treated? Far from it. I think, there might be produced from them examples of amplification set off with as great copiousness of expression, as from almost any authors whatever. And, in several instances, there are in Hebrew as many synonymous terms and phrases to express the same ideas, as perhaps can be produced, in a like number of instances taken at pleasure, even in the Greek language itself.

"Your Lordship enters further into this subject in another place; which I shall therefore consider.

2

"Amant Hebræi, says Grotius, as you quote him, verborum, copiam; itaque rem eandem multis verbis exprimunt. He does not tell us the reason; but your Lordship is so good as to supply it. It arises from the narrowness of the Hebrew language, which is the scantiest of all the learned languages of the east: for when the speaker's phrase comes not up to his ideas, as in a scanty language it often will not, he naturally endeavours to explain himself by a repetition of the thought in other words; as he whose body is straitened in room is never relieved but by a continual change of posture. A reason so very refined, that I must suspect it has no good foundation. The Hebrews are fond of a copiousness of words; and therefore express the same thing in many words: or, as you very rightly explain it, by a repetition of the same thought in many words. Now I think they would never have been able to satisfy this their fondness for a copiousness of words, by repeating the same thought in other words; unless they had at command different words, to express the same thought in: that is, unless their language had been copious, and had abounded in synonymous or parallel expressions. For example: the general subject of the cxixth psalm is the blessedness of keeping the law; which is pursued through twenty-two alphabetical stanzas, of eight distichs each, with much sameness of thought, but great variety of expression. Instead of twelve or fourteen synonymous terms to express the Law, and at least four times as many parallel phrases to express the keeping of it; if you reduce the psalmist to a single term or two, you strike him dumb be he ever so fond of pleonasm, and ever so eager to express himself copiously, he will neither be able to attain, nor so much as to testify, his desire, unless you give him his free range in the natural copiousness of his language. Can it then possibly be ascribed to the narrowness of his language, that the psalmist repeats his thought so often in other words? to his inability, and at the same time his

1 See Carpzovii Critica sacra. P. i C. v. S. 4.

2 Divine legation, B. iv, Sect. iv.

eagerness, to express himself to his satisfaction, that he so often changes his posture? On the contrary; do we not evidently see, that he sets out with a formed design of amplifying his subject to a surprising extent, upon a plan, that necessarily required a hundred and seventy-six distichs, upon almost the same thought, and in confidence of an ample stock of words and phrases to carry him through it? This manner of repeating the same thing in synonymous or parallel terms prevails throughout the Hebrew poetry; and is a principal characteristic of the poetical style. The character of the poetical style in general must arise from the nature of the language; and the pleonastic character in particular must arise from the abundance of parallel terms and phrases in the language."

The next charge brought against the Hebrew tongue is its obscurity.

Le Clerc argues that, in the Hebrew scriptures, penury of words begets ambiguity; because, " when proper expressions are wanting, figurative ones must be used, or generic terms must be applied to many particulars of a different nature. Thus it becomes difficult to distinguish the literal sense from the metaphorical; and to ascertain the various significations comprehended under the same general word."

2

So great is the number and so nice are the differences of sensible objects, and so active is the human mind in reflecting on its own operations and in combining a variety of abstract notions, that language must necessarily labour to furnish distinct appellations for every archetype in the vast storehouses of nature and intellect. Tully therefore observes very justly that metaphor was the offspring of necessity; though it was afterwards recommended by the pleasure and delight which the mind takes in contemplating such analogies. But the nature of things, and the genius of a particular language and people, will usually determine, with sufficient accuracy, whether words are figuratively applied or not: and, where the figure is allowed, it is an acknowledged rule of criticism not to urge the similitude too far. Those who are conversant in the scriptures will observe a great daringness in metaphorical language. Due allowances must be made for these flights: they must be attributed to the glowing imagination

1 Diss. de ling. Hebr. p. ix.

2 De oratore. iii. 38.

of eastern writers: and attention must be given to the comparisons which the learned have drawn between the ardent expressions of the Hebrews and Arabs, whose manners and climate bear a great resemblance.

1

With respect to general terms, it is a remark applicable to all languages that words put on different significations as they are joined with others and that the series of the discourse commonly serves to limit such words with due precision.

Le Clerc proceeds thus ; "If we consider the various senses of the undeclinable particles, and the confusion of almost all the tenses in the verbs, and add to these the perpetual changes of genders, numbers, and persons; the perspicuity of the Hebrew tongue will not be matter of boast. Read Noldius on the Hebrew particles, and Glassius's sacred grammar, books well known to all and deservedly commended; and, when these have been examined, it will appear even to the pertinacious that perhaps no tongue is more full of ambiguity and obscurity than the Hebrew."

The significations of the Hebrew particles are often needlessly multiplied. They constitute a great nicety in the sacred language; which is true of the particles in 2 Greek, and even in English: but it is a nicety which yields to penetration and industry. A disquisition into the force of what grammarians call the preter and future tenses of the Hebrew verbs is also curious and subtle. But the exigentia loci, the ancient translators, and the most judicious and learned commentators and philologists, afford ample assistance on this subject. The difficulties respecting these and other modifications of the Hebrew verb are allowed to be considerable; but no deep enquirer will assert that they are invincible. The potential mood, for instance, is not distinguished from the indicative by inflexions peculiar to itself. But still the competent judge of the language is able to determine when the verb is used in this form, by attention to the context and to the use of certain particles. On the other hand, precision is given to the language by the feminine terminations of verbs in the preter and

1 Vid. Clerici art. crit. L. ii. sect. 1. c. v.

2 See Devarius Vigerus, and Hoogeveen on the Greek particles. The last work is contained in two large quarto volumes. In Johnson's Dictionary, but has 18 senses, to 31, and for 42.

future tenses and in the imperative mood, as well as in the participial forms. It is true that the enallages of genders, numbers, and persons are bold and frequent: but they are rather unusual than inexplicable; and naturally arise from the warmth and enthusiasm which still prevail among the eastern nations.

1

In another work, Le Clerc gives additional reasons why many things cannot be understood in the Hebrew tongue and in the books of the Old Testament. 1. Because only one volume remains, and that of no great bulk; in which the genius and phraseology of the whole language cannot be comprehended. 2. Because in these books mistakes of transcribers exist, which disturb the sense, and which, through negligence or difficulty in transcribing, corrupted the text before any versions were made. 3. Because there are very many words which occur once, or very rarely; and that in places where neither the nature of the thing nor the context shews in what sense we should understand them. 4. Because, except the Mosaic rites and other customs appointed by divine authority, we either know not very many opinions of the Hebrews, or collect them from a few places by doubtful conjecture. 5. Because we have a very short compendium of their history; so that we are every where at a loss. 6. Because our surer assistances in overcoming these difficulties were furnished in those ages when the Hebrew tongue had been long disused, and was no otherwise known than by tradition among a few of the learned.

On each of these reasons it is necessary to make a short remark.

1. The Providence of God has preserved to us so large a volume of the Hebrew scriptures, written by so many authors, on such different subjects, and at such distant periods of time, that our materials for acquiring the language may justly be called ample ones, that obscurities affect only minuter parts, and that the curious enquirer is generally gratified in his researches though not always.

2

2. "The casual errors of transcribers," says Bishop Lowth, "may blemish parts; but do not destroy, or much alter, the whole. Important and fundamental doctrines do not wholly depend on single passages; an universal harmony runs through the holy scriptures; the

1 Ars critica, P. i. c. iv. sect. iii. §. 3.

2 Pref. to Isaiah, p. lix.

parts mutually support each other, and supply one another's deficiencies and obscurities. Superficial damages and partial defects may greatly diminish the beauty of the edifice, without injuring its strength, and bringing on utter ruin and destruction."

3. There are very few words or phrases in the Hebrew scriptures of which a probable explanation cannot be given, either from the nature of the thing, or the context, or a comparison of the doubtful place with parallel ones, or the aid of the sister-languages, or the interpretations of the ancient translators: and our inability to solve such verbal difficulties in a manner altogether satisfactory will not affect our religious knowledge, or the regulation of our moral conduct.

4. The books of Moses contain an authentic system of the religious and political laws under which the Hebrews lived. The miscellaneous contents of their sacred writings largely explain their customs and opinions. Their own writers, since the volume of their sacred writings was completed, supply no small assistance on these subjects: and the accounts which historians and travellers give of the east, where manners continue unaltered through a course of ages, are a further source of most useful information.

5. The history of the Hebrews, though concise, is more authentic than that of any other ancient nation. Larger histories, both of that people and of the neighbouring kingdoms with which they had intercourse, would have been highly valuable and useful; particularly, in shewing the completion of some prophecies by recording facts which we now assume without injuring the grand argument from this topic : but enough is written for the purpose of instruction and example in all ages of the church.

6. The Greek version, though no part of it is supposed to be earlier than two hundred and fifty years after the Babylonish captivity, at which time the Hebrew tongue ceased to be vernacular, may still represent very old manuscripts, or very correct copies of them. This observation may be extended to the Chaldee paraphrase of Jonathan, made about the time of Christ; to the Syriac version, which is generally attributed to the first century; to the imperfect Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, who lived in the second century; and even to the Latin version of which Jerom was the author