# Sefer Ha-yashar, or, the Book of Jasher (1840)/Certificates

CERTIFICATES
University of New York, April, 10, 1840.
I have compared a large portion of the translation of the Book of Jasher with the original Hebrew, and find it faithfully and eloquently rendered into English. The Hebrew itself is of a very pure character.
ISAAC NORDHIEMER,
Professor of oriental literature.
          To Meesrs. Noah and Gould,
Gentlemen,
I am acquainted with the Book of Jasher, having read a considerable part of it while in the hands of the translator in England. The Hebrew is very purely written, aud the translator is an eminent scholar and has done it ample justice. It is full of interest throughout, and breathes a pure spirit of piety and religion, and I am satisfied that this is the first English translation ever made of that work, the Royal Asiatic Society at Culcutta never having completed the translation of their copy as anticipated.
April 14, 1840.
H. V . NATHAN,
Minister of the English and German synagogue,
Kingston, Jamaica.
The following letter is from Professor Turner an able Hebrew scholar.
Theological Seminary, Chelsea Square, N. Y., April 28, 1840.
Gentlemen,
Agreeably to a request made to me yesterday by Mr Noah, I have sufficiently examined the English version of the Rabbinical work which heads the title of “the Book of Jasher,’’ to satisfy myself of its general correctness. I have carefully compared three chapters of the translation with the original, and have no hesitation in saying that in general they give a correct representation of the author’s meaning, and as literal as the different idioms of the two languages would allow. In some instances however, it would have been desirable that every word of the Hebrew should have been rendered into English. For instance, in ch. i, v. 2, the translator has omitted the word dust, in mentioning man’s formation “from the ground,” and in v. 4, the literal version after middle part would be “and he took away one of his ribs and built flesh upon it, and made a woman and brought her to the man.” In v. 6 also, the Rabbinical writer does not say “called their ​names Adam and Eve,” but in the very words of the Hebrew bible, v. 2, “called their name Adam.” In chap. xx, v. 4, the version reads thus; “and the servants of Abimelech went to Abimelech, saying,” in the original it is “and the servants of Abimelech came and praised Sarah to the king, saying, &c.” In v. 19, the name of Pharaoh is omitted, and occasionally the word “subjects,” is substituted for “servants.”
It is possible that the translator made use of a copy of some other edition which may have varied in a few words from that examined by me. The points referred to, are, on the whole, unimportant, and do not detract from the general accuracy of the translation.
I am respectfully,
Your obt. serv’t.
To Messrs. Noah & Gould
SAMUEL H. TURNER
The following letter is from Professor Bush of New York.
New York, April 30, 1840.
Gentlemen,
I have examined portions of several chapters of the “Book of Jasher” in the original, carefully comparing with it the translation put into my hands by the publishers. The work itself is evidently composed in the purest Rabbinical Hebrew, with a large intermixture of the Biblical idiom, and I consider the translation as a whole, not only as decidedly faithful, but as peculiarly happy in retaining the air of antique simplicity which distinguishes the original, and which constitutes the matchless excellence of our English version of the Hebrew Scriptures. In a few instances I have noticed slight verbal variations from the original, similar to those adverted to by Prof. Turner, as in one case “choice of our sepulchres” for “choice of our land” but they are of too little moment to detract from the character of general fidelity which I do not hesitate to assign to the translation.
Very respectfully,
Yours, &c.,
To Messrs. Noah & Gould
GEO. BUSH.