CORRESPONDENCE.

THE Conductors of the New Series of the Monthly Repository are much gratified in being able to acknowledge, at this early period of their labours, the receipt of valuable communications from eminent individuals whose writings gave interest and importance to the former Series. It is their wish to secure the continued literary friendship of all such persons, for the more effectual promotion of the great objects equally contemplated in both publications.

Some papers have been transmitted to them on the subject of Baptism, and they are threatened with many more. In order to save their Correspondents unnecessary trouble, the Conductors deem it right to state at once, generally, that their own must be considered as so far an original work, that they cannot take up controversies commenced in the former Series, and carry them on from the point where it left them. On the Baptismal Controversy, so far as respects the matters in dispute between the several combatants, they will pronounce no opinion; but they must be allowed to say that, in their judgment, some time should be allowed to allay the angry feelings it has excited, before the parties again enter the arena. The language employed by one of their Correspondents confirms them in this view of the He ought to be aware that epithets of contempt applied to an opponent, will produce far other effects than the removal of his alleged errors. The Conductors will not shrink from the promise held out in their Prospectus, of which they are studiously reminded for an obvious purpose, to open their pages to the free discussion of controverted topics that properly fall within their province. They must, however, be allowed to exercise their own discretion as to the time when those discussions shall be introduced, the extent to which they shall proceed, and, they will add, the spirit and the language in which they shall be prosecuted.-The principle on which the Conductors decline embarking in the Baptismal Controversy, will equally apply to the paper of J. L. just received.

case.

The Conductors are pleased with the general remarks of Christianus; they object, however, to his personal allusion to the respectable writer whom he names, which they think it were better to avoid. The concluding censures would be rather ungracious in the First Number of the New Series.

Dr. J. Pye Smith's note arrived too late for insertion. Though his communication belongs properly to the Old Series, the Conductors will, from personal respect, afford him the opportunity he solicits for explanation.

The Conductors have it in contemplation to enter into the subject of the Catholic Declarations much more fully than has been done by a respected Correspondent. The writer from Crewkerne is referred to the pamphlet, and the subsequent explanatory papers of the learned author of the hypothesis to which he alludes, where, the Conductors conceive, he will obtain the information he seeks.

Articles intended for the Review department, the writers of which are unknown to the Conductors, are inad:nissible.

The Conductors, after mature deliberation, have come to the resolution so wisely, they think, adopted by Mr. Matty, not to invite communications which they are not at liberty to reject without assigning a reason. Nor can they undertake to return communications which they may decline to insert.

The pressure of important matter has induced the Conductors to add half a sheet to the present Number. They regret, however, that notwithstanding this enlargement of their assigned limits, many articles intended for insertion have been unavoidably omitted.

They propose to secure for their next Number a report of the proceedings of the last general meeting of the Deputies, when a proposition was brought forward to afford some assistance to the London University. It is their intention to record in future the acts of this body whenever any subject of interest is discussed. They have no doubt that their readers will be pleased to know what passes in this Society; and that considerable benefit will be derived from giving greater publicity to its proceedings.

All articles intended for the General Correspondence department should be in the hands of the Conductors by the first day of the month: and all articles of Obituary and Intelligence by the fifteenth.

THE MONTHLY REPOSITORY

AND

REVIEW.

NEW SERIES, No. II.

FEBRUARY, 1827.

ON THE HEBREW POINTS.

POINTS or certain marks above, below, or within the letters, are used in Hebrew for three purposes: 1, as Vowels, or as guides to the pronunciation of vowels; 2, as modifying the pronunciation of Consonants, or intimating the omission of them; and, 3, as Stops and Accents. Some have maintained, that all these are parts of the original language, and have been preserved amongst the Jews from the time of Moses; whilst others reject all of them, as not only of a comparatively modern date, but as often injuring the sense, and always increasing the difficulty, of the language. The earliest editions of the Hebrew Scriptures, and the greatest number of those which have been printed, follow the Biblia Hebraica Bombergiana which was printed at Venice 1525-6, under the editorial care of the Rabbi Jacob Ben Chaim, "who had the reputation of being profoundly learned in the Masora and other branches of Jewish erudition, and who pointed the text according to the Masoretic system." These Masorites, who were by some deemed the preservers or restorers, and by others the inventors, of this system, seem to have lived at Tiberias, on the lake of Gennesareth, where they had a College; but their age has been much disputed. In the sixteenth century, Capellus called the antiquity of these points in question; and he was supported by most of the eminent scholars of that time. The question was argued at great length, and though a few persons continue to maintain their antiquity and even their divine origin, yet the far greater number of learned men of all sects and parties seem to give up both of these, and to consider the points as a Masoretic invention, however they may differ about the time in which they were introduced, or the utility of their introduction. - Admitting, then, that the points in the Hebrew Bible have no peculiar sanctity, that they may be in some cases erroneous, and that they may be fairly made the subject of critical investigation; admitting, also, that they are a contrivance of the grammarians or critics called Masorites, and neglecting for the present the discussion at what time they were first used, and whether they were invented all at once or gradually,-what seems most deserving of consideration is, whether any circumstances recommend them to our notice; that we may decide whether, as the study of the language seems increasing, it is desirable that young men should be instructed in them, or should apply themselves solely to the unpointed text.

If the pronunciation only were concerned, it would be of little consequence how such a question might be decided; for, should we be inclined to prefer the directions afforded by the points, we know that the Jews are not agreed about the sounds represented by them or the letters; and, changeable as all languages are in this respect, it is not probable that the pronunciation of the time of Moses was known in that of Ezra, or that the latter is represented by the Masorites. Pronunciation, then, unless we wish to converse with Jews, (and in this case the peculiarities of those we would converse with must be attended to,) is of little importance; for the correct pronunciation is unattainable. But the points do not merely guide to a certain pronunciation; they also, in many cases, fix the signification of words, and in others direct to their origin. The same letters, according to the points with which they are accompanied, may represent a noun or a verb, or different parts of a verb, and the reader of a pointed text has these distinguished for him; whilst he who rejects this help, must be guided by studying the context, or must rely, as is generally done, on the versions. The word 27 is allowed to have no vowel if the points are rejected, yet as a substantive it signifies a word, a plague, and a fold or pasture; as a verb it may be rendered, he spake, or speak thou, or speaking, or to speak; all of which are distinguished by the points, which also mark some other distinctions, such as when the noun is used in connexion with another word, &c. The word yaw signifies the number seven, or full, fulness, he was full, &c., all of which are clearly distinguished by the points. Now, if these points are found generally to mislead, if they direct to a verb when the word should be taken as a noun, or refer us to a wrong word as the root from which the sense is to be derived, we shall wisely reject them; but if, though in some few instances erroneous, they more frequently lead to the correct meaning, they must be serviceable to all students who will take the trouble of learning them. Besides, as ob served by the Rev. G. Hamilton, they teach us how the Jewish critics understood passages where words of doubtful signification occurred, and furnish us with the views they entertained of the text." The pointed text may be considered as the Jewish Version of the Old Testament, even if allowed no greater authority, and as such it would deserve to be carefully attended to. Admitting the latest period in which the points are said to have been invented, they were surely intended to represent the manner in which the language was pronounced and understood by the Jews then living, as it had been transmitted to them, and as it has been continued to be read in their synagogues to this day, with perhaps some slight variations in the sound of letters. Capellus, one of the earliest opposers of the antiquity of the points, admits their usefulness, and even says, that in following the reading of the Masorites we build upon the foundation of the prophets; and Bishop Walton, also an opposer of their antiquity, observes," that it is not lawful for any to reject their reading at pleasure, but that all are tied to it, unless some error or better reading can be clearly proved." That the Masorites have fairly represented the pronunciation of that day by the vowel points may be inferred from a comparison of their reading with the proper names in the Septuagint and Vulgate, and with the Greek representation of the pronunciation given in the Hexapla of Origen. It will be found that the word as pointed by the Masorites has in most cases a strong resemblance, whilst the various substitutes which have been proposed have not in general the slightest resemblance. A few instances may be adduced in illustration. Thus the name of the great Jewish Lawgiver, would be, according to Dr. Wilson's scheme, which is, perhaps, as unobjectionable as any, Měsch;

but the Masorites point it Mosheh; the Seventy call him Maüons; and the Vulgate renders it Moyses. What, according to the points, is Aharon, and in the Seventy Aapay, according to Wilson would be Aerěn. The pointed name of God, Elohim, is written by Origen, Eλwe, whilst it would be according to Wilson, Aleim. The pointed Boker is in Origen, Bokep, and in Wilson, Beker. The pointed Maal is in Origen, Maaλ, and in Wilson, Mōl. Of eight verses produced by Wilson from the Hexapla to prove the error of the Masoretic pronunciation, I do not think there is a single word which differs from it as much as Wilson's mode of pronouncing does in the above instances, whilst most of them are as conformable as those quoted. It is reasonable then to suppose, that the Masorites represented by their points the pronunciation of their time, and that it did not differ much from the pronunciation in the time of the Septuagint, 283 B. C., of Origen, A. D. 230, and of Jerome, A. D. 390.

Most of those who argue for the points do it on the ground that the letters are all consonants; but this is not necessary. There are three which have been called matres lectionis, viz. a, i, u, two of which are used occasionally as consonants in English and other languages. These, and perhaps He, (constituting the letters Ehevi, or quiescent,) may be considered as vowels, sounded at different times in a different manner, as we know to be the case in our own language. The Masoretic pointing, then, with respect to them, would be of the same nature with the marks in Sheridan's or Walker's Dictionary, directing when the sound of Aleph should be that of a in all, or in hat, or in hate; when Yod should be sounded as i in bite or in bit, or as ee in feet; and so in other cases. This hypothesis, without denying the existence of vowels in the Hebrew and other Oriental languages, corresponding with those in Greek, Latin, and the modern alphabets, still considers the points as useful. There are, however, a great number of Hebrew words in which none of these supposed vowels occur; and in these we must supply the deficiency either by the Masoretic points, or according to a fanciful invention of some modern opposer of them. That the former comes nearer to the old pronunciation, as well as to the modern Jewish one, cannot be doubted, and therefore, though it may have some imperfections, it should be preferred. But, as observed before, if pronunciation only were concerned, the question would not deserve consideration. It is because the pointing marks a distinction in the meaning of words having the same consonants, which shews how the Jews understood them, that it is peculiarly valuable; and, though some instances of a contrary nature may be adduced, yet in most cases we have reason to believe that it is a faithful version. As an instance, in many passages signifies, he shall call, whilst in the 23d verse of the 2d chapter of Genesis it signifies, it shall be called, being the future of Kal in the former, and of Niphal in the latter case. The context may enable us to discover this, but it is clearly and at once intimated by the points; the one being the other, the point in the Koph of the latter intimating that the Nun, which forms the conjugation, has been suppressed, or rather changed into Koph, and that the Koph is of course to be doubled. This and similar uses of the Dagesh are constantly occurring; and contrivances of the same kind were introduced in other languages, when manuscripts were the only records. In many instances the sense may be ascertained without the points, especially by having constant recourse to the English or some other version; but in others it is highly important that the biblical student should know the reading which the points designate. Similar assistance may be derived from the stops and accents, which are found useful

in other languages, though I imagine resting on no better authority. Few persons would be able to read a Latin or Greek work without stops; and we know that the readers of the unpointed manuscripts in the Jewish synagogues go through a tedious course of education to qualify them for reading without such aid. The use of the points in etymological researches has not been insisted upon, because this is a matter of comparatively little importance. But the probability that a letter being changed or suppressed would make a difference in the sound of the word such as the points suggest, may be adduced as favourable to the Masoretic system. Thus N is the representative of in two syllables, and this leads us to N as the root. The Dagesh enables us also to trace a connexion with other languages; thus, a throne in the Arabic, Syriac and Chaldee, is ND, whilst in Hebrew it is ND, the Resch being omitted in Hebrew, or rather its sound being changed to that of Samech, which is expressed by the points No.

But it may be said, We can do without the points now, however useful they may have been, and therefore need not have the trouble of learning them. So much, indeed, is this trouble dreaded, that some recommend learning without points first, and then adding the points. Now, if learned at all, it seems less troublesome to begin with them. They are not as formidable as many imagine. Experience teaches that they may be acquired without much labour in a few days, and that they offer no difficulties which may not be easily overcome. Those who have not learned Hebrew with points may fancy it disgusting, and speak of it in very harsh terms; but, compared with the other dead languages, and with most modern languages, especially Oriental ones, it will be found considerably less difficult; and, indeed, unless learned with points, it will scarcely prove of so much use in acquiring others as to deserve the appellation given to it of Janua Linguarum Orientalium.

May it not be concluded, then, that though the points may not be of as great antiquity, or as high authority, as some would have us to believe, yet that they may be of considerable use in facilitating our knowledge of the language, in making us acquainted with the Jewish mode of understanding it, and in enabling us to extend our critical inquiries; whilst, wherever differences between it and the ancient versions occur, we are equally at liberty to depart from them, and to judge according to the rules of criticism, as if we had never learned them? And if this be so, ought not the points to be universally taught in places of education for the ministry, not as essential parts of Scripture, but as a useful preparation for the exercise of sound Biblical Criticism?

A

VOLUNTARY DISSECTION.

THE vast importance of surgical and anatomical knowledge to the wellbeing of the community, has, with the improving intelligence of the times, acquired universal assent. That this knowledge cannot be obtained by the study of books or of living subjects, so as to enable a student or young practitioner to undertake difficult and critical operations with a reasonable prospect of success, is almost as self-evident as my first proposition. A sculptor or a designer has only the exterior of the body to examine; and the relative situation of the parts, the flexibility of the joints, and the tension of the muscles, are subjects better understood by putting them all into varied action, than by any thing a lifeless body can possibly supply: but it is far otherwise with