Names, same in Hebrew yet differing in English.

Nothing can be more clear, than that these fifty-four proper names (at least, the far greater part of them) should be expressed with the very same letters, in the places where they are now different. In the second list, instances 6, 10, and 13, have been corrected, and expressed uniformly, in the English Bible printed at Oxford, in 1769. And surely the same justice in the translation should be done to the rest of these proper names, and to all others through the Bible; at least, where the original words are now properly the same. Who would not wonder, at seeing the same persons, named both Simon and Shimon, Richard, and Ricard? And can we then admit here both Seth and Sheth, Rachel and Rahel? Again: who ever could admit (as above) both Gaza and Azzah, with Rameses and Raamses, should not object to London and Ondon, with Amsterdam and Amstradam. In short, in a history far more interesting than any other, the names of persons and places should be distinguished accurately,

and defined with exact uniformity. And no true critic will think lightly of this advice of Origen-Contemnenda non est accurata circa NOMINA diligentia ei, qui voluerit probe intelligere sanctas literas? No person who desires thoroughly to understand the Sacred Writings, should undervalue a scrupulous attention to the proper names. 1

CRITICAL AND DEVOUT STUDY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.

To understand fully the sense of the Holy Scriptures, requires diligent study and a considerable degree of mental cultivation. To obtain an experimental feeling of their spiritual application, requires the submitting of the heart, in prayer, to the teaching of that Divine Spirit, by whose inspiration all Scripture was given; without whose influence, the most knowing and accomplished scholar must remain in ignorance for the "natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God."-1 Cor. ii. 14.

:

"Neither of these two qualifications-the critical understanding and the spiritual feeling of the Scriptures-should be wanting in a Minister, or in a Missionary. Without a spiritual sense of Divine truth, so far from being qualified to teach, he has, as yet, the most important of all things to learn: without critical knowledge, although he may in most essential things speak feelingly, he is still very scantily qualified to be a safe teacher.

READING OF THE SCRIPTURES, NOT PROHIBITED BY ANY

CHURCH!

The Rev. William Jowett, M. A. one of the Representatives of the Church Missionary Society, thus writes:

"Although there be nowhere laid down by any church, the broad declaration, that the people are not allowed to read the Scriptures; and although the utmost that is censured by the Council of Trent, be, the "indiscriminate reading" of the Bible: yet, in practice, it is well known that in various Papal countries, there exists a feeling diametrically hostile to the free circulation of the Scriptures.”· Christian Researches in Syria and the Holy Land, &c. p. 399.

Is this admission generally made, and correctly founded? Is it true, that the Romish Church has no statute, nor decree, nor established law, on this particular? Whence, then, the clamours and calumnies of Anti-Catholics and the "No-Popery" faction? When shall these conflicting parties cease their disgraceful hostilities; and the voice of history be impartially heard!

December 16, 1825.

'Dr. Kennicott.

FAIR PLAY.

2 Rev. W. Jowett's Christian Researches in Syria and the Holy Land, in 1823 and 1824. p. 386.

EDITIONS OF THE SCRIPTURES, BY THE BIBLE SOCIETY.

The following judicious statements comprise some useful information, and may possibly contribute towards removing some appprehensions which may have been needlessly excited by the recent Controversy respecting the writings of the Apocrypha:

Another principle, for which the Bible Society is responsible, is the maintenance, as nearly as possible, of a pure and original text. The effort to give the word of God to all mankind, brings this subject forward as one of great importance.

Three languages, the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, have acquired, in the eyes of various nations, an almost sacred character, from being the earliest vehicles, now extant, of the Holy Scriptures-the Latin entirely, and the Greek partly, in translations; the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament, as-originals. To these may be added, the Syriac.

It is well known by Biblical Philologists, that there are considerable discrepancies between the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek Version of it by the Septuagint; as also between the original texts of the Old and New Testaments, and the Latin Version of them entitled the Vulgate.

In the midst of these "Variæ Lectiones," it has been hitherto judged the wisest practical measure to print for every country the version most esteemed by it, whether it were according to the Original, the Septuagint, or the Vulgate. The discrepancies, however numerous, are not in kind so dangerous as to shake any vital point of revealed Religion. Viewing, therefore, the importance, on the one side, of giving speedily and universally the knowledge of the Scriptures, partly according to the originals, and partly according to accepted and competent versions; and on the other side, the extremely small hazard of compromising the integrity of Scripture; it might fairly be asked, would it have been right to pause, and defer the promulgation of the Bible, till mankind should have agreed on a uniform text-a thing, practically speaking, neither attainable nor essential?

"The more rational course has been taken: the original Scriptures, the Septuagint, and the Vulgate, have all been used by the Bible Society. And, from this very policy, the following great benefit will arise as the multitude of persons interested and skilled in biblical criticism will thus certainly increase in Britain, in France, in Germany, in Russia, in Greece, in the Indies, and in the New World, a stronger stimulus will be communicated to their researches after a pure and standard text; the incorrect points of each received text will be discerned and acknowledged: and the Bible will thus attain, in every part of the world, a character which no other book merits, or could possibly acquire-that of having been tried, again and again, in the severest furnace of criticism, and having been found to be, in its essential character, pure as the purest gold.

1. Jowett's Christian Researches, in Syria and the Holy Land, p. 403, 404.

CORRECTIONS OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE:

Extracted from the Preface (Vol. I.) of Dr. Boothroyd's "Improved Version," and arranged in Grammatical order.

ARTICLES.

Errors frequently occur in these. The definite is improperly put before which. Gen. xlv. 6; Luke xxi. 6 — “ In the which," instead of, in which.

The definite is used instead of the indefinite: as, Matt. xxvii. 54; Mark xv. 32. "The Son of God," for a Son of God; "the physician," Mark ii. 17, instead of, a physician.

The definite is sometimes improperly omitted: as, "Into all truth," for, all the truth; that is, all religious truth, all the truth of the Gospel.

ADJECTIVES.

On some occasions they have double superlatives. Acts xxiii. 3, "the most straitest sect," instead of, the straitest. "Chiefest" is also a vulgarism; for chief cannot strictly admit of any degrees of comparison.

PRONOUNS.

The possessive" its" does not once occur in our Common Version; and yet how important it is to accuracy and precision in our language. Instead of, it, the possessive of the third person mas. or fem. was used; or the adverb, "thereof." This frequently occasions some degree of obscurity, as it is difficult to perceive, whether "his" and "hers" refer to persons or things. Lev. i. 6. 9. 15; Ps. i. 3; 1 Cor. xiii. 5.

The relative "which" is now appropriated to things only; but anciently it was applied both to persons and things. "Our father which art," should be, Our father who art, &c.

The distributives are often used improperly. They are now uniformly construed with nouns, pronouns, and verbs of the singular number only. Phil. ii. 3, should read, "better than himself." John xix. 18, "On each side one." Rev. xxii. 2, “On each side of the river." "Each" signifies both of them taken distinctly or separately; "either," properly means, only the one or the other of them, taken disjunctively.

VERBS.

In the use of the tenses, we have innumerable violations of grammatical propriety. We ought to read Job i. 21, "The Lord gave,' (or, rather, perhaps, "Jehovah giveth and Jehovah taketh away!") Matt. xxvi. 67, with the Geneva, "They spat on."

In the same sentence, the indicative and subjunctive moods are sometimes confounded. Matt. v. 23, should be, "And there remember." Matt. xvii. 12, "And go into."

By rendering the hiphil (or reflective) conjugation, "suffering" or "permitting," as well as "causing to do a thing," we avoid many inconsistencies, and give a comprehensive view of the Hebrew.

guage; which I should like to see criticised by some of our modern Chinese literati. Among other writers, he notices, "An Essai, that the language of China is the primitive language, by John Webber, London, 1669. 8vo.! He then admits that, in the Mandarin tongue, there are some evident traces of a Hebrew origin: as, respicere: Tamm omnis, completus: Gem etiam," &c. !— But, what, Mr. Editor, is your opinion, or that of your learned Doctor" now in town," on these affinities?

שעה Seu »

The late Editor of Calmet, in his Fragments and other valuable additions to the Dictionary, has suggested, with apparently great probability, that by the D (Sinim) of Is. xlix. 12. we are to understand the Chinese. It would be gratifying to have Dr. M.'s sentiments; and especially whether for purposes of Scripture illustration, he would recommend the study of this singular language? The "cui bono" is naturally asked by Ministers and Biblical Students; and many would feel obliged for a satisfactory answer to such a question.

In concluding these cursory enquiries on a highly interesting subject, I cannot refrain from expressing the regret of many, that Dr. M. should have chosen so very unliterary a medium for publishing his Chinese Letters, as the Evangelical Magazine. Why not have fixed on the Classical Journal, or some periodical of general literary reputation; in the hope of exciting the attention of the literary public, to the acquisition of a language, hitherto so shamefully neglected? Hoping, therefore, that these suggestions and queries may not be deemed undeserving, either of your editorial notice (in the Scripture Magazine) or of Dr. Morrison's attention, as soon as convenient. I am, yours truly,

MANCUNIENSIS.

ENQUIRY AS TO THE BEST METHODS OF READING THE SCRIPTURES,

SIR,

WITH THE PRELIMINARY INFORMATION REQUIRED.

To the Editor of the Scripture Magazine.

I shall feel much obliged by any of your correspondents favouring me, through the medium of your pages, with a few thoughts on this interesting and important subject. I wish to ascertain what is the method which is the most likely to be beneficially pursued, by a mere English reader, whose means of acquiring information are limited, in reading the Holy Scriptures; and what quantum of preliminary information he must possess, to understand tolerably well their allusions to various customs, laws, histories, &c.? With Mr. Bickersteth's very excellent work, all your readers are well acquainted. I, for one set a high value upon it; but it hardly meets my views in the light in which I am now regarding this enquiry. I beg to submit,