versions evidently contradict each other: the original words are printed

פ ולא מרז דברו

It would, I think, be of no moment to consider how the translators came thus to differ; the reader may see it by consulting the critics :* I do not find any good way proposed for bringing them to an agreement. Both the versions cannot be true; and it is therefore possible that neither may. I would hereupon enquire, whether what we make two words, and read loa maru, were not originally written in one word as, to be read leæmoru, the literal translation of the verse to be thus; He sent darkness and made it dark, and by his speaking his word.* In this correction we do not alter a letter: we only suppose what are now read in two

The word is printed in the text 12, but the marginal reference tells us it should be 127.

Vide Poli Synops. in loc.

Neither is this emendation authorised by any of the collations, already referred to. EDIT.

words to be really but one, and we vowel the words to sound their syllables but very little differently in the one case or the other. But the fact alluded to being, that God said unto Moses, stretch out thine hand toward heaven, that there may be darkness over the land of Egypt-and Moses stretched forth his hand toward heaven, and there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt.* And the intention of the Psalmist being to ascribe these miracles most expressly to the word of God: He spake, says he, and there came divers sorts of flies, and lice in all their coasts. Again, He spake, and the locusts came, &c.; both the manner of the Psalmist, and the clear meaning of the place, seem to lead us to the reading for which I am enquiring.

I am sensible that some very pious English readers may hastily take offence at every liberty of this sort; and will be ready

1. We read on. We must punctuate the

.לא מרו

.לאמרו לא מרו words instead of

*Exod. x. 21, 22.

Psal. cv. 31, 34..

to ask; May not a pretender to learning, at this rate, make what he will of our bible? I answer, not at all; and may give a very plain view, as it were, of the whole of this matter. Suppose our English tongue had been originally written like the Hebrew, without inserting the vowels, which give us the sound of the syllables. Let us consider the following paragraph, he that taketh heed to the commandment offereth a peace offering." It may be seen, that if these words were to be written without vowels, the words peace-offering might be thus characterized, pcffrng. Suppose, through some early mistake of transcribing, all printed copies had both divided erroneously these letters into words, and had not put the proper vowels under their respective letters; suppose letters which make one word, had the vow

ie e

the

els, being ie e, put under them, as I have marked them; ie to be read between p and e, and e after c, a letter final; so as to read this word piece. Suppose the first ƒ was taken to be

a word by itself, and o put under it, to read it of; suppose were vowelled, as I have

fr ng

underlined them; i to be sounded after r, e to be the final letter, the word to be thus read, fringe; would any one rest satisfied to read the sentence, he that taketh heed to the commandment, offereth a piece of fringe? and should any one shew, that of is, with the following letters, but one word, and that the letters might be so vowelled, as to read pc f fr ng, a peace offering; would not the clear sense of the place vindicate this to be the true reading, and evince that the other, of what date soever, and how much soever followed, must be an error? And would any reasonable man be ready to think of him, who should offer so expressive an emendation, that it might be dangerous, lest he should make the English tongue speak whatever he had a mind to, and not its certain and true meaning? I do not intend to insinuate that the case I have put exactly resembles either of our translations of the Psalmist, above cited: it certainly does not, neither of our translations being in them

selves absurd. And the Hebrew tongue is not so various in its number of words, so far similar, that such instances can occur in it, as may be in our English, if so written. But, although in the Hebrew the vowels put under the words in points, may be necessary to pronunciation, to teach or remind us to give the word such syllables, and each syllable such sound; as the points put under them direct; yet, as such points were not originally in the sacred pages; so neither are they necessary for any one who tolerably understands the language, to ascertain the true meaning of a text. For, if a word happen to be wrong punctuated, it may mislead him; and, if it be not punctu ated at all, the letters of the word, and the context, will better direct him to see the true meaning of the text, without any false bias to divert him from it.

The talking of various readings, transpo

See what the very learned Dean Prideaux has written at large upon this subject, Connect. part i. book v.