ADVERSARIA LITERARIA. No. xx. On the utility and the propriety of studying the Classical Writers in public Schools. Upon the PERSEA of the Ancients.-On the philosophical meaning of the words βιος, κινημα, ενεργημα, and aqua.On Mr. Bellamy's Translation of the latter part of the 9th and 19th chapters of Genesis.-Palindrome. 359 THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL. NO. XXXVII. MARCH, 1819. A REPLY To the Quarterly Review on the New Translation of the Bible from the Original Hebrew. By J. BELLAMY. No. II. [Continued from No. XXXVI. p. 231.] THERE is no difficulty in the application of this word gnaarom, when "the nicety of construction," which this gentleman talks about, is understood. The difference of the application depends on the difference of the orthography, or, if this extraordinary Hebraist will again allow me, "the nicety of construction;" for, throughout the Scripture, when this word is written with the ) vau, or in its absence, with the vowel holem, pronounced gnaarom; it uniformly signifies naked. Job i. 21-xxiv. 7, 10-xxvi. 6Eccl. v. 15-Isa. xx. 2, 3, 4, 58-Amos ii. 16., as in the received translation. 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 the long น. : Gen. iii. 1-Prov. xii. 16, 23-xiii.1 6.—xiv. 8—xxii. 3— xxvii. 12-xiv. 15-Job v. 12-xv. 5—Prov. xiv. 18., and is pronounced graaruum. Therefore the passages in Job i. 21-xxiv. 7-Isaiah xx. 2. are perfectly right as they stand in the received translation there would have been no necessity for the ADVOCATE for received errors to ask, "What would be the sense of these passages, if prudent were substituted for naked?" had he understood "the niceties of construction" between Dy gnaarom, "naked," and Dygnaaruum," subtle or prudent." Examples of this description, where an alteration is produced by the introVOL. XIX. Cl. Jl. NO. XXXVII. A duction of u instead of o, are to be found even in our language; as in the word poor, with the u, is pour-fool, foul, &c. From which it will appear to the learned reader, that the ADVOCATE has yet to learn even the rudiments of the Hebrew language, though he has presumed to represent himself as deeply learned in "the peculiarities of idiom and the niceties of construction." But, as I have observed, he is not alone: many there are, and he is one→ desiring to be a teacher of the law, understanding neither what he says, nor whereof he affirms. What now becomes of the ostentatious conclusion of this gentleman's note, where he says, "It were endless to recite passages of this description, in which the undoubted 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 cannot bear?" Let the learned and the impartial reader determine. It is therefore undeniably evident, that this important passage in the original Hebrew has no reference whatever to the bodily nakedness of our first parents, because the word Dy gnaaruumim, which the translators have rendered naked, never means nakedness of the whole body: but throughout the Scriptures it signifies, even in the received translation, wisdom, prudence; to be wise in heart: "I wisdom dwell with prudence."" The wise in heart shall be called prudent." Prov. xvi. 21.-" Wisdom applied to practicePractically wise." Johnson. The passage is truly rendered, "Thus they were prudent for they had not shamed themselves,” or, they had not made themselves ashamed.” 4 On the passage Gen. vi. 6. the critic indulges his spleen to an excess. The version reads, "It repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." I have shown that the word Dyinaachem, never means to repent throughout the Scripture; that in nearly seventy places it is rendered to be comforted, satisfied, according to idiom; and that where it is translated repent, it is improperly translated. I do not, as this "perverter" of my words says, "quietly allow sixty passages where this word is translated repent," to be right. But I am told, that I "spend much time in going through all these texts, and attempting to show that, in each, the word comfort should be substituted for repent." He affirms, "We need not say that his labor is unsuccessful, unless indeed the success he aims at be to discredit the Bible by making it unintelligible. For instance, 1 Sam. xv. 29. The Strength of Israel will not lie, nor repent.' How absurd must it be to say, ' The Strength of Israel will not lie, nor be comforted?” ” But the Critic has been too hasty in his conclusion, as usual; if he had had patience to examine the nar rative, he might have been convinced that there is no absurdity in the New Translation. God had declared to Samuel that Saul should cease to reign, and therefore to this part of the text he says, The Strength of Israel will not lie. But if the following clause were to be rendered nor repent, it would be a repetition of the preceding one: that is, if he had repented, as he had declared that Saul should no longer reign, it would have involved him in the first; for to repent would have been to have acted contrary to the first declaration; and therefore it would only have been a repetition. This gentleman forgets that Saul had now repented, but Samuel informs him, that the Strength of Israel would not be satisfied by his repentance. Surely there is no absurdity in this, it being the literal meaning of the word on yinaachem, in every part of Scripture in the common version; except, as observed, where the translators have improperly rendered it repent. Neither is there any absurdity in Job xlii. 6. If he abhorred himself on account of his sin, he necessarily repented; therefore, if nichamti, were translated I repent, it would amount to a repetition. Here again this hasty writer forgets, that Job at this period, while he was in this abject state, received consolation from God; who had comforted him while he sat in dust and ashes. So much for this sagacious gentleman's grammatical knowledge of the Hebrew in question. Now for a specimen of his logic: "When he (God) 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." But in such case God is subject to change, and to change as often as men "alter their behaviour toward him." Then it follows, that man can cause God to change his mind, whenever it shall please him to commit sin. It is however said, "I am the Lord: I change not." Mal. iii. 6. If the reader do not say that this is a summary of unintelligible doctrine which nearly borders on blasphemy, I shall be mistaken; for it amounts to nothing more nor less than this-the word repent does not always mean repent. The New Translation silences the objections which have for ages been advanced against this scripture as it stands in the received version; without having recourse to the absurd conclusion of this critic, that the common received sense of words may cease to convey their customary sense. It is not common sense to suppose, that such an unscrip tural notion was ever in the contemplation of the sacred writer. I Vide Johnson. I shall end my remark on this part, by giving the crude statement of this writer. He says, "Now, in a literal sense, to attribute satisfaction to the Deity, is as inconsistent with the perfection of his nature, as to ascribe to him any other passion or feeling." Surely he has never considered the obvious meaning of words, or he would not say that satisfaction is a passion. This word meaus the final end-where there is no desire--complete fulness a state of perfect peace-rest-tranquillity: a state incapable of any passion, of any addition, of any diminution : therefore truly applicable to the unchangeable Jehovah. Mal. iii. 6. "I am the Lord; I change not And thus the first article of the church of England, with the utmost propriety, describes God as being without passions; because he necessarily is in that eternal state of tranquil satisfaction. But repentance is a passion; and if the passion of repentance were to be applied to God, as repentance is to think on any thing past with sorrow, it would affect the majesty of God-it is altogether inapplicable to the Divine Being. Thus by attributing the passion of repentance to the unchangeable Jehovah-the imperfection of man to the great fount of infinite perfection; this writer declares himself to be in direct opposition to that luminous article of the church, which so truly declares God to be without passions, in a state of invariable tranquillity and peace, "With whom there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning," Jam. i. 17. But he says, "He (Bellamy) is so profoundly ignorant of the plainest forms of speech, as not to know that the impersonal expression, it repented the Lord-it grieved him,' is merely another mode of saying the Lord repented-he grieved or was grieved." I would ask the candid and the learned reader, as there is no authority for the "impersonal expression," "it repented the Lord-it grieved him," in the Hebrew; to whom is the abusive term "profoundly ignorant," applicable? to this abusive reviewer, who is not capable of informing his readers that neither the neuter pronoun it, nor the third person singular him, occur in these words in the Hebrew-or to ignorant Bellamy, who translates the words as they stand in the Hebrew, literally? This writer may talk about "the peculiarities of idiom, and the niceties of construction," and that my knowledge of Hebrew "consists in little more than the more ordinary and obvious rules of grammar;" but before a person presumes to talk in this affected style of deep learning in Hebrew, he surely ought to understand his Hebrew grammar. It does not however appear that he possesses much grammatical knowledge in Hebrew, or he would not translated the third person singular preter of the verb it grieved him, with the neuter pronoun it, |