1850.] Ours a Missionary Nation. 649 have become preachers; and twenty-four, preachers to the heathen. Our hope and prayer is that from Cincinnati, Hudson and Marietta, Knox, Wittenberg and Beloit, there will come not only sturdier and more versatile missionaries, but also numerous teachers of missionaries, who shall roll forward the tide of evangelical learning further and further, and make our country the spiritual benefactor of the world. With the eye of faith I see the islands of the deep sending their princes and warriors to the schools of Oregon, and her choice youth there becoming princes in the realm of letters and warriors doing battle for the church militant. I see what has long been called "the land of the rising sun" looking to the East for light; and her luminous East,-so rapid are the mutations of our intellectual geography,—is soon to be found on our western shores. I see the Brazilian and the Patagonian crowding into our Californias, that they may dig for knowledge as for hid treasures, and search for that wisdom which is more precious than rubies. I rejoice in the mines which our eager countrymen are exploring; for if we send among them the teacher who has himself been taught of God, we may hope that the stones of the new-found quarries will lie at the foundation of colleges all along our western prairies, and that the enterprise which this Dorado has awakened will become a zeal to seek out the truth, an earnestness to enrich the hearts of men, an absorbing interest in those treasures which are without alloy. Not in vain has He who seeth the end from the beginning, sounded aloud the trumpet and summoned the nations together in this new world. It is to make us a missionary people, that he is thus adorning us with the spoils of all countries and all times. From the ardent, the sympathetic and the meditative temper which distinguishes our Colleges, we are permitted to hope that God will continue, as he has begun to make them the favored residences of his Spirit, without whose life-giving power we are all as dead men. From the influence of religion upon the susceptible minds of our youthful students, we are allowed to believe that they, above all others, will be animated with the missionary zeal. In the diffusion of this missionary spirit lies our best national influence. In this kind of national influence is our highest national honor; and all the honor of ourselves and our nation is and is to be but a garland upon the brow of Him" born to redeem and strong to save," who came to us as the first missionary, and is ever to be our great teacher in his school of wisdom, which is one of pleasantness and peace. ARTICLE III. CRITICISM ON GESENIUS'S DOCTRINE OF THE ACCENTS AND MAKKEPH. By Jacob T. M. Falkenau, New York. IN the "Hebrew Grammar of Gesenius, as revised by Roediger, from the fourteenth edition, translated by T. J. Conant, Prof. in Madison University, Hamilton," we read as follows: "I. Book, on Orthography. § 15. Note 11, 5. But two conjunctives cannot be employed together. If the sense requires that several words should be connected, it is done by Makkeph." "§ 16, 1. The use of it [Makkeph] moreover depends chiefly on the principle that two conjunctive accents cannot be written in succession." We read substantially the same, with a little variation, in Prof. Stuart's translation, published 1846. I assert that to whatever part of the Bible we may apply this rule and theory, it will prove to be a failure. Let us then take for examination the 1st chapter of Genesis. In 1, 26. 4, he asserts that when one conjunction follows another, as may be the case "in very long verses," (but we have pointed it out in such short verses as Gen. 2: 4. 3: 12, 21), one of them is used as a lesser disjunctive (legatus domini), as e. g. the T'lisha K'tanna on the first word of the phrase in nhan this book of the law, which oc curs in the verse Josh. 1: 8, which he gives as an illustration of the use of the accents. It is evident that this is but an expedient to escape from the dilemma created by his own arbitrary rule. Moreover, he has made a bad choice in selecting the first accent as the representative of a disjunctive; for as the pron. is of the masc. gender, it agrees, not with in, but with, and consequently there is even a closer degree of logical connection between the first two than between the last two words of the phrase. Comp. Deut. 29: 20. 30: 10. 31: 26. But for the better investigation of the subject, let us refer to the author's original work, the "Lehrgebäude." In any of the other verses quoted there as containing the most accents, the author might have met with the same difficulty of finding two or more conjunctives in succession. The quotation of 1 Chron. 28: 1, even numbers five conjunctives in succession. 1850.] Accents and Makkeph. 651 Another thing which has been here overlooked by Gesenius is, a plain rule of grammar, taught by the earliest Jewish writers. It is as follows: "Little Talisha never occurs as a single conjunctive; it is always accompanied by Azla' (Kadma), another conjunctive. Again, Azla' (Kadma) is always followed by one of the other conjunctive accents, except before 'Teres' (Geresh), where it is placed as a single conjunctive."-(Mishpete Hattaamim, ch. I. § 6, by W. Heidenheim)." The mere statement of this rule, and of the fact that it is observed throughout the Bible, may be sufficient argument on this place; and it need not be said that this rule is in direct opposition to the above principle of Gesenius. Having thus demonstrated that there exists in Hebrew no such principle as that "two (or more) conjunctive accents cannot be written in succession," the other assertion, viz. "that the use of Makkeph chiefly depends on that principle," is thus left without any foundation, and consequently also falls to the ground. But after all, the question remains, For what purpose has Makkeph been introduced in addition to so considerable a number of conjunctives, all of equal power in regard to interpunction? for it must be admitted, that it is only occasionally that we can perceive Makkeph to indicate some closer connection of sense than that expressed by a conjunctive accent, while in many or most instances this is not the case. Some principle therefore must exist, on which the use of Makkeph chiefly depends, and which, if discussed, will remove the difficulty we experience at present, of finding an immense number of instances, where Makkeph is placed, either contradictory to or unexplained by the rules generally given by grammarians. We venture then to lay before the Hebrew critics the following four rules in explanation of Makkeph: 1. In some cases Makkeph shows a closer connection of sense, than that expressed by a conjunctive accent. 2. It is most frequently employed with monosyllable particles and nouns, which are connected in sense with other words, in preference to a conjunctive accent; on the principle that monosyllables require no accent, unless they form a prominent part in the order or sense of a sentence. Analogical to the English rule of pronunciation, according to which "monosyllables, properly speaking, have no accent" (Walker's Principles of Pronunciation, Of the Nature of Accent, § 489). Such monosyllables are cin, 36, 77, ph, na, 18; 12, me, 19, ¡8; b2, 75, 12, DN, ON, by, bx, 78 3. It answers the same purpose as the recession of an accent (in), to prevent the concurrence of two tone-syllables; for a word has no accent when it receives Makkeph. Usually either expedient might be employed. But since a receded accent has but the power of Metheg and cannot be placed on a closed syllable, the joining of the two words by Makkeph is resorted to in those cases where the penult of the first word is a closed syllable (compare Gesenius's "Lehrgebäude," § 28, 2. b.); further, also, when it has some other grammatical advantage over the "recession of accents; e. g. 12, 17" Gen. 4: 24, 26, Gen. 6: 9 and 1 Samuel 30: 31. PTSTUBUR, MIPTO Deut. 16: 13. 19: 6.7 when connected with the monosyllables, 1, 1, (but without Makkeph when connected with, 178, in which case there are not two tone .Isa יִזְלוּי תִּפְתַּח וְיִפְרוּ־1924 :28 .Sam 1 וַתִּקַּח קֶמַח,(syllables in succession 45:8, Gen. 2: 24. 4. It is employed when words are placed in such a position that the rules of the "consecutio accentuum" do not allow them to have any accent. And it is on this principle that the use of a Makkeph chiefly depends; since that system could never have been carried on without the aid of the Makkeph. For illustrations of our first three rules for the insertion of Makkeph, we refer the reader to the various existing Hebrew grammars; but this fourth rule requires further elucidation. In the first place, then, we remind the reader, that the “consecutio accentuum" has its rules systematically fixed both for the order of the accents: "Silluq habet Tiph'ha,” etc. "Merca servit Tiph’ha,” etc. (Gesenius, Lehrgebäude, § 26, 1. 2) and for the number of servants (conjunctives) which can accompany their rulers (disjunctives): a) Silluq has but one servant (conjunctive). b) Tiph'ha has usually no more and no other than Merca (occasionally it takes two, when it has Merca Kefula). c) Athnah and Zakeph-Katon may have two and no more; but when Zakeph-Katon has two conjunctives the rhythm of the first one changes. d) Between Mahpach and Pashtah, and between Darga and Tebhir, no other conjunctive accent can be interposed (Mishpete Hattaamim, ch. I. § 5. ch. II. § 1 ). In addition to these rules, we have only to remark that they are strictly observed in all the prosaical books of the Bible (not speaking here of the metrical books ); and thus these few references to the system of the consecution of accents may here suffice in explanation of 1850.] Rules for the Makkeph. 653 Makkeph. For we must bear in mind that the founders of that system very often must have met with texts contrary to one or the other of these rules. Very often a text will present a connection in sense of more than one word with a word bearing Silluq or Teph'ha; it may present more than two words to be connected with a word bearing Athnah or Zakeph-Katon; or one or more words might have to be interposed between Darga and Tebhir or between Mahpach and Pashta; and so that whole system would have been overthrown, or would at least have remained incomplete, were it not for the introduction of another sign, adopted alike to show the connection of a word with a following one, and to make it lose its accent:- and such is the office of Makkeph. This will explain our fourth rule for the use of Makkeph, which will be made clear by the following examples: 1. To prevent a violation of rule a; Gen. 14: 13; Gen.11:29; 3. To prevent a violation of rule d; viz. to avoid the interposition of an accent between Mahpach and Pashta: so 19: 9. 20:7; Gen. 26: 14. To avoid interposing an accent between Darga and Debhir: אִם־לֹא אֶל־בֵּית־אָבִי ; 3 :21 .Gen אֶת־שֶׁם בְּנוֹ הַנְּוֹלַד לָוֹ ; 23 :24 .32 :10 80 Gen. 24: 38. In all these examples, it might appear a matter of indifference where to place the Conjunctive and where the Makkeph; and so it is in a mere orthographical point of view, because either way would equally answer the purpose. It will however generally be observed, that the positions of the Makkeph are by no means arbitrarily chosen, but that in placing it, regard is had to perspicuity, even so as to disregard the orthographical rule of using it with monosyllables. And thus of the two or more words in successive connection, that which is least closely connected in sense with the one that follows it receives the conjunctive accent, and the other or others the Makkeph. In the following passages we have two conjunctives in succession: Gen. 1: 12; and 80 2: 3. 1:21; and so 1: 26. 2: 7,19. 21: 22. 3:14, 21, 24. |