uable as this of Dr Webster, it would be some compensation, and the only one which they can make, for the wrong they do their country by their absence. It will not, we hope, be thought, that however valuable this work may be on account of its own intrinsic worth, it is still of but little interest to us, in respect of the country, which it describes; and it certainly will not, by those who recollect that St Michael is an island with which we have considerable trade, from which we receive one of our choicest luxuries, and to which our invalids resort to find a balmier air and a milder sky than can be had in our climate during winter. We leave it, with many thanks to the writer for the entertainment and instruction it has afforded us.

ART. V.-Dissertations on the importance and the best method of studying the Original Languages of the Bible, by Jahn and others, translated from the originals and accompanied with notes, by M. Stuart, Associate Professor of Sacred Literature in the Theological Seminary at Andover. 8vo. Andover. 1821.

WE can say of the present work, as of the Hebrew Grammar, noticed in our last number, that it bodes well to the cause of oriental learning, not only in the Theological Seminary, with which its author is connected, but, as we hope, in other similar institutions in our country. The prominent object of this publication is to urge the necessity of studying the original languages of the bible, especially the Hebrew and its related dialects, to point out the best method of studying them, and, if we look at the tendency of some of the notes, appended to it, we may add, to excite the attention of the public to the important subject of a well educated and faithful ministry. These are objects, we are sure, which are calculated to interest the feelings both of the scholar and the christian; and which necessarily involve the literary respectability and intellectual progress, as well as the religious well-being of the community. The dissertations, which are embodied in the publication, appear in three parts, and are followed by the notes, just now alluded to, from the spirited pen of the translator.

The principal author of part first, as we are informed in the preface, is Dr J. Jahn, an archbishop in the catholic church

at Vienna, and formerly professor in the university there of the oriental languages, biblical archaiology, higher criticism, and doctrinal theology.

The second part, which is short and occupied chiefly with the proper mode of studying the Hebrew, is translated from the preface to the small Hebrew Grammar of Gesenius, who is professor at the university at Hallé, and author of a valuable. Hebrew lexicon, and many other philological works.

The third part is an extract from the dissertation, prefixed to the Εκλογαί Ιστορικαι of Wyttenbach, formerly professor of Greek at Leyden, and is introduced to enforce the opinion and the recommendations of Jahn, in regard to the repetition of the lessons, which the student has taken, until he becomes able not only to construe them with ease, but to feel in his own bosom the inspiration and the power with which they were originally written.

Among the various subjects introduced into this publication, the topic, which chiefly occupies the dissertation of Jahn, is the study of the Hebrew. The arguments, which he uses, to show the importance of a knowledge of the Hebrew, are such, we believe, as cannot be readily overthrown; and were we certain that they would be read by all who peruse these pages, we should be quite willing to leave the subject, without any additional observations, in the hands of so able an arbiter. But knowing the probability that this will not be the case, and being in some degree acquainted with the state of sacred literature in our country, we deem it proper to give our own testimony on the point, and to aid the exertions of professor Stuart, to promote among us a more creditable knowledge of the original languages of the bible. The holy bible,' says Jahn, ‹ is the principal source of theology; the fountain, from which, in a special manner, all science of religion is drawn; the foun dation, on which its doctrines are built.' If this be the case, it is altogether reasonable to expect from those, who set themselves up as teachers in religion, that they should be minutely acquainted both with its character and the instructions it communicates. An inquiry then arises, whether a man can obtain such a thorough knowledge of the bible, as to authorize him to assume the insignia and perform the sacred duties of a public religious instructer, without an acquaintance with the languages in which it was originally written. Those, who maintain the affirmative of this question, will perhaps tell us,

that a translation is an adequate substitute for the original, and that there is no absolute need either of Greek or Hebrew, provided a man can read his mother tongue.

We are inclined to admit the accuracy of professor Stuart's assertion, who maintains, in one of his notes, that the worst translation which was ever made of the scriptures, contains all that is essential to religion, either as it respects doctrine or practice. Some translations, he observes, have added things to the scriptures which religion does not require, and some have made one part of the bible to gainsay another; but the worst translation never removed nor wholly obscured the great and leading principles of revealed religion. This is readily admitted, and we may add too in regard to the English translation in particular, that in the main it is a good one, that it is extremely creditable to the age in which it was made, and would probably be a real sufferer, if it were trusted in the hands of modern English divines for the purpose of being

amended.

But, although it may be considered by some a gratuitous assertion on our part, we appeal to the experience of every real scholar in our behalf, when we say, that the best translation existing, whether of the classics or the Bible, fails in a vast number of instances of conveying the precise shape and the true spirit of the original. This results necessarily from the imperfection of language, and is more especially true in regard to versions made from the Hebrew and Chaldaic, in which the Old Testament is written, because these languages differ so widely in many important respects from those of Europe.

We have good translations in English of many of the classics, but certainly the man would gain no credit to himself, who should seriously maintain his thorough acquaintance with the style, the general spirit, and the peculiarities of Homer, from merely having read him in the Iliad and Odyssey of Pope, or even in the more literal version of Cowper. It is not surprising, then, that many parts of our common version, for instance, the books of Job and Isaiah, should convey an imperfect notion of the splendid beauties of their originals. Nor can an adequate acquaintance with those beauties, nor indeed in all cases with the grammatical sense, be obtained even by the additional aid of a commentary.

That the inadequacy of translations cannot be compensated by the aid of a practical or religious commentary merely is

sufficiently clear; and a critical and exegetical one, such as Rosenmüller's on the Old, and Kuinoel's on the New Testament, so far from lending the desired assistance, we venture to say, can neither be fully understood nor estimated without a previous knowledge to some extent of the originals themselves. Provided, moreover, they could be understood, the person who trusts to them wholly, without being able to investigate for himself, cannot be sure a single moment that he is not the dupe of the commentator, or that the commentator is not himself deceived.

And while in regard to public teachers of religion, we maintain that a suitable knowledge of the Bible cannot be acquired from translations merely, and commentaries, we may add, as a further inducement for the acquisition of such knowledge, that without it a person will be unable, not only to answer those, who when disputed appeal to the originals, but will be equally unable to defend with any hope of success the genuineness of the sacred writings. If any one, for instance, should undertake to show that the gospel of Luke or the prophecies of Isaiah were written at the time and in the circumstances, in which they profess to have been, without a knowledge of those peculiarities of style, which can be learnt only by an acquaintance with the originals, he would certainly show himself to have undertaken a task altogether above his ability. We would gladly extend our remarks on this point, but we can only say at present, we hope, the clerical associations and presbyteries of our country will not, by lending the sanction of their authority, encourage young men to go forth in the high character of heralds of the cross, without that thorough and fundamental knowledge of the Bible, for which Jahn and his translator so strenuously and reasonably contend. If they are too dull to learn, it is much the wisest to conclude, that the Deity never intended them for his ambassadors, and if too indolent, there is no hazard in considering it as certain that he wants no such degenerate workmen in his vineyard. It is not merely the study of the Hebrew, which is urged upon us in these dissertations; we are invited likewise to the study of its related dialects, and on this point also we should do injustice to our feelings, were we not to express our opinions, however concisely. The Hebrew is a dialect of an ancient language, which was spoken originally in Palestine, Syria, Phoenicia, Mesopotamia, Arabia, Æthiopia, and Babylon. Although the dialects of this

widely diffused and ancient language are nearly related to each other, and show themselves at first glance to be sisters of the same family, they may conveniently be divided into three principal classes. The first is the Aramæan, so called from the Hebrew word, the biblical name for Syria and the adjacent countries, which divided itself again into the provincial dialects, denominated the east and west Aramæan, or Chaldaic and Syriac. The second class comprehends the Canaanitish, or Hebrew, and the Phoenician, of which last, however, there are but very few remains. The third embraces the Arabic and Ethiopic. The Samaritan appears to be a mixture of the Hebrew and Aramæan. By Jerome and others of the fathers these dialects were denominated Oriental, but the term appearing to be too general, Eichhorn has introduced another, and chooses to denominate them the Shemitish. To the latter term, however, as well as the former, there is an objection, inasmuch as the Canaanites and Ethiopians were descendants of Ham, instead of Shem. But as it is of no essential consequence which term we use, provided we understand what is meant by it, we shall content ourselves for the present with applying to the dialects, which have been mentioned, indifferently either of the terms, Shemitish or Oriental. The acquisition of these dialects is quite easy to one, as will readily be imagined, who is well grounded in the Hebrew, and, although a man may become a respectable and highly useful minister without them, a knowledge of them, especially of the Aramæan and Arabic, is very desirable. At least, those who deny the utility of such knowledge would do well to remember that a portion of the Old Testament, and that not a very small one, is written in the dialect of Aram, and that we are bound to study this dialect for the same cause, although the obligation is of less urgency, that we are bound to study the Hebrew or the Greek of the New Testament.

The parts of the Old Testament written in Chaldee are Daniel, from the fourth verse of the second, to the commencemont of the eighth chapter; and Ezra, from the eighth verse of the fourth, to the twenty seventh of the seventh chapter. It ought to be remembered also, that this dialect is very similar to the Hebrew, both in the construction of its sentences and the signification of its words, as might be expected from its being one of the same kindred. Hence we are often enabled by its assistance to illustrate the meaning of an obscure word,