« PreviousContinue »
author's demerits. To his low and vulgar scurrilities we stoop not to reply. To his assertions that we are actuated by malicious and interested motives, we merely answer, that we have no interest in writing against his translation, besides that which all who revere the Bible have in preventing the perversion and degradation of its sacred truths. Let him prove to us that the received sense of Scripture is erroneous, and his new discoveries true;
engage to recommend his translation as warmly as we now oppose it.
In conducting his · Reply,' Mr. Bellamy adopts, of course, that plan which he deems most advantageous to his defence. He generally keeps in the background the essential part of what we urged against him, and then boasts that he has completely confuted us : often he turns suddenly from one part of the subject to another, so as to make it difficult for the reader to trace the particular point which he is pretending to answer; then again, he strives to draw off attention from his own detected blunders, by dwelling at large on what he is pleased to deem instances of error in the received translation; and, whenever he finds himself entirely at a loss, he bursts out into violent fits of astonishment and indignation, rails at the dishonesty and incapacity of his reviewers, &c. (pp. 36. 39. &c.) We complain not that he has recourse to all these stratagems; but, in proportion'as it is his business to perplex and confuse matters as much as possible, it is ours to place every thing before the reader in the most perspicuous order. To this end, we must request their attention, while we advert particularly to those texts on which we grounded the charge of utter incompetence against him, and consider with what success he has rebutted it. We begin with distinctly affirming that he has not, in any one instance, disproved in the slightest degree the justice of our strictures; nay, that he has now afforded the most valuable of all testimonies, his truth : for, since he has manifestly strained every nerve to confute what we advanced, his total failure amounts in fact to a complete admission of its validity.
The first passage on which we animadverted,* was his translation of Gen. ii. 21, 22. in the following uncouth and novel manner:
? Then he brought one to his side, whose flesh he had inclosed in her place. Then Jehovah God built the substance of the other, which he took for the man, even a woman: and he brought her to the man.'
After stating the entire and absolute concurrence of all versions, and of all interpreters and commentators, in the received sense, we shewed the total want of authority for this barbarous jargon. We will give Mr. Bellamy's answers in detail.
own, to their
* See our last Number, pp. 262-267.
1. In reply to our remark (p. 264.) that the acknowledged sense of np is cepit, sumpsit, abstulit, he produces (p. 21.) a passage where it is rendered' brought. Numb.xxiii. 28. And Balak brought (np) Balaam unto the top of Peor. We insist on our former remark in its full force. The word may be rendered
bring with reference to a person, place, or thing, in which
take' and bring' are in a manner synonimous; but it would be as much a departure from the acknowledged use of words to render cepit or tulit, followed by a or de, in the sense of · bring to, as nps, when followed, as it here is, by the preposition .
2. We maintained (p. 265) that the preposition o prefixed to nyby signifies from' in Hebrew, quite as much as the Latin a or the Greek ano, and that nothing can be considered as established in language, if it can be rendered at will by the opposite sense 'to.' Mr. Bellamy assigned before no reason for his new transla
he assigns none now; and gives not a single word of answer to our remark: thereby admitting that he has used the word in a sense wholly opposed to the true one.
3. We insisted (p. 265) that, although we is used to signify a rib' only in this first chapter of Genesis, yet it always occurs in some cognate sense, and all authorities are agreed in giving this sense here. To this Mr. Bellamy replies, (p. 20.) that all authorities are not so agreed, because Origen, in answer to the assertion of Celsus, concerning Eve being made from Adam's rib, says that“ these things are to be understood allegorically: and that Philo, Eusebius, and St. Austin say the same. Thus,' continues he," as to this view of the subject I am not alone.' Of what view does he speak? The question now before us is, whether the Hebrew words are rightly construed to mean that God took one of the ribs of the man, &c.; and how does the assertion of Origen, that allegory is concealed under the literal sense, tend to shew that he did not construe the words precisely as others have done? But we can reduce the matter to actual proof. Origen's words are, (Orig. contr. Cels. lib. iv. p. 187. edit. 1677.) Then, since he (Celsus) determined to carp at the Scriptures, he blames also this passage-και ελαβε μιαν των πλευρων αυτ8, και αναπληρωσε σαρκα αντ' αυτης, και ωκοδομησε την πλευραν-εις γυναικα : hereby proving most fully that he differed not from others in the slightest degree in his construction of the original words. Indeed, his contention for the allegorical sense, proves, of itself, that his interpretation was literally the same as ours.
4. On Mr. Bellamy's rendering of the next clause,' whose flesh he had inclosed in her place,' we remarked, (p. 265.) that he unnecessarily departs from the received meaning; that the sense of bis
words is quite unintelligible; that he has no authority for rendering the verb in the pluperfect tense, and that there is nothing in the original corresponding to the pronoun relative' whose' which he gratuitously introduces into the translation. To all this, the whole of what we find in reply is a simple observation respecting the last clause. The translators have frequently rendered the 1 by the
pronouns relative who, which, also the genitive whose, and the accusative whom. We will not affirm positively that they have not done so, because we cannot be certain of the fact without a laborious search through every page of the Old Testainent. But this we scruple not to affirm most distinctly, that, if they have done so in any particular instance, no authority is thereby afforded for thus rendering the word whenever it occurs. The Hebrew copulative 1 corresponds to the Latin copulative et. It is possible that some translators may have found it convenient, in rendering a Latin sentence into English, to express et by the pronoun relative; but who in his senses would therefore contend that et signifies who, which, whose, and may be rendered by the pronoun relative whenever the translator pleases ?
5. On his strange rendering of Syn ns by the substance of the other,' we observed (p. 266. 274.) that ns is simply the mark of the accusative, or, at the most, should merely be expressed by the very,' ipsum, not by the substance of;' and that he might translate ghyn a house,' a tree,' or any thing else, with quite as much reason as 'the other.' With respect to ns, he answers (as far as we understand him) (p. 38.) that he conceives the word should be rendered as he has rendered it,' wherever our idiom will allow of the translation.' We leave the reader then to judge whether our idiom requires it here. As to y58, all the answer we can find is (p. 20.) a reference to five passages of Scripture,' where (says he) the same word is translated as I have translated it. Let us see. In two of his passages (Exod. xxvi. 26. 2 Sam. xvi. 13.) the word occurs in the singular, and is translated side'; in two others, (Exod. xxx. 4. xxxvïi. 27.) in the plural, sides;' in the remaining one, Ezek. xli. 6. nupyn is translated side chambers. But the word also occurs in the last-mentioned text in a forin more to Mr. Bellamy's purpose, and to ours. The side chambers (of the temple) were three, one over another. The Hebrew of the latter ex, pression is op 3s 358, literally“ side to side,'' side upon side,' latus ad latus, correctly expressed by our translators one over another.' And this is Mr. Bellamy's authority for translating or in this passage of Genesis, by the other'! His blunder is portentous. The case is precisely the same as if a person were to find in the description of a building, in Latin, such an expression as latus ad latus
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 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 0179 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 y, 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 any 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 O'sity, (gnaaruumim,) the plural of diny, 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 dependance, 0179 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 p becomes dageshed, so as to make the word gnaruummim or gnarummim. Thus
, () nudi. So Calasio and Buxtorf, dizy nudus, plural o'nty nudi. Buxtorf also, in bis grammar, (Thes. Gramm. p. 81.) says that some nouns change, euphoniæ causá, the holem on the last syllable of the singular, into kibbutz with dagesh in the plural, and he particularly mentions diny, nudus, as an instance. The word occurs in
plane עֶרְפִּים for) עָרוּמים plane nudus , plural עָרוֹם Simonis gives
this form in the plural, not only here at Gen. ï. 25. but also åt Job, xxii. 6. ' stripped the naked of their clothing,' (d'aily) clearly meaning those who by stripping became naked, where to render the word prudent' would make a most strange sense. On the other hand, diz, 'prudent,' seems uniformly in the plural to become D'HITY, (without the dugesh,) gnaruumim, not gnaruummim. See Job, v. 12. xv. 5. Prov. xiv. 18. Here then we must again fix Mr. Bellainy on the horns of a dilemma. Either he allows the authority of the vowel 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 adnit 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 ons 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 ayon 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 any 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 nian 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 sys in Syni, we stated, (p. 272.) that to VOL. XIX. NO. XXXVIII.