garded.* In every case, therefore, the primitive sense of this root obtains: nor are there any passages which have yet come to my knowledge, where it is at all necessary to recur to the sense of DP, not excepting the Chaldee itself, which perhaps suggested to Dr. Gesenius the desireableness of making this word fall in with the root p. Our next criticism is on the word, bakhár, which is said to occur in the sense of the Syriac, behár, to prove, approve, &c. The passages cited by way of proof are, Is. xlviii. 10. Job, xxxiv. 4. Here, I am sorry to say, we are situated just as we were in the last article: a little obscurity is thrown over the whole matter in the outset, and then a conclusion is hastily drawn in favour of the hypothesis assumed. But let us see how the question really stands. In the Syriac and Chaldaïc this verb is used in two senses, which, however, may often be put to mean the same thing. The first is, to try, prove, &c. as in metals or the like; the second, to approve, make choice of, and so on. The sense usually applied in the Hebrew is the second of these; but Dr. Gesenius finds two places in which he thinks the first is the most suitable. One of these is, Is. xlviii. 10, renders: "Behold, I have refined thee, but not with (marg. for) silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction." Dr. Gesenius has, "Siehe, ich habe dich geschmolzen, aber kein Silber gewonnen, dich geprüft im Ofen des Elends." Behold, I have fused thee, but have not obtained silver; have proved thee in the furnace of affliction. 1 object to this interpretation, because it is inconsistent with itself. Let us pursue the question with Dr. Gesenius's view of it, and suppose that allusion is here made to the fusing of metals, in order to their being purified. We shall have, therefore, Behold, I have fused thee, but have failed in the end; in the furnace of affliction I have proved thee; i. e. either that thou art good or bad. But it cannot be, that thou art good, for this will contradict the first part of the passage and yet this is the sense which, even in Chaldee or Syriac, properly requires: i. e. after investigation had, to choose the best of any thing. But, if the passage See also the Kamoos under the word Jac, where the Syriac usage of this word is well explained. means, that Israel, upon trial, even in the furnace of affliction, is found to be bad; then we have a sense contradictory to the general context of the Bible, which goes to shew that, it was by affliction alone, they were made any thing like good. So Zechariah, chap. xiii. 9. "I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people," &c. Where it is remarkable, that although Zechariah is one of the prophets who lived at the end of the captivity, he does not use the word here, but 10, which in Hebrew properly signifies to try or prove. A similar sentiment is found in the early part of Isaiah, viz. chap. i. 25. "I will turn my hand upon thee, and purely purge away thy dross, and take away all thy tin; .... afterward thou shalt be called, The city of righteousness," &c. It will not now be necessary to consider Dr. Gesenius's note in page 118, on the passage in question, where he says that the particle with, for, &c. has here the sense of, like, according to, &c. because, if the versión is, after all, inconsistent, which I have shewn to be the case, it cannot be necessary to consider its several parts. Let us now see what the passage really means. Our authorised version has, as we have seen, “I have refined thee, but not with (or for) silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction." The version with the marginal reading "for," I prefer; and I have no doubt, this gives the true sense of the verse, which I would thus paraphrase: I have purged thee, but without the hope of finding in thee the purity and worth of silver, so as to receive a just return: and, indeed, when in thy first furnace of affliction, namely Egypt, worthless and poor as thou then wast, chose thee to be my people. Then in the following verse we have, in strict conformity with this, " for mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it," &c. The passage, therefore, is perfectly consistent and at unity with itself, if we take in the sense of choosing here: but not so, if we employ Dr. Gesenius's amended and unusual sense to try, examine. It is remarkable enough, moreover, that this word occurs several times in the latter part of Isaiah, where, nevertheless, Dr. Gesenius himself has not ventured to give it this new sense, e. g. chap. xli. 8, 9. xliii. 10. xliv. 1, 2. I lvi. 4. lviii. 5, 6. lxv. 12. lxvi. 3, 4. It is strange that this prophet should use this word only once (allowing Dr. Gesenius's views to be just) in the Syriac sense, and apply it, moreover, so frequently in that peculiar to the Hebrews. There is surely something very marvellous in this; but we need not trouble ourselves much on the subject; the whole is groundless; and the wonder accordingly vanishes. After what has been said, it cannot be necessary to examine the passage adduced from Job. The authorised version here may be consulted, and it may be relied upon. Our next animadversions are on the word, gashásh, which is equivalent to the Syriac gash, signifying to touch, grope, used in Is. lix. 10. as it is said, for the otherwise usual, mashash. My reply is: Nothing can be more certain than that, gashásh, and trip, māshásh, are not perfectly synonymous, although all the weight of Dr. Gesenius's criticism rests upon the supposition that they The verb w, with its Syriac and Arabic synonyme jassa, signifies, as every one will see, who will take the trouble to make the inquiry, to grope after, feel for, &c. with a view to discover something; and, in this sense, it is cognate with a, nagash, to draw near; while ww, with the Syriac or Chaldaïc, and Arabic, are. are. and ومس وجس so and músh, and massa, signifies properly to feel or touch, as a mere verb of sense; but which also may imply, that this is done with a view to inquiry, discovery, or the like. So Gen. xxvii. 21: "Come near, that I may feel thee (WNI), my son, whether thou be," &c. Ib. xxxi. 37: "Whereas thou hast felt (, where the authorised version has searched, which is too free) all my stuff, what hast thou found? &c." But, in Is. lix. 10. we have, ¬ nye nywa, we grope for the wall, &c., i. e. we feel or touch about, in order that we may find the wall, &c.: not, we feel, or touch, the wall, in order to discover any thing relating to it; which is the force of the other verb. It is not meant to be asserted, however, that both the Syrians and Chaldeans do not occasionally use the verb, in the sense of ww; but it is, that Isaiah does this and also, that these words are synonymous in their primitive and classical use; and I will maintain, that the true distinction of them is still preserved mostly in the Arabic, and always in the Hebrew, language. 66 (jassa), Heb. ią, i. q. (i. e. . This I deny.) جس مس The following is the explanation of both, as given by Golius : جواس -ati explorator nuncii, explorator. and S و جاسوس Locus ubi quid palpatur exploraturque, ut à medico agri pulsus." In practice, the sense of this verb is, to inquire, seek or spy out, &c.; and I greatly doubt whether it ever occurs in the sense of feel, or any thing like it. Again, under massa, we have," tetigit, palpavit - propinqua, proximè juncta. (Metaphorically) Curæ ac cordi fuit, (i. e. it touched the heart), &c. So in the derivatives, مس tuus contactus, مساس,contactus, tangens ممسوس mu tactus, pec. affectus furore. The primitive and obvious sense, therefore, of these two words is, respectively, to touch, (i. e. a), and to feel, (w), both of which are, however, applicable in the sense of inquiry, discovery, &c.; i.e. the first to inquire after a thing, the second to examine it when found. So in English we may say, a blind man feels () a person or thing, in order to assure himself of some particulars relating to him or it; or, he may be said to feel about, grope about, touch one thing after another (), in order to find something for which he is in quest; without at all implying that groping, touching, feeling about, are at all synonymous with the strict sense of the verb feel. And this, as far as I can discover, is precisely the state of the case with regard to the verbs ir māshásh, and wią gashash, with their Syriac, Chaldaïc, and Arabic synonymes. Dr. Gesenius, however, unhappily confounds the whole, and then condemns Isaiah for using the latter of these words in a sense, which he (Dr. Gesenius) has erroneously ascribed to it. This critique, therefore, is much of a piece with the preceding ones. Our next question is, on the word, as occurring in 1 Is. liv. 15. in the Chaldaïc usage and sense when, if, (wenn). Dr. Gesenius, however, has not so translated it in this place, but by "und" (and); and we are told in the note, " nehme ich für wenn, im chaldaisirenden style, ugl. bes. 2 Chron. vii. 13. wo es mit alternirt;" i. e. I take in the sense of when, if, in the style of those who Chaldaïse, as in 2 Chron. vii. 13, where it alternates with .* Dr. Gesenius is surely at liberty to say in his note, I take this particle in this or that sense; but it will not hence follow, that he is to pronounce this word to be Chaldaïc, without giving proof that it is so. He has, however, appealed to the books of Chronicles, Daniel, and Job, to shew that this word there occurs in the sense which he has ascribed to it. I only ask, Why did he not also appeal to the books of Exodus and Leviticus, where it happens to occur in the same sense? omitting the question for the present, whether this sense is suitable or not to the passage in Isaiah. Exod. iv. 1. 1077 , and, when, or if, they will not believe me, &c. I doubt whether our version is here correct. Ib. viii. 22. 1 П, if, or putting the case that, we sacrifice, &c. (v. 26, auth. vers. "lo, shall we," which is not suitable). Lev. xxv. 20., when, or if, we sow not. The books of Exodus and Leviticus, therefore, Chaldaïse just as much, though not so often, as the books of Daniel, Job, Chronicles, &c.! This goes on the supposition that Dr. Gesenius has ascribed the true signification to this particle in Is. liv. 15. But there Winer, I see, has enriched his late edition of the Lexicon of Simonis with this exquisite piece of criticism (p. 261): †, si, in recentioribus potissimum libris, qui Chaldaicæ linguæ indolem redolent, 2 Chron. vii. 13. (ubi sq. ) Job. xl. 23. Jer. iii. 1. Jes. liv. 15. Yet, when he proceeds to explain, he translates it in these passages by en. So, after all, it has no such Chaldaïc sense! I may perhaps here be allowed to offer my solution of the force of this particle. I suppose, then, that it is equivalent to the Arabic 3 63 sor, which signify primarily, surely, truly, &c. دان ان دان Having the force, therefore, of a strong asseveration, they may occasionally be taken in the sense of en, ecce, behold; at other times, when a case is put, and some consequence deduced, if will express their force with us; although this is not the real signification of the particle. The same is the case with DN, as shewn in my Hebrew Grammar (p. 376, 7). And hence it is that, and ON are sometimes found in the same context; any Chaldaïc signification. but not because has taken |