I wrote, “The book errs much more by defect than by positive mistakes. Important and interesting points which have been investigated not long since, are quietly passed by.' The most important principles and the main facts of the science are not given in the book reviewed. I repeat, that important and interesting points are quietly passed by.' Under these circumstances an omission is a defect, and this is what I said, not a mistake; although I should have been nearly right had I even used the latter term. The defects in question betray culpably gross ignorance. It will not do to say that the limits of the book prevented touching on these things; for there are many trifling, useless, egotistical remarks that might have been erased to make room for essential matters. For example

This edition (ie. Schaaf's of the Syriac New Testament) is now exceedingly rare. I have inspected it in public libraries with reference to one or two passages, but I have never had it long enough in my possession to be able to speak very distinctly of its merits. In general it seems to agree with that of Gutbier.'

The book is quite common. In the very town where the author lives he might have found it in the libraries of various private individuals with whom he is acquainted. Any good London catalogue has a copy of it for sale. I suppose, however, that he could not omit saying that he never had it long enough in his possession to be able to speak very distinctly of its merits, because the remark belongs to the important principles or main facts of criticism. Again, on the very same page, My copy has the date 1826 on the title-page; but whether this be an error of the press, or whether the work has been reprinted, or whether the new date has only been affixed to a re-issue of copies remaining over from those printed in the former year, the person who sold it to me at the Society's Depository could not inform me.' Compare these insertions with the omission of the fact that Muralto's collation of the Codex Vat., published in 1846, is unnoticed; or the omission of Norzi's critical edition of the Hebrew Bible. There is no doubt that the serious omissions to which I alluded in my critique arose from sheer ignorance. They did not arise from anxiety not to swell the size of the book. But the writer has not the candour to acknowledge his ignorance. He has too much straightforward hardihood for that.

Respecting Horne he says, 'Of Mr. Horne's work I have repeatedly· spoken, and always with a degree of courtesy of which Dr. D., &c. &c.' Compare with this the following words: The learned reader will smile on seeing, in some popular works on criticism, mention of an Estrangelo-Syriac Version of the Scriptures! Is not this pointed at Horne? Is it a specimen of courtesy? Courtesy with-a sneer.

But the reviewer is charged with mistaking the sense of a passage in Augustine. The undignified allusion to Professor Zumpt, of Berlin, I pass over. I can only say that all the attention I have been able to give to the passage, with its context, convinces me that Jerome meant what I attributed to him. I am not answerable for his Latin. The Latin of Jerome is not the same as that of Cicero and Virgil. Professor Zumpt's grammar was made for the latter, not the former. It is therefore quite aside from the mark to allude to Zumpt, or Madvig, or

any

any other grammarian who constructs his grammar for classical Latin. The ecclesiastical Latin of the fourth and fifth centuries is sadly degenerate as contrasted with that of the Augustan era.

What, Mr. Editor, do you think of the man who says, 'I gratefully own Griesbach and Hug as my masters in the Art of Criticism,' when he was at the time of writing, perhaps still is, ignorant of the last edition of Hug's Introduction to the New Testament, which, in comparison with the preceding, has been 'verbessert und vermehrt durch Abänderungen, Zusätze, und Citate des seligen Verfassers.' What do you think of the man who was quite unacquainted with the last edition of De Wette's Introduction to the New Testament, and the same author's Introduction to the Old Testament (last edition), for which latter Theodore Parker's English translation of the former edition is used. And yet, if we are to believe himself, 'he availed himself of the latest and best investigations that had appeared.' Doubtless he did so; but those counted the latest and the best are really old in the eye of the scholar. They are chiefly English. A few of them are Latin. As to German works, he had waited perhaps till the Germans had agreed among themselves about points of criticism. But why did he not wait till the Germans writing Latin books on criticism had agreed among themselves?

But I must now allude to the point on which this author puts forward his most vehement assertions. To my mind these assertions would have commended themselves the more had their vehemence been less, because every one knows that truth needs not, and usually has not, the tone of over-confident asseveration.

I said that the plan and purpose of the book I reviewed coincided with those of my Lectures on Biblical Criticism. I say so still. It is true they do not coincide wholly or in every part; but they agree in the main. In some instances my plan has been altered for the better; in others for the worse. How the writer could happen to put into his book the discussion of disputed passages without having followed me in this respect, none will be able to discover; for I thought myself alone in that feature.

It is needless to spend a word in showing that the purpose of his book is the same as mine. The titles of the two works evidence the fact.

With regard to the charge of plagiarism, it is disavowed with great confidence. But there is evidence in the book to substantiate it to the satisfaction of any one accustomed to examine evidence. It is true that my words have been partially altered; my sentences put in another order. But even this has not wholly effaced the evidence. And there is a plagiarism of ideas as well as of words. I did not mean to say

that the writer had copied verbatim; few do this for many sentences together: but I did and do mean to say, that he has copied. Plagiarism does not cease to be so because it is disguised. Statements made up out of others are plagiarized to all intents and purposes. It is very likely that the writer had gone over my book so often, or had heard it gone over by students so much, as that he insensibly got into his head

its statements and words; which were subsequently transferred unconsciously to his own production.

One or two examples must suffice at present. They are of a kind that shows designed coincidence.

DAVIDSON. We here introduce the Samaritan Pentateuch though it is not a version. It is the very same Law as that contained in our Hebrew Bibles, written in a different character.'

Work reviewed.

PORTER. "The Samaritan Pentateuch is not a version, but an edition of the original in the proper Hebrew language, differing from other Hebrew copies only in the peculiar form of the letters in which it is written.'

I have often wondered why I inserted the almost puerile observation just quoted from the lectures. I must have been thinking of mere tyros. I should certainly never think of retaining it in another edition, because it is too trifling. Yet the very same remark, as will be seen, occurs in this new work. And there is something about it so peculiar, as to lead any one to the opinion that the coincidence could not be accidental.

DAVIDSON. 'Amid the immense mass of various readings which he (Kennicott) had collected with so great labour, few were found to be of any value in the emendation of the text. The majority were at once seen to be the mere lapsus of transcribers. For this he was unjustly censured as if he could have given more and better readings than those which he found in his MSS.'

PORTER.- - Dr. Kennicott has been blamed for bringing forward such a mass of trivial and unimportant readings as the notes to his Bible exhibit ... but these critics could only exhibit such readings as their materials afforded.'

The whole account of Kennicott given in this new work, if compared with that of the lectures on Bib. Crit., will show any reader that the similarity is of such a kind as to set aside undesigned coincidence. But the sentences are transposed, and the words considerably altered; while the ideas are the same.

'My interpretation of the term Oriental as used by Lachmann, is unquestionably erroneous; but it is not peculiar to me: in fact I believe I held it in common with almost all British theologians till the appearance of Mr. Tregelles' admirable Prospectus for a new critical Greek Testament, &c.' (See the Reply.)

Here the truth of the matter is, that the mistake in question was committed by the writer because I had fallen into it. No British theologian, except Mr. Tregelles, in his edition of the Apocalypse, had fallen into the error before the writer in question; and Mr. Tregelles had followed myself in it. The author of Principles of Textual Criticism' must have fallen into the mistake either from following me or Mr. Tregelles. But he had not seen Mr. Tregelles' work on the Apocalypse; therefore he must have fallen into the mistake after me. Compare this single fact with the strong assertion, I declare that I have not copied a line from him, nor accepted a single fact or a single argument on his authority.' I waive comment.

But I must forbear, as I only intended to write a single page when I began; and I know your readers will care little about an exposure of

the

the writer in question. I have now done with the book and its author. I have no intention of writing it into notice; nor can the author himself do so, however anxious he appears to be on this head. I repeat my statement, that it is at least twenty years behind the present state of the science. If this be not true in the judgment of every competent scholar, I am willing to forfeit for ever any little reputation I may have acquired in the department of Biblical literature. Those who have been accustomed to show some deference to my opinions may rely on the correctness of what I now assert. A sad exhibition is this Reply. I am grieved for the writer of it; for I must believe his book rather than some of his subsequent declarations. The evidence of the former is very clear; and how he reconciles some after-assertions with it, I am utterly at a loss to conjecture. Strange truly, that a novus homo in Biblical literature should show so much self-sufficiency! And where there is an abundance of this unenviable quality, there is commonly great ignorance. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. I leave the book to its fate. I have expressed my opinion of it in all honesty. Το say that it possesses much merit is out of the question. It is totally unworthy the notice of scholars. It must mislead as often as instruct the beginner. In short, it is the production of one incompetent for his task, but persuaded notwithstanding, that he has knowledge, ability, and skill sufficient for it. I fear that in this persuasion he is singular. In England at least he is so.

SAMUEL DAVIDSON.

DR. SAMUEL LEE IN ANSWER TO PROFESSOR
VON EWALD.

To the Editor of the Journal of Sacred Literature.

SIR,-Having received an extract from your Journal (vol. iii. No. vi.), entitled 'PROFESSOR VON EWALD ON DR. SAMUEL LEE'S AcCUSATION,' which stands in need of some additional matter which I happen now to possess, I request the favour of the insertion of this in one of your early Numbers. I have, too, desired Messrs. Seeleys to send you a copy of my tract referred to in the extract, of which I beg your acceptance. It is, I believe, to Mr. John Nicholson that I am indebted for this extract, who appears to be the writer of its earlier portion. To him allow me to offer my best thanks for the favour done me in sending this Paper, as also for the care he has taken in getting Professor Ewald's judgment on my Accusations recorded. Of the goodness or badness of this judgment you will now have it in your power to form an opinion. To myself it is exceedingly gratifying. I have shown at length my reasons for dissenting from Von Ewald, all of which he meets with the short and, of course, most convincing reply, that I am both a fool and a knave. In his former charges-much to the same effect-he declared his determination to contest these points with me to the uttermost. He has, however, now changed his mind;

and

and in this, Mr. Nicholson seems to think he has done well. Cer. tainly I think so, and for the same among other reasons, viz., that no man of honour can condescend to prolong a personal controversy on such unequal terms, i. e., where abuse only is offered when argument is called for.

On the origin of this controversy, Mr. Nicholson's preface to his Paper, together with what is given in the accompanying tract, will be quite sufficient. I shall now lay before you the additional matter already adverted to. It is this, Dr. Ewald declared ('Churchman's Review' for May, 1847) that he had not seen my Hebrew Grammar till after his (of 1835) had appeared; the inference was, that he could not have inserted any discovery of mine in that edition. His words are, Long after that edition of my Hebrew Grammar (i. e. of 1835), in which the substance of my entire system is contained, had been published, an Englishman, then in Göttingen, showed me Professor Lee's Grammar in order to hear my opinion about it,' &c. Long after 1835, therefore, Dr. Ewald got for the first time a sight of my Hebrew Grammar. Now I have at this moment before me a note written by this very Englishman, in which stand the following words: Dr. Ewald saw Prof. Lee's Grammar in my possession in the year 1832, and I believe, at his request, I left it with him a short time for his inspection.' I need not inform Dr. Ewald who this Englishman is, for he well knows it. I will only say that, from the truly honourable character he sustains, he will not hesitate to repeat this testimony whenever or wherever he may be called upon to do so. I now leave this mystery to be explained either by Von Ewald or Mr. Nicholson, and will venture to affirm, that until this be satisfactorily done, considerable doubt may be entertained whether he really is the honourable man Mr. Nicholson takes him to be that he is not the learned man, I have given proof sufficient.

6

I must add, I supposed in my Tract that certain contents of my Grammar had found their way into Dr. Ewald's Edition of 1828; but as I had not seen a copy of it, I could not positively say so. The gentleman alluded to above has favoured me with the loan of his copy of that Edition, and which I find to be nothing more than an abridgment of Ewald's Grammar of 1827. I acquit Dr. Ewald therefore on this count. On all the rest I am prepared to maintain that he is an unprincipled plagiary, and that it is his inability to purge himself from this charge, and nothing else, that has now induced him to take refuge in a tissue of unmeasured abuse.

I join most cordially with Mr. Nicholson in wishing that the cause of Biblical literature may benefit by this controversy; and I do think that in skilful hands this may be brought about. I am too not without hopes that your publication may be the means of effecting this. SAMUEL LEE.

The Rectory, Barley, Herts, 30th April, 1849.

BIBLICAL