tion; and that the comparative superiority of the plan may be per fectly understood, I would recommend to the learned reader to take his Hebrew Bible with, and without, points, and compare them respectively.

Gen. ch. 1. vv. 1. &c.

1 בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ: 2 והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחשך על-פני תהום ורוח אלהים מרחפת על פני המים: 3 ויאמר אלהים יהי אור ויהי-אוֹר : 4 וירא אלהים את

האור כי טוב ויבדל אלהים בין האור ובין החשך: 5 ויקרא אלהים 5 לאור יום ולחשך קרא לילה ויהי-ערב ויהי-בקר יום אחד: 6 ויאמר אלהים יהי רקיע בתוך המים ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים: 7 ויעש אלהים את הרקיע ויבדל בין המים אשר מתחת לרקיע ובין המים אשר מעל לרקיע ויהי-כן: 8 ויקרא אלהים לרקיע שמים ויהי

ሓ

ערב ויהי-בקר יום שני: 9 ויאמר אלהים יקוו המים מתחת השמים אל מקום אחד ותראה היבשה ויהי כן: 10 ויקרא אלהים ליבשה ארץ ולמקוה המים קרא ימים וירא אלהים כי-טוב: 11 ויאמר אלהים תדשא הארץ דשא עשב מזריע זרע עץ פרי עשה פרי למינו אשר זרעו בו על-הארץ ויהי-כן: 12 ותוצא הארץ דשא עשב מזריע זרע טוב : כִּי למינהו ועץ עשה פרי אשר זרעו-בו למינהו וירא אלהים 13 ויהי-ערב ויהי בקר יום שלישי: 14 ויאמר אלהים יהי מארת ברקיע השמים להבדיל בין היום ובין הלילה והיו לאתת ולמועדים

ולימים ושנים:

ሓ

To read the Hebrew text of the Old Testament with ease and intelligibility requires long initiation in any form, but especially without the reading points. In the first ages of the Jewish church, it is presumed that the knowledge of reading the law of God was almost wholly the function of the priests and scribes, even whilst the Hebrew was a living language; but afterwards, as copies were multiplied, the reading of the Divine books became general: but now the Jews, having been dispersed over the world, and having their law in the dead letter, require laborious study to interpret it to the people. With us it seems easy enough to take up a Hebrew Bible without points, and read it with as much ease and facility as any Latin or other version; a supposition, in my opinion, alto,

gether imposing and delusive: it is certainly not for every novice to encounter so great a task, to which none but the greatest masters are equal. Every well-informed Hebrew scholar is aware, that to read the unpointed text of the Hebrew Bible with grammatical propriety, requires a previous knowledge of the elements of pronunciation and construction, and all the essential part of the punctuation. The text of Genesis here given is a specimen for retaining all that essential part of the punctuation subservient to a clear understanding of it with propriety and certainty. The diacritical point over distinguishes from , and coeli from

עשה facit ; again עשה faciens, from עשה ponentes ; also שמים

from y faciens eam: also y fac from y factores mei and facientes; y fecerunt, from y compresserunt; y Esau, &c. I might produce a volume of examples, in which the importance of the diacritical point is most. clearly and convincingly taught, and its several offices in rightly distinguishing the accidence in verbs and participles, as well as other parts of speech. Who would know how to distinguish the actives from the passives at sight, and vice versa, without the presence, or absence, of the Dagesh point in example of pet vocavit, and p" et vocatus est: et dixit, and N et dictum fuit; p congregentur, and expectabunt, &c.? In nouns, I might instance some examples ex. gr. et spiritus, ventus, et respirabat, luminaria, rad. is lux, maledictio, rad. 8 maledixit: the points of show that the word is read with two vaus

. Thus I have produced a few examples for the consideration of the learned, on the usefulness and propriety of adopting the diacritical point in editions of the Hebrew text.

Two editions of the Hebrew Bible are now printing in England: one by Mr. Frey with points, marginal readings, and Latin notes, from the text of Vander Hooght, 1705. As this new edition is intended to be a fac-simile of the former, we are not a step forwarder as to any revision of the Hebrew text, now, than we were a century ago: strange, indeed, that, after all the laborious and expensive collations by Dr. Kennicott, and other learned men for the last fifty years, the same text continues to be reprinted without that revision due to the sacred and venerable book. The writings of Dr. Kennicott show the necessity for collating the printed text in all the editions extant, which has never yet been done, or, perhaps, never will be done. It is asserted by that eminent collator, that the various readings of the first printed text of the whole Hebrew Bible in the year 1488, and that by Van. Hooght in 1705, amount to twelve thousand: there is a copy of that very early edition in

I

For. An. 1768. p. 130.

the library of Exeter College, Oxford, of which some particular account is given in the Annual Report; it would certainly be important to know how far succeeding editions have, or have not, improved, and whether the Hebrew text has, or has not, been gradually and progressively revised in the long period of 325 years! Celebrated as Vander Hooght's edition may be, it is obstinately deficient in the omission of two whole verses in Joshua, ch. xxi. and this omission is also adhered to in Mr. Frey's edition, notwithstanding the remonstrances of the learned in support of those verses, as they are extant in some editions, in particular Leusden's Bible, printed in the year 1661, and confirmed by MSS. The translators of the English Bible retain those verses, being ver. 36. 37. Mr. Bothroyd's edition, now printing, is without points, and accompanied with a selection of various readings subjoined to the text.

To conclude, Sir, I must apologise for the length of my paper, by observing, that what is here offered to the consideration of the learned is, to promote such an edition of the Hebrew Scriptures as may faithfully preserve all the authorised text in its present form, and with the diacritical points; being all that are necessary and essential to the reading of the Sacred Text with propriety, and securing the interpretation against error and misconstruction. June, 1813.

T. Y.

I

BIBLICAL CRITICISM.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL.

HAVE often thought, that the ingenuity of the Hebrew critic might be usefully employed in developing the true reading of those two Hebrew formules of baptism, which have been recorded by Irenæus, as being practised among the Valentinian heretics.

His testimony respecting the first of them is to the following effect. Alii autem et Hebraica nomina superfantur, ut stupori sint, vel perterreant eos qui sacrantur, sic: Basyma eacabasa eonaa irraurista dyarbada caeotaba fobor camelanthi. Horum autem interpretatio est talis. Hoc quod est super omnem virtutèm invoco, quod vocatur lumen, et spiritus, et vita, quoniam in corpore regnâsti. In the Greek of Epiphanius the account is somewhat varied. "Αλλοι δὲ ἑβραϊκὰ τινὰ ὀνόματα ἐπιλέγουσι, πρὸς τὸ

p. 112.

σας.

μᾶλλον καταπληξᾶσθαι τοὺς τελειομένους οὕτως· Βασεμα χαμοσση βααιανορα μισταδια μουαδα κουστα βαβοφορ καλαχθεί τούτων δὲ ἡ ἑρμηνεία ἐστὶ τοιαύτη, Ὑπὲς πᾶσαν δύναμιν τοῦ πατρὸς ἐπικαλοῦμαι φῶς ὀνομαζόμενον, καὶ πνεῦμα ἀγαθὸν, καὶ ζωὴ, ὅτι ἐν σώματι ἐβασίλευ oaç. In the quotation from Nicetas by Feuardent, in his notes on this part of the author, it is still different. Quo majorem ei, qui baptizatur stuporem injiciant, hæc Hebraica nomina superaddunt: Camosi, bae, anoora, mystadia, rhuda, custaba, phogor, calathi. Quorum interpretatio hæc est. O qui es super omnem virtutem patris, te invocamus, qui lumen, et spiritus bonus, et vita nominaris: quoniam in corpore regnâsti.

The second formula, Irenæus has narrated thus. Nomen quod est restaurationis, messiau formagno in seenchaldia mosomeda eaacha faronepseha Jesu Nazarene. Et horum interpretatio est talis: Christi non divido spiritum, cor, et supercolestem virtutem misericordem; fruar nomine tuo salvator veritatis.

In Epiphanius, though the interpretation of the formula remains the same, the Hebrew seems widely different: Marcia, ουφαρεγ, ναμεμψαιμαν, χαλδαιαν, μεσομήδατα, ακέραιαι, ψανα, ιησου. ναζαρια.

Feuardent, in his annotations, has remarked on them both as follows: Difficillimum est verborum istorum fontes indicare, accipe tamen, quid de his nobis verisimilius videtur. Impostores istos magicis artibus delectatos, iisdemque multa prodigiosa et portentosa effecisse ex Justino, Irenæo, Tertull. Epiph. Theod. et August. certissimum est. Vero igitur simile est, astutos istos præstigiatores isthæc magica et barbara magis portenta quàm nomina finxisse, et magno supercilio inculcâsse ad concitandos simplicium animos, ut cum magno stupore augustiora putarent quæ non intelligerent; et dæmones istis pactis adsistentes ad horum vocabulorum pronunciationes, quæ postulabant magi præstarent; ut superiùs de Marci cœnâ habes c. q. Quod si quæ hic habes Hebraica vocari ab Irenæo urgeas, responderim non ex suo sed Valentinianorum sensu esse intelligendum; cùm id unum confidenter et verè possim affirmare, ea nempe nec à Græcâ, nec ab Hebræâ, Chaldaicâ, Syrâ, aut Arabicâ linguâ petita esse. Iren. Lib. c. 18.

Vid.

Such is the tone of confidence, in which this learned annotator has asserted the impossibility of making any sense out of these barbarous sounds; and, though I have been able to inspect no other edition of Irenæus, I do not imagine, that much more. light has been thrown upon this part of the author, by succeeding correctors, Notwithstanding, however, the boldness of his assertion, I am inclined to believe, that both these sentences are really Hebrew; only so much disfigured by the ignorance of the Fathers, that it will require no small degree of consideration to

restore their true reading. The former I shall now, with your permission, endeavour to reduce to the Hebrew idiom; the latter I leave for some other of your learned correspondents, who may be kind enough, perhaps, at the same time, to honor me with his remarks on the present attempt.

First of all then I would observe, that the Hebrew, as given in the Latin Text of Irenæus, appears to me to be the least corrupt; only instead of eaca, after basyma, I would adopt chamosse, from Epiphanius; and instead of fobor, fogor, from Nicetas. The rbada, in dyarbada, is evidently the same with the rhuada or rhudo, of Epiphanius and Nicetas; the Hellenists being naturally prone to turn into b in the middle of words: saying, Dabid instead of David, &c. which is the cause of the difference in the case before us.

Thus much being premised, the sounds or syllables may be thus distributed into words. Basymacha mosse basaea naairra urist adya ruada cae ota bafogorca melanthi. These invested in their native characters may be written thus. That is:

בשמך משא בשהיה נהרה וראשית החיה רוח כי אתה בפגרך מלכת

In nomen tuum, exaltatissime, in id quod est lumen, et, principium vitæ, spiritus; quoniam tu in corpore tuo regnásti.

The reader will not fail to observe, that, though the Latin translations agree in the main, it is that of Nicetas only, which makes the speech a perfect address from beginning to end; and in this it ought certainly to be preferred. Doubtless the formula was assimilated, as much as it might be, to that of the Evangelists, and substituted instead of it; this being the degree of excellency, unto which the adepts aspired.

Most of my Hebrew constructions must appear self-evident; a few, however, demand elucidation. The word, N, is derived from NV, to exalt, and is the Part. Paul of Hiphil or Hophal, signifying, now exalted, or, now highly exalted. I rather incline to interpret it in the vocative case than to subjoin it as an epithet to the preceding term.

The construction, TV, has caused me the most uneasiness. I can find no authority for it exactly as it stands. The Rabbinical writers abound with the prefix before verbs in the sense of the conjunction that, as also with the compound ɔ, when: but never once use Wa, that I remember to have seen. The being derived from the pronoun, N, may certainly include both the relative and the antecedent; and is often so used in the book of Ecclesiastes, particularly on the following occasion.

עם שיהין

Among those who shall be hereafter. ch. 1. v. 11. This ndeed, not to be the same, approaches as near to the construction