lated. A work of a more comprehensive nature was soon undertaken; and, at the suggestion of Breitkopf, a new edition of the Hebrew Bible, with readings selected from the collations of Kennicott and De Rossi, was begun by Doederleir, and completed by Meisner, A. D. 1793. But though a useful manual to those who have not access to the larger works of Kennicott and De Rossi, the paper and type are bad, and it is by no means free from errors of the press. In the year 1806, a Hebrew Bible, containing the principal various readings, was published at Vienna, by Prof. Jahn. The following account of this work is extracted from the 3d volume of Hartwell Horne's Introduction to the critical Study of the Scriptures. "Prof. Jahn has long been distinguished for his successful cultivation of Oriental literature. In this edition the text is very distinctly printed, the principal Hebrew points are retained, and he has given a copious selection of the most important various readings. His divisions into sections are judiciously made." I have already observed, that many portions of the Scriptures have been translated by Hebrew scholars of our own country, with selections from the various readings, but no attempt was made in England, for many years after the publication of Kennicott's and De Rossi's collations, to amend the whole text of the Hebrew Bible, by the aid of the various readings. This interesting work was at length undertaken by Mr. Boothroyd, and was published, I think, from the year 1810 to 1816, in numbers or parts, with the following title: "Biblia Hebraica, or the Hebrew Scriptures of the Old Testament, without points, after the text of Kennicott, with the chief various readings selected from his collation of Hebrew Mss., from that of De Rossi, and from the Ancient Versions, accompanied with English notes, critical, philosophical, and explanatory, &c." This work is printed in a good type, contains most of the best readings, and a valuable selection of critical and explanatory notes; but its merits are considerably diminished by the inaccuracy with which it is executed. The year 1821, produced a short digest of the various readings by the Rev. G. Hamilton, Rector of Killermogh, with this title, "Codex Criticus of the Hebrew Bible, wherein Van Der Hooght's text is corrected from the Hebrew Mss., collated by Kennicott and De Rossi, and from the ancient versions: being an attempt to form a standard text of the Old Testament, In this work, the readings which were considered by the author 'Preface to Doederleir and Meisner's Hebrew Bible. preferable to the common Hebrew text, are inserted in hollow letters, and the authorities by which they are supported are given in the margin. As the two last works are particularly interesting to the English Biblical student, I propose, in a third, and probably a concluding letter, to give a fuller account of these two works, and to state what is still wanting for the correction of the Hebrew text. THIS verse in the English version is rendered thus: "And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos; then began men to call upon the name of the Lord." If we compare the whole of this passage with all that precedes it, we are not able to understand it, if we follow the English translation; because, if we render began, it would imply that no person had before that time called upon the name of the Almighty but we find that Adam, and Eve, and Cain, spoke with the Almighty; that Cain and Abel offered to the Almighty; and that the Eternal Being spoke to Cain and reprimanded him; and in the verse immediately preceding the above, it is said that the wife of Adam called the name of her son Cheth, saying, "For the Almighty has appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew." If we consider that the greatest part of the Proper Names in the Bible are expressive of certain circumstances, and that the name N corresponds with the verb UN being weak, or ill, as we find, Psalm Ixix. 21. Nand T T: other places, by which, doubtless, a great part of the Hebrew commentators are led: and, as it is given by tradition that the age of Enos was a very wicked and idolatrous age, com monly called, 17, or the age of Enos, there is no doubt that, being derived from the Piel, to make com mon, to make profane, implies unholy, impure, unclean, profane: that is to say, the worship due only to the Supreme Being was exercised to creatures, in other words, that idolatry was introduced. So we find Gen. xlix. 4. ♫n, thou hast defiled, thou hast profaned; Ez. xxviii. 16. 7 consider thee profane. Lev. xxi. 9. and I will D 13 173 VÂN DI And the daughter of any priest if she profane herself by whoring, Lev. xxi. 4. ibn to profane himself, Ez. xxii. 26. ni and I am profaned, Ez. xx. profaned, or polluted. The passage according to our opinion should be rendered thus: Then the calling on the name of the Eternal Being began to be profaned, that is, they called creatures gods. According to the English translation, we should have the same difficulty in Genesis, vi. 1. which is in Hebrew, T This verse is rendered in the English version thus, "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply," &c. If we now consider, 1. That mankind began to multiply immediately after the creation, that the Lord blessed the man, and said, "Be fruitful and multiply," the question naturally presents itself, why it is said, they began now to multiply? 2. If we consider the 3rd verse, where the Eternal Being is represented as saying, "My Spirit shall not always strive concerning man," we could not perceive why the Eternal Being was discontented with him: but if we translate the word began to profane, the verse would be rendered thus: "It was when men began to profane in multiplying upon the surface of the ground; that is, mankind did not distinguish between a natural and allowed manner of multiplying, and an unnatural manner, forbidden by nature itself. The same difficulty would also be avoided in the translation of Gen. ix. 20, which is in the .ויחל נח איש האדמה ויטע כרם :Hebrew as follows This verse is rendered thus in the authorised English version: "And Noah began to be a husbandman," &c. In the Hebrew, neither this verse, nor its connexion, gives this sense to the idea, for it would then be rendered thus, "Noah began a husbandman," as the verb could only be understood, which in this construction of the Hebrew would be extremely difficult, nor would there be any sense in it. But if we translate he began to profane, in place of he began, it would read thus: " And Noah as a husbandman began to profane: he planted a vineyard." Because after the flood he ought not to have begun his business by planting a vineyard. So likewise would be better understood Gen. x. 8. 9., the : וכוש ילד את נמרד הוא החל :Hebrew of which is as follows להיות גבר בארץ: הוא היה גבר ציד לפני יהוה על־כן יאמר כנמרד TT גבור ציד לפני יהוה : :: · T: If this passage were rendered as in the English version, “And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord: wherefore, it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord;" we are obliged to understand that, before Nimrod, there was no government, which cannot have been the case, because the Eternal Being said to Noah and his children, after the flood, chap. ix. 6. "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed;" therefore, we are obliged to conclude that there were judges and mighty persons who could, and who did, execute the commands of the Eternal Being; it is, therefore, certain, that Nimrod was not, and could not be, the first, who had the power of governing, and who could refrain to execute justice; but if we translate the word he began to profane, it would read thus: "And Cush begot Nimrod. He began to render it profane to be a powerful one on the earth" (because he abused his heavenly power); and this is the reason why he was called, Nimrod, which in Hebrew implies, we will rebel, from the root Marad, he rebelled: and this is probably the reason why the greater part of the Hebrew commentators accused him of having persuaded mankind to idolatry; (although that which follows is an Hebrew criticism of itself separately, and we are obliged to connect it with this, in order to give the whole passage plainly ;) and the word Ty tsayid, hunting, implies not only what we call hunting of beasts, but to persuade mankind זי to a certain aim, because Ty tsayid seems to correspond with the idea of overpowering, either by corporeal force, or by mental measures, as we find, Gen. xxv. 28. TAN PITY' IN” T" . T 19, which in the English bible is rendered, “ And Jacob loved Esau, because he did eat of his venison." But if we consider that the Hebrew language abounds with double meanings, as already observed in a former part of these criticisms, we shall find here a most beautiful and sublime one, if we refer to the •T: T ויגדלו הנערים ויהי עשו איש :preceding verse, which is in Hebrew and is rendered in ,ידע ציד איש שדה ויעקב איש תם ישב אהלים ITI :- “т 11 · 11 the English version thus: "And the boys grew, and Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the field, and Jacob was a plain man dwelling in tents." Every one who is able to judge must allow, that the two clauses are contrary the one to the other; therefore no one can doubt that the words DAWN imply a sincere man, a righteous man, and consequently, the predicate of Esau must imply the contrary: and this is certainly so, if we understand by the expression persuading, and the whole of both verses may be translated thus: "And the boys grew up-Esau became a man who knew how to persuade a man of the field, (that is to say, a man of the world—a man who did not stay at home, but conversed with others :) but Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents: (that is, a man who was upright, because he was a domesticated man, and not corrupted by conversation with others:) Isaac loved Esau because he persuaded (that is, he deceived) with his mouth." We will now return to Gen. x. 8, 9., and add, that the word ", liphnah, implies, not only before, but sometimes, which ותשחת הארץ לפני האלהים: .11 .against, as in Gen. vi "T ... TT in the English Bible is thus rendered: "The earth also was corrupt before God." The word before is similar to the phrase in his sight, that is, against his will: the whole verse would be better rendered as follows: "And Cush begot Nimrod: he began to render it profane to be a powerful one on the earth: he was a powerful persuader against the Eternal Being; therefore it is said, Even as Nimrod, a powerful persuader against the Eternal Being.' The same remarks are applicable to ויאמר יהוה הן עם אחד ושפה אחת לכלם וזה החלם .6 .Gen. xi T : TT |