must not, in translating, soften down and explain." Thus a fruitful hill is styled, literally, a son of fruitfulness, as derived from it-impregnated with fruit and therefore fruitful, being like its mother. So indicates more than 3, since it denotes that the men were not merely strong, but as it were born of strength. The expression in a means belonging to beating, as a child to its parent, and that which has sprung up in a night, and is dependent on it (see Ewald's Heb. Gr. $ 498). "sons of lightning," are birds of prey which fly as swiftly as though born of the lightning, and characterized by its speed. A similar usage occurs in Onkelos, &c.,. Gen. 7: 17, 5: 32, &c. (see Buxtorf's Chal. and Rab. Lex. voc. 13, 3, na); in Arabic (see Golius Lex. Arab., sub voc.); and in Syriac (Schaaf's Lex. Hoffmann's Gr. Syr. 287). It is found too in the Septuagint, where τέκνον (τὰ τέκνα ἀδικίας, Hos. 10: 9, τέκνα ἀπωλείας, Is. 57 4) and viós (vioì rns durauios, 2 ch. 25: 13) are thus used. It also explains the peculiar force of some passages in the New Testament, in reference to which we shall cite from Winer's Grammar of the New Testament Idioms :— "Instead," says that eminent scholar, "of concrete adjectives, which would be taken substantively, in conformity with Hebrew usage, we find nouns with viós or réxvov, which, according to the lively perceptions of orientals, denote the most intimate connection with (dependence on) something (Vorst Heb. p. 467. 19): e. g. vioì ànɛveías, Eph. 2: 2 (children of disobedience, born, as it were, from the άnesia, raised, attached to her like a mother), réxva porós, Eph. 5: 8, τέκνα ὑπακοῆς, 1 Pet. 1 : 14, τέκνα ὀργῆς, Eph. 2: 3, τέκνα xarágas, 2 Pet. 2: 14." To these examples may be added many others, as vioì Boorris, Mark 3: 17, vioi signons, Luke 10: 6, &c. For instances of this usage in ecclesiastical writers, see Epiphan. Opp. i. p. 380.

The same remarks hold good when is used with reference to time. "The time itself," says a German critic, "is taken abstractly as mere form, or concretely, so that it com

prehends in itself the entire facts." The "son of fifty years" is one then who has been, as it were, produced by, and is alive in this period of time, and is characterized by its events. This usage is common. It is found in Syriac (Schaaf's Lex. 66. Hoff. Syr. Gr. p. 587,) and in other cognate

tongues.

The word under consideration is frequently found in proper names, viz. -, &c. It sometimes, in such a connexion, suffers contraction; see a, a, b. See Roediger de Lib. Hist. Interp. Arab. p. 20, 21.

Thus, then, in the usage referred to, is an indefinite expression for a man about whom something indicative of quality, &c. is stated; is less general, and expresses that relation which exists when a thing subordinated to a person or thing is in his or its possession- if ever used, even in proper names, possesses the peculiar ideas connected with the paternal relation, in which production, dissemination and authority are prominent-and 2 refers to an intimate connexion with, and absolute dependence upon, the or to which the word with which it is in regimen refers; to those particular ideas, in short, suggested by the filial relation.

POSTSCRIPT.

[The following letter from Professor Johnson, in reply to the strictures published in the April number, we are constrained to admit as a matter of justice to one who supposes himself misrepresented. The matters of difference between the reviewer and the Professor are hardly of sufficient importance to justify any further allusion to them in these pages.-ED.]

Mr. Hopkins had proposed an investigation of a fact-whether the passage in Joshua, 10: 12-15, were genuine or spurious! He considered it an interpolation, and gave his reasons. I considered those

reasons not sufficient to authorize us to reject the passage, and sought to show this in the Methodist Quarterly Review for October, 1845, thinking we should admit arguments which go to mar the integrity of the sacred writings with great caution. It is in the reply of Mr. H. which appeared in the Biblical Repository for April, 1846, that he has unfortunately erred so greatly.

THIRD SERIES, VOL. 11. NO. IV.

49

Before pointing out these errors, I am willing to confess to the respected readers of the Biblical Repository the wrong I have done to Mr. H., for which he charges so freely, "misrepresentation," and want of "veracity" (pp. 292-3, Bib. Rep., April, 1846); for in such a discussion I would wish always to be candid and honest.

On page 521, Methodist Quarterly Review for October, 1845, I quoted the language of Mr. H respecting this sentence in Habakkuk, "The sun and moon stood still in their habitation," as follows: "This passage should not be thought to have had a reference to any event which ever actually took place." And a little below, "No one supposes for a moment that a single one of the remaining declarations (of this chapter) ever referred to a transaction which at any time literally occurred." (This language of his is found in the Bib. Rep., January, 1845, pp. 123-4.)

To this I remarked, "We confess we do not understand that part of the hermeneutic science which would teach that a prophet of the Most High could occupy a whole chapter in extolling the majesty and glory of His acts on the earth, and not employ a single expression which could for a moment be supposed to have reference to any act that ever transpired." This was my language, not his, and my offence is, in not using the word "literally" before transpired; when I thought, in the simplicity of my understanding, I had embraced all his meaning.

This confession made, I only ask room to verify a few of his quotations.

He had recited at considerable length the testimony of Josephus respecting the "Book of Jasher" (see Bib. Rep. Jan. 1845, p. Î10), to which I said,

"That Josephus so far from giving an opinion at full length, and specifically, as quoted above, concerning the Book of Jasher,' has never once named the name of Jasher throughout the whole of his histories, nor so much as intimated that he ever heard of such a book." (p. 511.) And respecting the place in Josephus referred to, where he speaks of "the books laid up in the temple,” I said,

"The inquiry is, then, What were the books laid up in the temple?" We can easily see that it is not among the wildest of conjectures that have been made, to suppose that the book of Jasher was intended; and that point assumed, the further conjecture that the other items above-named were also of Josephus's opinion, gains a strength of probability amounting perhaps to inference. But remove this substratum, and the fabric it supports goes with it. And we claim that such a conjecture is entirely independent of the data which might have guided it." (p. 512.)

I then showed that I thought Josephus could have meant none other than the "Hebrew Scriptures."

Mr. H. quotes me thus:

"We can easily see,' adds this reviewer, 'that it is not among the wildest of conjectures to suppose that the book of Jasher was intended.' Nay, he admits, that this opinion gains a strength of probability amounting, perhaps, to inference.'" (p. 282.)

About the poetry of the passage, Mr. H. quotes thus, (p. 285): "The characteristics,' he says, 'by which we are accustomed to distinguish poetry, are these, to wit-the determination of the verse by a certain number and fixed order of feet, ascertained by the num

ber and quantity of syllables in each.'" He then refers to Job, the Psalms, etc., and says, " Will the learned Professor deny that (these) are poetry? And can he find here his 'determination of the verse,' etc., etc."

What I had said, and which he professes to have quoted, is this, (p. 515):

"That all the obvious characteristics by which we are accustomed to distinguish poetry, to wit, the determination of the verse by a certain number and fixed order of feet, ascertained by the number and quantity of the syllables in each; in fine, the entire subject of prosody as it exhibits itself from the ancient Greek hitherward, was wholly unknown to the Hebrews." I then referred to the doctrines of the grammarians, and named Nordheimer as containing "the condensed substance of what is known on the subject."

On pages 294, 5, Mr. H. gives what he calls a conjecture of mine about the difficulty in ver. 15, and indulges in quite an air of triumph to find that the same conjecture had been made by Dr. Clarke, and so could not be original with me; and after many grave things about the man "who can furnish us with such a 'suggestion' as the above," adds, in quotation marks, thereby claiming it to be my exact words"Hagilgallah,' in the Hebrew character, is formed of letters so nearly resembling those which are combined in Makkedah, as to be easily mistaken the one for the other;'" and with a surprise adds-" And the man who says this professes to understand Hebrew!" (As if, forsooth, it needed any further knowledge of Hebrew to form an opinion on such a question than to have eyes to see the letters!)

Now it was very unfortunate in him to have written that, and much more to the same effect; for it happens to be gratuitous, every word of it. I made no such conjecture as he supposes. I never wrote a word of what he professes to quote from me. The idea of that way to explain the difficulty in verse 15, was never in my mind till I saw it on his page. I did offer a conjecture, but one as widely different from that which he attributes to me, as light from darkness. It is recorded and can be read (ut supra. p. 523). But I will not trespass on your indulgence. These are specimens. It so happens that he has failed to present my arguments in whole and in part. Save the three or four pages occupied with the description of his modern Jasher, there is barely one page on which these misunderstandings, misstatements, misconceptions, or misrepresentations (I am at a loss what to call them) do not occur, and on some pages not less than half a dozen.

In sincerity, I am sorry a Christian minister should have done so. I did not intend to provoke the man, but only to deal candidly with his arguments.

One word on the original question. Those who have read the two articles of Mr. H. will have seen that he relinquishes the opinion he first held, that Jasher was an ancient book of miscellaneous poems, composed, certainly in part, in the time of David, and thinks now there was no ancient Jasher, but only this modern one, of which all the world heard enough a few years ago; composed, as he thinks, by some idle monk, "about the commencement of the middle ages," since which time, the passage in dispute has been, from such a source, foisted into the sacred text. I have simply to say, that from that position, the argument is a short one, merely a question of historic fact,

-Was that passage in Joshua before the middle ages? Without exhibiting proofs, we say only-It was; and Mr. Hopkins has himself quoted the historic testimony which demonstrates it.

With many thanks for the privilege of justifying myself thus in part to your worthy readers, believe me, with high regard, H. M. JOHNSON.

Your obed't servant,

Ohio Wesleyan University, 28th July, 1846.

ARTICLE VIII.

CRITICAL NOTICES.

1.-A Greek-English Lexicon, based on the German work of Francis Passow. By HENRY GEORGE LIDDELL, A. M., and ROBERT SCOTT, A. M. Edited, with additions, by HENRY DRISLER, A. M., Professor in Columbia College. Harper & Brothers. pp. 1700, 8vo.

The reproduction, in this noble style of typography, and at this cheap rate, of Liddell and Scott's edition of Passow, is a matter of just pride and congratulation. There is scarcely no part of our educational apparatus in this country so defective as in the matter of a Greek Lexicon. The manuals mostly in use are not only exceedingly meagre, but constructed in such disregard of all true lexical principles, and so inadequately present those shades of meaning which the age, the genius, or the dialect of the writers created, that they as often mislead as assist. It will rejoice every lover of sound learning among us, that we have access to a work of such decided superiority as must necessarily displace them.

This work is pretty well known to the learned world. It is based upon the famous work of Passow, which stands without a peer or a rival in Germany, and is justly considered a masterpiece of its kind, exemplifying, as far as it goes, as scarcely no other work does, the true principles of lexicography. Passow's great design was not only to trace the origin and express the meaning of a word, but also to develope the history of its changes, the nature and quality of its usage, its rank and character, and its modifications by the taste of different writers, by idioms and dialects, beginning with its earliest appearance, and descending through the successive eras of Grecian literature. Thus the real signification is displayed in its minutest shades, and all the history of a word needful for its intelligent use or clear apprehension. This gigantic work none but a German would have attempted; and Passow's life was spared to execute the task only in part. He carried his investigations through the era of Homer and Hesiod, but left the matter, as it relates to subsequent authors, pretty much where he found it. Liddell and Scott, in translating it, wisely carried this searching examination through the remaining periods of Greek literature, though it cannot be said with the same exhausting thoroughness that characterizes the German. The Attic writers, however, received a