and the disciples of Mahomet. It was cemented by their common hatred of the Christians, and subsisted till their common expulsion. This is one of the most brilliant epochas of Jewish literature, from the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. Even in the darkest ages of their history, they cultivated their language with assiduity, and were never without skilful grammarians, or subtle interpreters of Holy Writ. But, speaking generally, it was only during their union with the Saracens in Spain, and in the flourishing ages of the Caliphs of Bagdad, that they ventured into general literature, or used in their writings, a foreign, and consequently in their conceptions, a profane language.

In the literature of the Jews, the Targums fill a considerable space. They are paraphrases, which at different times, and by different hands, have been made in the Chaldaic language, of all the Hebrew parts of the Old Testament. They have various degrees of merit. What is called the Targum of Onkelos is confined to the Pentateuch, and is far better executed than any of the others. There are strong grounds for supposing that all the Targums are subsequent to the Version of the Seventy."

NAAMAN THE SYRIAN,

WORSHIPPING IN THE HOUSE OF RIMMON.

2 Kings, v. 15 to 19.

And he (Naaman) returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came and stood before him: And he said, behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth but in Israel; now, therefore, I pray thee, take a blessing of thy servant. But he said, as JEHOVAH liveth, before whom I stand, I will receive none. And he urged him to take it but he refused. And Naaman said, shall there not then, I pray thee, be given to thy servant two mules' burden of earth? For thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice unto other Gods, but unto JEHOVAH. In this thing JEHOVAH pardon thy servant, that when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house

of Rimmon; when I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon, JEHOVAH pardon thy servant in this thing. And he said unto him, go in peace.

These words have given occasion to much controversy in the church; our common English translation rendering the words of Naaman, captain of the host of the king of Asyria, in the present tense, as to grammatical form, but with a future or prospective meaning, that is as requesting indulgence in his complying with the religious rites of his country, in bowing down when accompanying his master, who leaned upon his hand in the act of worship, in the house of Rimmon; whilst others are offended at the idea, that Naaman or the prophet, should connive at any degree of compliance with idolatrous rites under any circumstances or pretence whatever.

Our English translation is frequently censured for erroneous renderings of the original, by individuals holding religious opinions different from those very venerable translators. The objectors sometimes have discovered blemishes, and very often have substituted worse renderings, whilst they supposed they had detected errors. Whoever has taken the pains to search the original, and maturely considered this translation, will frequently find that with all its faults, it is the fruit of extensive learning, and deep consideration. I have often had occasion to admire the careful investigation of the context and parallel places, upon which the translations of particular passages are founded. It is very true they performed their work under the influence (a very powerful one to be sure) of particular doctrines, and knew little, if any thing, of the spiritual sense of the WORD. This has been the occasion of many aberrations from the true meaning of the original; but making allowance for these sources of error, the English portion of the Christian Church has great reason to thank the Divine Providence for this inestimable treasure. It will be difficult for any member of the Old Church to amend this translation. The New Church stands on a different footing, and I trust the day will come, when this Church will produce a translation universally acceptable. Two guides are indispensably necessary to the perfection of such a work. 1st. A complete knowledge of the Hebrew language and its peculiar grammatical structure. 2dly. Sound doctrine. The first is the footpath, the second the lamp which enlightens that

path, when in itself obscure. For the first we should pay great respect to those, to whom, as says the Great Apostle of the Gentiles, were committed the oracles of God, among whom, even to the present day, the original, if not a living language, is, at least, as from the beginning it has been, the constant language of their public and private worship, and whose miraculous veneration for the sacred deposit is such, as not to permit an alteration in size, form, or position, of a letter or point, for any opinion of their own as to what is, or may be its meaning. In this scrupulosity it is melancholy to say they have few imitators among Christians. For the attainment of the second, that is, sound doctrine, a comprehensive view of the whole WORD collectively, a modest submission to its teachings, however it may be opposed by the false light of self-derived intelligence, a charity sufficiently ample to embrace the whole rational creation, and a belief in and a knowledge of the Spiritual Sense, must be combined. Especially we should know that "the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life," that "the words the LORD speaketh are spirit and are life," and remember that whilst we view the letter with holy veneration, yet as "ministers, not of the letter but of the spirit," it is our duty to look through the covering to its higher and interior contents. Who does not endeavour to draw over the letter to favour his peculiar views, and how often does the Christian commentator, not content with interpreting, use both ends of the Stylus,* to make the sacred WORD administer to his own opinions ?

It is remarkable that our common English translation of the passage under investigation, is supported by the Chaldee paraphrase of Jonathan, the Septuagint, and the Vulgate, and by the best Hebrew scholars, both Jewish and Christian. See Com. of Rabbi Sol.Yerchi, ad locum, Calasio's and Buxtorf's Concordances, Guarin's Heb. Gr. 1 v. p. 304, Arias Montanus, Pagninus, Luther, the Massoráh, and others. In Walton's Polyglot we have a Latin interlineary version of the Hebrew, and a Latin translation of the Septuagint, the Chaldee paraphrase, the Syriac, and the Arabic version. In all these Latin translations the words of

The Stylus was an instrument used by the ancients in writing upon tablets of wax. It had a broad end with which they erased when necessary, and a pointed end with which they wrote.

the 18th verse, are in conformity with our common translation. Rabbi Solomon Yerchi in commenting upon the passage, says, Naaman asks forgiveness for the act as done unwillingly, or by constraint. In the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, we have the word rendered in Chaldee 10 and “I shall bow down myself," in the first person singular of the future. To his opinion as to the grammatical construction of the language, the greatest respect is to be paid.*

It is perfectly true the Hebrew words which are translated "he leaneth upon my hand and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon," are put in what is commonly called by Hebrew Grammarians the past tense; but both these verbs are preceded by the particle Waf which has the remarkable quality of converting what without it, would be a past tense, into the future, and a future into the past. This idiomatic characteristic of the Hebrew language, is as well known and as universally, as the most simple and common rule of syntax in any language. To dispute it is as vain as it would be to dispute the common rule that the verb agrees with its nominative in number and person. We cannot open a page in the Hebrew Bible without meeting with the application of the rule in numerous instances. For example, Gen. i. S. "And God said," "There was light." v. 4. " God divided.” All these verbs in the original are in what has been called the future. So throughout the chapter, and from one end of the Bible to the other similar instances are to be found. To enumerate them would be as endless as to count the occurrences of the articles a and the, in the same book. It is in fact a common and

* This Targum of Jonathan, was a Chaldee paraphrase, made for the use of the Jews, and is of the highest authority. The author is said by the Jews to have been the most eminent. of eighty highly celebrated scholars, bred by the great Hillel. He is said to have flourished one hundred years before the destruction of the second temple, and of course lived before the birth of Christ. His paraphrase is in the highest veneration among the Jews, who say of him that during the hours he was occupied in the study of the law, (the Pentateuch) every bird that flew over him was burnt, and that if any fly happened to light upon his paper whilst he was writing this Targum, they were immediately burnt up by fire from heaven, without hurt to the paper. Although we are not called upon as Christians to believe all this, yet it is enough to shew that he must have been perfectly well acquainted with the grammatical construction of the language of his nation.

uniform mode of expressing the past time. The adverb of time az, signifying then, has sometimes the same effect. Ex. xv. 1. "Then sang Moses," is future. Deut. iv. 41. " Then Moses severed," is future. The very words of the prophet in the 19th verse of the passage under examination are future," and he shall say (not said) go in peace."

On the other hand Waf converts the preterite to a future. Take these few remarkable instances. Ex. xii. 23, 24. " For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite. And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever." All the verbs in italics, are in the original Hebrew in what is called the past tense, yet are plainly to be understood as future, particularly the words," and ye shall observe." To render these last by the past tense in English," and ye have observed this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever," would be the highest absurdity. Deut. xxvii. 10. "Thou shalt therefore hear* the voice of JEHOVAH thy God and do his commandments.” These words are in the past tense. Professor Wilson of Aberdeen, Heb. Gr. p. 281, whilst he states the rule, says, "this promiscuous use of the preterite and future, appear to me very inexplicable. After all my research I have found no satisfactory account of it." Michaelis in his Supplem. ad Lexica Hebraica Lit. 1 p. 575-6-7, (a passage too long for insertion here) endeavours to account for the principles upon which it is founded, and besides observing that the effect of waf is to convert the tense, he says it also alters the tone, or places the syllabic emphasis on a different part of the word, as l'eyomár, he will say, Vayyómer, he said, Katáltha, thou hast killed, Katalthá, thou wilt kill. (We have a similar mode in English in some instances of distinguishing the verb from the substantive, as, protést, and prótest.) Michaelis further says, that in consequence of changing the accent, it alters the vowel, as Weyēlē'ch, and he will go, Wǎyyelěch, he went. A similar conversion of the future into the past, obtains in the Arabic, still a living language. Michaelis in the same place, and in his Arabic Gram. p. 131, remarks, that the

1

* In our English translation, "obey,"