authority of all Hebraists, that its proper acknowledged sense is cepit, sumpsit, abstulit; it corresponds exactly to the Latin capio, and we should as soon expect to see capio, followed by a or de, translated to bring to,' as np followed (as it here is) by the preposition translated with that meaning. The next word лns is allowed to signify one,'' unam,' in the feminine. The ensuing word nybro is manifestly composed of the preposition a, ab, de, the plural noun in regiminen, ' ribs,' and the pronoun masc. post fixed his,' the whole signifying from, or of, his ribs,' corresponding exactly to the Latin 'de costis ejus.' Now, says Mr. Bellamy, in this place only, in all the Scripture, is the word by rendered to mean a rib.' This assertion may be true; but then it should be remembered that all Hebraists and translators, ancient and modern, agree that it here does signify a rib,' and Mr. Bellamy alone thinks that it does not. The root by, according to every Hebrew authority, signifies a rib, a side. Buxtorf says, Costa, synecdochicè latus, thence the side or chamber of a building, the beam of a building, which is, as it were, its rib; substructio, trabs substructionis. As to this sense all authorities are agreed, and nothing more can be done than to place these on one side, and Mr. Bellamy's assertion on the other. But he translates the preposition before vлy,to,' instead of 'from,'' of;' and for so doing he does not pretend to assign any reason whatsoever. Now, if there be any thing established in the sense of Hebrew words, it is that □ abbreviated for t□ has the general sense 'from,'' of,'' out of,' a, ab, de, and that the contrary We know not sense 'to' is as opposed to it as light to darkness. that any idiomatic use can be produced to justify, in a single instance, such a rendering; but if it could, we should hold that it would avail nothing to claim that sense for it in a plain sentence. Just as in the Latin prepositions, a and e; there may be particular idioms, a dexterâ on the right hand,' e contrariâ parte, on the contrary side'; but who in his senses would therefore say that, in passages of plain construction, a and e may be rendered at pleasure, 'on,' instead of from,' out of'? We affirm then that, in rendering the words he brought one to his side,' Mr. Bellamy not only runs counter to all authorities, but departs from the regular established meaning of the words, insomuch that, if such a plan of proceeding be admitted, there can be no certainty in any language. The ensuing words in 20", usually rendered and closed up the flesh instead thereof,' Mr. Bellamy is pleased to translate, whose flesh he had inclosed in her place." What the sense of this is intended to be we cannot conceive; but that seems to form but a small part of his consideration. We shall only state that there is not a particle of reason given by him for departing from the re ceived translation; that he renders the verb in the preterpluperfect tense, instead of the perfect, without the slightest authority; and that there is a complete absence of every word in the Hebrew, corresponding to the pronoun relative' whose,' which he introduces into the translation. We ויבן יהוה אלהים את which are rendered in our received הצלע אשר לקח מן הארם לאשה version, and the rib which the Lord God had taken from man made he a woman.' The translation would have been more strictly correct, but perfectly the same in sense, in this form: and the Lord God formed the rib, which he had taken from the man, into woman.' These Mr. Bellamy thinks proper to translate, Thus Jehovah God built the substance of the other, which he took for the man, even a woman.' Now we venture to say that no translation was ever made in any language more manifestly incorrect, or betraying more complete ignorance in the person who made it. The words which he renders, he built the substance of the other,' are n. 2, with the conversive vau, he formed, made, built,' ædificavit in the Latin. ns, which he translates the substance of,' is, as we shall have to state hereafter, merely the mark of the accusative case. byn, which he renders the other,' is the same word which occurred in the preceding verse, signifying 'a rib.' The reason assigned for this strange translation, follows. יבן את הצלע The word yn is here rendered the rib, as above, instead of the other, viz. the other one, made like Adam. It is necessary to observe that the word ns, which comes before byn, is omitted in the common version. by has then to be rendered by the article the, viz. the other, meaning Eve.' This is all that he says on the subject, and this is manifestly no reason at all. In fact the translation of the word rests entirely on his own arbitrary assumption, and he might as well translate it a house, a tree, or any thing else. The words which follow, 10пp Mr. Bellamy renders' which he took for the man,' instead of 'from the man', as in every other translation. We have already stated that the preposition to means from,' a, ab, de; for departing from this meaning here he gives the following reason. 'When the word to refers to, or is connected with a cause, or reason given in the context, it is rendered by for, because of. See Zach. viii. 10. "Because of the affliction," viz, because before these days there was no peace::-so in Exod. ii. 23. "By reason of the bondage”—Dan. v. 19. For"-Jer. vii. 7." Even for." To this we answer, 1st, that it rests entirely on Mr. Bellamy's gratuitous assumption as to the word being at all in this passage connected with a cause or reason assigned; no one besides him has ever seen any thing in the words but a simple state ment .לסן עולם עד עולם ,matic 2d. ment of the fact of the rib having been taken from the man. He is grossly mistaken in the very sense which he would impose. It is true that, in the passages at Zach. viii. 10. Exod. ii. 23. Dan. v. 19. p is rendered because of,'' by reason of,'' for;' but then it is in a sense in which from' may be substituted with perfect indifference; for instance, Zach. viii. 10. From, or because of, the affliction-Exod. ii. 23. From, or by reason of, the bondage'Dan. v. < 19. From, on account of, for, the majesty which he gave him, all people-feared before him. This will be completely evident by turning to the passages with their context: and in the fourth text which he produces, Jer. vii. 7. the phrase is completely idioFrom infinite time till infinite time,' rendered, in English phrase, for ever and ever.' Indeed, where the Dictionaries refer to the sense of 'propter' for this preposition, the translation might still be from'; as in Psal. civ. 7. referred to by Taylor. "At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.' This may as well be from thy rebukefrom the voice,' &c. Indeed this is its stricter meaning, and as such it is given by Pagninus, Ab increpatione tuâ—▲ voce tonitrui tui, &c.So in the Septuag. Απο επιτιμήσεως-απο φωνης. On the other hand, as far as we understand Mr. Bellamy's meaning when he translates, which he took for the man,' he uses the word for' in the sense of for the use, the help, the society of the man''—a sense of the word widely differing from that of the passages produced above, and for which, as the sense of the Hebrew ¡D, we are convinced that no single text can be produced. The remaining word, nws, he translates "even a woman;' but he does not pretend to assign even a single reason for departing from the version which all others have given, to or into a woman.' 'He made into a woman,' formavit or ædificavit in mulierem; this is the obvious sense of us preceded by the preposition a preposition, the use of which in this and similar senses, S is one of the distinguishing elegancies of the Hebrew language. We now leave the reader to his own opinion as to Mr. Bellamy's having proved (as he says) from the original that all the translators have mistaken the true sense of this passage; or rather, (for there can be no room for difference here,) to his own astonishment at the effrontery which, on such grounds, and with such pretensions, has ventured to make so gross a charge against them. We proceed to the passage immediately following, in which, also, Mr. Bellamy has made a new discovery of the sense. It is said, Gen. ii. v. 25. that Adam and Eve, when first created, were both naked, but, in the 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 whose opinion on the passage is recorded. But, says Mr. Bellamy, all this has arisen from a mistake; the word ', 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. Many insurmountable objections (he says) present themselves to the sense commonly received. As he does not specify them, we shall not trouble ourselves with conjecturing to what he may allude, but shall only observe that we know of none which do not admit of the readiest answer, and that objections ten times greater may be brought against the strange sense which he would impose. The lexicon writers, (he says,) and, from them, the translators, have placed the word, rendered naked, under the root my; but it certainly belongs to the root, from which come the words, subtil, craft, guile, and, in a good sense, wisdom, prudence. After producing some instances, in which does bear this sense, he adds therefore it must appear that the self-same word cannot mean both naked and crafty! Now let us observe, in the first place, his expression the lexicon writers, and from them the translators' have given the word the sense of naked; as if this sense had been given in modern times, and as if we did not possess translations made when the Hebrew was nearly vernacular, in which this sense is given. With regard to his assertion, that the word certainly belongs to the root, signifying craft, wisdom; he allows, indeed, that the lexicon writers, or, in other words, all the most learned Hebraists, place the word under a different root; but then he boldly affirms that they are wrong, as if he thought that his own would bear down every other authority. When, however, he asserts that the same word cannot signify both crafty and naked, he asserts what is contradicted by evidence, for it happens occasionally in all languages, that the same literal word, being derived from different sources, bears two meanings completely distinct from each other. But that the word before us, , with or without the servile, does really signify naked,' is placed beyond all possible doubt by a number of passages, in which, to substitute the sense of prudent or crafty, would wholly destroy the meaning. For instance, at Job i. 21. Naked (□) came I out of my mother's womb,' &c. What would be thought of the passage if thus translated, 'Prudent came l out'? &c. Again, Job xxiv. 7. in the description of the wicked, 'They cause the naked () to lodge without clothing.' Again, v. 10. They cause him to go naked (7) without clothing. What would be the sense of these passages if prudent were substituted for naked? Once more: After the command given to Isaiah (xx. 2.) to put off sackcloth from his loins, &c., it is added, and he did so, walking naked (7) and without shoes.' It were endless to recite passages of this description, in which the undoubted doubted sense of the word is naked,' and in which it would be in contradiction to all sense, as well as in opposition to all authority, to give it the sense of prudent, which Mr. Bellamy has the confidence to say it can only bear. Our next instance of Mr. Bellamy's new discoveries occurs at זינחם יהוה כי עשה את האדם Gen. vi.6. The words of the original are thus translated in our received version, And ; בארץ זיתעצב אל לבו it repented the Lord that he had made man, on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.' Mr. Bellamy contends that the sense is totally mistaken, and he translates the passage, Yet Jehovah was satisfied that he had made man on the earth: notwithstanding he idolized himself at his heart.' In pretending to shew the error of the received sense he thinks proper to state as follows: This part of the history has been for ages resorted to by the enemies of revelation to prove that the Hebrew lawgiver did not write by inspiration, because it must be allowed that repentance cannot be applied to God; he who is all perfection cannot do any thing to repent of." Mr. Bellamy is perfectly right in saying that the enemies of revelation have endeavoured to throw discredit on the Bible, from the circumstance of repentance, and other human feelings, appearing to be ascribed to the Deity. But all such objections have been refuted over and over, by explaining that the imperfections of language require that the great Spiritual Being should be spoken of in terms derived from earthly objects. No reflecting person ever supposes that when He is said to be angry, to awake to vengeance, to be grieved at the heart, to stretch forth his arm, to see, to hear, &c. He really consists of bodily parts, or is subject to human passions. The human parts and properties which are ascribed to him are merely used as symbols to express his power, omniscience, &c.; and He is said to feel human passions when his actions bear a resemblance to those of human beings when actuated by those passions. Thus the anger and grief of the Deity signify the displeasure due to sin and disobedience; his vengeance, the execution of those judgments which he has denounced against them." In a similar manner, when he is said to have repented, it is not meant in a human sense that he felt sorrow for what he had done, but only that he changed his outward conduct towards men, in consequence of their altered behaviour towards him, just as men are wont to do when they are actuated by a feeling of sorrow or repentance for what they have done. But after all, how does Mr. Bellamy's translation get rid of the objection? He translates 'Jehovah was satisfied that he had made man on the earth.' Now, in a literal sense, to attribute satisfaction to the Deity, is as inconsistent |