second century actually, in their deviation from the earlier genuine one, went beyond the Hebrew vocalization in support of which they were writ- ten ; for the Hebrew group I'i^^ does not contradict the Greek transcription Ov, except through the reading to which they have restricted it ; a reading which is unquestionably false, since the testimony of the LXX., which is opposed thereto, vastly outweighs that by which it is supported, not only as the oldest that has reached us on the subject, but also as given by a party above suspicion, and before the written expression of the word in question became ambiguous in the sacred text. As the misreading of this word can be traced as far back as the age of Aquila, that is, to a date very shortly subsequent to the introduction of vowel-letters into the Hebrew Bible, it must have originated in design ; but its continuance by the Maso- rets can be attributed solely to ignorance, those scribes having always exhibited the most scrupulous editorial honesty, and the secret of the interpolation of the vowel-letters in the original text having been lost among the Jews long before their time. 15. To revert from the mistakes of the Masorets to the intentional misrepresentations of the older set of vocalizers, the Hebrew designation of Foti-pherah affords, in its present state, compared with the transcription of it by the Seventy, a striking example of groups wrongly supplied with matres lec- tionis; and, at the same time, places in a conspicuous light the very superior value of the Septuagint, even when consi- dered barely in the service it performs of recording the vocal portion of the sounds of names. The Hebrew group here referred to, J/ID'^CO'iD, is, through accident or caprice, separated into two parts in the copies of the Jewish edition of the Pen- tateuch which were consulted by the framers of our Autho- rized Version (as may be perceived by their mode of transcrib- ing it); but it is correctly written as a single word in several Chap. II.] IN OUR VERSION POTI-PHERAH. 187 others, in manuscript, that are enumerated by Dr. Kennicott, as also in all the Samaritan copies he collated, except one, and is likewise translated as such in the Septuagint and Peshitah. The transcription of the original group in the former version, IIeTe(f)prj, represents a combination of sounds that are signifi- cant in Coptic, a medley offspring of Greek and Egyptian, wherein pH means ' sun ;' c{)pH, ' the sun ;' and e-cf)pH, ' to the sun ;' while ex is the pronoun ' who ;' and lieT, ' he that.' The entire compound, therefore, nex-e-ctpH, is literally ' he that to the sun,' or ' one dedicated to the service of the sun ;' a characteristic description, of the same nature, in its immediate signification, with all the old ideagraphic designa- tions, and which constituted a very appropriate name for a priest of On, a town called by the Seventy ' HXiovttoXi^, ^ the city of the sun.' This analysis of the meaning of YleTe^prj in a foreign tongue is, I admit, taken from the Coptic, as exhi- bited in copies of works that were not composed before the second or third century of our era ; but still is applicable to this dialect in much earlier stages of its existence. The in- gredients and structure of the analyzed expression having no connexion whatever with Greek, must have been derived from the ancient language of Egypt ; and they appear to have un- dergone no perceptible change in their transition from it into its mongrel descendant, or during an antecedent period of considerable length. For their combination agrees in sense with the meaning which may well be conceived, for the reason above stated, to have been conveyed by the name of the father- in-law of Joseph : and it also agrees in sound, as closely as the rules of Hebrew orthography will allow, with the designa- tion of that name transmitted to us by the author of the Pen- tateuch. At least J/l^'^tO'iD, when stripped of its adventitious elements, admits of being read, PheTePheEeH,^ or, according to * The circumstance of the Seventy having recorded this name Uerecpprf^ instead of 06T60e/)?/, shows that they were guided by its original Egyptian sound, rather than by the imitation of that sound in Hebrew 188 OF THE EGYPTIAN NAME TRANSCKIBED [Chap.1I. modern usage, PeTePheEeH, and so differs in pronunciation from the Greek or Coptic group compared with it, only in the separation of the Pli and B powers, which are never completely united into one articulation in Hebrew. The extraordinary permanence and durability thus indi- cated of the verbal ingredients of a description, in a country which had not the benefit of even the rudest syllabary, much less of an alphabet of consonants and vowels, for nearly a thousand years after the age in which Joseph lived, must, I conceive, be attributed to the extreme shortness of the words brought together, and their necessarily frequent occurrence in the use of the language to which they belonged. But how- ever this may be, the reading of the original group suggested by its Greek transcription, supported as it is by the internal evidence of the case, vastly outweighs in authority the united force of the Jewish, the Samaritan, and the Syriac representa- tions of this name by means of letters exactly the same in value, and differing only in shape, which may all in com- mon be read PUTIPheRaH, or POTIPheE^H. The circumstance of the word having been thus mis vocalized by the framers of the Peshitah, who transcribed it ^ : <^ ^ ci), shows this corrupt pronunciation of it to have been adopted by the Jews, before they introduced matres lectionis into the sacred text ; but still they did not venture on the change of its sound till after the time of Josephus, as we find the transcription employed by the Seventy adhered to by him. Although the second vowel- letter of the Hebrew group in its present state might be read E as well as /, yet both require, I apprehend, the little circu- lar mark of censure, without the entry of any substitute for either in the margin ; as the matres lectionis were employed solely for the expression of open long vowels. This group should, therefore, as I conceive, be written in the sacred text o o ^"ID'^COl^, and be transcribed in an English version Petephereh^ or, if such a mode of printing it be allowable in a work in- tended for general use, Peteph'reh. 16. From the difference in termination of the Hebrew, Chap. II.] IN OUR VERSION POTIPHAR. 189 Samaritan, and Syriac representations of the foregoing deno- mination, and the similar name appHed to one of the officers in Pharaoh's service, as well as from their different treatment in the Septuagint, in which one of them is exhibited with an unaltered Coptic, and the other with a Grecianized ending, it would appear that the last syllable of the former word had a fuller or longer sound than that of the latter ; a circumstance which still is compatible with their having had the same cha- racteristic signification, as pK, the final element of the above analyzed compound, is written pe, without any alteration of its meaning, in the Bashmuric dialect. But in process of time, according as Greek came into more constant and general use in Eg}^t, both names were alike transcribed in that language into IleTe(f)prj9^ at the period when Josephus flourished ; and by the time that the Coptic versions were composed, they were both in common therein >vritten neTec{)pH : whether it was the case, that increased familiarity with Greek, reacting on Coptic, extended to the two transcriptions in the latter lan- guage the sameness which commenced between those employed in the former one ; or that identity of characteristic significa- tion of the two original names led eventually to the identity of their sounds, after the Egyptians had become habituated to alphabetic designations. But however this result may have been produced, at any rate the joint testimony of the Hebrew and Samaritan editions of the sacred text, supported by that of the first Greek and Syriac versions, proves beyond a doubt that the two Egyptian names in question had originally dif- ferent terminations, one of which alone has been preserved in the Septuagint, the other having been therein transmuted into " The name of Potipherah does not occur in Scripture in the nominative case; but from its genitive being written JJereipp^ in the Septuagint, and Ilerecppod by Josephus, it would appear that the Greek transcription of that name for the nominative case had been changed from IleTe(/)prj to Hejccpp'j^ in the interval between the age in which the oldest part of the Septuagint was written, and that in which Josephus lived. 190 OF THE CHALDEE NAME TRANSCRIBED [Chap.IL a Grecian form. Hence the oldest combined vocal and con- sonantal representation we have of the sound of the last syl- lable of the second name is to be found in 0ouTf0a/9, the tran- scription of "l^'^COID given, according to Origen, by both Aquila and Symmachus, and which continued to denote the pronun- ciation of the entire name till, at all events, the age when Jerome wrote it ' Phutiphar,' after which the reading of the Hebrew group was changed to ' Potiphar,' and has, through the operation of the Masoretic pointing, been retained in that form up to the present day. In these successive representa- tions of the word, however otherwise different, the pronunci- ation of the last syllable remains unchanged ; and, though it can be traced to no older or higher authority than that of two of the spurious Greek versions of the second century, yet in the absence of any better, we should not, I conceive, be justi- fied in deviating therefrom : while at the same time the first two syllables, being exactly the same as those of the name pre- viously examined, must of course require the same corrections both in their Hebrew and their English designations. I would, therefore, affix to the Hebrew group the same marks as in o o the preceding instance, exhibiting it in the form ID'^COI^, and would transcribe it in an English version Petephar. 17. Of foreign names designedly misvocalized with Haleph we have a remarkable instance in the Hebrew designation of Nebuchadnezzar^ which in the present state of the sacred text is to be seen generally therein written "11^^2*7^3^ or "H^^^IDIil^. Whether the two final syllables of these groups were, upon the interpolation of the Haleph^ at first read ndzor or nezor^ can * Among the possible readings, in the time of the first vocalizers of the sacred text, of the two final syllables of the above groups, are not included nazar and nezar; because, wherever the very last syllable exhibits a mater lectionis(as in Jer. xlix. 28, Ezra, ii. 1), it is always a Waw, whose vocal values are incon- sistent with those readings. The Waw in this situation is always noted by the Masorets with the little circular mark of censure, as at variance with their pronunciation of the name; but still their retaining it at all in the Chap.IL] in our VEESION NEBUCHADNEZZAR. 191 no longer now be determined : all that is known to a certainty on the subject is, that they came at length to be uttered nezzar^ in which pronunciation they have been permanently fixed by their Masoretic pointing. Before proceeding further, it may be worth while to notice, by the way, an inconsistency in that pointing. In the system of the Masorets, the regular effect of a quiescent upon the preceding vowel is to render it open as well as long, while, on the other hand, the doubling of the fol- lowing consonant in utterance has the very opposite effect, upon the same vowel, of giving it a close sound. Of these contradictory influences the latter has been attended to, and the initial letter of the two syllables pointed with a segol; while the Haleph interposed between this close voweP and a dageshed letter is suffered to appear as if it had no business there. Modern grammarians attempt to account for the dis- crepance here betrayed, by calling the mater lectionis so placed an otiant instead of a quiescent; just as if the introduc- tion of a new term could suffice to explain the cause of this anomaly. The true solution of the difficulty, I submit, is to be found in the firm determination of the Masorets nowhere to deviate, in the slightest degree, from either the letters of the text, or the pronunciation of its groups which had been trans- mitted to them, not even where these were irreconcilable with each other. This scrupulous strictness of the Jews, carried to an extreme that would have been observed by no other set of scribes in the world, was admirably calculated for the preser- vation of the sacred text in an unaltered state, during the many centuries before the Reformation that it was virtually in their sole keeping : for, though the proof of their editorial honesty, which here incidentally presents itself, applies imme- diately to only the Masorets, yet we have no reason to think text, under such circumstances, is a strong additional indication of their scrupulous honesty. * The segol has sometimes, I admit, a quasi open sound, but not where it is followed by a dageshed letter, without any other vowel-point intervening between it and that letter. Q 192 OF THE CHALDEE NAME TRANSCKIBED [Chap. II. any preceding set of Jewish scribes at all different in this re- spect, till we go back to the second century of our era, when we find them repeatedly charged by the Christians with cor- rupting the Greek version of the Bible, and when, it now turns out, they also tampered with the original Scriptures. That in the case before us the Haleph is an interpolated letter is proved by the Syriac transcription of the name in question, which is uniformly 5^fiDa^L3 in every place of its occurrence in the Peshitah; and as the use of matres lec- tionis in Syriac writing gradually increased, the circumstance of the Haleph not appearing at present in this transcription supplies an a fortiori argument against its existence there at the time when the first Syriac version was written, and con- sequently against its having been inserted in the original He- brew group till after that period. This inference from the Syriac evidence on the subject is powerfully corroborated by that of the sacred text itself, in which the designation of Nebuchadnezzar is, even to the present day, exhibited in va- rious forms without the Haleph (as, for instance, it has been suffered to remain in its original wholly unvocalized state "iVn^Di, in Dan. ii. 1, iv. 34, v. 18, and is found written I^JliDin: in Ezra, i. 7, v. 12, 14, vi. 5, Jer. xxiv. 1, Dan. iii. 1, 19, 24, iv. 28, and ")1V:]T:Dini in Ezra, ii. 1). Now the interpo- lation of the above mater lectionis would have been actually an improvement on the original spelling of the group, if it had served to convey the true vowel-sound of the penultimate syllable ; but the old vocalizers certainly did not believe it to perform any such service ; as they had under their eyes Naj3oDxo^oi/o(To/9, the transcription of the name in the Septua- gint, which had up to their time been always considered by the Jews as the best, or rather indeed the only authority on the subject. The circumstance, therefore, of their deviating here from the first Greek version could have arisen solely from the dishonest wish of bringing that standard into disrepute ; a design which, though conceived with great art, was not in this instance put into execution with equal care ; as we see that, Chap. II.] IN OUR VERSION NEBUCHADNEZZAR. 193 in several places just quoted, the Hebrew designation has been either overlooked and left in its original state, or displayed in other forms likewise admitting to be read in exact accordance with its Grecian vocalization. The correctness of this vocaliza- tion is supported by the constant and uniform agreement, with respect to it, of the Seventy and the framers of the Peshitah : and the uniformity, on this point, of the former set of transla- tors is of the more weight, inasmuch as it is evident, from other instances, that they did not collate the different parts of their version. Josephus moreover vocalizes this name exactly as the Seventy, and only differs from them in writing the word Naj3oux,oBoi/o(To/?o9, and so adding to it a Greek termination ; a difference which might naturally be expected from the in- creased familiarity of the Jewish public in his day with the Grecian language. It is also to be observed that both of the above-mentioned set of translators always retain the consonants of this name the same, even where the Nun of the Hebrew designation has been changed to Besh: and, although in gene- ral the authority of the sacred text is higher than that of any version, as to the consonants of names, yet, where it is incon- sistent with itself, the combined testimony of the Greek and Syriac versions is obviously entitled to a preference. Where, then, the penultimate syllable of the Hebrew group exhibits an Halepli or a Resh^ the little circular mark of rejection should be placed over these letters, and a Nun within brackets should be prefixed to the latter ; while, in an Enghsh version, this name should, I conceive, be transcribed Nabukodonozor^ uniformly in every place of its occurrence. 18. Of the Hebrew representations in their existing state, t^'Tl^ and t^V"n,^ of the Persian names of Cyrus and Darius, the former is brought under notice, not only to estabhsh the ^ In the above group neither the Tod nor the Waw is printed in open type ; because it is doubtful which of those letters is therein employed as a mater lectionis, as may be seen by a subsequent part of the paragraph. All that we can be certain of is, that one of them must be so used, or the word q2 194 OF THE HEBREW IMITATIONS OF THE [Chap. II. adventitious nature of its mater lectionis Waw by the testi- mony of the first Hebrew vocalizers themselves, who over- looked this group, and suffered it to remain wholly unvoca- lized in two places of its occurrence (Ezra, i. 1, 2) ; but also to expose the mistake committed by the second set (whether it originated with them or earlier critics), of pointing this Waiv for its 0, instead of its t/' sound ; a mistake which shows that the Jews must have abandoned the use of Greek versions of their Scriptures (wherein the name in question has always been transcribed Kvpo^) long before the period when the sacred text came to be pointed ; and, at the same time, gives a very striking instance of their gross ignorance, in losing the princi- pal voc^al part of the sound of a name which was so promi- nently connected with the history of their nation. The latter group, as ^t present A\Titten in the sacred text, ^)]!T^, places the historic ignorance of the Masorets in nearly as conspi- cuous a light, by the manner in which they have pointed it, and affords thereby a further exemplification of a mater lectionis mistaken by them for a consonant. The first vocalizers of the Hebrew Bible cannot be supposed to have misrepresented the vocal part of the sound of this name with the intention of dis- paraging its transcription in the Septuagint, Aapeio? ; an ex- pression of the word which was quite unassailable, as supported by the authority of Herodotus and the general consent of the Grecian public. The group ti^VIl, therefore, must be consi- dered as agreeing in sound with Aapeio^^ as closely as the powers of the letters in the two kinds of writing admitted ; according to which view of the matter it must have been read either DaRYUSh, or DaRIWwSh. The former reading is the nearest approach to the sound of Aapeio^ that the Hebrew group can be made to convey, if the Yod be in it an original expressed would differ too much from the well-known attestation of its sound, Aa/>eios; and at the same time that both of them cannot be vowel- letters, as the reading, of this group DaRIUSh is prohibited by Hebrew ortho- graphy, which does not allow any syllable to commence with a vowel. Chap.IL] PEESIAN names of CYRUS and DARIUS. 195 element ; the latter, if the Waw be so. But, whichever may be the true pronunciation of ti^T"l*T, one of its two specified letters is a mater lectionis, and consequently, according to the theory of the Masorets, a quiescent accompaniment of a vowel ; whereas those critics have treated both of them as sounded consonants, and pointed the entire group so as to be read DaRYaWeSh. It is unnecessary to dwell on the incorrect- ness of this reading ; as it never met with any extensive re- ception : even the various Protestant translators of the Bible, who all of them paid too great deference to the Masoretic vo- calization in its application to foreign denominations, yet in the instance before us deviated from their usual practice, and uniformly abandoned the pronunciation of this name, as fixed by the Hebrew points, for the far older one adopted long be- fore the commencement of the Christian era by both Jews and Greeks in common. 19. But the most surprising instance of the mistake in question, committed by the Masorets, is betrayed in their point- ing of the Hebrew designation of Jerusalem, a name which might naturally be supposed one of those best known to them. Notwithstanding the very numerous occurrences of this name in Scripture, it is, I believe, written but five times in the fuller manner, DvJ^I'l*', YeRUShaLEM, with a Yod in the penultimate place; a circumstance which even of itself serves to prove that letter an interpolated element ; and the proof thus sup- plied from the internal evidence of the case is clearly borne out by the independent, yet so far concordant testimonies of the Peshitah and the Septuagint. In the former version the name before us is transcribed ^\5o'), HUReShaLeM, with, in- deed, the initial letter and the place of the Waw changed, but still with no Yod in the final syllable ; and in the latter it is rendered 'lepovaaXfjjULj so that, while the Syriac transcription attests the spuriousness of the letter under consideration in the Hebrew group, the Greek one further shows it to have been therein inserted for the purpose of denoting the vowel E, 196 OF THE DESIGNATION OF JERUSALEM, [Chap. IL According to the theory, therefore, of the Masorets, this letter in Dvti^1"T^ should be viewed as a quiescent attendant on the vowel-mark substituted for it in their system ; yet they treated it as a sounded consonant, having pointed the entire group so as to be read YeRUShaLaYiM ; and such was their partiality for this pointing, that they continued it the same even where the letter in question is wanting ; though the reading so pro- duced, YeRUShaLaeM, is irregular, and implies, what is scarcely credible, that a Yod has dropped from the original text the vast number of times that the last syllable of this word is ex- hibited without it, and consequently that a name to which the Jews are so much attached has yet been preserved but five times correctly written throughout the whole range of their Scriptures. But, even in the very few instances in which this pointing is not irregular, that is, where it is applied to the fuller form of the Hebrew group, the reading which thence results, Yerushalayim^ can be shown erroneous, not only in sound, through the very superior authority of the Septuagint which sanctions quite a diiFerent pronunciation of the word, but also in sense, through the meaning, ' the two Jerusalems,' which this reading conveys. It surely is not to be supposed, that two cities were so united in the Jewish metropolis as not to form conjointly a single Jerusalem, but to bear, each of them, separately, that name ; the notion appears absurd in itself, and is utterly unwarranted by history. Besides, wherever the point can be determined by the context, this word is always found in Scripture to be used in the singular number; as, for instance, in the following passage : " Our feet shall stand in thy gates, Jerusalem. Jerusalem is built as a city that is at unity in itself" Ps. cxxii. 2, 3. In the original lines, as well as in this translation of them, the name is strictly limited to the singular number by the forms of the pronoun and verb connected with it. The Hebrew word, I admit, is, in both instances of its occurrence in the lines referred to, written with- out a Yod in its last syllable ; but the coins dug out of the Chap. II.] WHY CLASSED WITH FOREIGN ONES. 197 ruins of Jerusalem supply the deficiency in this step of my argument, by presenting to us in Hebrew letters of an older shape the legend nti^npH D^'7::^in\ that is, ' Jerusalem the holy/ The circumstance of the adjective subjoined to the name in this legend being in the singular number, plainly shows, that even the fuller designation of this name has been erroneously pointed by the Masorets ; and, at the same time, it proves that the Yod before the Mem being neither the con- sonant F, which would put the word in the dual form, nor the vowel /, which would make it plural, must be therein used for the vowel E^ in complete accordance with the sound as- signed to the vocal part of its final syllable in the Septuagint. To the like result, I may add, we are also led by the evidence of those very scribes themselves,^ if the original name of the city be allowed, on the authority of Josephus, to have been D7t^, the final part of its later denomination ; for, where this part occurs as the name of a place in Scripture (viz., Gen. xiv. 18, and Ps. Ixxvi. 3), they have pointed it so as to be read, not ShaLazM, but ShaLeM. Josephus, I admit, transcribed the shorter group ^oXvjULa ; but, in perfect agreement with this re- presentation of its sound, he rendered the longer one 'lepoao- Xvf^a'^ and, if the Masorets had been equally consistent, voca- lizing the former Slialem, they should have made the .reading of the latter Yerushalem ; and, consequently, when Yod ap- pears in the final syllable of the Hebrew designation, they should have treated it, not as a sounded consonant, but as a * The Masorets may likewise be shown to have misvocalized for the dual immber even some of the ordinary words of their language. Thus, where se- raphs with wings are mentioned, Is. vi. 2, the Hebrew groups, D^D3D WW, are pointed for the reading SheSh KeNaPhaYiM, ' six pairs of wings ;' though the subsequent part of the verse clearly proves that each seraph had only six wings altogether. It is true that the regular plural form of the above noun femi- nine is n'^iS^lD, KeNaPhOTh; but this circumstance is in no way inconsistent with the existence of an irregular plural for the same noun, D^23!3, KeNaPhIM, and the context compels us to attach such form to it in this place. *' T^i/ fievjOL ^6\v/iia varepov eKoXeaav ^lepoffoXv/na, JoscpM Antiq. Jud. lib. I. cap. x. sect. 2. 198 OF THE DESIGNATION OF JERUSALEM, [Chap. II. quiescent one, and that, too, an attendant on their vowel-point for E instead of /. The change of the Greek rendering of this name from lepovaaXyfjL to lepoaoXv/ma, by authors who may be fairly sup- posed to have transcribed it immediately from its designation in the sacred text, deserves here to be noticed, as falling in with the supposition of that designation having been originally unvocalized : it was rendered, as far as I can find, solely in the former of those ways by the Seventy, in both of them by the Evangelists, and in the latter alone by Josephus. But after the Hebrew group was interpolated with matres lectionis, and put in the form D vli^i")\ it could no longer be read in the way indicated by the second rendering. The misreading of this group YeRUSAaLaYM, which has been perpetuated through the pointing applied to it by the Masorets, may very possibly have been transmitted to them from earlier times, but still could not have commenced till after the Jews had lost all knowledge of the Septuagint ; and it most probably origi- nated with some extremely ignorant set of scribes, to whom, in consequence of their residing in countries far removed from Judea, the name of its ancient metropolis had virtually become a foreign denomination. This name is rendered in the earlier editions of the Au- thorized English Version of the Old Testament Jerusalem ; but, as soon as the vocal and semi-consonantal parts of the phonetic value of / were, for the sake of distinctness, appropri- ated to different characters, and J came into estabhshed use as the representative of the latter part of that value, the initial element of the word was very properly changed to this letter ; and it should now still further, for precisely the same reason as before, be changed to Y\ since the very power that was previously shifted from I to J has, for some time past, been transferred, in English orthography, from J to Y, In our Authorized Version of the New Testament, the same name was at first transcribed Hierusalem, in consequence of too implicit a reliance on the correctness of the marks of aspiration em- Chap II.] WHY CLASSED WITH FOREIGN ONES. 199 ployed in the copies of the Greek Testament, marks which were not inserted therein, any more than in the copies of the Septuagint, before the seventh or eighth century of the Chris- tian era. How the first accentuators came to attach the spiritus asper to the initial letter of lepovaaXrjjx can, I appre- hend, be easily explained. For the city so called having been very generally styled, by Christians as well as by Jews, holy^ an epithet expressed in Greek by a word pronounced hieros, it was very natural for men acquainted with that language, but ignorant of Hebrew, to take it for granted that lepo^ formed part of the etymology of the name lepovaaXrjiJL, and so to pre- fix the sign of the stronger species of aspiration to its initial element. But a reference to the Hebrew designation clearly shows this mode of aspirating its Greek transcription to be erroneous ; and the detection of this error very soon led to the dropping fi^om the English rendering of the Greek word its initial H^ which we find omitted, besides the / being changed to J, in the edition of our Bible that was printed at Cambridge so early as the year 1629. In this state the name has con- tinued to be exhibited in, I believe, every subsequent edition of the Authorized Version of the New Testament ; wherein it now should, for just the same reason as in that of the Old Testament, be still further changed from Jerusalem to Yerusa- lem. Upon this subject I shall add but one more remark, that in strictness the name in question should be rendered Yerushalem in the English version of the Old Testament. But, as we have inspired authority for pronouncing the sibilant part of this name with an articulation equivalent to that of either Sh or S^ it appears better, for the sake of uniformity, to exhibit the word the same way in both English Testaments, Yerusalem^ in like manner as we at present find it printed Jerusalem in both of them in common. 20. I shall close this chapter with an inquiry into the correct mode of reading the Hebrew group TT\TV^ representing a proper name for the Almighty which He condescended to reveal to Moses, and by which He expressly declared in Exod. 200 ON THE COREECT PRONUNCIATION [Chap. II. iii. 15,* that He should ever after be called; though the Jews, through a degree of reverence for it carried to a superstitious extreme, have now for more than two thousand years abstained from its utterance, and substituted, in reading out the text of their Bible, at first a single, and subsequently one or other of two words, quite different from it in sound. But, as the re- moval of error in this case is naturally the first step towards the attainment of truth, I shall commence with a brief review of the various transcripts of this name to be met with in the works of ancient authors, taken in the order of their dates, placing immediately after each transcript the mode thereby * If the group ^\^'^> be substituted for its English rendering in the Autho- rized* translation of Exod. iii. 15, this verse will be presented to us in the following state: " And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, tlMl^, the God of your fathers, the God of Abra- ham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you : this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial for all generations." By this arrangement we may at once perceive the relation of the introduced Hebrew group to the words by which it is surrounded in the original verse ; whereby it is shown that T1')T1'^ is here expressly revealed to be the name by which the Almighty chose to be called, and moreover is expressly declared (that is, surely not the mere group of four letters, but the sound they properly con- vey) to be one which should ever after be preserved among the successive generations of men. In this verse Tl')!!^ should certainly not be paraphrased * the Lord,' but ought to be transcribed into a group of English letters de- noting its sound, on account of the direct reference here made to it as a name. Hitherto the preceding verse has been supposed to be the answer to the query of Moses, because it immediately follows that query ; but it is only prelimi- nary to the answer, and reveals what is in strictness not a name of God, but merely a description of His nature ; although this description is used, pre- viously to the communication of the proper name, as a quasi name, in accom- modation to the apprehension of Moses, who was habituated to the employment of such substitutes for names in hieroglyphic writing. This is a point which, on account of its importance, has been discussed at considerable length in the third Part of my Treatise on the Ancient Orthography of the Jews, together with a question therewith connected, why T1^T1'^ ought in general to be dealt with in translations of the Hebrew Bible as a descriptive term. On the present occasion I confine myself to the inquiry, how this group, when used as a proper name, should be read, or, in other words, how the name thereby denoted should be pronounced. Chap. II.] OF THE FOUR-LETTERED NAME OF GOD. 201 indicated of reading the original word, and expressed in the peculiar kind of notation adopted by me, which serves to de- note both the sound of the Hebrew group, and at the same time the manner in which each of its elements contributes to the formation of that sound. In the historic work of Diodorus Siculus (lib. i. . 94), written nearly half a century before the commencement of the Christian era, the name of the God of the Jews is tran- scribed law ; which shows the four-lettered name, mri^, to have been read by those from whom the transcriber derived his in- formation respecting it, YaHOH. We next iind, in a fragment of the history by Philo Bybhus, preserved in the Prceparatio Evan- gelica of Eusebius (lib. i. cap. 9), the same name transcribed leuftt, which accords with the reading of the original group, YeHUHo. Philo, indeed, gave out that his work was a transla- tion of a much older one by Sanchoniatho ; but this account of the matter is now very generally looked upon as a mere fiction, resorted to by him for the purpose of gaining more credit for what in reaUty was entirely his own composition ; and, even if it were true, the names occurring in the record should still be ascribed to himself, since he would naturally write them so as to represent the sounds with which they were pronounced in his day. But he is related by Suidas to have flourished as late as the reign of the Emperor Hadrian ; accord- ing to which statement he must have written this history before the thirty-eighth year of the second century. In the latter part of that century Clement of Alexandria gave in his Stro- mata (lib. v. 6), as the transcript of the four-lettered mystic name, laou, corresponding with the reading thereof, YaHUH. In the early part of the third century, his pupil Origen tran- scribed this name in two diiferent ways : Iwa in the second division of his Commentary on St. John, and law in the thirty- second section of his sixth book against Celsus, corresponding respectively with the readings of the Hebrew group, YeHOH and YaHOH. A pronunciation corresponding to the latter of these readings appears to have held its ground for about two 202 ON THE CORRECT PRONUNCIATION [Chap. II. centuries after, among Pagans as well as Christians. Thus, for instance, the name in question was transcribed. by Macro- bius in the latter part of the fourth or beginning of the fifth century, law, in his Saturnalia (lib. i. cap. 18);^ and about the same time by Jerome, lao, in his book De Inter pretatione JSfo- minum Hehraicorum, and laho in the commencement of his Commentary on the eighth Psahn ; all of which transcripts severally agree with the reading of the original group YaHOH. In the fourth century Epiphanius also adduced, in the tenth section of his treatise against the Gnostics, the transcript law, stating it to be the name given by those heretics to ' the Ruler in the highest heaven;' and in the fifth section of his Treatise against the Archontics, he includes, among the names of the true God, Iaj8e, corresponding with the reading YaHVeH. This last transcript (Iaj3e) Theodoret, who flourished about the middle of the fifth century, informs us, in his fifteenth question upon Exodus, accorded with the Samaritan pronunciation of the four-lettered name ; while, in the same place, he tran- scribes the Jewish pronunciation of that name, Ata, a tran- script which shows that the Jews had, by that time, abandoned the pronunciation YaHOH, so long previously sanctioned by them, and substituted another, with which no possible mode of reading TV\TV^ could be made to agree, and which could not impose upon any one who had ever seen this Hebrew group, and was acquainted with the powers of its separate elements. Yet Theodoret was followed in the adoption of this transcript by subsequent writers, among whom the Constantinopolitan Patriarch, Photius, is particularly to be noticed, on account of his having been by far the most learned man of the age when he lived, which formed part of the ninth century. Ata, I should observe, is obviously the transcript, not of TV\TT^, but of * Macrobius in the place above specified quotes an oracle wherein o Travrvov vTTaTo^ Oeo^ is called law; from which description of the Being so denomi- nated we may perceive, that law conveys the sound of the name then circu- lated by the Jews as that of the supreme God, although this Pagan writer applied it to Apollo or Bacchus. Chap. II.] OF THE FOUR-LETTEKED NAME OF GOD. 203 the substantive verb ^^1, HaYaH ; of which this inflexion sig- nifies ' he was/ or ' he has been,' and therefore implies not, as those Christian writers were taught to believe, essential and eternal existence, but rather a cessation of existence. Hence it appears that they were deceived by their Hebrew instruc- tors, not only as to the true sound of the four-lettered name, but also as to the meaning of the sound which was imposed upon them as the true one. As the transcript Aia is assumed by some modern com- mentators to be spurious in the passage of Theodoret above referred to though for no other reason that I can find, except their preconceived notion that he could not be so utterly ig- norant of Hebrew as is shown by this word in its present state I shall here bring under notice another passage of his, containing the same transcript, where no objection is made to its genuineness, and where several additional proofs of his extreme ignorance of the language in question are supplied. It may be rendered as follows : " For, since those who are stupified [in its primary sense, thunder-struck] have, through ignorance of the signification of Hebrew names, imagined that Ahwuai, and EAwt, and HapawO are different Gods, I think it worth while to explain to the ignorant what each of these signifies in the language most familiar to them [literally, in the Greek language]. The name E\w6, then, is interpreted ' God ;' and E\m, * my God.' But HA, pronounced with a smooth breathing of the initial letter, itself also denotes ' God ;' while, uttered with a rough breathing, it signifies ' the strong one f and Ahwvat, ' the Lord.' But Kvpio^ ^a^awO is interpreted 'Lord of forces;' or 'Lord of armies,' as legions of soldiers are among the Greeks called forces. But ^allai designates ' Him that is sufiicient and powerful ;' and A/a, 'the 5^^ existent.' Thisto^, moreover, was unutterable among the Jews ; but the Samari- tans read it Ia|3a/, not knowing the meaning of the word."^ * ^TretBrj f^ap oi efi^povTqiOL^ iCov ^fipdiKwv ovojucltwv ovk i<^viVKOTe9 rrjv fftjfiaxTitjv^ dia^opov^ ivofxiaav eivai ^eovs, tov A^wpal, Kal top EXwt', Kal top 204 ON THE CORKECT PRONUNCIATION [Chap. II. At the very commencement of the explanatory part of this extract our author commits the mistake of writing E\w6 instead of EXwa, as a name of God. It must have been from a malicious motive that his instructors were led to teach him thus to designate the Almighty by a Hebrew term which signifies, not ^ God,' but ' curses.' The distinc- tion he draws between the pronunciation of 7^^, ' HeL,' accord- ing as it is applied to God or man, is entirely without foundation : there is, as far as I can find, but one instance of the latter application of it (Ezek. xxxi. 11), where Nebuchad- nezzar is the person referred to, and where it is very ques- tionable whether it should not be written (without, however, any change of its sound) 7^^^, HEL: at least Kennicott enume- rates thirty MSS. in which it is so exhibited in that place. But however this may be, the word in question is fi:'equently applied to human beings in a plural form, either absolute or construct ; and then it is written, sometimes with and some- times without a Yod between its radical elements ; while, on the contrary, it is always written without the intervening Yod, when applied to God. The actual existence of the dif- ference just specified is obvious to every one who has the slightest acquaintance with the sacred text ; yet it could not have been known to our author, or he would have been eager to notice it in the passage under examination. But the reason of this diiFerence, though hitherto unknown, can now be easily assigned. The root ri^, HeY^L, ' strength,' drops its middle radical in the derivative 7K, HeL, 'strong,' to whomsoever ^ajSaihO, Trpovp^^ov vofii^iv ri crrjfiaij/ei toviuov eKciarov Kara t^v FXXdda ^Xwrrai/ eTTitel^aL TOiS a^voovffc. To ^\iv0 Totvvv ovofia^ 6eo'', and is still to be seen occasionally so written in the Targums ; but in its fuller form no element of it is ever found to have been in any way altered by the Jews. b2 210 ON THE CORRECT PRONUNCIATION [Chap. II. gin of the older name.'' The second reason is supplied by human proper names formed from compounding tl^^l*^ with other words, such as jJl^liT, or ]n^1\ YeHONaThaN or YONaThaN, ' God has given ;' DIIH^ or D"11\ YeHORaM or YORaM, ' God is exalted;' COiit^^'iiT or LDii:^1\ YeHOShaPhaT or YOShaPhaT,^ ' God has judged.' It is on all sides admitted that, in the case of the fuller form of each compound of this description, the two first syllables'' should be pronounced Yeho; but it seems evident that the true sound of those syllables, when not contracted into one, must be the same, whether the name in question be read by itself, or joined in composition with another word. The chief ground, however, for the correctness of the Masore- tic pointing of mn^ which attaches to it the sound Yehowa is, that all the other modes of reading it having been proved falla- cious, if this were so likewise, then there would be no written memorial of the true sound of this name ; and consequently that sound must have been long since lost, notwithstanding the express declaration of the Almighty that the knowledge of it * Among the persons above alluded to, I regret to state, is included Gese- nius, who, in the observations made by him on the word mrT^ in his Lexicon Manuale Hebraicum, ventured (upon the evidence, forsooth, of certain ideagra- phic inscriptions that can now be no longer read, and which, even if they were legible, would be of no authority whatever, in comparison with that of the Pentateuch) to broach the following opinion of the origin of this name: " Ut dicam quod sentio, hoc vocabulum remotissimae antiquitatis esse suspi- cor, nescio an ejusdem stirpis atque Jovis, Jupiter, ab j^gyptiis translatum ad Hebraeos (confer quae de usu ejus in gemmis ^gyptiacis modo dicta sunt), ab his autem paululum inflexum, ut formam et originem Semiticam redo- leat." ** The Waw in each of the above composite names is not one of the original elements of the four-lettered group, but a mater lectionis introduced to ex- press the vowel part of the second syllable of that group, and to serve as a connecting link between the two parts of the several written compounds. '^ The first of the two syllables above referred to is not usually reckoned as a syllable, on account of the imperfect sound of the Skewa, the vowel with which its consonant is uttered. But this, I conceive, is a reason only for viewing the combination only as an imperfect syllable, and not for altogether excluding it from the class of syllables. Chap. II.] OF THE FOUK-LETTERED NAME OF GOD. 21 1 should ever after the time of Moses be preserved among man- kind. But as the conclusion to which we are thus led is ob- viously false, so likewise must be the supposition on which it is founded. The last of these proofs, though by far the most convincing of all, has hitherto been overlooked in consequence of the erro- neous treatment of the group niH"^ in Exod. iii. 15, whereby the prediction contained therein has been suppressed. But in order to perceive the fall force of this proof it is necessary not only to correct the translation of the verse referred to, but also to bear in mind that the specified group became a still more vague designation of the name in question after the introduc- tion of matres lectionis into the sacred text than it was before, on account of the ambiguity thereby attached to its third ele- ment ; and that if the subsequent completer vocalization of the same group had been deferred much longer than the period when it was actually applied thereto, the true sound of this name must have been eventually forgotten even by the very priests of the Jews. It has been already shown in the present chapter that mere oral tradition is not sufficient to preserve permanently the vocal part of the sounds of Scriptural names of rare occurrence ; and to this class the superstition of those priests reduced the name before us by the very rare use they made of it (according to rabbinical accounts, they uttered it only in solemn benedictions of the people two or three times each year). Besides, it is to be observed, that they not only abstained almost entirely from the right pronunciation of the name in question, but also habituated themselves to wrong ones which they successively adopted for the purpose of decep- tion : so that, as they confined themselves after the sixth cen- tury at least in the case of religious subjects ^to the Hebrew method of writing, the true sound of this name must, not- withstanding the deep respect they felt for it, have been at length effaced from their memory through the combined ope- ration of the causes here specified, if that efiect had not been prevented by the application to the sacred text of the Maso- 212 ON THE CORRECT PRONUNCIATION [Chap. II. retic system of vocalization. The remedy, indeed, was a natu- ral one, produced by human ingenuity ; but still, its seasonable introduction, just at the time when it was wanted, may with a high degree of probability be ascribed to a superhuman power, which appears to have been exerted in this, as well as in various other instances, for the protection of the Bible. When the pointed text at last got into Christian hands, as it did, no doubt, quite contrary to the intention of the Jew- ish priests, those men, still persevering in their old plan of concealing the true sound of the four-lettered group, had no expedient left for the purpose except the barefaced assertion of its being nowhere in the Bible pointed so as to convey that sound. In refutation of this assertion of theirs, it might, per- haps, be sufficient to refer to its inconsistency with the use uniformly made by them of the Masoretic pointing in the case of every other word of the sacred text, as well as to the earnest desire they must have felt permanently to preserve the me- mory of the sound of this one for their own benefit (though not for that of others), and the consequent utter improbability of their neglecting the means for that end which the Masoretic system afforded them. A fuller view, however, of the subject will be obtained by examining the argument employed on the opposite side of the question. It may be thus stated, the Jews, in reading out the sacred text, always substitute for the sound of the four-lettered group that of either "^JT^^ or D'^^7^5, two groups quite different from it ; but the Masoretic pointing, in accordance with this practice, always denotes the vocal part of the sound of one or other of those substituted groups, and therefore, never that of the group itself The first step of this argument may be assented to ; for, though the Jews, after they fell into the superstitious practice of suppressing the sound of the group under discussion, did not always deal with it as they now do,^ yet their treatment of it has been such as is " As the Seventy have translated Tl^Tl'^ everywhere in their version by the Greek word Kvpiot, which answers to the Hebrew one '^D^S, they must Chap. II.] OF THE FOUR-LETTEKED NAME OF GOD. 2 1 3 here described ever since the time when the sacred text was pointed ; and, as far as concerns the question at issue, there is no need of tracing their practice to a remoter period. But the second step, in which truth is mixed up with falsehood, entirely fails of conducting to the adduced conclusion ; as may- be shown by entering into particulars. It is quite true that, if the group mn\ which is in general pronounced with the sound of ^21^^ HaDoNaY, ' the Lord,' should immediately pre- cede or follow the latter group when it is, according to the present practice, not uttered with the sound thereof, but with that of D^l 7^^, HeLoHIM, ' God,' in order to prevent the recital of the word Hadonay twice over in immediate succession, in a case of this kind it is constantly pointed HiiT (Y^HoWiH) with exactly the same series of vowels as is applied to the group D^17^^ ; and therefore we must at once concede, what is here insisted on by the Jews, that this pointing of it expresses, not the vocal part of its own sound, but such part of the sound of the latter group. Again, when any of the prefixes n,1,!D, or 7, is placed before mn*', the compound is always pointed as "^^IK would be after the same prefix ; as, for example, mn^l is constantly pointed nin"^5, in like manner as ''^IK^ is ''i^^^3. In these four cases, then, it must also be admitted that, as the pointing corresponds with the Jewish practice of substituting the sound of "^Jlt^ for that of mn"* in reading out the specified compounds, it is employed to denote the vocal part of the for- have read it in every place of its occurrence in the original by the sound Ha- donay: and the mode of pronouncing it with this sound alone continued at any rate till after the age of Origen, who, in his Commentary on the second Psalm gives upon this subject the following evidence: "Eoti Be n rerparfpa/ti- fiaTOV avK(p(vvi]70j/ Trap* avrois, oTrep Kat ettl rod TreraXov too "xpvaov rod 'A/ax*^- peu)s avar^e '^jpaTrrai^ kuI Xe^erai fiev rrj ABooval Trpoarjr^opi'a, ovp^i rovrov ^n, when in its fragmental state, some notion may be formed by the aid of the following example, taken from a part of this record in which one might expect more especially to find the operation performed with the greatest care and deliberation. The original of the expression, " beast of the earth," in the 24th and 25th verses of the first chapter of the Authorized English Version of Genesis, is correctly printed in the latter of the corresponding Hebrew verses, yi^n IVr\ ; but, in the former, it is at present put in the ano- malous form, Y'lt^ lil^TI,^ that is, literally, " his beast, earth," a meaning scarcely intelligible, and which, at any rate, can- not be reconciled with the context in the specified place. The manner in which this Hebrew expression is written in the second verse shows clearly how it should be corrected in the first ; and, accordingly, it is in the Samaritan edition of the Pentateuch presented to the reader in exactly the same form, ^"IKH TVT]^ in both verses. How the erroneous reading got into the Jewish edition, can now at last be easily explained. " The 1 which is prefixed to the first of the above groups in the one in- stance, and the ns which precedes it in the other, are omitted, for the pur- pose of confining attention to the portions of the two original expressions that ought to be exhibited perfectly identical. 234 THIS ADDITIONAL VOCALIZATION [Chap. III. The scribe who undertook to go over the book of Genesis a second time for the purpose of supplying a deficiency in its primary vocalization, casting his eye down each page in search of n used as a masculine affix to a noun singular, mistook this letter on its first occurrence after IVn for such an affix ; and, in consequence, changed it to 1, to indicate that the compound should be read KhaYaThO, ' his beast,' instead of KhaYThaH, ' her beast :' whereas, if he had even perused the single verse through, instead of confining his attention to a combination of only four of its letters, he must have at once perceived that the character he operated on, did not at all represent a pro- noun subjoined to ^^"H^ but, on the contrary, denoted the defi- nite article prefixed to y^^. His mistake plainly shows, what indeed is at any rate known from other sources, that in remote times the sacred text was written continuously without any blank spaces between the words : for, had they been then separated into distinct groups in the manner in which they now are, the bare position of the He would have been quite sufficient, without any consideration of the sense in which it was employed, to guard him from the error into which he here fell. But this example is further worth noticing for the striking specimen it affords of the blunders which were committed in the process of vocalizing the sacred text, and which had an obvious tendency to lead eventually to the de- tection of the interpolation therein of the matres lectionis. If the Jewish priesthood, who superintended the execution of this work, had carefully revised it before they suffered a voca- lized copy to get out of their hands, they must have perceived, and would evidently have in consequence removed, the more glaring of the inconsistencies and self-contradictions which it at present betrays ; and then they would in the natural course of events have been nearly secure from the risk of any subse- quent exposure of their fraudulent contrivance. From this state of security, however, they were precluded by their own act. The bearing of the extant fragments of Aquila's Greek Version of the Old Testament renders it clear that he must, Chap. III.] EXECUTED WITH EXTEEME HASTE, 235 while writing his translation, have had the aid of a vocalized copy of the Hebrew Bible ; and, as he lived at a time when all transcripts of this record, as well as all knowledge of the ancient Hebrew, were confined to the sacerdotal class and the scribes under their direction, it is evident that he could not have acquired his copy, or the degree of proficiency in its lan- guage which was requisite to qualify him for making use of it, without their clandestine assistance. But after they had thus enabled him to write a translation fitted for the support of their views and the disparagement of the Septuagint, they could no longer correct any mistake detected by them in the vocalization of the original text, without letting him perceive the adventitious nature of that vocalization, and, consequently, subjecting themselves to the peril of instant exposure ; for Aquila was a man on whose fidelity they could not depend. Thus, in their eagerness to avail themselves of the services of this apostate, they allowed a copy of their Bible to get into his possession before their vocalization of the text was sufi^i- ciently corrected ; and this step proved fatal to the eventual preservation of their secret. This much I feel it necessary to oifer at present in explanation of the subject : I may soon, perhaps, have an opportunity of entering more fully into the particulars of the entire transaction, as far as its history can be deduced from internal evidence and external sources of information. To return to the combination of Hebrew groups analyzed in the earlier part of the preceding paragraph, it should, according to the notation recommended in this essay, be o printed in an amended edition of the sacred text ]^"l^^[n] "^21 Tf, in which way the true reading is restored, and, at the same time, the double mistake committed in the mode that has hiterto prevailed of transmitting it, is exposed to the eye of the reader. The Authorised English translation of this Hebrew expression requires no correction, being exactly the same for it in the 24th as in the 25th verse ; a sameness with regard to the renderings of it in the two places, which holds in, I 236 THIS ADDITIONAL VOCALIZATION [Chap. III. believe, all the known ancient, and nearly all the modern ver- sions of the Hebrew Bible, and which virtually yields an attestation, on the one hand, from both of the versions that are older than the second century, how the above expression was originally written in the first place of its occurrence, and, on the other, from all the subsequent ancient ones, how it ought to be written in that place. The two earlier renderings alluded to are, besides, worth noticing, the Greek one, B^jpca ri/? 7^9, ' beasts of the earth,' for its expressly proving that the article H preceded the second Hebrew group in the speci- fied place, at the time when the Septuagint was composed ; and the Syriac one, U.51) IZo-w^, KhaYOThaH D'HaRHaH, 'the beasts of the earth,' because, by the non-substitution of the affix C7I for the final letter of its first word, althousrh this affix is frequently employed without any use in the Syriac dialect, it just as pointedly vouches that no such redundant affix fol- lowed the first Hebrew group in the same place, at the period when the Peshitah was written.^ The next words of the Greek version, Kara yevo9, show that the corresponding group of the * The vocalizers giddily fell into the very same combination of mistakes in their treatment of the three following expressions in the Psalms, which are here exhibited in such a way as to point out, along with the blunders committed, the mode of correcting them ; and the Authorized English render- ings of these expressions are subjoined to them respectively, to show that the learned framers of our version would have agreed with me, as to the correc- tions requisite, if they had known that the irregularities hence removed in their translation, were due, not to the inspired penmen, but to scribes who ope- rated on the sacred text by stealth, and were in consequence induced to do so with great precipitation. 13?">[n] ^n'^n b:D, "every beast of the forest." Ps. 1. 10. V^I^Cn] ^n>nh, " unto the beasts of the earth." Ps. Ixxix. 2. [n]nt^[n] ^n^n bs, "every beast of the field." Ps. 104, II. For all these instances, the Septuagint and Peshitah concur in estab- lishing the faults of the writing, in the present state of the text, exactly with the same force as they do in the case above selected from the first chapter of Genesis. In the third example the additional blunder was committed of Chap. III.] EXECUTED WITH EXTREME HASTE. 237 Hebrew text, Hi'^D?, was written without the affix H in the copies consulted by the Seventy, in consequence of which they were at liberty to read the group, il^TI, in the plural number KhYoTh, beasts of,' instead of KhaYaTh, * beast of ;' but it is limited to the singular number by that affix in the Samaritan, as well as in the Jewish edition of the text, and by the equivalent affix cji in the corresponding place of the Syriac version ; so that the balance of ancient authority is greatly in favour of the received reading of tVT^ in the singular number, and the received writing of Hi'^D? with the affix H at its termination. But although there be no absolute neces- sity for any change of the last mentioned group, its significa- tion would be rendered more distinct by a Yod before the He; and, at any rate, it should be read as if it was thus more fully written. Before the introduction of vowel-letters into the sacred text, when this group was exhibited in the form tl2u?^ it admitted of being read with a feminine reference, either LeMzNaH, ' after its kind,' or LeMzNeHa, ' after its kinds,' accord- ing to the demands of the context ; but ever since, it would, in order to the full and distinct representation of the latter sound and sense, require a Yod between its last two letters, exclusively of that wanted within the body of the word. On the other hand, the old vocalizers, having, from the haste with which they executed their task, or from want of room,* fre- quently omitted to insert this mater lectionis between nouns vocalizing 711W, or rather mO, with the pronoun possessive of the first per- son, or for the plural construct state, neither of which operations was allow- able upon a noun with a He emphatic prefixed; and there is the still further grammatical objection to placing this noun in the construct state, that no other follows in immediate connexion with it. * The frequent omission of the mater lectionis Yod in the sacred text in places where it is wanted to denote the plural number of nouns, is most pro- bably to be in part accounted for by the want of room for its insertion ; as there is reason to think that vowel-letters were first introduced into unvoca- lized copies of the Bible previously in existence, instead of into copies written out entirely anew. 238 CONSEQUENT CHANGE OF STRUCTURE [Chap. III. plural and their affixes, the great number of alterations of the sacred text requisite for supplying those omissions would be very objectionable. Upon the whole, then, I consider it the lesser evil to leave such groups in their defective state, and follow the example of the Masorets, or second set of vocalizers, who have pointed them for the same pronunciation as if the defect in question had not occurred in the first vocalization. In a few instances, indeed, the punctuators neglected this rule ; but they appear to have done so, merely from failing to per- ceive that the nouns in the groups operated upon were in the plural number. Thus, in the case before us, they pointed n^'^D/ for the sound LeMiNaU. ; and the framers of our Autho- rized Version, in deference to their punctuation, translated this group ' after his kind.' But it is quite obvious from the context that the inspired historian used the words expressing in this place ' beast of the earth,' in the same manner as nouns of multitude are employed, and intended thereby to denote all the various kinds of 'beasts of the earth,' or 'wild beasts,' which were created at the period referred to.* Notwithstanding, then, the circumstance that I have met with no ancient autho- rity directly supporting the plural number of the noun in the * The best English translation, as I conceive, which has been hitherto published of either of the passages containing the combination of groups above examined, is that given of the second one in Myles Coverdale's Bible, printed in 1535, and which I copy from the edition of it reprinted in 1838. " And God made y* beastes of the earth every one after his kynde." Here, by the interpolation of the words ' every one' (which might, according to the excellent plan subsequently introduced, be exhibited in italics, and the force of the objection to their insertion be thereby greatly reduced) Coverdale avoided any inconsistency between the plural number of ' beastes' and the singular number of the possessive ' his,' as well as any opposition to the con- text arising from the singular number of * kynde;' so that he actually suc- ceeded in conveying the true sense of the passage. But, by means of my discovery, the very same meaning is expressed, without deviating in the slightest degree from the strict rendering of the Hebrew words, as originally written. Chap. III.] ILLUSTRATED BY ENGLISH EXAMPLE. 239 next ensuing group of the original passage,* except the ver- sion of Jerome, in which that group is translated ' secundum species suas,' I have no hesitation to maintain that it should be read LeMINeHa, and translated, in a revised edition of our English Bible, ' after its kinds.' My principal reason, however, for here bringing under consideration the group last analyzed, is to avail myself of the opportunity which its Authorized English Translation, ' after HIS kind,' affords, of illustrating the change of grammatic structure, with respect to the use of the pronoun of the third person singular, which was introduced into the original lan- guage of the Bible in the course of the second century. Through a practice which formerly prevailed in English com- position, the personal and possessive forms he and his^ she and her^ of this pronoun, were applied not only to nouns with which they agree respectively in gender, but also to neuter nouns. Of this practice, as far as it relates to one of the speci- fied possessive forms, an example is supplied in the above ad- duced translation, taken from our last Authorized Version ; and, of the same practice with regard to the corresponding personal form, two instances will be found in the rendering of the 29th and 30th verses of the fifth chapter of St. Matthew, given in the first Authorized English Version, or that edited by Coverdale in 1535, and reprinted in 1838. These verses are exhibited in the reprinted work, with the original spelling, but in modern English character, as follows : " Wherfore yf thy right eye oiFende the, plucke hym out, and cast him from the. Better it is for the, that one of thy membres periszhe, then that thy whole body shulde be cast in to hell. Also yf thy right honde ofiende the, cut hym of, and cast him from the. Better yt is that one of thy mebres periszh, the y* all thy body shulde be cast in to hell." The particulars noticed in * It will presently be shown that the reading of the above noun in the plural number is indirectly supported by the Septuagint. T 240 CONSEQUENT CHANGE OF STRUCTURE [Chap. III. this and the preceding example, which could not have been irregular at the times when the versions in which they occur were ^vritten, are obviously incorrect in reference to the pre- sent grammatic structure of English. The anomalies of the latter description may possibly have arisen from a change of gender of some nouns formerly deemed masculine or feminine, which are now classed under the neuter gender. For the feature of the English tongue which gives it a superiority over every other language of Europe that, I mean, of dis- tinguishing the genders of nouns, not by their terminations on any other arbitrary criterion, but by the nature of the sub- jects they denote, did not belong to it at first, as may be clearly inferred from its German origin, but was only gradually acquired. But the anomalies of the former description can- not be accounted for in the same manner ; as we find, even in the last Authorized Version, the possessive form ' his,' of the pronoun in question, and, in some of the earlier English ver- sions, the possessive ' her,' referred to nouns singular to which the neuter form ' it,' of the same pronoun, is also applied, and which, therefore, must have been deemed neuters at the times when those references were severally made to them. Thus, the ninth verse of the fourth chapter of the book of Numbers is translated in our present Authorized Version as follows : " And they shall take a cloth of blue, and cover the candlestick of the light, and his lamps, and his tongs, and his snufP-dishes, and all the oil- vessels thereof, wherewith they minister unto IT." The same passage is rendered in Matthewe's Bible (which, as the title-page informs us, was written in 1537, though not printed till 1549, and which having been taken, the earlier books of it, from the portion of the Old Testament translated by Tyndal, must be referred to a date somewhat anterior to that of Coverdale's version), in these words : " And they shall take a cloth of iacincte, & couer the candlesticke of light, & her lampes, and her snoffers & fyre pannes, and al her oyle vessels whiche they occupye aboute it." Hence it would appear Chap. III.] ILLUSTRATED BY ENGLISH EXAMPLE. 241 to follow that the possessive form, ^ its,' which is now appro- priated to neuter nouns singular, did not come into use, or at all events not into general use, till after the period when our present Authorized Version was written. Now the changes of each of the personal forms of the pronoun in question into the impersonal form which, in certain cases, have already been made in the later English versions of the Bible, and the corres- ponding changes of the possessive forms of this pronoun which have also been already effected in part, and will undoubtedly be completed in like cases, whenever a new version, or a re- vision of the present one, comes to be sanctioned by the autho- rity of our Church, are closely analogous to those of the same pronoun in Hebrew which have crept into the original record, the integral and fractional forms of this pronoun in the ancient tongue corresponding to a considerable extent with its personal and possessive forms in the modern language. By these alte- rations not the slightest variation of the meaning has been produced, either in any of the English versions, or (where they have been correctly applied) in the Hebrew text ; but merely greater distinctness and appropriateness have been given to the expression of that meaning in each kind of writing; and thus, by means so far corresponding, the grammatic structure of both languages has been greatly improved. There is, how- ever, this material difference between the two sets of alterations, that the English set, as far as it has been as yet carried out, was made deliberately in a series of versions wTitten in a liv- ing language, according as that language was changed in its structure ; and also made openly, so that the reader can trace in the successive versions the gradual progress of the change : while, on the other hand, the Hebrew set was introduced into a compilation which is the sole ancient remnant of a dead language, with such precipitation that many errors and incon- sistencies were suffered to get into this part of the vocalization of the sacred text; and by stealth, during a period in which the Christians had neither any copy of that text, nor the slight- est knowledge of the language in which it is written : so that T 2 242 REMAINS OF THE MASCULINE AFFIX [Chap. III. when a vocalized copy of it was purposely placed within reach of Origen, the most able of the early fathers of the Church, and he was taught to read it by the very party who were in- terested in conceahng the fact of its having been tampered with, he entertained not the least suspicion of that tampering, and had no opportunity of detecting it by a comparison of this exemplar with older copies. But some of the last points here incidentally touched upon, as well as others essentially connected with them, are of too much importance to be dealt with in only a cursory manner. I shall, therefore, reserve them for fuller discussion, as far as they can by internal evi- dence and the very scanty external means within my reach be established, in a supplementary volume, wherein they may be made the chief subject of examination, if I be spared life and health sufficient to complete this treatise ; and will now proceed to follow up the argument supplied through the dis- covery of the introduction into the sacred text of a second integral form of the pronoun here referred to, by adducing some instances of the mistakes committed with regard to each of the several forms x)f the fragment of it used as an affix. The cases which here naturally come first under conside- ration are those to be found of the affix Jl employed in refe- rence to masculine nouns singular, which are by no means as few as they are generally supposed to be : nor are they to be looked upon in the light in which they are represented by Hebrew grammarians, as irregularities ; but should be viewed as remains of the original use of a common fragment of ^H for both genders, which were, through precipitancy, overlooked by the old vocalizers, in the process of substituting for, or adding to this fragment, when used with a masculine reference, the mater lectionis \ for the purpose of marking a distinction of gender. It would, indeed, be strange, if H was an irregular affix for the masculine gender in Hebrew^ when it is on all sides admitted to be a regular one for that gender in Chaldee and Syriac. In each of these three cognate dialects the affix under consideration is, I grant, now read with different vowel Chap. III.] HE AFTEK NOUNS SINGULAE. 243 sounds for diiFerent genders ; but such a distinction could not have been made in the fragment, till a corresponding one was introduced into the integral pronoun ; and it is certain that in Hebrew, at all events, this pronoun in its unbroken state had at first but one pronunciation. In this dialect H, when used as an afiix to a noun singular, is at present read oH for the masculine, and aH for the feminine gender ; but which of these, or whether either of them was originally its common pronun- ciation for both genders, can no longer be determined to a certainty. The probability, however, is, that the former was that common one, as connected in vowel sound with Hi^H,^ the original single reading of the entire pronoun for all its appli- cations. The latter is, and most likely always was, in Hebrew a terminating sound of both nouns and verbs for the feminine gender ; and, therefore, was naturally selected as the utterance of the above affix for its feminine references, as soon as a dis- tinction of gender was extended to the pronoun from which it is derived. The Samaritan edition of the Hebrew Penta- teuch w^ill be of considerable use to me in the present, and some of the subsequent investigations to be made in the course of this Chapter ; because the Samaritan scribes did not in every instance adhere strictly to the Jewish vocalization of the Mosaic record ; in consequence of which I am enabled (by selecting words difi*erently treated by the two sets of scribes) to bring together for immediate comparison those groups of letters, as written before and after vocalization, and so to trace them back from their vocalized to their original states. Here I have to point out what appear to me two very strik- ing marks of a providential interference for securing the even- tual exposure of the insidious conduct of the Jewish priests of the second century. The first is supplied by their having failed * That the first vocalizers of the Hebrew text made little or no distinction between the vowels and TJ is evident, from their having employed but one and the same mater lectionis to denote each of them. 244 REMAINS OF THE MASCULINE AFFIX [Chap. III. to correct the grosser mistakes committed in vocalizing the sacred text, before they suffered any copies to get anew into the hands of the orthodox Christians, who had lost all know- ledge of the original language of the Bible, together with their copies of it as originally written, not long after the beginning of the second century. Those mistakes the rulers of the Jews must have detected soon after having been committed, and consequently had near a hundred years to correct before the date of the event just referred to. How then came they to neglect a precaution for the observance of which they had such abundance of time, and whose necessity, one would think, the lowest degree of prudence must have indicated ? This precaution they were precluded from resorting to, by another step incompatible with it, which notwithstanding their extreme cunning they were led to adopt. From the very commence- ment of the specified interval, they employed heretics or apos- tates to write new Greek versions in disparagement of the Septuagint, whom for this purpose they entrusted with voca- lized copies, and got taught a moderate share of the ancient Hebrew tongue. But if they had attempted to introduce any changes into the vocalization, after once they had put (iopies into the hands of those men, they would have thereby revealed the secret of their treatment of the original text to persons in whose fidelity they could not place the slightest reliance ; and they preferred leaving their fraud subject to a remote danger of detection, to running the risk of its instant exposure. The second of the marks in question is furnished by the con- duct of the Samaritan scribes in reference to the same sub- ject. The Jewish priests hated those scribes and the entire nation to which they belonged ; yet it was necessary that they should let the Samaritan guardians of the Pentateuch be fur- nished with a vocalized copy of that record, before any such copy was allowed to get into Christian hands ; as, otherwise, the alarming risk must have been incurred of vocalized and unvocalized copies being compared, and the fraudulent treat- Chap. III.] HE AFTER NOUNS SINGULAR. 245 ment of the former class thereby at once detected.^ On the other hand the Samaritans hated the Jews, but they hated still more the Christians ; and being less prejudiced than the for- mer party against the admission into the sacred text of a Pagan invention which produced, as far as it was fairly applied, a most valuable and important improvement in the mode of writing that text, they must have eagerly adopted it even on this account alone, though in all probability they did so, like those from whom they borrowed this innovation, chiefly for the sake of the per- versions thereby effected of prophecies supporting the truth of Christianity. But, surely, if their judgment had not been blinded in some extraordinary manner, they would have per- ceived that, to give weight to those perversions, the spurious nature of the interpolated letters should be kept concealed, and that, in order to this concealment, the interpolations should be exactly the same in the two editions of the Hebrew Penta- teuch. They could not, indeed, even if they had been ever so much on their guard, have contrived any mode of dealing in perfect safety, with the grosser mistakes of the Jewish vocali- zers ; which, whether left in statu quo, or corrected, powerfully * The Christians became totally ignorant of the ancient Hebrew after the death of the immediate disciples of the Apostles, that is, very soon after the com- mencement of the second century ; and continued so till about a third part of the third century was over, when Origen learned this language and obtained possession of a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures. Both acquisitions are attri- buted solely to Origen's energy and talent by Eusebius, who speaks of them in his Ecclesiastical History in terms of the greatest admiration, and as two of the most extraordinary achievements of this extraordinary man. But, on a full examination of the case, there will, I think, be found very strong rea- son for concluding that he made neither acquisition without the connivance and concealed permission of the Jewish priesthood, to whom (setting aside the consideration of the Samaritan priests and the immediate dependents of both parties) all extant copies of the whole or any part of the sacred text, as well as all knowledge of the language in which it is written, were at the time exclusively confined. Their motives for selecting this able and zealous father of the Christian Church, as their unconscious agent for the publication of the vocalized text, will be fully considered in my next volume, if I be spared life and health to prepare for the press the materials I have collected relating to this subject. 246 REMAINS OF THE MASCULINE AFFIX [Chap. III. tended to the exposure of tlieir secret, in the former case through a due consideration of the nature of the retained blunders, and in the latter through the discrepancies produced by the removal of those blunders from only one of the two editions compared together. But with regard to the general vocalization of the text, their diiFerent treatment of its conso- nants and vowel-letters, which they might have avoided, was obviously fitted to arrest observation, and thereby lead to the discovery of the interpolation of the latter class of elements ; for the circumstance of the two editions disagreeing every here and there in this latter class, while yet they constantly and uniformly, with very few exceptions, agree in the former, cannot be attributed to any accidental faults of transcription, but must have originated in design. In consequence of this oversight on their part, each record at present afi*ords far more copious testimony than it could otherwise have done, against the genuineness of the matres lectionis in the other, and, in reference to the examples to be adduced in the course of the present chapter from those records mutually compared, the reader is requested to bear in mind that, besides the par- ticular use to which each is applied, they all in common serve the general purpose of contributing to establish the fact, that the vowel-letters employed in the sacred text constitute no part of its original writing. To proceed now to the above-proposed analysis, I subjoin a few instances of the affix H employed in the Jewish edition of the Hebrew Pentateuch, with a masculine reference, and in which it is accordingly vocalized for such reference in the Sa- maritan edition, except in the case of the last example, which was equally overlooked by both sets of vocalizers with letters. Jewish Edition. Samaritan Edition. Authorized Eng. Ver. Gen. XXXV. 21, nbntii, HoHoLoH. "^bnS, HoHoLO, his tent. xlix. 11, nn^^, HiRoH. ..^1^2?, HIRO,, his foal. nnp*, *suThoH. ^niDD, keSUThO, his clothes. Ex. xxii. 5, tll^Vn, BdHIRoH. '^n'^S^n, BeHIRO, his beast. 27, nn^DlD, KeSUThoH. "inlDD, KeSUThO, his covering. Deut. xxxiv. 7, nnb, LeHoH. nnb, LeHoH, his natural force. Chap. III.] HE AFTEK NOUNS SINGIJLAR. 247 In all these instances the affix H is admitted by the Masorets to have a masculine reference, being pointed by them for the sound oH, in agreement with the representation I have given of the pronunciation of the several groups in the column ex- tracted from the Jewish edition of the Pentateuch. Notwith- standing the number of diiferences here exhibited between the two editions, only one of them is in reality a discrepance, namely, that produced by the loss of the initial letter of the third group in the Jewish column, which is proved to have been dropped thence, not only by the testimony of the Sama- ritan edition in the corresponding place, but also by that of the Jewish edition itself in every other place of the occurrence of the word with which this group commences ; as, for instance, in the fifth of the examples just adduced. The group in ques- tion, therefore, is evidently mutilated, and ought to be writ- ten nniDCD] in an amended edition of the sacred text. All the other diiferences are occasioned merely by an altered mode of spelling the words, which makes no change whatever in their several meanings and no perceptible one in their sounds. From the practice here exemplified of the Samaritan set of vocalizers (in which they imitated that of the Jewish set) whereby they substituted the Waw for the original affix, in- stead of coupling it therewith, we may perceive that this alte- ration of the spelling was first introduced, not into copies written out entirely anew, but into unvocalized ones then already in existence ; and that, as He at the end of a syllable causes no perceptible change of its sound, they erased the old affix before inserting the Waw^ in order to avoid crowding two letters into the spac^e intended only for one. We shall, how- ever, presently see that, pressed by want of room, the old voca- lizers took the same liberty with this original element of the sacred text in places where it was at the commencement of a syllable, and where, consequently, they had not the same ex- cuse for its removal. The old affix for the masculine gender, H, having been rightly pointed by the later set of vocalizers in the foregoing 248 ANALYSIS OF HOS. iv. 17-19, THROUGH [Chap. III. examples, requires therein no correction as to the mode of either reading or translating it. But there are many cases in which the Masorets have, from a prejudice in favour of the more usual employment of this affix with a feminine refe- rence, mistaken its true appHcation; and in which, conse- quently, the demands of the context indispensably require that the translation, given of it in deference to their mispoint- ing, should be changed. Of this necessity no less than three instances are aiforded within the short compass of the original of the following very obscure and confused passage, as at pre- sent exhibited in our Authorized Version. " her rulers with shame do love. Give ye. The wind hath bound her up in her wings." Hos. iv. 18, 19. It is no excuse for pointing the affix n, on each occurrence of it in this place, for the feminine gender, and translating it by the pronoun ^ her,' that ' a backsliding heifer' is mentioned two verses before; as the animal there denoted by a feminine noun is not at all the sub- ject of the prophet's censure, but is merely alluded to inciden- tally in a simile. The party here upbraided is the people of Israel, figuratively represented as an individual under the de- signation of Ephraim the progenitor of their principal tribe, and expressly referred to by that name in the verse imme- diately preceding this quotation. The sense, therefore, abso- lutely requires the change of the first ^ her' into ^ his,' and of the second into ' him ;' while the grammar of the English language, as at present constituted, equally demands the alte- ration of the third, which refers to the wind, into ' its.' By these corrections great confusion is at once got rid of; yet the chief source of obscurity has not been hereby removed ; as, without further alteration, the first clause of the above quota- tion still remains utterly unintelligible. But the present dis- covery, I am in hopes, will enable me to arrive at the true meaning of the sentence, so grossly mistranslated. The whole Hebrew passage, with as much of its oldest Greek and Syriac renderings as contribute to the recovery of the sense of the portion of it corresponding to the clause in question, stands thus : Chap. III.] THE AID OF THE PRESENT DISCOVEKY. 249 Hebrew, . . T^T\r^ D.SnD "ID x^ T\^^ -.DniiK D^^^^;/ "linn Sept., .... r/yaTTfjcrav dri/jLtav, ' have loved infamy.' Feshitah, . . 1a^ akLK.5, 'have from the inmost bowels loved infamy.' Before grappling with the principal difficulty of this passage, I have to conclude my remarks upon the affix H three times therein repeated. On the first and second occurrence of this affix it should evidently be read in the masculine gender, for the same reason as in the English translation, on account of its being referred to Ephraim ; and, on its third occurrence, it should also be pointed and pronounced for that gender, in consequence of its reference to HI"), ' the wind.' For, although this Hebrew word is more usually treated as a noun feminine, it must be here looked upon as masculine, since the verb con- nected with it, niV, is exhibited in the form of a masculine inflexion. Grammatic concords, I admit, are sometimes found violated in the Hebrew Scriptures, which were com- posed long before the art of grammar was understood or even thought of; but, as they are therein, for the most part, ad- hered to, we are in fairness bound to suppose that they are so, in every case in which the original elements of the sacred text do not force upon us the opposite conclusion ; and no vocalization, whether with letters or with points, is to be admitted as sufficient evidence of the employment of any false concord in it as originally written. The fact is, the old voca- lizers, in their procedure of changing the af&x H into 1 for masculine references, overlooked in the above passage the three groups )1^;]JD, MaG/NnEHw, ' his rulers,' or, more literally, ' his shields ;' Hn'ik^, HOThoH, 'him;' and n'^D::r)a, BzKNaPhEHw, ' in its wings ;' and the Masorets, or later set of vocalizers, sooner than acknowledge the occurrence so close to each other of what, according to their view of the matter, would have been three irregularities, pointed the final letter of those seve- 250 ANALYSIS OF HOS. iv. 17-19, THROUGH [Chap.III. ral groups for the feminine gender, in direct opposition to both sense and grammar. These glaring blunders are corrected, without the slightest alteration of the Hebrew text, simply by reading the letter in question, in the first and third instances, Uu instead of Ha, and, in the second instance, oH instead of aH. In each of the two former examples, it is to be observed, the affix follows a plural noun, and belongs to a set of cases which shall, a little farther on, be more particularly considered. In concluding, however, this branch of the investigation, I should add that, according to a new exposition of the nature of the psirsigogic He submitted to the judgment of the learned in the next chapter of this treatise, more especially the part of it arranged under the heading, ' The paragogic He after A now used more than is commonly supposed,' the feminine gender of ni") can be reconciled with the form of *)*)^ ; and still far- ther that, according to the construction given by the Seventy of the clause containing those groups a construction which will presently be examined the gender of one of the three specified affixes depends on that, not of either word separately considered, but of the term compounded of both, which there is nothing to hinder from being feminine. But, if the view of the matter supplied in either way be adopted, the Masoretic pointing of the last of those affixes would require no altera- tion, and only the modes of reading two of them would then want correction. The first clause of the adduced Hebrew passage has been already examined in the first chapter of this volume ; and, according to the analysis there gone through, it may be ren- dered, as follows: "Associated with idols is Hephrayim ; quit him ; he is prince of drunkards." Next comes the clause in whose discussion I here propose to engage. The learned framers of our Authorized Version have in vain attempted to make sense of this clause by separating the term ]17p, ' shame,' from the verb which it immediately follows ; for, surely, the series of words, ' do love. Give ye,' is just as destitute of mean- ing as, ' do love, Give ye shame.' In fact, it is quite plain that Chap. III.] THE AID OF THE PRESENT DISCOVERY. 251 there must be something wrong in the writing of the Hebrew sentence as it stands at present ; and attentive consideration of its several ingredients is necessary, in order to preparing the way for the detection of that fault. Now the first two words of this sentence "i^tH n^tri, ' in fornicating have forni- cated,'^ present to us a Hebrew idiom which, by means of the infinitive mood of a verb used with the force of a Latin gerund, and combined with a definite inflexion of the same verb, serves to attach the notion of vehemence or excess to the manner in which the act represented by that inflexion is performed. But the next two words, I^H IDH^, would, by inserting an ^^ at the commencement of the second of them,^ exhibit another instance of precisely the same idiom, were it not for the "i at the end of the first, which interferes with its being read in the infinitive mood ; and, of course, as long as that letter was held to be an original element of the inspired text, inquiry could be pushed no further in this direction. But now that this barrier is removed, and that we are at liberty to question the propriety of the insertion of the mater lectionis at the close of the first word as an addition made to it by fallible scribes, we are placed in a situation, with respect to the analysis before us, that may be illustrated to an English reader by a sentence which indeed, after a certain correction, will eventually turn out to be the exact literal translation of the Hebrew clause under consideration, but to which atten- tion is here directed, merely on account of the manner in ^ Literally, * in causing to fornicate have caused to fornicate.' But, as the Seventy have translated the words in question iropve-davre^ i^eiropvevaav, I follow their authority in understanding the HipJiil modification of the verb as used in this instance simply with the force of its Kal modification. In fact, the Greek interpretation includes the more literal one: for, if the rulers were themselves guilty of idolatry, the crime here metaphorically called fornication, their example had an obvious tendency to lead the people to the perpetration of the same crime. ^ The English reader is requested to bear in mind that the Hebrew writ- ing and his own proceed in different directions; and, consequently, that the second of the above specified groups is the one to the left. 252 ANALYSIS OF HOS. iv. 17-19, THROUGH * [Chap. III. which one of its ingredients is written. ' His rulers [literally, his shields] in fornicating have fornicated, in loving have oved infamy.' No one, surely, on the perusal of this sentence, could have the slightest doubt but that, through the fault of some copyist or printer, the letter I had been here omitted at the beginning of the penultimate word. But the case of IDH in the original clause is precisely analogous : for, although it be, when considered by itself, a significant word, it makes no sense in connexion with those among which it is placed ; and, consequently, it requires correction just as much as ' oved' does in the English example ; while its comparison with the Hebrew verb immediately preceding points out just the same way of correcting it. An Halep\ therefore, should obviously be prefixed to the above group, this addition to it being im- peratively demanded by the circumstances of the case ; and the validity of the correction which is thus supported by the context, is still further corroborated and, I may say, confirmed by the joint testimony of the oldest and best versions of the sacred text. For the two groups here more immediately under examination, together with the noun placed just after them, are translated in the Septuagint fjydTrfjcrav arifilav^ ' have loved infamy;'^ while they are, along with the same addition, * The Greek rendering of the whole clause above referred to is as follows: 7ropveijovre9 e^eiropvevaav^ ij'yaTryffav ari/j-iav iic (j)pva^(fxa70t uvttj^. * forni- cating they have fornicated ; they have loved infamy for its very insolence.' The learned reader may perhaps be disposed to ask, why, following the Se- venty in the main body of this rendering, I yet reject the final part of it, and give a preference to the construction of the last group TT^lD^D, ' his shields,' which results from its Masoretic pointing for the pronunciation MaGiNnEH, after the vocalization of the affix with which it is closed has been corrected. To this I reply, that their translation of the group in question, attaching to it the sense, ' on account of its pride or insolence,' would require its being written nDS^D, MiGgeHoNoH; that is, would require the insertion therein of an Haleph not used as a vowel-letter. But I make it a rule never to deviate from the consonants of the sacred text, as transmitted to us by the Jews, ex- cept where there it an absolute necessity for such deviation. It is for the same reason that I avail myself but once of the aid of the Peshitah through- out the discussion of the entire passage to which this clause belongs. Chap. III.] THE AID OF THE PEESENT DISCOVERY. 253 rendered still more closely in the Peshitah, l^i.. nV)K5, ' have from the inmost bowels loved infamy,' through the use of a verb common to the Hebrew and Syriac tongues, and of which the inflexion here specified, QiQ>o5, ReKhaMU,* is exactly equi- valent to the Hebraism ' in loving have loved,' both expres- sions equally serving to convey the meaning, ' have exceed- ingly loved.' I have no hesitation, then, in maintaining that o the above groups should be written "IHnr^^] inUi^ in an amended edition of the sacred text : nor is it an objection of any importance against these corrections, that they derive no support from manuscript copies of the Hebrew Bible ; since the restored Haleph must have been omitted by copyists be- fore the text was vocalized, that is, a great many centuries before the oldest copies now extant were T\Titten. Thus the present discovery leads to the corrections just efibcted, which again, in their turn (verified and confirmed as they have been by the most powerful combination of internal and external evidence), react upon that discovery, and contribute to the proof of its reality, by establishing the spuriousness of the Waw at the end of the foremost of the corrected groups. Upon this point the testimony of the Syriac translators bears with peculiar force, by showing beyond a doubt that they attributed to the specified group the meaning, ' in loving,' and consequently the sound, HeHoB ; but how could they possibly have read it with this sound, if the mater lectionis, now found at its end, had been there at the period when they wrote? Here I might close my analysis of the Hebrew passage, * The above representation of the sound of the Syriac group accords not, I admit, with its modern pronunciation, the Waw at its termination being at present passed over without utterance ; but this evidently could not have been the case when vowel-letters were first introduced into Syriac orthogra- phy. The Waw must have then been employed to distinguish the plural, from the corresponding singular inflexion, in sound as well as in writing; and I give a preference to the more ancient mode of reading the word, not only for its greater distinctness, but also for its nearer approach to RKheMU, the Hebrew pronunciation of the same inflexion of the very same verb. 254 ANALYSIS OF HOS. iv. 17-19, THROUGH [Chap. III. but that in the next clause a further correction is suggested by the Septuagint, which, though not required with the same urgency as the two just arrived at, and though it quite changes the uses of the letter H in one of the three places wherein it has been treated as an affix, yet appears entitled to attention, not merely on account of the support it derives from the oldest version of the Hebrew Bible, but also because it makes way for what, I submit, is an improved rendering of part of this pas- sage, without altering any of the original elements of the text. The clause in question, together wath the literal meaning of it in its present state, and its Greek interpretation, Avith the lite- ral sense thereof likewise subjoined, stands thus Hebrew, . . iTii:]::! nni.^ mi nn^^ The wind hath bound him up in its wings. Sept.^ . . . ^vaTpo(j)'Yj Tn/evfiaro^. av iv rat^ Trrepv^ii/ avTy^. The whirlwind! thou on its wings! Upon a comparison of this Greek line with its original, we may clearly perceive that the Seventy read "l")V, not as the verb SaRaR, ' hath bound up,^ but as a noun in regimen, SeRoR, ' a bundle of;* and their attestation is here given that the word with this signification, combined with the Hebrew for ' wind,' was employed in the ancient language of their countrymen to denote a whirlwind or hurricane ; a matter of fact for the truth of which there could not be produced any higher unin- spired authority than theirs. This sense of the compound, therefore, may be safely assented to, though no opportunity is afforded of testing its correctness through the occurrence together of the two component words in any other passage of the sacred text. By means of the same comparison it will further be seen that these interpreters read the third group of the Hebrew line, not as the pronoun HOThoU, ' him,' but HaTtaH, 'thou;' and here, by the way, I may again appeal with confidence to ancient testimony in support of my disco- very, and ask, how could they by any possibility have attached the sound HaTtaH to nni^^, if the Waw which now^ appears in Chap. Ill] THE AID OF THE PEESENT DISCOVERY. 255 this group, had been there at the date of the framing of their version? But to return to my subject the construction which results from their mode of reading the clause imparts to it, as I conceive, much greater force of expression than that to which it was afterwards confined by the vocalizers of the second century ; and, in favour of this construction, we are also to take into account that it clears the prophet's language of the awkward metaphor of a person bound up in, or confined by the wings of the wind, instead of being uplifted and carried away thereon. If, indeed, this metaphor had been conveyed solely by means of genuine elements of the sacred text, I should not have presumed to question its propriety ; but when I find it due to the colouring given to the sentence by a set of falli- ble scribes, I must demur to its reception. For both reasons, then, I would venture to place a little circle over the Waw of ^n1^^, and recommend a return to the more ancient reading of the adduced Hebrew line, which requires not the alteration of a single one of its original letters as given in the Masoretic text. According to that reading, Hosea, after censuring the vices of the Israelites and their rulers, and speaking of the people as an individual, the forefather of one of their tribes, suddenly turns round, as it were, to this individual, and thus addresses him : " Behold the whirlwind ! thou art already on its wings !" As much as to say, Thou art on the point of being attacked by hostile armies, which shall bear thee oif to a distant land with the violence and the rapidity of a storm ; a threat not the less impressive for the abruptness of the enallage of person, or the darkness of the allusion. In con- trasting this construction of the Hebrew clause with that which is at present received, the reader is to bear in mind that the question at issue is not at all between the first translators and the sacred text (which is, in its original elements, exactly the same for both constructions), but between those transla- tors and vocalizers posterior to them by more than three hun- dred years ; and, although the later set of scribes might, from the obscurity of this sentence, be conceived to have honestly differed from their predecessors, as to its meaning, or rather 256 ANALYSIS OF HOSEA, x. 5, [Chap. 111. as to the form of expressing that meaning, yet when we find them constantly disagreeing with the Seventy, wherever the unvocalized original admits of the slightest variation in the mode of reading it, this general conduct of theirs greatly re- duces the authority of their decision in the case before us, in- dependently of the more intrinsic reasons for preferring the Greek rendering in this particular instance. After the apos- trophe which this clause, according to its oldest interpretation, conveys, the prophet returns to the form of speaking of the Israelites in the third person, but mentions them no longer under the figurative character of a single individual, but in their collective capacity as a nation: "Moreover they shall be put to confusion for their idolatrous sacrifices.*^ The value of the several corrections made here and in the first chapter of this treatise, in three analyzed verses of a pro- phecy of Hosea, will perhaps be better seen by an immediate comparison of the unbroken series of these verses, as exhibited in the Authorized English Version, and as now proposed to be changed : Received Translation o/"Hos. iv. 17, 18, 19. " 17. Ephraim is joined to idols ; let him alone. 18. Their drink* is sour ; they have -committed * Heb. is gone. whoredom continually : her^ rulers with ^ Heb. shields. shame do love. Give ye. 19. The wind hath bound her up in her wings, and they shall be ashamed because of their sacrifices." Altered Translation of the same verses. "17. Hephrayim is associated with idols ; quit his company ; (18) he is prince of drunkards. His'' rulers have committed excessive for- ^ Heb. shields. nication ; they have exceedingly loved infamy. (19) 5^A(?/c? the whirlwind ! thou art already on its wings ! Moreover they shall be put to shame on account of their idolatrous sacrifices." Ghap. III.] BY MEANS OF THE SAME DISCOVERY. 257 But a far more striking and copious illustration of the egregious blunders of the old vocalizers, with regard to the affix in question, as well as in reference to other points, is fur- nished by a subsequent passage of the same prophet, rendered in our Authorized Version as follows : " The inhabitants of Samaria shall fear because of the calves of Beth-aven : for the people thereof shall mourn over it, and the priests thereof that rejoiced on it, for the glory thereof, because it is departed from it." Hos. x. 5. Even in this translation an inconsis- tency, in respect to grammatic number, may be perceived to occur thrice between a pronoun and the noun to which it refers ; but in the original, as it stands at present, this incon- sistency is found to hold, not only as to number, but also as to gender, and is repeated in both respects no less than six times. The errors, however, of gender here to be noticed differ from those illustrated in the previous example, in the circumstance of their having arisen from the vocalizers of the second century having meddled with the affix referred to in places where they ought to have left it in its original state ; while, on the other hand, occasion was given for those just before exposed, through the neglect of those scribes to voca- lize the same affix, where, according to the then introduced sys- tem, its form should have been changed. But besides the six double violations of concord, with respect to the above affix, in the second clause of the present example, there is one more error of vocalization therein, together with three more in its first clause ; and, in fact, the mistakes here committed by the old vocalizers are so numerous that I am obliged, for the purpose of avoiding confusion, to deviate from my usual plan, and, in the first instance, lay before the reader both the Hebrew pas- sage, with the corrections it would require in an amended edition, and the Authorized English Translation of it altered accordingly ; deferring till afterwards to state the grounds of those corrections and alterations. After the corrected Hebrew verse, with its meaning expressed in English, are placed the u2 258 ANALYSIS OF HOSEA, x. 5, [Chap. HI. renderings given of the same verse in the Septuagint and Pe- shitah, with a literal interpretation subjoined to each. For, although both renderings yield internal evidence of being erroneous, and so afford no aid towards ascertaining the true construction of this obscure passage, they are of considerable use in supporting my description of the original state of the Hebrew text and of the original mode of reading it. Besides, I am in hopes I shall be able satisfactorily to ac- count for the strange deviation of the Seventy from the mean- ing of one part of the passage, and to trace their translation, and the vocalizers' reading of that part, though so much at variance with each other, to one and the same state of the corresponding portion of the original text ; an attempt which, as far as I can find, has never yet been made, and which, in reality, it would have been impossible before now to bring to a successful issue. In the last place is inserted the Latin ren- dering of this verse in the Yulgate (with its interpretation according to Jerome's view of the subject), on account of the connexion with it of the earlier English translations of the passage. It may, perhaps, be of use here to add that, accord- ing to the method of notation I have adopted, the corrected Hebrew lines exhibit the present state of the verse in the sacred text, as well as the corrections of its vocalization which I venture to recommend ; corrections which affect only the mode of reading the original elements of the passage, and re- move none of those elements, but, on the contrary, restore one of them six times removed by the old vocalizers. Hebrew, \sb'2'^ ^iD ;pra"ij::li^ mi:^:^ inij^ l\^-n^3 r\^h:v^ The inhabitants of Samaria are alarmed for the safety of the she- calf of Beth-hawen ; because the people thereof and the priests thereof, that have hitherto rejoiced on it for the glory thereof, shall certainly mourn over it, as that glory shall certainly depart from it. Chap. III.] BY MEANS OF THE SAME DISCOVERY. 259 Greeh^ Tw iioay^w rod olkov Hi/ irapoiKfjaovai ol KaroiKOvvTe^ ^afJLapelav^ on eTrei/Ojjaeu Xao^ avrov ctt' avTOV tcal^ /ca6(i)9 TrapeTTL/cpavap avrou^ eTnyapovvTaL eirl rfjv do^av avTOUj on /uLenvKiaO'rj cltt* avTou' The inhabitants of Samaria shall dwell near the calf of the house of On, because its people mourned for it ; and, as they exaspe- rated it, they shall rejoice on account of its glory, because that glory has been removed from it.* Syriac, ^Jl^So . ^i.LcL5 lyoV^s \^LoL ^oau ^1 Li^y jl . . vV The inhabitants of Samaria shall be sojourners with the calf of Beth-hawen, because that its people and its priests have so- journed in grief for it ; but they shall rejoice for it and for its glory, that has departed from it. Latin, Yaccas Bethaven coluerunt habitatores Samariae ; quia luxit super eum populus ejus, et seditui ejus super eum exultaverunt in gloria ejus, quia mi- gravit ab eo. The inhabitants of Samaria have worshipped the she-calves of Beth- aven ; because the people thereof have mourned over it, and the priests thereof have rejoiced on it as the glory of the people,, because it has departed from them.^ To commence with an inquiry into the cause of the failure of the Seventy Jews in their effort to convey the meaning of ^ I have construed the three first aorists in the Greek verse according to the force commonly attached to them of a past tense: but I strongly suspect that they are therein used with some reference to the future; as a verb in the same tense is certainly so employed in the beginning of the next verse which contains the remainder of the entire passage. This observation is not offered with any hope of its contributing to make sense of the Greek as it stands in this place, but merely for the purpose of bringing under notice at least one instance of a first aorist employed by the Seventy as a species of future tense. ** For the above interpretation of Jerome's rendering of the passage, look to his own explanation of its meaning, quoted a little farther on. 260 ANALYSIS OF HOSEA, x. 5, [Chap. III. this passage, it is to be observed that "^"IDD, included in one of the groups of the Hebrew verse, or D'^H^D, the same noun in the absolute state, is a Chaldee and Syriac word for 'priests,' with the HebreAv termination for the plural number aimexed to it, which is to be met with only in two other passages of the sacred text besides that before us, and is in all three places used contemptuously to denote ' priests of idols,' to whom the inspired writers disdained to apply, in those instances, the proper Hebrew term for ' priests.' With this foreign word the composers of the first Greek version appear not to have been familiar: for, on its first occurrence (2 Kings, xxiii. 5), they passed over its meaning, and merely recorded its sound, Tom x'^l^oLpLfx f and, on its last appearance (Zeph. i. 4), where it is united with the proper Hebrew noun for ' priests,' in the expression D'^^n^H DJ/ D'^IDDil, ' the Komarim along with the priests' they avoided to give any separate interpretation of it, and lumped together their translation of the two words under the common designation twv lepewv. It is, then, no wonder that, when the original group, HI^Dl, was presented to their observation in the place before us, they overlooked the circumstance of the entrance of the foreign term *1^]D into its composition. Hence has resulted the very striking diffe- rence that exists between the reading of this group prescribed by its present voc^alization, and that indicated by its Greek rendering ; while, notwithstanding, both readings can be de- duced from one and the same original series of letters. On the one hand, the old vocalizers read the group just specified (as shall be presently shown when I come to examine the affix * The above term, as written in Hebrew, &=i1Z33, has been pointed by the Masorets for the pronunciation K'MaRIM, with the vocal sound of the first syllable that of an E scarcely perceptible; while, on the contrary, this sound is recorded both by the Seventy Jews and the Syriac translators to have been the open, full one of either or U. This shows, as far as one example goes, that the Jews preserved the vocal sounds of foreign appellative words, just as imperfectly as they did those of uncommon proper names, whether national or foreign. Chap. III.] BY MEANS OF THE SAME DISCOVERY. 261 of the third person singular after nouns plural) WeKoUeUeUu, * and its priests f they then substituted a Waiv for the He, in accordance with their erroneous notion of the affix being mas- culine, and through this alteration, combined with the insertion of a Yod before the substituted letter for the purpose of de- noting the plural number of the foreign noun, they reduced the compound to its present state, 'i'^ID^X On the other hand, the Seventy decomposed the very same original group, n")D^1, into the component parts 1, We, /cal ; ^, Ke, Ka6w9 ; HID, MeReHw, irapemKpavav ; and construed the following group (in its origi- nal state H/i/) avTov instead of lir amov^ thus leaving the pre- position IV redundant. It will, no doubt, here strike the Hebrew scholar that the verb HID, which borrows the signifi- cations of "IID, Ho be bitter,' should be read, in the third person plural of the preterite of its Pihel modification, MeEw instead of MeReHw, and consequently that there is in the above group, niQ^I, a letter too much (H) to admit of its being decomposed in this way. But it will be made out, I trust, satisfactorily in the chapter after the next, that the ellipsis of the third radi- cal of verbs ending in He is entirely the work of the old voca- lizers of the text ; that, for instance, ^^1 could originally have been read either Hato?, (fiaXa^av.' Chrysostomi Opera^ Ed. Benedict, torn, v., p. 184. The original Hebrew for the \' as 308 ORIGINAL USE RECOVERED [Chap. IV. to be determined by the context ; or, according to the im- proved conception of the subject which was arrived at, after men had distinctly resolved syllables into their component parts, the above letter served to apprize the reader that it was immediately preceded in the course of enunciation by a vowel- sound by no means invariably that of A which he was left to select in accordance with the demands of the context, but in the choice of which he was so far assisted by this notifica- tion, inasmuch as that, by being put upon his guard as to the want of a vowel, and the necessity of searching for it, he was more likely to perform the operation with correctness. This use, in the earlier conception of its nature, is just the reverse of one effected by a diiferent expedient in the Ethiopic species of writing. For, whenever in that species a letter at the end of a word is not to be read by itself as a pure syllable, but to be joined to the preceding one in the representation of a com- pound or mixed syllable, a particular modification of its shape is employed, namely that found in the sixth column of the syllabary it belongs to, and which, for this application of it, drops the vocal part of its syllabic value. With regard to the above use, in the later and fuller conception of it, two parti- culars are to be noticed in the practice of the vocalizers of the second century. First, whenever they, in compliance with the suggestion of a paragogic He, inserted a mater lectionis in the text, they omitted the older element, as its service was more directly and efficiently performed by the introduced letter, and they could not venture to let both signs appear together ; for the redundancy thus occasioned would have led to the suspicion of the spuriousness of one of them ; it being most unlikely that the original authors employed any- where two signs for the same sound. Hence it follows that the occurrence of this paragogic character in the Hebrew text must have been much more frequent before the introduction into it of vowel-letters, though not so much so as we might at first view of the matter be led to imagine ; since the inspired writers of the Old Testament very often withheld the aid Chap. IV.] OF THE PARAGOGIC HE. 309 afforded by the letter in question, in suggesting what words were to have their pronunciations terminated by vocal sounds. Secondly, the vocalizers abstained from erasing this letter where the vowel-sound thereby suggested is that oiA; as they did not consider it necessary in such sites to insert any vowel- letter ; whence it has resulted that in the great majority of instances in which the paragogic He still remains in the text, it immediately follows the A sound a circumstance which has given rise to the erroneous* notion that it was always, in reading out, preceded by that sound. Respecting the use I assign to this letter, I have further to observe, that it is ana- loo-ous to that on all sides conceded to the matres lectionis, in reference to the exertion of thought it required in order to the attainment of any benefit from its assistance. For a Yod or a Waw^ employed as a vowel-letter, does not directly inform a reader what vowel it expresses in each place of its occurrence. He still must consult the context of that place, and the in- flexion thereby required of the word in which it is inserted, before he can determine whether it there stands, if the former letter, for an E or 7, or, if the latter, for an or U. But the paragogic He^ by intimating some vowel or other to be wanted after the last consonant of a word, calls for an exercise of judgment of just the same kind, though extended through a wider range of choice. Where, indeed, a mater lectionis has been substituted, it facilitates this choice, by contracting the range thereof ; but it still leaves the general nature of the requisite mental operation exactly the same as before. Hitherto I have only considered the class of instances in each of which the vowel-sound intimated by the paragogic He closes the pronunciation of a regular inflexion of the word before it or of an affix to that word ; so that, according to the pointing and modern way of reading the text, the enunciation of the entire group comes out just the same, whether that letter form part of it, or not. Thus to revert to an example already touched upon the group iir\i must have been pronounced by an ancient reader, as nearly as we now can approach to the 310 OEIGINAL USE RECOVERED [Chap. IV. sounds employed by him, NaThaTt^^ if the context showed him that it was used in the first person singular, or NaThaTta, if in the second person singular masculine ; and if a paragogic He had been added, then riiin^, the group thus increased would have been read by him, for the same two cases, NaThaTt2H or NaThaTtoH, differing from the former readings only by the addition of a quiescent H^ and so, virtually yielding the same sounds asbefore. The addition to the original group of the para- gogic character would have at bnce excluded the pronunciation NftThaT, and so far have lessened the trouble of the selection he had to make ; yet it would not in the slightest degree have altered either of the combinations of articulate sounds pre- viously arrived at by the aid of the context alone. But, to include every case, I must notice another class, though not referred to in the ensuing course ofinvestigation, in which the suggested vowel belongs not to any regular inflexion of the preceding word, or to any affix thereof ; and where, though the letter in question has no effect on the sound of the sylla- ble composed of that vowel and the preceding consonant, it yet, through the intervention of that syllable, perceptibly alters the sound of the entire group. Thus, for example, "l^TK, ' I will remember,^ is in some places of the sacred text written ^"I^T^^, whereby the pronunciation of the group is altered, according to the present mode of reading it, from HeZKoR to HeZKeRaH, and the tonic accent shifted to the addition so made to it. Here undoubtedly there not only is, but also must always have been, a change of sound, produced immediately by the paragogic syllable, and mediately by the paragogic let- ter which indirectly suggests the vowel part of that syllable. Yet, tried by the context of the places in which it occurs, the paragogic He is found in this way of employing it, just as in the one before examined, to communicate no impressiveness whatever to the meaning of the word to which it is attached. The above specified forms of the inflexion of the verb "l^t for the first person singular of the future tense occur, both of them, in the verse of the 77th Psalm which is translated in our Au- Chap. IV.] OF THE PARAGOGIC HE. 311 thorized Version as follows : " I will remember the works of the Lord ; surely I will remember thy wonders of old." The simple regular form appears in the first, and the irregularly augmented form in the second clause of the original verse : but the act of remembering is not at all more forcibly ex- pressed in the latter place than in the former, being inter- preted by the very same words in both places ; and, conse- quently, if the second clause be the more impressive one, it is rendered so by the introduction of the adverb and the repeti- tion of the act referred to, but not in the slightest degree by the form of the word through which that act is conveyed. The efficacy, therefore, which is attributed by grammarians to the letter in question seems to be as untenable in the present class of cases as in that previously noticed. But, with respect to the changes of pronunciation occasioned by this letter in the set of instances now before us, irregular forms of words are employed in most languages ; and even though we should not be able to ascertain for what end those here alluded to were intended, still it is desirable at all events to adhere as nearly as we can to their original sounds. But for this purpose the use I assign to the paragogic He was, before the text became pointed, quite indispensable. In the cases previously consi- dered, wherein the forms of the words are all regular, the ancient reader could have arrived, though not without some additional trouble, at those forms, and, consequently, at the correct pronunciation of the groups, to which they belong, through the sole aid of the context ; but in the cases now brought under consideration he could never have determined that pronunciation without the further aid of the letter in question, which thus appears to have been still more wanted for this service in the latter class of instances than in the for- mer ; a service which in those different degrees continued needful, till the fuller vocalization of the text was effected by means of the Masoretic points. As far as this preliminary description is borne out by the ensuing analysis, it must, I think, be admitted that the para- 312 HALEPH AND HE OFTEN MISTAKEN [Chap. IV. gogic He^ as originally employed, is not to be considered in strictness as a letter denoting a power of its own, but as a sign or mark of a different kind, indirectly turning attention to, and suggesting something quite alien from itself, namely, the vowel-sound that ought, in the course of reading out, im- mediately to precede it. The service of this quasi letter having been more directly and distinctly performed by the matres lectionis, they, in a great measure, banished it from the text, and superseded its use ; and this application of it, which appears to have been entirely put an end to upon the introduc- tion of the Masoretic points, was most probably soon after lost sight of, and at all events has long since become quite effaced from the memory of Hebrew readers. Of course, no one could now approve of restoring the paragogic He in the sites from which it has been erased, or of returning to a mode of reading which had, in part, to depend on the imperfect aid of the ser- vice formerly yielded by so indirect a sign ; but still the reco- vered knowledge of the ancient employment of the character in that service is not only interesting as a matter of antiquarian research, but also valuable to the Hebrew student ; as it con- tributes to account for several mistakes in the text of the sacred volume, and thereby leads to their correction. Before entering on the proposed investigation, I must briefly advert to a second subject, the frequent interchange of the letters Haleph and He which is observable in the He- brew Bible. Many instances of mistakes of this sort in the sacred text are already well known ; and I here adduce a few additional examples, to show how much the stock of them might be increased through a comparison of the Jewish and Samaritan copies of the Pentateuch. These instances are taken solely from the Book of Genesis, from which alone more than double the number might easily be quoted ; and such only are selected as exhibit a direct opposition between the two editions in respect to the letters in question, and so render obvious an erroneous use of them in one or other edition. Chap. IV.] ONE FOK THE OTHEH IN THE TEXT. 313 Jewish Edition. Samaritan Edition. Genesis, xix. 29, xxiv. 25, XXV. 15, xxxviii. 1, xli. 13, xli. 25, xliii. 12, xlvi. 21, xlix. 9, 1. 17, rhn S3S nsDD sbn writer ma Authorized Eng. Ver. the overthrow, provender, a proper name, a proper name, he hanged. hath showed, an oversight. a proper name, and as an old lion. I pray thee.* The numerous instances in which these letters were mis- taken, one for the other, by the copyists of each edition of the Pentateuch, in the manner here exemplified, appear to indi- cate a close similarity of shape formerly subsisting between them, without which they could hardly have been so often confounded : and, as the effect is common to both editions, so in all probability was likewise its cause ; whence it would further appear that this similarity commenced before the very remote period when the Samaritan set of copies was derived from the Jewish one. But this inference admits not of being confirmed by actual observation ; since the oldest known re- mains of ancient Hebrew writing are upon coins, and these go no farther back than the year B. C. 140, when the Jews, under the government of the Maccabean Simon, first obtained per- mission from the Greeks to have a coinage of their own.^ The ^ In the plac^ above specified, the rendering, ' we pray thee,' is required by the context, instead of ' I pray thee.' But this violation of grammar in the Authorized English Version does not extend to the original text, in which the particle of entreaty made use of, S3S, is applicable indifferently to either number; just in like manner as is in English the single word, ' pray,' ellip- tically used. Our translators appear to have been led into the mistake here committed by them, through a desire to avoid tautology ; as they have em- ployed the expression, ' we pray thee,' in a subsequent partof the same verse, where the same Hebrew word occurs, in the contracted form M3. But, surely, they might have effected this object more correctly by introducing a corre- sponding contraction into their rendering of the passage; namely, by translat- ing the full particle, * we pray thee,' and its abbreviation, *pray.' ^ See 1 Mac. xv. 6. 314 ORIGINAL FORMS OF THE HEBREW AND [Chap. IV. difficulty, therefore, of distinguishing between the letters Haleph and He^ it is most likely, began several centuries be- fore the date of the oldest specimens of them now extant ; a length of time abundantly sufficient for pointing out the cause of this evil, and so leading to its gradual diminution. Still, it is to be noted, that the above letters upon the coins alluded to approach much nearer to mutual resemblance than their modern equivalents ; a fact which accords with the sup- position that, if we could get them of sufficient age, we should find them nearly identical in shape. They cannot, however, be supposed to have been to this degree similar at first, by those who admit the divine origin of the Hebrew alphabet ; for a gift from our beneficent Creator, in the state in which it immediately came from him, could not have had any faults of a positively injurious kind like that here brought under con- sideration, though it might, faults of mere defect, such as man is made capable of removing, and which, accordingly, he has been left to remove through the exertion of his own faculties. In order to trace to the original state the two forms of the Hebrew pronoun of the first person singular, '^^^^ and "^D^^^, as also the single Chaldee form of the same person ^^^^, I select the following examples : Jewish Edition. Samaritan Edition. Gen. xlii. 2, HDH behold. ^3 I. Ex. xviii. 6, ''aM I. HDH'* behold. Ex. iii. 13, '^IDiM I. n03 I. Dan. ii. 8, ^2S I. Dan. ii. 23, HDM I. In the first and second of these examples we may perceive that the groups now written "^^^^ and H^H were at a remote * In the Samaritan manuscript which has been printed in Bishop Walton's Polyglot, the above word is exhibited ^3S, the same as in the Jewish edition of the Hebrew Pentateuch; but this is the only copy of the Samaritan text in which Dr. Kennicott found it so written. In the notes to his edition of the Bible he has specified fourteen other Samaritan MSS. numbered by him 61, 64, Q6, QQ, 127, 183, 197, 221, 333, 334, 364, 503, 504, 670,_in all of which the group in question has been preserved n3n. Chap. IV.] CHALDEE PRONOUNS OF 1st PER. SING. 315 period confounded with each other ; for which, as far as re- spects their initial elements, one can easily account by the close similarity that formerly subsisted between the shapes of these letters ; but not by any possibility in respect to their terminations, unless it be conceded that the former group was, before its vocalization, written Jl^^. The original state of the form of this Hebrew pronoun is more directly laid be- fore us in the third example, wherein the group vocalized '^^^^^ in the Jewish edition of the text, was overlooked in the very same spot of the Samaritan edition, and left in its primi- tive state, ^^2^^. It thus turns out that both forms were at first ended with a paragogic He^ which (as soon as distinct conceptions were obtained of the component parts of syllables) served in these examples indirectly to suggest the vowel /; and that the vocalizers, having in compliance with this sugges- tion inserted a Tod directly to denote this vowel, erased the paragogic sign whose service after each form of the pronoun was so much better effected by means of the introduced mater lec- tionis. In like manner the fourth example shows that the Chal- dee form of this pronoun ^^i^, HaNA, was originally written n^i^, and read HaNaH ; as also that the paragogic termination of the older form, which served indirectly to suggest the vowel-sound J., was erased by the vocalizers, as soon as they had more distinctly represented that sound by means of an Haleph. The first example is extracted from an observation of Jacob to his sons, the introductory part of which is written, in the Jewish edition of the Pentateuch, '^r\V'^^ H^'^l, 'Behold, I have heard,' but in the Samaritan edition '^r\]^12^ '^^^^, 'I my- self have heard.' Some degree of emphasis is attached to the latter exhibition of this part of his speech, by the repetition of the pronoun (which is given first separately, and then in a connected state at the close of the inflexion of the verb) ; but its former representation evidently agrees much better with the context ; and is, besides, supported by both the Septua- gint and the Peshitah. Here, then, the Jewish reading of the 316 ORIGINAL FORMS OF THE HEBREW AND [Chap. IV. initial word must be deemed correct, and the Samaritan one be consequently rejected. On the contrary, in the second example, the Samaritan reading is the true one, and that adopted by the Jews fallacious ; as can be shown by a very powerful combination of external and internal evidence. To make this plain to the reader, I commence with laying be- fore him the Jewish and Samaritan readings of the Hebrew clause which contains the disputed word ; also the Greek and Syriac translations of this clause ; and the literal meanings of the four lines subjoined to them respectively : Hebrew, ,T^^ ^^ "^^^^ V^^ ""^^ X^^^ ^^ "l^^'T And he said to Moses, I thy father-in-law Yithro am coming unto thee, Samaritan, ,T^^ ^'^ ^"'^'^ l^^H .^Ti ,r^ti;t2h ^12^^^ And it was told to Moses, Behold, thy father-in-law Yithro is coming unto thee, Chreeh^ ' AvrfyyeKy 8e Mcovay, XeyovTe^,^ Ihov 6 yajx^po^ aov \o66p TrapaytveraL tt/oo? ce, And it was told to Moses, saying, Behold, thy father-in-law lothor is coming unto thee, Syriac, . j^ZoX ]L] ^5A-. >^o,V)^ ]m .]joV)\ tiolZlo And it was told to Moses, that behold, thy father-in-law Yithron is coming unto thee, The various pronunciations here exhibited of the name of the father-in-law of Moses, lothor, Yithro, and Yithron, have been already canvassed, and the discrepancies between them * The false concord in the above Greek sentence is avoided in three MSS. numbered, in the notes to Holmes's edition of the Septuagint, 53, 58, 72 wherein the first word is written ai/i^r^r^eiXav. The irregularity of the re- ceived reading may, in a great measure, be accounted for by the discovery unfolded in this volume. Before the original text was vocalized, the initial group of the corresponding Hebrew sentence could have been read in either the singular or plural number, and must have been taken in the latter num- Chap. IV.] CHALDEE PEONOUNS OF 1st PER. SING. 317 accounted for, in a preceding chapter. But, with respect to the main point for which these lines are at present adduced, it will be seen, upon a comparison of the last three, that the reading of the word under examination, n^il, 'behold,' is sup- ported, and consequently the other, "^i^^, ' I,' rejected, by the so far perfectly concurrent, though quite independent attes- tations of the Samaritan, the Greek, and the Syriac records : and, besides this powerful evidence against the latter reading, its correctness is further disproved even by the sole conside- ration of the context. For as, on the one hand, it was very natural for messengers to specify the name and quality of a person whose approach they were announcing, and to state that he was coming, while he was yet on the way ; so, on the other, it is wholly unaccountable that Jethro, when arrived in the presence of his son-in-law (after a separation of scarcely more than a year following the space of forty that they lived together), should think it necessary to tell his name, or how he was related to the Prophet, and that he should say he was ' coming,' after his actual arrival. In our Authorized Version, indeed, ^2 is construed, 'am come ;' but, to justify this tense of the English verb, the Hebrew one should have been put in the inflexion "^nb^!!. The corruption, however, of the Jewish read- ing of the Hebrew line is even still more clearly evinced by comparing its drift with that of the next verse : " And Moses went out to meet his father-in-law, and did obeisance, and kissed him; and they asked each other of their welfare; and they came into the tent." ^Exod. xviii. 7. According to the repre- sentation of the matter produced by combining the contents of the two verses, Moses went out to meet his father-in-law. ber, by those who connected Xe^ovre? with their translation of it. The mean- ings, however, are perfectly equivalent of the two expressions, ' they' (that is, some persons) ' announced to Moses,' and 'it was announced to Moses;' and if, in consequence, the rendering of the Hebrew verb came to be avyr^r^eikav in only some copies of the Septuagint, and avi^n ^Lo\ ^5qlkjo * and they shall look to me through (or in) him whom they pierced.' The copy, or copies, of the Hebrew text consulted by the Seventy Jews must evidently have been here inaccurate. A part of the error of their translation of the clause is accounted for by the very similar appearance, in Hebrew writing, of the verbs "Ip'T, ' to pierce,' and 1p"), ' to mock in the mode of danc- ing,' or ' to insult.' But neither is there anything in the rest of the clause, as it stands at present, which, when put in its original state, could have driven those translators to a viola- tion of the context, the same as that committed by the first set of vocalizers ; nor does the particle n^^ admit of the interpreta- tion avri, ' on account of.' For both these reasons it would seem that there was some further inaccuracy in the Hebrew line, as written in their copies, besides the interchange of similar let- ters in its final group. The Syriac rendering of the same line yields good sense, and avoids any violation of the context ; but it is open to the objection of assigning to the particle H^ a meaning (viz. ' through,' or ' in,') which, in like manner as that attached thereto in the Greek version, is found nowhere else applied to it in the sacred text. Happily, the aid of those versions can, in the present case, be dispensed with, in conse- quence of the information transmitted to us upon the point in question by St. John. Fully warranted by the authority due to his interpretation of the adduced Hebrew line, I would recommend the alteration of the group V^ into I'^'^Vti^^ in an amended edition of the sacred text, and the substitution of the pronoun ' him' for ' me,' in the English translation of the line. The reader will bear in mind that by this alteration no change whatever is made of any of the original elements of the Hebrew text, but merely a correction introduced into the Chap.IV.] of FIKST per. SING. USED AS AFFIXES. 329 mode of reading a group containing two of those elements, a group to which the first set of vocalizers are clearly proved by indisputable authority to have attached an erroneous sense, and in consequence an incorrect pronunciation. The final part of the verse, which includes the clause just examined, afibrds by the way an opportunity of illustrating the usefulness of the present discovery by an example, which it may be worth while here to bring under notice. The ren- dering of this part of our Authorized Version is as follows : " And they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son^ and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitter- ness for his first born." This translation is in substance cor- rect, according to a mode of reading the original elements of the Hebrew passage which, it now appears, they clearly admit of, but not at all according to that to which their treatment by both sets of vocalizers has confined them. The original of the expression, 'and they shall mourn,' is correctly exhibited in the Hebrew text HDDI, WeSaPheDU, with its verb in the third per- son plural of the prophetic future (that is, of the preterite sub- stituted for the future, to indicate the certainty of the fulfilment of the prediction) of the active voice of this verb in its simplest form. In like manner the original of the expression, ' and (they) shall be in bitterness,' which was overlooked by the first voca- lizers, and left in its original state IDHI, ought to be read for this signification of it, which the context indispensably requires, WeHwMRw, with its verb in the third person plural of the pro- phetic future of the passive voice of the causative modifica- tion of ")")D, ' to be bitter ;' and, no doubt, it was so read by the first vocalizers. But they having been accustomed to read the group in this manner, without the help of any vowel- letters, overlooked in their haste the circumstance that, after the introduction of matres lectionis into the sacred text, men would not any longer attach to this group its correct pronun- ciation and sense without the insertion of one Waw in its second, and another in its fourth syllable. This oversight of the first set of vocalizers the second set misfht have remedied 330 OLDER FORMS OF PARTS OF PRONOUN [Chap. IV. by means of their Qibbus ; but, referring the omission of the two Waws to the inspired writer of the prophecy, they dreaded to deviate from such high authority, and in consequence pointed the group for the reading WeHaMeR, ' and to embitter ;' thus sacrificing the sense of the passage to what they con- ceived to be strict adherence to the original form of expres- sion, and passing over the consideration that the meaning of this form is here utterly excluded by the context. The sub- stitution in this place of the infinitive mood for a definite inflexion of the verb is defended on the ground of its being an idiom of frequent occurrence in the Hebrew record ; and, undoubtedly, such anomalies are sometimes to be met with in the sacred text in its present state ; anomalies which gram- marians have hitherto attributed to the inspired writers, because unable otherwise to account for them; but which, it now turns out, are not at all to be laid to the fault of those writers, but ascribed to the giddiness of the first set of vocalizers of the Hebrew Scriptures, and to the great precipitation with which they executed their task. Let us, however, for a moment suppose the received explanation of the subject in this instance correct, and that Zachariah really wrote the above verb in the infinitive mood, though he intended it to be un- derstood in the sense of the third person plural of the prophe- tic future tense ; yet even this monstrous concession will not suffice to remove all the difficulties of the case. For the irre- gularity still remains of the verb being read in the active voice of the causative modification, in consequence of which it yields a meaning quite at variance with that which the prophet intended it to convey; as what he predicted was evidently, not that the Jews should embitter the lives of others with grief, but that they should have their own lives so embittered, not that they should inflict, but that they should sufi^er the bitterness of grief. The framers of our Authorized Version were certainly here placed in a very embarrassing situation ; as they were compelled to deviate, either fi:'om the true mean- ing of the prophecy, or from what they conceived to be the Chap. IV.] OF FIRST PER. SING. USED AS AFFIXES. 331 true reading of the passage which contains it. This dilemma is now removed ; and what must be abandoned, for the sake of adhering to the sense of the prediction, is now found to be, not the true reading of the examined group, but a false read- ing of it, occasioned by an oversight of the first set of vocalizers, and the ignorance, on the part of the second set, of the real nature of the first vocalization of the Bible. This group, I submit, should be written in an amended edition of the sacred text [1]"l^n]m ; but its translation in our Authorized Version requires no alteration. Part of the same observations may be applied to the group "IDHD in the same sentence, which is pointed by the Masorets for the reading KeHaMeR, ' like the embittering,' or ' like the inflicting of bitter grief ;' where the verb above analyzed appears a second time in the sentence. The inflexion of this verb is here in one respect correctly given, as the infinitive mood is sometimes employed in Hebrew as a noun ; but it is exhibited in a wrong voice, as can be shown in the same way as in the previous instance. The whole group should, therefore, be read KeHwME, ' like the being embittered,' or ^ like the bitter grief endured ;' and for this reading and sense it should be written in an amended edition of the Hebrew text, IDHin^. The interpretation of this group in our version is substantially correct ; though, per- haps, the Hebrew form of expression might be here more closely adhered to, without any injury to the language of the translation. In order to trace '^^, the fuller form of the affix of the first person singular (which, according to the nature of the word it follows, is read NI, aNI, or eNl) to its original state Hi, I select an example supplied by two different exhibitions of the last group of a verse of an inspired Song of David, trans- mitted to us in two copies of this poem, which occupy the twenty-second chapter of the second book of Samuel, and the eighteenth Psalm. The two representations of the Hebrew verse terminated by the varied group in question, with their authorized English translations subjoined to them respectively, 332 FORMS OF PARTS OF PRONOUNS [Chap. IV. and with a second authorized rendering also added in the case of that which has two, stand as foUoAvs : 2 Sam. xxii. 23, -HIIDD I^D^^ i^h ,^^npm ; ^JIl^ '^'^ID^ll/D ^D ^D ( " -^^^ ^^^ ^^^ judgments z^?^/*^ before me ; and " ^ ^^^'^^ ^^- 1 ^5 ^^^ j^jg statutes, I did not depart from sion of Bible, ] , -^ ' ( them." Ps. xviii. 22, :':^12* "i^D^ \!b ^^npm ;n:ii'? ^^cos^ci^D ^70 ^d Authorized Ver- ( "For all his judgments were before me ; and sion of Bible, { I did not put away his statutes from me." !" For I have an eye unto all his laws ; and will not cast out his commandments from me." Exclusively of the consideration of the two groups here ad- duced for discussion, the entire of the two lines to which they belong, as well as the entire of the two copies of David's poem, from which those lines have been extracted, are espe- cially deserving of the Hebrew student's attention ; not only with respect to the particular branch of the inquiry now before us, but also in reference to the general subject of the spurious nature of the matres lectionis in the sacred text. They are so much so, indeed, that if he compare with diligence and an unprejudiced mind all their corresponding ingredients respectively, the investigation, confined even within those limits, will, I have no hesitation to assert, be quite sufficient to convince him of the reahty of my discovery. In this in- quiry he will be considerably assisted by the Table which, in pages 596-7 of the first volume of Kennicott's Hebrew Bible, is given of the specified portions of Scripture, compared verse by verse with each other ; particularly, if he attach some mark to the vowel-letters to distinguish them to the eye from the other elements of the text. This Table he will now find doubly interesting ; since he will be able, as he goes step by step along, to shift to the vocalizers a great number of discrepancies which Kennicott attributed to injuries of time or faults of transcrip- Chap. IV.] OF FIKST PEK. SING. USED AS AFFIXES. 333 tion ; and lie will be aided in correcting the erroneous part of the work of those scribes by a collation of the corresponding verses. This operation, if here undertaken, would draw me off too much from the particular investigation on which I am now going to enter ; but I may, perhaps, find room for it in a subse- quent volume, and at any rate I will at the end of this chapter discuss some of the points which the comparison in question suggests ; while I for the present confine myself to briefly touching upon those more immediately connected with the quoted Hebrew lines, just as far as is necessary for introducing the examination of their final groups. Upon a comparison of these lines, it will be seen that they differ merely in their vocalization, with the sole exception of a variation produced by the loss of a single letter dropped from the commencement of the final group of the under line a loss which does not occasion the slightest alteration of meaning, as "^^D and "^^D^ are perfectly equivalent. With respect to the two English translations of the under line, although that taken from our Prayer-book is in other respects less exact, it is in reference to the choice of tenses by much the better one ; as I hope to be able to show at the end of this chapter. The upper line may be correctly translated as follows : "For all his judgments are before me ; and as for his statutes, I wiU not depart from any of them."^ The last part of this line is rendered literally, ' I wiU not depart from her :' wherein the pronoun is read in the same gender as the Hebrew noun for ^ statutes ;' but in a different number, to intimate (through the use of a Hebrew idiom which occurs sometimes, though not by any means as often as is generally * The above declaration can with truth be applied only to the prospective intentions of the author at the time when he wrote this poem, and not to the actual course of his external conduct. The Hebrew verb, therefore, with which this declaration is made, although the inflexion in which it is exhibited admits in the abstract of a reference to either the future or the present, is yet here restricted to the former acceptation, and must be translated in the future tense. 334 OLDER FORMS OF PARTS OF PRONOUN [Chap. IV. supposed, in the sacred text) that it is to be here understood as taken in a distributive sense. The altered vocalization of the verbal inflexion 1D^ in the under line is occasioned merely by the altered meaning of the final group in that line ; for after this group was made to signify ' from me/ the combina- tion of the same expression of the verb with the altered pro- noun ' I will not depart from me,' was no longer intelligible. To restore, then, the coherence of the parts of this declaration, it became necessary to shift the specified inflexion of the verb from a neutral to a transitive sense, and read it in what is technically called its Hiphil, instead of its Kal modification, with the pronunciation UaSiR instead of HaSwR, and with a corresponding change of the vowel-letter inserted therein. The vocalization, then, of this verb depends on the treatment of the final group ; and, consequently, it remains still to be inquired, which of the modes of dealing therewith, adopted by the first set of vocalizers, is the correct one. But the discus- sion of this question is postponed to the end of the chapter ; as its decision is not here wanted, and I wish to disembarrass of every unnecessary difiiculty the investigation which I now proceed to lay before the reader. As the final group in question, according to the represen- tation given of it in the upper line, is referred to a noun of the feminine gender, it was there read MiMmeNnaB.^ in consequence of which it escaped all tampering of the first set of vocalizers in that place. The original form, therefore, of this group was n^DD ; and from the treatment thereof in the under line it is evident that the same set of scribes there read it MzMmeNniH, ' from me,' and that they substituted a Yod for the final He^ which they in the latter case looked upon as a paragogic ele- ment. But as the pronunciation of the letter of N' power is doubled in this way of reading the original group, and only the first ^ can be referred to the preposition, the second must belong to the aflix, of which, consequently, the fuller form after this preposition was Hi, NH, that is, the entire final syllable of the pronoun of the first person singular, which was Chap.IV.] of first per. sing, us ED as affixes. 335 originally written H^K and pronounced HaNiH. No inference, however, can, in like manner, be drawn from the former way of reading the same group ; because the duplication in that case of the letter of JSf power is arbitrarily made from mere fancy, and is what the grammarians call euphonic an epithet technically applied by them to all pointings for which no satis- factory reason can be assigned. Here it may be worth observ- ing that, when the He subjoined to the above preposition was thought to signify the third person feminine, it was constantly retained as an essential element of the pronoun i^H, and even when the same original group H^QD was read MMmeNHw, 'from him,' and in consequence vocalized I^DD, the disappearance of the He was compensated for by the doubled pronunciation of the N'un. But whenever the vocalizers read this group MiMmeNniH, ' from me,' they uniformly expunged without any compensation the paragogic element of its affix, upon their inserting therein a Yod; and they obviously did so, to avoid the awkwardness of leaving in the sacred text two different signs for one and the same vocal sound. This analysis serves to prove that the group nDf2 originally admitted, among other pronunciations, of being uttered MzMmeNneH, ' from me,' whether the old vocalizers were right, or not, in applying this utterance and a conformable vocalization to it at the end of the under line. For, unless it was in the abstract readable with this sound and sense, they could not have so read it in the specified place. Two opportunities of illustrating the original ambiguity of the affix n after nouns are afforded by the passage of Scripture which, in our Authorized Version, is thus translated : "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. As they called them, so they went from them : they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burnt incense to graven images. I taught Ephraim also to go, taking them by their arms." Hos. xi. 1-3. The Hebrew of the first verse of this passage, with the final group restored to its original state, for a reason that shall be presently explained, should be written, 2b 336 OKIGINAL AMBIGUITY OF //E' AFFIXED [Chap. IV. I conceive, in an amended edition of the sacred text, as fol- lows : A mark is placed over the final group referring to the margin, where it is written in the manner in which it is exhibited in the present state of the sacred text ; and in like manner another mark is placed over a restored letter of Israel's name referring to one in the margin which is now erroneously substituted for it in Hebrew writing, but not in the Syriac of the Peshitah, wherein the proper sibilant of this word is still retained. A blank space is left between the second and third groups of this line, to intimate, not any chasm produced by loss of original elements, but an ellipsis in the sentence attributable to the style of the author, which it is of importance to bring prominently under the reader's observation. This line is rendered in strict accordance with the context thus : ' When Yisrahel was a child, then I loved him, and called his descendants out of Egypt :' that is, I loved Israel even from the earliest stage of his existence, and I brought his descendants out of Egypt. The signification here applied to the final group, which agrees exactly with that given of it in the Septuagint, ra rejci/a avrov, not only is adapted to the general tenor of this prophecy, which, in its more open and obvious sense, relates entirely to the Israelites, but also will be found especially requisite to preserve coherence between the first and second verse, as soon as the latter of those verses is restored to an intelligible form. But to warrant this signification of the above group, it must be read LeBaNeHw, ' his descendants ;' while, on the other hand, to account for the meaning attached to it by St. Matthew (in the translation given by him of its second clause, " Out of Egypt have I called my son" Matt. ii. 15), the same group must be read Lz'BN/H, ' my son.' The reader may now per- ceive my reason for restoring this group to its original state ; because it is only in that state that it yields the two read- ings here required. In general, the suggestion of a second Chap.IV.] to nouns illustrated by examples. 337 interpretation of a sentence, in the margin of a version of the Bible, is allowable only when the first is doubtful. Where the open meaning assigned to it is clear, and suited to the context of the place in which it occurs, we have no right of ourselves to add another, and more especially an occult one, at variance with that context ; as such a liberty indulged in might lead to the wildest extravagancies. In the present instance, how- ever, which is a very remarkable one, while the primary sense of the verse is perfectly clear and consistent with the context, the secondary one is equally certain, being sanctioned by the authority of an inspired writer, and its want of coherence with the context only serves to show that it is to be separated from the body of the translation and put in a detached form in the margin. But the latter sense of this verse rests not solely upon in- spired authority, though an abundantly sufficient ground for its support. Upon a closer inspection of the Hebrew line, we shall, I think, be enabled to perceive, that it was all along in- tended to convey an occult meaning to this effect, whether the prophet, while writing it, was conscious, or not, of its admit- ting this interpretation. When a translator first turns his at- tention to this line, he very naturally and correctly interprets the initial group "^^j by a meaning which, though not the pri- mary one, it sometimes bears, that of the conjunction 'when ;' as, in fact, without this meaning being here assigned to it, the first clause of the verse (supposing the ellipsis therein to be filled up with the ordinary supplement of the verb substantive) would be senseless. In this manner the plain obvious inter- pretation of the clause in question comes out : ' When Yis- rahel was a child, then I loved him.' But, if the reader looks back to page 10 of the present volume, in which the princi- pal Greek translations of the entire verse are copied from a specimen of Ori gen's Hexapla preserved in the Barberini MS., he will find the above group construed in every one of them by a conjunction (either on or lion) attaching to it in this place its primary signification, ' because.' This circumstance, 2 B 2 338 ORIGINAL AMBIGUITY OF HE AFFIXED [Chap. IV. even independently of the inspired authority of St. Matthew, leads one to reconsider the clause before us, and to try whether the want of connexion, given to its parts by the primary sense of the particle '^D, may not be removed by some modifi- cation of the supplement which is to be introduced ; a re- medy which is naturally suggested by the elliptic style of the author. In this way we arrive at a more covert interpreta- tion of the same clause, involving a deeper sense of it than appears upon the surface, and which may be expressed in words to the following efiect : ' Because Yisrahel consented to become a child, therefore I love him.'* Conformably to this interpretation, that ofthe remaining portion of the verse (sup- posing its final group written in the same manner as in the time of St. Matthew) will come out thus : ' and I will surely call him my son, while in that state, out of Egypt.' The Evan- gelist, in quoting the purport of this latter part of the verse, has translated the verb in it literally by a Greek inflexion, sig- nifying, ' I have called ;'^ but it would perhaps be better, for " With respect to the tense of the verb included within ^HiinSI, the Ma- sorets have pointed this group, in accordance with the more obvious meaning of the entire verse, WaHoHaBeHU, with the vowel of the Waw conversive of the future lengthened, to compensate for the non-admittance of a dagesh into the aspirate Haleph; and the framers of our Authorized Version have translated it agreeably to the same meaning, ' then I loved him.' For the initial particle '^S having in this case the signification * when' applied to it, the correlative Waw must be translated ' then,' and so identifies the tense of the verb to which it is prefixed, with that of the verb substantive ' was,' which is supplied to fill the ellipse ofthe sentence. On the other hand, when the initial particle is construed ' because,' its correlative Waw becomes ' therefore,' and no longer exerts a conversive power on the tense of the following verb ; in con- sequence of which the same group must, for the less obvious meaning of the verse, be read WeHoHaBeHU, and translated ' therefore I love him,' or 'therefore I will love him.' But to the first of these renderings we are confined by the nature of the case before us ; for, as the effect expressed by the verb in the more hidden sense of the passage is not restricted by time, its tense must be understood as indefinite; and for such aoristic application of a verb the present tense is that fittest to be employed in English. ^ Although the Greek aorist iKokeaa admits of a reference to the future, Chap.IV.] to nouns ILLUSTKATED by examples. 339 the sake of readers unacquainted with Hebrew forms of ex- pression, to render the Greek verb in the body of our version of the New Testament according to the meaning it was in- tended to convey, ' I will surely call,' and to transfer to the margin its literal translation, under the head of a Hebraism. In fine, it is worth while to observe, how the cunning of the old vocalizers was here made the means of counteracting their own design. For while they unfairly attempted to give the Septuagint the false appearance of an incorrect translation, in order to undermine the credit of the powerful testimony it bears to the truth of Christianity, they were unconsciously help- ing to establish, by their vocalization, such a detached oracular reading of the sentence just analyzed as was highly corrobo- rative of Christian views. Yerily, if those scribes had been as intimately acquainted with the Gospel of St. Matthew as they were with the Septuagint, they would have cautiously ab- stained from tampering with the ambiguous group of this verse, and have vocalized it ^22/^ in accordance with the de- mands of the context, notwithstanding that their vocalization would have supported the correctness of the Greek rendering applied to it by the Seventy Jews. The second verse of the Hebrew passage under examina- tion, with two corrections applied to it, and with its Autho- rized English Translation subjoined, is as follows : ** J.5 they called them, so they went from them; they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burnt incense to graven images." The first step towards the removal of all incoherence between yet I assent to the commonly received opinion, that it was, in the place above alluded to, employed by St. John as a preterite tense; but still I maintain that it was so employed by him only in like manner as he must have read the ori- ginal word (nsip, QaRaHTi) in the corresponding place of the Hebrew text ; that is, as a preterite substituted for a future, to indicate the certainty of the prediction. 340 OEIGINAL AMBIGUITY OF ^J5; AFFIXED [Chap. IV. this verse and the preceding one has already been taken, by reading the ambiguous group above analyzed so as to confine it to the signification ' his descendants.' The two remaining steps consist in marking as redundant the vowel-letter at the end of the initial group of the verse now before us, so as to admit of this verb, put in a singular form, being read imper- sonally ; and in separating from each other the two groups "^^DD and DH, which were united into one by the Masorets, in utter disregard of the context. By means of these two cor- rections the translation of this verse mil come out changed as follows : ^ As one called them [namely, the descendants of Yishra- hel], so they receded fipom my presence ; they sacrificed unto the Bahals,* and burnt incense to graven images.' The separation of the groups "^^^D and DH is not only de- manded by the context, but is also supported by the joint and independent testimonies of the Septuagint and Peshitah ; as is evident from the commencing part of their respective trans- lations of the verse : Septuagint, KaOw^ fxereKoKeaa ahrom, ovtw9 a7rw')(ovTo Ik Trpoaw- TTOV fXOV' aUTOi, K. T. \.^ ' As I called them, so they receded from my presence; they,' &c. &c. Peshitah, ^-*-SDpO ^ cAil I-LDCti . ^Q-^l OrJO? y-A ' As that they called them, so they receded from before me.' "" That is, the false gods who were in common denominated Bahal, some of whom are mentioned in Scripture with distinctive titles subjoined, such as, Bahal-herith^ Judg. viii. 33 ; Bahal-zebuby 2 Kings, i. 2 ; ahal-pehor<, Num. XXV. 3. Baalim is employed in our Authorized Version to signify the word Baal taken in the plural number. But, as appears to me, this meaning is more naturally expressed in our language by adding to the word in question the English, rather than the Hebrew plural termination. ^ In the above line we may perceive that the expression, eV irpoawirov fiov, answers to ^D2D, and aviol to DH, of the original sentence; so that the Ma- sorets appear to have quite mistaken the use of the Yod at the end of the first Chap.IV.] to nouns illustrated by examples. 341 According to the joint representation of both versions, the original line would, if written fully, have commenced with "It^KD, 4n proportion as.' From the elliptic style, however, of the prophet, he may be easily conceived to have omitted this group, and left it to be understood, as implied by its cor- relative 1^, ' so.' But, with respect to the group with which the Hebrew line at present commences, the evidence of the Septuagint clearly proves that it was written in their time n^^")p, QaRaHTe, ' I called ;' and a corresponding correction of this text is further sustained by the context. For the very next verse commences with ^^^^Nl, ' moreover I myself did so and so/ where the particle prefixed to the pronoun indicates that the act there mentioned follows a previous one performed by the same speaker. The action, therefore, denoted by the verb now before us, was also his performance, and should be expressed likewise by an inflexion in the first person. As, however, the correction of the initial group, thus indicated by the context as well as by its Greek rendering, is not likemse supported by the testimony of the Peshitah f and as the sense may be preserved, though not so distinctly conveyed, by treat- group (which was there inserted to denote, not the plural number of the noun it follows, but the possessive pronoun of the first person), and to have jum- bled together two groups that not only should be kept separate, but even belong to different clauses of the verse. * The want of support from the Syriac version upon the above point does not tell positively against the Greek evidence on the same point, but merely serves to show that the missing n had dropped from the end of the group under examination in the interval between the times when the Septuagint and Peshitah were written. Nor does the testimony of the Syriac transla- tors upon this subject even go to the extent of proving that the letter in question was absolutely lost before their time, but only that it was wanting in the particular copies of the Hebrew text in their possession. The second part of the Chaldee paraphrase, called the Targum of Jonathan, which appears to be erroneously ascribed to the same author as the first, was not composed till many centuries after the Peshitah ; and yet the first two groups of the above verse are therein rendered as follows: l^nb SSbsb "^"^DD n^nbt:?, ' I sent my prophets to instruct them;' a rendering which, however loose 342 ORIGINAL AMBIGUITY OF ffl^; AFFIXED [Chap. IV. ing the word in question as a verb impersonally used, the adoption of this expedient, which requires the rejection of only an interpolated vowel-letter, appears preferable to an altera- tion relating to an original element of the sacred text. The part of the third verse which here comes under exa- mination, with the requisite corrections marked, and the prin- cipal English translations of it subjoined in the order of their dates, as also the Greek, Syriac, and Chaldee renderings of this part, accompanied by their respective literal interpretations, are as follows : Hebrew, ^v un^pbi. .Dn^K^ ^n^j-iCHin ^:)^^i Coverdale's Bible, \ I lerned Ephraim to go, and bare them Cranmer's Bible, ) in myne armes ; Geneva Bible, I led Ephraim also^ [as one] should beare the in his armes ; Parker's Bible, I gave to Ephraim one to leade hym,f who shoulde beare t Moses. him in his armes : it may be, yet plainly indicates that the verb here paraphrased must have been in the first person, and that the two Hebrew groups referred to were written Urh 'TISHp, in the copies of the sacred record consulted by the author of this Targum. * The above conjunction is removed from its proper place, and its applica- tion shifted from the act just previously mentioned to the object of that act, apparently for the purpose of avoiding the awkwardness of attributing a second action to the speaker, where, according to the existing state of the Hebrew text, none is expressly ascribed to him in the preceding sentence. But this dislocation is quite inadmissible; as the object here specified is the same as that before mentioned, though recorded under a different designation, the name of a single tribe being substituted for that of the entire nation ; and, accordingly, we may perceive, this change of designation is not adopted in the Chaldee paraphrase of this sentence. I notice this error in the Geneva Bible, only because it has been thence transferred into our present Autho- rized Version; for, as to a separate examination of the older English render- ings of the passage in question, it would require a long digression, without any compens^ating advantage. Chap.IV.] to nouns ILLUSTKATED by examples. 343 King James's Bihle^ " I taught Ephraim also to go, taking them by their arms ;" Septuagintj Kal lyw avueTrohiaa rov 'EippaljUL^ aviKa^ov aVTOV em top ^payjova /jlov' Moreover I myself swathed the feet of Ephraim, I took him up on my arm ; Peshitah, -^h ^ v^l A\r:^o -.Ui^i^]! Ajjd? |j1o Moreover I myself led Hephrayim, and I took them on my arms [or, on my arm] f Second part of Tar- ^^^^^l,^^^ ^l,^^^,l, ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^ gum of Jonathan^ i t^m bv *7^ Moreover I, even I, by a messenger sent from before me, led Yisrahel in the right way, and I carried them, as it were, on the arms. The translation of the above Hebrew line which accords with the corrections marked in it, and results from the ensuing in- vestigation, runs thus, ' Moreover I myself swathed the feet of the Hephra3dmites,^ taking them in my arms.' The first correction of the Hebrew line is made in conformity with the generally received opinion (of the justness of which there can scarcely be a doubt), that the verb of the first clause, whatever may be its precise meaning, is in the Hiphil modifi- cation, and consequently should be made to commence with * The noun in the final group of the above Syriac line is at present re- stricted to the plural number by the Ribui mark: but before that mark (which can scarcely be supposed coeval with the Peshitah) was attached to this noun, it, just in like manner as the equivalent one in the corresponding Hebrew group, admitted of being read in either the singular or plural form. ^ The above noun is, in the original sentence, exhibited in thg singular number; but the plural pronoun referring to it evidently shows that it is there employed in a plural sense ; and I have in consequence translated it in a plural form, not only for the purpose of adhering to its meaning in this place, but also in order to avoid an incoherence between it and the following pronoun. 344 ORIGINAL AMBIGUITY OF ^^ AFFIXED [Chap. IV. a He instead of a Taw, The two remaining corrections will be accounted for as the investigation proceeds. The utter impossibility of making sense of the Hebrew line in its exist- ing state is strongly marked by the discrepancies between its successive English translations, each of which virtually con- demns the preceding one; and, I must add, the last of them is just as vulnerable as any of those previously adopted. To point out an inaccuracy that appears even on the surface of the present authorized rendering of the sentence, and which, on the supposition of the original line being in a correct state of preservation, must be deemed a very gross one, all that is necessary is to compare the expression ' upon his arms,^ which conveys the literal meaning of the last two groups with that which our translators have substituted for it, ' by their arms!' It is, however, much easier to point out errors than to cor- rect them ; and in order to effecting a due correction in the present case, it will be requisite to push our inquiries more deeply into the subject. In this investigation two very per- plexing difficulties impede our progress. The first is occa- sioned by the occurrence of a verb in the Hiphil^ or causative modification, which is nowhere else in the sacred text to be met with in that state. The primary signification of this verb in its Kal state is weU known, namely, 'to move the feet,' that is, ' to walk,' or, in a more general sense, ' to go ;' and if the meaning of its Hiphil state were thence derived in accordance with the usual force of this modification, the verb would, in the latter state, bear some such interpretation as 'to cause to walk,' Ho teach to walk,' 'to cause to go,' 'to lead,' &c., &c. But in very numerous instances, verbs in the Hiphil state are employed in senses quite distinct from any that are usually connected with this state ; and in the present instance the Hiphil inflexion of the verb in question has a peculiar signification of this sort assigned to it by the Seventy, while it has been interpreted by all sub- sequent translators with some meaning or other in accordance Avith the ordinary force of the Hiphil modification. Before wc can determine which kind of signification will suit the Chap. IV.] TO NOUNS ILLUSTRATED BY EXAMPLES. 345 context of this place, the second of the difficulties in our way must be surmounted, and the point be ascertained, with what affix the final group of the line should be read. This diffi- culty, however, which has hitherto baffled all inquiry, can now be easily disposed of From what has been proved in the last chapter, it will be seen that ITtJ/"]")! was originally written nni/lt, which, among other readings for the affix of the third person singular, admitted of being uttered ZeRoKoTheRti, ' his arms ;' while, on the other hand, from what has been shown in the present chapter, it equally follows, that the ori- ginal nUi/IT might also be read ZeEoHaTheH, 'my arm,' or ZeRoKoThaiH, ' my arms ;' for each of which readings it would in common be vocalized '^ili/l'IT. But the Seventy having translated this group for one of the latter readings, the Jewish scribes of the second century, according to their usual practice, vocalized it for the former pronunciation, without waiting to try whether the sense resulting from this reading could be reconciled with the context. Hence arose the utter incohe- rency of this sentence ; and, consequently, it cannot be re- stored to an intelligible state, without changing the vocalization of its final group to that required for the reading which is indicated by both the Greek and Syriac renderings thereof in common. As soon as the last element of this group is, for this purpose, marked to be passed over unused, and the ante- penultimate group has got its initial element (/) restored, so as to put its verb in the form of the Benoni participle,"" we shall find the meaning of the second clause of the line to be, ^ taking them upon my arm,' or ' taking them upon my arms,' or (sub- stituting for the latter phrase the equivalent English one) ' taking them in my arms.' We are now at last advanced to a condition in which we can form a just estimate of the various senses assigned to the * In the present state of the group in question, without the addition above recommended, it signifies 'take thou them,' an expression which is quite senseless in the place referred to. 346 OEIGINAL AMBIGUITY OF iy^ AFFIXED [Chap. IV. verb in the first clause ; and the immediate effect of this ad- vancement is at once to show us, that not one of the meanings attributed to it upon the assumption of its primary significa- tion being modified according to the ordinary force of the Hiphilj or causative state of verbs, is here admissible. For we cannot be said ' to cause children to walk,' or ' to teach them to walk,' or ' to make them go,' or ' to lead them,' while we are taking them in our arms ; we cannot be said Ho lead children,' at the very time that we are carrying them : the two statements are quite inconsistent, they cannot possibly hold at the same time. On the other hand, the meaning given to the above verb by the Seventy avvnobi^w^ ^to tie the feet together,' 'to bind the feet in chains,' ' to fetter one,' and consequently, in reference to infants, ' to swathe their feet,' is not at all liable to' the same objection. For it is the most natural time to take children in our arms, when they are deprived of the power of moving their feet : and although, in the British islands, only new-born infants are thus confined in their limbs, yet even to this day on the continent of Europe children may be seen, as long as they are fed at the breast, swathed with linen or flan- nel bands, rolled not only round their lower extremities, but also about their arms, so as to render them as motionless as Egyptian mummies. We may, therefore, easily conceive the lesser degree of confinement of the Jewish infants in former times (extending only to their under limbs) which is implied in the old Grecian interpretation of the verb before us. Be- sides, this interpretation is not only unobjectionable in itself, but it is also positively recommended by the peculiar force and propriety it attaches to the metaphor which Hosea here employs, as a picture of the utter inability of the Israelites to move in a right direction by their own exertions, without the aid of God. According to the writers of the present Autho- rized Enghsh Version, the prophet draws this picture of the descendants of Israel or Ephraim, by comparing them to children who are already entering upon an attempt to make use of their feet ; but, according to the framers of the Septua- Chap.IV.] to nouns illustrated BYEXAMPLES. 347 gint, the children referred to for an illustration of the subject were entirely destitute of locomotive power. If from consi- dering the internal evidence, both positive and negative, with which the interpretation just analyzed is supported, we turn our attention to the nature of the testimony on which it rests, surely we can find no authority so high upon the point in ques- tion as that of the Seventy Jews. No other witnesses can now be appealed to upon this point, who lived so near the time when Hebrew was spoken as a living language, or who could be so familiar with the customs upon which the peculiar mean- ings of many of the words of that language must have de- pended. The great value of the Septuagint has been exhibited in the course of this investigation in a very conspicuous point of view, and is here illustrated, among other ways, by the striking fact which the sentence quoted from the second part of the Targum of Jonathan discloses ; namely, that the true meaning of the verb last examined is obliterated and entirely lost among the Jews, which it could not have become, till after they had abandoned the use of this version. On account of the importance of the errors produced through the ambiguity of the original affix He^ I shall add two more instances of the designed misvocalization of this affix by the Jewish scribes of the second century ; taken, one of them from the writings of the E-oyal Psalmist, and the other from the Proverbs of Solomon. The former ex- ample, as exhibited in the present state of the Hebrew text, with the discrepant English renderings of it that are now sanc- tioned, both of them at the same time, by the authority of our Church, and also its oldest Greek and Syriac translations, with their literal interpretations subjoined to them respectively, stands thus : 348 ORIGINAL AMBIGUITY OF HE AFFIXED [Chap. IV. Ps. lix. 10, n-)Dt^>^ -f^Sj^ ^r;;. Prayer-booh^ " My strength will I ascribe unto thee."* King Jameses Bible, " Because of his strength will I wait upon thee."" Septuagint, To Kparo^ fxov irpo^ ae (pvXd^w. ' My strength will I guard unto thee.' Feshitah, v^^ng] j^ lai^ ' O God, I will glorify thee.' It being clear, from what has been already proved upon the subject, that the original form of the initial group of the He- brew line before us was HtJ/, which might, considered by it- self, be read either HwZZoH, ' his strength,' according to its pre- * An equal discrepancy is observable between the English translations of the above clause which were sanctioned for about forty years before the pub- lication of our present Authorized Version, while Parker's, or that called the Bishop's Bible, was in use : but it was then more glaring, in consequence of the discordant renderings being inserted in parallel columns opposite to each other in that earlier version. Brought together for the purpose of immediate comparison, in like manner as those at present authorized are above, they stand thus : "My strength will I ascribe unto thee." " I will reserve his strength for thee." To the latter of these is attached the marginal supplement: " for to vanquishe Saul my cheefe enemie." The earlier translation of the Psalms, which is the same in our prayer-book and in Parker's Bible, is, with the exception of some difference in the spelling, taken exactly from Cranmer's Bible ; but, in the case of the clause before us, as well as in some other instances, the older ren- derings may be traced still higher up to Coverdale's Bible. The translation of the same clause in the Geneva Bible, from which the later of the two at present authorized is derived, is as follows: *'He is strong [but] Iwilwaite upon thee;" to which is annexed in the margin this paraphrase or explanatory note: " Though Saul have never so great power, yet I know that thou doest bridle him." Now upon a comparison of the three later renderings with the earlier one, it will be found in each instance to have been altered much for the worse; and the like observation applies to a great number of other changes also, of which those before us may be taken as a sample. Yet the Chap. IV.] TO NOUNS ILLUSTKATED BY EXAMPLES. 349 sent vocalization, or HwZZiH, ' my strength,' according to its Greek interpretation, ^the question in which way it should be here taken is plainly decided in favour of the latter reading, not only by the very superior authority of the Seventy Inter- preters to that of the Jewish vocalizers of the second century, but also by the context and the very forced nature of the con- struction to which the framers of our Authorized Version were compelled to resort in consequence of their adherence to the former reading. Through that construction they have ascribed great obscurity, if not actual incoherence of style, to the original composition, by referring the term signifying ' strength' to a person never once mentioned in this Psalm,^ and, still further, have run counter to the open character and steady loyalty of David, by representing him as darkly writing against his so- vereign in a hymn addressed to God,^ They had, I grant, no blame of this deterioration is not to be thrown upon the Protestant translators. They acted with an honest and conscientious determination to adhere closely to what they conceived to be the original text, no matter what the consequence might be ; and though their labours were not at once crowned with success, yet those labours prepared the way for, and have supplied the initiatory steps to a result of the highest value, the detection of the original state of the sacred text and the consequent removal of a vast number of incoherencies with which it has long been embarrassed. The very fact, indeed, of their successive translations being found to betray a greater number of incoheren- cies, according as they were made with stricter fidelity and care, has assisted in conducting to this result, by pointing attention in the right direction, and showing that there was something wrong to be searched for in the existing state of the original record. * The name of Saul occurs in a short introductory notice, which, though exhibited in the present state of the Hebrew text as part of the above Psalm, is clearly shown by its purport to be not so ; and, accordingly, it is translated as a mere heading to this Psalm in the Septuagint and the last three Autho- rized English Versions, while it is altogether omitted in the Peshitah and the first Authorized English Version. ^ The above imputation against David, which is more strongly conveyed in the Authorized Version that immediately preceded the one now in use, as well as in the Geneva Bible, is very strikingly refuted by the account given of his conduct with respect to Saul in the twenty-fourth and twenty-sixth chapters of the first Book of Samuel. 350 ORIGINAL AMBIGUITY OF //^AFFIXED [Chap. IV. alternative but to adopt this very objectionable representation of the subject, or deviate from what they held to be the ge- nuine text of the Psalm, as it came from the pen of its inspired author. How gladly, then, would those learned men have availed themselves of the means at last obtained of escaping from this very distressing dilemma, if the present discovery had come within their reach ! The main point, which of the possessive pronouns is in- cluded in the signification of the initial group, having been now determined, the entire clause, as far as depends upon gram- matical views, still admits of two constructions. For, if the verb n^C^ in this clause be taken in its primary sense of * guarding,' it must be referred immediately to some object dif- ferent from God ; as it would be a vain and indeed an impious boast of feeble man, to speak of ' guarding' or ' preserving' the Almighty : and, on the other hand, if it be applied directly to God, then we must search for some one of its secondary meanings which is compatible with that application of it, as well as consistent with the force of the preposition 7^^. Ac- cording to the choice made between these two plans of con- struction, the rendering of the clause will come out equivalent to one or other of the following sentences : ' My strength I will guard unto thee (that is, will keep for thy service).' ' my strength, I will look unto thee (or will attend unto thee, or will wait upon thee).' Grammar scarcely decides between these two modes of dealing with the clause. But, if we take into consideration the style of language employed by David, according to which he frequently addresses the Deity by the designation, ' my strength,' and more especially if we reflect on the pious humility of spirit which led him to depend, not at all on his own strength, but on the power of God, we shall, I think, see strong reasons for preferring the latter mode. The Syriac translators, though under the disadvantage of con- sulting a copy of the sacred text from which the initial group had dropped, appear to have approached nearer to the true Chap.IV.] to nouns illustrated by examples. 351 bearing and tenor of the clause than the Seventy.^ In general, indeed, the Septuagint is our highest uninspired authority for determining the meaning of difficult passages of the Old Tes- tament ; but, in the particular instance now before us, its framers allowed their judgments to be fettered and cramped by too rigid an adherence to the primary signification of the verb ^D^. In fine, I submit, there can be no doubt that the initial group should be written "iL^^lTi/, in an edition of the He- brew text amended according to my plan of notation : and, although there may be some difference of opinion, not as to the tenor of the analyzed line, but as to the best selection of words for its expression, I would, from a desire to keep as close as I could to the present Authorized Version, venture to recommend the following translation of it : ' my strength, I will wait upon thee.' The Hebrew line which supplies my second additional example of the ambiguity under examination, and the trans- lations of this line in the successively Authorized English Ver- sions, as well as in the Geneva Bible, also its oldest Greek and Syriac renderings, and its Chaldee paraphrase, with their re- spective literal interpretations, are here submitted to the rea- der's inspection. Ecci ii. 25, ? ^^DD fin mr\> ^Di ^:d^^^ "^d ^d Coverdale's Bible, " For who maye eate, drynke, or bry nge eny thige to passe without Him [that is, with- out the permission of God]?" Cranmer's ditto, " For who wiU eat, or go more lustely to hys worcke then I ?" " The circumstance of the Syriac interpreters having translated n"lDK7N in the above clause by the verb k>0 , one of whose significations is ' to sing praises,' aiFords some reason to suspect that the Hebrew word was writ- ten in their copies of the text m^TS, ' I will sing praises.' Upon the sup- position of this being the real state of the case, their translation of the clause, I admit, would yield no assistance in determining the sense of it, as written in any copy now extant. 2 c 352 OEIGINAL AMBIGUITY OF //E AFFIXED [Chap. IV. Geneva Bible, Parher's ditto^ King James's do. Septuagint, Peshitah, Targum, " For who could eat, and who could haste to outward things more then I ?" " For who wyl eate, or goe more lustily to his worke then I ?" " For who can eat, or who else can hasten hereunto more than I ?" OTL tU (payerai, kol tU Trlerai Trape^ avrov ; For who shall eat, or who shall drink without Him? OlilD ;*^V "JA m 1 Q_iVco -.^OrDlj QJLlDj ^\^^ Because that who shall eat, or who shall drink without Him? Because who is he that has been occupied with the words of the law, and who is that man who has anxiety about the day of the great judgment pre- pared for the dead, besides me ? The incorrect vocalization of an ambiguous group, as origi- nally written, is, if possible, still more glaring in the present example than in the preceding one. The point having been already ascertained respecting the final group of the Hebrew line now before us, that its original form was Jl^D^, which might be read either MzMmeNnzH, ^ from me,' M^'MmeNHw, ' from him,' or MeMmeNn^H, ' from her' (of which, however, only the first and second come here under consideration, as nothing is previously mentioned in the line itself, or the preceding ones, to which the feminine affix of the third reading could be referred); and the effect produced upon the preposition of this group by combining it with the preceding adverb, pH, KhwS, ' outside,' being to change its force into ' without' or ' besides;"" it follows that the combination of the last two " The compound expression )'0 y^H is not to be found in any other part of the Hebrew Bible except in the above line ; but the Chaldee and Syriac combi- nations by which it is translated ()f2 I'D, and _.Ld ,'n\) occur sufficiently often in the Targums and Peshitah respectively, to have their significations Chap.IV.] to nouns illustrated by examples. 353 groups of the line admits, before any further limitations are brought into view, of four significations, ' without him,^ or ' besides him,' for the vocalization of the very last I^DD, and ' without me,' or ' besides me' for the vocalization of the same group "^^DD, But on more particularly considering the cir- cumstances of the case under examination, the last three of these interpretations will be found quite inapplicable to it. For if each of them be in succession placed after the transla- tion of the part of the line whose meaning is perfectly ascer- tained, and the verb of doubtful sense (which, however, is only supplemental, and afiects not the general scope of the sentence) be for the present omitted,"" the author's question will come out diversified as follows : * For who can eat . . . besides him (that is, besides God)?' ' For who can eat . . . besides me (that is, besides Solomon)?* ' For who can eat . . . without me (that is, without Solo- mon's permission)?' But in every one of these representations of his query some assertion is implied which is manifestly false. With regard to the first representation, besides that it is very unlikely that a pure Spirit eats a point beyond our means of discussing with respect to the Supreme Being it is obviously false that no one else can eat. With regard to the second, it is equally false that no one could eat except Solomon at the period when he wrote ; and with regard to the third, it is not only false, but also would have been impious on the part of this monarch to maintain, that no one could eat without his permission. well ascertained, and to show that it denotes, according to the demands of the context, either ' without' or * besides.' The same meanings of this Hebrew expression may also be deduced from its Grecian equivalent, the compound preposition irape^. - To warrant the rejection of an incorrect translation, no more need be quoted than its objectionable part; but when another comes to be recom- mended in its stead, the whole of the new one must, of course, be submitted to inspection. 2 c 2 354 OKIGINAL AMBIGUITY OF ^j^ AFFIXED [Chap.IV. Thus, by the method of exclusions, we are conducted to the first interpretation of the final pair of groups ; and if this in- terpretation be tried in the rendering of the Hebrew line, the meaning not only will come out free from objection, but also mil positively recommend itself to our moral convictions by the soundness of the doctrine it inculcates. This result, I grant, is arrived at only through the general bearing of the sentence (the exact signification of the second verb as therein employed not being perfectly ascertained); but still, I think, it will be found to hold its ground upon our taking the follow- ing view of the subject. The inspired author having, in the preceding verse, recommended a moderate enjoyment of the fruits of a man's labour, and observed, " This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God," here in the present verse subjoins, in support of this remark, the following query : "" For who can eat, or who can hasten thereto^ without Him (that is, without His permission)?" This statement, made through the medium of an interrogative form, is, notwith- standing some obscurity in its supplemental portion, well suited to a religious and moral treatise, being to the general effect, that every blessing we enjoy, even of the lowest kind, comes from God, and that his Providence reaches to the mi- nutest circumstances of human life : so that it bears some analogy to the teaching of our Saviour, as conveyed in the fol- lowing passage : " Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? yet one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered : fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many spar- rows." Matt. X. 29-31. But the meaning of the principal part of the Hebrew line thus deduced from the internal evidence of the case is abundantly confirmed by testimony : its trans- lations in the Septuagint and Peshitah, though made quite independently of each other, are absolutely identical in their bearing. These translations, indeed, do not throw any light on the sense of the second Hebrew verb (and only serve to show that it was a different one, in ancient copies of the sacred Chap.IV.] to nouns illustrated by examples. 355 text,* from what it has as yet been found in, I believe, any of those now extant) ; but still the external evidence they afford is perfect and complete with respect to the solution of the main difficulty of the case the fact that the final group of the above line was read by both the Greek and the Syriac translators with the affix of the third, instead of the first person singular; so that a conformable change of its vocalization is not only indispensably required by the context, but also is actually warranted by the highest combination of uninspired authori- ties that could possibly be brought to bear upon the subject. There can then, I submit, be no doubt but that, supposing my plan of notation to be adopted in an amended edition of the Hebrew text, the final group of the analyzed line should be ^ ^ o therein written "^HlJ^D. The value of the correction just established is strikingly illustrated, not only by the failure of every attempt to pene- trate, without its aid, the meaning of the Hebrew line in ques- tion, but also by the objectionable nature of the means which, for want of it, men were led to employ, in their efibrts to make out an interpretation of this sentence in any degree plausible. In this way, it may be observed, the Chaldee para- phraser was here induced to violate truth, deviating altogether from the ascertained part of the meaning of the sentence, and * The Greek and Syriac renderings of the Hebrew line in question, both of them, in common prove the meaning of its second verb, in the copies con- sulted by the framers of the Septuagint and Peshitah, to have been, * can drink;' but the latter rendering proves still further its form in those copies to have been nntl?'', YiShTheH, with which the corresponding word of the Syriac line (A-J, NeShTheH, is identical in root, and only varied in its in- flexion in consequence of the difference of dialect. In respect, therefore, to this word, the Syriac version may be looked upon as more than a mere trans- lation, and rather as, in some measure, an edition of the original record. Yet I would not, in consequence, venture to substitute nntt?'^ for W^Tl"^ in the Hebrew line: as the Hebrew copies must still be our main guide with respect to the original elements of the sacred text; nor can it be shown that the Jews ever changed designedly any of those elements, except in a very few instances bearing upon Christian views. 356 OKIGINAL AMBIGUITY OF i^^ AFFIXED [Chap.IV. attributing to Solomon a foreknowledge of the final day of judgment, a day which is nowhere mentioned in the whole range of his extant writings. This part, indeed, of the Tar- gum referred to is entitled to attention only on the point relating to the structure of the original sentence, in which the paraphraser agrees with the framers of the Septuagint and Peshitah, viz., that the last two groups should be considered as combined in their meanings, and accordingly be translated together. On the other hand, the English translators are entirely free from any imputation of intentional misrepresen- tation; but still, unwarrantable steps were taken by all of them to arrive at their respective renderings of the above line. The nearest approach efi'ected by any of them to a correct in- terpretation of the sentence is that exhibited in Coverdale's, or the first Authorized Version ; but it was made on the principle of preferring the Greek rendering of this sentence to its original, a principle which could not be justified, as Co- verdale was unable to show how and where the Hebrew line was corrupted. At the same time, I must add that, consider- ing the circumstances of the case, his attempt displays won- derful sagacity and strength of intellect. Afterwards, however, yielding to the prevailing opinion respecting the 'Hebrew verity,' as it has been termed, or the perfect preservation of the sacred text in its original state, he abandoned this trans- lation; as may be concluded from the subsequent English ones adduced by me, some of which are taken from versions in whose formation he acted the part of superintendent, or at least that of a very important assister. All these, in direct opposition to the so far united decisions of the Greek, the Syriac, and the Chaldee translators, are formed upon the plan of construction whereby the interpretation of the last group is separated from that of the preceding one, without which contrivance it could not be rendered, as it is in each of them, * more than I,* or by some expression to the same effect. The expedients, however, through which this rendering has been arrived at, not only are at variance with the oldest authori- Chap.IV.] to nouns ILLUSTKATED BY EXAMPLES. 357 ties on the subject, but also can be proved untenable upon intrinsic grounds. For, in tlie first place, with respect to the Geneva Bible and our present Authorized Version, the penul- timate group (Y'in) has in the former work been separated from the last by interpreting it in connexion with the one before, instead of that after it, ' could haste to outward things,' an interpretation of very doubtful correctness, and which, besides, is scarcely intelligible in the place where it is inserted ; while, in the latter w^ork, that with which w^e are most concerned, the separation in question has been efiected in a still more objectionable manner, by translating the above group by the word 'else' in an earlier part of the sentence, whence has resulted the form of inquiry, ' who else can.' But if we consider the bearing of this form in connexion with the rest of the sentence, we shall find it actually equivalent to the following one, ' who besides me can ;' so that the planners of this construction virtually translated the last two groups by the word ' else ;' and, after so doing, they had certainly no right to give a second rendering of one of thosfe groups, and interpret it by the expression 'more than I,' at the end of the passage. In the second place, wdth respect to all the adduced Eng- lish translations of this line subsequent to that extracted from Coverdale's Bible, if we omit what is peculiar to each, in order to judge of the effect common to all of the change of the final words introduced by their respective framers, the general bear- ing of Solomon's question will be altered from the immediate sense of the first to that of the second of the following lines : ' For who can eat,' &:c., &c., 'besides me?' 'For who can eat,' &c., &c., 'more than I canr According to the transition here exhibited, the royal mora- lizer, indeed, is no longer represented as virtually stating that he w^as the only glutton among the human beings of his day ; but the assertion comes out nearly as objectionable, that he was as great a glutton as any of them, a boast which, now 358 ORIGINAL AMBIGUITY OF i7^ AFFIXED [Chap. IV. that it has been divested of all claim to being a correct inter- pretation of an uncorrupted passage of the original text, I have no hesitation in pronouncing far more suited to Sarda- napalus, than to the wisest of men. To this view of the mat- ter it would be in vain to object, that the author is not here boasting of what he could do at the time of his writing, or would thenceforward do, but stating with regret what he had for- merly done, and making this admission merely for the sake of obtaining greater weight for his opinion upon the subject, as that of a person speaking from experience. To justify this representation, some words to the effect, ' formerly did,' should have come after the pronoun, ' I,' in the English translation ; without which the verb understood after this pronoun must be taken in the same tense as those expressed in the preceding part of the verse. But it is quite plain that the Hebrew text, even in its existing state, does not warrant the introduction of any such supplement. These observations are not made with any intention of censuring the several sets of learned men referred to : in fact, under the circumstances of the case it was impossible for them to succeed in what they attempted, namely, to give a faithful translation of the above Hebrew line in its existing state, and at the same time to produce a sentence free from objection. Surely, then, the blame of their failures should be cast, not on them, but on the Jewish scribes who occasioned the impossibility in question, by misvocalizing the last group of this line, whereby they changed a fine, moral sentence into the disgusting boast of a person represented as indulging in the grossest sensualities. Certainly the hatred the old vocalizers bore against the Septuagint, on account of the support it yields to Christianity, must have been excessive, when, from the eagerness of their desire to fasten on this ver- sion an appearance of inaccuracy, they were induced to resort to means which at the same time contributed, in the present instance and that previously examined, to lower the charac- ters of the two most distinguished of their sovereigns. Possibly they were not, while vocalizing the sacred text, aAvare of the full Chap.IV.] to nouns illustrated by examples. 359 consequence of the misvocalizations adopted by them m those instances ; but if this was the case, it only serves to show with what extreme precipitation they must have executed their task. It remains that I should make a few remarks on the word t^'in"^, which is in the above line of no very certain significa- tion. The primary meaning of this verb, and the only one in which it is well ascertained to be used in the sacred text, ' to hasten,' cannot be applied to it here without much obscurity ; in consequence of which some secondary meaning of it that would suit the context has been sought for among the cognate dialects. This mode of supplying what is here wanted would perhaps be effectual, if we could consult books in those dialects written as far back as the days of Solomon. But the very oldest works of the kind now accessible are dated more than a thousand years after the age in which he flourished ; and, in living languages, the secondary senses of words are liable to a vast amount of change in the course of so long an interval. Hence it appears to me to be a safer mode of proceeding to search for some meaning of the verb, Ji^lH, which is connected with its primary sense, and at the same time consistent with the general scope of the analyzed sentence ; while, as a check upon the looseness of the interpretation thus determined, the primary sense of this word might be added in the margin. Now the expression, ' to take a pleasure in,' conforms to both of the prescribed conditions ; as, on the one hand, it will be found not to alter the general bearing of the sentence ; and, on the other, the act it denotes is naturally connected with that represented by ' hastening to :' for we are apt to hasten only to those occupations which are pleasing to us. Upon these grounds I would venture to recommend the following translation of the line just examined : " For who can eat, or who can^ take any * neb. hasten thereto. pleasure therein^ without him ?" The assistance formerly afforded to readers by the para- gogic He was greater than what it would now seem to have 360 FORMERLY A HINT NOT ALWAYS GIVEN [Chap.IV. been : because this letter has been suffered to remain in the Hebrew Scriptures only where it follows the A sound ; and the places where that sound should in the course of read- ing be uttered, have, since the interpolation of vowel-letters, been in a great measure indicated by the mere absence there- from of Yod and Waw, With respect to the rate of frequency of occurrence of this paragogic element, the state of the sacred text appears to be exactly the same now as from the first, in the case of groups whose pronunciation is closed with the sound of the A vowel ; since we have no ground for suppos- ing that the old vocalizers ever erased it except when they inserted a mater lectionis, and they made no such insertion for the expression of this vowel, in, at any rate, the final syl- lable of Hebrew words."" For the same reason we may con- clude that no paragogic He was originally employed, where there is not one now to be found at the end of groups which ought to be read with the / or Z7 sound at their close, but which the old vocalizers failed to mark for such readings by the insertion of matres lectionis corresponding to those sounds.^ It is, therefore, only in cases where a Yod or Waw has been actually inserted at the end of a group, that an erasure of the paragogic element in question is to be sought for ; and al. though the number of such erasures can now no longer be exactly ascertained, yet there is reason to think that it was but small in proportion to the whole number of Hebrew groups at present closed by one or other of those vowel-let- ters. For, as we have already seen, this element occasionally served to give a hint of the / sound of the Hebrew possessive pronoun of the first person singular ; and its aid was certainly ^ An instance has been given in the preceding part of this chapter of a paragogic He following the A sound, which was erased to make room for a vocalic Halephy in the case of the pronoun originally written n2S ; but it was when this pronoun was employed, not as a Hebrew, but as a Chaldee word. ^ The present discovery serves to expose in the sacred text a vast number of the failures above described of the first set of vocalizers ; and some of them are to be seen attested even by the pointing of the second set. Chap.IV.] of /or ^ sound at the end of WOEDS. 361 far more wanted by an ancient reader thus to suggest to him the vocal fragment of an addition to be made to the word under his inspection, than merely to intimate a regular vocal termination of that word : yet instances can be adduced of its non-employment for the more requisite service, whence we may fairly infer that it was often omitted in cases where its use was less wanted. I shall here bring forward two examples of the omission of the paragogic He in the original state of the Hebrew text, where it would have served to suggest the / sound of the above-mentioned affix : one of them in which a Yod was afterwards in like manner omitted by the old vo- calizers, and the other where it was inserted by them, for the purpose of denoting that affix. The former example occurs in the Hebrew passage which is, in our Authorized Version, thus translated : " For I spake not unto your fathers nor commanded them, in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, con- cerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices ;" Jer. vii. 22. The part of the original of this extract here to be con- sidered, and the oldest Greek and Syriac renderings of that part, together with a literal interpretation subjoined to each, as follows : Hebrew Text, Dnvfli pi^D Dni J^'^V'in Dl^l In the day of the bringing of them out of the land of Egypt. ^ Septuagint, Iv y/mepa y di/rf/a In the day that I made them ascend from the land of Egypt. The circumstance of the group ^^'^y1^ (a verb in the infi- nitive mood used in the above Hebrew line as a noun) hav- ing no Yod written immediately after it, reveals the fact that 360 FORMERLY A HINT NOT ALWAYS GIVEN [Chap.IV. been : because this letter has been suffered to remain in the Hebrew Scriptures only where it follows the A sound ; and the places where that sound should in the course of read- ing be uttered, have, since the interpolation of vowel-letters, been in a great measure indicated by the mere absence there- from of Yod and Waw. With respect to the rate of frequency of occurrence of this paragogic element, the state of the sacred text appears to be exactly the same now as from the first, in the case of groups whose pronunciation is closed with the sound of the A vowel ; since we have no ground for suppos- ing that the old vocalizers ever erased it except when they inserted a mater lectionis, and they made no such insertion for the expression of this vowel, in, at any rate, the final syl- lable of Hebrew words.^ For the same reason we may con- clude that no paragogic He was originally employed, where there is not one now to be found at the end of groups which ought to be read with the I ov U sound at their close, but which the old vocalizers failed to mark for such readings by the insertion of matres lectionis corresponding to those sounds.^ It is, therefore, only in cases where a Yod or Waw has been actually inserted at the end of a group, that an erasure of the paragogic element in question is to be sought for ; and al- though the number of such erasures can now no longer be exactly ascertained, yet there is reason to think that it was but small in proportion to the whole number of Hebrew groups at present closed by one or other of those vowel-let- ters. For, as we have already seen, this element occasionally served to give a hint of the / sound of the Hebrew possessive pronoun of the first person singular ; and its aid was certainly ^ An instance has been given in the preceding part of this chapter of a paragogic He following the A sound, which was erased to make room for a vocalic Haleph^ in the case of the pronoun originally written n3S ; but it was when this pronoun was employed, not as a Hebrew, but as a Chaldee word. ^ The present discovery serves to expose in the sacred text a vast number of the failures above described of the first set of vocalizers ; and some of them are to be seen attested even by the pointing of the second set. Chap.IV.] of /or ^SOUND ATTHEENDOF WOEDS. 361 far more wanted by an ancient reader thus to suggest to him the vocal fragment of an addition to be made to the word under his inspection, than merely to intimate a regular vocal termination of that word : yet instances can be adduced of its non-employment for the more requisite service, whence we may fairly infer that it was often omitted in cases where its use was less wanted. I shall here bring forward two examples of the omission of the paragogic He in the original state of the Hebrew text, where it would have served to suggest the / sound of the above-mentioned affix : one of them in which a Yod was afterwards in like manner omitted by the old vo- calizers, and the other where it was inserted by them, for the purpose of denoting that affix. The former example occurs in the Hebrew passage which is, in our Authorized Version, thus translated : " For I spake not unto your fathers nor commanded them, in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, con- cerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices ;" Jer. vii. 22. The part of the original of this extract here to be con- sidered, and the oldest Greek and Syriac renderings of that part, together with a literal interpretation subjoined to each, as follows : Hebrew Text, D^vJli pi^lD Dn1^^ .^'^V^H Dl^l In the day of the bringing of them out of the land of Egypt. ^ Septuagintj Iv rifxepa y avTfywyov avTom Ik ytj^ AlyvTnov. In the day in which I brought them up from the land of Egypt. Peshitah, r^'5^? "^^'1 ^ ^1 ^^^1? t^Q- *-o In the day that I made them ascend from the land of Egypt. The circumstance of the group J^'^^IH (a verb in the infi- nitive mood used in the above Hebrew line as a noun) hav- ing no Yod written immediately after it, reveals the fact that 362 FORMEELY A HINT NOT ALWAYS GIVEN [Chap. IV. neither was it originally accompanied by a paragogic He ; as, if it was, it would still retain the same attendant, no cause for the removal of this letter having occurred, as no mater lectionis was here inserted. So much for the omission by the original writer, as well as subsequently by the old voca- lizers, of the letters which, in their respective times, would have contributed in very different ways to direct attention to the necessity of reading this group with the sound of the affix of the first person singular at its termination. But it may be worth while to oifer a few more remarks on each omission, separately considered. Before the Hebrew Bible was vocalized, the adduced verbal noun could, in an abstract point of view, have been translated either ' the bringing out,' or ^ my bring- ing out,' but was confined to the latter rendering, if not strictly by the context, at any rate by the history of the event referred to, and the style of language uniformly held respecting it in Scripture. For the person here represented as the speaker is the Lord ; and the deliverance of the Israelites from the grasp of their Egyptian oppressors is proved, by a most stupendous miracle wrought upon the waters of the Red Sea, to have been his act, and is constantly insisted upon as such by every inspired writer who has touched upon the subject. It is, there- fore, perfectly clear that, although the nature of Hebrew writ- ing in the time of Jeremiah left room for two modes of read- ing the verbal noun in question, it yet was meant by him to h^ uttered only in one of those ways, with the / sound to denote a possessive pronoun at its end, and must have been for a long time after so read and understood by every one acquainted with the Jewish history under whose inspection it may have come ; and, accordingly, we may perceive, it has been translated for this reading both by the Seventy Jews and by the framers of the Peshitah. But, after the introduction of the matres lectionis into the original text, the same word could no longer be read in this place correctly without a Yod sub- joined to it, which, notwithstanding, the old vocalizers omit- ted, in pursuance of a plan acted upon with a wonderful degree Chap. IV.] OF I OR 17 SOUND AT THE END OF WORDS. 363 of steadiness, considering the great precipitation with which they executed their task. For, wherever the unvocalized writ- ing admitted of being read in different ways consistently with the context, they almost invariably selected the opposite one to that followed by the Seventy Interpreters ; whereby they contrived to give the translation made by these men the fal- lacious appearance of being very loose and inaccurate. For the most part, indeed, the variations hence arising in the form of expression caused no alteration of the sense or deterioration of the style ; and, consequently, they produced in each in- stance a reading of the original text unobjectionable in itself, yet very objectionable in the motive in which it origi- nated. But the one adopted in the present instance by the scribes in question, though it does not run directly counter to the meaning of the clause, is still very defective in the expres- sion of this meaning ; and, what further shows the intensity of their desire to throw discredit on the oldest and best ver- sion of the Hebrew Bible is, that the correct reading here abandoned by them for this purpose is that which even their national pride must have strongly prompted them to retain. Nor should the circumstance be overlooked, that in a few cases, such as those discussed in some of the preceding examples, they, from excessive eagerness to effect their dishonest object, still more transgressed the bounds of prudence, to such an ex- tent as, by their interpolations, manifestly to violate the con- text, thereby leaving behind them clear indications of the fraud they committed. Thus, while the benefit of preserving the legibility of the Hebrew Bible was secured by means which were at the same time applied by wicked men to perverting the meaning of some of its most important passages, provision was all along made by the Almighty Disposer of events for the removal of the evil with which this invaluable good was accompanied, as soon as attention should come to be seriously directed to the subject. To conclude my analysis of the example before me, I have to observe, that several copies of the sacred text are enume- 364 FORMERLY A HINT NOT ALWAYS GIVEN [Chap. IV. rated by Kennicott which exhibit a Yod at the end of the group in question ; but it is evident, from the manner in which the Masorets have dealt with the case, that they would gladly have availed themselves of the use of such copies, if known to them; whence it is most likely that those now extant were written since their time, accommodated to the correction which their punctuation had suggested. These critics, who did not flourish till many centuries after the secret of the first vocalization of the Hebrew Bible was lost even among the rulers of the Jews, have unconsciously given their support to my condemnation of the treatment of the above group by the set of vocalizers who preceded them ; as is clearly shown by their mode of pointing it, i^'^ylH. The little circle, used by them in this instance to mark a defect, would be more regularly placed, if shifted to the left, just over the site which the wanted letter ought to occupy, and seems to have been thence removed merely by the fault of the printers. In full accordance with the Masoretic correction of this group, I would recommend it to be written, in an unpointed edition of the text, D]^^'^1^1^. The Authorized English Translation of the examined clause requires no alteration ; nor does candour any longer require a marginal note to show how the Hebrew here differs from this translation ; since the want of a Yod at the end of the analyzed group is not to be laid to the account of the original writing, but ascribed solely to a fault in its subsequent voca- lization. My second example is supplied by comparing the first two groups of the twenty-second Psalm, now written "^7^^ vK ('my God, my God'), with their translation in the Septuagint, 6 Oeo9 6 Geo? fiov (' God, my God'). From this comparison, provided the general accuracy of the old Greek version be taken into account, it may be inferred, with a high degree of probability, that the Yod now at the end of each of the Hebrew groups did not displace a paragogic Re previously employed there, but that they were originally destitute of any sign, direct or indirect, of the vowel / to be pronounced at their respective Chap.IV.] of/or U sound AT THE END OF WORDS. 365 terminations, and that the reader was formerly left to the ex- ercise of his judgment to deduce solely from the context the propriety of uttering that sound after each of them. For, the liberty taken in the Greek version of rendering one of the above groups without, and the other with the possessive pro- noun of the first person singular after it, was perfectly fair, provided they were written in the time of the Seventy Jews 7^' 7^^. But if they were then exhibited with a paragogic He at the end of each, the same latitude of interpretation would have been utterly unwarranted on the part of those translators. A more convincing proof, however, to the same effect may be deduced from the representation tmce given in the Peshitah of the words composing our Lord's exclamation on the cross, which commenced with those contained in the very two groups just examined. But as this proof serves also to give a striking illustration of the more general discovery respecting the ori- ginal non-existence of vowel-letters in the writing of the He- brew Bible, and as, through the explanation thus supplied, it clears up a considerable difficulty in the existing state of the Syriac version, a difficulty which till now was wholly unac- countable, I trust that, in dwelling at some length upon the subject, I shall not be deemed to trespass on my reader's patience. In the Gospel of St. Matthew the exclamation above re- ferred to is exhibited as follows : H\i, H\t, Xafxa aa^a')(6avL^ but in that of St. Mark its first two groups are written YXwi^ E\tt)i ; with just the same signification of ' My God, My God,' as the corresponding two in the former Gospel, but not in the same language. For H\f, H\f, denote the sounds of the words having this meaning in pure Hebrew, and EAw/, YXwi^ those of the equivalent words in the corrupt dialect of Hebrew spoken in Jerusalem at the time of the Crucifixion, that is, in the Jerusalem Chaldee, or Syro-Chaldee, which scarcely diff*ered from the ancient Syriac. But that EXw/, EAw(, are. 366 A DIFFICULTY CLEARED UP IN THE [Chap. IV. as I have already observed in the first chapter of this treatise, a corruption of the genuine writing of St. Mark, is perfectly evident from the next following verse of his Gospel, wherein he informs us that the words thereby denoted were misunder- stood by those looking on, which, repeated as they were, and uttered with a loud voice, they could not possibly have been if they were spoken in the language of the surrounding multi- tude, and consequently written in the form in which they are now exhibited. The same inference may also be drawn from the evidence afforded by the Peshitah on this subject. For the words in question are represented by the very same groups of letters in the two specified Gospels, as translated in this version ; and, besides, there is inserted in the second of them an interpretation of our Lord's exclamation, of which it ob- viously would have been absurd therein to offer any, if the entire was in Syriac, as it must have been, if its commence- ment was so. In all probability, some transcriber of St. Mark's original Gospel, finding the latter part of the exclamation to be in this ancient dialect, and assuming that the whole of it was uttered without any diversity of language, altered the ini- tial groups to suit them to this erroneous assumption. But whether the corruption here brought home to this Gospel was or was not thus occasioned, there cannot, I submit, be the slightest doubt, in the first place, that the sounds of our Lord's words referred to are preserved in the original Gospel of St. Matthew,^ as nearly as they can be conveyed through the me- ^ In all those particulars transmitted to us respecting ' the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew,' or ' the Gospel to the Hebrews' (as it has been variously designated by ancient writers) in which it differs from the Greek Gospel ascribed to the same author, the Syriac rendering of his work in the Peshitah agrees exactly with the latter, and differs from the former narrative. Hence, it clearly follows that, even supposing the Syro-Chaldee document attributed to St. Matthew older than the above Syriac Gospel, this translation must at any rate be referred to the specified Greek Gospel as its original ; and this evidence to the genuineness of the latter production is of far greater weight than any that has been, or by any possibility could be, adduced on the oppo- Chap. IV.] EXISTING STATE OF THE PESHITAH. 367 dium of Greek letters ; secondly, that they were originally written exactly the same way in the two Greek Gospels in which they are recorded ; and thirdly, that they were not cor- rupted in the second of those Gospels till after the Peshitah had been composed. Subjoined are the transcript of the above exclamation, which is common to the Syriac rendering of both of the Gospels referred to, and its interpretation, which is con- fined to the Syriac of St. Mark's Gospel, together with two modes of reading this transcript, the one according to the western pronunciation and modern curtailment of the words, which is adduced from Gabriel Sionita's Latin translation of the Peshitah, and the other according to their eastern, fuller. site side of the question. The Syriac translators wrote either before the end of the first century or within a very few years after the commencement of the second, that is, at an earlier period than any of the fathers of the Church, and their language was very nearly identical with the Syro-Chaldee; for both which reasons combined they were the best judges that can be appealed to, as to which of the compared Gospels is genuine. Besides, we should bear in mind, in favour of their decision on this point, that it is supported by a long series of subsequent writers, intimately acquainted with the Greek Gospel in question, who, in the manner of their quoting from or speaking of that work, uniformly attest it to be the genuine production of St. Matthew. Nor are we here to overlook the invalidity of the evidence on the opposite side: it rests chiefly on a vague report spread by interested parties, and first commit- ted to writing by Papias, who, as Eusebius informs us, was a man of weak mind, and who, besides, was an incompetent witness from ignorance of the dia- lect in which he attested the Gospel of this Evangelist to have been originally written. Yet did not Jerome adopt the latter side of the question? True; but this, among many other instances that might be adduced to the same effect, only serves to show a failure of judgment on the part of this learned father, notwithstanding the great power and brilliancy of his talents in other respects. The following passage of his writings forms the commencement of the brief account he gives of St. Matthew in his Catalogus Scriptorum Eccle- siasticorum: "Matthseus, qui et Levi, ex publicano apostolus, primus in Judgea propter eos qui ex circumcisione crediderant, Evangelium Christi He- braicis litteris verbisque composuit: quod quis postea in Grgecum transtule- rit, non satis certum est." Hieronymi Opera Martianceo edita^ tom. iv. pars 2nda, col. 102. 2d 368 A DIFFICULTY CLEARED UP IN THE [Chap. IV. and more ancient pronunciation, as exhibited through my notation : ->-jZ\on ]i^V w^ctlIL ujOi^ 11 11 lemono scebacton. HEL HEL LeMaN^iH SheBaQTaNI. From a comparison of the Syriac lines here brought toge- ther, it is evident, respecting the first two groups of the upper one, that they alone were in a dialect differing from Syriac, the two remaining groups being exactly identical with their Syriac interpretations ; and also that, although written so as to convey, according to the ordinary use of the letters, the articulate sounds Hel, Hel, they yet were intended to be read Heli, Heli, with the vowel 1 denoting the possessive pronoun of the first person singular pronounced at their end; since the groups with which they are interpreted terminate in Tod, which represents this vowel and signifies this pronoun in Syriac^ as well as in Hebrew. Moreover, a comparison of the two subjoined readings of the upper line with the Greek ori- ginal of that line previously quoted from St. Matthew's Gospel, serves to illustrate the gTcat superiority of the mode of read- ing Syriac followed in this work to that now prevailing in Europe, in reference to the nearest approach that can at pre- sent be made to the ancient pronunciation of the language. But even the reading which comes the nearer of the two to the Grecian memorial of our Lord's exclamation on the cross deviates from it in two particulars which require explanation. * According to the curtailed pronunciation of Syriac words which now prevails, the above mater lectionis is passed over unsounded. But this is obviously a corruption of the language, to accommodate it to modern tongues in which the final syllables of inflexions are seldom varied; and it is quite plain that this letter would not in ancient times have been written at the end of the words to which it is subjoined, if it was not meant by the writer to be there pronounced. Chap. IV.] EXISTING STATE OF THE PESHITAH. 369 In the first place, the diiFerence between Xafxa and LeMaNaH may, I conceive, be accounted for by the circumstance that St. Matthew, quoting a foreign word, of itself unintelligible to his Grecian readers, and reserving its interpretation for a second line, gives only its sound in the first one, in conse- quence of which his representation of this word was not aficcted by any change of language, and was just the same as if it had been written immediately after the crucifixion of our Saviour: while, on the other hand, the Syriac translator has denoted this part of the exclamation by a significant word of his own dialect, which, as an element of a living language, was subject to alteration. The difference, therefore, which is observable between Xafia and LeMaNaH, is to be laid to the account of the change which the Syriac word here employed underwent in the interval between the periods when our Lord was crucified and the Peshitah was written : at the former date this word was identical with that of the same signification in the pure ancient Hebrew, though at the latter date it had become per- ceptibly different from its Hebrew original. But, in the second place, the difference between HAf, HX^, and HEL, HEL a far more surprising one, and for the eluci- dation of which this discussion has chiefly been entered upon is totally unaccountable on any principle which could have been hitherto applied to its explanation ; as may be shown from several considerations. First, the latter pair of articulate sounds were in themselves just as unintelligible to the Syriac reader as the former pair were to the Grecian reader ; and, consequently, the difference between those pairs could not have been produced by any alteration of the Syriac dialect within the interval of time above specified. Secondly, it can- not be conceded that the two Syriac groups were originally closed, each of them, with a Yod (to denote the sound I) which has since been erased from the writing : for the uni- form practice in this writing has been to retain the final Yod, even where it has ceased to be pronounced. Thus, to give an 2 D 2 370 A DIFFICULTY CLEARED UP IN THE [Chap. IV. example somewhat analogous to that under consideration, the words Kvpte, Kvpie (Matt. vii. 21) are rendered in the Peshitah -ijlD ^jlD, MaRI, MRI, ' My Lord, My Lord ;' respecting which Syriac groups it is to be observed, that they are pointed by Gabriel Sionita so as to be read Mar, Mar ; and yet they still retain the mater lectionis Yod which is omitted in their modern pronunciation. Thus, again, in the very example before us, though >->-J^nn, SheBaQTaNI , is shown by Gabriel's pointing of it to be now pronounced shehocton by the Maro- nites and such other Christians of Western Asia as still make use of Syriac formularies in divine service, yet the Yod at the termination of this group has not been in consequence ex- punged. Thirdly, it cannot be imagined that the Syriac translators, or afterwards any transcribers of their work, omitted the Yod at the end of each group through oversight ; as such an omission would have been calculated most strongly to force itself on observation, through the losses thereby occa- sioned of a syllable in the sound of those groups, and of a possessive pronoun in their sense. The insertion, indeed, or omission of a Yod serving to denote the vowel E in the inte- rior of the noun contained in the same groups, might possibly escape notice for the very opposite reason ; as such vowel- letter would have no effect whatever upon that noun, whose meaning and pronunciation remain exactly the same, whether that internal Yod be inserted or omitted. But the case is quite different with regard to the external Yod, which neither translators nor copyists could have left out, without being conscious of having done so. Lastly, quite exclusively of the consideration of the character of strict honesty to which the Syriac translators are entitled on account of the manner in which they have executed every other portion of their work, they cannot be charged with a misrepresentation here design- edly adopted of the initial sounds of our Lord's exclamation ; as they have fairly translated the passage of each Gospel suc- ceeding that in which this exclamation is recorded, wherein it Chap. IV.] EXISTING STATE OF THE PESHITAH. 371 is stated that those sounds were mistaken by some of the by- standers for the name Elias (l^-^, HeLtYA*) repeated; and have thus supplied their readers with a proof to the same effect as that furnished, not only in this way by both of the original Gospels, but also more directly by the transcript of the sounds in question still preserved in one of them, namely, to the effect that the vowel / followed immediately after the articulation L in each of the repeated sounds. Now if all this be true, if there be a moral certainty that the Syriac translators wrote each of the groups in question without a Yod at its close, and if, on the other hand, it be equally certain that they intended those groups to be read Heli^ Heli, in accordance with their own interpretation of the meaning of the same groups which requires them to be thus pronounced, and also in accordance with the direct represen- tation of their sounds now given, indeed, in only the one of the Greek Gospels referred to, but which in all probability was at first given in both of them ; how are these conflicting posi- tions to be reconciled ? The solution of this difficulty is, I submit, to be found in the state of the Hebrew Bible at the time of the formation of the Peshitah. At that time as has been already shown to some extent, and will be more fully proved when I come to discuss the age of this ancient version there were no vowel-letters in the sacred text. The first two groups, therefore, of the twenty-second Psalm (putting * In both of the Syriac passages above referred to, the name in question is written with a Lamed prefixed, which I have omitted for the purpose of exhibiting barely the word itself. In the sacred text this name is still writ- ten without any vowel- letter iT^bs, HeLiYaH; but in its Syriac transcript ] > N\, if I am not mistaken, the final Haleph was inserted to express the vowel A, and the He was then dropped; while, on the other hand, it contir- nues in the Hebrew group, in which it served indirectly to intimate the use of the specified vowel after the consonant Tod, until such application of it fell into oblivion, in consequence of the introduction of matres lectionis into the writing of the Hebrew Bible. It is from this view of the subject, as far as respects the Syriac designation, that I have above given, conformably to my notation, the reading of it, HeLiYA. 372 A DIFFICULTY CLEARED UP IN THE [Chap. IV. out of consideration for the present whether they were or were not then closed with a paragogic He) must at all events have been at that date written without a Yod at their termination ; and yet the context required them to be read HeLz, HeL2, ' My God, My God/ exactly in the same way as if they had been written, just as they now are, '''7K vK. This Psalm, which was composed above a thousand years before the crucifixion of our Lord, gives as vivid a description of several particulars connected with that awful event as if it had been written by one of those actually present at the scene. To bring this to the recollection of my readers in the case of an inspired com- position, with which they must be perfectly familiar, it will be sufficient to quote the following extracts from the translation of it inserted in our Authorized Version: " My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me ?" " All they that see me laugh me to scorn ; they shoot out the lip ; they shake the head, saying^ He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him : let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him f " they pierced my hands and my feet f " they look and stare upon me ;" " they part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture." As our blessed Redeemer evidently appro- priated this remarkable series of prophecies to himself, by making use of the identical exclamation with which they com- mence ; so his uttering its initial words in the very language in which they were originally pronounced, was calculated to direct attention to the portion of Scripture containing them, for the edification of such persons as then were, or might at any subsequent period become, acquainted with the sacred text. And the framers of the Peshitah appear, in conformity with the benevolent intention thus shown by our Lord, to have endeavoured to contribute to the same effect, by exhibit- ing those words, not only in their original language, but also with their original spelling, which, though already at that date obsolete in the ordinary use of Shemitic writing,^ * In speaking above of Shemitic writing in the singular number, I refer to only the kinds of it used by the early Christians and the Jews, which must Chap.IV.] existing STATE OF THE PESHITAH. 373 was still retained in the text of the Hebrew Bible. There was then, indeed, no prospect of this spelling being ever changed in the inspired volume ; as it was well known that the Jews were violently prejudiced against the introduction of any in- novation, and particularly of one of Pagan origin, into the mode of transcribing their Scriptures. The Syriac translators, therefore, very naturally thought that the above groups would always continue to be written in the Hebrew text, without a Yod Sit their close, and yet be read, in accordance with the demands of the context, the same way as if that mater lectio- nis had been annexed to them. In this expectation, indeed, those scribes were mistaken : the Jewish priests, tempted by the opportunity which the employment of the matres lectionis afforded them, of perverting the sense of the prophecies relat- ing to Christ, admitted those letters by stealth into the inspired text, not long after the Peshitah was written, at a period when, as I propose to show in a future chapter, all power of reading that text, and all knowledge of the ancient Hebrew tongue, had ceased among the Christians. After the introduction of vowel- letters into the original writing of the Bible, the Hebrew groups have been originally the same ; since the first Christians were converted Jews. But as the Samaritan and Jewish kinds, originally the same in every respect, were gradually altered in the shapes of their elements, in consequence of the strong tendency of handwriting to change in the course of time, and also to change differently in the employment of different parties who held no com- munication with each other ; so likewise, for precisely the same reason, the Jewish or Chaldee, and the Syriac kinds, diverging from a common origin in the latter part of the first century, became at length quite different in the forms of their respective sets of letters. These two kinds, however, of She- mitic writing would appear to have continued very nearly the same down to a period somewhat later than the middle of the third century, from the Pal- myrene inscriptions of that date, which plainly exhibit the origin of the square character of the modern Jewish or Chaldee, as well as that of the cur- sive character of the modern Syriac kind. But in whatever degree their identity may have been continued to the specified epoch, it must at all events have been, quam proxime, complete down to the end of the first century, within a few years of which date, as I hope to be able to show in a subsequent chapter, the Peshitah was composed. 374 A DIFFICULTY CLEAEED UP IN THE [Chap. IV. under consideration could no longer be read, in their unvocalized state, with the / sound at their termination, conformably to the transcription given of them in the first, and the translation of them in both the first and second of the Greek Gospels ; but, notwithstanding this, the Syriac translators certainly read them in this way, and, accordingly, meant that their Syriac transcripts should likewise be so read. If now we revert to those transcripts, we shall see that they clearly afford, as the evidence of their framers, that the Hebrew groups from which they were copied, though formerly pronounced with the sound of a fragment of the possessive pronoun of the first person sin- gular subjoined to them, were yet written not only without a Yod^ but also without a paragogic He^ at their termination. The manner in which I conceive the translator more im- mediately engaged in the framing of this part of the Syriac version to have proceeded is as follows : His first impulse must naturally have been to transcribe the groups H\t, H\(, into the Syriac ones \ ! > \ i] with two Yods in each ; that inside the noun contained in those groups to represent the Eta^ and that outside the same noun to stand for the Iota of their Grecian models. But, referring his Syriac transcripts still far- ther back to the two Hebrew groups at the commencement of the twenty-second Psalm, and wishing to mark their identity with those groups, not only by their conveying the same sounds, but also by doing this through the same combination of letters, he cut off the external Yod^ but retained through oversight the internal one (which escaped his notice in consequence of its not affecting in the slightest degree the pronunciation or meaning of the noun it enters), and confined his attention to the omission of the former Yod^ whose absence from the ori- ginal groups made the way of reading them in the Bible, with the I sound at their end, quite different from that to which he was habituated in his own writing. But what thus com- menced with one of the translators may be easily conceived to have passed current with the rest of their body, who, in addition to the natural tendency to receive passively what has Chap. IV.] EXISTING STATE OF THE PESHITAH. 375 been introduced by an associate, were influenced by just the same causes as he was, to overlook what was usual in their time in the form of those groups, and to mind only what was then uncommon therein. It is, however, possible that the Tod inside the Syriac groups was inserted in them, not by the translators, but subsequently by copyists ; as, from the grow- ing familiarity of those scribes with the matres lectionis, there was at first an increase in the number of those letters conti- nually going forward in every kind of Shemitic writing em- ployed to denote the words of a living language ; more espe- cially in situations where, as in the instance before us, they altered neither the sound nor the sense of the terms into which they were introduced. In either of those ways all inconsis- tency maybe removed between the appearance at present of the internal Tod in the above groups, and the intention I have as- cribed to the Syriac translators of writing them in the same manner as they were then ^vritten in the original text of the Hebrew Bible ; an intention, on their part, which solves the difiiculty proposed for investigation, and without the admission of which it would be impossible to reconcile their own inter- pretation of the meaning of those groups with the fact of their having left out the external Tod at the end of each group. If this view of the subj ect be well founded, not only does my exposition remove a serious difficulty with which the text of the Peshitah has been hitherto embarrassed, but it also supplies us with a striking instance of two groups in the He- brew Bible which the context requires to be read with the 1 sound (to express a possessive pronoun) at their end, and which, notwithstanding, are thus attested to have been origi- nally written without any direct sign or indirect intimation of this vowel in that site. For the Syriac groups just analyzed, ^1 ^1, have neither a Tod nor a He at their close ; and, consequently, the Hebrew groups, the final part of whose ori- ginal form they may be depended on as correctly representing, must have been at first equally destitute of either termination. They do not, indeed, for the reason above explained, serve to 376 THE PARAGOGIC HE AFTER A NOW USED [Chap.IV. prove that the groups in question, vi^ v^^, had originally no vowel-letter inside the noun they contain ; but no proof of this is wanted, as those groups do not exhibit any vowel-letter in that site even at the present day. The paragogic He after the A sound occurs, as has been already observed, with the same degree of frequency in the sacred text now as from the first ; but that degree is, I appre- hend, much greater than it is generally supposed to be. For the He placed at the end of a great number of Hebrew words which are read with the final sound of the vowel -4, is proved to be of this nature by the anomalies arising from the present mode of using it, which are removed by an alteration of its treatment conformable to the view of the matter here pro- posed ; as I will endeavour to show in the instances of nouns feminine, of pronouns masculine or feminine, of participles feminine, and of verbs masculine or feminine. But, to avoid dwelling too long on a point which, though of itself deserving attention, is a digression from my subject, I must confine my- self to a single example for each class, and leave it to the learned reader to increase their number, which he can easily do from his own observation. For the illustration of the first class, I select the following expression, to which is subjoined its Authorized English Translation : 1 Kings, xix. 11, prm rh^y: mr\ " and a great and strong wind." Here the first noun adjective (GcDoLaH) is feminine, while the second, according to the present mode of reading it (KhaZaQ), is masculine ; and grammarians attempt to justify the contrariety of gender thus exhibited, on the ground of the Hebrew substantive T\T\ being indifierently masculine or fe- minine. Now, as gender is but arbitrarily applied to this word, there is nothing strange or objectionable in the circum- stance of its being treated in some places as a feminine, and in others as a masculine noun ; still, that it should in one and Chap. IV.] MORE THAN IS COMMONLY SUPPOSED. 377 the same place be dealt with in these opposite ways, is scarcely consistent, and must at any rate be deemed very incongruous. But, according to my view of the case, the expression before us is entirely free from this anomaly. The inspired author of the book in which this expression occurs employed the He at the end of the first adjective, not like the other elements of his ^vriting, as a letter invested with a power of its own, but merely as a quasi letter, or a mark to intimate the addition of a syllable to the word it is annexed to ( which, after men had got distinct notions of consonants and vowels, had the effect of suggesting, instead of the entire syllable, its final part ^4), whereby that word was put in a feminine form. Such intima- tions he gave only according as it happened to strike his ima- gination that they were wanting ; and, in consequence, he omitted them in some places where they might, perhaps, have been as useful to a reader, as in those wherein he actually in- serted them. In the present instance, however, he had an obvious reason for such an omission after the second adjective : for, as the two are immediately connected at the very same time with the very same noun substantive, they evidently should be read in the same gender ; whence, having intimated this gender by the introduction of the paragogic He after one of them, he considered it unnecessary to subjoin the same hint to the other. The second adjective, therefore, of the above expression was intended by the original ^vriter to be in this place read ILhaZaQa ; and, accordingly, it ought still to be so read, with a view to conforming, not only to his intentions, but also to the grammatical analogies of the language. This correction requires no alteration of the letters, and merely the insertion in pointed texts of a Qames under the third letter, with a corresponding shortening of the pronunciation of the preceding part of the word ; to which I should add, that such a reading of groups wanting the final He has in many in- stances been adopted by the Masorets themselves, though not in, I believe, any that belong to the class now under conside- ration. 378 THE PARAGOGICiy^ AFTERS NOW USED [Chap.IV. In the second class are included the masculine pronouns ^]l^^, ' thou,' and (IDH, ^ they,' and the feminine ones ^in^^, ' ye,' and H^H, ' they ;' but, as the final Re in the case of each of the last three of these is, I believe, on all sides allowed, on account of the frequency of its omission, to be paragogic, I select an example from the sacred text and its Authorized Enghsh Version, in which the first comes under consideration, as follows : Deut. V. 27, " Go thou near, DtM^ Dip and hear all that the Lord our God shall say ; and speak thou unto us li^^K "imn n^l all that the Lord our God shall speak unto thee, and we will hear it and do zV." Here the pronoun in question is by the terrified Israelites twice addressed to Moses, but, being in the second instance written without a final Ife^ it is pointed by the Masorets for the pro- nunciation which belongs to it when spoken to a female ; and the reason assigned for the irregularity thus attributed to the speakers is the confusion of mind produced by the state of terror in which they then were. But, surely, this terror could not have led them to express themselves in a disparaging, con- temptuous manner to Moses, as if they considered him only as a woman, just at the moment when they were most anxious for his intervention, that they might thereby be relieved from their fears. On the contrary, the repetition of the pronoun in this place, more especially as, on its second occurrence, it is connected with a verb (mm) which contains a fragment of the very same pronoun in the preformative of its inflexion ; so that its strict translation here is Hhou thyself;' such repe- tition of it, I say, is emphatic, and indicates a feeling of earnestness on the part of the Isralites the very reverse of disrespect. It is, therefore, perfectly obvious that this pro- noun was intended by the author to be here read in the mas- culine gender, with the A sound at its end ; although it is not closed with a paragogic He, that would have served to intimate Chap. IV.] MORE THAN IS COMMONLY SUPPOSED. 379 the addition to it of that sound. Yery possibly, he may have deemed such an intimation quite unnecessary in so obvious a case ; or the paragogic letter may have been here inserted by him, and have since disappeared : for this character is no more exempt from the effects of time or of faulty transcription than any other element of the sacred text ; and when that text is said to be in the same state with regard to it after the A sound as from the first, such effects are put out of conside- ration. But, whatever may be the cause of the pronoun in question presenting the bare form TlK in this site, it still ought to be here read just in the same manner as if it was written nr\i^, with the sound of ^ at the end of its second syllable ; and for this mode of reading it I might appeal even to the practice of the Masorets themselves against their own treatment of it in this particular instance ; since, as has been noted by gram- marians, they have pointed T^^ for such a pronunciation in five other places,^ where the context did not in any degree re- quire them to do so, more than in the present case. They have, indeed, in the five instances alluded to, attached to the group of two letters their little circular mark of censure, as if a third one ought to have been added to it. But here again they may be shown inconsistent ; as there are innumerable instances where the second part of this pronoun, used as an afformative in the inflexion of verbs for the second person sin- gular masculine of the preterite tense, is written solely il, which they have pointed for the sound Ta, just the same as if it had been followed by H, and yet have never attached to the affor- mative so written any mark of censure. The grammarians, I should add, are here as inconsistent as the Masorets : for where the part of this pronoun used as an afformative is written Hn, they admit the final H to be paragogic ; and yet they maintain the very same H, at the end of the same pronoun in its integral state, to be an intrinsic and essential element of it. In fact, both parties seem to have determined the nature of this letter, * 1 Sam. xxiv. 19; Neb. ix. 6; Job, i. 10; Ps. vi. 4.; Eccles. vii. 22. 380 THE PAEAGOGIC^^' AFTERS NOWUSED [Chap.IV. not by tlie kind of use made of it in the sacred text, but by the more or less frequency of its occurrence therein : it is almost always found at the end of the integral pronoun mascu- line just examined, and in consequence they have decided on its being there intrinsic ; on the other hand, it seldom appears at the end of the portion of the same pronoun mascu- line used as an afformative, on which account they at once admit it to be in such places paragogic. As an example of the third class, that is, of the participles or participial adjectives at present erroneously read, the fol- lowing expression, accompanied by its translation in the Au- thorized English Version, is adduced : Hos. xiii. 8, b']^lL; m^ *'as a bear that is bereaved of her whelps.''^ The second word of this expression is at present read ShKUL in the masculine gender, although it is connected with the first one 21 (or, as it is written when vocalized, ^^'1), a noun which is in this place feminine : and the excuse given for this ano- maly is, that 21 is employed in some parts of the sacred text as a masculine, and in other parts as a feminine noun ; whence the inference is attempted to be drawn that the prophet could with propriety use it here in either gender. But the weakness of this reasoning may be exposed by means of the rendering of the above words in our Authorized Version, wherein the English term ' bear' is, through the reference to it of the pro- noun ' her,' confined to the feminine gender, although it is in general applicable to a male, as much as to a female of the species, precisely in like manner as is the Hebrew equivalent term 21. In fact, the subject denoted by the original expres- sion is literally ' a bear bereaved.' But as the only possession of a wild beast is its young, which again can be said to belong only to the parent that takes care of them, the dam, ' a bear bereaved' must signify ' a she bear deprived of her whelps.' The mere statement of the animal's being robbed sufiices to indicate its sex, and shows that the secondary word connected Chap. IV.] MORE THAN IS COMMONLY SUPPOSED. 381 with the noun which designates it ought to be read in the feminine gender, Sh^KULa ; a reading which was considered by the inspired writer to be so obviously requisite, that he omitted to give a hint of its additional syllable by means of a paragogic He at the end of the group, which appeared to him to be here quite unnecessary and superfluous. According to this view of the matter, the violation of grammar which has been just exposed is not to be imputed to the original writing, but to the mode of reading it which now prevails. To supply an example of the fourth class, or of inflexions of verbs which I conceive to be erroneously read, I select the following clause of a sentence, together with its Authorized Eno^lish renderino; : Isaiah, xivii. 11, h;;-! yh^j 4^m " Therefore shall evil come upon thee." Here the verb ^^l (' there hath come,' that is, ' there shall surely come'), is at present read in the masculine inflexion for the third person singular of the preterite tense, BaH, although the noun connected with it, Ti/l is feminine. The way in kvhich grammarians attempt to evade this anomaly is, by sup- posing some word understood which can agree in gender with :he verb, and whose introduction into the clause will not mate- rially alter its meaning, as, for instance, Dl*" placed before ru/"l, vhereby the only requisite change in the above English ren- lering will be the substitution of ' a day of evil' instead of the dngle Avord ' evil.' But if a license to this extent be allowed :o a grammarian, no irregularity whatever could occur in a Dassage proposed for examination, which he might not thus iccount for : so that, in fact, the circumstance of Hebraists laving recourse to such an explanation affords their virtual icknowledgment of the existence here of a gross violation of concord, on the supposition of the verb of the sentence being it present correctly read. On the other hand, it may perhaps 3e objected to a different mode of reading NH in this place, liat a final He is an essential element of the feminine inflexion 382 THE PARAGOGIC HE FORMERLY USED [Chap. IV. of a verb for tlie third person singular of the preterite tense ; as is shown, not only by its nature (it being a fragment of the pronoun >^^n introduced for the very purpose of marking the gender), but also by the circumstance of this inflexion being never found wiitten without it. But to the first ground of this objection it may be replied, that the origin here, in accordance with the prevaihng opinion, assigned to the usual termination of the feminine inflexion in question, is erroneous ; as the pro- noun referred to was at first written ^^H without any distinc- tion of gender, and what the whole pronoun did not, a part could hardly serve to distinguish : and, with regard to the second ground, it consists in taking for granted upon one side the decision of the very point at issue ; for if ^^3 can be read in the feminine gender, then a final He does not always termi- nate the inflexion under inquiry for that gender. The impe- diment, then, to my correction being thus disposed of, I would venture to recommend the reading of the above verb BaHa, whereby all violation of concord is removed from the adduced clause without any change of its writing. This correction, which (as well as similar ones in various other places) is sup- ported by its removal of a difliculty that cannot be otherwise cleared up without an alteration of the Hebrew text, is grounded on the paragogic nature I attribute to the He com- monly found at the end of the feminine inflexion here required, which the original writer inserted only where he conceived it to be wanted, and which he appears to have thought in this place rendered, by the close proximity of the governing noun femi- nine, unnecessary for marking the gender of the verb. He in- serted, I grant, this paragogic letter in many places where it was not in the slightest degree more wanted than in the clause before us ; but if his omission of it in the present, and other similar instances, be in consequence deemed an irregularity, it is one of a very diff*erent kind from a false concord ; and it can with no more reason be censured in this ancient species oi writing, than the variability of spelling can, which is observ- able in the earlier English versions of the Bible. The case of Chap.IV.] after verbs ending in /or /7 sound. 383 the masculine inflexion of verbs for the second person singular of the preterite tense has been already alluded to under the head of pronouns, and, even if I had room to spare, requires no more discussion, as the He at the end of this inflexion is on all sides admitted to be paragogic. So likewise is the He at the end of the first person singular and plural of the future tense. With respect to that which is found at the end of the inflexions for the second and third persons feminine plural of the future tense,andofthe second person plural feminine of the imperative mood, I have only to observe, that it is universally allowed to be paragogic at the end of the pronouns from which the afibr- matives of those inflexions are derived, and, therefore, ought equally to be deemed so at the end of these afibrmatives. The paragogic He^ which formerly, in some instances at least, followed the inflexions of verbs ending in / or [7 sound, was always erased on the insertion of a Yod or Waw^ for the purpose of more directly indicating one or other of those sounds; but still its original occurrence in such sites may occasionally be detected by a comparison of the diflferent ways in which the old vocalizers treated the same inflexion, in the same place of the two editions of the sacred text, or in difie- rent places of the same edition. This point I shall endeavour to establish, first, by means of the following examples of in- flexions belonging to the imperative mood : Jewish Edition. Samaritan Edition. Author. Eng. Vers. Gen. xi. 3, 4, 7, r\'2'n^ HaBaH, n^H, go to. xix. 32, n::^, LeK^n, ^D^, l^KI, come. xxxviii.l6, nan, HBaH, Knn,^ goto. * The Haleph of the above group is not a mater lectionis ; for, if the Sa- maritan scribe had vocalized the word, he would have done so with a Joe?, as in the parallel case of the second example: it is, therefore, merely one gut- tural substituted for another through a mistake of the copyists, a mistake which, it has been already noticed, is of such frequent occurrence as to show that there must, at one time, have been a strong resemblance of shape between the characters with which Haleph and He were written. 2 E 384 PARAGOGIC HE FORMERLY USED [Chap. IV. The pronunciation of the groups extracted from the Jewish edition of the Pentateuch is here given according to their Masoretic pointing : but it is evident that the verbs employed in the second and third examples, being addressed, each of them, to a female, ought to have been pointed respectively for the sounds l,eK.i\l and HaBzH ; and that the latter verb being, in the series of places specified in the first example, addressed to a number of persons, ought in each of those places to have been pointed for the sound HaBwH. Accordingly, we may perceive that, in the case exhibited in the second example, the Samaritan scribes, while correcting the oversight committed by the old Jewish vocalizers in leaving HD? un vocalized, in- serted after the two intrinsic elements of this group a Yod to express the vowel /, and at the same time erased the extra- neous letter which had before served less definitely to suggest the same vowel. The requisite corrections, indeed, of the Masoretic pointing in the places referred to in the first and third examples cannot be established in as direct a manner ; because those places were overlooked by both sets of voca- lizers : but still they are supported by the practice of those scribes in parallel cases. Thus, iinn being in the site, Ruth, iii. 15, addressed to a female, is there exhibited "^IT^ by the Jewish set of old vocalizers; and being, in Gen. xlvii. 16, addressed to a plurality of men, is there put in the form I^H by both the Jewish and the Samaritan set: In neither of these two instances, indeed, have we, as in the case of the second example, a direct proof of the paragogic He having been originally employed at the end of the group operated upon. But suppose this group to have been 3n, instead of 'n'2!n^ in each instance, and the alterations so made rather tend to strengthen the evidence adduced in support of the above corrections. For, if the old vocalizers, guided by the context, subjoined to 3n, in the one instance, a Tod^ and in the other a Waw^ without the help of any hint suggested immediately by the mode in which this group was written, they would a fortiori have done so, if a paragogic He had in Chap.IV.] after verbs ending in I or U sound. 385 each place drawfi their attention to the want there of a vowel, and had so put them to some extent on their guard in the selection of that vowel. The authority, therefore, of both the first set of Jewish, and the only set of Samaritan vocalizers, combines with the grammatical analogies of the ancient He- brew language to establish the justness of my representation of the matter, and convict the Masorets of incorrect pointing in the instances just noticed. This incorrectness, however, is to be attributed to ignorance, on their part, not at all of the structure of the above language, but of the nature of the ma- tres lectionis ; which they looked upon as genuine elements of the text, and in consequence paid far more deference to, than they ought. In a few, indeed, of the more glaring instances of defectiveness in the older vocaHzation, they have noticed with their little circular mark of censure the absence of ma- tres lectionis where those letters ought to have been inserted; but in general they have, as in the instances before us, regu- lated their pointing by, and made it conform with, those unwarranted omissions. To conclude, then, with reverting to those instances, the paragogic He which has hitherto been assumed never to come after any vowel but A^ is here proved beyond a doubt to follow the sound of Z7in the three adduced cases of the first example, and that of / in each of the two remaining cases. Instances of the paragogic He formerly used to intimate syllables ending in / and U sounds respectively, at the close of other inflexions of verbs, may be detected as follows : Gen. xviii. 19. Jewish Edition, 1^ri;;n\ YeDaHTIV, I know him. Samaritan Edition,'^W^\ YaDaHTI, I know. Gen. xxxvii. 24. Jewish Edition, ^nninp*''),^ WaYyfQqaKhUHU, and they took him. Samaritan Edition, T\p^\ WaYytQqaKhU, and they took. * A vocal Waw, which the context obviously requires, has been inserted between brackets in the above group, to make the reading of it correspond with its Masoretic pointing. 2 E 2 386 PARAGOGIC HE FORMERLY USED [Chap. IV. Here we may perceive, by a comparison of the different modes of vocalizing the same groups respectively, that what the Jewish set of old vocalizers in each instance took for an affix of the third person singular masculine, the Samaritan set, on the other hand, considered as a paragogic element. From the Jewish treatment of each group it is evident that both were at first terminated by a He^ and that, in their original state, they were written respectively Ulli/T and Hnp*"! ; while from their Samaritan treatment it is equally plain, that the Samari- tans read the former YeDaHTeH, and the latter WaYyiQqaKhwH^ and that, having inserted in one of then a Tod^ and in the other a Waw^ to denote their respective final sounds, these scribes at the same time omitted the He which had, in their view of the matter, previously served less directly to express those sounds. Whether the Samaritan scribes here judged rightly or not, it is quite clear, from their vocalization of those groups, that the paragogic He was formerly used in some places to intimate syllables ending in 7 or U sound ; be- cause, otherwise, they could not possibly have imagined the letter in question to have been of this nature, and so em- ployed in the sites under examination. But if we wish to ascertain whether the He erased from either site was actually a paragogic one, we must proceed to inquire, further, whether the view taken of it in that site by the Samaritan vocalizers was correct. Now, with regard to the first example, were the declaration contained in it made by an ordinary person, the sense would be just the same, whether conveyed in the series of words, ' I know him, that he will command, &c.,' or in the shorter form, ' I know that he will command, &c.;' since we can form a judgment as to the future actions of a man, only from observation of his past external behaviour, and not from an insight into his internal nature. But unto God each indi- vidual is thoroughly known, as to himself and his inmost thoughts and intentions, as also with respect to his future conduct. The longer form, therefore, of the above declara- tion has, when coming from the Almighty, more meaning than Chap.1V.] after verbs ENDING IN 1 OR / SOUND. 387 the other, and must have been that intended by the inspired writer of the text, as more appropriate to the omniscience of the Great Being to whom this speech is attributed. In this case, then, the Jewish reading of the group should be deemed correct, and the Samaritan one rejected as erroneous. But the proper use of the He at the end of the second group can- not in like manner be determined by the sole consideration of the context; as the meaning of the clause in Avhich this group occurs is not in the least altered by the different ways of voca- lizing it, the two translations thence resulting ^ they took him and cast him into a pit,' and ' they took and cast him into a pit' ^being completely equivalent. A reference, therefore, must here be made to the structure of the Hebrew sentence : and when the group in question is examined in conjunction vdih. those immediately subsequent, a comparison of the two modes in which it has been dealt with will be found to tell very decidedly in favour of its Samaritan vocalization, and of the briefer of the two translations of it which have been just adduced. The part of the original sentence which requires examina- tion (after the insertion in its initial group between brackets of a Waw^ the want of which was obviously overlooked) is voca- lized in the Jewish edition of the Hebrew text as follows : ' and they took him and cast him.' Here a circumstance presents itself to observation which it would be extremely difficult to account for, without more aid than is afforded by the Jewish copies of the Pentateuch. The pronoun of the third person singular masculine is in this clause expressed in two very different ways, being intimately con- nected with the first verb of the extract as an affix thereto, and separated from the second in a detached form. But what conceivable ground can, by any possibility, be assigned for this difference ? each exponent of the pronoun stands precisely in the same relation to the verb by which it is go^'erned ; 388 PARAGOGIC HE FORMERLY USED [Chap. IV. whence we might naturally anticipate that, as the first is at- tached to its governing verb in the usual form of an afiix, the second would likewise be tied to the second verb in just the same manner. But when we substitute the Samaritan read- ing of the same words, this difficulty at once disappears, and the reason for putting the pronoun at the end of the clause in a detached form is made quite obvious : ' and they took and cast him.' In the reading here given of the Hebrew line, the treatment of the first group by the Samaritan vocalizers shows that they looked upon the He which they had erased at its close, as in- tended merely to intimate what, through an improvement then recently introduced into the mode of writing the Hebrew text, they were enabled more directly as well as more defi- nitely to express by means of the substituted vowel-letter ; namely, that the verb contained in this group was to be read in the plural number. We might, perhaps, at first view, be inclined to think that the context, which in general indicated without the aid of a paragogic letter the number of a verb in this writing, even while it Avas as yet unvocalized, must have sufficiently done so here likewise. But still, the additional in- timation supplied by that letter was not superfluous ; as will, I conceive, be perceived from the mode of dealing with this case resorted to by the Jewish vocalizers. For, having lost the bene- fit of the hint in question in the line under examination, in con- sequence of their attributing quite a diffi}rent use to the letter by which it was conveyed, they actually omitted to put the verb preceding that letter in a plural form ; so that, although the Masorets, contrary to their more usual practice, corrected in this instance the glaring fault of the earlier Jewish voca- lization, still this group remains up to the present day, in unpointed copies of the Jewish edition of the sacred text, erro- neously exhibited in the singular number. Now the restora- tion of the exact sense of tlie first group, thus arrived at, Chap. IV.] AFTER VERBS ENDING IN /OR / SOUND. 389 through the aid of the Samaritan vocalization, entirely removes the difficulty under consideration. For as the adduced extract really contains but one pronoun, which is governed by two verbs in common, it was requisite, for clearness of expression, that this pronoun should be exhibited in such a state as would show that it stood in the same relation to both of the govern- ing verbs ; that is, it was requisite to write it in a detached form, and not as an affix to the second verb. In an amended edition of the Hebrew text, the initial group of this extract o o should accordingly be printed inClinp*'^ ; and the only altera- tion wanted in the Authorized English Translation of this clause would be to expunge the pronoun ' him' on its first occurrence. Here, by the way, a use which, I believe, has been hitherto passed over unnoticed, of the separate form of a pronoun in the objective case, is presented to view through a comparison of the Jewish and Samaritan editions of the He- brew Pentateuch. The discovery, indeed, bears but slightly on a translation ; yet still, it is, I submit, valuable in reference to the original record, as tending to point out the clearness of the author's style, as far as that quality could be displayed in the primitive species of alphabetic writing which he em- ployed. To conclude this analysis only one of the groups just examined, I admit, has been actually traced back to a former state in which it exhibited a paragogic He immediately fol- lowing a syllable ending in I or U sound, where it must have been employed to intimate at first the whole syllable, and afterwards the final part thereof ; but, no doubt, an attentive comparison of the two editions of the sacred text will enable the learned reader to detect, through the same or like modes of investigation, various other instances of this letter giving an indirect hint of one or other of the specified vowels. We are not, however, hence to infer that inflexions of verbs ending with these sounds were formerly always closed with a para- g(^gic He. For there are many instances, as I shall take an opportunity in the next chapter of showing, in which the voca- 392 MODE PROPOSED OF ASCERTAINING [Chap. IV, working at this problem for some time, I at last arrived at an exposition of the matter which, I am in hopes, will be found to answer the desired end. I now proceed to lay before the reader the result of my investigation ; and will afterwards give two examples of a mode of testing its validity, as well as showing its use, which may be applied to it in an endless va- riety of other cases. Throughout the poetic portions of Scripture, declarations are frequently made, not respecting particular definite acts, but about courses of action ; while indefinite references to those courses are in difi^erent languages usually pointed to different parts of them, and take the form of present, past, or future tenses, as they are directed to the middle, the earlier^ or the later parts of each course. In Hebrew, for instance, the present, as conveyed by a participle or by a second use of the primary form for the future, is occasionally used in this sense ; but much more frequently the future, as represented by its own primary form, or by the secondary form of the prete- rite, is thus applied. In the Greek language, as written by the Seventy Jews, the two aorists are, each of them, more com- monly so employed than present or future tenses, except in the Book of Proverbs, in which the present tense is oftener, though not exclusively, applied in this manner. In the Syriac of the Peshitah the participle present is sometimes used in this sense, but much more frequently the verb preterite. In the Chaldee of the Targums the participle of the present is the form most commonly applied to denoting such references. In English, the present tense is that most suited to the purpose ; though, in the case of a reference to the intentions of the mind rather than to a course of actual external conduct, a future form of expression would best answer. According to the above expo- sition, then, the modern language being put out of considera- tion, the versions in the ancient tongues previously specified will be found, in each instance of an indefinite reference, to agree with the origiual record and with each other in alluding to the very same course of action, although they present the Chap. IV.] POETIC USE OF THE HEBREW TENSES. 393 appearance of disagreement in this respect, in consequence of the habits contracted by different nations of referring to diffe- rent parts of a course of this sort, and thence of expressing such references in different tenses. The poem of David which has suggested the discussion of this subject is peculiarly fitted for its illustration ; as this composition supplies not merely an additional field for the determination of the force of the tenses in Hebrew poetry, but even one of the kind which is most of all to be relied on, as yielded by a comparison of c'orresponding parts of parallel passages of the sacred text itself ; nor is the further additional aid to be overlooked which is afforded by comparing the ren- derings of such parts respectively in the different versions. For my first example, then, I select a passage of this poem, respecting the force of whose tenses there can now be scarcely any difference of opinion, and in reference to which the two English translations sanctioned by our Church quite agree : it is rendered in the Authorized Version of the Bible as fol- lows : " It is God that (1) girdeth me with strength, and (2) maketh my way perfect ; he (3) maketh my feet like hinds' /^^, and (4) setteth me upon my* high places ; he (5)teacheth my hands to war." Ps. xviii. 32-34. In the Hebrew of this extract the first, third, and fifth modifi- cations of tense are represented by participles present ; the second and fourth, by verbs in the primary form for the future, ^ The writers of the older English translation in the book of Common Prayer, guided by the sense, left out the above superfluous pronoun posses- sive, which the framers of our present Authorized Version felt bound to re- tain, from their desire to adhere strictly to what they conceived to be the original text. But, on referring to that text, it will now be seen, that the letter denoting this pronoun, viz. the final element of ^HDH, is a mater lectionis introduced by the vocalizers of the second century, and proved to be wrongly here inserted by the concordant testimonies of the Septuagint and Peshitah, given through their respective renderings of the original group in both of the places referred to. 394 MODE PROPOSED OF ASCERTAINING [Chap. IV, which, however, is also used to denote the present, and in which signification, consequently, they must, from the expressions of time with which they are immediately connected, be here taken: while, in the parallel passage of Samuel, the first clause, which in all probability originally contained, in like manner as in the former case, a participle present, now exhibits in lieu thereof a noun f- but the four remaining forms of tense stand exactly the same as in the place referred to in the Book of Psalms. In the Septuagint the second expression of time is a second aorist in the Psalms and a first aorist in Samuel ; while the four re- maining expressions are, all of them, participles present in both places. Here, by the way, we may see, by comparing the two translations of the same original passage, that the Seventy Jews made no distinction between the two kinds of aorists ; and still farther, by comparing those aorists, on the one hand, ^ The Hebrew word above referred to, which is at present exhibited in the form '^T^^ytt, MaHUZI, ' my strength,' is shown by its translation in the Peshi- tah 1 1 nV-K, ' hath girded me,' and more especially by its rendering in the Septuagint, icpaiatCbv /le, ' fortifying me,' as well as by the form of the corre- sponding word in the eighteenth Psalm, "^i^lTSD, 'girding me,' to have been formerly written ^n^3?D, MeHOZeZi, ' fortifying me (literally, ' my fortifier'). The dropping once of a letter which ought to be written twice continuously may be easily accounted for by giddiness of transcription ; more especially on the part of Shemitic copyists, who were in the habit of constantly denoting an articulation repeated without the intervention of a vowel-sound by a sin- gle character ; and a copyist who did not take the trouble of reading, as he proceeded, what he had written out, may be readily conceived to have failed to observe that a vowel should be pronounced between the two letters of Z power, and so to have intentionally omitted one of them as quite superfluous. In an amended edition of the sacred text I would recommend the dropped consonant to be restored ; in such a manner, however, as to show the resto- ration to be modern ; for which purpose it should be exhibited, in accordance with the notation I employ, '^[T]T^3?D. The corresponding clauses in the two copies of the poem would thus come out, in Samuel, ' God fortifieth me with strength' (instead of the present authorized rendering, * God is my strength and power') ; and in the Book of Psalms, without any change of the wording in either of the Authorized Translations, ^ It is God that girdeth me with strength.' The two (Causes, I admit, are not thus exhibited absolutely iden- tical, but they are at least restored to perfect equivalence. Chap.IV.] poetic use OF THE HEBREW TENSES. 395 with the Hebrew tenses they were intended respectively to in- terpret, and on the other, with the Greek tenses with which they are each of them associated, and also by bearing in mind that the translators were in the habit of assimilating in their own language the force of tenses thus connected, we shall per- ceive that the Greek forms in question are in this place used as indefinite present tenses ; although they are, each of them, employed in translating the narrative parts of the very same poem to denote a past event, with scarcely any distinction from definite preterites, or at least with none that can be easily apprehended by modern readers. In the Peshitah all the five expressions of time in both of the original passages are translated in the preterite tense. Here a remarkable pecu- liarity in the idiomatic forms of the ancient Syriac is very prominently displayed ; as, from a comparison of the corre- sponding verbs or participles of the two parallel passages, even in the Hebrew alone, but more especially from this comparison taken in both the Hebrew and Greek, it is rendered clear be- yond a doubt that all of those words in the original record are used with the force of a present tense ; and yet they are all translated in the dialect in question by preterites. To recon- cile these preterites in any degree with their ascertained value in the passages referred to, what would first occur, as I con- ceive, to an investigator would be to translate them as mixed preterites, as for instance, to render the first of them, ' he hath girded me with strength,' wherein the reference is made, in- deed, chiefly to the past, but so far indefinitely as not to ex- clude all consideration of the present. So imperfect a degree of agreement, however, with the original text is by no means satisfactory. To do justice, therefore, to the well-known accu- racy in other respects of the first Syriac version, we must, I submit, have recourse to the theory above propounded, and conclude that the people who formerly spoke the language of this version were in the habit of referring generally to indefi- nite courses of action, by pointing in particular to the earlier part of each course, in consequence of which their preterites, 396 MODE PEOPOSED OF ASCERTAINING [Chap. IV. taken in this indefinite acceptation, were equivalent to present or future tenses indefinitely used in other languages ; whence the correct English translation of the expression above alluded to would come out, ^ he girdeth me with strength.' In Hebrew, preterites are frequently converted into futures, and that, too, without limitation to indefinite forms. It is, therefore, I sub- mit, not very strange, that the conversion of preterites into present or future tenses should, in a particular case, have held in the cognate S3rriac dialect, at least not so strange as to warrant our refusing to consider the evidence by which this view of the matter is sustained, and rejecting it without exa- mination. With regard to the adduced example, I have only further to notice two very gross mistakes relating to it, committed by the Masorets, The second of the modifications of time therein (viz., in the clause, ' and maketh my way perfect') referred to, which is exhibited in both of the original passages in the pri- mary form of the future or present tense, is in each place con- verted by those critics into a secondary form of the preterite, through their mode of pointing the verb and the Waw prefixed to it. To expose the glaring incorrectness of their representa- tion of this subject, it will not be necessary to appeal to the combined evidence of the Hebrew and Greek records, which is here irresistible ; I prefer opposing to them in this instance the attestations of their own countrymen, the joint testimonies of the two Targums, in which the Books of Samuel and that of the Psalms are respectively interpreted, in each of which the tense in question is translated by a participle present. But of the former Targum, called that of Jonathan, the first part, which included the translation of the specified historic books, is of considerable authority, and far older than the Masoretic pointing ; while the circumstance of the latter Targum being of much less antiquity serves to prove that a view of this matter directly opposed to that of the Masorets prevailed among the Jews for a great length of time. In fact, the Wa7v prefixed to verbs was formerly pronounced in every in- Chap. IV.] POETIC USE OF THE HEBREW TENSES. 397 stance Wu, as is shown by the extant remains of the column of the Hexapla of Origen, in which he represented the sounds of Hebrew groups by means of Greek characters, and in which the sound in question is always denoted by ou, there being no way of representing the articulation of IF before the vowel JJ with Grecian letters. The variation, therefore, of the sound of this Hebrew conjunction, according to the uses to which it is applied, is a distinction introduced since the days of Origen, which indeed is a very useful one, in saving the reader trouble, as far as it is correctly applied. But whenever the pointing for a change of tense appears to be at variance with the con- text, we are by no means tied down to it, more especially where it is found to be contradicted by older authorities. I am now in a condition to avail myself of the aid of the proposed theory, in analyzing the force of the Hebrew tenses where their meaning is less obvious, and for my second exam- ple select the passage of the above inspired poem which first betrays a disagreement on this point between the two Autho- rized English Translations : it is rendered in the sixth verse of this Psalm in our Bible, thus : "In my distress I (1) called upon the Lord, and (2) cried unto my God ; he (3) heard my voice out of his temple, and (4) my cry came before him, even into his ears." The very same passage is interpreted in the fourth and fifth verses of this Psalm in our Prayer-book, as follows : " In my trouble 1(1) Avill caU upon the Lord, and (2) com- plain unto my God ; so (3) shall he hear my voice out of his holy temple, and (4) my complaint shall come before him, it shall enter even into his ears." According to the former rendering of the passage here re- ferred to, it constitutes part of a highly figurative and poeti- cal narration of an awful danger with which David had been beset, and of a wonderful display of God's power, by which he was thence extricated ; which, commencing two verses before. 398 MODE PEOPOSED OF ASCERTAINING [Chap. IV. is continued without interruption through above twenty verses. But, according to the latter rendering, the same pas- sage conveys an outburst of pious and grateful feeling, excited by the thoughts of the dreadful danger by which the author had been encompassed, of which he had just begun to write, but interrupts his narration to give vent to the expression of his sense of the goodness of the Almighty in always listening to his prayer, when offered up in time of danger and trouble. It is besides to be noted that, before we come to the end of the narrative portion of the Psalm, there are more interrup- tions of the same kind, in which the verbs employed do not, as they are represented in the former account of the matter, point definitely to a single past act of God, but indefinitely to a number of acts constituting the general tenor of his provi- dential treatment of the Royal Psalmist. Thus the translation of the first half of this Psalm in the Prayer-book would appear to breathe a stronger spirit of devotedness to God than the rendering given of the same part in our Authorized Version, and so to be preferable in itself, as well as more in keeping with the zealous disposition of the author. But to arrive at a stricter decision between the two translations of the specified portion of the poem, it would be necessary to examine the in- ternal structure of their common original compared with the corresponding portion of the other copy of the same original, and with the like portions of the more ancient renderings of both copies, as far as respects the passages which are of dis- puted meaning. Here, however, to avoid too long a digres- sion, I must confine myself to such an examination of the first of those passages, namely, that of which the two English ren- derings have been above quoted ; and, as the question, whe- ther it be parenthetically used or not, depends on the force of its tenses, I shall commence with a, comparative analysis of their bearings, similar to that made in the case of the previous example. In this passage, then, as it is exhibited in the Hebrew Psalter, all the four verbs are in the primary form of the Chap. IV.] POETIC USE OF THE HEBREW TENSES. 399 future or present tense ; while, in the parallel passage of Samuel all the three that are preserved are likewise in that form ; but the fourth is dropped from the text. In the Greek of the same passage in the Psalms, the first three verbs are aorists, and the fourth a future tense ; while in Samuel the first three are all futures, and the fourth clause is left without any ex- pression of tense, showing that the fourth verb had been lost from the text, or at any rate from the copies of it consulted by the Seventy before their time. In the Syriac of this pas- sage, as given in both places of its occurrence, all the four verbs are in the preterite tense. Finally, in the Chaldee para- phrase of the Psalms, the four Hebrew verbs of the above pas- sage are translated by five participles present, there being a supplementary expression of tense given in the last clause in the same manner as in the older of the two English trans- lations ; while in the closer Chaldee interpretation of Samuel given in the Targum of Jonathan, the tenses of the same pas- sage are conveyed through four participles present. Now to examine the point under inquiry by the aid of the particulars just furnished I am quite ready to admit that, although in prose a Hebrew verb in a future form re- quires a Waw to be prefixed to itself, or to the noun govern- ing it, for the purpose of assimilating the force of its tense to that of a preceding preterite with which it is connected in sense, still, in poetry this alteration of tense may take place without the intervention of the Waw conversive, as it is tech- nically termed ; and that, accordingly, the Hebrew futures in the passage before us may be translated as preterites, pro- vided this verse was intended by the author as a continuation of the account commenced in the two preceding verses. But to the condition here required is opposed the alteration of style indicated by the abrupt introduction of four verbs in continued succession, all of them, in the primary form for the future or present tense ; besides that the union of such a number of verbs in this form appears to convey a reference to the future, or the present, too strong to be changed in subor- 2 F 398 MODE PROPOSED OF ASCERTAINING [Chap. IV. is continued without interruption through above twenty verses. But, according to the latter rendering, the same pas- sage conveys an outburst of pious and grateful feeling, excited by the thoughts of the dreadful danger by which the author had been encompassed, of which he had just begun to -write, but interrupts his narration to give vent to the expression of his sense of the goodness of the Almighty in always listening to his prayer, when offered up in time of danger and trouble. It is besides to be noted that, before we come to the end of the narrative portion of the Psalm, there are more interrup- tions of the same kind, in which the verbs employed do not, as they are represented in the former account of the matter, point definitely to a single past act of God, but indefinitely to a number of acts constituting the general tenor of his provi- dential treatment of the Royal Psalmist. Thus the translation of the first half of this Psalm in the Prayer-book would appear to breathe a stronger spirit of devotedness to God than the rendering given of the same part in our Authorized Version, and so to be preferable in itself, as well as more in keeping with the zealous disposition of the author. But to arrive at a stricter decision between the two translations of the specified portion of the poem, it would be necessary to examine the in- ternal structure of their common original compared with the corresponding portion of the other copy of the same original, and with the like portions of the more ancient renderings of both copies, as far as respects the passages which are of dis- puted meaning. Here, however, to avoid too long a digres- sion, I must confine myself to such an examination of the first of those passages, namely, that of which the two English ren- derings have been above quoted ; and, as the question, whe- ther it be parenthetically used or not, depends on the force of its tenses, I shall commence with a comparative analysis of their bearings, similar to that made in the case of the previous example. In this passage, then, as it is exhibited in the Hebrew Psalter, all the four verbs are in the primary form of the Chap. IV.] POETIC USE OF THE HEBREW TENSES. 399 future or present tense ; while, in the parallel passage of Samuel all the three that are preserved are likewise in that form ; but the fourth is dropped from the text. In the Greek of the same passage in the Psalms, the first three verbs are aorists, and the fourth a future tense ; while in Samuel the first three are all futures, and the fourth clause is left without any ex- pression of tense, showing that the fourth verb had been lost from the text, or at any rate from the copies of it consulted by the Seventy before their time. In the Syriac of this pas- sage, as given in both places of its occurrence, all the four verbs are in the preterite tense. Finally, in the Chaldee para- phrase of the Psalms, the four Hebrew verbs of the above pas- sage are translated by five participles present, there being a supplementary expression of tense given in the last clause in the same manner as in the older of the two English trans- lations ; while in the closer Chaldee interpretation of Samuel given in the Targum of Jonathan, the tenses of the same pas- sage are conveyed through four participles present. Now to examine the point under inquiry by the aid of the particulars just furnished I am quite ready to admit that, although in prose a Hebrew^ verb in a future form re- quires a Waw to be prefixed to itself, or to the noun govern- ing it, for the purpose of assimilating the force of its tense to that of a preceding preterite with which it is connected in sense, still, in poetry this alteration of tense may take place without the intervention of the Waw conversive, as it is tech- nically termed ; and that, accordingly, the Hebrew futures in the passage before us may be translated as preterites, pro- vided this verse was intended by the author as a continuation of the account commenced in the two preceding verses. But to the condition here required is opposed the alteration of style indicated by the abrupt introduction of four verbs in continued succession, all of them, in the primary form for the future or present tense ; besides that the union of such a number of verbs in this form appears to convey a reference to the future, or the present, too strong to be changed in subor- 2 F 400 MODE PROPOSED OF ASCERTAINING [Chap. IV. dination to a preceding preterite. Accordingly, it may be observed, that the three futures of this passage which are preserved in Samuel are all translated as futures in the Sep- tuagint ; while its four futures in the Book of Psalms are rendered in that version by three aorists and one future ; where it would appear that the three indeterminate tenses must take their reference to time from the determinate one with which they are associated, an observation which is strongly supported by the fact above stated, that the three Hebrew verbs which these aorists are employed to interpret are, all of them, rendered by futures in the corresponding pas- sage of Samuel. Upon the same side with this evidence stands the whole of the Chaldee testimony on this subject, as attaching to the Hebrew verbs a reference to the present, which renders the passages containing them distinct from the course of the narrative, and parenthetic, just as much as would a re- ference to the future : neither can that given by the Peshitah be viewed as telling the opposite way, since we have already seen, in the case of the example previously analyzed, Syriac preterites used with an indeterminate reference to a course of acts or events, in like manner as is the indefinite present in English. The Yulgate, I may here observe by the way, con- tradicts itself upon the point before us, the Hebrew verbs re- ferred to being therein translated, in one of the compared passages, as preterites, and in the other as future tenses. The only ancient evidence, then, I have met with on the opposite side of the question, is that of the Masorets, who, availing them- selves of a Waw prefixed to the third verb in the passage of Samuel, have pointed it as if it was thereby converted into a preterite, which would imply that the two preceding futures were likewise employed as past tenses. But to refute this attestation it will be sufficient to contrast it with, even solely, the Chaldee testimony of the first part of the Targum of Jona- than, in which, as has been already noticed, the very same three verbs are translated in the present tense. Upon the whole, then, I submit, ancient testimony must Chap. IV.] POETIC USE OF THE HEBREW TENSES. 401 be looked upon as concurring with the interval evidence of the case, to prove the translation in our Prayer-book of the analyzed passage of the Book of Psalms preferable to that ap- plied to the same passage in the present Authorized English Version of the Bible. The reference to the future therein attached to the tenses of the verbs sufficiently marks the pa- renthetic nature of the passage containing them. This end, I must however add, would be equally effected by assign- ing to them a reference to the present, a force which the form of the original verbs equally admits, and which would at the same time better answer in Enghsh the purpose of indi- cating the indefiniteness of their bearing, or the circumstance of their pointing to habits rather than to single definite acts. I would, therefore, venture to modify, as follows, the render- ing of this passage exhibited in the Authorized English Ver- sion, which, with the exception of its tenses, is more accurate than that given in our Prayer-book : " Whenever in my distress I call upon the Lord, and cry unto my God, he heareth my voice out of his temple, and my cry Cometh before him, even into his ears. Moreover " The corresponding verse of Samuel, treated in like manner, comes out thus : " Whenever in my distress I call upon the Lord, and cry to my God, he heareth my voice out of his temple, and my cry *cometh before him, * Ps. xvul e. into his ears. Moreover " With respect to the initial word of the translation here recom- mended of each passage, I have to observe that the commence- ments of the two clauses of this verse in Samuel are literally interpreted, ' In my distress I call upon the Lord , and he heareth (J/Dli^*'!),' for which the rendering, 'Whenever (or when) in my distress I call upon the Lord . . . . , he heareth,' may be fairly substituted, as conveying exactly the same mean- ing. I have, therefore, felt at liberty to adopt the latter form, 2r 2 402 MODE PROPOSED OF ASCERTAINING [Chap. IV. and have given it the preference, not only for the purpose of expressing more distinctly the connexion of the two clauses, which is made somewhat confused by the use of the conjunc- tion ' and,' three times in the same verse,^ but also, more espe- cially, to mark the beginning of the parenthesis and the indefinite bearing of the tenses. But in order to employ the same form in the translation of the corresponding passage of the Psalm, it is necessary to restore a Waw dropped from that passage, and to print its third verb in an amended edition of the text iJDt^*^r)] ; as we are fully warranted in doing by a collation of the two extant Hebrew copies of this poem. On the other hand, to indicate the termination of the same paren- thesis, and the return to the narrative, I have in both instances changed the initial word of the next verse from * then' to * moreover,' a rendering which approaches nearer to the pri- mary meaning ('and') of the original conjunction.^ It is not sufficient to exhibit in italics the expression, ' cometh before him,' in the rendering given of the second passage ; because, although the context shows that something is in this place wanting, it does not tell exactly what that something is. The true ground for the insertion here of this expression is the circumstance of its original having been preserved in the cor- responding part of the other copy transmitted to us in Scrip- * The verse in Samuel which is above referred to is translated in our Authorized Version as follows: " In my distress I called upon the Lord, and cried to my God: and he did hear my voice out of his temple, and my cry did enter into his ears." Here, it may be observed, the distinction be- tween the two clauses of the sentence is made solely by the stops applied to it. '' The general reader may, perhaps, be surprised at the latitude of choice with which translators interpret the Hebrew conjunction (^) above referred to. But they are compelled so to deal with this particle, from the circum- stance of its including under its primary signification of * connexion' a great variety of particular modes of connecting words or sentences, which are in other languages expressed by a corresponding variety of conjunctions. Hence an interpreter is compelled first to ascertain through the context the nature of the connexion denoted by the 1 in each instance, and thereby to determine the conjunction with which it should be translated in that instance. Chap.IV.] poetic use OF THE HEBREW TENSES. 403 ture of the very same poem; the site of which part is accordingly noted in the margin, and printed in italics to mark the peculiar nature of the reference here made to it. In the Hebrew text, however, I would not venture to fill up the chasm which a comparison of the corresponding passages in this case serves to expose, but would merely leave a blank space in the site of that chasm in the defective passage. Although the translation of the passage, just examined, which is given in our Prayer-book, be older than that in the present Authorized Version of the Bible, having been intro- duced as early as the time of Archbishop Cranmer, in whose version it first appeared, yet the preterite form of the verbs employed in the later renderings of this and other passages of the same kind may be traced as far back as the first Autho- rized English Bible, namely, that written by Bishop Cover- dale. The adoption of the form in question of the tenses by the earlier English translators, in the class of passages alluded to, appears to have been occasioned by their attaching too great weight to the Masoretic pointing, to which they seem to have paid nearly the same deference as to the inspired ingredients of the sacred text. The Authorized use, however, of this form was suspended for the space of about thirty years during which Cranmer's Bible was that sanctioned by our Church ; but it was restored on the publication of Archbishop Parker's translation, in the year 1568, and was thence transferred to our present Authorized Version. Just about the time of the in- troduction of Parker's Bible, the Syriac version of the Old Testa- ment was brought much into notice by the erudite publications of Masius relating to it; a circumstance which, I think, gives some reason to suspect that a misconception of the force, in certain cases, of the preterite tense in that version may, pos- sibly, have occasioned the return to a corresponding mistake in the last two of the successively Authorized English Bibles. For it may be easily conceived that the learned, on their first acquaintance with the Syriac version of the Hebrew record, and before they had the advantage of consulting it in a printed 404 MANY DIFFERENCES CAN BE REMOVED [Chap. IV, form, might have failed to perceive, and distinguish between, all the bearings of the preterite tense in the language of that version. The next point to which I would beg to draw attention is a brief classification of the differences which have in the course of time arisen between the two copies of David's poem, with a view to inquiring how far those differences can be re- moved through a collation of the contents of those copies, supported by the context as well as by the evidence of ancient versions, and still further strengthened, as such a collation must be now, by the aid of the discovery unfolded in these pages. The differences in question, then, are either occasioned by omissions or chasms which occur, each of them, in but one of the above copies, or consist in discrepancies of a more po- sitive nature ; and those of each kind may be subdivided into three classes, according as they relate to parts of words, to entire words, or to pluralities of words, whether partly or wholly dis- agreeing, and contained in the same clauses of corresponding sentences. Taken altogether, they amount to above a hun- dred ; but by far the greater number of them rank under the first of the classes belonging to the first kind, and are chiefly confined to omissions of single letters, many of which affect not the sense, or even the sound, of the words, but merely their spelling, through which they are said to be, in one or the other copy, defectively written. But as the mode of spelling which has afforded room for these differences is now detected to be an innovation upon the original writing, introduced by fallible men, we surely have as good a right to correct this spelHng, where found to be inaccurate, as former critics had to intro- duce it, provided the alterations thus made be marked as modern corrections. Of this class, however, four or &ve speci- mens, produced by variations between the two copies in respect to the use of the paragogic He, may have existed therein from the first ; so they now admit not of being thence removed, neither do they in the least interfere with the identity of the intrinsic ingredients of the writing of those copies. With re- Chap. IV.] FEOM THE TWO COPIES OF 18th PSALM. 405 gard to those specimens, I shall here only further observe, that they aiFord a good illustration of the nature of the paragogic character referred to, and assist to bear out the description I have already given thereof; namely, that, being devoid of the phonetic power of a letter, it is used merely as an extrinsic sign to intimate how some of the proper letters or intrinsic elements of the text are to be read, though the same intimations might, with a little more consideration, be arrived at without its aid, through the inflexions, suggested by the context, of the words represented by the groups to which it is subjoined ; except, indeed, when those inflexions are irregular, in which case it exerts some influence on the sounds of those words, but never any on their sense. Thus, for example, the original clause, at the end of the fiftieth verse, which is in both places of its occur- rence translated in our Authorized Version of the Bible, " And I wiU sing praises unto thy name," is written regularly in the second Book of Samuel "lOtl}^ "JDC^^I, and in the Book of Psalms, with an irregularity allowed by poetic license, ("m^tK ^Qt^^l; where the final word is to be pronounced HaZaMmeR in the former place, and HaZaMmeEaH in the latter, but obviously without the slightest variation of its meaning. All the re- maining difi*erences of the same class are clearly removable from the sacred text, where they relate to its genuine elements, on the ground of the original identity of the portions of it here compared, as proved by the introductory description which is prefixed to both of them in common f and they can be got rid of with still less scruple where they are con- * It is but right to observe, respecting the above introduction, that, although exhibited in the present state of the Hebrew Bible, as part of the inspired text in both of the places referred to, it yet is represented, where prefixed to the Psalm, as a heading distinct from that text in the trans- lation given of it in the Septuagint ; the Vatican and Alexandrian copies of which are nearly double the age of the oldest extant copy of the original record. But, even according to the Greek representation of the matter (which seems to be followed in our present Authorized Version, though not quite so decidedly as in the earlier ones), the identification of the two portions of Scripture in question rests upon very high authority. For the 406 MANY DIFFERENCES CAN BE KEMOVED [Chap. IV, fined, as a great number of them are, to matres lectionis, of the proper use of which the learned now are fully as adequate judges, as of that of the points employed by the second set of vocalizers. In each case, however, as indeed I have already observed with respect to the latter one, the introduced letters ought to be marked as modern corrections by being placed (supposing my notation adopted) within brackets ; while the corresponding changes in an amended edition of the Autho- rized English Version would require no sort of distinctive sign, in consequence of their being immediately referable to the corrected Hebrew text. In most instances, indeed, those alterations not affecting the sense would at any rate not cause any change in a translation ; but even where their interpretation requires the subordinate addition of some auxi- liary particle, that addition can, for the reason just stated of its capability of immediate reference to the original record, be exhibited in the ordinary character without the use of italics. To fill up the chasms belonging to the second and third classes of omissions in the same way, by supplements within brackets, would, I fear, be deemed too bold a mode of dealing with the Hebrew text. But fairness and candour demand that at least those chasms should be pointed out by blank spaces, or collections of stars, in the sites in which they are proved to exist by a collation of the two copies of David's poem : while description which to a certainty appertains to one of those portions must have been prefixed to the other at a very remote period, since the Seventy Jews found it in that site; neither would they, by giving a translation of it in the second place of its occurrence, have sanctioned its insertion there, un- less they had reason to think it justly applied to the second portion; and they had better opportunities of knowing the true state of the case than any other ancient authors whose writings have come down to our time. It is, however, scarcely necessary to appeal to any authority on this subject; as the two por- tions of Scripture here compared are, to a great extent, either exactly or very nearly the same, even in their existing state ; and even when they most differ, they can be restored to complete identity, by the aid of the present discovery. Chap. IV.] FROM THE TWO COPIES OF 18th PSALM. 407 translations of the supplements which this collation yields might be introduced into an amended edition of our Autho- rized Version, on the very same ground as that which warrants the insertion in it of renderings of such supplements of the chasms of the first class as bear upon the sense ; with this dif- ference, however, that the English words, or collections of words, thus introduced, should be printed in italics, with mar- ginal references to the full passages which warrant their inser- tion in respectively the defective ones. Thus, for example, adhering to the present very incorrect division of the text, because a deviation jfrom it would be attended with much inconvenience, I would render the second verse of 2 Sam. xxii. as follows : " And he said, ^ I will exceedingly lov^ thee^ * fs. xviu. i, and Pesh. LoitJ), my strength. The Lord is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer." Not only the clause here introduced is exhibited in italics, but also the specification in the margin of the part of Scripture which warrants this supplement, is likewise so distinguished, to mark the peculiar nature of the reference. And although an appeal to the sacred text itself may be supposed to super- sede the necessity of one to any other authority, yet I refer also to that of the Peshitah, which directly attests the original ex- istence of the above clause in the quoted verse of Samuel by actually giving a translation of it in the Syriac rendering of that verse ; while, on the other hand, the testimony of Scrip- * The verb of which the inflexion for the first person singular of the fu- ture tense is rendered in our Authorized Version in the part of it above re- ferred to, simply ' I will love,' signifies literally * to love from the inmost part of the body,' or from the part which was considered by the Jews as the seat of the benevolent affections (and which was translated in old English * the bowels') ; whence this verb came to signify, ' to love with great intensity.' I do not maintain that it is always used strictly in this sense ; but the context in the quoted place, I conceive, requires that the full force which its etymo- logy warrants should be there assigned to it. 408 MANY DIFFEEENCES CAN BE REMOVED [Chap.IV. ture on the subject, though strong, is only inferential, being in part deduced from the principle of the original identity of the two copies of the poem in question. Upon the occasion afforded by this example, I cannot refrain from observing, that the desire to conceal from the public the existence of some imperfections in the present state of preservation of the He- brew Bible, however well meant it may be, is not at all jus- tifiable in itself; and still less does it supply any just ground for our failing to avail ourselves of the means which a bene- volent Providence has placed within our reach, for wholly re- moving, or at least diminishing, those imperfections. To turn now to the consideration of the differences of the second kind, or more positive discrepancies the following extracts from corresponding verses of the copies in question supply two examples belonging to the first class of those dis- crepancies. But the second one having been corrected by the Masorets, need not be here brought under discussion, and on this account I exhibit the upper line with their correction of it expressed according to my system of notation : 2 Sam. xxii. 33, ^[^IDII D^lOn m^") Ps. xviii. 32, ^:3-n D^on ]n"ii The framers of our Authorized Version have removed the dis- crepancy between the meanings of the initial groups, and so have virtually changed the Besh of the upper line into Nun, by giving exactly the same translation of the two extracts f " and he maketh my way perfect." But, as the verbs denoted by the above groups cannot be proved equivalent by an examination of the uses made of the rarer one in the other places of its occurrence, nor does the * A second translation, indeed, of the initial group of the upper line is added in the margin. But that in the body of our version, by being placed in the foreground, is obviously represented as more deserving of attention, and in fact is the only one attended to by the great majority of readers. Chap.IV.] from the two COPIES OF 18th PSALM. 409 Septuagint concur with the Peshitah in assigning to them the same meaning in the place before us, it must have been on the general ground of the original complete identity of the copies referred to, that our translators rendered those groups by the very same words, ' and he maketh ;' a ground, however, which in this particular instance is fortified by the subsidiary consi- deration, that the copyists certainly wrote Resh by mistake for Nun in other parts of the Bible,^ and, consequently, there is no a |?rzori improbability of their having committed here also the like mistake. But it is a much bolder proceeding to erase a letter of the Hebrew Bible, and then introduce another into the vacancy thus created, than merely to fill up a chasm already existing therein ; yet we may here perceive that the framers of our version went fully to this extent in their virtual correc- tion of the original text, where they could do so, without be- traying to the generality of readers the existence of any blemish in the present state of that text. Now, I do not by any means presume to find fault with their having virtually made the correction just described ; on the contrary, I maintain that in so acting they exercised a sound discretion ; and, still further, I would imitate them in abstaining from getting printed in italics the translation of the group requiring correction, though not from any motive of concealment, but because I would refer to that group as, I conceive, it ought to be writ- o ten ("iDJn'^l) in an amended edition of the sacred record. I bring their treatment of this example under notice, merely for ^ The name "l^^^DlD'^nD, NeBUKaDNESaR, in some places in the Book of Jeremiah and in that of Ezekiel, is written with a Resh instead of the Nun in its interior, evidently through a mistake of the copyists. This variation certain critics, indeed, of the present day attempt to account for by assuming that the word in question formerly admitted of either pronunciation ; but their view of this case is directly opposed to the best ancient testimonies now attainable on the subject. This name is constantly exhibited, both in the Septuagint and in the Peshitah, with a letter of iV power in its interior, even in those places where it is at present mis-written in the Hebrew text, 'n!5^'n"Ta'^^3, NBUKaDRESaR. 410 MANY DIFFEKENCES CAN BE REMOVED [Chap.IV. the purpose of strengthening with the sanction of their own practice the case made out for the mode of correcting the He- brew text here recommended ; a sanction which, I submit, they have actually afforded me, as far as their maxims of reserve would allow them. The discrepancies of the second class are not very nume- rous, and most of them are occasioned by the occurrence of words in corresponding places, which, though disagreeing, each pair, in letters, yet agree to some extent in sense, or at all events do not interfere with an equivalence in the general scope of the clauses to which they respectively belong ; so I need not dwell upon them. But those of the third class are of more importance, appearing in sentences of corresponding sites which, though only in part disagreeing in their ingre- dients, yet differ in tenor to such a degree, that all attempts to reconcile them have hitherto proved quite ineffectual. It is by the service performed in the removal of discrepancies of this class from Scripture, that the value as well as the reality of the present discovery is displayed in the most striking manner. An example of such a discrepancy is supplied by a comparison of parallel verses of the two copies of David's poem already quoted in this chapter, page 332, the latter clauses of which, in their present state, may be rendered lite- rally as follows ; ' and as for his statutes, I will not depart from any of them.' ' and his statutes I will not put away (or cast out) from me.' The previous reference to those clauses, as they are at present exhibited in the Hebrew text, was made for the more imme- diate purpose of tracing the final group of one of them, with its initial letter restored, "^^DO, to its original state, il2DD, But it was also there explained that the difference between them, though producing so wide a discrepancy in their renderings, was occasioned by merely different modes of vocaHzing, and, consequently, different modes of reading, one and the same Chap.IV.] from the two copies of 18th psalm. 411 original clause [H^DD ")D^^ ^7 nr\pm]. For the combination of groups, "1D^^ ^7, which is vocalized so as to be read in the upper one of the Hebrew lines referred to, LoH HaSwE, ' I will not depart,' could not be so read in the under line, where the final group is vocalized for the signification ' from me;' as the statement, ' I will not depart from me,' would be quite unin- telligible. Hence it became necessary in the latter line to read the same original combination with a different vocahzation of its second part, LoH HaSzR, ' I will not drive off (or make to depart,)' that is, ' I will not put away,' according to its trans- lation in our Authorized Version of the Bible, or, ' I wiU not cast out,' according to that given of it in our Book of Common Prayer. Thus it was shown that the last two groups of the original clause, about which alone any doubt could arise as to the true mode of vocalizing or reading them, are in that re- spect essentially connected with each other ; so that of which- ever line the reading of the last group is adopted, that of the penultimate group in the same line must be therewith united. It now, therefore, only remains to inquire which pair of con- nected readings should be preferred. But for the determina- tion of this question it will be sufficient to compare the very different meanings which result from the two sets of readings, and to consider whether it was more in keeping with the pious character of David, to declare that he would not ' depart (or deviate) from any of the commandments of God,' or without at all disclaiming an intention of disobeying most of them to confine himself barely to promising that he would not proceed so far in wickedness as to repudiate, or contemptuously reject, their entire collection that he would not 'put them away from him,' or ' cast them out.' Much deliberation cannot, I appre- hend, be here wanted to satisfy an investigator, not only that the treatment of the two groups under examination, which leads to the former interpretation of the clause containing them, is that which should be preferred, but also that it alone is admissible ; since the form of declaration or promise which results from the latter treatment of the same groups is, by no 412 INSTANCE OF EREONEOUS MASORETIC [Chap.IV. means, suited to either the zealous disposition of the author, or the occasion on which he composed this poem, as it might naturally be expected that he would be most ardent in his professions of devotedness to God's service immediately after having been delivered by the Almighty from great danger. 1 would, therefore, extend the mode of dealing with those groups in the upper original line to the lower one, where in consequence they should be written in an amended edition of the sacred text, according to the notation employed by me, "l^niDi^ and [HJ'^i^CD] ; and I would translate the final clause of both lines in exactly the same words : " and as for his statutes, I will not depart from any of them." The Greek and Syriac renderings of this clause in the two places of its occurrence in Scripture, with their literal inter- pretations subjoined, stand thus in the Septuagint and Peshi- tah respectively : 2 Sam. xxii. 23, Kat ra hiKaiw/uLara aVTov, ovk cLTreaTrjv arn avrwv, * and, as for his statutes, I will not depart from them.' Psalm xviii. 23, Kal ra hiKatw/JXtra avTov ovk aTrecTfjaav citt' efjLQV. * and his statutes shall not depart from me.' In both places, --J^ ^^^=^1 U >-.qi offioV)i o * and his statutes I will not drive off (or make to pass away) from me.' The translation of the clause in question by the Seventy in the first of the specified places supports in the main my ren- dering of it. But that given by them in the second of those places appears to have undergone some corruption. The Greek verb here employed would seem to have been put in the third person plural, in the vain effort to reconcile it with the final part of the sentence, by some scribe who had not consulted the original text ; as no mode of vocalizing the corresponding He- brew verb could exhibit it in that person without an alteration of its genuine elements. The framers ofthePeshitah also sup- Chap. IV.] CHANGE OF AN OLDER VOCALIZATION. 413 port my representation of the subject to some extent, by show- ing that the clause referred to ought to be read and interpreted in exactly the same way in the two places of its occurrence ; although, in consequence of erroneously reading, they have erroneously interpreted it in both those places. The tenses of the verbs used in these renderings are worth noticing ; as the two Greek aorists and the Syriac preterite are here proved, by the context as well as by the structure of the Hebrew, to be employed with the force of indefinite futures. The last point regarding this subject to which I shall in the present chapter advert, is a strange mistake committed by the Masorets, in altering the reading correctly applied by the older set of vocalizers to the initial group of the last verse of the poem of David under examination, in the copy of it given in the second book of Samuel. I here subjoin as much of the verse as is wanted for the exposition of this case, transcribed from both places of its occurrence in the sacred text, with its Masoretic pointing attached to the initial group in one of those places, which erroneously implies that the Yod should be changed to a Waw^ and mth the letter of S power restored in the group of each line in which it has been altered by the Jewish scribes into a Shin, 2 Sam. xxii. 51, ,rr^'si;di iDH Hpyi ,^^b^ r^]:^^ b?'i:3p m Psai. xviii. 51, .^H^t^i^S icn HDj/T ,'\:br2 r^'\i:w> hl^l2 ^ Here it is to be observed, that the -original elements of the two lines are entirely the same ; in consequence of which they ought to be read and translated the very same way, even inde- pendently of the consideration of the identity of the two copies of the poem to which they belong being attested in the sacred text, or at least in headings of great antiquity prefixed to those copies ; and, accordingly, they are translated by exactly the same words in the Septuagint, the Peshitah, and the Targums^ * Some of the groups of the Chaldee interpretation are fuller of vowel- letters in the Targum of the Psalms than in the Targum of Jonathan, on ac- 414 INSTANCE OF ERRONEOUS MASORETIC [Chap, IV. respectively. Yet, notwithstanding all this, the Masorets have pointed the initial group in the two places for quite different readings and significations. To commence with a separate examination of the lower line, with the vocalization of which they have not tampered, when the Hebrew idiom is taken into account which gives intensity to the meaning of the second group by putting the noun it denotes in the plural number, we shall find that this line is literally translated as follows : "magnifying the great deliverance (or salvation) of his king, and exerting mercy towards his anointed." The initial group, indeed, might in the abstract be read and construed, either MaGDeX, ' magnifying,' or MzGDoL, ' a tower ;' but in the site here considered it is confined by analogy of structure to the former reading, and limited to the signification of a participle rather than of a noun, to make it correspond with the partici- ple present of the subsequent part of the sentence. Accord- ingly, this group has been here interpreted as a participle pre- sent by all the ancient interpreters ; and although the old vocalizers left it open to either reading, it is evident that they did so only through oversight, as they restricted it in the upper line to a participial form by the insertion of a vocal Yod in its final syllable, where there is evidently no more reason for putting this limitation on it than in the lower one. Even the Masorets themselves pointed the group in question for the reading magdil, ' magnifying,' in the under line, where they were guided only by the natural structure of the sentence and the Targum of the Psalms ; and, consequently, they ought a fortiori to have thus pointed it in the upper line, where they were limited to thus reading it by the same requisite structure, and by the much higher Chaldee authority of the Targum of Jonathan, as also by the older vocalization of the group, which count of the interval between the dates of those Targums, during which the Jewish scribes became more familiar with the use of such letters; but the words denoted by those groups are exactly the same, and the remaining in- gredients of the two Chaldee sentences referred to are completely identical in writing as well as in sound. Chap. IV.] CHANGE OF AN OLDER VOCALIZATION. 415 they had no way of distinguishing from its original elements. While, however, they showed a want of proper attention to these considerations in their mode of pointing this group in the upper hne, they are not to be charged with also disregard- ing the authority of the Septuagint and Peshitah ; as before their time the Jews had abandoned the use, and in consequence lost the benefit, of the former record, and most probably never consulted the latter. But the framers of the Geneva Bible, and after them the editors of Parker's Bible, and after the latter set of translators the writers of the present Authorized English Version, adopted the very gross blunder here com- mitted by the Masorets, and translated the above group at the beginning of the upper line a ' tower,' in opposition to the natural structure of the line ; in opposition to the Targum of Jonathan, in which the group in this site is interpreted "^JDO, ^ multiplying,' or ' increasing ;' in opposition to the Peshitah, in which it is rendered *^>aSD, ' magnifying ;' in opposition to the Septuagint, in which it is translated /meyaXvptvu, ' magnify- ing ;' and, above all, in opposition to the inspired text, in which it is written v'^UD, ' magnifying.' The vowel-letter, indeed, of this last expression is now ascertained to constitute no part of the original writing of this group ; but if we were to attach ever so little weight to its first vocalization, or even to deal with it as if it was un vocalized, we still should be obliged to read it, not as a noun, but as a participle, for the same reason, or at least as strong ones, as those on account of which we thus read it in its unvocalized state in the under line, and also for the additional reason, that the two verses therewith commencing are corresponding parts of the very same original poem, and are to this day exactly the same in all their original letters. The alteration, therefore, of the group in question recommended by the Masorets in the upper line ought to be rejected ; and it should be sufi*ered to remain in the state in which it is at present exhibited in that line in the unpointed text. The translation of this verse at the end of the eighteenth Psalm in our present Authorized Version of the Bible gives correctly 2 G 416 INSTANCE OF EREONEOUS, &c. [Chap. IV. the substance of its meaning ; for the change of the participles present to verbs in the present tense makes no alteration of the sense, and yields a preferable form, as that of a sentence com- plete in itself. But, through whatever words the meaning of the above verse is conveyed in the specified Psalm, it should be expressed by exactly the same words in the second Book of Samuel. The case here examined is worth noticing for the striking illustration it aifords of the great value of the Arcanum puneta- tionis revelatum of Cappellus, which was not published till a few years after the first edition came out of King James's Bible. For if the very learned assemblages of men that severally composed the three above-mentioned English versions had been able to consult this work, w^hich reduces the authority of the Masoretic system to its true level, they would have been prevented from falling into the strange error in their respective translations which has been just exposed. Another reason for my adducing this example is to show the reader, that I am not to be consi- dered as an innovator on account of my occasionally dissent- ing from the Masoretic punctuation. In the present case, for instance, the charge of innovation evidently lies not against me, but against the Masorets themselves ; and, in here correct- ing their misvocalization, I have but restored the true reading of the analyzed group and its ancient interpretation. Chap. V.] A FOURTH CLASS OF OMISSIONS, &c. 417 CHAPTER V. FINAL PART OF THE ARGUMENT DERIVED FROM THE STRUCTURE OF THE LANGUAGE. A FOURTH CLASS OF OMISSIONS OF THE LETTER HE BY TttE OLD VOCA- LIZERS SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE SPURIOUSNESS OF THE MATRES LECTIONIS REMOVED THE HEBREW TEXT FORMERLY WAS NOT DI- VIDED INTO WORDS INCOHERENCY REMOVED FROM PS. XI. 1, BY MEANS OF THE PRESENT DISCOVERY THE HEBREW TEXT WAS FORMERLY NOT DISTRIBUTED INTO VERSES H^ COULD FORMERLY BE READ LfH, ' TO ME,' AS WELL AS LoH, * TO HIM,' OR LmH, ' PRAY* ^2 AND "ID, AT FIRST WRITTEN H^, WHICH WAS READ EITHER KiH, ' BECAUSE,' OR KoH, ' THUS* ANALYSIS OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE HEBREW VERSE GEN. XXVII. 36 CAUSE OF CONFUSION BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND PERSON SINGULAR OF PRETERITES ANALYSIS RECONSIDERED OF PART OF THE VERSE JUDG. XI. 34. THROUGH a comparison of groups of corresponding sites in the Jewish and Samaritan editions of the Hebrew Pentateuch, which have been differently treated in those edi- tions and vocalized in either, while they were, in the other, overlooked and suffered to remain in their original state, three classes of suppressions of the letter He by the old vocalizers have been already exposed : namely, first, where this letter had been a paragogic element of the word operated on ; se- condly, where it had been a paragogic fragment, or element of a fragment, of the pronoun of the first person singular or plu- ral, affixed to that word ; and, thirdly, even when not para- gogic, where it had been an intrinsic element of the pronoun of the third person singular employed as an affix. I now pro- ceed to bring under view a fourth class, of great extent and importance, and detected through the same method of compa- rison, wherein the suppressed He is the final element of the root of the word which may happen to be presented for our consi- deration. The withdrawal of letters from the Hebrew text is to be distinguished from their elision by its original writers, 2 G 2 418 A FOURTH CLASS OF OMISSIONS OF THE [Chap.V. and may be justified, in the case of the first two classes of omissions just specified, on the ground of the introduction into this writing of an improved mode of representing the sounds of its syllables and the necessity of suppressing the inferior part of their older representations, in order to avoid the con- fusion attendant on the simultaneous employment of two dif- ferent sets of designations of the same sounds. But the third class of omissions, by which an essential element of a pronoun is removed, can hardly be excused ; and the liberty taken with the text by the old vocalizers was still more daring in the in- stance of the fourth class, where the omitted radical is an essen- tial ingredient, not of the mere afiix of a word, but of the word itself, which is referred to. Yet the mode of investigation here pointed out, which admits of being repeated in an endless variety of cases, will, I expect, sufiice to convince the learned reader who tries it, of the reality of the last, as well as of the preceding classes of omissions above enumerated. The removal* of the final He of Hebrew roots from the sacred text, in the class of instances now to be considered, had the efi*ect of contracting two syllables into one, and appears to have been ventured upon by the old vocalizers, for the pur- pose of denoting alterations previously introduced into the pronunciation of the words of this language. It is unneces- sary to detain the reader with a lengthened proof of those removals ; as he can satisfy himself of their reality through the means already indicated ; and I shall, in consequence, here direct attention to only a very few cases, which are adduced as much to explain the meaning of my remark, as to support its truth. For the sake of distinctness, I distribute this class into three subdivisions, including respectively nouns, partici- ples, and verbs ; under each of which heads examples might be abundantly furnished even from the Book of Genesis alone. In the first place, then, with respect to nouns, the changes in question may be illustrated from Gen. iii. 7, and xlvii. 3. In the former of these verses the expression ^3^^il HTl^, construed in the Septuagint (j)vWa avk-y^, and in our Authorized Ver- Chap, v.] LETTER ^ BY THE OLD VOCALIZERS. 419 sion "fig-leaves," has evidently its first term in the plural number ; which, therefore, must have been originally read here (according to the analogy of other Hebrew nouns not dropping their final element for this inflexion) HaLeHe ; whereas it is vocalized in the Samaritan text "^Ti/, HaLE : and a comparison of these two readings serves to display both the omission in writing and the contraction in sound which I wish to bring under the observation of my reader. In the latter of the specified verses, .the designation ]i^^ TJ/I, rendered by the Seventy iroifxeve^ Trpopdrwv^ and by the framers of our Au- thorized Version " shepherds," has of necessity its first term plural, which, therefore, must have been formerly read in this place RoHeHe, but is vocalized in the Samaritan text "^J/*!, RoHE; where the like omission and contraction may be seen as in the preceding instance. The change of pronunciation just exem- plified is very far from an improvement ; for while, according to the older method, the singular and plural numbers of nouns ending in He, and in regimen, were perfectly distinct in sound, though not in writing, they are now confounded in the for- mer respect ; as there is no perceptible difierence of utterance between Haleh, ' the leaf of,^ and Hale, ' the leaves of;' or be- tween i^oAeA, 'the feeder of,' andEohe, 'the feeders of:' so that the old vocalizers would obviously have done much better (exclusively of the consideration of a very unwarrantable liberty taken with the sacred text being thus avoided) by sub- joining to the He, instead of substituting for it, the Yod in cases of this sort. But one of the alterations, here described, had most probably made its way into the mode of speaking the ancient Hebrew, which was practised by the sacerdotal class in their time, or the other could hardly have been ad- mitted by them into their manner of writing the Bible. In the second place, with regard to participles, these altera- tions may be illustrated through the complex appellation given by Hagar to the Deity, as recorded in Gen. xvi. 13, which is rendered, in the Authorized English Version, "Thou God seest 420 A FOUKTH CLASS OF OMISSIONS OF THE [Chap. V. me."* and in the Septuagint, Su 6 Oeo^ 6 eirSwv fxe. Of the original compound, the part that literally denotes ' my see-er/ i. e. ' the see-er of me/ has been left in the Samaritan edition of the Pentateuch in its primitive state, H^^l, and must, for the meaning it conveys in this place, have been read RoHeHi; whereas in the Jewish edition, wherein it has been vocalized, it is written '^i^"), RoHI, and consequently exhibits, when com- pared mth the former group, both the contraction and the omission here under inquiry. This, example, by the way, deserves further notice, as affording a very striking illustra- tion of the fact, already proved by means of various other extracts compared together, that in some instances the primi- tive orthography of the Hebrew Scriptures afforded no sign, even ever so indirect, of the shorter fragment of the pronoun of the first person singular pronounced after words, although the vowel for this signification must, in reading Hebrew, have been always uttered at the end of nouns, or words treated as nouns, where the context required it. In the third place, with respect to verbs, two examples, taken from Gen. ii. 24 and xx. 13, will be sufficient for my purpose. In the former verse the verb near its close has been suffered to remain in the Samaritan edition of the text, as it was originally written, ^^^^, which, being in this site used in the plural number, must have been read WaHaYeHw ; but in the Hebrew edition it is exhibited without its third radical Vm, and has been contracted in sound into WeHaYU. In the latter verse, the verb in the third person, signifying ' caused * In the above English expression, the original of which conveys, not a full sentence, but merely a name, the relative pronoun, * who,* ought to have been inserted before the verb. Moreover, the framers of our Authorized Version ought, in consistence with their own practice in other such cases, to have introduced the Hebrew denomination into the body of their work, and to have shifted this translation of it into the margin. They so dealt with the composite designation (of which this one forms a part) that occurs in the very next verse of the Bible. Chap. V.] LETTER HE BY THE OLD VOCALIZERS. 421 to wander,' has been rightly left by the Samaritan scribes in its primitive unvocalized state Ti/nn, where it admits of being- read, in conformity with the context, H2ThHaH in the singular number. ' But if this same group were employed in the plu- ral number, it must have been read HeThHeHw ; in which sense the Jewish vocalizers here erroneously understood it, and, dropping its final element, contracted the pronunciation of it into HzThHU. Independently of the use to which the last example has been just applied, it is worth attention in another point of view also : the clause which contains it, as exhibited in the Jewish and Samaritan editions of the text, and the transla- tions given of this clause in the most ancient versions, with literal interpretations subjoined to each line, stand thus : Gen. XX. 13. Jewish Edition, ,^1^ n^^D DH^^ ^r<^^ '\]:nr] -Itr^KD ' when the gods caused me to wander from my father's house.' Samar. Edition, . ^i^I^il'' "when God caused me to wander from my father's house." Septuagint, rji/Ua e^rjyaye fie 6 Oeo^ Ik tov oI'kov too TTUTpOS fJLOV' * when God led me away from my father's house.' Peshitah, : ^jjdI L^^ ^ ](jilL . i \ o*^! pj ' that when God caused me to depart from my father's house.' The error in the first of the above lines, in the avoidance of which all the rest fully agree, can now be easily traced to its source. The old Jewish vocalizers, not forming at first an entirely new copy of the text, but merely inserting matres " Of the Samaritan line no more is above quoted than the word in which it differs from the Jewish exhibition of the same clause. 424 OBJECTIONS TO THE SPURIOUSNESS [Chap. V. existed from the commencement in the place it now occupies in each of them ; but it is a vowel-letter in those inflexions, since they are pronounced respectively HeHI, TeHI, YeHI, NeHI ; and therefore, it aiFords instances in those groups of vowel-signs employed in the Hebrew record, as originally written. Here it is tacitly assumed, and taken for granted without any proof, that the specified inflexions were always read with the same sounds as they are at present ; a position on which the ex- amples discussed in the course of the last investigation throw considerable doubt, and which, besides, equally requires proof as that for which the supposed objectors contend, since the one virtually includes the other. For if the above inflexions w^ere always pronounced with their present sounds, then a charac- ter must have been used to denote the vowel 1 in the original state of the Hebrew text. This consequence of the assumed position has already been fully proved false : the position it- self, therefore, is false ; and so, the objection which rests upon it utterly fails. Exclusively, however, of this more decisive refutation of the proposed objection, other reasons opposed to the assumption on which it depends may, even without taking into consideration the age of the matres lectionis in the He- brew text, be adduced to show that, where the Yod really ex- isted from the commencement in that text, and is now uttered with the sound of the vowel /, it was most probably at first employed with a different phonetic value. Thus, in a very extensive class of instances, the Yod now read at the end of national designations as an /, is virtually attested by the tran- scriptions of those names in the Septuagint to have been for- merly uttered with the sound of the syllable A Y^ pronounced as the English monosyllable 'aye,^ with the character F there- in used, not as a vowel-letter, but as a semiconsonant. Take, for example, the following verse from Gen. x. 16, or 1 Chron. i. 14, there being subjoined to it the Authorized English ren- dering from the latter place (wherein the names are more correctly transcribed), and its Greek translation which is the same in both places : Chap. V.] OF THE MA TEES LECTIONIS REMOVED. 425 " The Jebusite also, and the Amorite, and the Girgashite." Kol Tov ^le^ovaaiop^ kol tov AjioppoLov^ koI tov TepyeaaTov. If their Grecian terminations be withdrawn from the designa- tions in the last line, we shall see that the corresponding ones in the first line which are now read, Yebusi, Hamor% Gergashi^ were pronounced in the time of the Seventy, Yebusay, Hamo- ray^ Gergeshay. To the same efifect tells the present seeming anomaly in the plural termination A TIM, of Hebrew nouns which for the singular number end in /; an anomaly which is entirely removed by supposing the Tod at the close of those nouns in their singular state, which is now read as the vowel /, to have been formerly uttered with the phonetic value of the syllable A F. Thus, the plural forms of HJ, GeDI, ' a kid,' ^i^V, SeBI, 'a deer,' ^'il^, PeThI, 'simple,' are respectively D^nj, GeDaYIM, D^^:2y, SeBaYIM, D^*']!?:), PeThaYIM. Nor is the introduction of the A sound into the pronunciation of these forms, which occasions their apparent irregularity, a modern innovation, or one resting on the mere authority of the Maso- rets, but is at any rate as old as the existing state of the He- brew text: since a Haleph is occasionally to be met in some of the groups belonging to the class in question, where it is ob- viously employed to denote this very sound ; as, for instance, D^^n^ is written, in 1 Chron. xii. 8, D^'^aV, SeBAYiU ; and D'^^riii, in Prov. ix. 6, D'^^ilD, FeThAYiM..^ Moreover, a further probable ground for maintaining the change of pronuncia- It may be worth observing, that the Haleph in the above groups, and others of the same kind, is technically termed by the Hebrew grammarians * epenthetic,' that is, in plainer language, ' a supernumerary letter, of no use whatever in such sites.' This designation, therefore, virtually conveys an admission, on their part, of utter inability to account for the occurrence of the Haleph in those places, or to reconcile its appearance therein with the Masoretic principle, that all the elements of the Hebrew text in its present state are consonants. 426 OBJECTIONS TO THE SPURIOUSNESS [Chap.V. tion under discussion may be derived from comparing toge- ther, as follows, such of the groups first adduced in this para- graph as happen to be found difibrently written in the two editions of the Hebrew Pentateuch. Hebrew Edition. Samaritan Edition. Genesis, xxvi. 28. >nn, TeHI. H^Tin, TiRYeU. XXX. 34. >n\ YeHI. ^^^^ YzHYeH. xxxviii. 23. H'^HD, NzHYeH. >n3, NeHI. The pronunciation of each of these groups is given on the authority of the Masoretic system applied to the Samaritan, as well as the Hebrew set. From this table it may be seen, that the last three of the curtailed groups previously adduced were in their original state read T^HYeH, YiUYeH, mRYeR ; whence, through analogy, it may be fairly inferred that the first of them was in like manner read HeHYeH. Now, whether the r? at the end of the fuller groups was elided by the original writers of the text, or subsequently dropped by copyists, what more likely reason can be assigned for its omission, by either party, than their conviction that no perceptible difference in the sounds of the words would be thereby occasioned ? But, ac- cording to this view of the matter, the curtailed groups must have been at first pronounced HeHYe, TzHYe, YiRYe, NiRYe ; which sounds the Jewish priesthood, at a period when the know- ledge of the ancient Hebrew was entirely confined to them and the scribes in their interest, appear to have changed, as soon as the introduction of the matres lectionis into the writing of their Bible afforded them the opportunity, into HeHI, TeHI, YeHI, NeHI, and to have made this alteration for the very pur- pose of confounding vowel-letters with original elements of the sacred text. It was with the same design, as has already been shown most probable, that, under their secret direction, the instructors of Origen in Hebrew imposed upon him the sound YaHOH as the correct pronunciation of the venerated name mn\ whereby they gave a Waw, acknowledged to be an original ingredient of the text, the false appearance of being a vowel-letter. Chap. V.] OF THE MA TEES LECTIONIS EEMOVED. 427 Another class of objections of the same tendency may pos- sibly be urged as follows, or in some similar way. Yod and Waw are, on all sides, admitted to be original elements of the sacred text, when they are the middle letters of groups pro- nounced as dissyllabic words. But if those groups should in utterance be contracted into monosyllables, then the very same letters become signs of vowels, and so exhibit instances of vowel-letters in the original writing of the Hebrew Bible. Thus, for example, the Yod in Ti^, B.aYiL (or HeYaL), ' strength,' in tV2^ BaY2Th, ' house,' and n*"!, ZaYeTh, ^ ohve-tree,' as also the Waw in r^^'D, MaWeTh, ' death,' are original elements of the text. But they obviously become signs of vowels, as soon as those groups are, in the mode of reading them, contracted into, respectively, HEL, ' strong,' BETh, ^ house of,' ZETh, ' olive-tree of,' and MOTh, ' death of ;' whence it follows that there are vowel-letters among the original ingredients of the writing of the Hebrew record. The class of objections here exemplified fails in the same way as that previously discussed, by resting on an erroneous foundation. The fallacies depended on con- sist in assuming, in the one case, that the pronunciation, and in the other, that the speUing of the words of the Hebrew text was always the same as it now is. Both assumptions are fully refuted by the proofs which serve to establish the reality of the discovery unfolded in these pages. But, even without this aid, the latter one can, in like manner as the former, be shown, at least with some degree of probability, untrue. Thus, to re- vert to the examples above adduced, in the first place, the monosyllable Hel ' strong,' when applied to Him who is pre- eminently ^ strong,' and used as a name of the Deity, is in every place of its occurrence in the text constantly found written with barely two letters 1)^ ; and as the group is, up to this moment, exhibited without an intermediate Yod in its most important application, it might naturally be expected to have been (when pronounced as a monosyllable) thus written for other senses also, in former times. In the second place, though the monosyllable Beth^ ' house of,' is, as far as I can 428 THE HEBREW TEXT FORMERLY [Chap. V. find, written now everywhere in the text with three letters n'^n, yet, in the group representing the plural number of this noun, D'^m, BeThIM, the same sound is still constantly denoted by only two. I admit that D^^JH is at present read BoTtIM, probably in consequence of the want of a vocal Yod in its first syllable, and I do not (complain of this mode, though so ex- tremely anomalous, of reading the group, as no alteration of its meaning has thence resulted ; but still I must maintain that BeThIM, being its regular sound, is very likely to have been that formerly attached to it ; and that, as its first syllable remains to this day uniformly written without an interme- diate Yod, it is most probable that the same syllable in the singular construct state of the same noun was, in ancient times, likewise thus written. In the third place, the monosyllable Moth, ' death of,' is at present, I believe, represented in every place of its occurrence in the sacred text by three letters, TX]D, But, though this group, when serving by itself to denote a word, be always written in the fuller way, yet it is sometimes found without the middle element, when it constitutes part of a longer derivative of the same root ; and, therefore, it ob- viously might at first have been exhibited without that element in its separate state also. Of the occasional omission of the vocal Waw in some inflexions of the root in question, the fol- lowing instances may be taken : Gen. XXV. 17. Jewish Edition. Samaritan Edition. na>1, WaYyaMoTh, 'and he died.' rX]'Q>\ WaYyaMOTHh. Num. xxiii. 10. rV2n, TaMoTh, * let-die.' n^l^Hy TaMOTh. From comparing the different modes of representing the same syllable in each of these lines it will be seen, I may here by the way observe, that the insertion, or non-insertion, of a Waw in this syllable depended merely on the accidental cir- cumstance, whether its use therein happened to be perceived, or overlooked, by men who had been previously accustomed Chap. V.] WAS NOT DIVIDED INTO WORDS. 429 to read all the words of the text without the aid of any vowel- letters. Accordingly, oversights of this liind are to be found sometimes committed by the Jewish set of vocalizers, some- times by the Samaritan set, and very frequently by both sets. I have also to remark, that the advantage of distinguishing the syllabic or semiconsonantal Waw and Yod from the vocal cha- racters of respectively the same shapes and names, by means of the notation employed by me, or through some other simi- lar contrivance, is strongly illustrated by the error here ex- posed, from which this distinction hielps to guard us ; namely, that of confounding letters of different kinds of phonetic value, and inferring from their assumed identity that, because the Waw and Yod of one kind are original elements of the Hebrew text, those of the other kiijd must be so likewise. The distribution of the elements of the sacred text into separate groups, to correspond with the words by which it should be read, is not the work of its original authors, but an improvement introduced after the lapse of many centuries, and which has been, in various instances, marred by an incorrect execution. This is admited even by the Jews themselves ; as may be seen through the following extract from one of Dr. Kennicott's Dissertations: " books were anciently written without any distinction of words, in the manner of the Greek manuscript quoted in page 214 [the Colbertine manuscript, said to have been copied from the Hexapla]. The Hebrew text was probably written in the same manner ; and such a tradition is thus mentioned by EHas Levita: nn^^ na^n p'^iD']^^ ^'^^ iim^ P^ddd ni']r\n h:^ * Tota lex ut versus unus ; et, ut quidam dicunt, vt dictio una.* The consequence of this has been, that the Jews afterwards introduced some. corruptions, by associating letters improperly; and 'tis remarkable, that the Masorets reckon above twenty sets of letters, as made two words instead of one, or one instead of two." Dissertation the Second^ p. 341. But errors of the sort described in this passage are far more numerous in the 430 INCOHERENCY REMOVED FROM Ps. xi. 1, [Chap. V. Hebrew Bible than the Masorets were disposed to acknow- ledge ; and several, of which they were not aware, may, under the guidance of the present discovery, be detected and fully exposed by means of the light which the context supplies, combined with the testimony of the more ancient versions. An instance of wrong grouping, thus discovered and accounted for, has been already adduced in Chapter iii. from the combi- nation V")^ ir^^TTl, Gen. i. 24, the prefix of the second part of which was mistaken by the old vocalizers for an affix of the first, and in consequence changed by them into the mater lec- tionis Waw ; though the actual separation of the groups in accordance with this error was, in all probability, not made till long after their time. In subsequent ages, the second set of vocalizers adhered to the mistake here committed by the first, and pointed the Waio for the sound of the affix of the third person singular masculine, instead of leaving it, as they ought, unpointed, and attaching to it their little circular mark of cen- sure. But the grammarians who came after the Masorets, perceiving the violation of sense produced by the Waw so pointed, divested it in this site, not merely of the meaning it, through the annexed sound, usually conveys, but even of all meaning whatever, and dubbed it here a paragogic letter ; just as if the introduction of a technical designation could solve the difficulty of the case. Thus they preferred imputing to the original author the serious fault, in style, of employing a significant ingredient of his written language without any sig- nification, rather than admit that some corruption had here crept into the text ; and this strange decision appears to have been acquiesced in up to the present day, not indeed by the Samaritan scribes, for they corrected the mistake, but by every Christian as well as Jewish critic who has touched upon the subject. I now proceed to lay before the reader another instance of a wrong grouping of elements of the Hebrew text, which besides exhibits two of those elements transposed : it is taken from a passage of Scripture translated in our Authorized Version as Chap, v.] BY MEANS OF THE PEESENT DISCOVERY. 431 follows : " In the Lord put I my trust : how say ye to my soul, Flee as a bird to your mountain T Ps. xi. 1. Here, ex- clusively of the consideration that it is scarcely reconcilable with correctness of expression to speak of any mountain as belong- ing to the soul of a man, or of one mountain being so appro- priated more than another, there are inconsistencies, in both gender and number, between the original term for ' soul' and the second possessive pronoun referred to it, which utterly confound the sense, and cannot therefore be admitted to have been contained in the Hebrew passage, as it was at first written. These inconsistencies, indeed, are concealed in our version, in consequence of the word * your' being indifferently applied to any gender, as well as on account of its being used in modern English with either a singular or a plural reference ; but they are at once laid open to view upon our consulting the original record. So much of the verse in question is here adduced as is necessary for the exposure of the specified anomalies ; and after this part of the Hebrew line are placed its Greek, Syriac, and Chaldee translations, with their literal meanings subjoined to them respectively : Septuagint^ irw^ Ipeire ry ^vyj^ /iou, Meraj/aeTTeuoy em ra oprj w9 arpovOtov ; * how shall ye say to my soul, Depart to the mountains as a bird?' Peshitah, T'cl^ ^ juJ-a^o ^-ijoj .. , m^)\ ^Aj} ^^1d1 ,.0^1 * how saying are ye to my soul, Depart and dwell on the mountain (or, on the mountains) as a bird ;' Targumof)'^^n KlloS ^^720^10^^ ,^t^L)J^ plDK ]inK |nO<1 the Psalms,) 5N")^^ * how are ye saying to my soul, Betake thyself to the moun- tain as a bird?' 2h 432 INCOHERENCY REMOVED FROM Ps. xi. 1, [Chap. V. Besides the double violation of concord above stated to exist in the Hebrew line, there may be observed in it the very same twofold incoherency between the verb signifying ' to depart/ and either the noun or the affix with which it is im- mediately connected. If, in accordance with the first set of vocalizers, we should read this verb NUDU, ' depart ye,' in the plural mascuhne form, it then disagrees in both number and gender with the noun singular feminine "^t^D^?. If, on the other hand, we adopt the correction of this reading by the second set of vocalizers, who. attached their little circular mark of censure to the final U of the same verb, and pointed it for the pronunciation NUD/, ' depart thou,' in the singular femi- nine form, then disagreements of the very same kind as before are found to hold between it and the plural masculine affix D!D. The double violation of grammatic concord thus, in one way or the other, unavoidably produced, arises from the cor- responding twofold discrepance previously noticed between the words with which this verb is compared ; a discrepance which is quite independent of their vocalization, and yet can- not, amounting as it does to absolute nonsense, be ascribed to the original composition of the Psalm. That the quoted pas- sage, then, has undergone some change, exclusively of the intro- duction into it of vowel-letters, is obvious even from the sole consideration of its own ingredients. But to ascertain where this corruption lies, and how it was occasioned, we must have recourse to external evidence. Now, on comparing with the Hebrew line its Grecian, Syriac, and Chaldee translations respectively, we shall find them all concurring to disprove the existence of the affix DD in that line, as originally written, not one of them containing a pronoun to correspond in meaning with this affix ; and we shall moreover find them all agreeing to attest the original site of the first letter of DD to have been immediately before the final group ; where, employed as a prefix, it served to denote the particle ' as,' and was accordingly translated w?, ' as,' in the Greek line, ^1, HIK, ' as,' in the Syriac line, and "7^1, HEK, Chap.V.] by means of THE PEESENT DISCOVERY. 433 * as/ in the Chaldee line. So far all three are unanimous on the subject ; but the Greek rendering still further shows, by translating the Hebrew for ' mountain' in the plural number, that the second letter of DD was at first placed immediately after "IH, since the plural form of this noun is D"in. But when, in conformity with the information so furnished, the two elements of DD are transposed, every one of the violations of sense and grammar which the Hebrew verse at present betrays, is at once removed, and the Greek line turns out to be its exactly literal translation. Thus it follows with irresis- tible force from the internal evidence of the case, supported fully by the Septuagint and partly by the Peshitah and Tar- gum of the Psalms, that, before the sacred text was divided into separate groups corresponding to the words it denotes, the two letters in question had, through some accident or other, got their order inverted. This inversion, only serving to render the passage senseless, was evidently unintentional, but it could not have been effected without design after the introduction of blank spaces between the words (as those intervals would have guarded copyists from such an over- sight); it, therefore, must have taken place, as has been just observed, while the mistreated letters were not as yet pointed out to the eye of the reader as elements of quite different groups. It may, perhaps, be interesting to trace back the history of this corruption, even as a matter of curiosity, and indepen- dently of the consideration of the aid which the investigation will be found to contribute to the support of my discovery. The date, then, of the first inversion of the order of the letters under examination {Kaph and Mem) can be fixed within very narrow limits ; as it must have occurred during the short interval of time that elapsed between the formation of the Peshitah and the introduction of the matres lectiones into the sacred text, an interval that will, I expect, be proved in a subsequent chapter to have fallen inside the first thirty years 2 H 2 434 INCOHEKENCY KEMOVED FROM Ps. xi. 1, [Chap. V. of the second century. This inversion could not have taken place till after the Peshitah had been composed ; since the rendering therein given of the final clause shows clearly, as has been already explained, that, when Syriac writers were framing that version, at least one of the letters in question (the Kaph) was in its correct site (immediately before the Hebrew group denoting ^ a bird'); and, consequently, even supposing the two were then in the text a condition indispensable to their inversion they could not at any rate have been therein exhibited in an inverted order. On the other hand, the same inversion must have occurred before the vocalization of the Hebrew record with letters ; as the scribes engaged in that operation vocalized the verb of the final clause, so as to be read (NUDU, ' depart ye') in the plural number, obviously for the purpose of making it agree in sense with the combina- tion of letters, then already inverted in their order, which was mistaken by those critics for the plural affix D^. This inver- sion, however, was put an end to by the dropping of the If ^m from the text before the time of the composition of the Tar- gum of the Psalms ; as is evinced by the rendering therein given in the singular number of the Hebrew noun D*)n, '- mountains,'^ which consequently must have then appeared in the original line divested of its final element. The present inversion, therefore, of the two letters under examination is a second one, which did not take place till after the specified Targum had been written ; and as it was preceded by the dropping of one of those letters from the text, so in all proba- bility the same omission occurred likewise before their first in- version. The Peshitah afibrds no assistance in this part of the investigation, in consequence of the ambiguous number of the Syriac written noun with which the Hebrew word for ' moun- ' In the quoted Chaldee line, the noun by which D"in is translated, W")^lDb, is restricted to the singular number by the omission of a vocal Yod between its last two letters. Chap.V.] by means of THE PEESENT DISCOVERY. 435 tains' is therein translated. That noun, indeed, is at present restricted to a plural form by the ribui mark attached to it ; but the use of this mark can hardly be supposed as ancient as the oldest of the Syriac versions. On the contrary, that the Syriac translators intended the above noun, in their construc- tion of the passage, to be read in the singular number, is ren- dered likely by the first inversion of the letters referred to, which has just been stated to have taken place in less than thirty years after the formation of their version, and may be easily conceived to have resulted from the loss which the speci- fied reading implies of one of those characters. For the usual process of restoring to the text an element thence dropped is well kno^vn to have been, first, the insertion of it in the margin of copies opposite its original site, together with a mark applied to one or other of the two letters between which that site is included ; and, secondly, the transferring of it in subsequent copies from the margin to the body of the text, next the marked letter. But as no limitation was here fixed, with re- gard to the side of that letter on which the restitution should be made, the latitude of choice thus left to the discretion of the copyists naturally led to several inversions. It is, however, not very material to determine whether the first of those above investigated took place, or not, in the manner just described. At any rate, the reality of the two, and limits of time to the introduction of each, as well as to the duration of the first,* have, I submit, been established with a near approach to cer- tainty. But, as even the later of them must have crept into the text before it was distinguished into groups corresponding to its words, and consequently before any of the manuscript * That is to say, they were introduced, the first in the short interval between the dates of the composition of the Peshitah and of the vocalization of the Hebrew text, and the second, not till after the formation of the Tar- gum of the Psalms. On the other hand, the first of them was brought to an end before that Targum was written ; but I do not presume to fix the time when the second will be terminated, as that will depend on the reception given by the learned to my proof of the reality of those inversions. 436 THE HEBREW TEXT WAS FORMERLY [Chap. V. Hebrew copies now extant were written, we cannot be sur- prised at meeting with no traces of the inverted letters placed in their proper order among any of the varice lectiones collected by Kennicott or De Rossi. The framers of the older English translation of the Psalms in our Book of Common Prayer, in order to avoid the inco- herencies which the quoted part of the original verse at present betrays, paraphrased the entire sentence very loosely, as fol- lows : " In the Lord put I my trust : how say ye, then, to my soul, that she should flee as a bird unto the hill ?" The writers of the last Authorized Version, on the other hand, gave up the demands of the context, for the purpose of keep- ing close to what appeared to them to be the very letter of the text. But we are no longer subjected to the distressing necessity of choosing between the evils of this alternative : the analyzed passage can now be translated with the strictest adherence to the genuine Hebrew line, and at the same time without the slightest deviation from sense. On the grounds stated in the foregoing analysis, the clause requiring correc- tion should, in an amended edition of the text, I submit, be thus written : and the whole verse might be rendered as follows : " In the Lord put I my trust : how say ye, then, to my soul, Depart to the mountains as a bird?'^ In this rendering I have changed the word ' flee,^ as likely to be confounded by a modern reader with the verb ' to fly,' more especially on account of its being in this place connected Avith the expression, ' as a bird.' My chief reason, however, for the substitution here made is, that it is warranted, and at the same time the translation ' flee' is opposed, by the concur- rent evidence of both the Septuagint and the Peshitah. In Chap. V.] NOT DISTKIBUTED INTO VERSES. 437 the construction now submitted to the judgment of the reader, the particle ' as' is not exhibited in italics ; since it is expressly- denoted by an equivalent particle in the corrected original sentence. That the sacred text was originally exhibited without any separation of its ingredients into verses, is, in the passage quoted near the commencement of this chapter from Elias Levita, attested still more strongly than the circumstance, that it was at first written continuously without any blank intervals between the words. For the latter piece of information is therein presented to us upon merely hearsay evidence, while, on the other hand, the former is stated absolutely and without any qualification. But the same fact can still be arrived at through actual observation, independently of any testimony, if the reader will take the trouble of noticing cases of disagree- ment which are occasionally to be detected between the seve- ral texts and versions, with regard to the place of separation between contiguous verses ; a disagreement which could scarcely have arisen if the divisions of this nature had origi- nated with the fi:*amers of the sacred text, and so, had the sanction of inspired authority. Some curious instances of such variations will be found on comparing the following sets of extracts from the account given in the twenty-third chap- ter of Genesis, of a purchase made by Abraham, as it has been transmitted in the Jewish and Samaritan editions of the Hebrew text and the oldest Greek and Syriac versions re- spectively. In each set is placed first an extract from the Authorized English Version ; then comes the portion of the Hebrew text from the Jewish edition of which, in its present state, the preceding English extract is a literal translation ; then, as much of the corresponding portion of the Samaritan edition as differs therefrom (but, where no difference occurs between these two extracts, they are represented in common by one and the same line) ; and then the corresponding Syriac and Greek renderings, with their literal significations subjoined to them respectively. Moreover, in each extract, the place of 438 THE HEBREW TEXT WAS FORMERLY [Chap. V. separation between the two verses of which it contains a part is marked by an asterisk. Gen. xxiii. 5, 6. Authorized Eng. " saying unto him, * Hear us, my lord ;" Jewish Text, ;^J1.^ ,1:;;d::^ * ."h IDK^ Samaritan Text, * is7, Syriac Version, : ^ ^ i %V> * o^k)] * and they said Hear us, our lord ;* Greek Version, Xiyom-e?, * M^ KV/mie' uKOvaovhe rnxwV <- saying, Nay, master, but hear us ;' Gen. xxiii. 10, 11. Authorized Eng. " saying, m Nay, my lord, hear me f Jewish(SfSam.Text,\'':i:f2l^ ,"^21^^ ,K^ * ,-)D^^^_ Syriac Version, : 1 1 i s V> .,-itlD ]] * .... ^Sd"|o ' and he said Nay, my lord, hear me;' Greek Version, Xeywv, * Ilap' i/JLotyevov KVpie, /cal olkovgov jJLOV* ' saying, Be on my side, master, and hear me;' Gen. xxiii. 14, 15. Authorized Eng, " saying unto him, * My lord, hearken unto me ;" Jewish Text, j'^il^Dt:^ ,^:ili^ * ,1^7 IDi^b Samaritan Text, ^^ / * , Syriac Version, * : > 1 1 i %V> .^^k) i^]o * and he said My lord, hear me;' Greek Version, Xeywv, * Ovx^ KVpie' uKr^Koa yap, * saying, Nay, master ; for I have heard,' Chap, v.] NOT DISTRIBUTED INTO VERSES. 439 Besides the disagreements which may be here remarked between the different texts and versions, with regard to the places of the asterisk employed to indicate where adjoining verses are separated, disagreements which tell strongly against the supposition of any such places having been fixed in the Hebrew text by its inspired authors, a few more par- ticulars in these extracts deserve notice for the illustrations they afford of points discussed in the last two chapters. In the first place, then, I request attention to the confu- sion between the monosyllables ^^7, LoH, ' not,' and "^7, LO, ' to him,' or ' to it,' which has to a certainty glided into one or other edition of the sacred text, in the first and third sets of extracts. The reader will, I expect, be presently satisfied that the erroneous substitution has, in each of these instances, been made in the Jewish edition ; and several more cases, hitherto unobserved, of the same mistake may probably be detected in that edition, through the mode of investigation here pursued. Some, indeed, are already admitted to exist therein ; of which a remarkable specimen is afforded in the original of the pas- sage of our Authorized Version, Isa. ix. 3 : " Thou hast mul- tiplied the nation and not increased the joy : they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil," wherein the monosyllable ^^7 should obviously be changed to 17, in order to remove the glaring contradiction which the sentence at present betrays, between the denial of the greatness of the joy referred to, and the im- mediately ensuing description of that very joy as exceedingly great. Accordingly, the mistake here committed by the Jewish transcribers of the text is acknowledged even by the Masorets ; for they have branded the Haleph of the ^h in this verse with their little circular mark of censure.* But the * The framers of our Authorized Version have virtually admitted the mistake of sb for ^7 in the Hebrew verse above referred to, as exhibited in the Jewish edition of the sacred text. In their translation, however, of this verse, they have followed the correct reading of the monosyllable in question, 440 THE HEBREW TEXT WAS FOEMERLY [Chap. V. cause of this confusion, which has at any rate taken place in several instances, between the final elements of is? and 1/, has hitherto proved quite inexplicable. It cannot be accounted for by any mutual resemblance of those letters ; since they are wholly unlike, in all their known ancient shapes as well as in their modern forms. Neither can the supposition be admitted of their having been similar, at some period remoter than any to which the representations of them in extant in- scriptions reach back ; for, surely, if this assumption had any ground to rest on, the occasional interchange of the letters in question would not be cqnfined, as it is, to the single case of their occurrence in the above monosyllables. Hence critics have been induced to resort to another hypothesis, and have imagined that formerly the copyists of the Hebrew text fol- lowed the recitation of assistants, and thus came to be mis- guided, not by the eye, but by the ear, in the prosecution of their task. But here again the attempt at explication fails ; for ^7 and 1/ are to be met confounded with each other, where they are pronounced quite diiFerently. Thus, for ex- ample, in Gen. 1. 15, the word r? in the Jewish edition of the Hebrew text, which is there translated by the framers of our not in the body, but only in the margin of their work ; and, what is worse, have made their correction scarcely intelligible, by translating "^b, in re- ference to its antecedent, ' the nation,' by the expression 'to him,' instead of * to it.* It is besides to be observed that the preterite tenses employed by Isaiah in this passage have the force of prophetic futures; so that the render- ing of it might, I submit, be altered to advantage, as follows: 'Thou wilt surely multiply the nation, awe/ make great its joy; they [i. e. the individuals of this nation] shall certainly rejoice before thee according to the joy in har- vest, and 2iS foragers exult when they are dividing spoil.' I may add, that the enallage in point of grammatic number which occurs in the second clause of this rendering is by no means necessary ; for the Hebrew verb f^n^tt?) here read ShM^KhU, and construed ' they shall certainly rejoice,' might, be- fore the vocalization of the text, have equally been read ShaMaKh, and con- strued, ' it shall certainly rejoice.' But, as the Seventy translated this verb in the plural number (^evcppavO'^oovTai), I could not venture to recommend an alteration in this respect of its Authorized English rendering. Chap, v.] NOT DISTRIBUTED INTO VERSES. 441 Authorized Version " peradventure,"is pointed by the Masorets for the sound LU ; and yet it is found written, in the same verse of the Samaritan edition, i^7, which is always read LoH. Now at last, however, the difficulty adverted to is entirely cleared up, by the discovery that H? was the original form of the pronoun w ; whence it follows that the confusion which has occasionally taken place between the monosyllables in question is to be accounted for just in the same manner as the frequent erroneous interchange, already explained, of the letters Haleph and He^ and actually serves to aiford additional examples of that interchange. Here I should add, that as 17 has been confounded with ^^ /, not only in its ordinary sound and acceptation, LO, an inflexion of a pronoun, but also when employed as a particle and pronounced LU ; we may naturally infer that it was originally written H? for both of its uses ; since the similarity, at some former period, of the letters Ha- leph and He, which serves to account for the one mistake, and is equally wanted for the explanation of the other, is thus rendered equally adequate for that explanation. In the second place, let us look to the gross mistake com- mitted by the Jewish, and subsequently adopted by the Sama- ritan vocalizers of the Hebrew line belonging to the first set of extracts, by affixing to its final word a mater lectionis to denote the sound of the pronoun possessive of the first person singular, although that word is shown, by the one immediately preceding it, to have been spoken by a plurality of persons. As this mistake cannot be attributed to the inspired authors of the sacred text, it is perfectly clear that the vocal Yod which occasions the incoherence could not have formed part of the original writing of the passage ; and, for the same reason, it is equally certain that no paragogic He previously occupied the place, and performed (less directly) the service of this interpolated letter ; so that the pronoun possessive of the first person singular could not have been originally indicated here in either way. Moreover, this inference from the internal evidence of the case is fully supported by the testimony of the 442 THE HEBREW TEXT WAS FORMERLY [Chap. V. Septuagint,^ in whicli the group referred to is rendered simply KvpLe^ 'master,' without any pronoun subjoined thereto. Here, then, we have, besides a striking instance of the interpolation of a mater lectionis, a proof of considerable force, in corrobo- ration of what has been already in a preceding chapter urged upon the subject, that in the original state of the sacred text a written sign was not always given of the above possessive pronoun, where it ought to be pronounced ; but that sometimes a discretionary power was allowed to the reader of supplying its sound after the last letter of a word, where his judgment pointed out to him that the context obviously required this supplement. In the case before us, indeed, the old vocalizers made an erroneous use of this power ; but even their abuse of the described practice still proves its former existence : they could not have read the I sound in the place in question, in which it certainly was not before their time represented, di- rectly or indirectly, by any written sign, unless it was then rightly pronounced in other sites in which it was left equally destitute of every kind of designation. The violation of sense, however, which they committed by the insertion of a Yod in this place, answered no end they could by any possibility have had in view, so must evidently have been unintentional on their part ; but it now serves to put in a very conspicuous light the extreme giddiness and precipitation with which they exe- cuted their task. In the third place, the Greek line belonging to the se- cond set of extracts particularly deserves notice ; for the The attestation of the Peshitah upon the above subject, in which the group under examination (^DHS) is translated (vr^) ' o^r master,' fully con- curs with the testimony of the Septuagint and the internal evidence of the case, as far as is requisite for proving the interpolation of the Tod at the end of the above group. To warrant, however, the Syriac translation, not only this Yod should be rejected as spurious, but also there should be inserted, instead of it, a second Nun^ or, after the introduction of vowel-letters into the text, the syllable ^3 ; while, on the other hand, the Greek rendering com- pletely answers the demands of the context, without any alteration whatever of the original elements of the Hebrew group. Chap. V.] NOT DISTEIBUTED INTO VEKSES. 443 expression in it, 7ra/o' e/xot, shows that that the Seventy, after mistaking is? for H?, read the latter monosyllable, not accord- ing to its more usual acceptation, LoH, ' for him,' but L^'H, ' for me/ As, however, even after this explanation, it still remains difficult to reconcile the Greek with the corresponding Hebrew line, a circumstance which affords room for suspecting that the former has been, some way or other, here corrupted ; and as I shall presently have an opportunity of bringing under observation a rendering by the Seventy, of the monosyllable in question, which implies the same rarer mode of reading it in a place evidently free from corruption, I defer my observa- tions on this point till I come to the next example, where it can be discussed under more favourable circumstances. It now remains, with regard to the present example, that I should endeavour to ascertain the correct readings of the Hebrew text, in those places where the Jewish and Samaritan representations of the same extracts disagree with each other. All the three speeches, of which parts are in this example given in different languages or different kinds of writing, commence in the Samaritan edition of the text with the particle ^7, ^nay ;' while only the second of those so commences in the Jewish edition, wherein the corresponding monosyllable is at present detached from the first and third speech to close the words of the preceding verse, and must have been written H/, ' unto him,' in the time of the first Jewish vocalizers of the text, as they have in each instance transmitted it w with this signifi- cation. In both cases of difference between the two editions, the Samaritan reading of the monosyllable in question is sup- ported, not only by the Septuagint, but also by the context. The very expression, 'hear us,' or 'hear me,' which is included in the introductory portion of all the three speeches, implies some negation before it ; for, while this expression is a fit pre- cursor to an entreaty, on the side of an applicant, it just as naturally leads the way to an excuse for a refusal, on that of the person or persons applied to. Besides, those speeches are, all of them, answers from the same party (the Hittites, or one 444 THE HEBREW TEXT WAS FORMERLY [Chap. V. of their community) to the same proposal of Abraham ; and, as they all commence, in other respects, in the same form, it is natural that they should have their very first word also the same. But i^7, ' nay,' is confessedly at the head of the second speech. It, therefore, was most probably the initial particle of the first and third likewise : and this inference is conside- rably strengthened by a more particular review of each an- swer. The first was made by the general body of the Hittites, in reply to the declaration of Abraham, that he was a mere stranger and sojourner among them, and to his consequent proposal to pay for a spot of ground wherein to bury his dead ; " Nay, hear us, master," [nay, that is, thou art not a mere stranger and sojourner, but, on the contrary] " thou art a mighty prince among us ;" [and, therefore, without any pay- ment] " in the choice of our sepulchres bury thy dead." The second speech was made by an individual Hittite, Ephron, in reply to Abraham's proposal, more specifically expressed, to purchase for the above purpose a cave in the possession of that individual, at the end of his field : " Nay, my lord, hear me," [nay, that is, I will not sell the cave to thee, but] " the field give I thee, and the cave that is therein, I give it thee bury thy dead." The third speech was made by Ephron, in reply to Abraham's proposal repeated : " Nay, my lord, hear me ;" [nay, that is, I cannot think of taking money for this burying-place from thee] " the land, indeed^ is worth four hun- dred shekels of silver : hut what is that betwixt me and thee? bury therefore thy dead." Thus, in each instance, a prefatory negative is required by the context, and is more especially wanted in the third speech, in which, without it, the question " hut what is that betwixt me and thee?" would be quite irrelevant. The last of these refusals was rendered one of mere ceremony, by the circumstance of Ephron's naming im- mediately after it the price at which he valued the specified portion of land ; an edition to the speech which was evidently intended by the one party, and understood by the other, to contain its main drift. Accordingly, Abraham forthwith Chap. V.] NOT DISTEIBUTED INTO VERSES. 445 weighed out this sum ; and Ephron, without more ado, poc- keted the cash. This anecdote is interesting, even in its bearing upon antiquarian researches, as affording the oldest account upon record of a pecuniary negotiation ; and it is curious to observe the extreme degree of ceremony practised between the negotiators at so very remote a period. As the bearing of the Syriac lines in the foregoing sets of extracts agrees with that of the corresponding portions of the Jewish edition of the Hebrew Pentateuch, in two of the cor- ruptions thereof which have been above detected (viz, the \7 twice substituted for ^^7) ; the particular instances of confusion between the letters Haleph and He which occasions those cor- ruptions must be older than the Peshitah, and consequently still older than the first vocalization of the sacred text.^ The corruptions themselves, therefore, must have commenced as soon as this vocahzation took place, to which epoch the date of the erroneous annexation of the vocal Yod to the group ^^^^ is also to be referred ; and, as all the three misreadings appear to be of such great antiquity, we need not be surprised that no manuscript copies of the Hebrew Bible have been met with free from them. In an amended edition of the sacred text, I would recommend the little circular mark of censure to be placed over the Yod at the end of the group "^31^ in the first of the Hebrew lines in question ; and the u in the first and third of those lines to be changed into ^[^1 /, and transferred in each instance from the end of the verse it now closes, to the commencement of the following one. The cor- responding corrections in the Authorized English Translation of the same lines would be made, by changing the form of ad- dress, ' my lord,' on its first occurrence in this example, not into ' Lord,' which, as I conceive, is with propriety directed * Although the age of the first Syriac version has not yet been here strictly investigated, it has already been shown in a variety of ways, by means of the internal evidence of the case, that the Peshitah must have been written before the Hebrew text was vocalized. 446 THE HEBREW TEXT WAS FORMERLY [Chap. V. only to the Deity, but into ' master ;' and by expunging the words, ^ unto him,' at the end of the fifth and fourteenth verses, and substituting for them the particle ' Nay,^ at the commence- ment of the sixth and fifteenth verses. The connexion just exhibited between the meaning of the corrupted particle and the divisions of the verses, strengthens the argument against an inspired origin of those divisions. It has been already inferred from the variations which pre- vail between the different editions and versions of the He- brew Bible, with regard to the places of separation between the verses, that those places could not have been fixed by the original writers of the text ; since, if they had, their subsequent alteration would have been prevented by respect for the authority of those individuals. If it be objected, that the places in question may have been at first the same in the Samaritan edition and the several ancient versions as in the Jewish edition, but subsequently changed through mere oversight, a reply is obvious. In the first place, this eva- sion of the argument is a mere gratuitous assumption ; and, secondly, in cases like those belonging to the foregoing ex- ample, wherein the divisions of the verses are determined by the sense of a prominent particle, those divisions could not be altered without changing that sense, a change which cannot be conceived to have been made without exciting ob- servation. In fact, the fair way of reasoning on this subject is to argue, not from any imaginary state of the divisions of the verses in the several editions and versions of the text compared together, but from* that state, as it is now found actually to exist, or can be proved to have existed at any former period ; and the investigation, conducted under this restriction, tells very decidedly against the division of this kind in the Jewish edition of the Hebrew text having been the work of inspired men. In the case, indeed, of the first and third sets of extracts belonging to the above example, the uninspired origin of the divisions in question, in the principal edition of the sacred text, can be arrived at through a briefer Chap, v.] NOT DISTRIBUTED INTO VERSES. 447 course. Those divisions have, I submit, been shown absolutely erroneous ; and, consequently, cannot be ascribed to inspired writers. Before quitting this subject I have to notice a re- markable instance of giddiness and precipitation betrayed by the Samaritan scribes. In their mode of dealing with the first extract, in the above example, from their edition of the He- brew text, they have written the disputed particle, ^^7 ' nay,^ to form the commencement of a speech, and yet have placed it at the end of a verse, just in the same manner as they would have done, if they had agreed with the Jewish vocalizers in read- ing it 'I/, ' unto him.' This inconsistency on their part leads to the suspicion that, notwithstanding all their hatred of the Jews, they yet borrowed the divisions of the text into verses from a Jewish copy, and marked them with such haste as not always to wait long enough to ascertain whether those divisions were consistent with the meanings they themselves assigned to the several ingredients of the divided sentences. In their treat- ment, however, of the Samaritan line belonging to the third set of extracts, they showed more circumspection ; for, hav- ing therein assigned to the separating particle the same mean- ing as in the former instance, is?^ ' nay,' they yet gave it a position better suited to that meaning, and placed it at the head of a verse. For the further illustration of one of the chief points on which the last example bears, I revert to the account, given in the twenty-third chapter of Genesis, of Abraham's treaty with Ephron for the purchase of a field ; and will employ, with re- gard to the part of this account now brought forward, the same mode of investigation as has been applied to the portions of it previously analyzed. The example thus to be dealt with is as foUows : Gen. xxiii. 13. Authorized Eng. Vers, " saying. But if thou wUt give it^ I pray thee, hear me :" Jewish Edition, I'^^iJDti; "h , HTM^ D^^ IK .If^i^h Samaritan Edition, ,w 2i 448 nb COULD FORMERLY BE REABLiH'TO ME/ [Chap.V. Peshitahj : . 1 1 i s V> . AjI ]^^ ^1 fiolo ' and he said . . . since (willing, that is) a well- wisher thou, hear me ;' Septuagint, Kal etTre ^ETreihrj irpo^ ejULOV et^ UKOVaOV jULOV. * and he said .... Since thou art on my side, hear me.' The Jewish reading of this passage affords internal evidence of some corruption, by the impossibility there is of collecting from it any intelligible and consistent meaning : and, accord- ingly, all the various attempts to fill up the chasm thereby produced have proved utterly ineffectual. Thus, for instance, the supplement which is introduced into the Authorized English rendering of the sentence, and marked with italics, is quite at variance with the context. Ephron had, just before this verse, declared that he would not sell, but that he would give to Abraham the field sought for ; and when he had so contrasted the two modes of proceeding, it surely would not have been consistent with the punctilious courtesy observed by the negotiators throughout all the remainder of the trans- action, that Abraham should, immediately after, show a total disregard to the opposition drawn between those acts, and speak of them as connected to such a degree that one followed from the other : ' If thou wilt give the field, I request that thou wilt sell it.' But in the Samaritan mode of vocalizing the passage, and the Syriac way of rendering it, there is no chasm except the obvious and easily filled one of the verb sub- stantive, while in the Greek rendering there is none at all ; and these three representations of the part of Abraham's speech here brought under notice have the great advantage of per- fectly agreeing, not only with each other, but also with the context. The literal meaning of the Samaritan line, omitting the introductory word, runs thus : ' But since thou art for me Cv], hear me ;' that of the Syriac line, with the same omis- Chap.V.] ASWELL as LoH ' TO HIM,' OR LwH, ' PKAY.' 449 sion : ' Since a friend art thou, hear me ;' and that of the Greek one : ^ Since thou art' [tt/oo? I/jlov, which is in eiFect identical with the Trap ifxol in the Greek line belonging to the second set of extracts in the preceding example] ' on my side, hear me.' The bearing, then, of these three lines is just the same, and also is completely in keeping with the pointed civility which characterizes every other part of the recorded negotia- tion : since, according to each of them, no slight is put upon the words previously uttered by Ephron, and a favour is asked from him, solely on the ground of his friendly regard for the person who makes the request. Thus the Samaritan correction of the Jewish vocalization of the Hebrew passage just analyzed, is fully supported by the context, as well as by the concurrent evidence of two perfectly independent witnesses, the oldest Greek and Syriac versions ; and, what is still more, even the Jewish vocalizers can be com- pelled to bear testimony in favour of this correction, by their treatment, in parallel cases, of the monosyllable in dispute. Let us, for instance, turn to the following passage of our Au- thorized Version : " Then he wrote a letter the second time to them, saying. If ye ^^ mine [or, according to another trans- lation in the margin, if ye be for me], and if ye will hearken unto my voice, take ye the heads of the men your master's sons, and come to me to Jezreel by to-morrow this time." 2 Kings, X. 6. The words here translated, ' if ye be mine,' or, 'if ye be for me,' are in the Hebrew text DMJ^ "^7 Di^, which express precisely the same proviso as those in the Samaritan portion of the present example, w HHK DK, with the sole ex- ception of the former clause being addressed to more persons than one, and the latter to only a single individual a varia- tion which does not make the slightest difference in the nature of the stipulation itself. But two of the ingredients of these equivalent clauses are, with the specified exception, identical. Their third ingredients, therefore, must be equivalent ; and as those monosyllables beginning with the same letter have the same meaning, they must have originally ended, as well 2i2 450 ^:: AND ID AT FIRST WRITTEN HD, WHICH [Chap.V. as commenced, in the same way. But the monosyllable re- ferred to in the Samaritan line is known by the appearance it presents in the corresponding Jewish line H/l, to have been at first written H 7. The Jewish scribes, therefore, have given their sanction to the Samaritan treatment of this original monosyllable in the Samaritan portion of the example before us, by vocalizing the same monosyllable for the expression of the same meaning in the very same manner in the parallel clause adduced from the second Book of Kings. They, indeed, endeavoured, though without success, to attach some other meaning to the clause of Genesis which has here been exa- mined, and according to their view of that meaning read LwH or LoH the monosyllable contained therein which was read LiH by the Samaritan scribes. But the Samaritan bear- ing of this clause is sustained by the strongest combination of internal and external evidence ; and, admitting the correctness of that bearing, the Samaritan vocalization of the disputed monosyllable can, as I have just shown, be proved right even by the evidence of the Jews themselves. But when this mono- syllable was in conformity with the several modes of reading it LuB., LzH, or LoH, vocalized with either a Waw or a Yodj its final element. He, was dropped ; in which proceeding the old vocalizers appear to have been justified in two of the cases referred to, on account of this letter being paragogic, and of the service previously performed by it being better and more directly executed by means of the introduced vowel-letters ; but in the third case, namely, where the original monosyllable was read LoH, ' unto him,^ the final He was by no means para- gogic, but an essential element of the pronoun ^H, and ought, if possible, to have been always retained. In fine, the analyzed monosyllable should, I conceive, be written in an amended edition of the Jewish representation of the Hebrew text ID!/ ; and the clause containing it might be rendered in English as follows : saying, But since thou art for me, hear me :"- Chap.v.] waseead KzH* because; orkoH'Thus; 451 Other instances of the original He termination of words now closed with a Waw or Yod^ may be detected by comparing the cases which are occasionally to be met of groups ended with either mater lectionis in one edition of the sacred text which are differently treated in the other. Thus Jacob's reply, Gen. xxxi. 31, to one of the questions put to him by Laban, " Wherefore didst thou flee away secretly ?" runs in the Jewish edition of the Hebrew text as follows : which is literally rendered : " Because I was afraid ; because I thought, that perhaps thou wouldest take by force thy daughters from me." But the Samaritan edition has left the first word of this passage unaffected by vocalization, HD, which is at present confined to the signification * thus,' a construction of it which, as I conceive, gives a much clearer and more natural turn to Jacob's answer : ' I was thus afraid' [that is, I was in such fear as to make me flee away se- cretly] ; ' because I thought that, perhaps, thou wouldest take by force thy daughters from me.' I grant, however, that the Greek and Syriac versions favour the idiomatic form of expression which the Jewish vocalization attaches to this sen- tence. I have, therefore, brought forward this example, not with any view of recommending a change, in the mode of read- it, which is unsupported by ancient testimony, but merely for the purpose of taking advantage of the circumstance of a group having been suffered to remain in its original state in one of the editions of the text which is terminated by a Yod in the other. From this comparison it will be seen that H^ was the original form of the group in question, which admitted of being read, not only as at present, KoH, ' thus,' but also occa- sionally KiH, ' because,' according to the different demands of the context in different places ; and which was, in the site before us, read by the Jewish scribes KiH, then vocalized by them with a Yod to suit this reading, and then divested of the paragogic He^ whose service was no longer wanted after ihid introduction of the Yod, 452 ANALYSIS OF THE STKUCTURE OF [Chap. V. I shall now apply the principles unfolded in this and the two preceding chapters to an examination of the Hebrew pas- sage containing the remark of Esau on his brother's name, Gen. xxvii. 36 ; the meaning of which has been all along pre- served by the most ancient versions, but the structure of it yielding that meaning has been long since lost, through the misvocalization of its initial group by the Jewish set of old vocalizers ; an operation in which, by the way, the Samari- tan set disagreed with them ; so that each edition of the text bears witness against the genuineness of the vowel-letter placed at the end of the specified group in the other edition, while both of the testimonies to this effect are sustained by the united evidence of the Septuagint and Peshitah. Here follows the English translation of this passage extracted from our Authorized Version ; the passage itself, as at present exhibited in each edition of the sacred text f- and the renderings given of it in the two versions that were written before that text was vocalized. But, in order the better to compare these ex- tracts, a literal interpretation is subjoined to each of them, except the English one : Authorized Eng. Vers, " Is not he rightly named Jacob ? for he hath supplanted me these two times f Jewish Edition, D^QJ^D HT ^imp^l 5 3p;;*' 1;:DJ^ i^^np ^Ijn ' Whether because one hath called his name Yaha- cob? for he hath supplanted me this pair of turns ;' Samaritan Edition, "^^H ' Whether thus one hath called his name Yahacob? for he hath supplanted me this pair of turns ;' * No more of the Hebrew line is quoted from the Samaritan Pentateuch than the first group, all the rest of it being exactly the same in the two edi- tions of the sacred text. Chap. V.] THE HEBREW VERSE, GEN. xxvii. 36. 453 Septuagint, AiKalw^ IkK^Otj to ovojia avrov Iukw^' eTTTepviKe yap fie r/8i/ hevrepov tovto' * Justly hath his name been called Yacob; for he hath supplanted me now this second time;' Peshitah^ > ^^"^' ? * *^ai^ cjila ^j-oil A-1j-.;- ^ 1 "^ 1 ^i'ii 1cJi * Eightlyhath his name been called Yahacob ; for he hath prevailed against me, lo ! two turns ;' Upon an attentive consideration of the lines here inter- preted, it will, I think, be clearly perceived that there must be something wrong in the first two, each of them being incohe- rent in itself and at variance with the other ; but that the last two are in the main correct, as they mutually agree in express- ing the same general meaning, and are besides, each of them, perfectly intelligible and consistent throughout. The latter pair, therefore, may be fairly applied to the correction of the former set ; in which way it will be found that the initial group of the original passage has been misvocalized both in the Jewish and in the Samaritan edition of the Hebrew Pen- tateuch : and when, by means of the expositions supplied in the preceding pages, it is traced back from either of its pre- sent forms, '^^n, or I^H, to the primitive one, HDil, we may, through the aid of the two adduced ancient translations, plainly see that the group so restored is to be read, neither HK2H, 'whether because,' nor HaKoH, 'whether thus,' but HaKkeH, 'in hitting the mark/ in consequence of which the literal signi- fication of the first clause of the verse referred to comes out: 'In hitting the mark, one hath called his name Yahacob.' Now, as Hebrew infinitives, when connected with finite inflexions of verbs, are often used with the force of adverbs, the inter- pretation here given of the initial group naturally conducts 454 ANALYSIS OF THE STRUCTURE OF [Chap. V. to the meaning, ' fitly/ ' appropriately,' ' justly,' or ' rightly,' which is required for it by the context, as well as sanctioned by the authority of the oldest and best versions of the Bible ; while, on the other hand, there is no conceivable mode of de- ducing that meaning from the form in which this group is at present exhibited in either of the two editions of the sacred text. The hostility of the old vocalizers to the Septuagint, and the precipitation with which they performed their task, are very strongly illustrated by this example ; for, in their eager- ness here to give that version an appearance of inaccuracy, they actually deprived the sentence operated qn of all consistency between its two clauses. Afterwards, no doubt, their employers, the Jewish priesthood, must have become aware of the blun- der in this way committed ; but not till the opportunity was passed, when it could have been with safety corrected. Even an author belonging to their own nation has virtually acknow- ledged the Hebrew text in the keeping of the Jews to be in this place corrupt, by interpreting the passage in question, not according to that text, but according to its Greek rendering in the Septuagint. The interpretation to which I allude is that of Onkelos, which is given in his Targum as follows : *' Well hath one called his name Yaha6ob ; for he hath craftily treated me these two turns ;" According to the prevalent notion of the antiquity of this author, that he flourished about the commencement of the Christian era, he must have written before the sacred text was vocalized, which would sufliciently account for the cor- rectness of the adduced sentence of his translation. But, in point of fact, he could not have composed his Targum till after the death of Jerome, that is, till three centuries after the in- troduction of vowel-letters into the writing of the Bible, by which time the secret of that vocalization was most probably CiiAP.V.] THE HEBREW VERSE, GEN. xxvii. 36. 455 lost even among the sacerdotal class. At all events, he can- not be supposed to have detected this secret ; for he would in that case have made a much freer use of the Septuagint in correcting the errors of the Hebrew text : and it can scarcely be imagined how he followed the specified Greek version for this purpose even to the extent that he actually did, unless he lived at a period when the Jewish priests, the bitterest enemies of that version, had for some reason or other become very unpopular among their people, in consequence of which he could deviate with safety from their views in the execution of his work. Where, in the course of events, that period was placed, I shall endeavour to show in a subsequent chapter, if life and strength be spared to me sufiicient for writing another volume. How grievously the later sets of English translators were perplexed by the structure of the Hebrew passage here ex- amined, is placed in a prominent light by the artifice to which they were induced to resort, in order to give their respective renderings of it, in seeming conformity with the profession made by them in the title-pages of their versions, some faint appearance of being taken from the Hebrew. It is obviously for this purpose that they put the first clause of their several translations of this passage in an interrogative form. But a question coupled with a negative substantially amounts to a positive statement ; and the query, ' is he not rightly named,' is virtually equivalent to the assertion, ^ he is rightly named ;' so that the renderings employed by them certainly could not have been derived from the Hebrew text in its present state (in which the line referred to is made to commence with an interrogation), but must have been surreptitiously borrowed from one of the ancient versions. The very negation intro- duced into these renderings estranges them from the Hebrew passage, wherein no warrant whatever is to be found for such an expression, any more than for the adverb 'justly' or ^ rightly,' here inserted in their translations. This artifice ap- pears to have commenced with the writers of the Geneva 456 CAUSE OF CONFUSION BETWEEN FIRST [Chap. V. Bible ; so the framers of our present Authorized Version^ have to bear the blame, not of originating, but only of adopting it. The difficulty of the case, however, is now entirely re- moved, through the application to it of the present disco- very, whereby the Hebrew clause is restored to its original state, and to congruity with its ancient renderings ; so that a modern translation which agrees with those renderings agrees also with the genuine Hebrew. The group just ana- lyzed should, I submit, be written in an amended edition of the sacred text '^[HJDn ; and the whole of the adduced pas- sage might be translated into English as follows : " Rightly hath he been named Yahacob ; for he hath supplanted me these two times ;" with the marginal note on the beginning of the sentence : ' Heb. In hitting the mark, one hath called his name Yahacob ;' and likewise with a note on the proper name, the same as is already given in the margin of our Authorized Version, which is absolutely requisite for the purpose of explaining to * The translations of the above examined passage in the successively Au- thorized English Versions and in the Geneva Bible, arranged in the order of their respective dates, are as follows : Coverdale's Bible, " He maye well be called lacob, for he hath vndermined me now two tymes." Cranmer's Bible, *' He may wel be called lacob, for he hath vndermyned me now two tymes." Geneva Bible, " Was he not justly called laakob? for he hath deceived me these two times." Parker's Bible, " Is not he ryghtly named lacob? for he hath vnder- myned me nowe two tymes." King James's Bible, " Is not he rightly named lacob ? for he hath supplanted me these two times." The last quotation is taken from the first edition of our present Authorized Version, and differs from the same sentence, as printed in late editions, only in the initial letter of the proper name. In the earlier editions this letter had the same shape as the vowel /, and the same power as this vowel has, when read in combination with a following vowel as a single syllable; but subsequently it was changed in shape from / to J", and in power from F to a soft G. Chap. V.] AND SECOND PER. SING. OF PRETERITES. 457 an English reader the connexion between the two clauses of the sentence. I shall close this chapter with some illustrations of a sub- ject which is not exceeded, perhaps, by any other, in the force and convincing nature of the proofs it affords of the spurious- ness of the matres lectionis in the text of the Hebrew Bible. I mean the mistakes which this record, in its present state, occasionally betrays between the first and second person singu- lar of verbs in the preterite tense ; mistakes that could never have arisen if the Yod which now distinguishes those inflexions by appearing at the end of the former one, had been all along made use of for that purpose. The mere circumstance, how- ever, of a common form having been originally employed for both the specified persons of the verb in the sacred text is not sufiicient to account for misconceptions respecting its appli- cation, on the part of those who afterwards undertook to in- troduce into it a distinction. There must besides have been, from some cause or other, want of time for the deliberate execution of their task ; as they would have been protected from confounding so prominent a difference as that in ques- tion, by the slightest attention to the context, in each place of the occurrence of this form : and, in fact, the very same form, applied not only to the first person common and second per- son masculine, but also the third person feminine, of the spe- cified number and tense, has been suffered to remain in use in the cognate Syriac and Chaldee written dialects, even since the introduction of vowel-letters into their respective systems of writing, without misleading the reader who peruses any of the unpointed works transmitted to us in those dialects with a sufiicient degree of care. The mistakes, therefore, to which I refer serve to prove in a very striking manner, with regard to the vocal distinction of persons just described, which now meets our eye in almost every page of the Hebrew record, not only that it was made subsequently to the original com- position of the sacred text, but also that it was made with great precipitation. These mistakes consist in the erroneous 458 CAUSE OF CONFUSION BETWEEN FIRST [Chap. V. substitution of the first person of verbs of the above-men- tioned number and tense for the second, or of the second for the first. I shall here adduce some instances of each kind, beginning with those of the former des(Tiption. 1. In the following passage of our Authorized Version, " And Laban said to Jacob, Behold this heap, and behold this pillar which I have cast betwixt me and thee" Gen. xxxi. 51 an assertion is attributed to the speaker which strictly ac- cords, indeed, with the present state of the text in the Jewish edition of the Pentateuch, but is in direct opposition to the tenor of the inspired narrative. For we are expressly in- formed in the forty-fifth and forty-sixth verses of the very same chapter of Genesis, that the pillar here mentioned was set up, not by Laban, but by Jacob ; and that the heap of stones was collected, not by Laban's, but by Jacob's direction. Hence it is quite evident, even independently of the bearing of ancient testimonies on the subject, that [the verb in the latter part of the quoted verse should be inflected, not in the first, but in the second person ; and I proceed to lay before the reader the oldest representation of the assertion referred to, not so much for the sake of corroborating a proof of the spuriousness of the Yod at the end of the Jewish exhibition thereof, which is sufiiciently established by the authority of Scripture alone ; but rather with a view to inquiring into the cause of the blunder here committed by the Jews, as well as to avail myself of the aid this example afibrds in the discus- sion of some other points. The expression in question, then, is written in the Jewish edition of the sacred text '^ri''")\ YaRIThI, ' I have raised ;' in the Samaritan edition n^")\ YaRATha, ' thou hast raised ; in the Septuagint earrjaa?, ' thou hast raised ;' and in the Peshitah (omitting the prefixed rela- tive) ASojudI, which might, indeed, in an unconnected state, be read, either HaQIMaTh, ' she hath raised,' HaQEMT, ^ thou (masculine) hast raised,' or HaQEMeTh, ' I have raised;' but it is by the tenor of the narrative restricted in the specified place to the second of these readings and senses. Thus, the oldest Chap, v.] AND SECOND PER. SING. OF PEETERITES. 459 extant collateral testimonies on the subject furnish evidence ex abundanti against the Jewish vocalization of the original group, to the same effect as that derivable from certain facts referred to by Laban, which are on all sides admitted to be expressly recorded in Scripture itself. But to give a fuller view of those testimonies, I shall offer a few more observations on each of them, beginning with that last adduced. As the Syriac verb, then, whose evidence on the subject is above described, admits of being read in the second person singular masculine of the preterite tense, it is unavoidably limited to that inflexion by the portion of the sacred history immediately preceding, the true bearing of which is preserved in, I believe, every edition and every ver- sion of the Hebrew text. Gabriel Sionita, indeed, in his Latin translation of the Peshitah, construed this verb in the first person singular, by the same word (' erexi') as is used for the purpose in the Vulgate a version which has been proclaimed immaculate by the authority of the Romish Church. He was, however, by much too skilful a Syriac scholar to fail of being quite aware of the misconstruction of which he was here guilty ; and, if it be fair to judge of his motive for the com- mission of this fraud by its obvious tendency, it will follow that his design in perverting the sense of the passage of the Peshitah containing this verb was to falsify the evidence which its correct translation yields against the perfection of the Vul- gate in this place, and, consequently, against the infallibility of the Popes. But whatever his object may have been, the erroneous rendering he has transmitted to us of the Syriac expression in question tells not in the least against the real meaning of that expression in the place referred to, but only against the honesty of its translator. With regard to the adduced Grecian evidence, I admit that it is not furnished by the common editions of the Septuagint, in which there may be detected, through their comparison with the received Hebrew text, a considerable chasm in this place. But the words of this chasm, including the one yield- 460 CAUSE OF CONFUSION BETWEEN FIRST [Chap.Y. ing the above evidence, are preserved in a MS., numbered 135, from whicb Holmes has quoted them in a note to his learned edition of the specified version. They are here inserted within brackets, between those placed immediately next to each other in the ordinary editions of this work ; and, to render their correctness more conspicuous, a literal translation of as much of the Hebrew text as is here referred to is subjoined with the part of that translation corresponding to the chasm, like- wise included within brackets : Kal etire Aa^av rw laA-wjS, Ihov 6 ^ovvo^ outo? \^Kai iZov rj arfjXff avTfjj 'Tju earrjaa? /xera^y ejuLov kul jULera^v aoV juaprv^ o awp09 0VT09\ Kal fiapTV9 t] GTfjXf} aVTfj, * And Laban said to Yacob, Behold this heap [and behold this pillar which I have raised between me and thee ; this heap be witness] and this pillar be witness.' From the strict closeness (with a single exception) of the un- accented Greek words to the bearing here exhibited of the corresponding portion of the Hebrew passage in the at present received edition of the sacred text, one might at first be led to suspect, that they were a comparatively modern restoration, made by the help of a copy of that edition ; but, on consider- ation, this suspicion will be found refuted by the circumstance of the Greek verb earfjaa^ being written in the second person. Neither is it at all likely that they were arrived at by the aid of the Samaritan edition a work which was formerly little known, and of no repute among the Greek Christians. The most probable supposition, therefore, is, that they really are the genuine words of the Septuagint, though preserved, as far as has been as yet ascertained, in only one manuscript copy of that version ; while the manner in which they came to be dropped from other manuscripts may be accounted for by the oversight of some transcriber, who confounded the second occurrence of the expression, rj arrjKrj avrrj^ with the first, and, in consequence, omitted the intervening words. The Samaritan evidence on this subject is particularly in- Chap, v.] AND SECOND PER. SING. OF PEETERITES. 461 teresting, on account of the hint it suggests upon another point connected with the primitive structure of the Hebrew language. At the beginning of this chapter it is proved, I submit, beyond a doubt, that HebreAv verbs ending in He were at first regularly inflected with regard to their final syllables, in cases where those syllables are now found irregularly con- tracted in both writing and pronunciation. But the Samari- tan group which yields the direct evidence already noticed upon the question here discussed, afibrds also ground for sus- pecting that the class of verbs just mentioned were at first regularly inflected in their medial, as well as in their final syllables. For, supposing, for instance, the Hebrew verb ni'', ' he cast,' or ' he raised,' to have been regularly formed, like other triliteral verbs, for the inflexions in which it was capable of being used in the example before us, it would have been originally written nH"!^,^ and have admitted of being read, either YaRaHTha, 'thou hast raised,' or YaRaHTh/, 'I have raised,' according to what the reader conceived to be required by the context ; but, after the introduction of vowel-letters into the text of the Bible, the group previously common to both in- flexions would have been distinguished into two diflerent ones, 2l^")\ YaRATha, for the former signification, and '^n^"l\ YaRAThi, for the latter, the He having in each case been omitted after the vocalization of the syllable which it had ter- minated. Now the Samaritan vocalizers, for the inflexion which suited their view of the demands of the context, actu- ally treated the medial syllable in the manner here described ; and it is inconceivable how they could have been led to do so, by any other state of the case than the supposed one from which I have just shown that this vocalization would follow. Their exhibition, therefore, of this syllable verifies to a certain * The Jewish representation of the above group leaves the point undeter- mined whether it was originally closed, or not, with a paragogic He; but the Samaritan representation of the same group decides against the addition to it, in its original state, of that supplement. 462 CAUSE OF CONFUSION BETWEEN FIRST [Chap.V. extent the proposed supposition. On the other hand, it may be objected, the Jewish scribes vocahzed the same syllable in another way. But their substitution therein of Yod for Haleph can be accounted for, by the disinclination they have shown to the employment of the latter vowel-letter throughout the entire of their work, and more particularly in forms of in- flexion of frequent occurrence, such as those under considera- tion f while, it should at the same time be added, this substi- tution made no alteration whatever in the meaning of the group referred to, but only in the sound of its second syllable, a change which those vocalizers were enabled to introduce, in consequence of the ancient language of the Bible having been, in their time, utterly unknown to all the Jews except themselves, and the priesthood in whose interest they wrote, and under whose direction they acted. Again, it may per- haps be further objected, the Samaritan scribes, in most, if not all instances but the one before us, conformed to the Jewish vocalization of the syllable in question. But they may have been induced, by the superior authority of the Jewish pronun- ciation of Hebrew, to conform for the most part to that pro- nunciation where it affected not the meaning of the text ; while, on the other hand, their deviation from it, where placed under this restriction, even in a single instance, is utterly un- accountable, except on the supposition of their restoring the ancient sound of an inflexion which had been arbitrarily changed by the Jews : and as the latter set of vocalizers have been proved to a certainty to have altered both the writing and pronunciation of the final syllable of one inflexion of verbs end- ing in He, there is the less unlikelihood of their having treated * The vocal values /and U of Tod and Waw are immediately derivable by- diaeresis from their original powers Fand W, But the vocal value A of Haleph cannot in any way be deduced from its original value, which was a species of jH" power, and must have been borrowed from some foreign system. Hence, in all probability, arose the disinclination of the old vocalizers to the employ- ment of this mater lectionis, whose foreign origin it was scarcely possible for them to conceal. Chap.V.] and second PER. SING. OF PRETEEITES. 463 in like manner the medial syllable of other inflexions of verbs of the same class. I am, however, quite ready to admit the danger of resting any \de\v of a subject on a single example ; and I propose that here brought forward only as a conjecture, the decision of which in either way is immaterial to my gene- ral theory, but whose discussion may still prove interesting to the antiquarian philologist. With regard to the Jewish vocalization of the final syllable of the above group for the inflexion in the first person of the verb thereby denoted, the egregious blunder here committed by them leaves gi-eat room for the suspicion which is sug- gested by many other mistakes also of the same kind that they did not deliberately peruse the contents of the sacred text, according as they proceeded with its vocalization, but merely cast the eye along its pages in search of words which required the addition of vowel-letters ; and that, finding the inflexion of the verb under discussion in the first person to make sense in the verse wherein it occurs, when that verse is considered alone, they at once vocalized it for this inflexion, as the Se- venty had translated it for a different one. But if they had reflected on the contents of the sacred history only five and six verses back, they must have seen that the inflexion here chosen by them, for the purpose of giving the Septuagint an appearance of inaccuracy in this place, instead of producing the eff*ect they intended, had merely that of making their own vocalization of the text absolutely absurd, as representing La- ban to have stated two falsehoods, and that too, without any conceivable motive ; since, from the very nature of the case, it was impossible that the person to whom these falsehoods are imagined to have been addressed, could have been deceived by them. Before quitting this subject, I have to observe, that the Hebrew verb in question is translated by the very same group in the Targum of Onkelos as in the Syriac version, ri'^D'^pi^^ only with the exception of the Yod in its last syllable, which confines it to the reading HaQiMETh, ' I have raised.' Accord- 2 K \ 464 CAUSE OF CONFUSION BETWEEN FIRST [Chap.V. ing to the more usual mode of writing Chaldee, this second Yod might have been omitted ; and then the Chaldee group would have been restricted by the context to the same reading as is the Syriac one, HaQIMT, or HaQEMT ' thou (masculine) hast raised.' As the case stands, however, this group yields the same erroneous sense as the corresponding Hebrew one in its present vocalized state ; a circumstance which contributes to show that the Targum of Onkelos was not written till after the sacred text had been vocalized ; as so gross a blunder as that here referred to could hardly have been committed by two parties independently of each other. A much closer limit, indeed, to the age of this Targum has been pointed out in the course of the last discussion ; but still, this one is worth no- ticing, on account of the endless number of examples which can be applied to its confirmation. In fine, I would recommend the Hebrew group just ana- lyzed to be written, in an amended edition of the sacred text, 'iH'''T^ ; and the Authorized English Translation of the verse in which it occurs, might, I submit, be improved by altering it as follows : "And Laban said to Yahacob, Behold this heap and behold this pillar which thou hast erected between me and thee." Besides the change of the inflexion of the verb in the latter part of this verse from the first to the second person, the verb itself has also been changed from ' cast,' into ^erected,' an alteration which is not only sanctioned by the authority of all the more ancient versions, but also required by the context'; for the former verb can in strictness be stated only respecting the stones which formed the heap, while the latter is applicable with propriety to both the heap itself and the pillar. 2. The Hebrew of the clause translated in our Authorized Version, "Now thou art commanded," Gen. xlv. 19, ^has been transmitted to us, vocalized By the Jewish scribes, Hn^lV nn^l And by the Samaritans, ^n'^IV r^r^^^ The two readings here adduced of the same group, which exhi- Chap.V,] and second PER. SING. OFPEETERITES. 465 bit a verb, the upper of them, in the second person, and the lower one, in the first, are worth considering together ; as their comparison supplies a conspicuous instance, both of the ambiguity of the original Hebrew form of inflexion under ex- amination when viewed apart from the context, and also of the practice of the old vocalizers (Samaritan as well as Jewish) of dropping a paragogic He^ after vocalizing the syllable that had been closed by it. The Jewish part of this example, which is clearly right with regard to the person in which it represents the verb to be inflected, has been already analyzed in the first chapter of the present volume*; where, however, the Masoretic pointing of this inflexion for the passive voice, according to which it has been translated in the Authorized English Ver- sion, is proved quite erroneous, not only by the inconsistency it introduces between the clause before us and the next en- suing one with respect to the number of persons to whom the command therein contained is addressed, "Now thou art commanded ; this do ye, take you waggons," but also by the bearing of the most ancient testimony extant upon the sub- ject. The Syriac translation, indeed, of the above clause AjI 4^*^ 1^ 4?1*^ is ambiguous ; for, according as the par- ticiple in it is read MeShoLeT, or MeShaLaT, it admits of convey- ing one or other of these significations : 'Now, as for thee, be- hold, commanding he thou,' or, ' Now, as for thee, behold, commanded art thou.' But the Septuagint, which is our oldest and best authority for the interpretation of the sacred text in its original state, is perfectly clear with respect to the voice as well as the person in which the inflexion under inquiry should be read: Su he evreCKai Taura' Xa^ettu avrot^ afxa^a^^ /c, t. \. " And do thou have given [i. e. do thou instantly give] these orders to them, that ye should take for yourselves waggons, &c. ;" where, we may perceive, the incoherency above exposed is avoided, and the transition from the singular to the plural number of the persons commanded is accounted for. But my chief motive for bringing under notice, in a preceding chapter, the group in question as vocalized by the Jewish scribes of the 2 k2 466 CAUSE OF CONFUSION BETWEEN FIRST [Chap. V. second century, was on account of the aid which, where its vocalization is completed, as it should be, for the active voice, it contributes to illustrating the force of the Hebrew tense compounded of the future, or imperative (which is looked upon by Hebrew grammarians as a species of future), and the pre- terite tense. As, however, my views upon this point have been already detailed, in the place above specified, no further expo- sition of them is here wanted. I now proceed to direct attention to the Samaritan part of the same example, which, with the words next following, can be thus translated : ' And as for thee, I have commanded thee; this do ye, take for yourselves waggons, &c.' Here may be observed the very incoherency, in the use of the singular and plural numbers, which w^as previously noticed in the Jewish passage, as the vocalization of the principal group of its leading clause has been filled up by the Masoretic pointing. The Samaritan reading, then, of this group for the first per- son is shown to be incorrect, first, by the context ; secondly, by the old Jewish vocalization of the same group, which is, indeed, incomplete, but, as far as it goes, is right ; and, thirdly, by the independent testimonies of the Septuagint and Peshi- tah, which are, upon this point, perfectly concordant. This reading, therefore, of the group referred to, presents to us a clear instance, not indeed in the received edition of the He- brew Pentateuch, but in its Samaritan edition, of a Hebrew form of inflexion of a verb which ought to have been exhi- bited in the second person, but has, through mistake, been vocalized for the first. 3. A prolific supply of examples of the mistake under examination is furnished by the part of Naomi's advice to Ruth, which is translated in our Authorized Version as fol- lows : " Wash thyself, therefore, and anoint thee, and *put thy raiment upon thee, and *get thee down to the [thrash- ing-] floor ; hut make not thyself known unto the man, until he shall have done eating and drinking. And it shall be, when he lieth down, that thou shalt mark the plac^e where he Chap, v.] AND SECOND PEE. SING. OF PEETEEITES. 467 shall lie, and thou shalt go in, and uncover his feet, and *lay thee down." Ruth, iii. 3, 4. Of the verbs in this quo- tation, the three marked with an asterisk are, just like the rest of those addressed to Ruth, rightly formed for the second person ; but in the Hebrew text, as it has been transmitted to us, they are inflected for the first, in direct opposition to sense and to both of the ancient versions that were written before that text was vocalized. In the three records re- ferred to they are, when compared respectively, exhibited as foUows : o First verbj '^T^D^lD']^^^ 'and I shall have put on (raiment)/ Kut TrepiOTJaei^, 'and thou shalt put on.' ^A^Jo, 'and be thou (feminine) dressed.' Second verb, '^im'^l, 'and I shall have descended.' Kal aj/apt}ay, 'and thou shalt ascend.' w*Za>jO 'and descend thou (feminine).' Third verb, '^T^2^^^, 'and I shall have lain down.' KOL KoifxfjOyay, 'and thou shalt lie down.' I nV>?Zo, ' and thou (feminine) shalt lie down.' Upon the spuriousness of the Tod at the end of each of the adduced Hebrew verbs, by means of which their present erro- neous form of inflexion is given them, I need not dweU ; for, although the cause of its appearance in those three sites has hitherto proved utterly inexplicable, yet, that it has been wrongly inserted therein, is on every side admitted. Even the Masorets have acknowledged as much in their mode of exhibiting those verbs, which, notwithstanding their attaching " The corrupt change by the Jewish scribes of Samek into Shin^ in cases where the power of the former letter is still retained, is proved, in the instance of the above verb, by the joint evidence of the Syriac and Chaldee dialects, in which it is used with just the same sound and signification as in the ancient Hebrew, but is always written in each of them with a Samek. 468 CAUSE OF CONFUSION BETWEEN FIRST [Chap. V. thereto the little circular mark of censure, they have left un- changed, so as to be read respectively, according to the letters, in the first person, WgSaMTI, WeYaRaDTl, WeShfl^KaBTI, but still have pointed for the respective readings in the second person feminine WeSaMT, WeYaRaDT, WeShttKaBT. Thus they honestly confessed that the sacred text was handed down to them, in these three instances, written in a way quite at variance with that according to which the context required it to be read ; a confession well worth noticing, on account of the very striking illustration it afibrds of the scrupulous fidelity with which they preserved this text in the very state in which they found it. The same degree of candour has not been shown upon this occasion by the framers of the English Authorized Ver- sion : they have, indeed, rightly attended to the sense of the passage in construing the above verbs in the second person ; but, though professing in their title-page to translate from the original Scriptures, they have here, within the short com- pass of two verses, deviated no less than three times from those Scriptures, as at present written, without giving in the margin of their work the slightest intimation of their having done so. Whether the reserve thus practised by those learned men, in regard to the Old Testament, was justifiable or not, it at all events serves to show, in a very prominent manner, how sorely perplexed they were, and to what a distressing dilemma they must have felt themselves reduced, by the existing state of the Hebrew text. Now, however, the whole source of their embarrassment is removed: the inaccuracies in the sacred record which they attempted to conceal from the English reader turn out to have no genuine connexion with the in- spired writing, but to be merely the effects of interpolations therein made by fallible, uninspired men ; and, consequently, neither honesty nor candour any longer requires an acknow- ledgment of those inaccuracies in the margin of our Bible. The exposed anomalies, indeed, not only are accounted for by my discovery, but they also contribute in turn to its support Chap.V.I and second PER. SING. OF PRETERITES. 469 by increasing the number and variety of eases which it is impossible to explain in any other way : for no other cause of corruption can be assigned, that would invariably operate on a very limited class of letters, and leave all the rest un- touched. I have here only further to observe, that the little circular mark of censure with which the Masorets branded the three groups just analyzed, ought to be attached to them in unpointed editions also, but placed more exactly over the spurious element of each, a caution less necessary in Maso- retic copies, in which the faulty letter is sufficiently indicated by the pointing. The corrected groups would thus come to o o be exhibited in an amended edition of the text, "^ilDJi^CD]! 4. In the chapter of the Authorized English Version next to that from which I have taken my last quotation, the fol- lowing passage occurs : " Then said Boaz, What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth, the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up [an offspring that shall bear] the name of the dead [and be main- tained] upon his inheritance." Ruth, iv. 5. The verb pre- terite which, in consequence of the Waw at the commencement of the second clause being treated as a Waw conversive imme- diately thereto prefixed, is here translated, ' Thou must also buy,' is exhibited in the Hebrew text, as it stands at present, '^il'^ip, QaNIThI, ' I must have also bought ;' and the elements of the group have been honestly preserved by the Masorets in this state, though they pointed it so as to be read QaNITh, * thou must have also bought.' This case supports my view of the general subject just as powerfully as those previously adduced ; and we may observe in it precisely the same can- dour exerted by the Jewish punctuators, and the same reserve by the English translators as in the last batch of examples. So far, therefore, it does not call for any additional remark. But while one error has been avoided in our Authorized Ver- sion with regard to the above verb, another has been fallen into, which it may be worth while to bring under the reader's 470 CAUSE OF CONFUSION BETWEEN FIKST [Chap.V. notice. The supplement ' it' has been wrongly introduced as the word governed by the verb : the tenor, even alone consi- dered, of the quoted verse shows plainly,- what, indeed, is rendered, if possible, still more evident by the ensuing part of the narrative, that the supplied pronoun, if any were here wanted, should not be ' it,' but ' her ;' and that the second part of the demand made on the nearest kinsman of the de- ceased was not the purchase over again of the field, which would seem to have been quite superfluous, but the additional purchase of the widow, without whose co-operation there could not be raised up an heir to the estate entitled to the name of its late proprietor. But to point out the further sup- port which this correction derives from both of the versions that were composed before the sacred text was vocalized, so much of the original passage, in its existing state, as comes more immediately under discussion, is here adduced, together with its oldest Greek and Syriac renderings, while a literal interpre- tation of each rendering is subjoined thereto. Hebrew text, rsf) n^^iy) ,^d;;J td n^m iniip Di'^a d Septuagint, kv rj/JLepa tov Krr/aaaOat ae tov dypou Ik Xfe/Jo? 'NwejJLiP^ KOL Trapa Fov6 t^s Mwa/3/TiBo?, yvpaiKO^ TOV Te^i/^/roTO?, kul airrfjv KTfjaaaOal ae cei 'In the day of thy getting the field from the hand of Noemin and from Euth the Moabitess, widow of the dead, thou must gain possession also of herself [i. e. of the latter woman].' The above proper name is written in the Alexandrian copy ^oofifiet, though exhibited in the Vatican one 'SivejuLiv. The difference between the two transcriptions of the same word marks the imperfection of the original Hebrew mode of recording names, in the case of those of rare occurrence. The one before us, which is written in Syriac with exactly the same elements as in Hebrew, was pronounced by the Seventy, according to one copy of their work, NoHeMin, and according to another, NoHoMin^; while it was pointed by the Masorets so as to be read NaHoMi. The Nu at the end of this name in the Chap.V.] and second PER. SING. OF PRETERITES. 471 Feshitah, Z.cll5o :, iV)M ^ XLcl^ Aj] ^\y ]iQ0 >n Aj-k)5 0015 oiZ-AjI lA-.:5]QiD ' In the day of buying thou the fields from Nahomi, do thou also of Rehuth the Moabitess, his widow of him the dead, get possession.' The two sets of translators here perfectly agree in sub- stance, though differing somewhat in form. They both concur in rendering the final group of the Hebrew sentence as a verb in the second person, in opposition to the error subsequently committed by the Jewish scribes of vocalizing it for the first ; and they also concur in referring the bearing of this verb to the acquisition or purchase, not of the field, but of Ruth, in opposition to the more recent error on this point which has been above noticed. On the other hand, the field is repre- sented as bought, according to the Seventy, from each of the women here mentioned, but, according to the Syriac transla- tors, from Naomi alone ; and the final He of the last group (restored through my discovery to its original state), which was dropped by the old vocalizers on their insertion of a Yod in the syllable that had been closed by it, is shown by their respective renderings to have been treated, by the former set of translators, as the pronominal afiix for the third person sin- gular feminine, but by the latter set as merely a paragogic element. The view taken of this letter by the Seventy in the case of the group in question deserves attention ; for, whether they were right or not in this instance, they could not have looked upon the He here referred to as an afiix, unless it ac- Vatican MS. is worth noticing; as the testimony of this copy is hereby given, that the strong pronunciation of vowel-sounds at the end of words, which after the introduction of matres lectionis into the sacred text came to be denoted by the addition of a paragogic Nun, had commenced before the Septuagint was written. It appears strange to find in Greek writing the combination lu used to denote the vowel I strongly sounded ; but we are to recollect that the Septuagint was written, not by Greeks, but by Jews, and that, too, by Jews who had but very shortly before begun to learn the use of vowel- signs. 472 CAUSE OF CONFUSION BETWEEN FIRST [Chap. V. tuaUy performed the service of this curtailed pronoun at the end of other groups, denoting the same inflexion. I should, however, add, that the twofold nature of the He in this site attaches no ambiguity to the original sentence ; as it is strictly confined to a single service in each way of dealing with the passage. If, along with the Greek translators, we retain the Mem of the group which immediately precedes the proper name Ruth, it excludes that proper name from being go- verned as an accusative case by the verb at the end of the sentence ; and then the service of the final He as an affix is wanted, to supply the place of a word so governed. But if, on the other hand, we, along with the Syriac translators, reject the Mem in question, the above proper name is then put in the accusative case to the specified verb, and the He^ not being wanted for this use, becomes merely paragoglc. According to the Greek rendering, a Waw conversive of the preterite should be prefixed to the final group of the Hebrew passage ; but no such alteration of the text is wanted according to the Syriac rendering, which makes the Service of this Waw be performed by the one at the head of the second clause. On the other hand, the latter rendering calls for the rejection of the Mem in the group immediately preceding the proper name, Ruth, an alteration of the text which is not required by the former rendering of the same passage. In support of the Greek construction of the sentence un- der examination, one might at first be disposed to urge, that it is taken from the older of the two versions ; and also that the Mem which, according to it, should be retained in this sentence, is stiU. there found in, as far as has been yet ascer- tained, every extant copy of the sacred text.* But both con- siderations are entirely overruled by the authority of Scripture * Kennicott found but one Hebrew MS. without the Mem in the site above referred to; and even in that one, numbered by him 31, it was only in part erased. Neither was De Rossi able to find any other copy wanting this letter in the site in question. Chap, v.] AND SECOND PEK. SING.OFPKETERITES. 473 itself, by which the question at issue between the two con- structions is fully decided in favour of the Syriac one. For, in the inspired narration, a few verses further on, Boaz pro- claiming his own performance of the very conditions he had previously required in vain to be executed by another, and which are recorded in the sentence just analyzed, expresses himself as follows : "And Boaz said unto the elders and unto all the people. Ye are witnesses this day, that I have bought all that was Elimelech's, and all that was Chilion's and Mahlon's [that is, the whole of the field in question] of the hand of Naomi. Moreover, Ruth, the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, I have purchased to be my wife, . . ." Ruth, iv. 9, 10. Hence it plainly results, that the field was sold by Naomi alone, and that Ruth, instead of taking any share in the ratification of the sale, was herself a part of the property then sold. I would, therefore, adhere to the Syriac construction of the above He- brew sentence, in conformity with which I would recommend the first and last groups of its second clause to be written, in o o an amended edition of the sacred text, T^^US and '^[Hin'^Jp ; and, deviating as little as possible from its Authorized Enghsh Translation, I would venture to render it as follows : " What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must also speedily buy Ruth the Moabitess, the widow of the dead." I would not annex to the expression, ' thou must also speedily buy,' the marginal note, 'Heb. thou must also have bought; since, from the frequent occurrence of this form of compound tense, the margin would be too much overloaded with its explanation. 5. I have next to proceed to some cases of omission of the vocal Yod at the end of the form in question, where the want of it, according to the present mode of Avriting Hebrew, can be evinced by the context, by the united evidence of the oldest pair of versions among the ancient ones still extant, and even 474 CAUSE OF CONFUSION BETWEEN FIEST [Chap. V. by the admission of the Jews. In the original of the passage, " I know that thou canst do every thing J^ Job, xlii. 2, the initial group, ili/1\ could, before the introduction of vowel- letters into the sacred text, have been read, either YaDaHTa, ' I know,' or YaDaHTa, ' thou knowest ;' but afterwards, in con- sequence of the old vocalizers having, through oversight, failed to annex to it a Yod^ it became restricted to the latter sense. Yet, in the first place, the former alone is suited to the tenor of Job's speech. Secondly, the group in question is translated in the Septuagint otla^ ' I know,' and in the Peshitah, with a periphrasis to avoid the ambiguity of the corresponding in- flexion of the Syriac language, ]j1 vi,^, ' knowing am I.^ Thirdly, this group has been pointed by the Masorets for the reading Y^DaHTz, ' I know,' with the little circular mark placed over it to indicate something wrong therein ; a mark which, according to my notation, is confined to cases of redundancy, while for the sake of distinctness those of defect are denoted in another way. Fully, then, agreeing with them in the just- ness of their correction, I would conform to it by inserting a Yod within brackets in the place where it is wanted ; and, accordingly, would recommend the group just analyzed to be written DJUi/l*' in an amended edition of the Hebrew text. 6. Let us turn to the following clause, in which Solomon is represented as speaking of the Temple he had just finished; " the house which I have built for thy name." 1 Kings, viii. 48. In the Hebrew of this clause the verb is written r(^22, which, since the text was vocalized with letters, has been restricted to the reading BaNITha, ' thou hast built.' But, in the first place, the sense of the clause in connexion with the entire of Solomon's prayer obviously requires this verb to be inflected in the first person. Secondly, it is rendered in the Septuagint wKolo^rjKa^ ^ I have built,' and in the Peshitah, omitting the prefixed relative, Zujlo, the very same as the Hebrew group in letters, though not in pronunciation which, indeed, might, considered by itself, signify '- 1 have built,' ' thou Chap.V.] and second PER. SING. OF PRETERITES. 475 hast built/ or ^ she hath built/* but is strictly confined to the first of these significations by the context. Thirdly, it is branded by the Masorets with their little circular mark of cen- sure, and pointed so as to be read BaNlTh?, ' I have built.' Their correction is perfectly just ; and I only difi*er with them in the mode of expressing it. According to my notation the above group should be written, in an amended edition of the text, D]il^:i2. 7. " For thus saith the Lord God, I will even deal with thee, as thou hast done, " Ezek. xvi. 59. In the Hebrew of this sentence the middle verb is il'^J^i/l, which, according to the present orthography of the sacred text, must be read WeUaSITha^ ' and thou shalt surely deal.' But, in the first place, this verb by being so inflected would make absolute nonsense of the passage. Secondly, it is translated in the Sep- tuagint /cal 7roiy}(Tw, ' and I will do ;' and is paraphrased in the Peshitah ]j] ,ns, ' about to do am I.' Thirdly, it has been marked by the Masorets with their little circle, and pointed by them so as to be read WeHaSIThz, ' and I wiU. surely deal.' In this correction I fully concur mth them, and would, accord- ingly, recommend the above group to be written, in an o amended edition of the Hebrew text, [?]ri'^t^[D]i^1 ; where the last alteration alone relates to the present discussion ; while the preceding ones are made in conformity to the rule that, in words now written with aShirij but pronounced as if written with a Samek, the former letter should be rejected, and the latter restored. I have here only further to observe that, in this and the two preceding examples, the framers of our Au- The Syriac group in question might for the last of the above three sig- nifications be written without a Yod; but as it can also be written for such meaning with this letter, it must, when so exhibited, be viewed, even up to the present day, as open in the abstract to all those significations ; a point upon which I dwell for the purpose of showing, that there is nothing incre- dible in the lesser ambiguity of a twofold sense, in an unconnected state, which I attribute to the corresponding Hebrew group in the original condi- tion of the sacred text. 476 CAUSE OF CONFUSION BETWEEN FIRST [Chap.V. thorized Version adopted tlie Masoretic emendations of the sacred text; but they did so without acknowledging in the margin of their work the errors in the existing state of that text which were thus corrected. Candour, indeed, now no longer demands any such acknowledgment ; as the errors in question have been traced to the fault of the old vocalizers, and are found to have no connexion with the inspired compo- sitions as originally penned. It is, however, to be recollected, to the honour of the Masorets, that, although utterly unable to account for those blemishes, and as much distressed at their appearance in Scripture as any other sect of men could be, they yet never attempted to suppress what was known to them under this head, with regard to the existing state of the writ- ing of the Hebrew Bible. 8. I shall now give an example of the same defective mode of exhibiting the Hebrew form in question, which escaped the observation of those critics : " Preserve me, God ; for in thee do I put my trust. my soul, thou hast said unto the Lord, Thou art my Lord." Ps. xvi. 1, 2. The original of this extract from our Authorized Version is, in the present state of the Hebrew text, written as follows : ~:^n^^ ^n.s ,r]^n'^b niiDK r\2 won ^d ;^^ ,'^:'\Dti; The verb at the commencement of the second part of this line is addressed to some person (or thing figuratively viewed as a person) that is not expressly mentioned ; and there is no limi- tation to the noun which is wanting, except that it should denote a believer in the true God, and that it should be in the singular number : it is not even confined to the feminine gender, as the punctuation employed by the Masorets would imply ; for they pointed it for that gender without any neces- sity for doing so, and apparently for the mere purpose of making it agree with the supplementary word here introduced in the Chaldee Paraphrase of the Psalms, "^^^2, ' my soul,' and which is the same, as well as of the same gender, in He- brew also. This supplement makes sense, indeed, of the pas- Chap, v.] AND SECOND PEE. SING. OF PEETERITES. 477 sage headed by it ; but so would equally any one of an innu- merable set of others ; as, for instance, the Hebrew for ' my son,' or ' my friend,' or ' my heart.' Surely, such an extreme degree of vagueness cannot be ascribed to the inspired author of the Psalm ; but this vicious style is now removed from the original line, and traced to the giddiness of the old vocalizers, in failing to annex a Yod to the group ^\)D^^. The verb, indeed, thereby denoted could up to their time have been read, without the aid of this adjunct, in the first person, as the tenor of the passage obviously requires that it should ; but it afterwards became, in consequence of the non-insertion of the above vowel-letter in the specified site, restricted to the second person. From the cause of this corruption, once ascer- tained, we are directly led to its remedy ; and the correction thus shown to be demanded by the context is also sustained by the concurrent attestations of the two versions that were written before the Hebrew text was vocalized. The above group, n"lD^^, in the adduced line is translated in the Septua- gint ecTra^ * I have said,' and in the Peshitah Z^iol, ' I have said.' The Syriac group, which is exactly the same as the original one in letters, though not in the pronunciation of its vocal portion, is particularly deserving of attention ; as it may even still, when considered by itself, be read either KeMReTh, ' I have said,' HeMaRTh, Hhou (masculine) hast said,' or HeMRaTh, ' she hath said.' There is, therefore, nothing incredible in the view I maintain respecting the very same group in Hebrew writing, that originally, when considered by itself, it was am- biguous, though not as much so as it is to this day in Syriac writing. But as there is no word of the sentence in reference to which the Sjrtiac verb could be used in the second or third person, it is in consequence necessarily confined to the first ; and so would the Hebrew one also, for part of the very same reason, if men had known that they had a choice open to them on the subject. This choice is now restored; and all that re- mains to be done is to write the analyzed group, in an amended edition of the sacred text, DllllO^^ (or in any other way that 478 CAUSE OF CONFUSION BETWEEN FIEST [Chap.V. will serve to indicate the same correction, according to the mode of notation which may eventually be adopted), and to insert in the Authorized English Version for its translation the statement 'I have said,' instead of '0 my soul, thou hast said.' This example, I may here add, clearly shows that the Targum of the Psalms inserted in Walton's Polyglot, though of greater age than the Masoretic pointing, was not written till after the Hebrew text had been vocalized with letters. For the translation of )1")D^^ therein given, n? vD, which is as ambiguous as the Syriac one, when considered by itself, is in the place referred to restricted to the second person by both parts of the supplement immediately following it, "^^^2 n^t^, ' thou my soul ;' but no one who examined the passage with any deliberation could have interpreted the original verb in this inflexion, if he had the power of taking it in the first person, a mode of reading it which was put a stop to only through the oversight of the old vocalizers. Closer limitations, indeed, to the age of the Targum in question may be derived from other considerations ; but as this one is suggested by the Chaldee interpretation of the passage which is the subject of the present discussion, I have thought it worth bringing here by the way under notice. 9. For one more instance of the former mode of mistreat- ing the Hebrew form of inflexion in question and that also one which the Masorets failed to correct I request attention to a sentence in the blasphemous speech of Kabshakeh to the messengers of King Hezekiah, recorded in two different parts of Scripture, by lines which, in their existing state, are trans- lated in our Authorized Version as follows : " Thou say est (but they are hut vain words), I have counsel and strength for the war." 2 Kings, xviii. 20. " I say, say est thou (but they are but vain words), I have coun- sel and strength for war." Is. xxxvi. 5. Even without any reference to the upper of these extracts, or to the original of either, the bare inspection of the lower one Chap, v.] AND SECOND PER. SING. OF PRETERITES. 479 is sufficient to show that there must be something wrong in it. For, if we omit the supplementary words, ^ sayest thou,^ the sentence conveys the admission of Rabshakeh that he was himself a liar, and had neither counsel nor strength for war ; an admission utterly incompatible with the boasting tenor of all the rest of his speech. On the other hand, if we retain the above words, the lie is shifted to another individual, and Hezekiah turns out to be the person represented as destitute both of counsel and strength for war ; by which means, indeed, the incoherency of the former construction is avoided, but the bearing of the passage is entirely changed, an eifect quite beyond the province of a supplement, the legitimate use of which is not to alter, but only to complete the sense of the rendering of whatever line of a translated work it may relate to. At the same time, it may be observed that the upper ex- tract is not liable to either of these objections, from which circumstance, combined with the consideration that the ori- ginals of the two extracts must have been at first the same, we are naturally led to anticipate that the lower extract ought to be corrected so as to agree with the upper one, and, conse- quently, that the objectionable supplement in it should be omitted, and the inflexion of the verb at its commencement be changed from the first to the second person. But to probe the subject more deeply, it is requisite to in- spect the two original lines of the extracts just examined ; which, accordingly, are here laid before the reader in their existing state, with merely the exception of an error in their orthography corrected, by restoring in the margin of each a Samek instead of a Shin^ in the case of a group containing at present the latter sibilant, but still pronounced with the power of the former one. 2 Kings, xviii. 20, niinji r))^V .D^M^jE^ "ini 1^^ ,rr\12)!< D Is. xxxvi. 5, nninji nv;; .u^r^^^ inn ^^^ .^^mn^ d The lower of these lines agrees in meaning with the lower of 2l 480 CAUSE OF CONFUSION BETWEEN FIKST [Chap. Y. the adduced English extracts, divested of its first supplement ; and, consequently, is liable to the very same objection as that extract is, when so curtailed. The candour, indeed, and hu- mility attributed to the speaker by this line, as at present vocalized, are entirely at variance with the general bearing of Rabshakeh's speech ; a fact which the framers of our Au- thorized Version have virtually acknowledged, by introducing into their translation of the passage a supplement which quite reverses the sense it conveys in its existing state. But sup- pose the matres lectionis to be a spurious addition to the writing of the sacred text, inserted therein after its original formation, by uninspired fallible scribes, and then we should have a right to dispense with their use whenever they might be found to interfere with the coherency of Scripture, by which means the whole difficulty of the particular case now under consideration would be at once removed. For, by rejecting the vocal Yod at the end of the initial group of the under line, it would be made to denote a verb inflected in the second person instead of the first, and the meaning of the whole line would be so altered as to come out perfectly in keeping with the rude and insulting tenor of the remainder of the barbarian orator's harangue. Thus, there would be effected by legiti- mate means a correction in the sense of the original line which was in vain attempted to be introduced into its translation by the framers of our version, through an exceedingly awkward and perplexing form of expression, and what is still worse, by the aid of a contrivance that was quite unwarranted. But the spuriousness of the specified Yod^ which has been just derived from the context, is powerfully sustained and, I may even assert, confirmed by the authority of Scripture. For, upon turning to the upper line, we shall see that, although in other respects exactly identical with the lower one, it yet exhibits the initial gi-oup actually clear of the perturbat- ing letter. It cannot be here urged that the evidence of Scripture on the subject is rendered void by incoherency, the meanings conveyed by the two lines being at variance with Chap, v.] AND SECOND PER. SING. OF PEETERITES. 481 each other. For this objection would be valid, only provided both lines were in their original state, which they are shown not to be by the very discrepance which now subsists between them : and when the bearing of each is examined with a view to ascertaining v/hich of them has undergone corruption, the lower one is clearly found to be that whose testimony must be rejected. Notmthstanding, then, their present mutual op- position, the attestation of the upper line still continues with unabated force to sanction and confirm the inference above drawn from the context ; and the combination of both proofs establishes beyond a doubt the spuriousness of the Yod in question, as well as the complete identity of the compared lines, as originally written. This specimen of the class of ex- amples which may be derived from parallel passages of Scrip- ture serves to give some notion of their ef&cacy in upholding, not only the truth, but also the usefulness of my discovery : the class alluded to, indeed, affords so powerful a corrobora- tion of my argument, that I would gladly devote more space to the discussion of cases which come under this head, if life and health should be allowed me sufficient for writing a sup- plementary volume to complete this treatise. The proof abeady given of the spuriousness of the Yod in the lower of the compared lines is so strong, that I refer to the evidence of the Septuagint and Peshitah on the subject, not so much for the purpose of making any addition to the strength of that proof, as for the sake of some hints thus sup- plied for the correction of the Authorized English Translations of those lines. The Greek and Syriac renderings of the same lines are here adduced, with their literal interpretations sub- joined to them respectively : 2 Kings, xviii. 20, E^Tra?, ttAt/i/ \6yot yeCKeoiv^ ^ovKi] kol duvafni^ eh 'KoKefxov. ' Thon sayest but they are deceitful words [literally, words of lips] that thou hast counsel and strength for w ar. 2 l2 482 CAUSE OF CONFUSION BETWEEN FIEST [Chap.V. Isaiah, xxxvi. 5, Mr/ kv fiovKy koI \6yoL? yeiKewv Trapdra^i^ ytverai ; * Whether is war carried on by [literally, does ma- Dageraent of war consist in] merely counsel and deceitful words [literally words of lips] V 2 Kings, xviii. 20, y 1Aj-i5Zo Uq-^lcd? ]1\V)V> yCi Zulj Z5Sd1o and Is. xxxvi. 5, ) \^r^ Uo^^:iJ-^ *And thou sayest that thou hast [literally, that there are in thee] deceitful speech [literally, speech of lips] and counsel and strength for war [or for the war].' The upper Greek translation most rigidly agrees in sense with the upper Hebrew line, and so vouches for the genuineness of the meaning conveyed by that line in its present state ; but the lower Greek translation manifestly betrays corruption, and besides exhibits no rendering whatever of the initial group of the corresponding Hebrew line. The evidence, therefore, of the Septuagint, on the main point under discussion, must be deemed lost, unless we be allowed, in consequence of the ob- vious corruption of the lower Greek passage, to transfer the upper one to the interpretation of the lower Hebrew line, on the ground of the original identity of both Hebrew lines. The Syriac translation is less accurate than the upper Greek one, in consequence, as it would appear, of the want of the adversative particle "^^ in both lines of the Hebrew copy con- sulted by the framers of the Peshitah ; but on the main point, that the initial group of the lower, as well as the upper line, should be rendered as a verb in the second person, it is unequi- vocally correct. For the form of inflexion therein used for the purpose not only admits of being read in the second per- son, but also, notwithstanding its capability of other readings when taken in an unconnected state, is strictly confined to this one by the context of the place before us, as has been already explained in the instance of the occurrence of the very same Syriac group in another place. The evidence here given by Chap, v.] AND SECOND PER. SING. OF PRETERITES. 483 the Peshitah is also valuable on another account ; for, by ex- hibiting precisely the same rendering of the two Hebrew lines, it clearly attests the identity of those lines, or, at any rate, that of the sense conveyed by them, down to the period when this version was Avritten. To turn now to the correction of the Authorized English translations of the compared lines, the verb represented by the initial group of each line is, in strictness, confined to the preterite tense, or one compounded of the preterite and pre- sent, equivalent to that employed in the English expression, * thou hast read ;' but still, the rendering of this group by the Seventy in the upper line (in the case of which alone, of the two, their translation of it has been preserved) by a Greek verb in the form of a past tense (eoTra^), which yet is used to denote the present, justifies, I conceive, the framers of the English Version in their construction of the initial verb of both Hebrew lines in the latter tense. The next point I have to notice in their translation of each line is their putting the term * word* in the plural number, in conformity, indeed, with both the Greek renderings of its Hebrew original, but in direct opposi- tion to that original, as at present read in both Hebrew lines. It is quite true, as is shown by my discovery, that the original gi*oup, 121 in the construct state, could, before the introduc- tion of vowel-letters into the writing of the Hebrew Bible, have been read either in the singular number DeBaR, ' word of,' or DiBRe, ' words of ;' and the strict accuracy of construction which was constantly observed by the Seventy proves that they must have here read it in the latter way. But this group could not be so read at present, without subjoining to it a Tod, or exhibiting it according to my notation in the form C^lll*!, an alteration that is not at all requisite, as the sense is just as good which is supphed by the other mode of reading it. I should, therefore, prefer construing the above group in the singular number, in order to avoid introducing into the sacred text a correction in itself unnecessary, and which is wanted solely through an inversion of the natural mode of proceeding, 484 ANALYSIS KECONSIDEEED OF [Chap.V. to justify the existing English translation of the noun referred to in each of the specified places of its occurrence. The last point to which I shall here advert is the manner in which the framers of our Version dealt with the final group of the two Hebrew lines, they having rendered it ' for the war' in the upper line, and ' for war' in the lower one. On the contrary, the Masorets consistently pointed this group so as to be read with the definite article in both lines, and the Seventy, with equal consistency, read it so as to be translated without that article in either line. Each of the latter modes of treating the group in question makes good sense ; but, as far as autho- rity is to be consulted on the subject, the Greek rendering of it is entitled to far greater weight than its Masoretic pointing, as having been framed so much nearer to the time when the Hebrew of the Bible was a living language : and, at any rate, whichever construction of it be adopted in the one line, ought in consistency to be adhered to likewise in the other. In fine, I would recommend the censurable group at the commence- ment of the lower line to be written, in an amended edition o of the sacred text, "^iin^^^ ; and I would translate the com- pared lines exactly the same way, thus : " Thou say est, ^but it is a false assertion,* " Heb. a word ofiips. that thou hast counsel and strength for Before closing the argument I have derived from the struc- ture of the sacred language, I take this opportunity of stating, with respect to one of the examples, Judg. xi. 34, therein ad- duced, which is discussed in pages 280-4, that, without in the least altering the use made of it to illustrate the occasional employment of an epenthetic Nun before the pronominal affix He, I find upon consideration its rendering in the body of the Authorized English Version preferable to either of those pro- posed by me. For that rendering, I apprehend, can be main- tained on a supposition which has but lately occurred to me, Chap, v.] PART OF THE VERSE, JUDGES, xi. 34. 485 tliat the group IH? was originally placed, and so may now be restored, or at least understood, before nDD in the Hebrew clause: a supposition which appears far less objectionable than the two required to the support of each of my transla- tions : namely, 1st, that there is no expression in the origi- nal passage for the important part of its meaning conveyed by the words ' besides her,' or ' other child,' in consequence of which those words are represented in my constructions of the sentence as merely supplemental ; and 2ndly, that the group n^DD, or I^DD, was passed over without any interpretation by such close translators as the Seventy Jews and the framers of the Peshitah. Both of the latter suppositions are got rid of by means of that first mentioned ; as, on the adoption thereof, the Greek erepo^ would cease to be supplemental, and become a correct paraphrase of the original words Hi^O 12/^ LeBaD MfMmeNnaH, 'besides her,' and the Syriac otjlId ;n\ LeBaU MeNH, would not only be the exact literal rendering of the Hebrew expression, but would consist of the very same combination of words, subjected to no other alterations than such as are caused by mere difference of dialect ; so that the Syriac version attests the original existence of the group 121 in the site referred to with nearly the force of an edition of the Hebrew text. In favour of the first-mentioned supposi- tion, it may also be observed, that in another part of the same book, in Judg. viii. 26, the very same compound, \D IT?, is employed to denote the preposition ' besides ;' to which I have to add that the context demands the restoration of the omit- ted ingredient of this compound in the place before us, in order to prevent a great deficiency in the expression of an essential part of the meaning of the clause under examination. The only serious objection, indeed, to the hypothesis here adduced in support of the authorized construction of this clause, is, that it would require the restoration within brackets of the group 12/ before 12DD in an amended edition of the sacred text, without the authority for this correction of any extant Hebrew manuscript. But perhaps the end in view might be sufli- 486 ANALYSIS RECONSIDERED, Etc. [Chap. V. ciently attained to in a less objectionable manner, by leaving a small chasm in the amended text immediately before nDD^ and inserting opposite thereto in the margin ' *T27, quod in Peshitah vertitur j^i^/ in which way the requisite correctioji would be suggested and the authority for it given. By this arrangement the rendering of the analyzed sentence in the body of our Authorized Version can, as I conceive, be de- fended, and may be adhered to even in the particular of exhi- biting the expression ' besides her,' in the ordinary character instead of italics; since only part of one of its ingredients, and not an entire word, is left without an express sign for it in the present state of the Hebrew text. In fine, I have to remark an awkwardness in the mode of dealing with the original of this expression in our Authorized Version, that the construction of it given in the body of that Version relates to H^D^, while those in the margin are referred to 1^^^, which our transla- tors must have looked upon as quite distinct from the former group ; whereas, if I mistake not, the only latitude allowed to them as interpreters was to adduce different significations in the body of their work and in its margin of respectively the same original groups. This difficulty, however, is removed by the present discovery, which shows il2f2D to have been the original form of "i^DD ; so that even if there was no copy now extant with the group under examination in the place in ques- tion written H^DD, stiU a translator would be justified in deal- ing with it as if it was so written in every copy. But as the case turns out, this group is found in the site referred to pre- served in its original form in two of the copies consulted by Kennicott, which have been numbered by him 300 and 683. Another consequence of the same discovery is, that it saves the necessity of inquiring into the bearings of the analyzed clause resulting from the ^2!2?2 form of one of its groups ; as that form is now ascertained to be due, not to the inspired authors who composed, but to fallible scribes who subsequently voca- lized, the sacred text. Chap.VI.] result of INQUIRIES OF GESENIUS, Etc. 487 CHAPTER VI. COEROBORATION OF FOREGOma ARGUMENT DERIVED FROM A FOREIGN SOURCE. RESULT OF INQUIRIES OF GESENIUS ABOUT PHCENICIAN VOWEL-LET- TERS SOME REMARKS ON THE FOREGOING EXTRACT FROM THE WORK OF GESENIUS EXAMINATION OF THE PRINCIPAL INSCRIP- TION IN HIS COLLECTION GENERAL LIMITATIONS OF AGE TO TWO KINDS OF PHCENICIAN TITULI NO MATRES LECTIONIS EARLIER INSERTED IN SHEMITIC WRITING ANALYSIS OF THE EPIGRAPH AND AGE OF A CILICIAN COIN MY VIEWS NO WAY INCONSISTENT WITH RECENT DISCOVERIES ANALYSIS OF THREE BILINGUAL IN- SCRIPTIONS FOUND IN ATTICA EXPOSURE OF OUR AUTHOR's FUN- DAMENTAL ERROR IN ACCOUNTING HE A MATER LECTIONIS ANALYSIS CONCLUDED OF THE THREE BILINGUAL INSCRIPTIONS INVENTION OF VOWEL-SIGNS DUE TO GRECIAN SAGACITY NATURE OF THE PROCESS THROUGH WHICH THIS INVENTION WAS ARRIVED AT WHY THE CREDIT OF THIS INVENTION WAS NOT CLAIMED BY THE GREEKS. THE extant remains of ancient Phoenician inscriptions which were collected by Gesenius, in a Latin treatise on the subject published by him at Leipsic, in the year 1837, powerfully support my view of the total absence of vowel-signs of every kind from the earlier stages of Shemitic writing. For, exclusively of the consideration that those remains contain no marks whatever for vowels distinct from letters, they, in the first place, exhibit in general a much smaller proportion of matres lectionis than that pervading the lines of the Hebrew Bible ; and, by thus establishing the fact of a variability in the rate of use made of those letters in different records, afford fair ground for the expectation that, if any could be got suffi- ciently old, or written by persons sufficiently remote from intercourse with nations enjoying the benefit of an alphabet of a superior description, they would present to us specimens of this writing as completely destitute of vowel-letters as all of them are of vocal-signs of every other kind. In the second 488 KESULT OF INQUIKIES OF GESENIUS [Chap. VI. place, they actually do lay before us such specimens, some of them obviously thus circumstanced, and others which will be clearly found to be so, upon correcting, by means of my discovery, errors into which our author was led, partly through the want of this assistance. But, as an introduction to the discussion of this point, I shall commence with quoting a pre- liminary section of this treatise, in which he gives a summary account of the result of his researches in this branch of his general subject of investigation. 40. ** De defectiva scribendi ratione apud Phoenices usitata.'"'^ " Signorum vocalium (quorum inventio recentioris quam ipsa novissima monumentaphoenicia aetatis esse videtur) usum quomodo a Phoenicibus expectes, qui ne eo quidem vocalium indicandorum subsidio, quod in litteris quiescentibus 1 et ^ habebant Hebraei sine punctis scribentes, uti solebant, quam paucissime certe utebantur, et litteraturam habebant meris consonantibus constantem? Qui quidem locus quamvis ad grammaticae partem orthographicam pertinere videatur,tamen iam hoc loco mihi tractandus videtur, ut quaecunque ad Phoe- nicia recte legenda faciant, hoc capite comprehendamus : praesertim quum in hac litterarum quiescentium omissione praecipua quaedam ambiguitatis causa et hand minimum Phoenicia recte legendi impedimentum situm sit. " Sed agite, iam de singulis litteris "^in^^ seorsum videamus. "1. Ac ipYimumAleph in mediis vocibus omittitur, ubicunque illudquiescit ; servatur, ubicunque mobile est et consonam agit. Ita constanter omittitur in J^"l, pro Ji^^H, caput; ^^"13, n. pr., pro * In the above extract I have got the Hebrew letters printed exactly in the same way as in the original work, without distinguishing the matres lectionis by exhibiting them in an open type ; nor have I, as far as I am aware, deviated in any respect from that original, except in removing such of the contractions of words as might possibly confuse a reader not accustomed to the author's style. Chap. VI.] ABOUT PHCENICIAN VOWEL-LETTEES. 489 ^nmjontanus (confer in Y. T. D^Z?n, pro D^Ob^l, Ps. xxii. 22; TVtl^l, pro ri^t^i^l, Deut. xi. 12): sed ponitur in lt^2, fons (hebr. ")K5, confer ^\^^ *lb^D in numis Syracusanis); in T)^f2 {t^^f?) centum; 'D^t^ {^'i^^) gemellus^ n. pr. ; *)K]1 (")Kh) spe- cies. Semel poni videtur ad vocalem graecam A exprimendam in ^^D*T^^7 Laodicea, sed hoc potius pronunciandum ^^51^: L^odica^ quanquam etiam Arabes scribunt iSs^X Singulare quoddam exemplum est '^^'KHD, in vita mea, Citiensi tertia, lin. 1, ubi i^ adeo pro A brevi ponitur, quod vix admittendum esse censeres, nisi scriptura ibi ita esset perspicua, ut mutare quicquam religio fuerit. ^'' In fine )^ quiescens apud Phoenices paullo usitatius est quam apud Hebraeos, et etiam pro H fern. gen. ponitur (con- fer No. 4). "2. Vav praeter unicum quoddam exemplum constanter omittitur, ubicunque quiescit : "a. in mediis vocabulis, ut D/^f aeternitas, u7U/ pax^ \^^ dominus^ ^^H is^^ ]"FV Sidon^ Dp^ locus^ 21/p voces^ n^K patreSj Dili Nahumus^ t^Jll2 regnum^ HI spiritus^ ne eius generis exempla memorem, in quibus etiam Hebraei 1 saepe omittunt, ut l^iD scriha^ ^i^^ figulus^ CO^t^ iudex^ sufes, "b. in extremis^ p1K7 (pro 1J^3*T>^7) domino nostro^ in Melitensi prima, lin. 1 ; ]ri^7D imperium nostrum,, in Sar- dica, lin. 5, 6, et numis lubae maioris B. C. ;^ ^^^3^ (pro inK35) quum intrasset, Tuggensi, lin. 5. Unicum illud exemplum est n. pr. TJ/^IMD (p]Jy\1^0 vir Baalis), Numi- dica septima, lin. 2. " 3. Jod servatur, ubicunque mobile est, et propterea etiam in suffixo V, ut hac quoque re refellantur, qui veras dip- thongos Hebraeis tribuunt. Sic "^^tl^ (^'^H?) in vita mea^ Citiensi * Whoever has read carefully the third chapter of this essay must, I think, be greatly struck with the appearance of the above group. For my own part, I cannot express the gratification I felt, when this form of the pronoun of the third person singular was first presented to my view. ^ The above capitals serve to distinguish the coins referred to, among those of the elder Juba of which drawings are exhibited in one of the plates attached to the treatise of Gesenius. 490 EESULT OF INQUIRIES OF GESENIUS [Chap. VI. secunda, lin. 2; "^"lyi C^_y^) verba mea, Melitensi tertia, lin. 6. Confer etiam i^TH {isTH more arameo), Citiensi octava, lin. 3. " Praeterea ad Jod mobile quodammodo referri potest V terminatio gentilicorum et patronymicorum (arab. c^^), in feminino HJ apud Phoenices propterea constanter plene scripta, ut "^HV Sidonius, Atheniensi prima, lin. 2 ; *'MD Citiensis, Atheniensi secunda, lin. 2 ; TlH idem, Citiensi tricesima tertia, lin. 5 ; "^D^/, Sardica, lin. 8 ; ^^2/ Libys, Numidica quinta, lin. 2 ; ^D") Romanus^ ibidem (dubium est l^i/ pro '^Hli/ Arabs ^ Citiensi duodecima, lin. 2); et eodem modo iudicandum ^'K in- sula in Dil ""^^ (insula filiorum), *!y ruina^ quae arabice scribe- rentur ,J\, ^^ ut c5'j " Ubi Jod quiescitj sive i pronunciandum sive e ( V V), vulgo omittitur, sed non eadem constantia atque Vav. " a. in mediis vocibus omittitur, videndi causa ]*TV (jn^V) Sidon; iy^ {Tyi) princeps Sardorum ; t^^^ vir persaepe (pro ^^^)', rijri Tanith^ Tanaitisf T\^ (pro fl'^3) c?(?mwj did eat. 550 APPENDIX. its present state, with a view to ascertaining tlie reality of the stratagem here pointed out. The passages, indeed, that belong to the class first described furnish a more prominent proof of interpolation ; and it serves strongly to mark the providential interference of the Almighty for the protection of his Word, that it should have been placed, during the darkness of the inediaBval ages, in the custody of a succession of scribes who carried their fidelity of transcription to such an extreme length as to retain, in those passages, letters virtually acknowledged by themselves to have been wrongly inserted therein. This superstitious degree of scrupulousness, which no other series of copyists, as far as I can find, ever showed, and which it is wonderful how any set of men could have been induced to observe, was evidently calculated to lead, sooner or later, to the discovery now unfolded, by preserving the passages in question in the very condition in which they were left by the first vocalizers, with all the inconsistencies which precipitation occasioned, inconsistencies which certainly cannot be as- cribed to the inspired authors of the books of the Old Testa- ment. The same remark, indeed, applies generally to the entire vocalization of the sacred text, but more especially to the parts of it above referred to, which most conspicuously be- tray design. But, with regard to the class of passages at pre- sent under consideration, the evidence of fraud, though not so obvious, is more convincing in one respect ; namely, the greater amount of materials by which the justness of my re- presentation of its existence and tendency can be tested. Many of the differences of style or form of expression to be noticed in the course of this part of the investigation are, no doubt, trivial in themselves, but by no means so in reference to the point to which attention is now directed : and the great artfulness of the contrivance here brought to light lies in this circumstance, that in general its unfairness cannot be detected by the se- parate comparison of any one of the vocalized words or sen- tences in question with its Greek rendering in the Septuagint, but only by making a large number of these comparisons, and APPENDIX. 551 so arriving at the drift of the vocalization of the Hebrew por- tion of the compared expressions. It will thus be seen that a use of the matres lection is, which is fair in the meaning it attaches to a word or sentence, is yet frequently very unfair in the motive which led to its selection. Sometimes, however, the consideration of even a single sentence of the vocalized text, viewed in connexion with its oldest Greek rendering, is sufficient to expose the design of the vocalizers : namely, when that sentence, as originally written, contains several ambiguous groups. Let us, for instance, com- pare the following Hebrew verse (Gen. xli. 14), interpreted according to its primary vocalization, with the corresponding verse of the Septuagint, literally translated : ^l^n^T /n^j^i ,nian p in^^Ti ^101*^ n^^ Kip^i ,n;;-iD rh^^^ ' Then Pharahoh sent, and called Yoseph; and one brought him with speed [literally, made him run] from the dungeon, and shaved him, and changed his garments; and he came unto Pharahoh.' A'TToarelXa^ he ^apaw, eKoXecre rou Iwarjcf)' /cat e^y/yayov avrov ttTTO Tov oyvpwfJiaTo^^ Kol l^vpi]aav avroUy kuI yjXKa^av ti/i/ aToXtju avTou' koI yX6e ttjoo? ^apaw. *ButPharao, having sent messengers, called loseph ; and they brought him away from the dungeon, and shaved him, and changed his garment; and he came unto Pharao.' The three verbs in the middle clause of the Hebrew verse, together with the affixes of two of them, and the noun after * In my representation of the above Hebrew verse, the first circular mark of something wrong is put over a blank space immediately after the verb nb^'^l, where the Seventy, by the word avrov subjoined to their rendering of that verb, attest that the pronominal afiix H originally stood. The second little circle has a reference merely to orthography, and is intended to point out that, as the Skin, over which it is placed, is uttered as a SameJc, it ought likewise to be so written, to indicate which a Samek is inserted in the oppo- site part of the margin. 552 APPENDIX. the third, accompanied also by its affix, were written, before the text was vocalized, or the second verb lost its affix, as fol- lows : Each of these groups admitted of being read and construed in two different ways ; and, consequently, the four viewed toge- ther furnish us with sixteen different sets of readings and sig- nifications.'* Of these, hoAvever, it will be necessary here to consider only two sets : first, that in which the specified groups, taken in the order in which they have just been placed, are read, WaYeEzSwHw, ' and they made him run y WaYeGoLleKhuUu, ' and they shaved him ;' WaYeKhaLlePhw, ' and they changed ;' SzMLaThoH, 'his garment ;' and secondly, that in which, adhering to the same arrangement, we read them, WaYeRiSeUu^ ' and one made him run ;' WaYeGaLleKheHw, ' and one shaved him ;' WaYeKhaLlePh, ' and one [or he, that is, Yo- seph] changed ;' SiMLoTheHw, ' his garments.^ But from the Greek translation of the verse it will be seen that the Seventy Jews chose the first of these sets of readings, construing the three verbs in the plural number (with a natural and obvious reference to the messengers impliedly mentioned in the first clause), and the noun in the singular ; while, on the other hand, the old vocalizers adopted the second set, wherein the very opposite selection is made, as to the grammatic numbers in which the leading words are respectively inflected, and the original of each word is limited to its selected number, by the * The above number would be increased to thirty-two, if the second group could be read, in addition to the ways specified in my text (as it might without violating the context), WaYeGMLlaKh, * and he was shaved,' or WaYiThGaLleKh, * and he shaved himself;' but both those renderings must be rejected, as directly at variance with the fact attested by the Seventy, that originally this group had an affix subjoined to it. Moreover the latter reading is liable to the additional objection, that it requires the insertion of a Taw between the Yod and Gimel of the original group, for which alteration no ancient autho- rity whatever has been discovered. APPENDIX. 553 manner in which those scribes dealt with it. For, since the time of the insertion of matres lectionis in the sacred text, the omission of a Waw immediately after each verb, whether fol- lowed by an affix or not, has confined all three, as far as de- pends on their vocalization by means of letters, to the singular number ; while, at the same time, the Yod interposed betAveen the noun and its affix has restricted it to the plural. Now, even if the principal ingredient of each of the four groups could be put with equal propriety in either number, it still would affi)rd some reason for suspecting design on the part of the vocalizers to see them choose, out of sixteen sets of read- ings, that one precisely in which the four ingredients in ques- tion are exhibited in the opposite numbers to those in which their Greek renderings show they were respectively read by the Seventy. But when we find this series adopted at the sacrifice of all distinctness with regard to the performers of the action denoted by the three verbs, or at any rate by the first two of them, for which verbs the preceding part of the pas- sage supplies no notice, expressed or implied, of any single agents to whom they could, when taken in the singular num- ber, be separately referred ; the suspicion that would arise in the former state of the case is, in the present one, changed almost unavoidably into certainty. It is quite inconceivable that the vocalizers should, without any necessity for so doing, represent the inspired author of Genesis as employing the above verbs in such a forced, indefinite manner, unless they were strongly influenced by some unfair motive ; and that motive could be no other than an eager desire to disparage the accuracy of the Septuagint ; as may be clearly perceived from the effect of the selection of readings to which it has in this instance conducted : namely, four apparent discrepancies between that version and its original, within the range of only a small portion of a single verse. Although the two modes which have been now compared of reading the examined clause differ rather in form than in substance, so as virtually to yield very nearly the same mean- 554 APPENDIX. ing, yet the expression of that meaning is far plainer and more natural in the former mode. Hence the Masorets among whom the secret of the vocalization of the Hebrew text with matres lectionis, as well as of the motives which influenced the insertors of these letters, was not preserved being left to their own unbiassed judgment upon the subject, freely condemned the treatment by earlier scribes of the first verb in this clause ; as they pointed it for the plural number, by supplying through their Qibbus the want of a Waw at its ter- mination f and no doubt they would have applied the same correction to the second verb also, which just equally stands in need of it, if they had not been prevented by the defective nature of their vocalic notation, which does not regularly admit the insertion of this mark at the very end of a group, nor consequently at the end of the second verb, which lost its affix before their time. Thus they were precluded from the requisite correction of the latter group by a limitation to the employment of the Qibbus^ which has no solid ground to rest on ; since the number in which a verb should be taken is evi- dently quite independent of the circumstance whether it be followed, or not, by an affix. The framers of the present and three preceding Authorized English Versions of the Hebrew Bible availed themselves with perfect propriety of the above described correction of the first of the analyzed groups ; whereby they in fact concurred with the Masorets in unconsciously bearing testimony to the unfair- ness of the attack made by the earlier set of vocalizers on the * The above correction serves to illustrate my position, that originally a He- brew verb, written in the third person of the preterite, admitted of being read in either the singular or plural number, according to the demands of the con- text. For therein an instance is presented to us of a verb which, without any alteration of its letters, was read in different numbers by the two sets of vocalizers, even after a restriction had been placed upon its number by tlie earlier set; and of course it was a fortiori open to the ancient reader, before any such restriction was introduced, to take this inflexion in whichever num- ber he conceived the circumstances of the case to require. APPENDIX. 555 rendering of the verb of this group in the plural number by the Seventy Jews. But all the four sets of English translators read the verb belonging to the second group in the singular, and yet endeavoured to avoid the vagueness of construction connected with that reading by, I must say, a very unwar- rantable expedient : namely, by attaching to this verb a re- ciprocal sense, as if it were written in the Hithpaliel form ;^ a way of translating it which requires an alteration to be in- troduced into the body of the Hebrew w^ord with respect to, not a mater lectionis, but an original element, Taii\ which, notwithstanding, has not been found in it in this site in, I be- lieve, any extant copy of the sacred text, and certainly not in any of the numerous copies that were collected by Kennicott and De Eossi. Nor did the editors of subsequent editions of the last Authorized Version remedy the evil of the extraordinary liberty thus taken with the original, by exhibiting in Itahcs the pronoun ' himself,' which constitutes part of the translation in question ; but have only altered the nature of the misre- presentation resorted to ; which is thereby made to bear on the structure of the language, and calculated to give an English reader the notion, that a Hebrew verb, not in a re- flective form, might still acquire a reflective modification of its sense, by being combined with some Hebrew word for ' himself,' not even "written, but only understood after it ; a mode of conveying the force of a verb reciprocal which has no existence in the sacred language. In fine, with regard to the fourth group, the noun therein contained may be read in either number, as far as depends upon the general meaning of the sen- * The second, third, and last Authorized English Versions, namely, those called respectively Cranmer's, Parker's, and King James's, all give the same translation of the group in question, "and he shaved himself ;" while the first Authorized Version, that is, Coverdale's, combines a reciprocal form with the passive voice in the rendering of this group, " and he let himself be shaven ;" to which no alteration whatever of the Hebrew verb therein contained could make the entire group exactly correspond. 556 APPENDIX. tence ; but is limited to the singular number by the authority of the Seventy Jews, which is of far more weight than that of the old vocalizers, as they lived between three and four hun- dred years nearer to the time of the recorded transaction. According to the remarks upon this example which have now been submitted to the judgment of the reader, the four groups referred to should, in an amended edition of the sacred text, be exhibited as follows : and the English rendering of the entire verse would stand thus : * Then Pharahoh sent messengers to call Yoseph ; and they ^brought him with speed from the dungeon, and shaved * Heb made him ^kim, and changed his garment ; and he came unto Pha- b gept. rahoh.' It would be superfluous to pursue this subject any further, as the learned reader may easily detect abundance of examples to the like effect in almost every page of the sacred record. I do not, however, promise him, nor do I wish to be considered as asserting, that he will very often find either design so mani- festly exposed by means of single examples, or the reading indicated by the Hebrew vocalization of a passage of the text so inferior to that suggested by the oldest Greek translation of the same passage, as in the case of the sentence just analyzed. 2. Vov/el-letters are shown to have been employed in the text of the Hebrew Bible in the time of Jerome by his obser- vations respecting them f and there was no opportunity for * The following passage in the writings of Jerome, which has been fre- quently appealed to for the purpose of showing that the Masoretic points were not applied to the sacred text till after his time, as well as for that of illustrating the disadvantage resulting from their absence in the case of pro- per names, serves also to attest the presence of the matres lectionis in that text as early as the age in which he lived: "Nee refert, utrum Salem an Salim nominatur, cum vocalihus in medio litteris perraro utantur Hehrcei^ etpro voluntate lectorum, ac varietate regionum, eadem verba diversis sonis atque APPENDIX. 557 their secret insertion between the age in which he lived and that of Origen, this text having been during the entire inter- val subject to Christian inspection. They must, therefore, have existed therein at any rate as far back as the days of the earlier of those Fathers of the Church, that is, as far back as the beginning of the third century. On the other hand, several passages of the Old Testament which are quoted in the New, with meanings quite irreconcilable with those attached to them in the vocalized text, prove beyond a doubt that the let- ters in question were not in that text at the dates when the Gospels and other compositions of the inspired followers of our Lord were written ; nor could they have been subse- quently introduced without detection, till after the early Christians had lost the protection from fraud afforded by living instructors gifted with inspiration, which lasted, at all events, to the end of the first century.^ The matres lectionis, consequently, must have been interpolated in the Hebrew text at some period or other in the course of the second century ; and the tendency of the passages thereby perverted indicates very clearly the party by whom they were inserted. accentibus proferantur." Hieronymi Opera^ Ed. Benedict, torn. ii. col. 574. But, as Jerome mistook for vowel-letters some elements of the Hebrew alpha- bet which are not of this nature, it may be right to add, as a more unques- tionable proof to the same effect, that matres lectionis are actually included among the collections of letters with which he occasionally describes words of the Hebrew text to be written. Thus, in a letter to Pope Damasus, in- serted in the second volume of the Benedictine edition of his works, while commenting on a word in Exod. xiii. 18, which he pronounces amusim, and interprets munitos^ he states respecting it, 'quod his litteris scribitur, heth, MEM, SIN, lOD, MEM.' Heucc it is evident that the mater lectionis Tod, which at present is found in this word [D^t2?Dn, HaMMShIM], was there as far back at any rate as the period when he flourished. * Eusebius, in the twenty- third chapter of the third book of his " Eccle- siastical History," cites the testimonies of Irenseus and Clement of Alexan- dria, to prove that St. John lived till the time of Trajan. But the reign of this emperor commenced less than three years before the termination of the first century. 558 APPENDIX. In objection to the charge thus brought home to the Jewish priesthood, of having corrupted the original text of their Scrip- tures, it is in vain asked, when had they an opportunity for the secret commission of this crime ? Even if no such time could be pointed out, that circumstance would not disprove the fact already established against them, but merely leave it in part unexplained, a degree of imperfection which obscures human knowledge with regard to many other facts also, of whose reality there yet exists not the slightest doubt. As the case stands, however, the proposed objection can be easily an- swered. It is on all sides admitted that, during the whole of the second century, or at any rate during by far the greater portion of it, namely, that which remained after the death of the last of the inspired Christians, the ancient Hebrew tongue was known solely to the priests of the Jews and the agents in their employment.^ They consequently had full opportunity for secretly making the interpolations alluded to in the course of the specified century, that is, during the very interval in which it has been just proved to a certainty, by the internal evidence of the case, that those interpolations were actually made. A few exceptions, indeed, are attempted to be drawn to the state of gross ignorance of the subject in question which is acknowledged to have prevailed generally among the Chris- tions of that period. But not only may it be showm that no valid grounds are adduced for those exceptions ; but also po- sitive proofs can be given of this ignorance having been ex- tended to the individuals of their creed w^ho then were most distinguished for ability and learning. First, then, to enter upon the negative branch of this dis- cussion, I must deny to the Nazarenes and Ebionites the cre- ^ Under the general head of the Jewish priesthood is, in the above point of view, included that of the Samaritans, though but an illegitimate branch of the order. In no other instance, perhaps, could the two sets of men be found to have ever agreed; but in this one they were united by a common interest. APPENDIX. 559 dit of that knowledge of ancient Hebrew which has been in- considerately attributed to them. For, surely, those Judaizing sects of the second century cannot be supposed to have known more of the sacred language than did the Jew^s of the same period. But, during that century (and, indeed, for nearly the four next ensuing, as will under a subsequent head be shown), the great body of the Jewish laity were acquainted solely with Greek ; and the comparatively small portion of their number that still continued to make use of a Shemitic tongue understood not the original language of the Bible, but only a very corrupt dialect sprung from it and Chaldee. The individuals, indeed, of the above-mentioned or other sects, who within the interval referred to composed Greek versions, to supplant the Septuagint, must have attained to some acquaint- ance with pure Hebrew ; but writing, as they did, in the in- terest of the priests and scribes of the Jews, they come not within the range of cases here to be examined ; nor can any information secretly communicated to them, through means voluntarily furnished by the sacerdotal class, be considered as an obstruction to the plans and contrivances of their instruc- tors. With the exception of the extant remains of their ver- sions, no work, or fragment of a work, as far as I can find, of any Christian writer of the second century has reached our times, which affords the slightest indication of its author hav- ing understood pure Hebrew, or even of his having ever seen a copy of the Hebrew Bible. Nor does historic evidence tell more in favour of either advantage having been enjoyed by the orthodoli Christians of that century. The only extant eccle- siastical history which was written near the early times to which it relates, namely, that of Eusebius, occasionally alludes, indeed, to Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, as translators of the original Scriptures of the Old Testament ; but these were proselytes or Judaizing heretics who obviously acted under Jewish influence. Amid the great number of other writers of the period referred to, of whom this work presents some account, it does not give reason to suppose that any one 2q 560 APPENDIX. of them was acquainted with the ancient Hebrew tongue, or ever had access to a copy of the Hebrew text. The author's silence on these points is the more expressive, because he is loud in the praises of Origen for having succeeded in the at- tainment of both aids to the study of Scripture, soon after the commencement of the third century ; whence it is evident that if he had heard of either acquisition having been made in the previous century by any Christian not belonging to a Judaiz- ing sect, he would have recorded the circumstance ; and it is not at all likely that such an achievement could have been effected so near his own time without his having heard of it. The passage of his writings which has been just alluded to may be rendered as follows : " So great a spirit of inquiry, with the most perfect degree of extreme accuracy, into the word of God was infused into Origen, that he even learned completely the Hebrew tongue, and obtained for his own private property a copy of the Scriptures that are in the hands of the Jews, in the original letters themselves of Hebrew writings^ &c."^ Other feats of Origen are also mentioned in the same place ; but these two are put forward in the foreground as supplying the strongest proofs of his extraordinary zeal and ability, as well as the chief grounds for astonishment at what he accom- plished. Two other passages of the historic work of Eusebius should be here noticed. The first relates to Clement of Rome, and runs to the following effect : " Whereas Paul had addressed a homily in writing to the Hebrews in the language of their forefathers, some say that the Evangelist Luke, and others that this very Clement, translated the written composition [into Greek]. "^ Whether there be truth or not in the first part of W9 Kai 7r]u ^E^pnt^a r^Xwrrav eKfiaOelv' to? t6 jrapa rot? *lovhaLoim off the cross,^ Whether the words introduced by him [aTro tov ^v\ov\ corresponding to those her^ printed in Italics, constituted at first a marginal nus, quern luce clarius est (ut Simonius, Hist. Crit., lib. 2, cap. 18, et Martianaeus noster, in Defens. text. Hebr., p. 168, observarunt), de sola in- terpretatione Septuaginta interpretum contendere, nihil prorsus de Hebraico contextu cogitare." But, while I agree with those learned editors in the position here maintained by them to be perfectly evident, I totally dissent from the use made of it in this annotation. They derive an argument for the genuine state of the Hebrew text, in the time of Justin Martyr, from the fact of his making no reference to it (and consequently no attack upon it), combined with the tacit assumption that he was perfectly acquainted there- with ; whereas the fair inference from this fact is, that he was totally igno- rant of that text. * Kat 6 Tpijcfiwv^ el fieu^ Cos e(prj9^ eiire^ Traper^r^payjraP ti airo tCov (^pa(pu}V ol ilp'x^ovies TOV XaoO, Geos BrjvaTai eTriaTaffOat' aTriatw he eoiKe to toiovtov, Just. Mart. Opera, Ed. Benedict., p. 171. ^ Kal dtaXor^op he irpos 'lovScu'ois avvera^ev, ov sttI t^s ^E(pefTiwv ttoXcws vrpos 'TpvCpivpa twv Tore ^E^pativv eTriarj/iojarov TreTrolrjTat. Euscb. Ilist. JEc- cles^ lib. iv. cap. 18. 570 APPENDIX. note which was afterwards, through the fault of some tran- scriber, shifted to the body of the Psalm, or through whatever other means they came to be therein placed in the copies of the Septuagint to which he had access, there cannot be any doubt but that they are an erroneous interpolation ; as will at once be perceived by a reference to the original text. Our author, therefore, was quite mistaken, not only in adopting the words in question as a genuine portion of the above-mentioned Psalm, but also in thence charging the Jewish priests with the crime of expunging them from Scripture ; and this example aiFords a negative proof of ignorance of the Hebrew Bible against Trypho, as well as a positive one to the same eifect against Justin Martyr. One of the disputants did not make, in this instance, the reference which a knowledge of the origi- nal text would have obviously suggested ; and the other did commit here a twofold mistake, from each part of which the same knowledge, had he possessed it, would have saved him. It is unnecessary to go through such of the other examples as bear the same way in the sections referred to, both negatively against Trypho's, and positively against Justin Martyr's ac- quaintance with the Hebrew text. But the strongest evidence of ignorance of Scriptural Hebrew, on the part of the Christians of the second century, is that afforded by the writings of Clement of Alexandria, who was pre-eminently the most learned Father of the Church in that century, in like manner as his pupil, Origen, was among those who flourished during the following one. Now, as he takes upon him, occasionally, in those writings, to give the correct pronunciation and strict meaning of Hebrew words, this practice of his suggests a ready mode of testing his know- ledge of the sacred language ; for the more obvious the true sound or sense of a word may be, the more forcibly and clearly does his ignorance of it in either respect bear upon the point under inquiry. The two following examples, then, selected from a large number, will be quite suflicient for my purpose. I commence with his pronunciation and interpretation of "Et^a, APPENDIX. 571 the Greek transcription by the Seventy seniors of [HIH, HeWH, ' life'] the proper name of the first female of the human race. After strangely identifying the sound of this name with Eyai/, an exclamation of Bacchanals crowned with wreaths of ser- pents (in consequence of which he tacitly assumes that the notion of a serpent is included in its meaning), he next con- founds it with Ema [i^'^IH, HeWYaH], the Chaldee for a ' a ser- pent/ and through the combination of those two steps inter- prets it to signify ' a female serpent' ! The original passage, omitting an irrelevant part of his description of the votaries of Bacchus, may be translated literally as follows : " The raging Bacchus do Bacchanals in orgies celebrate, crowned with serpents, uttering with shouts Eu-an, namely , that Eu-a by whom sin was introduced^ which death accompanied.* But the serpent is consecrated a sign of Bacchanalian orgies. Im- mediately hence^ therefore, according to the accurate significa- tion of the word in question of the Hebrews, the name Eu-i-a, pronounced with a rough breathing of its initial element \i, e, Heu-i-a] is interpreted a serpent, viz.^ the female one."^ Al- though the eloquence of Clement would, perhaps, appear to better advantage if this passage were quoted in full, yet the weakness of the reasoning employed in it is rendered more evident by the naked state in which it is here presented to view, divested of part of its ornament. On the unsoundness, however, of his argument, I need not dwell, as the falsehood of the conclusion to which it led him with respect to the mean- * Something has evidently dropped from the above place, which I have ventured to supply from the account of the transaction referred to which is given in the Bible. As there can be no doubt to what the author here points,' his argument is not affected by making the reference to that subject more explicit. ^ Aiopvaop fiaivoKrjV opr^id^ovfft Bdicxoi dvearefifievoi -rols' o(j)eaiv, eiroXoX^^ovre^ 'Evdv ^vdv eKeiprjv^ ^t' jf y TrXaPrj Traprj- fcnXovOrjae. Ka< arjiue.7ou opr^itvv ^aK-x^LKicv^ 0(^19 eari TeTeXea/nevos. Avtiku ^(ouv Kmd Trjv ciKpi^fj rwv 'EjSpaitvv (^ivvrjv, to Evca haavvofxevov^ epfiTjveveiai o(pi9 ?) OyXcici. dementis Alexandrini Opera, Ed". Potteri, p. 11. 572 APPENDIX. ing of Eve^s name is too obvious to require any proof. It only then remains that I should take some further notice of the very gross mistakes committed by him with regard to the pro- nunciation of this word, with a view to bringing more promi- nently under observation an inference which may be thence deduced. First, in consequence of the above proper name being written by our author in the accusative case with the same combination of Greek letters [Euai^] as the Bacchanalian cry alluded to, he rashly assumed them to be pronounced in the same way ; although this combination conveys for the former meaning the trisyllabic sound He-u-an^ and for the latter the dissyllabic one, Eu-an. He, indeed, attempted to remove part of the difference by reducing the former sound to two syllables ; but, instead of making this reduction by joining the second vowel with the syllable commencing with the third, to produce the sound wan (which would have been expressed in the Greek writing of his day by a Digamma before the letters Alpha and Nun)^ he did so by combining it with the first, to form the dipthong eu^ and so pronounced the entire word Eu-an, an error into which he could not by any possi- bility have fallen if he had kno\^^l how this name was exhi- bited in the original writing of the Bible. From his con- founding, then, sounds so different, as well as from the manner in which he endeavoured to lessen their difference, it is plain that he was unacquainted with the proper name in question as recorded in the Hebrew text, and, consequently, that he had not read that text even as far as the third chapter of Ge- nesis. But, by the second step of his reasoning (in which he arrived at a sound more correct, indeed, in the particular of commencing with an aspiration, but yet, upon the whole, still further from the true one), we are conducted to precisely the same result, though not with the same degree of certainty as before. For he could not connect the sought name with Eilfa, through the circumstance of this group's yielding the sound of a Shemitic term for a serpent, unless the word so represented had that signification in the ancient Hebrew. From his adopt- APPENDIX. 573 ing this connexion, therefore, it would appear that he assumed Evia to denote the sound of the term for a serpent, employed in the account to which he alludes of the interview of that reptile with Eve, as given in the original text : whereas the term actually used with this sense in the place referred to is quite a diiFerent one ; nor is that whose sound he expressed found to occur in any sense whatever in the extant remains of the ancient Hebrew, but only in a corrupt dialect of it spoken in later times. From both steps of his exposition, then, it fol- lows (though, I admit, more strongly from the first), that he was quite ignorant of the part of the sacred text which con- tains the third chapter of Genesis. But had Clement been restricted by a Jewish teacher to learning a single chapter of the Hebrew Bible, this is in all likelihood the very one he would have pitched upon, from the natural desire of a scrutinizing mind to examine the account of the Fall of man as conveyed in the original record. As, then, he certainly was not instructed in this portion of the sacred text, it is utterly improbable that he ever learned to read even a single line of that text. For my second example I choose one which betrays our author's ignorance of the Hebrew dialect spoken in his own time, just as well as of the original tongue ; namely, his expla- nation oiHosannah l^^ Hj/'^t^in, HOShlHaH NaH, 'save pray,' Ps. cxviii. 25, contracted into the single word i^^i/Ci^in HOShaHNaH], an ejaculation common to the earlier and later stages of this language, to which he expressly assigns the fol- lowing signification : " Light and glory and praise with sup- plication to the Lord."* Assuredly the Jewish instructor of Clement must have laughed heartily in his sleeve when he succeeded in imposing on this erudite scholar by far the most * $a)S KOL do^a Kal a7vo9 /iieO* iKerrjpi'a^ Tip Kvpi'tv' rovTc ^ap efib H^^^ ^"^rf^WD which is rendered in our Authorized Version, *' Thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people, even for [their'] salvation, with thine anointed," presents to us an example of the practice above described, through the translation given of it in the version numbered the sixth : e^rjXOe^ rod Gwaai Tov \a6v aov hia Ir^aovv tov -xptaTov aov (Thou wentest forth to save thy people by means of Yesus thine Anointed). Whether the word Irjaov^ was first introduced into this rendering of the clause, or taken immediately from an older rendering no longer extant, it is clearly the right name of the personage here described as concurring with the Father Almighty in the salvation of his people; but still the original affords no warrant for its insertion in this place. 2 R 2 578 APPENDIX. imperfect knowledge of the language of the original record, were secondary, that is, not immediate translations of that record, but only translations of translations. Hence it is most likely that the sixth version, which belongs to the latter class, was a secondary one, though we can no longer ascertain from what primary version it was immediately taken. But with respect to the three denominated, from the native languages of their several authors, ' the Syriac,' ' the Hebraic,' and the ' Sa- maritan,' they were confessedly secondary Greek versions. Their respective primaries, arranged in the same order, appear to have been, the Peshitah, the only Syriac one old enough for the use here assigned to it,* some translation, no longer extant, of the original text into the later Hebrew tongue, that *" To the above determination of the immediate original of the secondary- version written by o ^vpos aa^earepov tvttovv rov aravpov^ that is, *' the versions of 6 ^vpos and o E/3/>oto9 use the participle Kpe/xafievos, ' sus- pended' [instead of that employed in the Septuagint, Kajexo/nepo^, ' detained'], in order the more obviously to typify the cross." But Kpejadfievo^ is not the proper rendering of the corresponding word of the Peshitah, r-k->^|, HaKhID, which signifies * caught,' or ' detained.' This objection entirely fails, from being grounded on the assumption that each secondary adhered throughout strictly to the primary one which was its immediate original, an assumption which is shown to be erroneous by a comparison of versions. The only effect, therefore, of bringing under consideration the note here adduced is to give us an additional example of the practice described in my text, which is supplied from two of the secondary versions referred to. Here it may be of use to warn the reader that the versions of 6 'S.-dpo's and o 'R^paio^^ having been evi- dently written on the Christian side, are not to be confounded with the works which were formerly styled respectively to ^vpiaKov and to ^E^pa'iKov. Of these titles, the former, employed in a passage already quoted in this Ap- pendix from the " Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius," lib. iv. cap. 22, is shown^ by the context of the place where it occurs, to have denoted a book, advocating tenets peculiar to converts who had been originally Jews; and the latter is the name given to the Jewish edition of the Septuagint by Origen in the Benedictine Collection of his writings, torn. iv. p. 141. APPENDIX. 579 was made by the Jews before they began to corrupt the Sep- tuagint, and the Samaritan version still extant, the only one known to have been ever in the possession of the Samaritans. These three secondaries appear to have been composed after the age of Origen, as no mention of any of them occurs in his acknowledged writings. But at any rate they were frequently consulted for many subsequent ages, a circumstance which seems to indicate that, even after the Christians were allowed access to the sacred text and instructed in its language, their knowledge of that language still continued, for a considerable length of time, very defective and imperfect. For, on the sup- position that men of learning became well acquainted with the contents of the Bible in its original tongue, they would seldom have occasion for versions of any kind ; and their employment of mere versions of versions would probably cease altogether. Yet the Christian writers of the fourth and fifth centuries re- sorted to and depended on the secondaries in question to a great extext ; as is plainly shown by the vast number of quo- tations from them which are to be seen in the controversial works of those authors.^ The spurious Greek versions of the first class having never gained the confidence of the Christians (who, though unable to detect the cause of their apparent accuracy, always dis- trusted them on account of the suspicious character of the in- dividuals by whom they were written), and, on the other hand, having been found by the Jewish rulers unavailing for the purpose for which they chiefly had been fabricated, namely, that of supplanting the Septuagint, were eventually abandoned by both parties ; and then the versions of the second class, "* Respecting the above-mentioned fact Montfaucon gives the following information : " Syri porro lectiones adferuntur ab Eusebio Cajsariensi, a Dio- doro Tarsensi frequentius; ab Eusebio Emiseno, Hieronynio, Theodoreto et aliis. Quodque notandum est, iidem, maximeque Diodorus, Syrum cum Hebra^o stepe conjungunt hoc pacto, 6 2t5/>09 kuI 6 ".^pao7os\ vel, o 'E/3/>a?ov Kai 6 'Etjpo^, quando scilicet amborum interpretationes conveniunt, quod sepe con tingit." Prceliminaria in Hexapla Origenis, p. 1 9. 580 APPENDIX. which were composed only in opposition to them, shared the same fate. Hence no part of the works of either class has survived the ravages of time, except some fragments which have been transmitted in the form of quotations in the writ- ings of early Christian authors, or are to be seen inserted as notes in the margins of very ancient manuscript copies of the Septuagint, extracted in an isolated state chiefly from the co- lumns of the Tetrapla or Hexapla of Origen.^ Of the frag- ments of each kind I shall confine myself to noticing those which belong to the first class, as being the specimens which have a more immediate connexion with my subject. A greater number of the quotations (not, however, in the original Greek, but translated into Latin) are preserved in the works of Je- rome than in those taken together of all the other early Fa- thers. They form a very interesting portion of his comments upon Scripture, on which account I would willingly, if room permitted me, have given an illustration of their nature much fuller than the following one. The observations made by this writer on Deut. xxvii. 26, while expounding the parallel pas- sage of the New Testament, Gal. iii. 10, commence thus : " Hunc morem habeo ; ut quotiesquumque ab Apostolis de veteri Instrumento aliquid sumitur, recurram ad originales ^ To the above exceptions is to be added Theodotion's translation of the Book of Daniel, which has been preserved through its adoption by the Church at a very remote period, and consequent substitution for that of the Seventy, in nearly all such copies of the Septuagint as were subsequently written. This fact is recorded by Jerome, in the preface to his translation of Daniel, as fol- lows: "Danielem prophetam juxta Septuaginta interpretes Domini Sal va- toris nostri ecclesise non legunt, utentes Theodotionis editione; et hoc, cur accident, nescio." Hieron. Opera., Ed. Benedict, torn. i. col. 988. In con- sequence of this alteration, the assistance to be derived from the Greek Bible, in correcting the present vocalization with letters of the Hebrew text, cannot be depended on as well in this, as in other parts of that record. Nor is this evil remedied by the discovery in the Chisian Library at Eome of an ancient MS. copy of the Septuagintal rendering of the Book of Daniel, which was printed in that city in the year 1772; as the translation thus recovered is unfortunately in too corrupt a state to answer the above use. APPENDIX. 581 libros, et diligentur inspiciam, quomodo in suis locis scripta sunt. Inveni itaque in Deuteronomio hoc ipsum apud Sep- tuaginta Interpretes ita positum : Maledictus omnis homo qui non permanserit in omnibus sermonihus Legis hujus, ut faciat illos ; et dicet omnis populus^ fiat Apud Aquilam vero sic: Maledictus qui non statuerit verba Legis hujus, ut faciat ea ; et dicet omnis populus^ verL Symmachus : Maledictus qui non firmaverit sermones Legis istius^ ut faciat eos ; et dicet omnis populus, amen, Porro Theodotio sic transtulit : Maledictus qui non suscitaverit sermones Legis huj us, facer e eos ; et dicet omnis populus, amen.^^ Hieron. Opera, Ed. Benedict., torn. iv. col. 255-7.^ The Judaizing tendency of the more remark- able spurious versions of the second century is exemplified, in the fragments of them here adduced, by the non-appearance in each fragment of any word signifying ' all' immediately after the first verb of the sentence, such as is placed in the corresponding part of the rendering given in the Septuagint of the same passage of the original text. The very same ten- dency of the versions in question is indicated more briefly in Jerome's annotations upon the disputed term of the Hebrew verse, Isaiah, vii. 14, which the Seventy interpreted ' a virgin,' but all the other translators he alludes to, namely, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, are attested by him to have re- presented as denoting ' a young woman,' ' quod praeter LXX. omnes adolescentulam transtulerunt."^ Hieron, Opera, Ed"*. Benedict., tom. iii. col. 70. These examples have been se- lected, not as more forcibly bearing on the subject to which they are applied than others, but because some of the remarks * The remarks of Jerome on Deut. xxvii. 26, next following those above adduced, have been already quoted near the end of the first chapter, ^ The hostility of Gesenius to the Christian religion is in like manner betrayed by his treatment of the same Hebrew word; respecting the mean- ing of which in the place above referred to, he asserts in his Lexicon Manuale^ " LXX. male reddunt TrapOevo^^^^ in utter disregard of the inspired authority of St. Matthew, as well as in direct opposition to the bearing of the context. 582 APPENDIX. of this Father serving to explain them have been abeady quoted in the present volume. The fragments of the other kind, which are to be met in the form of marginal notes in ancient Greek MSS. serve, in like manner as those transmitted in quotations, to display the Judaizing tendency of the class of spurious versions under examination ; but are more effective in exposing the fallacy of the ground on which superior accuracy of translation is claimed for those versions, and in showing that, where they differ from the Septuagint, they agree more closely, not at all with the written words of the Hebrew text in their original state, but only with those words, as altered in sound or sense by means of an unfair vocalization. From Montfaucon's col- lection of the fragments of both kinds I here adduce a few spe- cimens of those of the second kind ; and regret that I have not room left for a more copious illustration of their bearing on my subject. The Hebrew portion of each example has been taken by this author from modern books ; as no part of the first column of the Hexapla, which contained the Hebrew text in an ancient form of the letters, has reached us through any channel whatever. The pronunciation in each instance subjoined to the Hebrew is placed within brackets, to show that it does not belong to the quoted line, but has been added by me for the convenience of such readers as are not familiar with unpointed writing in this language : Gen. xxxvii. 36, ni:)'i^1D [PhUTIPhaR], A. S. ^ouTi0a^. O. Y\.eTe(f)pfj. Josh. xvii. 7, "^2.^^ [YoSheBE], A. E. rom KaroiKovvra^. AWo?, laafjcj). AW. laa^fjh. O. laaaip. Judg. ii. 7,iJ^'^'l'^ "^"in*^ [HaHaRE YeH0Sh?iH],nai/Te9. /xera Irjffov. ii. 14, T2 [BeYaD], S. e. ej/ x^'P^' ^' ^'^ '^"^ xviii. 28, 3in"l [ReHOB], m XoiTTOi, Pew/3. O. Faap. In these compendious notes, as well as in the specimen of the APPENDIX. 583 Hexapla preserved in the Barberini MS. which has been ad- duced in the first chapter, O denotes the Seventy Interpre- ters ; and A, S, 6, respectively, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, the authors of the more important of the later versions which Origen compared w^ith the Septuagint. In the same notes ol Xoiirot is substituted for A, S,and 9, taken collec- tively ; and aXAo?, or a\\, is employed to signify the writer of some one of three other later versions of which Origen got only parts copied out, and did not specify by whom they were written ; Travres means the entire collection of Greek transla- tors, the framers of the oldest Greek version as well as those of all the later ones. With the help of this preliminary explana- tion, the contents of the adduced notes can be easily under- stood. Thus, for instance, it is stated in the first of them that the name of the ofiicer of Pharaoh^s court, mentioned in Gen. xxxvii. 36, was transcribed in the versions of Aquila and Sym- machus OouTf0a/?, but in the Septuagint XleTe^joi/, or rather Herecppip.^ In their respective modes of dealing with this name it may be perceived that the two specified later transla- * A sigma is obviously omitted at the end of the above name in the quoted line; but whether through mistake of the scholiast or of some copyist, it is immaterial to determine. The similar name, indeed, of the priest of On would be rightly exhibited without this letter at its termination ; because, being in each of the two places of its occurrence in Scripture (Gen. xli. 45, 50), written in the genitive case 16X60/)?;, without a Greek ending for that case, it is correctly put in the same form for the nominative also. But the name above considered is terminated by an Eta with an Iota suhscriptum ^ that is, it has got a regular Greek ending for the case in which it is employed (tlie dative): and, therefore, it should be inflected with a Grecian termination for the nominative also. Accordingly, this word in Gen. xxxix. 1, where it oc- curs in the nominative case, is to be seen actually written Il6Te(ppr]v rjapi^waaiuev otto E^paiwv juaOovTa^ Kal 7oh avTi'^fpd(poi^ APPENDIX. 595 mation communicated to the translators by the vocalized re- cord, which are to be found in even the few specimens of extant remains of the Greek versions of the second century exhibited in the course of the last discussion, show very plainly that the Jewish priesthood must have prepared this work for the use of their agents before the second attack upon the Sep- tuagint ; though they did not venture to let it come under public inspection till after all the other means they tried for lowering the credit of that version had proved abortive. As the chief cause of the previous failures lay in the suspicious characters of the persons successively engaged in this opera- tion, it was obviously of the utmost importance to the success of the hitherto foiled enterprise of the rulers of the Jews, that they should obtain the services, unconsciously given in the cause they had so much at heart, of some agent who was quite above the suspicion of designedly seconding their views ; and Origen was of all men the very fittest for their purpose, both from the great inquisitiveness as well as uncommon energy of his mind, and also from the very high degree of estimation in which he was held by the Christians of his day. Accordingly, the bait was laid for this author : a copy of the vocalized text was placed within his reach, of which he eagerly obtained possession, and as eagerly availed himself of Jewish instruction w^ith regard to the language in which it was ^vritten ; instruc- tion which was then, for the first time since the commencement of the second century, given correctly to a Christian. The success of the contrivance just described is placed in a very striking light by the circumstance already noticed and for which I have endeavoured to account that w^hile the princi- pal spurious Greek versions were from the first distrusted by the Christian authorities, and at last totally rejected, the vocal- avTwv Ta TifieTepa avvKplvavre^^ fxapTvprj9e7(nv viro tojv /bUfdeTru) ^Laorpacjieiawv cKSoaeivu AkvXouj kuI QeoboTiwvo^^ Kal 'SiVfi/nd^ov. Origenis Opera^ Ed". Bene- dict., torn. iv. p. 141. A few lines lower down in the same page this author calls the Jewish edition, here referred to, of the Septuagint, to "Eppa'iKov. 596 APPENDIX. ized text, though conveying grosser corruptions of sound, in respect to certain names, and of sense, with regard to certain passages, than did any of those versions, was at once univer- sally received, and is still even up to the present day consi- dered genuine in its vocal as well as consonantal ingredients. In the instance, indeed, of a transaction managed with so much art, and to the success of which secrecy in certain respects was so essential, no direct exposure by means of external testi- monies can be expected. But the view just given of the conduct of the parties therein engaged is powerfully supported by in- ternal evidence, indirectly derived from some ascertained cir- cumstances of the case, as well as from an examination, under the last head very briefly noticed, of the extant fragments of the spurious Greek versions ; and it is further strengthened by the consideration that it affords a satisfactory solution of difficulties which appear to be otherwise quite inexplicable. The writing of the Hebrew text is of such a description that, even after it received its first vocalization, the power of read- ing it, and understanding the language in which its purport is conveyed, could not be acquired without the aid of oral in- struction ; and at the period in question that instruction could not be obtained without the connivance of the Jewish priests, as the information requisite for the purpose was then confined to themselves and the scribes under their immediate control. By what motive, then, different from that just assigned, could these men have been led to the abrupt and violent change of policy indicated by their treating, in reference to this subject, Clement of Alexandria and his pupil Origen in ways so directly opposite ? or how else can the apparent inconsistency be ex- plained, of their allowing instruction most highly prized by them to be given to a leading adversary, which they, up to the same period, withheld from their friends from even the most learned laymen of their nation from all, indeed, who did not belong to their own order, or that of their scribes, except a few agents connected with them through some secret tie ? Why did they select for such exceptions men who could not be i'ully APPENDIX. 597 trusted ? Aquila, the most remarkable of those agents, was a renegade. Why did they prefer his version to that made by themselves ? Though it be matter of some doubt whether Commodus preceded or followed Theodotion in the order of succession, yet it is on all sides agreed that they both wrote later than Aquila, and that each of their versions was, upon the whole, less adverse than his to the Septuagint. Why then did the priests, while Aquila's version was in high favour with them, notwithstanding, get others composed less suited to their own taste ? To unravel the difficulties suggested by these and various other questions of like nature, an easy clue is afforded by the foregoing representation of the subject; but there is one point connected with it which requires a fuller explanation. The Jewish priests, while endeavouring to gain currency for certain corruptions of Scripture, had it not in their power to employ the agents on whose fidelity they could best depend : they were forced to select such as were less objectionable to, and, there- fore, more likely to impose upon the Christians. But in their eagerness and haste to prepare for the first of those agents, who appears to have been Aquila, a vocalized copy of the Hebrew Bible, they suffered to slip into its vocalization, besides their intentional perversions of the sense, a great number of mis- takes which in no way contributed to the promotion of their design, but, on the contrary, were calculated eventually to ex- pose the spurious nature of the matres lectionis ; while a full century intervened between the finishing of the work thus executed, and the days of Origen. How then came it to pass that they did not avail themselves of this long interval to re- move such untoward errors from the altered spelling of the sacred record, before they allowed it to be submitted to the inspection of the orthodox Christians ? The answer to this question is supplied through a consideration of the character of the individual employed by them on the occasion here referred to. He had deserted the cause of the Christians, and might equally forsake that of the Jews, if he found a way of again ingratiating himself with his former friends by means of a very 598 APPENDIX. important communication. It would, therefore, have been to the Jewish priesthood a most dangerous step to intrust Aquila with the secret of their vocalization of the original text, a secret which they could not prevent a man of his sa- gacityfrom penetrating, if they had attempted to correctthe nu- merous undesigned errors of this operation, afterthey had placed a copy of the work in his hands, and had got him sufficiently in- structed in its language to enable him to peruse it. They in con- sequence left the errors in question uncorrected, and preferred, as the lesser of two evils between which they were compelled to make choice, the liability to a remote exposure of their fraud, by means of those errors, rather than run the risk of an immediate one through an agent on whose fidelity they could not depend. The oversight which made it impossible to avoid both dangers, and appears to have been destined by Providence to effect at last the defeat of their project, was their failing carefully to revise the vocalized text, before they suffered a copy of it to get into the possession of any stranger. But to render this omission subservient to the eventual exposure of their fraudulent contrivance, it was requisite (exclusively of the perpetuation of the above errors throughout the succes- sive transcriptions of the sacred text) that a knowledge of the ancient Hebrew should be diffused among men not belonging to, or dependent on, the sacerdotal class. Now a provision for the fulfilment of this condition may, I sub- mit, be traced in the sudden change of policy of the Jewish priests, by which, after getting Origen to a certain extent in- structed in the tongue in question, they proceeded to confer the same benefit on their own countrymen, from whom it had for a long previous interval been withheld. In thus altering their treatment of the laity, they probably had an eye merely to preparing the way for urging their people to abandon the Greek versions which had turned out such unsuccessful in- struments of deception, and qualifying them to return to the use of the sacred record in its original language. But the change had a tendency to another efi'ect also which they seem to have overlooked, namely, that of extending the knowledge APPENDIX. 599 of this language beyond the persons under their immediate control, and of thereby facilitating to their adversaries its ac- quisition to an extent greater than was consistent with the secure preservation of their secret. The progress, however, of this result was but slow ; as we find Jerome, nearly two centuries after the age of Origen, complaining occasionally in his writings of the great difficulty of meeting with competent instructors in Hebrew, as also of the large sums he had to pay for their assistance. In fact, it was only from an exertion of extraordinary abilities and industry that either he or Origen arrived at any proficiency in this study : the instruction af- forded them for the purpose was quite insufficient to enable ordinary capacities to master the subject f and accordingly, it may be observed that, after the lapse of a few more centu- ries, the Christians sunk a second time into total ignorance of the original language of the Bible. On the other hand, the knowledge of this language, which appears to have been com- municated with less reserve to the Jewish laity, gradually spread among them till at length it reached a considerable * The inadequacy of the Hebrew information afforded to Origen might easily be evinced by examples taken from his writings. But, having no longer room left for this species of proof, I must now confine myself to quoting a censure passed on him by Huetius, for allowing himself to be guided in the interpretation of Scriptural names by such an authority as that of Philo Ju- deus, an error from which an accurate knowledge of Hebrew would cer- tainly have guarded him. The following are the words of Huetius here referred to: " Qui vero norj offendisset Origenes Philonem sequens ducem, qui Judseus licet, Judaeis prognatus, ne mediocri quidem litterarum Hebrai- carum aura, uti ueque Hellenistae fere reliqui, fuerat afflatus?" Origeniana, lib. ii. cap. i. sect. 2. It may be worth while to observe upon this extract, that Huetius here imputes utter ignorance of Hebrew generally to all the Greek authors who flourished after the age of Philo, an imputation which is strictly true with respect to all of them (except, indeed, such as were in- spired, or belonged to the Jewish priesthood), until we come down to the age of Origen himself; and afterwards became again applicable to them, in a gra- dually increasing degree, till we arrive at the period when the patriarch Photius lived, whose writings prove that the Christians were then a second time sunk into total ignorance of the original language of the Bible. 600 APPENDIX. number of their body ; so that, when the Christians began, upon the revival of learning in Europe, to direct their atten- tion again to the study of Hebrew, they experienced no diffi- culty to procure the aid of an abundant supply of rabbinical teachers. The abruptness of the change of language to which the Jewish priests resorted in the performance of divine service, before the bulk of the laity were prepared for this innovation by adequate instruction in the ancient Hebrew, is evinced by the vehement opposition of the Jews to this measure, and the tumults it occasioned, which rose to such a pitch as to render necessary the interference of the Eoman Government. In re- ference to this subject, there is still extant in the original Greek a decree of the Emperor Justinian, which is numbered the 146th in the collection of his later ordinances {yeapal 8m- Ta^ef?) printed by Henry Stephens in the year 1558. The entire decree is worth attentive perusal ; but here I must con- fine myself to a single passage near its commencement, in which, after alluding to the violent dissensions of the Jews, and the disputes among them whether their Scriptures should be read in the synagogues in Hebrew alone, or also in Greek, this Emperor proceeds as follows : " We, therefore, having been informed of the circumstances relating to this controversy, have judged those to be more equitable who wish to make use of the Greek tongue also [that is, in conjunction with the ancient Hebrew] in the reading out of their sacred books, and of absolutely every tongue, whichever each locality causes to be better suited and more familiar to the hearers."* From this extract it is plain that the Jewish priests did not succeed in the attempt to confine the public service of the synagogues to the ancient Hebrew tongue till after the reign of Justinian, * H/tts rotvvv ra Trepi tovtov fiaOovres, icaWiovi eKpivafiev eivai tovs kuI rrjvFXkrjviSa (^wvrjv irpo-s Trjv rCbv iepCbv ^ijBXiivu avar^vicaLV TrapaXafi^avecv e6e\~ oi^TS, Kal (pwvrjv Traaav airXu}^ ^v 6 totto^ e7rc7rjcei07epav Kal ju.aWov r^vicpijuLov Tots uKovovaiv eii/ai ttoigI. Impp. Justiniani, Justing Leonis Novellce Constitu- iiones, p. 372. APPENDIX. 601 which ended about the middle of the sixth century of our era. But the power of expelling the disobedient from their com- munity was too formidable to be long resisted ; whence it is likely that they carried their point soon after the epoch just specified. The act, however, of compelling their congrega- tions to hear the Word of God read solely in a dead language, that was unknown to the great majority of the nation, must at first have considerably reduced for a time their popularity ; and most probably during that interval were written such of the earlier Jewish works as exhibit traces of an independent spirit, on the part of the authors, to the extent of rendering passages of Scripture according to the translations given of them by the Seventy Interpreters, in some of the instances in which this conformity to the Septuagint is strongly sup- ported and strictly required by the context. 6. How and when the Peshitah was framed, are questions hitherto undecided ;* but now at last we shall, I am in hopes, be conducted to their final settlement by the aid of the disco- very unfolded in this volume. With regard to the first point, the writers of the seventeenth century held that this version was taken entirely from the text of the Hebrew Bible ; while, on the other hand, those of the present day, judging this view of its origin irreconcilable with the fact that it difi'ers from that text in a great many places in which it agrees with the Septuagint, maintain it to be in part derived from the latter work also, though they are at variance with each other as to the exact nature of this mixed derivation. The Greek record is assumed, by some of them, to have been made use of contem- poraneously with the Hebrew one in the first formation of the version under discussion, and by others, to have been resorted to only long afterwards, in order to its correction and improve- * In the discussion of the first of the above questions the Old Testament of the Peshitah is of course the only part of it taken into consideration, as the diflSculties therein examined have no connexion with the remainder of this 602 APPENDIX. ment. But neither of these assumptions can stand the test of examination. For, in reference to the former, how can it be admitted that translators who had the advantage of consultino; the original record would in numerous instances allow greater weight to any version, and more especially to one in a foreign language ? Or if, according to the latter assumption, the blame of the seeming deviations from the Hebrew text be shifted from the Syriac translators to a set of men imagined to have lived at a later period, when the Christians had lost the power of read- ing that text, the difficulty of the case is hereby altered indeed, but scarcely diminished. For we are thus required to concede that an imaginary set of correctors of the Peshitah, of whom not even the slightest tradition has reached us, were some way or other induced, in a considerable number of instances, to rely more on a foreign than on their own version ; and that, too, after their attachment to the latter work had been increased by time, and they had been long accustomed to regard it with a high degree of veneration. It is true, that about the seventh century, at a period when the Christians were a second time immersed in total ignorance of the ancient Hebrev/, another Syriac version was written, wholly derived from the Septuagint. But this work never superseded the Peshitah as the Authorized Version of the main body of the Syriac Christians, although it was erroneously supposed to be a closer translation ; and, surely, the very same feeling which excluded it from such an advancement of authority would have equally interfered with the employment of any Grecian document, in either the pri- mary formation or subsequent correction of the national Sy- riac version. Let us now try what light the discovery before us throws upon this subject. The Septuagint and Peshitah, though written quite independently of each other, agree in a great number of places in which they disagree with the vocal- ized Hebrew Bible ; because they are in common immediate translations of one and the same record, taken from it when it was in a different state from that in which it is at present exhi- bited, and while it was as yet unvocalized. On the other hand, APPENDIX. 603 they disagree upon a lesser, though by no means inconsider- able number of passages of that record, but chiefly with regard to such as contain names of rare occurrence, or are involved in some obscurity of meaning ; because the framers of the later version, being unable to surmount the difliculties of those pas- sages by mere knowledge of the ancient Hebrew, and not hav- ing the aid of the earlier one, were forced to consult the persons reputed to be the best informed upon the subject in their day. But the passages in question belong to the very class of sentences with misreadings of which the Jewish priest- hood ventured to make their attack on the Septuagint ; and, supposing them to have commenced those misreadings before they got the Hebrew text surreptitiously vocalized, some of the resulting perversions of sound or sense might be old enough to find their way, in the manner just described, into the Pe- shitah. Thus the application of a single principle serves to account for, not only the agreements of two independent ver- sions in a great variety of instances in which they might be expected to differ, but also for the exceptions to those agree- ments, what it certainly could not in any conceivable man- ner effect, if it were not founded in truth. To the foregoing discussion it may be worth while to sub- join two remarks. First, the derivation of the Peshitah in part from the Septuagint, which seems to be indicated by the class of passages first referred to, having been now disproved, this circumstance greatly strengthens the force of the evidence of the two versions in those passages in which they agree ; because that evidence is the concordant testimony of two records that were framed quite independently of each other. Secondly, however valuable the Peshitah may be, its authority is shown by the second class of passages to be very inferior to that of the Septuagint ; as indeed might be deduced from other con- siderations also, as, for instance, from its having been written (as will be presently shown) nearly four centuries farther than the oldest part of the Septuagint from the time when the He- brew of the Bible was spoken as a living language. 604 APPENDIX. To turn next to the second question, the age of the Peshi- tah, from the complete identity of the language employed in the two parts of this version it has been very generally in- ferred that they were composed by the same persons, or at any rate about the same time ; and in corroboration of this infer- ence it may be observed that some passages of the rendering therein given of the Old Testament yield strong indications of their having been written by Christians. As then the year in which the Gospel of St. John was framed, or the sixty-ninth year of the first century of our era, affords a major limit to the antiquity of the New Testament of the Peshitah, it does so likewise to that of the Old Testament of the same version ; a limitation which might probably be brought, upon the same principle, a few years lower down, only that the exact date is unknown of the first Epistle of St. John, which appears to be the latest work of which a translation was included among the original contents of this version.^ So far most of those who have studied the subject seem to be agreed ; but much greater difficulty has been found in attempting to fix a minor limit to the age of this record. Since the publication at Rome of a complete edition of the works of Ephraim the Syrian, which was finished in the year 1747, it has been ascertained that he quoted several passages of Scripture exactly as they are?trans- lated in the Peshitah ; which, consequently, must have been composed before the middle of the fourth century, the period * Although the Peshitah now presents to the reader a translation of the entire New Testament, it did not, as originally compiled, contain renderings of the second Epistle of St. Peter, of the second or third of St. John, of that of St. Jude, or of the Apocalypse. The vision which forms the subject of the last-mentioned work is expressly attested by Eusebius, in the eighteenth chap- ter of the third book of his Ecclesiastical History, to have been impressed on the mind of St. John near the close of the reign of Domitian ; so that, if a translation of that work had been included among the original contents of the Peshitah, the major limit to the age of this version might have been brought down to the 96th year of the first century of our era, as synchronizing with the last year of Domitian's reign. APPENDIX. 605 when this author flourished. Hitherto no greater antiquity has been made out for the above version upon any satisfac- tory ground, though it has long been supposed by a consi- derable portion of the learned to be above two centuries older.^ But now the justness of their opinion on this point can be established by means of the present discovery, and the date of the Peshitah be thereby thrown back to a period very little distant from the end of the first century. There are two ways of arriving at this result. In the first place, the Christians were utterly ignorant of the originallanguage of the Old Testament, and consequently incapable of writing any translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, from shortly after the beginning of the se- cond century till the age of Origen ; if, then, they composed the Peshitah before the end of this interval, they must have done so before its commencement, that is, before more than a very few years of the second century had elapsed. In the second place, it is rendered manifest, through the internal evidence afibrded by a comparison of the Old Testament of this version with the Hebrew text, that it must have been framed by translators who made use of unvocalized copies of that text. But, until after * Bishop Walton supposed the Peshitah to have been written by apostolic men (Proleg. xiii. 15), that is, I presume, by immediate disciples of the Apos- tles ; and although this opinion is not likely to be well founded (as the persons alluded to were too much occupied with missionary labours to have leisure for undertaking a work which affords very clear indications of great care bestowed upon its formation, besides that there is no reason to imagine them all to have been acquainted with the ancient Hebrew), it yet appears to have led him to a just conclusion with regard to the age of this version. For, if we take the middle point of time between the earliest and the latest dates that could be assigned to the Peshitah on this supposition, the period so determined would come out not very distant from the end of the first century. The martyrdom of Poly carp, the last of the individuals in question of whom accounts have been transmitted to us, and probably, from his great age, the very last of their number, is dated at the latest (for authors differ on this point) A. D. 168; while, on the other hand, the deaths of some of those men may be conceived to have taken place as early as the persecution of the Christians which imme- diately followed the martyrdom of St. Stephen, A. D. 34. But the middle date between these two is A. D. 101. 606 APPENDIX. such copies had become extinct among the public, the Jewish priests could not have ventured to place a vocalized copy in the hands of Aquila ; because if they had, they would have sub- jected themselves to imminent danger of his discovering, through a comparison of it with one of the older kind, the fact of its vowel-letters being interpolated elements, a fact which they have been shown in a preceding article of this Appendix most anxious to keep concealed from him. Moreover, the ex- tinction of the unvocalized copies proceeded of necessity at a slow pace, according as they fell into the possession of indivi- duals unable to make any use of them, after the deaths of all owners (whether Christians or Jewish laymen) who had been acquainted with their language. So that at least twenty years may be deemed to have elapsed after the Peshitah was written, before Aquila obtained a vocalized copy of the sacred text ; to which about three more may be reckoned to have been added, before he completed, with the help of that copy, the Greek version he is attested to have published in the year of our era 128-9. According to this calculation the Peshitah was writ- ten before a period five years subsequent to the commence- ment of the second century. But if the amount of the two requisite deductions from A. D. 1289 be judged greater than I have made it by any number of years, the minor limit to the age of this version may be pushed farther back to the extent of that difference. 7. The Samaritan Pentateuch was brought under notice and referred to by a series of Christian writers extending from Eusebius in the beginning of the fourth century to Georgius Syncellus about the end of the eighth ;* after which it was lost sight of in Christendom till the year 1631, when Father Morin * Georgius Syncellus quoted the above work only at second-hand from the Chronicon of Eusebius. Most of the intervening writers referred to ap- pear to have consulted only a secondary version of it, formed by translating its Samaritan version into Greek, a work which has been briefly noticed under the head of a previous discussion. Jerome, however, is to be excepted from the number of those who are likely to have so acted. APPENDIX. 607 of the Oratory in Paris, published an account of two copies then recently brought from the East, \Vhich were purchased, one of them at Constantinople, by M. De Sancy, the French ambassador there, and afterwards Archbishop of St.Maloes,and the other at Damascus, by Pietro della Yalle, a Roman knight/ I should add that several valuable copies were procured about the same time from Aleppo by Archbishop Ussher, Yice-Chan- cellor of the University of Dublin ; and although the work was first printed from the former MSS. in the Paris Polyglot, in 1645, its second edition came from the press corrected and improved by the aid of the latter set in the London Polyglot, in 1657. During the space of above eight hundred years that this record disappeared, it was in the sole keeping of the Sa- maritans ; but the care and fidelity with which they preserved it for that long interval may be judged of by the circumstance, that there are several passages of Scripture in which ancient authors during the five preceding centuries, especially Jerome, remarked agreements or disagreements between it and the Jewish edition of the Pentateuch, or between it and the cor- responding portion of the Septuagint ; which same agreements and disagreements may be observed to hold between the three compared documents even up to the present day. AVhen, after the publication of Morin's account, the text itself was exhibited in the Parisian and London Polyglots, it excited much attention among the learned ; but the numerous * Exercitationes in utrumque Samaritanorum Pentateuchum, pp. 7-10, 370-1. According to the commonly received representation of Morin's ac- count of the matter, which I incautiously followed in a note at the bottom of page 106 of this volume, the two copies above mentioned are confounded to- gether; but, on reference to the pages just specified of Morin's own work upon the subject, it will be seen that they are quite distinct MSS.; and on further consulting the final pages of his account, it will be perceived that the first printed specimens of both the text and version in question were taken from the copy which belonged to Delia Valle^ whose name (transcribed in Latin, by Morin, a Valle) appears to be the same as that written in old Norman French Du Val^ which has been long since, in the English use of it, altered into Wall 2 T 608 APPENDIX. discrepancies they found between it and the Jewish edition of the same text caused it again to sink into oblivion ; and in this state of neglect it has been permitted to lie for much the greater part of the time which has elapsed since it was first printed. Now, however, that the vast majority of those in- stances of disagreement can be accounted for, and shown not to affect at all the integrity of the original ingredients of either edition of the text, the very feature of the case that up to the present time has thrown a shade over the work before us will, I expect, henceforward constitute its highest interest. For the true explication of the apparent discrepancies between the two records, which has at last been arrived at, serves powerfully to corroborate the proofs derived from other sources of the adven- titious nature of the matres lectionis in each record. Bishop Walton in vain endeavoured to account for the greater scar- city of those letters in the Jewish than in the Samaritan Pen- tateuch, by assuming that the Masoretic points, which were introduced only into one of those works, occasioned the remo- val of a large portion of the characters in question from that one, while their number was left undiminished in the other. This view of the subject is given in his learned treatise on the Samaritan Pentateuch, as follows : " .... in vocibus quas plene vel defective scriptas notant Judsei, non sunt accurati Samaritani, sicut nee erant Judaei ante Masorethas punctorum autores ; unde observatur literas quse post punctationem abesse debent, plerumque in codicibus Samaritanis relictas esse, quia scilicet ita scribebant ante punctorum inventio- nem." Prolegom.^ xi. 10. But this explanation is directly refuted by the fact that Hebrew words are often to be seen written with fewer vowel-letters in the Samaritan than in the Jewish edition : and, besides, it does not at all meet the prin- cipal difficulty of the case : namely, the circumstance that cor- responding syllables, instead of being vocalized in one edition and unvocalized in the other, frequently exhibit different vowel-letters in the two editions ; whence arise differences which go to the extent of altering, not only the inflexions of APPENDIX. 609 the words and forms of expression, but sometimes even the very meaning of the passages they occur in. What uneasiness the discrepancies of the latter kind excited, as long as atten- tion was directed to a comparison of the two editions, may be estimated by the vast importance which the Bishop attached, not to the general removal of those discrepancies, a result never even contemplated, much less hoped for, by the learned of his day, but to the very subordinate service of reducing them to distinct classes. Upon this point his opinion is ex- pressed in the same treatise in the following manner : " Quod enim de edition e Grseca twv 6 diximus, idem de exemplari Sa- maritano optandum, ut doctus aliquis judicio et linguarum cognitione pollens, et partium studio non abreptus, cui otium et ingenium ad rem tantam aggrediendum suppetit, accurate discrepantias has examinaret, et quaenam ex scribarum errore, quaenam ex codicum Hebrgeorum varietate ortaa sint, quaenam de industria mutationes factae, distingueret. Certe qui hoc opus perficeret, magnam a grata posteritate laudem reporta- ret." Prolegom., xi. 16. It is not my intention in this place to eilter into a general examination of the contents of the two editions of the Hebrew Pentateuch : that may be found already done in the second Dissertation of Kennicott and in the writings of other authors. There is but one peculiarity of the Samaritan record which I wish here to bring under notice, and even of that one I can spare room for no more than a single example. For the most part the two editions, as far as they present the same sentences, show no difference of any kind except in their vowel-letters ; a circumstance, I may by the way observe, which had an obvious tendency to lead to the discovery of the interpolation of those letters in each edition. Where, however, the conso- nants of corresponding sentences do not entirely agree, those employed in the Samaritan copies appear to be connected with a more ancient pronunciation of the sacred language. Thus the pure Hebrew termination in the M articulation is fre- quently preserved in this edition of the Pentateuch, where it 2 T 2 610 APPENDIX. has been changed in the Jewish copies into the corresponding Chaldaic ending in N' ; this variation marking the effect pro- duced upon the Jewish scribes by their long residence, during the Babylonian Captivity, among a people who used Chaldee as their vernacular dialect. A remarkable instance of the corrup- tion in question, as far as respects proper names, is exhibited in that of the youngest son of Jacob, which is at present found written everywhere in the Jewish edition of the Bible I'^D^^^, BeNYoiMIN, but in the Samaritan copies of the Pentateuch D'^D'^^H, BeNTaMlM. The latter compound is pure Hebrew for ' son of days,' while the former is its Chaldaic corruption. The Rabbins, indeed, from an anxiety to sustain the correctness of the language of the edition of the text in their keeping, insist upon ' son of right hand' as the meaning of the recorded name ; for which latter signification the Jewish mode of writing the compound would, I allow, be the correct one. But the parti- culars of the case tell most decisively both for the first of those etymologies, and against the second. The name under discus- sion w^as chosen for his infant by Jacob, at a period when he was suffering under the deepest affliction ; and the subsequent fortunes were not very distinguished of either the boy who then received it, or the tribe which was called after him. Now ' son of days,' or ' child of old age,' is a mournful denomina- tion, which might very naturally occur to the patriarch when he was reminded of his own mortality by the death of a wife whom he loved with the tenderest afiection ; while, on the other hand, his giving the new-born child at such a time the triumphant designation of ' son of right hand' would have suited neither his feelings as a man nor his prescience as a prophet. Thus it would appear, as far as a valid inference can be drawn from a single example, that, as the Samaritan characters approach nearer than the Jewish ones to the oldest known shapes of the Hebrew letters, so likewise, in the few instances in which the terminations of corresponding words in the two editions differ, the Samaritan endings are those of greater antiquity. This result accords with a remark made by APPENDIX. 611 Morin in the publication of his which has been already re- ferred to, that the Samaritans formerly spoke a less corrupt dialect of Hebrew than the Jews f for it is evident that the copyists whose vernacular tongue came nearer to pure He- brew would be those less likely to let slip into their tran- scriptions any combinations of letters incorrectly representing the ancient forms of the original words. With respect to the particular name which has been just examined, I rather question whether its older pronunciation should now be reverted to. The N termination of this word is at present received by, I believe, every nation looking on the Pentateuch as an inspired work, except the small existing rem- nant of the Samaritans ; it was adopted at a very remote pe- riod, even before the oldest part of the Septuagint was com- posed ; and it is sanctioned by the practice of the writers of the Greek Testament. It is true that, although the quotations of the Evangelists and Apostles afford decisive authority for the meaning of passages of the Hebrew Scriptures, they by no means do so for the primitive pronunciation of the names therein occurring ; their testimony on the latter point reach- ing solely to the pronunciation which prevailed at the time when they lived, as we have already seen in the case of the name of the royal Psalmist. But still we surely are war- ranted in following the example of inspired men upon this point ; and as a freedom of choice is thus left open to us, it would, perhaps, upon the whole, be the course attended with least evil to adhere to the now almost universal practice of writing the word in question Benjamin -^ notwithstanding the "^ The above remark of Morin is conveyed in the following terms : '* Prse- terea Samaritanorum plebem Hebraicse linguge idioma sincerius Judaica con- servasse. Ab Hebraeo enim proprius abest, magisque phrasim et genium Hebraice linguae sapit Samaritica versio quae nobis est prae manibus, quam Chaldaic^ periphrases, Judaeorumque alii libri Chaldaici, ut ex speciminibus nostris manifestum erit." Exerciiationes inutrumque Samaritanorum Pentateu- chum, p. 371. b The above form is that in which the name in question should be written in German or Italian ; but, to avoid an additional corruption not long since in- troduced into this country, it should be written in English Benyamin. 612 APPENDIX. circumstance that this form of it conveys a corrupt pronun- ciation of the original name. With regard to the language of the Samaritan version, which has been transmitted to us only through a single work not in common use or easily procured, a brief specimen of it may perhaps be acceptable to the reader ; which, to save him trouble, is exhibited in Hebrew letters of the Jewish rather than of the Samaritan form. The verse selected for the illus- tration of this subject is Gen. ii. 24, as exhibited in the parent tongue and some of the cognate dialects, preceded by its Au- thorized English rendering ; which, after the insertion of a word within brackets corresponding to one lost from the original passage, serves to convey its meaning in each of the Shemitic tongues it is quoted in, except the Chaldee verse, in the renderingof which the supplemental expression, * the dor- mitory of,' should be introduced between the words ' leave,' and ' his father.' Authorized Eng. " Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife ; and they \two\ shall be one flesh." Jewish Text, ,iD^ n^i 1^3^ n^^ tr^>^ nrr*^ ]:: bv Samar, Text, DH^iti^O ^^m Samar, Vers. , Tii^^ rv^ rv\'2)^ T\^ n^j pn::^"^ \2 ^nn Chaldee Par. ,^^D^^^ ^n1n^^ ^nrjt^^D n'^n laj pi3:r^ ]d ^;; Syriac Vers, -oiLdPo ^oiar:]] 1;jq^ ^a^i.^ ]jai ^\.^ tianj ^ ^ctujZ ^ootjo .oiZAj]] ^slqjo From the Samaritan edition of the Hebrew Pentateuch no more of this verse is given than the portion in which these two edi- tions differ, by means of which portion a word lost from the Jewish copies can be restored to its proper site ; where, how- ever it should be replaced within brackets and with the note in the opposite part of the margin, " Codex Samaritanus." On the other hand, the word ' tAvo' should be inserted in the cor- APPENDIX. 613 responding part ofthe English Translation in Italics, and with the marginal note thereon, " Mat. xix. 5, Mark x. 7, 1 Corin. vi. 16, Eph. V. 31, put likewise in Italics, in order, not only to point out the parallel passages of the New Testament, but also to sustain its insertion in the specified place by the inspired authority of those passages. When there are such vouchers for the justness of this correction, there is scarcely any occasion for adding, that it is moreover supported by the joint and mu- tually independent testimonies ofthe Septuagint and Peshitah. The only other difi*erence between the two copies of the Hebrew verse is occasioned by the circumstance ofthe verb immediately before the dropped group having been vocalized by the one set of scribes, and passed over without any vocalization by the other ; in consequence of which its inflexion, which is clearly in the plural number, must be read in the Samaritan edition WeUaYeRu (that is, if strictly rendered, ' and they shall have been,' i. e., shall immediately be), while in the Jewish edition it is contracted into WeHaYU. With respect to the Samaritan translation, its first and ninth groups differ from the correspond- ing ingredients of any of the other Shemitic representations of the same verse : but still the former occurs in the Chaldee dialect with the very meaning that is here wanted for it ; while the verb of the latter group, not being found in either Syriac or Chaldee, is rendered by Morin and Walton " adhaere- bit" (shall cleave unto), on the assumption of a perfect agree- ment between the Samaritan version and Hebrew text. But, as such an agreement can in some instances be positively shown not to hold, it would perhaps be safer to translate the group in question according to the well-known signification of its verb in Hebrew, 'to rejoice ;' which verb being here put in a pas- sive form, the compound might be rendered, ' and shall be delighted with,' a rendering which accords, though but loosely, I admit, with the sense required by the context in this place. Of the remaining words of this translation, all are the same in their roots, and several of them entirely the same, as the corresponding ingredients of the Hebrew, Syriac, or 614 APPENDIX. Chaldee verses. But where the inflexions difi'er, one instance is presented to us of the Samaritan dialect approaching in grammatical structure nearer than either of the others to the parent Hebrew tongue. The verb substantive, which is in the original verse exhibited in the form of a tense compounded of the future and a subordinate preterite, retains this compound form in the Samaritan translation, while it is rendered by a simple future in the Syriac and Chaldee verses. But a second verb of the Hebrew verse in the same compound form is ren- dered by a simple future in all the three translations ; so that the nearer approach, in the particular just noticed, of the Sa- maritan, than of either of the other dialects, to the structure of the ancient Hebrew has been only in part preserved. In this dialect the pronominal afiixes differ from the equivalent Hebrew ones, just as much, though not in quite the same manner, as they do in the Syriac and Chaldee dialects ; while, on the other hand, those employed in the same places respec- tively of the two editions of the text are completely identical. As the fact last mentioned supplies a more decisive limit to the antiquity of the Samaritan vocalization of the Hebrew Pentateuch than that previously given, I shall here bring it prominently under observation by an immediate comparison of some equivalent affixes in the different Shemitic languages referred to, which are taken from the various representations of the verse above quoted, and those of two other verses, the several exponents of the same pronouns being arranged in the same columns respectively, as follows : Gen. ii. 24. Exod. iii. 22. Deut. xii. 31. his father, and upon your daughters, their sons. Jewish Text, I'^ii^^ n^^ DD^nn bv^ nn^:^'2 nit^ Samaritan Text, l^^i^ MK 'oy^n:!:! h}:^ DiT^ n Samar. Version, .1^3^^ TV ]1Dn^n ^;;i ]1^n T\^ Chaldee Paraph, ^n13^^ li:D^nn ^^/l ]1.T:)3 Jl'' Syriac Version, *-iOla^]] ^nnAi *-^\n ^oi i i n Here the pronominal affixes in the same places respectively of the two editions of the text are exhibited exactly the same, and APPENDIX. 615 are so presented to us in the vast majority of instances, except where a different treatment of them by the two sets of vocal- izers has been occasioned by their having been entirely over- looked, or their nature mistaken, by one setf in consequence of which an affix correctly vocalized in one of the editions is sometimes to be met either not vocalized at all, or erro- neously vocalized, in the other. But with such exceptions, which are comparatively few, the affixes under considera- tion are constantly treated in the same manner in the two editions. To account for the identity of their vocalization to this extent, it cannot be alleged that the pronunciation of those affixes by two nations, long debarred from any mutual intercourse, continued always the same ; and even if it had done so, an identity of their vocalization would not of neces- sity have thence resulted ; as an affix, which must be supposed pronounced in the same way in every part of the same edition, is yet to be found therein variously vocalized to the extent of greater or less fulness, and likewise corresponding affixes in the same places respectively of different versions may be seen in the above examples vocalized with some degree of variety. The exact identity, therefore, of vocalization here brought under notice is utterly inexplicable, except on the supposition of the insertion of vowel-letters in one edition of the text having been copied from the other. But the Jews, besides hating the Samaritans, despised them too much to borrow from them any improvement. Hence it follows that the Sa- maritans must have been the borrowers, and consequently that the original record was vocalized later by them than by the Jews. The interval, however, between the two operations could not have been of any great length ; for the Samaritan scribes evidently participated with the Jewish vocalizers (not- withstanding their mutual hatred) in the wish of keeping the introduction of the matres lectionis into the Hebrew text a secret. But the comparison of an unvocalized copy with a ^ Thus, for example, in each edition of the text, the pronominal He is in some places mistreated as a paragogic He. 616 APPENDIX. vocalized one would have at once exposed this secret. Both parties, therefore, must have concurred in the effort to put the earliest possible termination to the danger of their common adversaries ever obtaining an opportunity to make such a comparison ; and for this purpose they must have proceeded as expeditiously as they could, the former party to get con- veyed to the latter a vocalized copy, and the latter to write new copies or vocalize their old ones after this model, and not suffer a single copy to remain unvocalized. Thus it turns out that the Samaritan vocalization of the Pentateuch could not have taken place till after the year of our era 126, but that it was effected very soon after that epoch. It remains that I should offer a few remarks upon the age of the Samaritan version, which will, I think, be found, upon investigation, bounded by the date, to which a close approxi- mation has been above obtained, of the Samaritan vocalization of the text. This version was supposed by Dr. Kennicott to be older than the Septuagint ; but its juniority to that record can be clearly made out by the circumstance of its agreeing in purport with the Samaritan text in several places in which the vocalization thereof is erroneous ; whence the consequence appears inevitable that it must have been composed after the Samaritan copies of the Pentateuch had been vocalized. A curious instance of this adaptation of the Samaritan transla- tion to an erroneous vocalization of the Hebrew text occurs in the first clause of the verse. Gen. xlix. 11, which, notwith- standing its brevity, betrays no less than two mistakes of the Jewish vocalizers ; but of these the Samaritan scribes availed themselves, for the purpose of transforming a prediction of the subsequent fertility in vines of Judea into an accusation of drunkenness against the posterity of Judah. The whole verse is first quoted from the Authorized English Translation, after which are placed the part of it here to be examined, as trans- mitted in the Jewish and Samaritan editions of the text, and in the Samaritan, the Syriac, the Greek, the Latin, and the Chaldee versions, with a literal interpretation subjoined to each representation of its purport : APPENDIX. 617 / " Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's Authorized \ colt unto the choice vine ; he washed his Eng. Vers, ] garments in wine, and his clothes in the V blood of grapes." Jewish Text, D2:i {^^mh^ n]>n^b^ ,n-i'^;; \^}b -id^ d ' He will surely bind his young ass unto the vine, even the foal of his she-ass unto the fruitful vine ; he will surely wash,' &c. Samar. Text, DHD j^:3n^^ ^n nplt^^l .^"l'^;; ]^:b niDK * Bound [i. e. enslaved] are the men of his city unto the vine, even the sons of his strength unto what is vile; he will surely wash,' &c. Samar. Vers. fnn pip^;::;; ^n n]>'^nh^ ,nn-ip n:^}b ''-)^D^^ * Bound are the men of his city unto the vine, even the sons of his strength unto vileness; he will surely wash,' &c. &c. Peshitah, 5q-kO .cruZl i^ ]^on no,CTil^-i-i ]L^ ^n 5arD]j * He will bind his young ass unto the vine, even the foal of his she-ass unto the shoot of the vine ; he will wash,' &c. &c. Sepiuagint, Vulgate, Targum of Onhelos, Aea/JLevwu tt/so? a/x7re\ov tov TraiXov avTOv, Kat T7J eXiKi Toi/ TTujiXov Ti]9 ovov uvTOv' TrXvi/et K. T. \. * Binding his young ass unto the vine, even the foal of his she-ass unto the tendril of the vine ; he will wash,' &c. &c. Ligans ad vineam pullum suum, et ad vitem, fih mi, asinam suam ; lavabit, &c. &c. * Binding his young ass unto the vineyard, and his she-ass, O my son, unto the vine ; he will wash,' &c. &c. p.T ,.T^:3n ]m^ ^r^i; ,iTmp^ bi^ii:;'' -ino^ * Yisrahel shall dwell around his [Yudah's] city, the Gen- tiles shall build his temple, there shall be the just around him and the servants of the law in doctrine along with him; ' 618 APPENDIX. The Chaldee rendering of the Hebrew line is here placed the farthest from it, as being totally unconnected with its lite- ral interpretation, a charge which can but very seldom be brought against the Targum of Onkelos. In this instance, however, national prejudices appear to have made the Jewish writer deviate, on one side, even more, in point of form at least, than the Samaritan scribe did on the other, from strict accuracy of translation. Of the little circular marks of censure put over three letters of the above line, as exhibited in the Jewish edition of the Hebrew text, the second has a reference merely to orthography, and is inserted on the authority of the Masorets, who have pointed the subjacent character to be read with S power ; and, accordingly, the letter of that power has been substituted for it in the margin. The justness of the two remaining censures is established by the joint and independent testimonies of the Septuagint and Peshitah : as the writers of the former version show by their translation of the first and penultimate words of the first clause that they read them HoSeR, ' binding,' and BeN, ' foal of,' without any vowel that could be denoted by Yod at the end of either ; and the framers of the latter version in like manner show that they read the same words respectively HaSaR, ' hath bound,' that is (as they make use of a future tense), 'will surely bind,' and BeN, 'foal of,' without an jE^ or / at the end of either word. The writer of the Vulgate also attests the spuriousness of the first of those Yods by following the Seventy Jews in their interpretation, and consequently in their reading of the word to which it is annexed ; but for the purpose of making out the second Yod genuine, was reduced to the absurdity of representing Jacob as speaking to, and of, his son Judah at the same time. To decide between the Greek and Syriac renderings of the initial word, it is necessary to look to the second clause of the verse, as there is an obvious parallelism between the two clauses. But the verb of the second clause, which is written in the form of a pre- terite, has a future signification attached to it in both of the versions referred to ; that is, it is rendered in each of them as a prophetic future, and consequently the parallel verb of APPENDIX. 619 the first clause should also be thus rendered ; so that the Syriac construction of this word appears to be more strictly accurate than the Greek one. On the other hand, though the meaning of ' the tendril of a vine,' given by the Seventy to the noun of the fourth group, can hardly be reconciled with the context, yet the signification of (a/xTreXo? KapTroipopo^) ^a fruitful vine' attached to it by them elsewhere (Jer. ii. 21) would make good sense in this place ; and, as this testimony is the highest uninspired authority within our reach for the several meanings of a Hebrew term of rare occurrence, that one of these which is here applicable should, I submit, be pre- ferred to ^ the shoot of a vine,' the signification of the Syriac rendering of the same word. In every other respect the two compared renderings of the clause in question fully agree ; and the united authority of the versions from which they are taken, with regard to the meanings to be chosen for the two ambiguous terms, H'^i/ and ]riU^, is so much the weightier, be- cause neither set of translators could have mistaken the sense of the first of those terms ; it not having been ambiguous in their time, but written "lli/, HaYzR, in the same manner as it now is for the meaning they assigned to it of ' a young ass,' whereas for that of ' a city' it would then have been ivritten ")J/, UiR f but the signification of this word determines which of the two belonging to ]]l^^ is here to be selected. Thus it will be found that the first clause predicted in figurative lan- guage, indeed, but with certain assurance of the fulfilment of the prophecy, a great abundance of vines, and the second a great * The above nouns are still preserved distinct in the plural number, that denoting ' young asses' being written D'^"T^3>, and that expressing * cities,' D^ir, in every instance but one, namely in Judg. x. 4. But the exception is not here to be taken" into consideration ; for the two nouns, both of which occur in that verse, are by a play upon the words there written in exactly the same way, D^'T^27, a sort of joke whose appearance in the specified place has hitherto perplexed the learned. But it now turns out that the levity thus indicated is to he attributed not at all to the inspired author, but merely to a subsequent vocalizer of this part of the sacred text. 620 APPENDIX. abundance of wine, in the land to be afterwards inherited by the descendants of Judah. To turn our attention next to the mode of perverting the sense of the above clause which the Samaritan scribes em- ployed, they made significant the first of the faulty Yods by reading the group it closes, neither HoSeR, ' binding,' nor HaSaR, ' hath bound,' i. e. ' will surely bind,' but HaSURE, ' bound,' in the Hebrew form of the participle pahul in the masculine plural construct state ; and, by translating it in their own form (which thus appears to be identical with the equivalent Chaldee one) for the same inflexion, HaSIRE. Accordingly, they vocalized this word in their edition of the text, '^")1D^^ ; and, retaining it in their version, they there vo- calized it '^'T^DK. Of the second group, Jii^?, Ho the vine,' they made no alteration whatever in the text, and merely subjoined to it a H in their version, to give the noun which constitutes the principal part of this group a feminine termi- nation. Of the third group n"!**^, ' his young ass,' they intro- duced no variation into their text, farther than by vocalizing its affix, which they thereby changed from H into 1 ; but they quite altered its meaning, by translating it in their version nn*1p, which exactly agrees (except in being quite un vocal- ized) with n'^rtlp, the Chaldee for ' his city.' With regard to the fourth group of the clause. Father Morin, and after him Bishop Walton, rendered the noun belonging to the Samari- tan translation of this group, though difi^erent from the cor- responding portion of it in the text, by the very same Latin word (palmes) as they applied to that portion, on the gratui- tous assumption of a perfect and complete agreement between the Samaritan text and version ; and even Castel, in his Hep- taglot Lexicon, adopted their translation of this noun. But, as appears to me, where a Hebrew term and the Samaritan translation thereof, if a word of rare occurrence in this version, do radically difier, a more secure plan of ascertaining the sense of the latter term is, to try whether there be identical with it in root a word of known meaning, in any of the ancient cog- APPENDIX. 621 nate dialects, which is reconcilable with the tenor of the pre- viously analyzed part of the Samaritan passage ; and, if so, to assign to it that meaning, even though not correctly agree- ing with the sense of the former term. Now p"), the radical part of np^^n, which is the Samaritan rendering of the Hebrew npl^^ is significant in Hebrew, Chaldee, and Syriac, denoting in the two former languages ' empty, worthless, or vile,' and in the latter ^ spit upon, contemptible, or vile,' and is actually here vocalized by the Samaritans in the same way as it is in both Hebrew and Chaldee. According, then, to the rule just laid down, the signification attached by the Samaritan scribes to part of ilp^sl/ is the epithet ' vile ;' whence it follows that they represented the whole word as composite, the meaning of the other part {^) being well-known, as that of the ordi- nary substitute in Hebrew compounds for the relative pro- noun m/^. But the circumstance of their having thus dealt with the Hebrew term shows that its initial element had been changed from Samek to Shin before their time. To the faulty Yod of the fifth group they gave significance by reading that group in their text, and translating it in their version, BeNE, ' the sons of.' In the case of the last group of the clause, 1^n^^, HaThoNO, ^his she-ass,' which the Jewish vocalizers ne- glected to confine, by the insertion of a vocal Waw in its second syllable, to the sense it here bears, the Samaritan scribes took advantage of this omission to transform it into HEThaNO, ' his strength,' by slipping a vocal Yod into its first syllable in their text ; in consequence of which they were enabled to translate it in their version Hp'^Qy, HaMUQeH, 'his strength,' a compound, indeed, of which the principal ingredient sig- nifies only ' depth,' or ' deep,' in Hebrew and Chaldee, but is a term of frequent occurrence in the Samaritan version, and the meaning ' strength,' or ' strong,' agrees in common with the context of several places in which it is therein found. The first word, ^H"!, of the Samaritan translation of the second clause is perfectly identical with a Hebrew verb of the same meaning as that in the corresponding site of the Hebrew text. 622 APPENDIX. I have only here further to remark, with respect to the trans- lation given in common by Morin and Walton of the first clause in both the Samaritan text and version, that, although its initial expression ' ligata esf (inflected so as to agree with ' civitas ejus^) might possibly be excusable when applied to the first group of the Samaritan translation, on account of our want of complete knowledge of all the inflexions of the Sama- ritan dialect, it cannot be tolerated as the rendering of the corresponding group of the Hebrew text, which ought here to be construed, according to a similar use of the employed words, ' ligati sunt^' the Latin expression in each instance being used, not as a preterite tense, but as a participle or participial adjec- tive, with the verb substantive understood after it in the pre- sent tense. Besides, those very learned men appear to have overlooked the circumstance that this participle is applied in both text and version to two subjects which are in each trans- lated respectively ' civitas ejus' and ' filii roboris ejus :' but as it is referred to nouns in diflerent numbers and genders, it should, according to ordinary practice, be made to agree with that in the plural number and masculine gender. At any rate, all appearance of irregularity in this case would be removed, by substituting for the Latin representative of the former subject, ' habitatores civitatis ejus.' The circumstance of the epithet in question being applied in each record to two subjects, one of which is actually expressed in the plural masculine construct state, and the other capable of being understood in the same state, may, perhaps, afford some ground for its being itself also in both of them put in that form. The substitution, however, of the construct for the absolute state of this epithet in the Sa- maritan lines is, I admit, a grammatic irregularity ; still, it is one which violates not sense, but merely form, and for which precedents might be adduced from several parts of the Jewish edition of the sacred text. From this analysis it will, I think, be perceived, as far as the fact can be proved by a single example, that the Samari- tan version is not at all as strictly faithful a translation as it APPENDIX. 623 has been hitherto supposed ; but that the Samaritans were just as ready to calumniate the Jews, when they had an oppor- tunity of doing so without tampering with the original letters of the Hebrew text, as the Jews were to vilify the work of the Seventy Interpreters. My principal object, however, in ad- ducing this example, is to give an instance of part of their translation being grounded upon two very gross inaccura- cies in the vocalization of the text, and, therefore, composed after the time of that vocalization. The very same cir- cumstance, besides thus affording a limit of age to the for- mation of their version, affixes one also to the vocalization of their text agreeing with that already determined. For the inaccuracies referred to are common to both editions of the vocalized text, and are of so strange a nature that they could hardly have been adopted by two parties independently of each other ; but it is far more likely that the Samaritans borrowed them from the Jews than that the Jews took them from the Samaritans. The adduced example serves also to prove the Samaritan version to have been written after the vocaliza- tion of the Samaritan text through a second particular, in addition to that above relied on. For it has been shown that the framers of this version read (1*)*^/, in the line referred to, HIRoH, ' his city,' instead of H^YzRoH, ' his young ass ;'^ a mistake which they could not have made till after the text * The above group rT"l*'3? is actually, in the place referred to, pointed by the Masorets for the sound HIEoH, although the context of the remainder of the clause, as pointed by them, shows that they understood it there to sig- nify ' his young ass.' But this alteration of the sound of the group for such signification could not have been adopted till after the introduction of matres lectionis into the original text of the Bible. This confusion of the sounds of two perfectly distinct words is not to be imputed to men who have shown themselves so strictly honest as the Masorets have in every instance, but to those who previously had the exclusive custody of the sacred volume; and who seem to have, even at the sacrifice of the distinctness of its language, taken several opportunities of confounding the consonantal with the vocal Tody for the purpose of making it appear as if the latter Yod had been, from the first, an element of the Hebrew text. 2u 624 APPENDIX. they consulted was vocalized. Onkelos, I may here add, can be shown by his translation of this line to have committed the very same mistake, a circumstance which in like manner con- tributes strongly to the proof that his version also was posterior in age to the introduction of vowel-letters into the sacred text. 8. The Targums, or Chaldee translations, of the greatest age and highest repute among the Jews are those respectively of the Pentateuch by Onkelos, and of the next ensuing histo- ric books of the Bible (except that of Ruth) down to the end of the second Book of Kings by Jonathan Ben Uziel. The latter author is supposed to have translated not only the portion of the sacred text just specified, which is, according to rabbinical classification, appropriated to the earlier pro- phets, but also that comprising the writings more usually styled prophetic, which are, upon the same authority, confined to the more limited designation of the books of the later pro- phets. But the second part of the work attributed to him is so very inferior to the first in accuracy and closeness of inter- pretation, that it most probably is due to the pen of a different writer. Even the part which is on all sides admitted to be his production is not so exact a translation as the Targum of On- kelos, which very seldom exhibits any paraphrastic or sup- plementary words. Both these Targums, however (the second being understood in the sense to which it has been just re- stricted), are quite literal enough to be entitled to the name of versions^ though they are usually called paraphrases, in com- mon with all the remaining Targums, which are composed in a much looser style. Onkelos and Jonathan are assumed by the Rabbins to have flourished about the time of the birth of our Saviour ; and it must be allowed that they lived before the Talmud was completed, both of them being therein men- tioned.* A boundary, however, which considerably reduces * " Prophetas priores et posteriores explicasse [ Jonathanem] testatur Tal- mud, tract. Megilla, cap. 1, ubi legitur targum Legis Onkelum proselytum composuisse, targum prophetarum Jonathanem filium Uzielis." Waltoni Froleg., xii. sect. 10. APPENDIX. 625 the imagined age of their respective works, has been already- suggested to the learned by the utter silence respecting all the Targums observable throughout the writings of Jerome. From the great industry and zeal of this Father of the Church, combined with his scrutinizing habits, it has been justly in- ferred that he would have consulted, at any rate, the best of them, if they had been in existence as early as the period when he wrote : his failing, then, to take notice of any of them shows that the most valuable of their number, which happen to be the oldest two, could hardly have been composed till after his death in the year of our era 420. And now, at last, this limitation to the antiquity of the entire set is confirmed by the internal evidence of the case furnished through the aid of the present discovery. For all the Targums adhere to the bearing of the sacred text in by far the greater portion of in- stances in which its passages, or the names therein occurring, betray an erroneous vocalization ; and, consequently, they could not, any of them, have been framed till after that text was vocalized, that is, till after A. D. 126. But during the whole of the interval between this date and A. D. 420, the main bulk of the Jewish nation, it is well known, spoke Greek as their mother tongue ; and, until they abandoned this lan- guage and returned to the vernacular use of a Shemitic dia- lect, versions or paraphrases in that dialect would obviously have been of no service to them. The remark last made enables me to carry the reduction of the antiquity of these works a step further, by applying it to one of the later decrees of Justinian, of which a passage has been quoted in a preceding article of this Appendix. The decree referred to, which was passed about the middle of the sixth century, shows very plainly that Greek was, at that time, still the language in common use among the great majority of the Jews ; and consequently, that they had not then as yet recovered such a degree of familiarity with Chaldee as would qualify them to derive any benefit from Targums. But this decree, besides thus supplying a closer limit to the age of the 626 APPENDIX. oldest of the works under consideration, serves also to extri- cate the investigation from an appearance of discrepancy with which it would be otherwise embarrassed. Those works, in several instances, fairly interpret prophecies relating to the Messiah, which the Jewish priesthood have for a great length of time past constantly misconstrued ; whence it would seem to follow that they must have been composed before the pre- judices of the JcAvs against our Lord commenced ; an infer- ence directly at variance with that already drawn from another aspect of the very same case, that they were not written till after the sacred text was vocalized in the year of our era 126. This difficulty the above decree clears up, by directing atten- tention to a period long subsequent to the date just specified, when the sacerdotal class had, from despotic treatment of their congregations, become exceedingly unpopular. For, while their influence on the minds of the Jews was thus weakened, it is not at all surprising that interpretations of the prophe- cies in question derived from the Septuagint and supported in each instance by the context, though strenuously discounte- nanced by those men, should yet have been then confidently propounded by Rabbins free from their control, and favourably received by the nation. In this way it can, without any in- consistency, be deduced from historic information of unques- tionable authority, combined with the internal evidence of the case, that none of the Targums were framed till after the mid- dle of the sixth century. The older ones, however, were most probably written soon after ; as the interpretations they exhi- bit at variance with the tenor of the vocalized text could scarcely have been adopted without the counter-sanction of the Septuagint. But the Rabbins lost the power of consulting that work, after the language in familiar use among them was changed from Greek to a Shemitic dialect ; an event which appears to have taken place not long after the epoch just mentioned. 9. I shall close this Appendix with an application of the discovery now unfolded to the analysis of a very important APPENDIX. 627 correction recommended by Dr. Kennicott in his treatise " On the State of the printed Hebrew text of the Old Testament," but which he failed to sustain upon sufficient grounds. His argument on the subject is contained in the following passage : "In Josh. xxiv. 19, we read And Joshua said unto the people. Ye cannot serve the Lord, this is the proper trans- lation of the present Hebrew. But can anything be more asto- nishing than first, to find Joshua exhorting, entreating, press- ing the people, by every motive of gratitude and of interest, to serve the Lord and him only and then, after the people had promised obedience, to find Joshua telling them. Ye cannot serve the Lord ! What ! could he possibly dissuade them, (ould he try to discourage them from the very thing which he was labouring, with all possible energy of soul, to induce them to vow most religiously ? This surely may be pro- nounced impossible. Behold how great afire a little sparh kin- dleth ! See, what absurdity becomes chargeable upon the venerable speaker in the text ; what perplexity, what contra- diction arises, and spreads its unkindly influence in this part of Scripture, only from the improper insertion of one small letter and of that particular letter which is put wz, and left out, in a thousand other words, at the transcriber's pleasure ! I speak thus positively, because I make not the least doubt of the learned reader's agreeing, that the present word I/DIJI [TUKeLU], poteritis [or potestis], was originally 17^]! [TeKaLlU], cessahitis : and I may venture to recommend this criticism as worthy of real honour, because it is not my own, but the re- mark of the late Mr. Hallett, in his Notes on Texts of Scripture ; vol. iii. p. 2. It may be necessary to observe that, n7^ \KiL\dE\ signifying c^55amV, the words of the text "l^^ri ^^^ [LoH TeKaLlU] signify non cessahitis, or ne cessetis ye shall not cease, or CEASE NOT, to scrvc the Lord : and then, ih^ reason is most forcible and conclusive Cease not to serve the Lord (continue and persevere in his service) ; for he is an holy God ; he is a jealous God ;" Dissertation the Second, pp. 375-6. The argument here urged for the removal of the first Waw in the examined group is, on the one hand, strengthened by 628 APPENDIX. the consideration, that no satisfactory explanation of the pro- posed clause has ever yet been made out, on the supposition of this group in its present state being uncorrupted. There is some plausibility, indeed, in the view of the bearing of the prophet's appeal to his countrymen which is held in accord- ance with this supposition by a large portion, perhaps the majority, of the members ofthe Established Church ; namely, that Joshua does not here speak of an absolute impossibility of serving the Lord, but only of its extreme difficulty ; and that he directs the attention of the Israelites to this difficulty, not with any intention of deterring them from the service of God, but rather for the purpose of inducing them to make the greater and more strenuous efforts to surmount the obstacles impeding their adherence to that line of conduct.* If the con- struction thus put upon the clause before us were admissible, it would, I grant, clear the prophet's speech of all appearance of inconsistency ; but, unfortunately, it is directly at variance with the obvious tenor of the original line as at present writ- ten, as well as with that ofthe Authorized English Translation thereof, and also with those of all the more ancient renderings except one ; and that one we shall find upon examination to be utterly unwarranted. The Hebrew clause in its present * Thus, for example, the critique on the above clause of a distinguished divine of the Church of England is expressed in the following terms : " Verse 19, Ye cannot serve the Lord]. This is far from signifying an utter impos- sibility of it (for that would have contradicted his exhortation in verse 14), but that they were so very prone to idolatry, that they would not be able to persevere stedfast in their resolution, unless they took care constantly to re- flect upon and lay to heart what they now acknowledged (vv. 17, 18), which he was afraid they would not do." Bishop Patrick^s Commentary, in loco. I quite agree with this learned divine in the principle, that there can be no real discrepance between two genuine passages of Scripture ; but I question whe- ther writers may not have been sometimes mistaken in the application of this principle; and I submit that the safest mode of trying to remove an appear- ance of such a disagreement is, not by attempting to draw an inference op- posed to the plain, obvious meaning of what is expressly written, but by searching whether there may not be one or more words corrupted or mistrans- lated in the original of either or both of two passages that are seemingly conflicting. APPENDIX. 629 state and the several more important renderings of it, arranged in the order of their dates, with a literal interpretation sub- joined to each of them except the last, are as follows : Hebrew, .mn*^ ir\^ i'2ih 'hy\r\ "^b ' Ye cannot serve the Lord,' Septuagint, Ov imrj hvi^i^aOe Xarpcvetv Kvplw, Ye cannot at all serve the Lord,* Peshitah, : Ui^'^ >>\^V)\ ^Aj] ^.-L^naV) ]] ]v>\? ^j ov-k See, however, lest perchance unable ye may be to serve the LORD,^ * The Greek interpreters appear, by their translation of the original clause, to have read its first verb with emphasis, such as would be expressed in the modern way of writing Hebrew by subjoining a Nun to the group represent- ing it ; and in this manner we may perceive the corresponding word is ac- tually written in the Chaldee line; but there the addition has no bearing on the sense, as the final Nun uniformly constitutes in that dialect a part of the employed inflexion in every instance without exception, and consequently without any resulting distinction. ^ The exposition of the clause under examination which is at present maintained by a considerable portion of the divines of the Established Church was advocated nearly three hundred years ago by Andrew Masius, who ap- pears to have derived it from the interpretation given of this clause in the Peshitah ; as, I conceive, is proved by the following extract from his learned commentary : " . . . existimo Imperatorem, illis verbis, * Non poteritis ser- vire Domino,' et quee sequuntur, occulte tecteque perstringere inconstantiam mutabilitatemque animorum, qua ab Jehovse cultu ad aliorum deorum sacra semper illos fuisse propensissimos testatissima sacris historiis res est: et si- mul ista tanta difficultate proposita, id ejicere velle, ut ipsorum hcec sv^ceptio atque professio religionis sit qudm deliberatissima. Quasi hsec sit Imperatoris oratio : Audio quidem vos promptos animo, paratosque ad serviendum Deo nostro Je- hovae esse ; sed vereor ut haec vestra alacritas sit diuturna Proinde etiam atque etiam videtote quid agatis.''^ Masii Comm.entaria in Josuam^ p. 338. From the striking correspondence between the remarks in this extract upon the above clause and the translation of it in the Peshitah, more especially be- tween the last sentence of the extract and the beginning or extra-supplemen- tary portion of the translation, a correspondence which extends even to the very form of expression used on each side, there is, I conceive, reason to in- fer that it was part of the Peshitah which Masius had in his possession, though he is shown, by the age assigned to it in the dedication of his work, to have deemed it part of a later Syriac version. 630 APPENDIX. Vulgate^ Non poteritis servire Domino, Ye shall not be able to serve the Lord,^ Ye cannot serve before the Lobd, Authorized Eng. Vers. " Ye cannot serve the Lord," In all the lines here adduced, except the Syriac one, an im- possibility is plainly and unequivocally insisted on, unquali- fied by any consideration that could fairly leave room for our looking upon it as a mere difficulty ; and in the Greek line, besides the absence of all qualification, the negation of the pos- sibility of the service alluded to is further strengthened by the addition of a second negative particle. It only remains, there- fore, to be inquired, whether the Syriac rendering affords any just ground for explaining away the alleged impossibility. The first three groups of this rendering are overlined, to indi- cate that they do not correspond to any of the ingredients of the Hebrew clause ; and the first four words of its English in- terpretation are similarly marked, instead of being exhibited in Italics ; because they are supplemental only with respect to their remote Hebrew, and not in reference to their im- mediate Syriac original. Now, it is obvious that, in translat- ing sentences elliptically worded, the legitimate use of supple- ments is to fill up the chasms in accordance with the part of the sense which is in each instance actually expressed, so as not to alter that sense, but merely render the expression of it more complete. But, according to this rule, the only admis- sible supplement in the case before us is that of the verb sub- stantive, introduced for the purpose of completing the sense and rendering the Syriac participle equivalent to the Hebrew * The Hebrew inflexion of the verb under examination is employed to convey a reference to either the future or the present, a circumstance which accounts for the difference in point of tense between the translations of this verb in the Vulgate and in the other versions. APPENDIX. 631 verb to which it is made to answer ; while the overlined words of this rendering, as well as of its English interpretation, must be rejected, as quite altering the sense of the original clause, and converting the impossibility therein expressed positively, and without any qualification, into a mere difficulty that might be surmounted by caution and strenuous exertion. But when the marked words are left out of account, and the supplied verb substantive no longer subject to their influence is put in the indicative form, the meaning of the Syriac line comes out per- fectly agreeing with that common to all the other lines, 'unable are ye to serve the Lord.' As long, then, as the first Waw of the Hebrew group under examination is admitted to be one of its genuine elements, there is no justifiable mode of extri- cating the original clause from an expression of impossibility to serve the Lord, which can hardly be reconciled with the ex- hortations to serve him conveyed in other parts of the same speech. So that, were this the only circumstance to be taken into consideration, it would, I submit, render the spuriousness of the letter in question, if not absolutely certain, at least pro- bable in a very high degree. On the other hand, two facts, from the notification of which Dr. Kennicott cautiously abstained in his quoted argu- ment, bear very powerfully against the reading and interpre- tation recommended by him of the group "i/DID. The first is, that not a single extant copy of the sacred text exhibits this group without the Waw in its initial syllable ; at least, among all the numerous varice lectiones inserted in his own edition of the Hebrew Bible and those afterwards collected by De Eossi, not one presents the verb so written in this place. The second fact is, that not a single ancient version warrants our render- ing this verb along with the preceding negative particle, * cease not,' or ' ye shall not cease ;' even the Peshitah, which, as we have seen, puts so very forced a construction on the clause containing it, still does not deviate from the general bearing of the sense attached to it in all the other versions. It is, then, no wonder that the expectation expressed by Dr. Kennicott on 2x 632 APPENDIX. this subject has been disappointed ; and that the learned have not hitherto agreed to the proposed correction of the group referred to. The circumstance of the letter Waw being er- roneously inserted in a thousand other sites affords no proof that it is so in a place in which its appearance is supported directly by every extant copy of the Hebrew text, and indi- rectly by every known version : and as long as the presence of this letter in any group of the sacred record is so supported, and no distinction found out between it, when used to denote a vowel, and other elements of the Hebrew text, its retention must be acquiesced in, however objectionable the resulting context of an entire passage may appear. For we cannot be as certain of the validity of an inference on which our objec- tion rests, as of the direct meaning, if expressed without ob- scurity, of any clause of such passage ; nor can we venture to set up our judgment against that meaning or evade its force^ where no ground has been detected for questioning the per- fect genuineness of the writing in which it is conveyed. In this way I conceive a conscientious reader of the Bible to have been, before the present discovery, situated with re- spect to the passage under consideration, and others of the same kind ; with whose bearing, even supposing him able in some degree to suspend his judgment, he must have felt him- self sorely perplexed. But when once it is established that the matres lectionis constitute no part of the Hebrew text as ori- ginally written, but only an uninspired addition subsequently introduced into it, he will, indeed, respect this addition for the valuable assistance it affords towards the perusal of the ori- ginal writing ; but still he will find himself at liberty to treat it as he would any other merely human commentary on the Bible, and reject every application of it that is at variance with the general tenor of Scripture, or in any other respect unsound. In fine, he will thus, in the case of the passage selected for my example, get relieved from a very gloomy picture of God's mode of dealing with the Israelites, in requiring from them an obedience beyond their strength, and which can hardly be re- APPENDIX. 633 conciled with the gracious and authoritative assurance else- where given, that ' God is faithful, and will not suffer us to be tempted above that we are able to bear ;' and he will arrive at this gratifying result without any disrespect offered to the genuine portion of the sacred text, and without any attempt to alter a single letter of its original ingredients. The foregoing observations serve to place the very inge- nious emendation of l/DIH suggested by Hallet on a firmer basis than that upon which it has hitherto rested, and to vin- dicate Kennicott's adoption of it, notwithstanding the defect I have noticed in the argument by which he was led to take this step, and the circumstance of his being mistaken as to the original state of the specified group, in which he supposed it to have contained the second, though not the first, of the vowel-letters it at present displays. But to complete my ana- lysis of this example, I have one more difficulty to clear up, which is likely here to occur to an inquiring mind. It may very naturally be asked, If the group in question was ori- ginally, through want of vowel-letters, open to two modes of reading, and two translatians, how can it be imagined that the Seventy Jews and the Syriac interpreters (each of which sets of translators must have been far more familiar with the lan- guage and writing of the sacred text than any modern He- braist) should have failed to perceive the option within their reach ; or that, perceiving it, and acting, as they certainly did, quite independently of each other, they yet should have, both of them, made the wrong choice ? More especially, how is it to be supposed that the Syriac interpreters could have done so, when they have plainly shown, by their forced construc- tion of the clause containing this group, that they would have eagerly resorted to any other sense of it than the one they adopted, if such had been known to them ? To prepare the reader for my answer to these questions, I must request him to turn his attention to the first article of the fifth chapter of this volume, in which he will find it proved (by a comparison of the Jewish and Samaritan editions of the sacred text, in the case of 634 APPENDIX. words that have been vocalized in either edition, and passed over without any vocalization in the other), that Hebrew verbs ending in He did not formerly, as at present, drop that letter for certain plural inflexions ; and he can test the sound- ness of the proof there adduced by the application of it to a great number of cases. He will thus be enabled to perceive that, although the unvocalized group, 7^11, is now open to the two readings TuKeLu (ye can), and TeKaLlw (ye shall cease), yet it was not so originally, but was written 7^21 solely for the former reading and sense, and HyDJl, TeKaLleHw, for the latter. But, though the final letter of riv^n was not, before the vocalization of the text, omitted on account of the transi- tion of this inflexion from the singular to the plural number, yet it might have been lost through the oversight of a tran- scriber or his mistaking it for a paragogic He that he was at liberty to omit, of which mistake some instances have been given in the foregoing pages : and the circumstance of two sets of interpreters well skilled in the written language of the text adopting, both of them independently of each other, an erroneous meaning of the group in question shows, to a cer- tainty, that its terminating element actually was lost before the days of the older set, in consequence of which both parties were confined to that meaning. I should add that, subse- quently, the inserters of the matres lectionis in the Hebrew Bible were by the same cause placed under the very same re- striction ; for though they would, in the process of vocalizing this group, have erased ih^He if then contained in it, they could not have understood the verb thereby represented in the sense of ' ceasing,' unless they found that letter at its termination. In fine, the faulty group should, I submit, be written 1?^in, with a mark of censure over the vowel-letter erroneously in- serted ; and the analyzed clause should be translated, in an amended edition of our English version, " Ye shall not cease to serve the Lord." THE END. -mm M '^ ^x;Q flSV^ /'V? ^^^ m fi '-/^. ;h\*%-.^, '.r ^y\' A '^ ' *'* .r?!^ THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA UBRARY