6

rendered one beside the other,' 'one by the other,' and were thence to conclude that latus' is the Latin word for the other'! 6. To his rendering the preposition in the sense of 'for' (the man,) meaning for the use, the help, of man,' we answered (p. 266.) that he had no authority whatever for giving such a sense. On this he is totally silent.

Such is the success with which he has confuted our strictures on his strange translation of this important passage! We proceed to the second text, Gen. ii. 25. rendered by him: Now they were both of them prudent, the man and his wife.'

In addition to other remarks, founded on the concurrence of every known authority, &c. (p. 267.) we observed, in opposition to his positive denial that by ever signifies naked,' that instances occur in which the substitution of the word 'prudent,' would make complete nonsense. Mr. Bellamy is now driven from his first position; and, changing the terms of his affirmation, contends, (Reply, p. 25.) that when this word is written with, or, in its absence, with the vowel holem, pronounced gnaarom, it uniformly signifies naked, but, when the root of this word is applied by the sacred writers to mean prudent, subtle, crafty, it is not written with the holem, or the o, but with the shurik, or long u, pronounced gnaaruum.' We decline entering into any discussion as to the authority we would attribute to these vowel points, and, for brevity's sake, will meet him on his own ground. He is right in affirming that by in the singular is pointed with the holem or o (gnaarom) when it has the sense of naked ;' but he commits an error of the grossest kind when he asserts (p. 26.) that 'the word py, (gnaaruumim,) the plural of, which the translators have rendered "naked," never means nakedness of the whole body, but throughout the Scriptures signifies, even in the received translation, wisdom, prudence.' Either he does not know, or knowing studiously conceals, that, according to the rules of that very masoretic pointing, on which he now places his dependence, y in the plural changes the o into u; it assumes, in fact, in the plural, instead of the holem or o, the shurik or long u, (here used, according to some, for the kibbutz or short u,) and the becomes dageshed, so as to make the word gnaruummim or gnarummim. Thus

plane עֶרְמִים for) עֲרוּמִים plane mudus, plural עָרוֹם Simonis gives

nudi. So Calasio and Buxtorf, Dy nudus, plural D'iy nudi. Buxtorf also, in his grammar, (Thes. Gramm. p. 81.) says that some nouns change, euphonia causâ, the holem on the last syllable of the singular, into kibbutz with dagesh in the plural, and he particularly mentions y, nudus, as an instance. The word occurs in

this form in the plural, not only here at Gen. ii. 25. but also at Job xxii. 6. 'stripped the naked of their clothing,' (D) clearly meaning those who by stripping became naked, where to render the word 'prudent' would make a most strange sense. On the other hand, y, prudent,' seems uniformly in the plural to become ', (without the dagesh,) gnaruumim, not gnaruummim. Sce Job v. 12. xv. 5. Prov. xiv. 18. Here then we must again fix Mr. Bellamy on the horns of a dilemma. Either he allows the authority of the vowal points, or he does not. If he does not, all his pretended reasoning drops at once. If he does, then the very rules which have obtained respecting them, make directly against him, and prove that the word now before us bears the received sense, and can admit no other.

Our next instance was Gen. vi. 6. which Mr. Bellamy thinks proper to translate Yet Jehovah was satisfied that he had made man on the earth; notwithstanding he idolized himself at his heart.' After noticing his stale objections to the received sense, we observed, on his daring assertion that the word on never denotes repentance; that, at least, sixty passages occur in the Bible, in which it has always been so construed, and in many of which, to substitute his sense of comforted,' or satisfied, would be at variance with the plain meaning of the text. Mr. Bellamy (p. 29.) confidently denies the latter fact, and affirms that the text would be improved by it. In a case of this nature, it is impossible to bring the matter to positive proof; we, therefore, leave the decision to the reader, without any fears as to the result. To his strange version of ay he idolized himself,' we stated various objections (p. 271.) and particularly that most important one, as far as he is concerned, that, in the only other passage where the word occurs in Hithpael, he himself renders it in the sense of grieving,' the very sense which he here rejects. He makes great parade of an answer to this, (p. 30-32.) the substance of which is merely that sy does sometimes signify an idol, and that the same word may be used in different senses. No doubt of it; but what is to be thought of a man who renders a word in a sense contradicted (as here) by every known authority, and adopts in one passage a meaning which he rejects as perfectly inadmissible in another?

The last instance of his new discoveries, to which we thought it worth while to advert, is the passage in Abraham's temptation, in which the Almighty commands him to take his son Isaac, and offer him up for a burnt offering,' or, as Mr. Bellamy translates, 'cause him to ascend concerning the burnt offering. Amongst our objections to this rendering of aby bym, we stated, (p. 272.) that to VOL. XIX. NO. XXXVIII. ̧

58

translate the preposition concerning' is to adopt an unusual meaning of the word; and that Mr. Bellamy himself has afforded the strongest of all proofs that he does not approve his new translation, for, within eleven verses, in a part of the same narrrative, the words recur, and are there rendered by him in that very sense which they have always borne, but which he had just rejected as inadmissible. At this he professes great indignation, (p. 36.) but all he has to answer, is that takes a variety of prepositions in our language.' Granted; but what proof is hereby afforded that, contrary to every known authority, and to the clearest sense of the narrative, it is to be so translated in this passage? Or how does he escape from the charge of the grossest inconsistency in rejecting in one place a meaning of the words, which, in a passage immediately following, he adopts without the slightest hesitation?

In our remarks, (p. 272.) on the glaring absurdity with which Mr. Bellamy's new translation of this passage invests the whole narrative of Abraham's temptation, we now begin to suspect that we scarcely did him justice; or, rather, we apprehend that he has fallen upon some newer discoveries in the interval between the publication of his translation and his 'Reply.' His present ideas are that, when God proved Abraham, it is meant, that He showed, evinced to Abraham, the necessity of taking Isaac to the Mount Moriah for him to be instructed concerning the burnt-offering, as representative of the Messiah.' Not so thought St. Paul, when he said, Hebr. xi. 17. By faith, Abraham, when he was tried (nepašoμevos), offered up Isaac ;' and not so once thought Mr. Bellamy himself, who, in his note on the passage, had explained it, to prove, to try, experience.' He now gives it as his opinion, that Abraham conceived his son Isaac to be the promised Messiah, and that, with this persuasion in his mind, when the Almighty commanded him to ascend, concerning the burnt-offering,' to Mount Moriah, he mistook His meaning, understood that he was commanded to offer up his son Isaac, and proceeded in this mistaken sense to execute the command, till God called upon him to desist! Still, at the close of the transaction, the Almighty rewards his erroneous obedience by the confirmation of the promise of distinguished blessings. Because-thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son; therefore, blessing I will bless thee,' &c. Thus, Mr. Bellamy would fain persuade us that the Almighty, in communicating with his servant Abraham on an occasion so important to mankind, used words which were liable to misapprehension, and which actually were misapprehended; that the Almighty, knowing the mistake, did not set Abraham right, but suffered him to disobey his real command, by proceeding to obey a supposed one; andBut we will say no more of Mr. Bellamy's most recent disco

very of the sense in this passage, except that he thus furnishes the best excuse for our blundering translators,' by contending that the mistake of the sense which they have made at the distance of three thousand years, was made at the very time the words were spoken, by the very person to whom they were addressed!

Having shown, we trust by no equivocal proof, how completely our remarks on these specimens of our author's qualifications for his task remain unanswered, we proceed briefly to examine with what better success he has confuted the few remarks which we made on his version of the first chapter of Genesis.

To our strictures (p. 274.) on his translation of Gen. i. 1. 'the substance of the heaven,' &c. he replies, (p. 37.) that his reviewer is aiding the cause of infidelity, and establishing the doctrine of the eternity of matter.' We entertain no fear for the substantial defence of the cause of the Bible against the infidel, provided it can escape from such incapable and injudicious friends as Mr. Bellamy. On our remark that if n be rightly rendered 'the substance of3 in one passage, it ought to be so rendered in all similar passages, he says, that he has been consistent, for he has so expressed it, wherever our idiom will allow.' What can he mean? Why would not our idiom' allow him to say at v. 4. the substance of the light,' at v. 7. the substance of the expanse,' at v. 16. the substance of the two great lights,' as well as at v. 1. the substance of the heavens'?

We produced (p. 274, 275.) from this chapter two instances of his ignorance of the plainest parts of speech in Hebrew; the one at v. 6. where he mistakes for a noun substantive, while it is really the participle benoni in Hiphil from 2 to divide;' the other at v. 17., where he mistakes for a noun substantive with the preposition ↳ and prefixed, whereas it is clearly a verb in the infinitive in Hiphil. On neither of these has he a single word.

אשר relative

We remarked, (p. 275.) that by rendering the words with its seed in it,' at v. 11 and 12. he entirely omits the pronoun Now let the Hebrew reader attend to his reply, (p. 42.) (he says) embraces the meaning of with,' and so, he contends, he has rightly rendered with its seed in it.' Never was an observation made in more profound ignorance of the obvious meaning of Hebrew words. The Hebrew has no more the sense of 'with' than the Latin qui. The words here are construed literally' which its seed in it,' a well-known Hebrew phrase for 'whose seed in it,' the verb substantive 'is' being understood.

As our main purpose is, to afford the public a just view of Mr. Bellamy's competence to his assumed office of a biblical critic and translator, we have thought it best to show in detail how completely he has failed in confuting the strictures passed on par

so.

ticular texts, casually selected, as specimens of the whole. To the rest of his Reply' we could say much, if we deemed it necessary. But we do not apprehend that, by bringing together a few pas sages of the authorized version, which, in his opinion, require improvement-and certainly here and there passages occur which, according to far better opinions than his, admit of some correction -he will persuade any considerate reader that this version is not generally most correct and excellent or that, by adducing a text or two (p. 15.) in which it may conform to the Septuagint,* or Vulgate, he will induce any one to believe that it was not directly and truly translated from the original Hebrew only, in the sole sense in which any judicious translators would ever think of doing We before accused Mr. Bellamy of applying some extracts from Dr. Lowth, Dr. Kennicott, and other learned divines, so as to give a false representation of their opinions. We repeat the same charge in the most direct terms: it is true that some of these divines were of opinion that a revision of the received version might be advantageous-not, was absolutely necessary,' as he states in his Reply, (p. 6.)-But the revision of which, they thought, extended, not to the discovery that all former translators had grossly erred in interpreting the plainest passages of the Bible, but merely to the improvement of the language, and the more clear developement of the sense in particular passages. All their writings show that this was their meaning; and we repeat that, to quote their words as Mr. Bellamy does, for the purpose of sanctioning such a translation as his, is to represent them as entertaining an opinion which they would have rejected with indignation and horror.

* Mr. Bellamy expresses great astonishment (Reply, p. 6.) at our assertion (p. 260.) that the Septuagint version has been prized by Jews as well as Christians. We repeat the assertion in the sense in which we made it, viz. that Jews as well as Christians most fully allow the Septuagint version to give generally the true sense of the Hebrew Scripturet, however they may here and there dispute the interpretation of a particular text. It is curious to observe in what manner be disproves our assertion, (p. 261.) that the Septuagint is quoted by the writers of the New Testament; namely, (p. 17.) by producing two or three passages in which they did not quote from the Septuagint, as if we had asserted that it always was, instead of sometimes. However, Mr. Bellamy may contemplate the following passages, in which it is most clear that these writers did quote from the Septuagint, Matt. iv. 4. 6. xiii. 14. 15. xxi. 16. xxii. 44. Acts xv. 17. Hebr. viii. 9. x. 39. And we will produce many more passages to prove the fact, if it should be desired. But probably the authority of Michaelis may be thought sufficient: 'It is universally known,' he says, (v. i. p. 215. Edit. 1802.) that the quotations in the New Testament are commonly taken from the Septuagint, a version in general use among the Christians who understood Greek.'

Mr. Bellamy pretends (p. 8.) to confute our assertion that the books of the Old Tes tament are the only books which have come down to us in the ancient Hebrew, by stating that the Mishna, Talmud, &c. are written in that language. After all the proofs which we have had of this writer's ignorance, we are still inclined to ask, whether it be possible he can seriously believe that the language in which the Mishna, Talmud, &c. are written is the same as that of the Old Testament?