Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

a

[ocr errors]

can be translated from the original Hebrew.” But I ask the uprejudiced reader, if I be not correct? Is not the old Testament a Holy Bible? or, if he please, a Holy Book? Does he not know that the Jews themselves call the Hebrew Bible, the Holy Bible ? Does he not know that the New Testament is a distinct Holy Book from the Hebrew Bible, and that it would be improper to call any two books written in different languages, one book; and to be thus made one book by the labor of the bookbinder? I grant it is a common school-boy term to call the Holy Bible, which is translated from the original Hebrew, the Old Testament: but this term is indefinite; there are many old testaments on various subjects; but there is only one Holy Bible, or Holy Book, translated from the original Hebrew; and ONE Holy Book, which, for the sake of distinction, we call “ The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." This word Testament, is applied to the will of a person who leaves this world, and therefore very properly called the New Testament; but the reader will see that there is a necessity for its explanation by the words, “ of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,” or it might have been mistaken for some other testament. I shall therefore continue to call the Hebrew Bible, or a translation of it, The Holy Bible, or The Holy Book ; and the subsequent of the Scriptures, as the translators have done, The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The Reviewer proceeds : " Mr. Bellamy has made another discovery of the sense.” Gen. ii. 25. “ it is said, that Adam and Eve when first created were both naked; but in a state of innocence, in which they then were,' were not ashamed.' This is the sense in which the words have been understood by all translators and interpreters, ancient and modern, whose opinion on the passage is recorded. But, says Mr. Bellamy, all this has arisen from a mistake; the word Danny gnaroumim, which has been rendered naked,' ought to be rendered prudent;' and accordingly he translates the passage, now they were both of them prudent, the man and his wife.”' To this I answer, It is not true, that “this is the sense in which the words have been understood by all translators and interpreters, ancient and modern, whose opinion on the passage is recorded.” And from this assertion, the reader will see that the writer of this article bas either not read my first part, or if he should have read it, states what he knows to be false. I have shown on the third chapter, that Celsus, one of the first opposers of the Gospel, treats with levity the history of Adam's formation, and of that of. Eve from his rib; of the commands that were given them, and of the serpent's cunning, in being able to evade the effect of those commands. Origen, in answer to him, says, that he does not treat

6

p. 338.

the subject with candor, but hides what he ought to have made known, viz. that all this was to be understood in a figurative sense, not giving the reader the words, which would have convinced him that they were spoken allegorically.” And he concludes by observing, that “it is not reasonable to deny to Moses the possession of truth under the veil of allegory, which was then the practice of all the eastern nations.” Cont. Cels. I. iv. p. 189. Tbis is the recorded opinion of Origen. Eusebius says,

“ that there were two sorts of Jews, the learned and the unlearned. The learned were confined to the contemplation of a more refined philosophy, and the interpreters explained to them the figurative sense.” This he confirms by the authority of Aristobulus and Philo, and by the constant practice of that strict sect of the Jews, the Essenes, who always followed this allegorical manner of expounding ; which was, in the days of Aristobulus, one hundred and fifty years before Christ, called ancient." Præp. Evang. I. viii. This is the recorded opinion of Eusebius.

Philo says, “ It is a manifest proof of ignorance to suppose that God really was employed six days in the production of things. Vid. Sixt. Senens. Biblioth. I. v.

And Origen, Orig. Philocal. c.i.p. 12. says, " What rational man will believe that God, like a husbandman, plavted a garden, and in it a 'real tree of life, to be tasted? or that the knowledge of good and evil was to be obtained by eating the fruit of another tree? And as to God's walking in the garden, and Adam's hiding himself from him among the trees ;no man can doubt that these things are to be understood figuratively, and not literally, to signify certain mysteries, or recondite senses. Here we have the recorded opinion of Philo.

St. Austin, in the preface to his twelve books on the literal interpretation of the first three chapters of Genesis, says, “No Christian will say that they are not to be understood figuratively, when he recollects that the Apostle declares, how all these things happened to them in a figure.”. See more at large in the first part of my Bible. This is the recorded opinion of St. Austin. in

What is to be thought of the writer of this article, who has thus committed himself before. 'the public? what degree of credit can be given to any man who puts forth falsehoods, so easily detected ? I leave it to the impartial judgment of the readers of this answer, and of my work. I shall now proceed to show, as I promised, what the Critic understands about “ the peculiarities of idiom, and the niceties of construction;" by which he wishes to impress the mind of the public with a respect for his great depth in the knowledge, not the common grammatical knowledge, but the high critical knowledge of the Bible Hebrew. But this, I suppose, will be called "nonsense; ignoránce, incapability, daring

a

perversion of truth,” &c. by the ADVOCATE and every interest ed Bible publisher.

I have said concerning the word on gnaarom, that the self-same word cannot signify both naked and crafty: the Advocate for received errors says,

“ When however be asserts that the same word cannot signify both naked and crafty, he asserts what is contradicted by evidence. That the word before us OW, with or without the servile , does really signify naked,' is placed beyond all possible doubt, in a number of passages, in which, to substitute the sense of prudent or crafty, would wholly destroy the meaning. For instance, al Job i. 21. Naked (D7) came I out of my mother's womb,' &c. What would be thought of the passage if thus translated, Prudent came I out ?" &c. Again, Job xxiv. 7. in the description of the wicked, They cause the naked (DIY) to lodge without clothing.' What would be the sense of these passages, if prudent were substituted for naked ?" I will tell this specious Hebraist, who is so grossly ignorant of the Hebrew, in one word-NONSENSE! for nonsense they certainly would be. In this we perfectly agree; but this agreement will give me an opportunity of showing this writer, what attainments he has made concerning “ the peculiarities of idiom, and the niceties of construction."

If I were to translate in the random manner adopted by this self-sufficient Critic, without any attention to the various application of words according to orthography, or the “ nicety of construction,” of which he boasts, I could supply him with sufficient evidence to prove the converse of his proposition, that, as he has taken for the same word,) does really signify prudent, to substitute the sense of “naked,” would wholly destroy the meaning. For example, Psal. xviñ. 3. “ They have taken crafty counsel against the people.” What would be thought of the passage if thus translated, “ They have taken NAKED counsel ?” Again, Gen. ii. 1. Now the serpent was NAKED.-Job v. 12. He disappointeth the devices of the NAKED.—Prov. xñ. 16. But a NAKED man covereth shame. Ver. 23. A NAKED man concealeth knowledge.- Ch. xiv. 8. The wisdom of the NAKED is to understand his way? &c. I might then, with a boasting finish to these remarks say, in the words of this writer,“ It were endless to cite passages of this description, in which the undoubted sense of the word is prudent or crafty.This will be sufficient to convince the reader, that this gentleman does not understand " the peculiarities of idiom, and the niceties of construction," in the Hebrew.

This writer has copied the word on gnadrom from the lexicon, as all do who pretend to understand the Hebrew without attend

which ,ערם gmaaruum, (not ערום the word

a

דבר

ing to the orthography of the language. And if this were allowed, or had ever been so understood by modern or ancient Jews, there then indeed would be no certainty in the language; and the coinmands which God gave, might be made to have a double meaning, as he contends: But if the language be anderstood as it is with vowels in all properly printed Hebrew Bibles, it becomes the most certain language in the world. I need not enlarge on the notion of the sacred language having been given without vowels, to be perfected, or made certain in its application, by the wisdom of man; 80 that av shaabar, which means “broken,” i Kings xiii. 28. could not be known from 70 sheber, “corn," Gen. xlii. 1727 dobeer, speak," Deut. v. 1. from 727 deber, “ a pestilence,” Hab. iii, 5. And so it is in all the words throughout the Scripture, the consonants being the same in each, there would be no possibility of knowing whether the word meant broken, or corn - speak, or pestilence. This is the depth of this gentleman's knowledge in Hebrew : now for the proof.

The word oy gnaarom, has but one root, according to Taylor, Parkhurst, Levi, and others; and I find that they inserted, making a fourth letter, does not form another root : this is the reason why, I have said that those, who place the word under a different radix, are wrong. But this intemperate writer in his customary way of

“ He (Bellamy) boldly affirms they are wrong, as if he thought that his own would bear down every other authority.”

[ocr errors]

abuse says,

Having inserted the articles of Mr. Hailes, Mr. Leo, and several other communications, in opposition to Mr. Bellamy, we think it our duty to insert his defence of bis work. However we may agree with the Quarterly Review in some of its statements, we must declare our belief, that Mr. B. is firmly persuaded of the great truths of Revelation, zealously attached to the orthodox principles of the Church of England, and that he is sincerely convinced that he is essentially supporting the cause of both in his new translation. That work is open to all the severity of criticism, of which he has received an ample share, particularly in the article to which he has now replied. Of his work we can only say, Valeat quantum valere potest. If one in a hundred passages of his version should be hereafter received, he will have conferred a signal service on Biblical criticism ; if not, his work will soon be consigned, in vicum vendentem thus, et odores, et piper, et quicquid chartis amicitur ineptis. . We shall only add, that we shall readily admit any fair and temperate discussion on either side.--EDIT.

MISCELLANEA CLASSICA.

:

[ocr errors]

2

[ocr errors]

No. V.-[Continued from No. XXXIV. p. 361.] XXIII. In a note on Cowley's Davideis, there occurs a reading of a line in Claudian, which is remarkable, as being in a style of versification the very reverse of Claudian's : “ crastina venturæ exspectantes gaudia prædæ.”. Claud. Pros. 1. l. ult. The common reading is “spectantes.”

XXIV. Heyne, on Virg. Æn. 1. 738, “Tum Bitiæ dedit increpitans," observes, Bitias Punicum nomen, quod et alibi occurrit.”. An oversight : Bitias figures as a Trojan in the conflict at the gates of New Troy in the ninth book. See ix. 672 et seqq. 703 et seqq. xi. 396. Bitias and Bidúas occur, indeed, in other authors as Punic names. See Sil. Ital. 11. 409. and Ruperti’s note. Silius understood Virgil in the same manner as Heyne.

XXV. In the Quarterly Review, No. XV. p. 404, art. Electa Tentamina Schol. Edin." Afferat, o Britones” is objected to on

O the score of quantity. Is the quantity of this word determined ? Juvenal has "nec Brittones unquam,” (Sat. xv.) but some read “ Teutones.” Addison writes, “ Britonumque heroa pererrat.”

XXVI. Ib. p. 395. “ The Italian composers in Latin verse abound, however, with these barbarisms, not scrupling to elide one diphthong before another.” When the modern canon on this subject was first mentioned to the author, a line of Virgil, (Georg. IV. 342.) occurred to him : " Ambæ auro, pictis incinctæ pellibus ambæ."

XXVII. Porson, on Eurip. Phæn. 16, naidwv és oixous ápoéiwe κοινωνίαν, : Xoiwviav, observes : “xoiwvíay, consuetudinem, ouríay, ait Mus

óiríav gravius, male. Sensus est, ut ipse et ego communes liberos haberemus; ut ipse ex me liberos procrearet." To the passages from the Greek poets, which he subjoins, may be added, Virg. Æn. 11. 789. Jamque vale, et nati serva communis amorem.

XXVIII. The god Oceanus, in the Prometheus of Æschylus, thus begins on entering :

Ηκω δολιχής τέρμα κελεύθου
διαμειψάμενος πρός σε, Προμηθεύ,
τον πτερυγωκή τόνδ' οιωνόν

γνώμη στομίων" άτερ ευθύνων. Ρrom. 292, ed. Blo Blomf. in Gloss. “Tróun. Voluntate solu. benýuari éuç. Schol. B. Southey has employed the same fiction (I know not whence derived) in his Vision of the Maid of Orleans, Part 111.

« ZurückWeiter »