the second Person is mentioned under the name of Memra dejeja, or the Word of God. Hereunto are all personal properties and all divine works in that translation assigned; with an illustrious testimony to the faith of the old Church concerning the distinct subsistence of a plurality of P'ersons in the Divine nature. And for the Hellenists who wrote and expressed themselves in the Greek tongue, they used the name Logos, the Word of God, to the same purpose: as I have elsewhere manifested out of the writings of Philo, who lived about this time, between the death of our Saviour and the destruction of Jerusalem." (Owen, Vol. 2.)

It will be observed that in all the translations of the Targums, and in the comments of Ryland and Owen, the same usage is exhibited as in our translation, of making the Jehovah the genitive of the official appellative which precedes it. Hence the mystery and confusion which have so generally been thought to attend the official designations of the Old Testament. But if it be considered that in the use of the terms Logos, Dabar, and Memra, where a personal reference is intended, the abstract is put for the concrete, as Word for Revealer, so that where these words are coupled with Jehovah the reading should be The Revealer, or The Revealing Jehovah, as in the case of Melach Jehovah, the reading should be, The Messenger, or The Sent or delegated Jehovah, or the Messenger who is Jehovah,-the use of those terms as personal designations will suggest no difficulty.

CHAPTER XV.

Reasons of the Failure of the modern versions of the Scriptures to exhibit clearly the Hebrew designations of the Messiah-The Masoretic Punctuation-Reference to the term Melach and the formula Melach

Jehovah.

BUT if, in the ancient dispensations, the Messenger Jehovah, the delegated official Person, Messiah, was, in all relations, the actor, administrator, and revealer; if Moses and the prophets wrote intelligibly of Him; if they recognized and acknowledged him under all the Divine designations, why, it may naturally be asked, did not the authors of the English and other modern versions so understand, and in their translations construe and represent them? An answer to this question, in all its bearings, probably no one now would be inclined to undertake. But in certain, and perhaps the most important respects, it admits of a satisfactory answer. The translators, from the prescribed or customary and popular course of theological study and opinion, which aimed to avoid, with the arrogant assumptions and pretensions of Romanism, the gentile heresies of the whole Papal history, were led to entertain an overweening and ill-founded confidence in the modern Jews as interpreters of their own Scriptures; that is, of the Jewish authors who flourished, and whose works were published, after the establishment of Papal domination and intolerance, and of Mohammedan ravage and proscription. That school of Jewish authors was not only more modern, but widely different in respect to their theological doc

trines from the Chaldee paraphrasts, especially in regard to the Messiah; and may be comprehensively described as including the Talmudists, the Masoretic doctors, and their rabbinical disciples and followers of various names. The productions of these Jewish authors were numerous and readily accessible at the period of the revival of learning in Europe, and in the sixteenth century were brought into notice and favor especially by the elder Buxtorf, in connection with his edition of the Hebrew Bible, and his lexicons, grammar, and various works relating to Masoretic and rabbinical literature. He seems to have entered with enthusiasm into the study of this school of Jewish writers; and, with respect at least to the later and best known portion of them, as the clue to their sentiments was furnished by their use of the Masoretic points, he embraced their system in that respect, and inculcated and defended the application of it to the text of the Hebrew Scriptures with earnestness, perseverance, and success. His example was followed. The use of the points facilitated the study of the language; and for that reason, as well as because they were supposed to be safe guides in respect to the reference and meaning of words, they became popular with the learned and with students. Instead of being regarded as having the effect of a translation and commentary, and thereby fastening on the text the constructions and opinions of their authors, whether erroneous or otherwise, they were regarded primarily in a grammatical point of view, and as indicating the vowels supposed to be proper to Hebrew words, in addition to the letters originally composing them.

But this system of punctuation has unavoidably the effect of a version or comment. Its office is essentially

that of an exponent of the constructions and opinions

of its authors, and as such it can be no further correct and reliable than their theological, exegetical, and religious doctrines, theories and sentiments were in accordance with the real meaning of the original text. It may often, and perhaps generally where no doctrine or doubtful construction is concerned, have the effect to express that real meaning, and to that extent it might be harmless, and, if not wholly useless, might be of equal value with a paraphrase to the same effect. But if the student adopts this system as a guide, he naturally relies on it as equally applicable to every portion of the sacred oracles, and, with as much confidence in one case as in another, adopts the construction which it indicates.

An attempt to reform the reigning fashion of Hebrew study in relation to this subject would probably be as hopeful a task as an attempt to disabuse the minds of theologians and religious teachers of the empirical, fanciful, and puerile system of figurative exposition which was rendered popular by Origen, and has reigned triumphant from his to the present time; being propagated from age to age by education, and by the example and influence of the learned. But, regarded in a merely historical point of view, there appears to be no room for doubt but that the Hebrew vowel points-closely and even bigotedly adhered to, as they are understood to have been, by the translators of the Scriptures into our own and other modern languages-had, extensively, a very ill effect upon the versions which they furnished. And to whatever extent this was true, it would naturally prevail, especially in relation to those passages concerning which the authors held erroneous opinions, and as to which, under the more than hereditary Jewish prejudices occasioned by the persecutions and proscriptions to which they were subjected, they aimed to counteract

the tendency of the Chaldee versions, as well as "to root out," in the language of McCaul, the Christian interpretations of the Hebrew text. "The violent persecutions of the Crusaders," says that writer, "the jealousy excited by the Christian attempt upon the Holy Land, and the influence of the doctrine of the Mahometans, amongst whom they lived, produced a sensible change in Jewish opinions and interpretations, which is plainly marked in Kimchi and other writers of the day, and without a knowledge of which the phenomena of modern Judaism cannot be fully understood. Rashi, AbenEzra, and Kimchi endeavored to get rid of the Christian interpretations, and Maimonides to root out the Christian doctrines which had descended from the ancient Jewish Church." (Introduction to Kimchi.) Yet this laborious student of those authors and of the Talmud adhered as pertinaciously as they to the Masoretic points, and apparently without ever suspecting that their highest office and their necessary and principal effect was that of being the vehicle of a comment. Such is the force of education, literary discipline, example, and habit in generating fixed opinions.

But let one deemed competent to judge and to speak upon this subject be referred to:

"The Masoretic punctuation," says Bishop Lowth, "by which the pronunciation of the language is given, the forms of the several parts of speech, the construction of the words, the distribution and limits of the sentences, and the connection of the several members, are fixed, is in effect an interpretation of the Hebrew text made by the Jews of late ages, probably not earlier than the eighth century, and may be considered as their translation of the Old Testament. Where the words, unpointed, are capable of various meanings, accordingly as they are variously