these resins being liquified by heat, and purified by alcohol, were afterwards left to coagulate and harden: they were then ground to powder, and, we may suppose, were burnt upon solemn occasions before the ark. It may be said, that there is no proof of the employment of alcohol, &c. But the art of the pharmacist is stated to have been necessary. The resins were to be tempered together, they were to be rendered pure, before they were ground, down. How could this be done without having recourse to the only method by which the moderns themselves could effect what is stated as being ordained? To be united into one mass, to be purified, to be afterwards ground to a powder, seems absolutely to require, if not the same, at least a very similar process to that which I have indicated. I propose now to examine some passages in the 32d chapter of Exodus, from which I think it appears, that the Hebrews must have acquired a great knowledge of chemistry and metallurgy during their residence in Egypt. V. 2. "And Aaron said unto them, break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me." V. 3. "And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron." V. 4. "And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf." V. 20. "And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and strewed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it." V. 24. "And I said unto them, whosoever hath any gold, let them break it off: So they gave it me: then I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf." I have several objections to make to this translation:-1. The construction of the three first verses is ungrammatical. The strange confusion which the translators have made between the gold and the earrings, between it and them, does not exist in the original. 2. Aaron is said to have fashioned the gold with a graver's tool, after he had made it a molten calf. By what authority can the conjunctive particle be rendered after in this place? This particle, being often employed as a mere continuative, certainly bears different senses at different times. Priscian defines continuative conjunctions to be those, quæ continuationem et consequentiam rerum significant. But this cannot avail the translators in the passage before us, where the conjunction is clearly to be understood as a simple copulative. No doubt they saw the absurdity of saying that Aaron worked with the tool before he had melted the metal, and they therefore translated the conjunction by the word after. But had the original writer intended to express his meaning as the version has done it for him, he would have used the word. Then why is the tense of the second verb changed? In the original, the verbs fashioned and melted, are both in the same tense, that is, by the conjunctive. 3. If this version be correct, Aaron must have worked with singular expedition. In less than twenty-four hours, he melted the gold, and afterwards fashioned it into the shape of a calf with a graver's tool! The translators appear to me to have mistaken, in this passage, the meaning of the word . This word certainly signifies a sharp-pointed instrument, a graver, in the 8th chapter of Isaiah, where the roll indicated, being probably made of the bark of a tree, the translation should be-"take a great roll, and inscribe on it with a man's graver, &c." But I conceive the word only bears this sense, where the radicals and have been exchanged; for, a graver, is manifestly to be referred to, to engrave. The word however occurs in a very different sense at 2 Kings v. 22, where D cannot certainly mean "in two gravers." The author of the Vulgate translates, in duobus loculis. I conceive then, that in this sense, is nearly the same with, which signifies a ditch, a hollow place. This word is improperly rendered a wall in our version, at Daniel ix. 25. seems to signify something hollow; something intended to contain another. In the passage in Exodus, I would translate it a mould. "And Aaron said unto them, break off the earrings, the gold which is in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring it unto me. And all the people brake off the earrings, the gold, which was in their ears, and brought it unto also חרט Aaron. And he took it from their hands, and fashioned it in a mould, and made it a molten calf." Those who had said, to Aaron, "make us gods," were no doubt ready with a furnace and a mould. The gold, in a state of liquifaction, might be easily conveyed out of the furnace into a mould placed underneath; and though Aaron were the operator, he might have been previously ignorant of the form, which was to be given to the idol. Before I proceed to translate the 20th verse of the same chapter, it is necessary that I make a few remarks on the word N. According to the English version, Moses burnt the golden calf in the fire. No doubt all the translations concur in this, because it would seem that all the translators had anticipated the idea of Stahl, who, in his treatise intitled vitulus aureus in igne combustus, is of opinion, that the idol was reduced to powder by calcination. -sig שרה and the verb ; וישרת באש But the words in the text are nifies to dissolve, or melt, rather than to burn. Again, WN seems to be too rigorously translated fire. In the 24th verse, Aaron is made to say, that the people gave him the gold; and then he adds" I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf." Now if he had thrown the gold into the fire, it might have melted there; but most assuredly it would not have taken the form of a calf from being thrown into the fire. If N ought always to be literally rendered fire, the translators have done wrong in giving the following paraphrase as the meaning of N, at Numbers xxviii. 2. "for my sacrifices by fire." I may be told that N here is the plural of N; but it appears to me to be no more in the plural than the word ", which precedes it. I translate the verse-" Command the children of Israel, and say unto them, My offering, my bread, for my fire-oblation, (that it be) grateful unto me, observe, that ye offer it unto me in its due scason." A literal translation of this verse should not be attempted, because the idioms of the two languages will not admit of it. Here then seems to be a proof, that is not to be always rigorously rendered fire. Another instance occurs at Genesis xxii. 6. 17пр" UNN. These words are rendered in the English Bible, "and he took the fire in his hand." But I would translate, "and he took the fire-pan in his hand." In the passages before us in Exodus, I con tend, that that which ignites, is put for that which is ignited; and I am of opinion that UN signifies a furnace. "And he took the calf which they had made, and melted it in a furnace, then ground it even to powder, and strewed it upon the surface of the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it."-" And I said unto them, those who have gold, let them break it off: so they gave it me, and I cast it into a furnace, and there came forth this calf." Several writers have objected to the very quick conformation of the molten calf, as the account is given both in the Vulgate and in our version. My translation not only obviates this objection, but justifies Aaron. The gold might be melted, and cast in a mould, in the space of a few hours. An iron valve, or door, contrived within the furnace, might have been opened when the metal was liquified, and thus the operator might have conveyed the melted metal into the mould underneath. There is nothing improbable in the supposition, that the idolaters had such a furnace and such a mould already in their possession. Aaron might be said to have fashioned the gold in the mould, as he conveyed the liquified metal into the mould; but it may be fairly presumed, that he was ignorant that the form of the idol to be produced would be that of the Egyptian Apis, which form, under the circumstances of the time, was the most insulting to the worshippers of Jehovah that could be devised. Moses is said in distinct terms to have made the Israelites drink the gold of which the molten calf had been composed. By some this has been represented as physically impossible, and by others as a thing very easily to be performed. I agree with neither party. It is quite absurd to suppose, that Moses ground down the gold, and then gave it to his Israelites to be swallowed with water. The gold must have been rendered potable, either by calcination, followed by trituration and dissolution in common water; or by partial dissolution in a menstruum, followed by trituration, and complete dissolution in common water. I regret, that I have not at hand the treatise of the celebrated Stahl, to which I have already alluded; but if I do not forget, he supposes the process followed by Moses, to have been nearly the same with that described in his Elements of Chemistry, c. iii. s. 13. But I object to the method of calcination, not only because it must always be at least very difficult, but because I think the Hebrew expressly says, that the gold was melted, and not burnt, as it is in our version. I consider it as more likely, that when the metal had cooled after liquefaction, to that state in which it becomes most easily malleable, the operator beat it out into very slender plates, and then dissolved these plates in the nitro-muriatic acid. The great difficulty is to understand, how the gold could be held in a state of solution so as to be potable, and yet to be innoxious when swallowed. The quantity of aqua regia necessary to dissolve the golden calf would have been poisonous. There is however a method of separating the gold from the dissolvent, and of rendering it both potable and innoxious. For this purpose, when the metal is dissolved as much as possible, dilute the menstruum with a dozen times its quantity of very pure water. Put brass plates highly polished into the solution. The gold particles will be precipitated to the bottom and to the brass plates. Continue to keep the solution hot, until the liquor shall cease to be disturbed: then shake the plates, so that all the gold may fall to the bottom; and pour off the liquor swimming above. Wash the gold with clear water, and put it into a glass mortar. It may then be amalgamated and triturated with quick-silver; and when thus rendered as pure as possible, the quick-silver must be separated from it by distillation. The residuum is then to be triturated in clear water, until it totally dissolve and combine with that fluid. Expertissimus autem Hombergius, says Boerhaave, asseruit, simplicem aquam solo continuato cum aqua attritu valuisse metallorum ut cæterorum ita et auri ipsius, corpus penitus dissolvere in formam potabilem et medicatam. However difficult it may be to believe this of a mass of gold in its concrete state, the previous process, which I have described, may render the final one extremely easy. I shall, no doubt, be told that neither the Egyptians, nor the Hebrews, possessed a sufficient knowledge of chemistry, to derive from it the advantages which I have supposed. But this is to beg the question. If we admit the facts, how can we deny the knowledge? In the case before us, there may have been no miraculous |