be taken as a pronoun in the present case, it must refer to a substantive understood, and siguify" after the time that ;" and of consequence cannot apply in the case to which the learned Hebraist would accommodate it. Mr. B. is very diffuse upon the Calf made by Aaron, and talks in his usual style of the English translation of

whence he says I have copied it. The truth is, I have not said one word respecting the passage-he is therefore defending a post which I have not attacked, while he entirely overlooks the force of Jerem. xiii. 10. “After other gods to serve THEM;" or, according to Mr. B.'s improved version, "After THAT other God to serve THEM." I could be severe upon Mr. B.'s Calves, but I will spare him, lest he should think that I contend for victory rather than truth.

Another instance of candor occurs in Mr. B.'s paper: p. 234, he says, "It may be necessary to take a little notice of what this writer has said on I. Sam. xxviii. 13. where he tells us again that is

Deos vidi אלהים ראיתי עלים construed with the participle plural

ascendentes, I have seen gods ascending, as it stands in the translations. But the Vulgate, Jerome, and the English Translation, are no authority for such rendering, &c." He then speaks of Kennicott and De Rossi in his usual manner; he says that with them I will always be stumbling over difficulties if I consider D' to form the plural, that "Onkelos and Jonathan, who wrote when the Hebrew was a living language, who were the great grammarians, the Johnsons of that day, were decided as to this matter, and always in strict conformity with ancient custom, understood that D was a noun singular, &c. But Onkelos must, according to Mr. H. be altogether ignorant of this word, for he says he does not take Jonathan as authority."-The learned will determine whether when joined with Dy is not properly rendered in the plural, and whether the translators of the Bible into the old Italic, Jerome, the corrector of that ancient version, and the English translators, were not better judges than Mr. B. The labors of Kennicott and De Rossi will always be highly prized by scholars, while those of Mr. B. can only be saved from oblivion by having obtained a place in the Classical Journal; a Gentleman who tells us that "Onkelos and Jonathan wrote while the Hebrew was a living language!" For what purpose then did they write? Did they live before the Babylonish captivity? How correct must his information be, who informs his readers that "Mr. H. considers ONKELOS altogether ignorant of the true meaning of Elohim, for he says he does not take JONATHAN as authority!" Mr. B.'s warmth renders him unjust; I have not said that "Jonathan and Kimchi are no authority;" but only that I do not take them as authority in a particular case, and I have given my reason, which is, that they do not translate the word in question, but give what they conceived to be the meaning of the woman of Endor; and indeed if Mr. B. would give himself time to think, he might easily perceive that the one cannot be taken, as authority without rejecting the other, for Kimchi expounds DTN by 72 DTN adam gadol, a great man,' and Jonathan by an angel of the Lord.' Will Mr. B. contend for the correctness of both these expositions, given

by the Johnsons of the age? Will he show your readers how they can be taken as authority in the question ?—I contend that Elohim must be construed as a plural noun in this passage; and the LXX. are on my side as well as "the Vulgate, Jerome, and the English translation." In what manner soever Saul's address is expressed, or the woman's reply made, my position is not at all affected by either the one or the other. The idolatrous woman might express herself in the manner of others of her fraternity and say "the Gods," meaning the Genii, the Gods of the Cabiri, &c. and Saul in his trepidation might reply as if she had spoken only of one person, and the woman might carry on the subsequent part of the discourse in a manner agreeable to the sense in which the King had understood her.

I asked in No. X. p. 250. what authority Mr. B. had for translating in Gen. xxxv. 7. before him. Mr. B. says, "This is a trifling question, but it is another proof that the customary use of Hebrew words has not been studied by this writer. Otherwise he would have known that when one person makes his appearance before, or goes to, another to communicate with him, it is understood that he

c." My trifing question& פנים אל פנים speaks to him face to face

leads Mr. B. to make a number of quotations, not at all to the point, for instance, I Kings xviii. 30. "And Elijah said unto all the people, come near unto me, and all the people came near N BEFORE HIM." I ask Mr. B. how he has happened to apply his critical canon so imperfectly in this verse? Surely if signifies unto me, in the first clause,

must signify unto him in the latter. Have the masoretic points lost their authority with him? Must I be ignorant because I would, in this instance, abide by Mr. B.'s critical canon?

All the people could not come before Elijah; nor did he require them; they were to draw near to him that they might witness his preparations for sacrifice, surround the altar, and know that Jehovah was the only God; and that he would answer by fire from Heaven; nor can there be any doubt that many of the people were behind him during the time that he called upon God. None of the other passages can be applied to answer Mr. B.'s purpose, for in all of them, except Gen. xii. 15. the expression is not , but, and it would be no difficult task to prove, that signifies 'unto' in them all: nor does it mean 'BEFORE,' Gen. xii. 15. in Mr. B.'s sense, for the meaning of the passage is, the officers of Pharoah praised Sarai in his hearing: can Mr. B. tell whether these officers stood before Pharoah's chair or behind it?

But Mr. B. says, "What is worse than all this, Mr. H. says, 'supposing to come from fortitudo, virtus;' surely it was his business to have informed himself before he turned critic, that Da does not come from nor from any root in the Hebrew, Arabic, or from any root whatever in any other language." This is very positive language, but quite in Mr. B.'s style. One would think his declarations were axioms, for when he makes them, he belabors all those who differ from him with so many polite allusions to their ignorance, presumption, &c. that we must consider him as a man that supposes

all wisdom locked up in himself. In fine, his misfortune is to raise so much dust, that when he attempts any thing like an argument, he generally loses sight of what he aimed at, and instead of wounding his adversary, mangles himself. I shall only observe on this part of my paper, which in Mr. B.'s estimation, is worse than all the rest, that Cocceius derives it from Juravit, &c. and that even Jonathan, Aben Ezra, Moses Gerundensis and others, "The Johnsons of their day," have touched upon the derivation of the Divine Nanies,and

How my .היה to be derived from אהיה and יהוה consider even

venturing such a supposition as that Elohim might be derived from

disqualifies me from criticising Mr. B.'s notions, remains to be shown. I shall here take my leave of Mr. B. assuring him that I will never again treat him roughly; it would indeed be inexcusable in me, considering "how gently he has used me!" As I have nearly exhausted my paper, I shall only add a few words to another of your correspondents who signs himself M., in which I hope Mr. B. will perceive that I know as well how to acknowledge an error, as to maintain what I conceive to be truth. I beg that M. will receive my sincere thanks for the convincing, yet unoffending manner in which he has pointed out my mistake in p. 68. No. XIII. of the Classical Journal, in which I had said, "that if all the various lections in the O. Test. collected by Kennicott, De Rossi, &c. and those in the N. Test. collected by Mill, Wetstein, Griesbach, &c. remained scattered in the various codices whence they gathered them, nothing which materially affects either our faith or our practice would have remained in the textus receptus, which ought to be expunged, or have been wanting, which ought to have been supplied." I do not hesitate to acknowledge my error, and have only to add, that my intention was to congratulate the unlearned Christian on the possession of the English Version, in which I believe he will find every thing necessary for his direction, both in faith and practice. I had however perceived my error before M. pointed it out to me; yet whenever I mistake, I shall be happy to be corrected by a hand so gentle as his. Finally, let me acknowledge that there is a roughness in my manner, which may perhaps make me appear to entertain personal disrespect to those with whom I contend: if any of my expressions should appear in this light to Dr. A. Clarke, Dr. G. S. Clarke, or Sir W. Drummond, I hope they will excuse an ill habit, which I shall endeavour to correct in any future correspondence I may have with you. Mr. B.'s paper has done much towards effecting my cure.

Newcastle on Tyne, Sept. 15, 1813.

W. A. HAILS.

ON THE DIACRITICAL POINTS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL.

IN No. XV. of the Classical Journal you favored me with the insertion of an article, proposing for consideration a new and improved edition of the Hebrew Bible; an edition with the diacritical Hebrew points, addressed to your learned correspondents. On a review of my paper on the subject, to which I refer your readers, p. 114. I further call on your correspondents to consider the claims of the proposition altogether, and whether such an edition of the Hebrew text would not be importantly calculated to secure the reading of the sacred text in numberless instances where the unpointed text is, or may be, subject to doubtful and obscure interpretation.

My argument is, Sir, that the diacritical points severally denominated by the grammarians, Dagesh, and Holem, likewise Kibbutz, and Hirek are the essential points, and serve many useful purposes in the reading and interpretation of the text. I have already exhibited a specimen with examples of their use. The point Dugesh, which stands in the body of certain letters, greatly helps in the reading, where it marks the conjugation of verbs: and Holem is frequently the substituted point for an absent Vaw, as Kibbutz is for Shurek, and Hirek for Jod. I have noticed that the Hebrew text would suffer no innovation by the adoption of the points above described, as they are already extant in all the pointed editions; so that nothing of change or novelty could be introduced. It should be considered, that such an edition of the Hebrew Bible here proposed, is not without precedent in other ancient and oriental languages: and that, although there are editions of the Sacred Books in Arabic and Syriac, with the intire punctuation, which obtains in those languages respectively; and also editions without the points; yet it should be particularly noticed in relation to my proposition, that there are also editions of the Scriptures with the Diacritical points only, in those languages; and why not the same in Hebrew? With respect to those Syriac copies of Scripture, which I have seen and examined, I can safely say, that the most of them but partially adopt the points; others altogether omit them; and some observe only the diacritical sort the printed copies are not uniform, and in all things the same respecting the points. In regard to the Arabic, I shall only instance the Arabic version of the New Testament printed some time ago at the munificent charge of the Society for promoting

Christian Knowledge, of which there was a large impression for the use of the Oriental Christians in the Turkish dominions; this edition was printed with the diacritical points, and those only.

In the year 1750, a very elegant edition of the Hebrew Bible was printed at Oxford in quarto, under the care of the Rev. J. Forster, without the points. It were to be wished that that University would accommodate the Christian public with a similar elegant edition, but, (if recommended by the learned in Hebrew,) with the diacritical points: such an edition would, in my humble opinion, be very acceptable, and importantly advantageous, to sacred literature. With respect to the text of this new edition, I would advise that to be done which has been already done; and that rule followed which has been followed in the printing of former editions, and which has been the practice in printing the Greek text of the Old and New Testament, namely, such partial revision as the most esteemed editions authorise, and which stands confirmed by the best approved MSS.

It is a case beyond dispute, that the first printed Hebrew Bibles were not the most correct, or else they would have been uniformly copied, without alteration, and edition would have succeeded edition, always giving the same text. But the text of the first Hebrew Bible, printed at Socino 1488, compared with the text of Vander-Hooght, produces 12,000 various readings, as reported by the collator. Therefore we hope the conclusion true, that every successive edition has as much as possible improved upon the former; and through the united labors of so many learned printers and editors, Jews and Christians, the text has been thus far correctly printed. Although it is not yet minutely perfect, if the various readings be admitted, yet, as I shall now explain, many thousands of those called various readings consist in nothing more than in a well known rule of writing and reading among the ancient scribes.

The critic, who is at all acquainted with collations of the Hebrew text, well knows, that by far the greater number of various readings consists in the full and abbreviated form of the same word, and that the words, in which the greater number of variations are found in different MSS. and printed copies, are those which omit or insert a Vaw or Jod letter. Thus the word, which is the same in sound and sense as niin, is called in the language of the scribes, on i. e. deficient because of the absence of the Vaw; but the same word written full and complete nii, is called , i. e. full. Thus, although the same words are differently written, that is to say, in the perfect and abbreviated form, yet they are both pronounced and interpreted the same, meoroth, lights, or luminaries, from ND. In the same manner the name of David is variously written, TT, and TT, with, and with