Dziewczyny ról 'ego deppa bonham carter jednak rzuca światło też Rabbi, Kimchi, who flourished the twelfth century, seems to have been the first who proposed the third translation, or that given the margin of the English Bible. According to this interpretation, the Heb. copulative ו and, is to be translated or, and the sense of the vow then be, ‘Whatsoever cometh out of the doors of house, I if it be a thing fit for a burnt offering, make it one; or, if not, consecrate it to his service.' This would suppose him, making the vow, to have had a mental reserve, which would allow him to act as the exigency of the case might require. It gives him alternative which by the other mode of rendering is effectually precluded. This construction, however, is certainly liable to a very important grammatical objection. Though it is unquestionable that the particle ו is sometimes used as a disjunctive, and properly rendered ‘or,' as Ex. 12, ‘hand or foot;' 21, ‘father or mother;' 2 2, ‘right hand or left,' yet it be doubted whether it is ever used to disjoin things completely as this translation supposes. Gussetius contends that to give ו a disjunctive force, it is essential that the terms between which it stands should not be related as genus and species, or the one member comprehending the other, as otherwise it would be as absurd as to say, ‘Thou shalt not injure a or his head,' the one term evidently including the other. the present instance, the clause ‘It shall be the Lord's,' is obviously, he affirms, the general, while ‘It shall be offered up for a burnt offering,' is merely the included particular, indicating the special manner which it shall be the Lord's. This we cannot but regard as the interpretation required on strict philological principles, and if the passage were rendered, ‘It shall, be the Lord's, even I offer it up for a burnt offering,' it would come, we believe, still nearer to the genuine force of the original. We assent, therefore, to the remark of that ‘this rendering is extremely forced and harsh, and one which critics have acquiesced only to get rid of what they esteemed a greater difficulty. It also makes the second clause of the vow entirely unnecessary; for if Jephthah meant to say, that whatsoever came out of his house should be consecrated to the Lord, such a manner as was suitable to its nature, this is fully conveyed the first clause; and the addition of the second, separated by or, instead of helping to determine his meaning, is of no use but to perplex it.' For these reasons we are compelled to reject the third hypothesis, as wholly unsustained by a just philological support. The fourth and last, is Dr. 's rendering, ‘Whosoever cometh out, &c., shall be the Lord's, and I offer Him a burnt offering.' According to this translation, Jephthah's vow consist of two parts. The first, that whatsoever person or object should come forth of his doors to meet him should surely be the Lord's; i. e. should be dedicated, consecrated for ever to his service. The second, that he would, beside this, offer to Jehovah a burnt offering. According to the rendering our common version, the very same object or person who should ‘surely be the Lord's,' was to be offered up for a burnt offering. According to that now proposed, they were to be different objects. This explanation appeared to Bp. Lowth signally happy and conclusive, that he speaks of it as having ‘perfectly cleared up a difficulty, which for two thousand years had puzzled all the translators and expositors, had given occasion to dissertations without number, and caused endless disputes among the learned.' such a commendation, from such a source, undoubtedly entitles the proposed explanation to great respect, but it has still failed to satisfy the mass of commentators, and as we think for very good reasons. The sense hereby given to the original is not warranted by common usage. The Hebrew, it be observed, is והעליתיהו עולח vehaalithihu olâh, where the suffixed pronoun הו hu, is joined to the verb to express the thing offered, and not another example can be found, which verbs of offering or sacrificing are accompanied with a suffix pronoun denoting the Being to whom the offering is made. On the contrary, instances of a precisely parallel usage to the present are of no uncommon occurrence. Thus 1 7, ‘Then took a sucking lamb, and offered it a