« ZurückWeiter »
very lame excuse indeed for so great a liberty. The only changes! I know not what changes he would indulge more, if he were listened
I suppose by saying only, he would new model every word in the verse; these changes are sufficient to confound the sense, they make it nonsense.
He renders it thus-“ For from my youth I have brought him up as a father, and from the womb of my mother I have led him.” To a certainty this rendering cannot be admitted, for though he has manufactured the passage to his own taste by taking the unwarrantable liberty of altering the original, yet it was reasonable to expect that he would have given such words their true rendering after he had modelled them., This however is not the case, for 957 which he changes into onboa he translates,
אנחה which he changes into אַנְחֶנָה I have brought him up-and
I have led him. But there is no authority in the original for adding the word him to these words, the oblique case of the pronoun he neither occurs in these words, nor in the whole verse: beside, by would be the first person singular preter in kal. Neither can the passage be translated right, as he thinks, in No. V. p. 110.
p because that writer makes ? one word only, whereas caph prefixed is evidently the particle of likeness, viz. like a father. If this verse were to be rendered, as this writer has attempted, viz. for sorrow hath bred me up from my youth, and groaning from my mother's womb, it would not only be a most unnecessary repetition, but it would make the narrative contradict itself. Job had not been brought up in sorrow and groaning from his mother's womb; . he was the son of a patriarchal king, and succeeded to the government of the Edomitish nation. A finer picture of the true grandeur and dignity of an eastern monarch was never drawn by any pen, than it is in the original of the 29th chapter. When I went out to the gate, through the city, when I prepared my seat in the street, the young men saw me and hid themselres; and the aged arose und stood up. The princes refrained talking, and laid their
. hand on their mouth. The nobles held their peace: when the ear heard me, because I delivered the poor that cried, and the fatherless, and him that had none to help him, &c. Now as these writers, neither by taking the passages as they stand, nor by changing one letter for another, can make common sense of them, and as the translations I have given are not only good sense, but also incontrovertibly proved to be perfectly consistent with the original Hebrew; I submit the matter to those who are capable of judging rightly, which translation ought to be received.
Your correspondent Dr. G. S. C. has grossly misrepresented my meaning in an article I wrote in No. IV. p. 465. concerning the words D. iba 387 which are rendered in the translation by these, only. He accuses me with being a “misquoter," and that
I refer to Gen. 39. 19. for, the very same words. But by a closer examination of what I have written, it will be seen that. I refer to Genesis for the word I haaeeleeh, to prove that the same word in Chronicles should have had the same rendering, I have not said, as this gentleman says I have, that the three words OTT 728 7587 are to be met with in Gen. 39. 19. but that as the translators have only noticed the word om in Chronicles by the word these, and have passed over the words an elech heem : that the word op haaeeleeh ought to be translated as it is in Gen. 39. 19. after this manner, or with this construction, thus, with these intervening things, the Philistians meaning that the Ark which was between the Israelites and the Egyptians when they came out of Egypt, was the orix God, which smote the Egyptians with all the slaughter in the wilderness. This must be obvious to any intelligent reader, because the word 7387 haaeeleeh, only is in the passage referred to in Genesis. I have, as well as many of your readers, with great labor endeavoured to understand Dr. G. S. C. I hope I have; if not, it is owing to the lamentable obscurity of his style. I did not, on that account, mean to say any more on his articles, had not another made its
in the JOURNAL with false charges against one of my former articles. Therefore it has been necessary to show, even in this, that he has again committed an unpardonable blunder.
This curious writer will still have it that “the Immanuel of Isaiah is not Christ," yet that “he will maintain the legal religion of the country contained in its creeds and articles, but not the interpretations of fanatics.” Very well ; but the legal religion of the country contained in its creeds and articles, teaches, that the Immanuel of Isaiah is Christ. Let any one read the passage in Matthew, and if words are to have their common meaning and acceptation, it will necessarily be granted, that they expressly declare, that the Immanuel of Isaiah is said by the Apostle to mean Christ, Matt. ch. 1. 21, 22. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet. Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel. From this positive application of the words of the Prophet Isaiah by the Apostle to Christ, dare any one who pretends to be a Christian, “humbly apprehend that the young woman usually called the virgin, is the same with the
prophetess Isaiah's wife ?” Every Socinian, Jew, and Mahometan doctor, will undoubtedly approve of this gentleman's assertion respecting this important article of our faith ; but every sincere
Christian will be shocked to hear such a libertine principle promulgated to the world. I do not know any of the clergy in the church of England (except this writer) who have dared to publish opinions so contradictory to her creeds and articles, and to Scripture; and if there were any of this description, I do not wish to know them. The creeds and articles are lear and decisive as to this Scripture doctrine, and her clergy declare with the Apostle that in Jesus Christ dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. In no pulpit is the divinity of Christ held forth in greater purity than by those who are orthodox in the church of England, where by such, it is shown to be perfectly consistent with the declarations of the inspired writers, and with Christ himself, who says, no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven,
the son of man who is in heaven. The true Christian builds his faith on this rock, and I am not ashamed, nor do I feel unpleasant on being branded by this writer with the term “fanatic” on this account. We are told that there is a blessing attends every one thus persecuted. Matti 5. 11.
. Blessed are
when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say áll manner of evil against you falsely for my sake.
There is another passage in Deut. 5. 24. (English translation) in which I differ from the translators, because they make it appear that God talked with the whole nation of Israel at Sinai, though it appears that he only talked with Moses; this has been objected to by Deists for that reason: but when we turn to the original, the objection vanishes. The translators have omitted noticing the T he, prefixed to 7X Adam, which is emphatic, viz. the, and the passage is truly rendered thus ; God doth talk with 77 the man, and he liveth. I thought in doing this, I was doing what might be useful to the cause of religion, but Dr. G. S. C. without elucidating any difficult passage whatever, must find fault: and in my own defence, I must give the reader another sample to add to the list of unpardonable blunders he has made in charging me with being a "misquoter.” He asserts that I refer to Deut. 5. 23.
that God dots כִּי יְדַבֵּר אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם וָחָי for the passage
talk with the man, and he liveth, and says, “ let the reader consult Deut. 5. 23. in any Bible for such a passage, at the end of ver. 24. the words appear,” but as the words really do appear, whether in verses 21, 22, 23, or 24. is of very little moment; it shows the weakness of this gentleman's objection. However, agreeably to this hasty writer's recommendation I “consult” Leusden's Hebrew Bible, Amstelodami, 1501, and there I find that the above passage does not " appear at the end of verse 24." though he is pleased to say it does. To be sure the words appear at the end of verse 24.” in the Bible which Dr. G. S.C. consults,
viz. the English Bible: but I have quoted from the Hebrew, as is my custom.
This writer being “ aware” of what I have said in a former number on the words "T? DIZ Deut. 5. 23. proving the word d'abx God, to be a noun singular, and being sensible that this word cannot be rendered plural, brings in his liacknied phrase "plural of intensity," intimating that the word “ may be translated singularly as a plural of intensity," and therefore he would render the words on DVD " the great God everlasting." But this is a gloss, and cannot be admitted, for neither the adjective Siza, nor the adverb orbij are in the passage.
The words are unexceptionably rendered in the English Bible. As to “plurals of intensity!" whether a plural relates to things high, or things low, it is still plural, and a singular, in all languages, must ever remain a singular.
I shall, to conclude, briefly notice another error this gentleman has committed, and which can only be accounted for on the ground of his not having sufficiently acquainted himself with the Hebrew language. In the 2nd chapter of Isaiah, ver. 2. it must be obvious to the learned that the masculine pronoun 15x postfixed to the preposition, refers to aim the Lord, and not to na house, the remote noun in the sentence as it stands in the original. I therefore read the verse agreeably to the Hebrew syntax; no one but G. S. C. can doubt its propriety, and it certainly is far more elegant than it is in the English translation ; it reads truly thus: The mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flock 78UNTO Whereas the English translators by transposing na house, and placing it after it Lord, have rendered the masculine pronoun by the neuter pronoun IT, and have made it refer to house, instead of Lord; and thus have translated the passage : and all nations shall flow unto. it. This gentleman however has found that unga berosh, is a more proximate noun than 1717 Lord, to which he says, I “ point
, as the proximate noun," and not iin? Really, Sir, it is scarcely possible to have patience, when gentlemen either wilfully, or by carelessly. seading what I have said, misunderstand me. I have said that the syntax of a noun with a noun is their agreement in person and gender, that there is no agreement either in person, or gender between the masculine pronoun suffix in 738 him, and n'a house : neither can there be any agreement between go5 unto him, and unga in the top. Therefore be cannot with
any truth say, that I have referred
that I have referred 18 to ukia; the pronoun prefixed to the preposition, always, throughout the Scriptures refers to the most proximate PEPSONAL NOUN, as this writer would have known, had he attended to the rudiments of the Hebrew language. I most cordially recommend this gentleman to perfect himself in the grammar, and syntax of the language before be publishes what he calls his “Classic Moses,” and with this I take my final farewell of Dr. G. S. C.
OXFORD PRIZE POEM.
COLONI AB ANGLIA AD AMERICÆ ORAM MISSI.
Tertia jam rediens vix maturaverat Æstas
Vota' cruci quæsito in littore solvit
Illum etenim nova res, et opum miranda latentům .
Ilicet instructam conscendit navita classem
Occiduum, ut perhibent, trananti protinus æquor
* Robertson's History of America, book ii. p. 129.
2 In the year 1496 'the Cabots sailed from Bristol, and discovered Newfoundfand.