combine not only to render necessary the adoption of new words, but to impose other significations upon those which are already in use, and frequently produce a complete change in their forms and constructions. The primary imports of many become in time obsolete, and are superseded by meanings of extraneous origin and connexion; some assume metaphorical senses by the most perplexing analogies; and others are even perverted by the caprice of custom into senses diametrically opposite to those, by which they were before distinguished. Were we better acquainted, than we are, with modern Greek, we might perhaps be enabled to throw occasional light upon some obscure passages in the Greek writers of antiquity; but the attempt would require no little discrimination, and would scarcely be deemed the province of a translator, who ought not to transgress the bounds of sober criticism by wandering into the wilds of abstract reasoning and philosophical theory. Surely therefore we cannot presume, that less circumspection, and less control over the blandishments of fancy, are requisite in translating the language of the Bible, than in translating that of a mere classical author.

The difficulties, which at every turn surround the path of him, who, while engaged in the task of translation, is disposed to traverse the wide field of philosophical refinement, and conjectural speculation, are innumerable. When therefore we extol the improvement which Hebrew criticism has received, from a more extended cultivation of the oriental languages, in modern times, we are apt to forget, that improvement in criticism too often brings with it increase in perplexity; and that if we embark upon the ocean of conjecture, no little resolution, as well as discrimination, is requisite to prevent a perpetual deviation from our track, under the influence of respectable names and plausible authorities.

But the obstacles in the way of elucidation by the kindred languages appear still more formidable, when it is

considered, that although they are all built upon the same foundation as the Hebrew, yet the superstructure of each is not only in many instances differently arranged, but sometimes composed of very different materials. Schultens indeed contends that they do not vary from each other more than the Greek dialects vary; and therefore represents them as mere dialects of one and the same common language. Were we however to admit, that this was probably the case when the Bible was written, would it follow that the flux of time had not considerably changed them? But in truth evidence remains on record to prove, that Hebrew, and Syriac at least exhibited radical differences previously to the days of Moses. When Laban and Jacob erected a pillar in witness of the covenant existing between them, Jacob we are told called it, that is, the heap of testimony, or the testifying heap. Now the words

*

heap and testimony, which constitute the denomi nation, are peculiar to the Hebrew tongue, and are not found in Syriac. Neither is this all; for we are expressly informed that Laban was a Syrian, and that he called it . Now these, words, which convey pre

יגר שהודתא

cisely the same meaning as 7, are altogether unknown in pure Hebrew; but are of frequent recurrence both in Syriac and Chaldee, and that without the slightest alteration either of form or of sense. The first of the two indeed,, is not found in Arabic; but the latter occurs in that language also. When I remark that these words are altogether unknown in pure Hebrew, I mean only in the same senses as they bear in Syriac and Chaldee; for ' as a verb occurs it is true in Hebrew, but with a very dif ferent signification, meaning to fear. And it is singular, that, from which it might perhaps be supposed that

' with a change of the first radical into was derived, signifies indeed in Hebrew to collect; but that in Syriac,

* Genesis xxxi. 47.

Chaldee, and Arabic it signifies to hire, as a verb, and reward as a substantive; meanings in no respect compatible with the supposed derivation. Upon the whole therefore may we not conclude, that something more than a mere difference of dialect, that an essential difference in the signification of words, existed, not only when the Bible was composed, but at an æra long anterior to that, in which Moses lived, confessedly the most ancient of the sacred historians and prophets?

But were we even to admit the validity of this ingenious hypothesis in all its parts, still must no inconsiderable difficulties oppose the practicability of its application. I will here briefly enumerate the restrictions and rules, which Baver prescribes to the adventurous critic, who embarks on this hazardous voyage of philological discovery. I. Prima lex: Non una solummodo, sed omnes dialecti orientales simul adhibendæ sunt in illustranda dialecto Hebraica, quatenus fieri poterit. Under this head he censures Schultens for giving his sole attention to Arabic, and Ludolf to Ethiopic. II. Lex secunda: Non tam e lexicis quam e lectione scriptorum Arabicorum, Syrorum, Chaldaicorum, &c. ipsa, usum loquendi discant, qui Hebraicis inde lucem affundere cupiunt. III. Lex tertia: Accuratam cognitionem mutationum habeas, quas elementa literarum patiuntur. IV. Lex quarta: Caveant sibi a mere arbitraria permutatione et metathesi literarum. V. Lex quinta: In usu dialectorum modum non excedant. Hoc autem fit, quando verbo Hebraico centies, imo millies in cod. sacr. V. T. repetito, quod certam et indubitatam significationem, et ubivis quidem, ubi recurrit, eandem habet, aliam ex dialectis vim quærunt et, hanc alienam in locum illius receptæ et vulgaris substituunt. VI. Lex sexta Radicibus non significationes affingant, quas non per se, sed tantum in contexta oratione tropice aut aliis vocibus conjunctæ habet. These maxims he exemplifies by various remarks upon writers of reputation, who ap

pear to have transgressed against the sober rules of criticism; and concludes with the following words: Et sic innumera exempla colligi possunt, quæ testantur, themata Arabica male intellecta et solummodo e lexicis sine prævio examine corrasa ad illustranda Hebraica successu parum felici adhibita fuisse. Itaque vitio nemini vertendum. est, qui optat, ut caute res tractetur, eique non nisi viri linguarum orientalium peritissimi manum admoveant. Si his accedat, ut interdum dormitent ; quid demum tironibus, solidiore cognitione non imbutis, metuendum est.* Too much attention cannot be paid to these rules of Baver by him, who thinks himself qualified, and feels sufficiently bold, to tread on this fairy ground.

But after all, what has the boasted elucidation of Hebrew by its kindred dialects effected? Since the time of Schultens Lexicons have been constructed upon the principles proposed by him; but I do not perceive, what additions they have made to the stock of our knowledge respecting the significations of words. The only improvement attempted seems to consist in mere etymological investigations. We learn, for example, that earth is derived from a verb of the same radicals in Arabic, which signifies to be humble, or depressed; and that D' heaven is to be referred to a similar verb in Arabic, signifying to be exalted; but no alteration whatsoever is made in the meaning itself of either word, Thus likewise Eichorn in his improved edition of Simon's Lexicon under the word refers to the disquisition of Schultens upon it already quoted, and conceives its original sense to have been contor

* Hermeneut. Sacr. p. 119-135. I have referred here and elsewhere to the works of Baver, because from the freedom of his opinions he cannot be suspected of being too rigidly orthodox either in criticism or theology. Some parts of his Hermeneutica Sacra gave so much offence, that he was not permitted to print it at Halle, in Saxony. His testimouy therefore on this account will not be charged with partiality towards that side of the question, which I myself embrace.

sit, tortus et implicatus est ex multis faniculis in densiorem funem; but he makes no alteration of any kind in its usual Hebrew signification. Indeed the whole system, of which we have heard so much, and to which some are disposed to give credit for more than they have heard, seems rather calculated to gratify the vanity of criticism, than to convey useful and solid information.

Nor were the pretensions of his philological speculation, and its probable effects, greater than they appear to be, would it become the translator of an inspired book, in a version appropriated to public instruction, to be led astray from the direct path of sober exposition by ingenious conceits and theoretical novelties. The ardent eye of him, who recommends a new hypothesis in criticism or in silence, is always fixed upon its ideal importance; but time alone is the test of truth. A translator therefore would be highly culpable, who suffered himself to wander from the established principles of legitimate translation, in order to display his own talent at conjectural interpretation, and to try experiments with the word of God.