:)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