HEBREW CRITICISM.

By JOHN NICHOLSON, B. A., Ph. D.

A Synopsis of Criticisms upon those Passages of the Old Testament, in which modern Commentators have differed from the Authorised Version; together with an Explanation of various Difficulties in the Hebrew and English Texts. By the Rev. RICHARD A. F. BARRETT, M.A., Fellow of King's College, Cambridge, Volume I., Part I.—[Pp. 408, Genesis to Leviticus, chap. vi.]

We have not any intention of now attempting a formal review of even this first half-volume of Mr. Barrett's labours, but purpose to limit our notice to the first few pages of his work. Our immediate object is, to make his criticisms the occasion for some philological remarks on a few passages of the book of Genesis, and to avail ourselves of this opportunity to demonstrate, according to our humble ability, the existence of a sounder and safer degree of Hebrew scholarship than our countrymen generally are yet aware of, and to enforce its necessity by examples.

A few preliminary remarks on the design of Mr. Barrett's Synopsis, as far as he has himself stated it, form a natural introduction to our notice of his particular criticisms, and fall very well within our general scope.

The terms in the title, about the modern scholars who have differed from the Authorised Version,' indicate a very narrow and special object. As the Authorised Version cannot lay claim to an atom of intrinsic authority, over and above what it derives from its positive conformity to the Original which it represents; and as the means and appliances for attaining a precise and certain knowledge both of the lexicographical sense and grammatical construction of the Hebrew language, have, to say the least of it, been as much extended and improved since the time of King James, as those for the more accurate understanding of Greek and Latin it is evident that a notice of those passages only in which modern commentators have differed from the Authorised Version, cannot, at best, have more than a partial and relative effect in promoting the absolute correctness of that version. For the author would, in strictness, bind himself not to avail himself either of his own critical skill in discerning the sense of the Original, or of the hosts of modern foreign scholars who have laboured to elucidate it, in order to volunteer any corrections of his own; but would content himself with discussing the objections

which have been made to that version specifically. The amount and value of these objections, therefore, turn on these two points: Whether Biblical philology in England has-we will not say, steadily advanced in compass and precision of view since that time, but continued to be cultivated by a succession of such scholars as those who flourished as late as the Restoration, so as to ensure our having a body of objections which will abide the test of modern criticism ; and whether certain conservatist influences have not always been busy among us to repress and discourage every attempt at finding fault with the Authorised Version, the effect of which has been, on the one hand, to deprive us of the emendations of our trained theological scholars, and, on the other, to leave us at the mercy of the sorriest pretenders. These are the views which we entertain à priori, on merely looking at Mr. Barrett's design in its best acceptation. But when we come to examine how he has realised the expectations he has held out, and find that the modern commentators who have differed from the Authorised Version of the book of Genesis, turn out to be Geddes and Boothroyd as the staple objectors, with an occasional reference to Bayley, Poole, and Kennicott, we must complain that the objectors are very inadequately represented, either as to number or quality. No one who is acquainted with the bibliography of English Commentaries on, and translations of, the Pentateuch, can have any difficulty in conceding that we are right on the score of number; should there be any demur as to quality, we might take two courses: either attempt to justify it, by searching out the emendations which Willet, Ainsworth, Gill, and others, and our modern theological Reviews, have proposed, and show that they are better than those our author has noticed; or, if we failed in establishing that, demonstrate that the present state of Biblical philology enables us to make better and more undeniable corrections than have been made by modern English commentators, and thus find a fresh support for our assertion, that Hebrew scholarship has declined in England ever since the Restoration. But, be that as it may, we are prepared to maintain that, even if the Synopsis has recorded all the best and most pertinent emendations of the English Vulgate which has been proposed in the last two centuries, it has not rendered nearly as good service towards the promotion of the scholarlike emendation of the faults of that version, as it might have done, had the author rejected all that useless lumber, and contented himself with giving such emendations as his own understanding of the original ought to suggest to him, together with such philological reasons for the innovations as modern scholarship is able to afford.

This brings us to notice the last point on which we have leisure

VOL. I.-NO. 1.

M

to

to dilate. The author declares, in the Preface, that his object also is, to give the reasons for or against such emendations.' We confess to have searched in vain for anything approaching to philological argument, as coming from the author himself. He generally gives the Hebrew text-occasionally several verses together, nay, almost an entire chapter of proper names (Gen. v.), accents and all!-then the version of the LXX., then the differences of Geddes and Boothroyd, then a portion of a note by Poole or Patrick, Rosenmüller or Schumann (we are induced to believe that he is not acquainted with the works of those commentators who have written in the German language, especially not with Tuch, the best of those on Genesis), and then long extracts from the Lexicons of Lee and Gesenius. Thus, on the very first page, he gives extracts from Gesenius's Lexicon, which occupy twentynine lines, on the words in, a, and ;-which we notice incidentally, as we cannot conceive what purpose they are there intended to serve. The author surely cannot mean that these notes of Rosenmüller, and these extracts from Gesenius, contain the reasons for or against the emendations,' of which they cannot be supposed to be cognisant. The notes and extracts even often run counter to each other, without our meeting any decision from the author. He, indeed, more than once interposes a note in a note of some one else, to admonish the reader that Professor Lee denies the use of the conversive; but is not moved, even on these occasions, to show us, out of Lee's Grammar, how those said tenses ought to be construed. As the author professes some respect for German Oriental philology, and as Professor Lee is, nevertheless, evidently a great authority with him, we venture to recommend him to read a Reply to Professor Lee's charges of plagiarism, by Professor von Ewald,' which appeared in the May number of the Churchman's Monthly Review for the year 1847. We will also strengthen ourselves, in the points in which we shall be obliged to differ from the author, by references to German scholars of note; and hope that the discussion of particular passages, to which we now hasten, will prove that our censures might easily have been more stringent.

Let us for once examine the author's notes on a whole chapter. In the first chapter of Genesis he touches on the words, without form and void, the Spirit of God,'' moved,' and 'firmament'which difficulties, and the reasons decisive of them, we leave the reader to appreciate for himself; then, on verse 8-13, he gives us nearly a whole column, in order to cite one of Kennicott's rash proposals either to transpose a portion of the 8th verse down to the 10th, or the converse. This is the entire sum of his annota

tions on this chapter. Now, with regard to this last passage, we must adduce the author's own words from his Preface: The German critics are most valuable; for learning and abilities few can vie with them, and they often prove safer guides to the plain sense of Scripture than some of our orthodox divines: for what can be more hazardous for a man when dealing with the Word of God than to assert that a passage is unmeaning, interpolated, or corrupted, simply because he cannot understand it? Yet we find good and learned men, such as Bishop Lowth and Bishop Horsley, falling into this error, and unhesitatingly rejecting and altering passages which a German neologian will take in a critical manner, and fairly facing the difficulties, offer a possible, if not an easy solution." We beg to assure the author that this very passage, Gen. i. 8-13, is one in which modern German scholars are not only content to abstain from Kennicott's emendations, but even recognise a peculiar consistency and harmony in the text remaining just as it is. Mr. B. might gather this much from Schumann's note; and we refer the reader, who desires further information as to the basis of that consistency and harmony, to Herder's Aelteste Urkunde des Menschengeschlechts. See further, in our remarks on chap. xxix. 1-8. We will, moreover, venture to point out some emendations in this chapter, unnoticed by him, which are quite as important, and far more certain, than several that he has recorded. Thus, in verse 5, it should be rendered, 'so it was evening, and it was morning, day one.' The former part of this correction should be repeated successively down to the seventh day, for the Authorised Version invariably commits the same error in that respect; as to the latter part, the word one is, in the Original, the cardinal, and not the ordinal number, which would be. (See Von Ewald's Hebrew Gram., English Translation, § 439.) In like manner, it should be day second,' without the article, and so on down to the sixth, which is the first that is called day the sixth,' while the seventh is the only one that is called the seventh day. Further, in verse 20, the marginal rendering and let fowl fly,' is the only one that can be defended; for the verb is in the same form of the imperfect as is, which Ewald has designated the jussive, and the rendering in the text of the Authorised Version would imply that the waters produced the fowls also.

But let us now see how the author deals with the first difficulty he meets with, and how he solves it by reasons' for or against the emendation. In chap. ii. 4-6, he, of course, gives us the entire passage in the Hebrew, the version of the LXX., and the English Vulgate, to which he appends the following Rosen

M 2

müller

müller and Schumann. 4. These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created: In the day that the Lord God made the heavens and the earth, 5. No shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet germinated. nondum.

טרם

Bay. 6. Nor had a vapour ascended from the earth to water, &c. So also Boothroyd.'

This is the whole of our author's remark on this passage; and our readers may divine how far he sanctions the innovations, for on that point we are no wiser than they. But this difficulty is surely one to demand a more ample explanation, especially from one who so evidently does not grudge space, even, as we shall see, to utterly useless extracts. The rendering of the Authorised Version gives so awkward a sense, that one might expect an unlearned man doubting whether it were correctly translated. For who can be reconciled to the two clauses, 'before it was in the earth,'' and before it grew'? Was it so much more important, in the case of shrubs and plants, to mention that they were created before they existed, than in that of more stupendous acts of creative power? Fortunately, there are excellent philological reasons for a better rendering; nay, reasons enough to provide two solutions of the difficulty. The reasons for the first, which is the one our author has given from Rosenmüller, are as follows:-Verse 4, down to the word created, is regarded as the title or superscription of the ensuing section, and is parallel to those in chap. v. 1; x. 1. Another ground for believing that it is so, is, that the name of God, which had been Elohim all through the first chapter down to this verse in the second, is here suddenly changed to Jehova Elohim, which continues, with few exceptions, to the end of the fourth chapter. Then the words 'In the day' are taken as the real beginning of the next section. By thus beginning with a statement of time for a protasis, the vav in is Vav consecutivum, and marks the apodosis. This is one of the most familiar constructions in Hebrew. Thus in Gen. iii. 5, 'In the day that ye eat thereof Day, your eyes will be opened.' Cf. Gen. xix. 4; Jos. ii. 8, and Ewald's Gram. § 613. There is, however, another ground for this rendering, which depends on the construction of all with a negative. A negative with (when it means omnis) produces the sense of nullus (Ewald, § 576). Thus Exod. xx. 10, The seventh day is the Sabbath, thou shalt not do every work,' clearly means, thou shalt do no work'; Matt. xxiv. 22,Unless those days were shortened, οὐκ ἂν ἐσώθη πᾶσα σάρξ, all flesh would not be saved.' There is no manner of doubt, therefore, that, in our verse, 'every shrub was not yet,' means 'no shrub was yet'

(for