« PreviousContinue »
of his judgement, as evinced by his making a sober and tem
perate use of the various means for determining the significa
tion of a Hebrew word.' This is a primary qualification, since the means of understanding the import of a passage in the Hebrew Scriptures, can never be supplied to us by any philologist who satisfies himself with imposing some fanciful notion upon a word, instead of cautiously deducing from a comparison of the instances in which it occurs, the several senses which it bears. Gesenius rejects all mystical derivations; and he has avoided the error into which some modern lexicographers have run, of almost constantly adducing Arabic derivations, though he is careful to avail himself of the assistance to be received from the oriental dialects. In one point of great moment, but of great difficulty, especially in Hebrew words, the merit of Gesenius appears to us to be somewhat over-rated by his present Editor, who states, that Gesenius has been very successful in seizing hold of the primary physical acceptation of a word, and in the orderly arrangement of its several significations. We agree, however, in the commendation which he passes on the method adopted by the Author of the Lexicon, of supporting the sense and construction of terms by pertinent citations, which, in cases of difficulty, are written out and accompanied with a literal translation. Such a view of the different meanings of a word, is the best commentary on the passages cited. This plan, indeed, is not peculiar to the present work, but it greatly enhances its utility; and we advert to it. principally for the purpose of earnestly recommending to the Hebrew student the use of the Concordance. Let him who would make solid proficiency in Hebrew, add to his Grammar and Lexicon a Hebrew Concordance; and by accustoming himself to examine the examples of the use of words in their connection, he will find it promote his advancement in Hebrew philology in the most advantageous manner.
The Lexicon of Gesenius is constructed on the principle of alphabetical arrangement, which affords, in some respects, facilities that are wanting in the etymological collocation of words; but the other mode in general use, is not without its claims to preference. The Editor objects against it, the arbitrary associations which those who follow it introduce into their classification of words,-as the derivation of ax, a father, from nux, to acquiesce; and in such instances, we may concede the propriety of a separate and distinct arrangement. But it is, on the other hand, no small inconvenience, to find words, of whose relation there can be no doubt, placed apart in different portions of the Lexicon; as in the case of the verb voy, to know, for which we have to consult it in pp. 142. 232. 312. The difficulties of the etymological method appear to us to be exaggerated in the
representation, that it supposes the student to be already a proficient in the language. With the instructions derived from his grammar, he will soon acquire a readiness in finding the roots ; and the practice of tracing the derivatives to them, will essentially assist him in his progressive advancement.
As a specimen of the Lexicon, we extract the following examples of the manner in which the Author arranges and defines the meanings of words.
« 728, fut. TN and 78. 1. to be lost, to fail, with 5 of the person, 1 Sam. ix. 3. 20. with 19, Deut. xxii. 3. Job xi. 20 DTIQ 72N di refuge has failed them. Jer. xxv. 35. Ps. cxlii. 5. Job xxx. 2. Ezek. vii. 26. 17:ņ 78Y? JUB9 771m tann the law shall fail the priest, and wisdom the aged, Comp. Jer. xviii. 18. xlix. 7. Hence Deut. xxxii. 28 nisy TON 1a a people void of counsel or wisdom, (TaN is participle in const. state.) heart, i. e. the understanding, of the king shall fail through fear, consternation. Job. viii. 13 7MM nunand the hope of the proAligate man fails, i. e. is frustrated. Ps. ix. 19. cxii. 10. Prov. X. 28.
the יאבדלֶב הַמֶּלֶךְ 9 .Jer. iv
the designs of the ungodly shall come to דֶּרֶךְ רְשָׁעִים תאבד 6 .Ps. i
nought. Ezek. xii. 22 zirņ.) 77 every prophecy faileth.
• 2. to wander, go astray, spoken of cattle. Ps. cxix. 176 Tas no a stray sheep. Comp. Jer. 1. 6. Ezek. xxxiv. 4, 16. Hence also of
the exiles in the land of הָאֹבְדִים בְּאֶרֶץ אַשׁוּר 13 .persons, Isa. xxvii
Assyria. (Parall. 797.) Deut. xxvi. 5 N N a wandering Syrian.
* 3. to perish; spoken of a harvest, Joel i. 11. of a country, Exod. x. 7. Jer. ix. 11. of houses, Am. iii. 15. of men and animals, Job. iv. 11. Judges v. 31. Num. xvii. 27 (12) 1377$ 1392 1372» we perish, we all perish. Hence it signifies to be destroyed, rooted out, Deut. vii. 20. viii. 19. often with the addition VINT Syn Deut. iv. 26. xi. 17. Josh. xxiii. 13, 16.
• 4. Also simply to be unfortunate, unhappy, spoken of men ; as Part. 7 the unfortunate, forsaken, Job. xxix. 13. xxxi. 19. Prov. 31. 6.
· Note 1. The future with Tseri 72 is used at the end of a clause, the future with pattah TON, in the beginning or middle; comp. Job. viii. 13, with Ps. ix, 19.
• Pi. 728. fut. 728. 1. Caus. of Kal no. 1. to lose, to cause to fail. Ecc. iii. 6. vii. 7. nama zbong 7 a bribe perverts the understanding, comp. Jer. iv. 9. construed with 79, Jer. li. 55.
< 2. Caus. of Kal no. 2. to lead flocks astray, Jer. xxiii. 1.
• 3. Caus. of Kal no. 3. to ruin, destroy, kill. Est. iii. 9. 13. 2 K. xi. 1. xii. 7. xix. 18. Num. xxxiii. 52. Deut. xii. 2. '17 TEN? to destroy, or waste one's substance ; Prov. xxix. 3. • Note 2. 772N Syr. for 772N; Ez. xxviii. 16.
Hiph. TENT i. 9. Pi. but especially 1. caus. of Kal no. 1. Job xiv. 19. Jer. xxv. 10.
2. Caus. of Kal no. 3. to destroy men, nations. Deut. vii. 10. viii. 20. ix. 3. Often followed by 2.?? Dy from amidst the people, Lev. xxiii. 30. or by own nnn from under heaven, Deut. vii. 24.
Note 3. MTIK Chald. for TTINN 1 per. sing. fut. Jer. xlvi. 8. .728, fut. 22). Chald. to perish, as in Heb. Jer. x. 11. they shall perish.
* Aph. 7pin, fut. 7pin), to destroy, Dan. ii. 12. 24. perhaps also to perish, ii. 18.
Hoph. 72109 to be destroyed. Dan. vii. 11. tak m. verbal from 72x, ruin, destruction. Num. xxiv. 20. 24.
• Note. The form of this noun is that of the common participle, but the signification is abstract, Comp. noi, nia.
.dec. x ,אָבַד f. verbal from אֲבֵדָה •
. 1. Something lost. Ex. xxii. 8. Lev. v. 22. 23.
אָבַד m. verbal from אֲבַדּוֹן •
1. Destruction. Job xxxi. 12. • 2. Place of destruction, hence i. q. Sinu ädns the subterranean world, the region of the dead. Job xxvi. 6. xxviii. 22. Prov. xv. 11.
*7728 m. verbal from Tax, destruction. Est. ix. 5.
We have taken this verb as the first which occurs in the Lexicon; and though, from its occupying this precedence, it could scarcely be expected to present marks of hasty composition, we cannot praise this example as a finished specimen of Hebrew philology. The definition includes senses which do not belong to the word ; as in 2. to wander, go astray, e ciles. 4. To be unfortunate, unhappy.-To lead astray. Whatever relation these expressions may have to the state included in the predications of the verb 7ox, they can have no place in the correct definition of it, or of any of its ramifications. The word never means to go astray, or wander, though it is sometimes very properly employed to represent the state into which the
subject of the description may be brought, in consequence of going, or being led astray, as in the case of a sheep. But certainly, the Jewish captives in the land of Assyria had not strayed or wandered into it. A wandering Syrian' is a very unsuitable translation of the words in Deut. xxvi. 5. Nor is unfortunate or unhappy more appropriate in respect to the passages in Job and Proverbs. In all these instances, the language of the Common Version is correct and forcible, lost,' ready to perish.'
This is not the only instance in the volume, to which we could refer as evidence that the Author's judgement has sometimes slumbered, or misled him in the account which he gives of particular words. The office of the Lexicographer has not always, in the labours of the Author, been kept distinct from that of the Commentator. From the latter, weexpect to receive the most pertinent explanations of the sacred text; while we look to the former only as the interpreter of its terms and idiomatical expressions. On turning to the article gibe, p. 34, we find 'Job xii. 6. 977 Aib H20 7WN, who bears the divinity in his hand, i. e.
whose fist is his Ged. Comp. Hab. i. 11.' There is nothing in this reference to support this explanation, or to furnish a parallel to the passage: and the sense given to the verb, is without authority: Ni2 never means to bear. We shall add another example.
Gen. vi. 3. dix} ? 19 7479b, my spirit shall not always
rule or act in man. The Spirit of God appears here, as in Psalm civ. 30., to be the animating principle in creatures ; hence this meaning: I will take away from man the breath of life, they shall live no longer.' p. 132.
The difficulties of this passage are admitted, and it is for the expositor to solve them. In the Lexicon, we look simply for the meaning of the verb, which is never applied in the manner here used, in any part of the Scriptures: 'my spirit', in a declaration coming from God, is not the same as the breath of life in man. Spirit', m, is very strangely explained as occuring in 1 Kings xi. 5,--then there was no more life in her; i. e. she was beside herself! The meaning is very evident, but it excludes madness and stupidity. The phrase occurs in Jo
1, where the sense of beside ones-self' is out of the question: the hearts of the kings of the Canaanites melted, neither was there spirit in them any more. They were, however, perfectly sane. There are other examples in the Lexicon, on which we might comment; but we forbear to animadvert on the faults or imperfections of a truly meritorious work, and one which, to the English student, is an acquisition of great value. The instances are certainly much fewer than the Editor's com
mendatory statement would seem to represent, of the satisfactory deduction, in regular gradation, of the various meanings to be attributed to a word, from the physical acceptation in which it was first used to designate an object. To expect, indeed, to find the work replete with this kind of excellence, would be to look for the proofs of discoveries in Hebrew philology which have not yet been made, and which, it is very probable, never will be made. The significations of words as they are used by the sacred writers, are defined with clearness, and illustrated by a sufficient number of examples in the Lexicon; and an account is given of the construction of verbs with prepositions and particles; phrases and idioms are explained ; poetical words and inflexions are noticed, with the corresponding prosaic expression, as are also the peculiarities of the more modern Hebrew, in distinction from the more ancient; and an account of those words which are defective in some of their forms, is given as they.occur. Proper names of persons and places are introduced ; and the work is well furnished with all the necessary requisites of a Lexicon intended for practical purposes, without the encumbrance of extraneous or superfluous additions. It cannot fail of obtaining the place which it merits among the books of the Hebrew scholar.
From the evidence on which our judgement of the question must be formed, we conclude that the patriarch Job (p. 27.) was a real person. The opinion of the people of the East, who, at the present day, represent the patriarch as having truly existed, may not be conclusive evidence; but we do think that, in the accounts of the sacred writers which refer to the man of Uz, there is enough to prevent our adopting the Author's opinion, that the name is most probably fictitious, having reference to the description which is given of his life and fortune, and signifying persecuted.
Art. V. The Book of Job, in the words of the Authorized Version,
arranged and pointed in general conformity with the Masoretical
Text. 8vo. pp. xxxiv. 109. London, 1828. IN N a translation of any ancient work, it is desirable, not only
that the sense of the original should be given, but that the energy and beauty of the diction, and other peculiarities of style which may distinguish it, should be preserved. The most important object to which a translator's attention will be directed, is unquestionably the faithful conveyance of his author's meaning; but this requires, not only an accurate acquaintance with his language, but also the nicest observation of the manner in which he has employed it. The import of a passage may be