REVIEW. The Holy Bible, with nearly twenty thousand Emendations. In proceeding to notice a few select passages of this emended translation, I feel it necessary to premise some remarks, in order to assign the point of view from which my strictures should be regarded. The editor of this Bible has been satisfied with adducing all his authorities in a mass, in the preface, without affording any clue, in the work itself, to the names by whose sanction any emendation has been made, and without even marking in the text the places in which he has departed from the Authorized Version. One consequence of this is, that any one of that large class of readers who merely know that the Authorized Version admits of correction, but who are altogether dependent on authority for the sanction of any change, may be induced to believe that any particular emendation, which startles him, has, nevertheless, numerous learned names as its sponsors. Another consequence, however, is, that it becomes utterly impossible for a reviewer to assert that any emendation has been made without authority (in the editor's sense of that term), unless he have access to all the three hundred vouchers, and have diligence enough to search the works of the ignoblest among them. It is, therefore, no less candid than prudent in me to disclaim in limine any pretension to having examined even a twelfth part of the authorities cited in the preface. One reason of this undoubtedly is, that I possess comparatively few even of those authors in this list whose names are known to me. A much more weighty reason, however, is, that I place the Hebrew text so far above all ancient versions, and so immeasurably above the authorities at whose suggestion the extensive interpolations and omissions of this edition have been perpetrated, that it would have been a violation of my first principle of criticism, and a gratuitous waste of time, if, in a case where I was persuaded that no valid authority was against the genuineness of the text, and where I was sure what the grammatical rendering of it was, I had suspended my judgment, until I had ascertained whether Bellamy or Hodge had not proposed an emendation by which the sense of the verse would be entirely altered. In accordance with this view of the paramount authority of the original text, I have first compared the emendation with it, regarding a departure from it as a violation of the first duties of a translator. Then I have consulted the ancient versions in Walton's Polyglott (except the Persian), and have noted what I deemed desirable for the occasion. Lastly, I have referred to a few commentators, who are named in their proper places. Thus it will be seen, that there are several acknowledged critical aids of which I have made no use at all; and thus my strictures do not, on the score of authority, lay claim to more weight than the intelligent reader is disposed to attach to a faithful adherence to the Hebrew text, to a philological justification of the rendering proposed, and to an appeal to versions and commentators few in number, but important in value. Another preliminary remark is, that the chief object of this notice is not to expose the manner in which the emendation of the Authorized Version is here converted into a licence for inserting and expunging words without the sanction of the Hebrew text; nor, to discuss the elements of all criticism, profane no less than sacred, which are here violated; nor, to reprobate as it ought the impropriety of sending forth a Bible with such tremendous changes as a popular edition. On all these subjects, far abler voices will, I trust, be raised to denounce the adding to, and taking from," that Word of Life which is no less the common possession than the common concern of us all. My principal aim is the humbler and much more congenial one of encouraging the philological study of the Hebrew language, as the foundation of all theological learning, by some striking examples of the consequences of its neglect, and by some attempted applications of its beneficial uses. 66 Gen. 2, ver. 4. "This is the origin of the heavens and of the earth, when they were created, on the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was on the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, &c." This rendering— which agrees with the LXX, the Vulgate, and the Latin Version of the Targum of Onkelos, produces a very difficult sense. Fortunately, however, a strict attention to the construction of the Original, shews that there are strong doubts against the correctness of this translation. First, that the words, "These are the generations, &c.," are a kind of superscription, or title, and apply to what follows, is evident from similar cases, as chap. 5, ver. 1; 10, ver. 1; and from the circumstance that the name of God (which had been Elohim throughout the first chapter down to this fourth verse of the second,) is here changed to Jehovah Elohim, which continues, with few exceptions, to the beginning of the fifth chapter. Then the question is, how far shall the title be considered to extend? Most German scholars say, only as far as the word "created:" the words, "In the day," being taken as the real beginning of the ensuing section. The chief argument in favour of this view is, that, by commencing with a statement of time (which is usual in Hebrew), we are enabled to account for the of the fifth verse, which would otherwise present a great anomaly. Whereas, by having the statement of time as the protasis, the Vau is then Vau consequutivum, and marks the apodosis; a force which may be distinctly felt, although not easily expressed. There is a precisely parallel construction in Gen. 3, ver. 5: "Because Elohim knows, that, in the day ye eat thereof, (and) your eyes will be opened." See Gen. 19, ver. 4; Jos. 2 ver. 8; and Ewald. § 613. There is, however, another inaccuracy in this rendering, and that arises from inadvertence to the construction of all with a negative. The rule is, that a negative with kol (when it means omnis), produces the sense of nullus. Ewald. § 576. Thus, Exod. 20, ver. 10: "the seventh day is the Sabbath, thou shalt not do every work," clearly means, thou shalt do no work; Matt. 24, ver. 22, "unless those days were shortened, ovx âv iσwen пãoa oάęk, all flesh would not be saved." Now, to apply this established rule to the passage before us: Every shrub was not yet, means, No shrub was yet (for is a negative, and means nondum). The whole, then, should be rendered: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth, in their being created: In the day that Jehovah Elohim made earth and heavens, no shrub of the field was yet on the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprouted; because Jehovah Elohim had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground, but a mist rose up from the earth and watered all the face of the ground: so Jehovah Elohim formed man (of) dust of the ground." This is not only in accordance with clear grammatical principles, but is, I think, the only intelligible rendering of the passage. It is no objection to it that the end of ver. 4 is thus carried on to ver. 5; for the Authorized Version takes the same license here; besides it is sometimes necessary. See Judges 11, ver. 40. In addition to the philological arguments adduced above, it is something to say that Ilgen, Rosenmüller, von Bohlen, and Tuch, sanction my rendering; and that the Syriac and Samaritan Versions, and the Targum of Onkelos, all treat "every shrub," as the subject of the preposition, and not as the object, (as the Authorized Version does), and, so far, are in my favour. Gen. 15, ver. 18. "Unto thy seed have I given this land, from Sehor, the river of Egypt, unto the great river, the river Euphrates." As the word Shichor (for so it should be written) is not found here in the Hebrew text, and as it is not read in any MS., according to de Rossi's Var. Lectt., nor in any ancient version, the motive and authority for its insertion can only be conjectured. The river (nahar) of Egypt is generally understood to mean the Nile. The torrent (nachal) of Egypt, which is frequently mentioned as the boundary of the land, (Num. 34, ver. 5,) is thought by many to be a mountainstream passing by Rhinocorura, now called Wadi el Arish, the Larissa of the Crusades (See Gesenius and Hitzig on Isai. 27, ver. 12). Now as several (e. g. Wells, in his Geogr. 1. 167,) have preferred taking the river of Egypt to be the Wadi el Arish, and not the Nile, alledging that the Jewish dominion never extended as far as the latter; it seemed probable, at first, that the editor of this Bible, desiring to avoid that difficulty, had inserted the word Shichor here, because he believed, from the terms in Josh. 13 ver. 4, (" Shichor which is before Egypt,") that it was the proper name of some stream to the east of Egypt, and not the Nile; in which opinion he would have been supported by Reland, p. 286. However, a statement in the index to this Bible, shews that that was not the motive of the change, for it is there said: "Nile (in Hebrew Sihor);" so the editor has designedly made this verse assign the Nile as the southwestern boundary of the land. Now, not only is the interpolation, in whichever sense intended, an unjustifiable liberty; but it is not such a clear point that the Shichor is the Nile, although in two of the four places in which it occurs, (Is. 23, ver. 3, Jer. 2, ver. 18,) it probably does bear that sense. A much less objectionable answer to the question: What is the Nile called in Hebrew? would be, The river (haïeor), which occurs repeatedly, which Iablonsky discovers to be the Egyptian name of it also, and which is never (but once, Dan. 12 ver 5,) used of any other river than the Nile. Gen. 16, ver. 13. "Thou God seest me." As long ago as the time of A. Pfeiffer, it was seen that the first roi here could not grammatically be taken as a participle, but as a noun: Deus visionis (See Dubia Vexata, ad loc.). That the latter rōi, may be, and almost certainly is, the same noun with a pausal pronunciation, may be seen in Ewald. § 131. The explanation in Rosenmüller's Scholia seems to give an excellent sense, and to be alone reconcilable with the present punctuation. Gen. 20, ver. 16. "I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver, to purchase veils for thee and for all that are with thee: thus she was reproved." It is impossible to mention, in this place, even the more respectable discordant versions and explanations of this verse. It may suffice to give as strict a translation of it as I can, and to state some reasons for the sense in which I take it. "I have given a thousand (pieces) of silver to thy brother; behold, it (is) for thee a covering of the eyes, for all that (is) with thee and with all; that thou have satisfaction (or: so she was vindicated)." First, with regard to the covering of the eyes, it has been taken to mean a veil, so that Abimelek intended to say: Hadst thou worn a veil, this evil could not have happened, as I should have known thee to be a married woman, by the veil! But it is difficult to assume that the veil was the sign of a wife, in the absence of direct evidence, and in opposition to Gen. 38, ver. 15, where it is said: "he thought her a harlot because she veiled her face." For these reasons, Gesenius and others take a covering of the eyes metaphorically, and appeal both to places in which derivatives of this same root are so used, (as, Ps. 33, ver. 1: 85, ver. 2); and to the frequent use of (kafar) in the same sense. To cover an offence, then, means, when said of the person offended, to overlook, to pardon it; when used of the offender, to remove it out of sight, to atone for it. Thus Jacob says, Gen. 32, ver. 20: "I will cover his face by the present," i. e. appease him. Now as Abimelek had committed a wrong against Sarah, the pieces of silver were, according to this view, a present to induce her to forgive the injury done her. Then the words, "for all that is (or, was,) with thee and with all," apply to all the injury done to her personally, and to that done to her attendants. Lastly, the concluding word might be, as to its form, the second person feminine, or the third feminine of the perfect (Ewald. § 287); or the feminine of the participle. I prefer, with Gesenius and Tuch, to take it as the second person, and as a continuation of Abimelek's words, especially on account of the Vau consequutivum : so that thou mayest be righted, in order that thou mayest have amends. For this sense of the verb, see Gesenius's Lexicon; and for a perfect syntactical parallel, see Gen. 30, ver. 15. Thus the verse seems to give a consistent sense, without any violence to the language, or to the Hebrew modes of thought. Gen. 37, ver. 9. "Moon and the eleven stars." The article is not used here in the Hebrew, nor in any ancient version. No notions of grammar or of reason could justify its use here, |