n
of the proceedings of the revisers of the previous versions.

5. Coverdale's translation is not "ungrammatical" as far as the Hebrew
language is concerned, notwithstanding that it was rejected in the reign
of James I. *lechem*, "bread," is evidently the accusative noun to the
transitive verb *yiten*, "He shall give." Nor is it "false," for the
same noun, *lechem*, "bread," is no doubt the antecedent to which the
word _it_ refers.

6. Mendelsohn does _not_ omit the _it_ in his Hebrew comment; and I am
therefore unwarrantably charged with supplying it "unauthorisedly." I
should like to see MR. BUCKTON's translation of that comment. If any
doubt remained upon MR. B.'s mind as to the intended meaning of the word
*yitenhu* used by Mendelsohn, his German version might have removed such
a doubt, as the little word _es_, "it," indicates pretty clearly what
Mendelsohn meant by *yitenhu*. So that, instead of proving Mendelsohn
"at variance with himself," he is proved most satisfactorily to have
been in perfect harmony with himself.

7. Mendelsohn does not omit the important word *ken*; and if MR. B. will
refer once more to his copy of Mendelsohn (we are both using the same
edition), he will find two different interpretations proposed for the
word *ken*, viz. _thus_ and _rightly_. I myself prefer the latter
rendering. The word occurs about twenty times in the Hebrew Bible, and
in the great majority of instances _rightly_ or _certainly_ is the only
correct rendering. Both Mendelsohn and Zunz omit to translate it in
their German versions, simply because the sentence is more idiomatic, in
the German language, without it than with it.

8. I perfectly agree with MR. B. "that no version has yet had so large
an amount of learning bestowed on it as the English one." But MR. B.
will candidly acknowledge that the largest amount was bestowed on it
since the revision of the authorised version closed. Lowth, Newcombe,
Horne, Horsley, Lee, &c. wrote since, and they boldly called in question
many of the renderings in the authorised version.

Let me not be mistaken; I do most sincerely consider our version
superior to _all_ others, but it is not for this reason faultless.

In reply to MR. JEBB's temperate strictures, I would most respectively
submit--

1. That considerable examination leads me to take just the reverse view
to that of Burkius, that *sheinah* cannot be looked upon as antithetical
to _surgere_, _sedere_, _dolorum_. With al