Conceding it, all the absurdity which Mr. Landis and others find in surround, as applied to hands and feet, falls away; and the image seems to be taken from nature. Yet I have a doubt remaining; and this is, whether the lion does not always employ his teeth first, in assaulting his victim, and his claws merely in holding him fast, and helping to tear him in pieces. If so, then piercing or wounding is the more probable sense of 1, because the most appropriate. In either way, this verb suits well the last clause, and doubtless ought to be transferred to it. [NOTE. I add a word, in respect to the English Translation of Hengstenberg's Commentary. I have, in reading some of it, not unfrequently found myself obliged to resort to the original, in order to be sure of the meaning. For example, we have a version of the Hebrew (II. p. 39 German) by Dr. H., which runs thus: "Sie umgeben mich Löwengleich nach Händen und Füssen;" Eng. Translation: "They beset me, lion-like, on my hands and my feet." If I rightly understand the German, it means: "They surround me, lion-like, as to my hands and my feet," the two latter nouns in Hebrew being the Acc. of manner. To beset any one, is plain and good English; but to beset on, sounds strange to us in these western ends of the earth. To set on, is familiar enough; but to beset on, I cannot get at, without going to the German. I would by no means characterize the Translation in general as unfaithful; but it needs revision and more pains-taking passages of critical nicety.] in No. II. SUGGESTIONS RESPECTING THE MUCH CONTROVERTED E OF PSALM VIII. 2. This word still remains an offendiculum criticorum. Hengstenberg insists, that it is the Inf. const. form of the verb 2, to give, put, place, etc., although he takes the liberty, in his version of it in the Commentary, to translate it gekrönet, [hast] crowned. Hoffmann, in his striking work on Prophecy and its Fulfilment, makes it an Imper. of na; on which no comment is needed. De Wette renders the clause thus: "Who exaltest thy praise to heaven." Ewald (Psalmen) renders thus: "Thou whose glory is exalted above the heavens." All of these translations are rather metaphrases of the word, than a literal version. The sense which they give is a good one in itself; but our question now is: Whether it is true to the original? Most of the expositors and grammarians have assigned, as Hengstenberg does, to the const. Inf. of n. The latter strenuously maintains, that it can be made nowhere else. My question, and the first one, is: Whether it can, with any probability, be made here? (1) All analogy in the alleged verb (n) is against it. Examples of the Inf. forms of this verb are very numerous. Two of them are normal, like . All the rest, excepting the case before us, are either (a usual Inf. fem. form in verbs ), or else a contraction of this form, viz. n. The examples of these amount to some 140. As to the Inf. form of, if it is one, it stands alone. (2) No other verbs Pe Nun form such an Inf. All that are not normal, follow the model of n (nn). (3) Verbs Pe Yodh, like those Pe Nun, do many of them drop their first radical in the Inf.; e. g. 7, Inf. n. In a very few cases here, there are forms like 7, i. e. with a long vowel on the first syllable; but only one has a Sheva under the first letter (like ); and this is in Gen. 46: 3. The word in question is 772, which is said to be prefix preposition. But this foranother like it in all the fem. said, that the verb which preprep. to follow it. But this is admit a 2 prep. after it; but with a mation I doubt, because there is not Infinitives of verbs Pe Yodh. It is cedes this word, viz. &, requires not so always. This verb does indeed by far the greater number of nouns which follow it, are in the simple Acc. without the 2. Then it is easy to suppose a noun-form in (descent), such as is formed in the second class of verbs Pe Yodh, e. g. such as 2 from 2, only that in the case before us, the Yodh quiescent is omitted in the writing, which is very common everywhere. The sense of the passage is the same by using the noun, as if we employ the supposed Infinitive. Where can we find, then, in the hundreds of cases in verbs Pe Nun and Pe Yodh, an established fem. Inf. form, which is like ? Not even one can be found. It is therefore very hard to believe, against such united and universal testimony as all this. It must be the most extreme necessity, which would justify us in admitting under the category of Infinitives. Is there such a necessity in the present case? Plainly not. In in v. 2, seems to forbid אֲשֶׁר תְּנָה הוֹדְךָ עַל־הַשָּׁמָיִם fact the clause an Inf. here. Dr. H. translates thus, in his Notes: "Thou, in respect to whom the giving thy glory over the heaven." Is there not something strange and seemingly lame in this? is rendered thou in respect to whom. Literally the Hebrew runs thus: Thou in respect to whom to give thy glory, etc. This is enigmatic enough; and I must believe this to be a connection and position of an Inf. without any parallel. To me it seems quite probable, almost certain indeed, that the here is either a verb Praeter from the root, and should be so pointed; or else (which appears more probable), it is the Pres. Part. of the same verb, and to be pointed. Nothing is easier, in either of these cases, than the grammatical construction. The relative pronoun can be combined in sense with the in, i. e. it can be combined with the second, or even the first pers. of a pronoun; just as we can say: "He who, thou who, I who; Heb. Gramm. § 121. 1. n. 1. But the last two combinations are somewhat rare; yet not so much so as to be doubtful. Naturally the pronoun relates more often to the third pers., and to make a different reference without necessity, is undesirable. But if it be taken as the third pers. here, it would disagree with the suffix -. But what now is the meaning of the proposed construction above? I answer, that the verb is no stranger in Hebrew. It occurs in Hos. 8: 9, 10, in the sense of distributing or diffusing. Its original meaning is to extend or stretch out. Abundant pledges of this are given in its correlates. In Greek we have reír-w, to extend, stretch out. In the Indo-Germanic, tan is of the same meaning. In Ethiopic, tin expanse. In our English word ex-tend, we have the same etymon at the basis. Indeed this sense is quite plain, and well established, in the original root. = Besides this, if there be any meaning in the root n, to give, which is here necessary, the same is also to be found in ; for one of its meanings is, to give, to distribute, as it evidently stands related to n. But clearly the former sense of diffusing or expanding is altogether appropriate in the verse before us, which speaks of glory expanded abroad over the whole heavens. What that glory is, the fourth verse has disclosed, viz., the moon and the stars, which, as a combined whole, are spread over the entire face of the sky. We seem, then, to have arrived near our goal. We can now translate: Thou who diffusest abroad thy glory over the heavens; thus taking as related to the second person, in connection with the pronoun. We point the controverted word, in this case, particípially, viz. an. Participles have no distinction of person, but only of gender and number; and they may therefore be used, with equal propriety, with either the first, second, or third person. All on this ground is plain, proper, and appropriately significant. We merely supply the appropriate vowel-points; and the liberty to do this, when the exigency of the passage demands it, has already been vindicated in the preceding No. I. That there is an exigency here, seems to me plain; for we cannot, against the universal testimony of all verbs Pe Nun and Pe Yodh, make an Inf. form out of a from 13. If it is not a monstrosity, it is at least in opposition to all normal forms of abridged fem. Infinitives. We obtain as good a sense, even a better one, out of, than out of But there is another way of resolving the difficulty, viz., by taking the word as a verb in the Praet., and pointing it. It would then have for its subject, and we must translate thus: Thou whose glory extends abroad over the heavens. This is favored by Ewald; and for substance it gives the same sense as the other method of pointing, although the structure is not so facile, when we point it as a verb. The noun i is masc. and therefore requires the masc. verb; and such is . Thus we save all the grammatical difficulty of an Infin. form, which is against usage and without a single parallel in the language. Thus too we obtain even a better sense than in gives. And as the verb, when pointed as above (i. e. either man or ), is no stranger in the older Hebrew, and has extensive off-shoots in other languages, I can see no valid objection to admitting it here. The objection, that such a verb is not frequent in the Hebrew, if urged against any particular word in this passage or in that, would, if admitted, exclude a great many well established words. E. g. 2 (son) in Ps. 2: 12, stands quite alone in Hebrew, if we except the three examples of it in the brief composition of Lemuel, contained in Prov. xxxi. But who doubts the reality of the reading? So (wife) in Ecc. 2: 8, stands entirely alone in all the Bible; yet that is no good reason for rejecting the word. And so of a multitude of other words. It is quite as probable that David should use the verb, elsewhere also employed, as that he should use in Ps. 2: 12. The only fair question is: Whether the verb is usable and appropriate? We reply by affirming both; and we have given our reasons for such a reply. My object was merely a special one in the preceding remarks, viz. to investigate the apparently strange form of the word, as coming from in. We have found an easy and obvious solution, in supposing a different root in actual use. In this case, we change only the vowel-points; and if we can thus avoid trespassing the laws of grammar as to the fem. Inf. forms of verbs Pe Nun, and make even a more appropriate sense by adopting another root, I do not see why any serious objection should be made against the view of the subject which has been taken above. I merely remark, at the close, that in my apprehension, Ps. viii. needs, and ought to receive, a very different exposition from that which Dr. H. has made out. The abstract ideal man accomplishes very little here, in the way of satisfying the demands of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2: 6-9, and several other passages. It seems to me quite certain, that the author of that epistle verily believed that the Messiah is to be found in Ps. viii. My views of his authority are such, that in my mind this settles the question, whether Christ is to be found there, in the affirmative. But time and space forbid entering on a discussion of the Psalm, although one is much needed. ARTICLE IV. THE FOUR GOSPELS AS WE NOW HAVE THEM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, AND THE HEGELIAN ASSAULTS UPON THEM. By C. E. Stowe, D. D., Professor in Bowdoin College. V. COMPARISON OF THE CANONICAL GOSPELS WITH THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS STILL EXTANT. THE impugners of the New Testament gospels appeal to the fact, that there are gospels acknowledged to be apocryphal, as a proof of their theory that our recognized gospels are also myths or forgeries. Any one who candidly examines these spurious gospels, and compares them with the New Testament, will find in them, not a refutation of our sacred writers, but a most convincing testimony to their intelligence, honesty and supernatural inspiration. So totally diverse are they from the genuine gospels, in conception, in spirit, in execution, in their whole impression in all respects so entirely unlike, so immeasurably inferior, that the New Testament only shines the brighter by the contrast. They have scarcely so much resemblance to the genuine gospels, as the monkey has to a man. An elaborate history and collection of these writings was first published by Fabricius near the beginning of the last century. The first volume of a new and critical edition was issued at Halle by Thilo in 1832. Prof. Norton has given an account of them in the third volume of his work on the Genuineness of the Gospels, but with an incredulity in regard to the testimony of the ancients which amounts |