deny this, we acknowledge the propable existence of two distinct Editions at least. To the abstract principle contained in this reasoning, borrowed from Griesbach, I readily and unreservedly subscribe; but in the present case can by no means admit its practical result. The question turns not upon what Editions may, but upon what actually do, exist. In order to detect different Editions of the text, let us hear the rule of Griesbach himself: Attendendum est præcipue ad lectiones insigniores atque graviores, h. e. eas, quæ vel sensum mutant, vel glossematibus constant exquisitis, vel e vulgaribus lectionum variantium causis (e. gr. literarum aut soni similitudine, &c.) derivari nequeant, vel omittendo (nisi quoréλSUTOV omissioni occasionem præbuerit) addendove a lectione recepta discedunt. Again; Ut aliam recensionem inesse statuamus codici A, aliam codici B, nocesse est non solum ut discrepantiæ occurrunt satis frequentes, per textum universum diffusæ, verum etiam, ut ratio discrepantiæ universæ reddi nequeat e librarii sive negligentia sive imperitia, aliisque vulgaribus lectionum dissonantium causis.* Now before it be presumed, that an Edition of the Old Testament different from the Masoretical either does exist, or ever has existed, it is requisite, that the more remarkable and important variations in the readings of some other text be distinctly pointed out. This however, if we except the vain undertaking of drawing pure water from what Eichorn terms the muddy ditch of the Septuagint, has been never yet effected. Every version therefore, upon which reliance can be placed, and every Manuscript extant, must be referred to one and the same Edition, the Masoretical. The utmost to be presumed is, that they may belong to different families of this one Edition; but no attempt even at such subordinate classification, from the perplexity perhaps, and inferior utility of the task, has ever been made.

Cura in Hist. Test. Gr. Epist. Paulin. p. 52, 35.

The result then of the whole is this; that the antiquity of the received Hebrew text may be clearly carried up to the first century of the Christian æra. For the sake of argument however, instead of dating the certain existence of it seventeen centuries back, let us date it only thirteen ; and fix its origin at the very commencement of the sixth century, when we are told, that the characters of vowels and accents were originally invented. Will it even then follow, that any other text can be referred to, as occurring either in versions or in manuscripts, at all to be compared with it? Certainly not? for the versions as I have remarkcd are themselves of the same Edition; and every manuscript in existence must be contemplated as a mere individual of some particular family derived from it.

The Masoretical text therefore as distinguished by vowels and accents, although not of inspired, is nevertheless of very high authority. It is incontrovertibly at least thirteen centuries old; and furnishes us with a reading of inestimable value, not only on account of its own intrinsic excellence and antiquity, but also on account of the traditional character with which it is invested. Whether we consider its vowel readings, as substitutions for some other more ancient and more simple readings of a similar description, or as substitutions for the mere use of the Matres Lectionis, still must we regard them as readings universally respected at a period long anterior to the date of our oldest Manuscripts. Yet these are the readings, which many modern translators, particularly in our own country, have despised and derided; conceiving, as one of the last but not least celebrated of their number sarcastically remarks, that his critical judgment must be weak indeed, who is not qualified to revise and reverse the decisions of the wise men of Tiberias. 99

We know that the Greek of the New Testament was

* Bishop Horsley, Preface to Hosea.

originally written without pauses to regulate the sense, and without any distinction of words. But were it possible for us to possess an early copy of it, or the transcript of an early copy, with every deficiency of the kind alluded to fully supplied by persons abundantly competent to the task, should we not esteem it a treasure of the first critical importance? Now we possess such an early copy of the Old Testament in the Masoretical pointing of the text, which not only distinguishes between one word and another, as well as between one sentence and another, but between words connected together in the same sentence; and what is more, gives a determinate sense to the words themselves, the meaning of which would be otherwise vague and uncertain. Nor should it be forgotten, that the vowels and accents, by the combined operation of which so clear and steady a light is thrown over every part of the text, are not only themselves of very high, but likewise emanate from traditional readings of still higher, antiquity. Is it possible, that any critic, who gives himself a moment's time for reflexion, and who is not altogether overrun with self-conceit, can persist in exhibiting so egregious a want of judgment as to despise, and so consummate a proof of folly as to deride, readings of this description.

CHAP. VII.

Theory of elucidating Hebrew by the cognate dialects, particularly by the Arabic. Extract from Schultens, in exemplification of this theory. The verb. More ingenuity of investigation, than solidity of reasoning in it. Languages derived from the same source do not always use the same word in the same sense. The derivative sense more likely to

occur in the more modern, and the primitive in the most ancient languages. Position, that the Hebrew tongue may be greatly illustrated by the study of the dialects, contains some theoretical truth with much practical uncertainty. Difficulty of the illustration. Signification of words in a constant state of fluctuation. Improvement in criticism often brings increase in perplexity. Oriental languages built upon the same foundation are sometimes composed of different materials. Hebrew and Syriac. Restrictions prescribed by Baver. Lexicons improved only in Etymological investigations. A translator not to be led astray by ingenious conceits, and Theoretical novelties.

HAVING endeavoured to point out in detail the futility of their reasoning, who contend for the necessity of a new tranalation from a presumption, that the received Hebrew text has been rendered infinitely more correct than at the period of the last translation, which was taken from it, by the very improved state of modern criticism; and to demonstrate that the received text is not only the best, but the most ancient and authoritative, which can be adopted, I shall now briefly consider another part of their reasoning, in pursuit of the same object, grounded upon the supposed advantages, which a translator of the Bible would now possess in consequence of the great illustration, which the Hebrew language has received from a more extended cultivation of oriental literature. The former ar

gument relates to the emendation of the text itself, the latter to the explanation of the words, of which that text is composed.

It has long been conceived that the Hebrew language is capable of very considerable elucidation by what we usually denominate the sister dialects, that is, by other languages of the same origin, particularly by the Syriac, Chaldee, and Arabic. This has been a favourite topic with the admirers of Schultens, who, possessing a deep and accurate knowledge of Arabic, zealously laboured to demonstrate how greatly that language was capable of illustrating Hebrew, in his "Origines Hebrææ; sive Hebrææ linguæ antiquissima natura, et indoles ex Arabiæ penetralibus revocata," as well as in his "De Defectibus hodiernis Lingua Hebrææ," and in the controversy which succeeded them. There is doubtless much ingenuity and recondite investigation displayed by this able Scholar upon a subject, where imagination is ever ready to seize the reins of reason; a subject, which few besides himself could so systematically expand or so lavishly adorn; but it seems carried to an extreme, and frequently fails of producing substantial fruit by being too theoretical and refined for practical utility. Indeed his whole hypothesis is framed upon the anvil of those philosophical lexicographers of Arabia, who, persuaded that the materials of their own language were inexhaustible, fabricated with no vulgar vanity their intricate links of combined significations from what they conceived to be the profundity of its principles, and the subtilty of its construction.

As a specimen of the mode of elucidation adopted by Schultens, I shall give in his own language a few extracts from his critical disquisition upon the Hebrew word, which in his tract "De Defectibus hodiernis Ling. Heb. occupies more than four quarto pages; referring the reader for fuller information to the tract itself. Arabice J quod declaratur per

Ordior a,

incrementum