That no such subject distinctly appears, through the medium of the authorised translation contained in our Bibles, is most certain; nor was it to be looked for, that any passages, which admitted of different modes of construction, should be rendered in a way least acceptable to the expositor, in a translation which is almost wholly Jewish, being founded on the Masoretic punctuation. On the contrary, it appears, in not a few instances, that the usual and literal sense has been rejected for one more remote, but more consonant to the views and prejudices, of those who framed the punctuation. That this statement may not rest on the questionable ground of assertion or opinion, the reader will find, in the notes subjoined, a full statement of the reasons for all the changes proposed; and the Hebrew scholar will thus have full opportunity to challenge their validity, if he find occasion. It is the writer’s wish that they should be freely canvassed; truth is the only object he has in view; and he asks no other conditions on entering the arena, than that of disclaiming the authority of the Masoretic punctuation. His reasons for this will appear sufficiently obvious. If, without the aid of the points, we obtain a meaning that is simple and satisfactory in many passages, which by them are rendered obscure or unintelligible;—if a connected and unbroken explanation of each verse be attainable without them, while only a few verses detached from the context have been explained by the ablest commentators through their aid; sufficient reason will surely appear for rejecting an authority which, instead of facilitating our progress, only encumbers the subject with unnecessary difficulties. The reader need not, however, expect that every difficulty will be removed by the proposed alterations; or that even the amended translations will afford such an exposition as to admit of no possible objection. It were absurd to suppose that the strength of the argument can lie all on one side, where two are engaged in the controversy. For the Jew is in this case no man of straw, set up to be knocked down at pleasure, but a true Jew, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, an advocate as zealous in the cause he defends, as his Christian opponent. Each believes himself in the right; each expects to obtain the victory; and it is not improbable that the reader, who sits as umpire in the contest, may, after all, though unconscious of partiality, give judgment according to the bias of his feelings, whether he be Jew or Christian, rather than according to the abstract merits of the question.