If the reader wants more, let him, qui possit noscere curvo, examine is, with ten classes of me three references in Kal to establish them; with jugations mixed together as to meaning under the and in the references entirely undistinguished as to cation conformable to the meaning; and then rea ulations which make up the rest of the article examine, which Mr. Roy makes a root, as then turn on to, 13, or any other important whole extent of the Hebrew language. In all, we him, he will find more or less of the like palpable egregious omissions. The tout ensemble of the real, i. e. without form; it is in an almost e a veritable, void; and at all events, Dinn darkness is on the face of the deep. In one re ever, the original chaos differed widely from Mr. H it contained the material out of which a beautiful could be constructed; Mr. Roy's chaos scarcely ruins of an old one.

Upon one thing more we must bestow our atten we quit the subject of the verbs. Mr. Roy has No. 11. of his Preface, that "particular care has to direct the attention to the active, passive, an sense of verbs, and the distinctions necessary to b in their conjugations." These, he adds, "have i gree, been disregarded by translators," and "man mistakes have been made in translating passages b sight of them." What his view of this subject us by exemplifying it. Kal is simply active; N sive; Piel, intensitive, e. g. 9, he diligently wro the passive of this; Hiphil, causative; (what H does not tell us;) Hithpaël, reflexive. He then

as exemplifications of what he has ,יְהוּדָה and וּבָא

amending the common errors.

We have turned, according to his direction, to th expecting some new light upon them. When we ha out, we found the following rare discovery; shall be caused to be introduced, presented, brought exemplification is to be found in Lev. vi. 30, " offering which shall be caused to be introduced into nacle, etc."; for which our common version ha said, is brought, etc. In the name now of com

what is added to this by translating, shall be caused to be introduced?

But let us look at . We find it ranged under 7, (contrary to what we should expect, from what is said in the Preface,) and this is translated; He shall cause to praise. This is somewhat of a discovery, as we may easily see by asking, What then is the Hebrew simple active form, meaning he shall praise? for the Hebrews must, it would seem, have had something besides causative forms of this verb. Yet there is nothing, if Mr. Roy is in the right. In Kal, 7, means to cast, jacere. The only example of Kal in the Scriptures, is in Jer. 1. 14; but this is a clear one. In Piël the verb in like manner means, projecit, he threw. In Hiphil do we find the first evidences of such a meaning as praise; which meaning is also designated, without any sensible variation, by the forms in Hithpaël. But, according to Mr. Roy, we have no simple active sense of the verb in question, no form of the verb which designates the meaning to praise; and according to him, also, Hithpaël must of course mean, he praised himself. So then, in 2 Chron. xxx. 22, (which describes the joyful sacrifices and thanksgiving of the Hebrews in the days of Hezekiah,) where the writer says i d'inp (they praised Jehovah), we must translate this, as it seems, in the following manner; they praised themselves instead of Jehovah; or, at any rate, they praised themselves to Jehovah, which would not much mend the matter.

Such are the absurd consequences of an adherence to conjugation, like that which Mr. Roy proposes. He does not indeed seem to know any thing which is accurate, respecting the true use of conjugations or voices in the Oriental languages. If he did, he could never advance such school-boy emendations as those proposed above; much less propose them as important corrections of the errors of those who have preceded him, and as important in order to establish the right meaning of the Scriptures.

Who, that knows any thing of the Arabic, Syriac, or Chaldee languages, does not know, that not unfrequently particular forms of words belonging to one conjugation or species, designate the meanings of other conjugations? This always takes place as a matter of course, when a particular conjugation (from any cause) has become obsolete, and the meaning it would naturally convey must be expressed. Another conju

gation is then employed; and the context is t guide in assigning the sense to a particular wor may be its form. So in Greek; the first Aorist often an active, often a middle sense; and the lik some other tenses. The middle voice has ofte sense, and sometimes a passive one. Indeed, t imperfect, perfect, and pluperfect, in the passive voices, are identical as to form. Yet this occasio no confusion to the reader. And the same is the the use of all the various forms of the preterites often commuted for each other, specially in the ac and so of the futures in other voices. But Mr not seem even to imagine, that there can be any mutations in the Hebrew language. Piel must do a thing diligently; Hiphil, to cause another to · Hithpaël must be reflexive. And what is rather t patience is, that all this is advanced with so grave accompanied, as it would seem, by such claims to of having made an important discovery in Hebre and exegesis, which will correct a multitude of e mitted by his predecessors, errors which are importance.

We must delay, therefore, a few moments, a little upon this head, because of the assuming air o in respect to this matter. What we intend to do to produce a few examples of Hebrew verbs, show the reader how utterly unfounded, and savou ignorance respecting the nature of Hebrew conju the pretensions of Mr. Roy.

According to him, Niphal is simply the pass Yet every well-grounded Hebrew scholar knows, t is the passive not of Kal, but of Piël, or of Hi both, when Kal has an intransitive meaning, and conjugations a transitive one. Thus 122, to be hear great, copious; but the Piël and Hiphil forms mea and Niphal therefore means he was honored; conjugation takes a reflexive sense, (one which is mon to Niphal,) and means he honored himself easy to give the exemplifications, but our limits for also the nature of our publication, from making lexicographal articles. We must therefore simply reader to the proofs or exemplifications adduced

before us, in Gesenius's Hebrew Lexicon; and if he distrusts. this, he can look the cases out in his Hebrew Bible, and thus judge for himself.

Take other examples in order to judge of this alleged, exclusively passive, signification of Niphal. In Kal, means to be sick; in Niphal, has just the same sense. In Kal, means to draw near; in Niphal, v has the same meaning. In Kal, 127, among other meanings, has that of abiit, decessit, went off, departed; in Niphal, 12 has the same meaning, Ps. cix. 23. In Hiphil and Piel of

, the meaning is, to hope, wait for, expect; in Niphal it is the same. In Niphal we have 2, he prophesied; and so exclusive is this Niphal form, that Kal is not at all employed in such a sense. Hithpaël again has the same meaning here as Niphal, i. e. he prophesied or predicted. What, in the name of all reason, would result from Mr. Roy's great discovery, in this case? Niphal according to this must mean, he or it was prophesied; but, inasmuch as the verb has a proper person for its subject, the meaning must therefore be, he was prophesied, etc. In Hithpaël the meaning according to Mr. Roy must of course be, he prophesied himself.

By the same rule on must mean he was fought; and yet the Kal form of this verb commonly means to eat, very rarely to fight. Niphal is almost always used in the latter active sense; and never, we believe, does it in a single instance designate a passive sense. But Mr. Roy has put down all the senses of this verb together, in all its forms, under the root on, and has not even referred to Niphal for an exemplification of the sense to fight. On looking out the word on?, however, in the dictionary of Mr. Roy, the student will there find, that he has translated it, he fought; but without a word of remark, either there or elsewhere, as to the peculiar usage of the verb. But what now, according to his own showing, has become of his exclusive Niphal sense?

Take the verb yay, he swore; it has no Kal, and its Hiphil is used in the causative sense. How are we to manage, in this case, in the translation of the Hebrew ? Must we make the nonsense which would be made, by rendering this verb he was sworn? And thus might we go on and put unnumbered questions, selected from the wide extent of Hebrew verbs.

At this time of day, no one pretending to a knowledge of VOL. XLVI.- No. 99.

64

the Hebrew should be ignorant of the fact, that not only a passive of Kal, but sometimes of Piël It has often a reflexive meaning; often a recip sometimes it has a meaning like the middle voic and designates the doing of an action for one's se has a simple neuter or intransitive meaning; and s denotes the must, could, should, etc., of our Eng Yet Mr. Roy confounds all these together, just his references in the Concordance-part of his lex has doubtless an adequate reason for so doing; bu choose to name it.

A word or two on some of the other conjugati according to him, means to do a thing diligentl predominant sense in Hebrew is causative; e. learn, Piël, to cause to learn, i. e. to teach, ing to Mr. Roy it must be to learn diligently. quently this conjugation has a privative sense; e. sin, in Piel son, to expiate, to make atonement f thus take it away; p, to stone any one, p, to stones and remove them as from a field, Is. v. 2; bu to Mr. Roy, diligently to stone any one, or diligen stones into a field. Not unfrequently Piël has the as Kal itself; e. g. in Kal, P, to bury, Piël The diligent doing of a thing is merely one among senses of this conjugation, and by no means the le

In Hiphil, which Mr. Roy represents as exclu sative, he is quite as wide of the mark as in the o Here we can merely say, that the predominant causative. Often it has an intransitive meaning; to be silent, in Hiphil, w, the same; 12, to Hiphil the same. And thus of many other verbs. As to Hithpaël, Mr. Roy has gone still further, from a correct representation of the case. He re his Preface, that this conjugation is a simple reflex Yet the very form of it (with a Daghesh forte in radical) shows, that it is a passive or a reflexive o not of Kal. But this is not all. Hithpaël means one's self, to show off one's self, as doing, or, to o self to doing, what the verb indicates. It someti nates reciprocal action; sometimes (like the midd Greek) the doing of things for one's own adva such is its active nature, not unfrequently, that it e of a passive form (Hothpaël) which is derived from