5' v.. 
 

 LTHRA^RY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Theological Seminary, 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 Case, Pl.y"sion..^5.^5^^_.^ 
 
 Shelf, Section.. H.9. 6 
 
 Book, No, 
 
 i 
 

 f^,d^..ai Au.i^-X 
 
 
 VUU 
 
 ^jijSl^^^^ 
 
^ > 
 
VINDICI^ HEBRAICiE. 
 
mmni=> 
 
 VINDICI^ HEBRAIC^; 
 
 OR, 
 
 B E F E N € E 
 
 As a Vehicle of Revealed Religion : 
 
 OCCASIONED 
 
 BY THE RECENT STRICTURES AND INNOVATIONS 
 OF MR. J. BELLAMY; 
 
 CONFUTATION 
 
 HIS ATTACKS ON ALL PRECEDING TRANSLATIONS, AND ON THE 
 ESTABLISHED VERSION IN PARTICULAR. 
 
 BY 
 
 J • I" T AT : - V: - ; * T 
 
 Prov. XXX. 5, 6. 
 
 %ontio\x : 
 
 PUBLISHED BY F. C. AND J. RIVINGTON, ST. PAUL's 
 CHURCH YARD, AND WATERLOO PLACE; AND BOOSEY 
 AND SONS, OLD BROAD STREET. 
 
 1820. 
 
I'rinlcd b^ E. Juslius, 
 Biitk Lane, Whitccliapcl. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 «nlK<IMi»— 
 
 The greater part of the following Work was written 
 immediately after the appearance of Mr. Bellamy's New 
 Translation : but, as the interest of the subjects treated 
 therein is not of a temporary nature, it is unnecessary to state 
 the various circumstances that have delayed its publication 
 to the present time. 
 
Every word of God is pure ; he is a shield unto them 
 that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, 
 lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. 
 
 Prov. XXX. 5, 6. 
 
 Movent mihi stomachum Grammatistae quidam, qui cum 
 duas tenuerint (vel tenuisse sibi videantur) vocabulorum ori- 
 gines, ita se ostentant,ita venditant,ita circumferunt jactabundi, 
 ut prae ipsis eruditos, quotquot antea operi iqstiterant, pro uihilo 
 habeudos arbitrentur. 
 
 Pkus Mirand. in ep. ad Herm. Barb, 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 JIlT is well known, that sundry Deists have 
 attempted to justify their rejection of sacred 
 Scripture, as inspired writings, on the pretext 
 of their incompatibility with the attributes of 
 the Great Being, under the sanction of whose 
 name these writings were delivered. In proof 
 of this assertion, they have fastened on various 
 passages of the Bible, which tlieij consider as 
 either immoral, or false, or self-contradictory, 
 and which, if such, cannot possibly have been 
 dictated, or authorized by a Being of infinite 
 wisdom and holiness. Now, let us suppose 
 ourselves reduced to the following dilemma! — 
 Either^ the Deists are in the right, and the 
 Bible an impious forgery: (for what less than 
 impious can the forgery of the name of God 
 be?) 07\ all the Translators and Commen- 
 tators of the Bible for the last two thousand 
 years, and more, including in each successive 
 generation men of profound learning, zealous 
 
8 
 
 industry, and the most extensive opportunities 
 of information, have all conspired in the same 
 gross blunders, with the single exception of one 
 solitary individual, who has started up amongst 
 us within the last ten or twelve years. Sup- 
 pose, I say, that there was no third assumption 
 possible, but that the one or the other of these 
 two must be admitted; is it not evident, that in 
 this case the truth of the Bible, and of the reli- 
 gion founded on the belief that the Bible was 
 inspired by God, would rest entirely on the 
 chance, that this one individual, of no eminence 
 either as a general Scholar, or as an Hebraist, 
 W'ithout any pretension to supernatural aid, and 
 without any new sources or opportunities of in- 
 formation, should have discovered a new sense 
 for each and all of the passages in question, — a 
 sense never dreamt of by any of his numerous 
 predecessors for the last two thousand years? 
 And that in each of all these passages he should 
 be in the right, nay, manifestly and demonstra- 
 bly be in the right? — Add, too, that the points 
 in dispute are not subjects of science, or of ex- 
 perimental philosophy, or even of history ; for 
 in these it is possible that new discoveries might 
 be made suddenly, subverting all former theo- 
 ries, or that new documents might have been 
 drawn forth from some Herculaneum, or other 
 
hiding-place — No ! It is a mere question con- 
 cerning the meaning of words and sentences in 
 a dead language, having on the one side all 
 tradition and all prior authority, and on the 
 other side a solitary individual's own assertion, 
 in opposition to all. — If this be an accurate 
 statement, is.it not — but why should I put it 
 in the form of a question? — it must be evident 
 to the commonest reflection, that, in this case, 
 the truth and divine origin of the Bible would 
 rest on a fraction of probability so incalculably 
 small, or rather an improbability so gross and 
 glaring, as to be equivalent to a proof of the 
 contrary. The very defence would betray the 
 indefensibility of the cause; and the original 
 Bible in the Hebrew language, is not,^nd could 
 not be a fit vehicle for a religion intended for all 
 mankind, even were it such for the Hebrews 
 themselves, during the period that the language 
 of the Bible was still a living language. Con- 
 sequently, it could not have been chosen by 
 God ; and its claim to divine origin must be 
 false, grounded either on delusion, or impos- 
 ture, or on both combined. 
 
 Now this is the fair statement of the case, 
 which Mr. J. Bellamy, in his Biblical Criticisms, 
 in his Translation (as far as it has proceeded,) 
 and in the notes accompanying it, has placed 
 
10 
 
 before the public, concerning the sacred writings 
 of the Old Testament. And, here let it be 
 observed, that the object of the present disqui- 
 sition is not to demonstrate, that the Estabhshed 
 Version in particular, or any other earlier or 
 later translation, is wholly free from inaccura- 
 cies, — for of what work of man dare this be 
 affirmed? But the object of this inquiry, as far 
 as the merits or demerits of the Translations 
 are concerned, is to exhibit proof that Mr. 
 Bellamy's charges are, first of all, grossly ej:ag- 
 gerated, both as to the number and the impor- 
 tance of the asserted mistranslations. Second- 
 ly, that his charges are no less grossly misplaced 
 as to the particular instances. And, lastly, 
 that the rendering, which he has substituted 
 or proposed, is devoid of all probability, logical, 
 philological, or grammatical; and demonstrates, 
 in conjunction with his criticism and annota- 
 tions, his utter unfitness for the task which he 
 has presumptuously undertaken — demonstrates, 
 in short, the old truth, 
 
 That fools rush on, where angels fear to tread. 
 
 Yet, obvious as the weakness of Mr. Bellamy's 
 attempts is, and must be to every Hebrew Scho- 
 lar, and though his erudition and critical acumen 
 are manifestly in inverse proportion to his vanity 
 
11 
 
 and self-opinion; there are in the circumstances 
 of the present times, and in the awfulness and 
 deep interest of the subject itself, not only ade- 
 quate motives for the following work, but like- 
 wise opportunities, (which the author trusts 
 will not appear to have been neglected by him,) 
 of conveying information, and opening out views 
 respecting both the Scriptures and the character 
 of the ancient language in which they were 
 composed, that may prepare the mind of the 
 reader for perusing the one, and perhaps for 
 studying the other, with increased interest; and 
 which may arm the serious inquirer against 
 more formidable, though less insidious attacks, 
 than those which form the ostensible subject of 
 this treatise. 
 
 In an age so replete with innovations as 
 the present, when ploughmen turn politicians, 
 and low mechanics theologians — when lawless 
 ruffians aspire to be legislators, and desperate 
 knaves to be statesmen — when the oiost profli- 
 gate and vile set up as teachers of morals, and 
 audacious blasphemers as instructors in religion 
 — it is, perhaps, too consistent with the spirit 
 and character of the times to excite wonder, 
 that a gentleman, gifted neither with any 
 very transcendent ability, nor, to judge by 
 his writings, of any extraordinary erudition. 
 
12 
 
 should attempt to translate the most sacred and 
 most difficult book that the religious wOrld 
 possesses. In an age, too, when the words of 
 
 the prophet, n|:?:3 nhp^:in\ }p.T3 ipjn inrir 
 
 are verified — when beardless boys assume supe- 
 riority over hoary age, and the base and worth- 
 less over the good and honorable — when de- 
 traction and calumny assail every thing that is 
 noble, wise, and venerable, — in such an age, 
 it may even fail to excite our wonder, that such 
 a Translator should think it his duty, whilst 
 translating a work that teaches the purest max- 
 ims of morality, brotherly love, and charity 
 — to abuse and revile the learning of all his 
 predecessors, whether Jews or Christians, who 
 have been engaged in a similar undertaking. 
 But though from our familiarity with strange 
 phenomena, the conduct in question may not 
 surprise us, it is nevertheless highly mischievous, 
 and therefore reprehensible. Nay, from its very 
 conformity with the temper of the age, it the 
 more requires exposure and reprehension, as 
 being more likely to find applauders and 
 advocates. 
 
 It is well known, that by far the greater 
 part of Christians and Jews derive their reli- 
 
 * Isaiah iii. 5. 
 
13 
 
 gious knowredge from the translations of the 
 saci'ed writings. Unable to approach the ori- 
 ginal fountain of truth, they drink of its in- 
 vigorating waters by means of aqueducts; 
 entertaining a well-founded confidence, that the 
 translations, however they may differ from each 
 other, or from the original, in difficult passages, 
 or in unimportant points, convey, substantially 
 and in tlie main, the word of God. Destroy 
 this confidence, persuade them that the transla- 
 tions are full of errors and inconsistencies, and 
 you deprive them at once of their religion. 
 When, therefore, Mr. Bellamy, the author of 
 the New Translation, so repeatedly charges all 
 existing translations with errors, inconsistencies, 
 and contradictions, and with containing ^^ pas- 
 sages that deny that God is a being of love and 
 mercy ;^* and, " accounts of things that are as 
 opposite to trutli, as light is to darlcness" — he 
 doth, as far as his influence extends, a most 
 serious injury to religion. Such, at least, is the 
 tendency of his publication ; and that such too 
 will be the effect^ may well be feared, when we 
 reflect in how many instances the weakness of 
 the writer is made up by the previous inclinations 
 of the reader. For can it be supposed that, with 
 such impressions, the illiterate classes of society 
 will continue to practise religious tenets de- 
 rived, as they are told, from such corrupt 
 
14 
 
 Sources ? Is it not more likely that they will 
 reject tliem altogether? Or, is Mr. B. so infa- 
 tuated as to imagine that having once destroyed 
 the authority of established versions, mankind 
 will give greater credence to his whimsical in- 
 terpretations? Will they believe him inspired? 
 or that he possesses more wisdom and learning 
 than all the learned of former ages? Assuredly 
 they will not: and consequently they will be 
 deprived of all religious instruction. 
 
 Great as this mischief is, it is not the onlv 
 one that may be apprehended from his wri- 
 tings.* Mr. B. indeed tells us, that the chief 
 aim of his labors is to defeat Deists, and to 
 promote the sacred cause of religion; but I 
 hope to prove, in the following work, that so 
 far are his writings from being calculated to 
 produce such desirable objects, that they rather 
 tend to produce the contrary effect. Whatever, 
 therefore, his motives may be, they cannot jus- 
 tify the means he has taken; and I must tell 
 him in the language of a Hebrew Philosopher, 
 « D-^l^f-l Dr^^ ym^ h'y^ n'^iy-l in^lDf Intentio 
 iua accepta est, sea opus tuiim non est acceptum" 
 Further, that he has proved the truth of the 
 proverb, that a bad advocate often spoils the 
 best of causes; and that blundering officious- 
 
 * See Chap. iii. f Cozri, pars. 1. 
 
15 
 
 ness is equally detrimental, whether it intends 
 to injure or to benefit. 
 
 To counteract the mischievous tendency 
 of Mr. Bellamy's publication, is the object of 
 the following sheets. I hope to prove to the 
 satisfaction of the reader — First, that after the 
 intellectual labor that has been bestowed on 
 the Sacred Books for the last two thousand 
 years, there is very little probability of our 
 finding out any truth, or point of doctrine, not 
 known to our learned predecessors. Still less 
 probable is it, that any man should now discover 
 in them an entire new sense.— Secondly, that Mr. 
 B.'s attempt to give a new sense to various parts 
 of Scripture is not only absurd, but replete with 
 dangerous consequences to religion. — Thirdly, 
 that the serious charges which he has brought 
 against former Translators and Commentators, 
 and their important v;orks, are unwarranted 
 and groundless. — Fourthly, that whilst he 
 charges others with inconsistency, he is him- 
 self most inconsistent, always reckoning on the 
 ignorance of his readers, and often quoting 
 works which he never could have read. — And, 
 lastly, as has been already stated, that he has 
 committed so many gross errors in those few 
 books, which he has already translated, as to 
 prove most clearly, that he is totally unfit for 
 the important task which he has undertaken. 
 
16 
 
 How far I may have succeeded, will be 
 for the candid and impartial reader to decide. 
 Should I be found in error, I am open to con- 
 viction. For I write neither for fame, nor for 
 literary conquest; but from a sincere regard for 
 truth. As for Mr. B. himself, when I consider 
 the courteous manner in which he has hitherto 
 treated his opponents, especially the learned Cri- 
 tic who reviewed his Genesis in the Quarterly 
 Review,* I cannot expect to escape the ven- 
 geance of his polite pen. To spare him there- 
 fore the trouble of unnecessarily using some 
 of his favorite epithets, 1 tell him now, that 
 I am neither ** a hired writer," nor SL^'jiidaizing 
 Jew," por " an advocate of errors," nor " a pub- 
 lisher of Bibles," but a plain simple man, who 
 reveres his religion, without pretending to ar- 
 raign the faith of others, and chiefly zealous to 
 maintain the foundation common to all; — a man 
 who loves truth, let it come from what quarter 
 it may; — and who is known only amongst a 
 limited circle of acquaintances and friends, by 
 the unadorned name of 
 
 HYMAN HURWITZ. 
 
 See Mr. Bellamy's First and Second Reply to the 
 Quarterly Review. 
 
VINDICIJ^ HEBRAICiE. 
 
 CHAFa !<. 
 
 ON THE IMPROBABILITY OF DISCOVERING AN ENTIRE 
 NEAV SENSE IN SCRIPTURE, AFTER THE INTEL- 
 LECTUAL LABOR THAT HAS BEEN BESTOWED ON 
 IT FOR THE LAST TWO THOUSAND YEARS, 
 
 That the Old Testament, particularly that 
 portion which by way of eminence, is called 
 D^n'7X nnn "ItiD* the book of the Law of God, 
 is the most ancient of records; that it surpasses 
 all other productions in the excellency of its 
 matter, and in the importance of its contents, 
 is a truth, which, to a religious reader, requires 
 no proof. We have but to open this sacred 
 volume, and peruse it with an unbiassed mind, 
 and with an uncorrupted heart, to be impressed 
 with a sense of its divine origin. Nor will 
 
 * It is also called minn nUD the book of the law, or 
 of instruction; also TW^ mm nSD the book of the law of 
 Moses. 
 
 B 
 
18 
 
 ought more be wanting to convince us of this 
 important truth, than a fair comparison of these 
 Scriptures with any human production, com- 
 posed under circumstances at all similar, or 
 having a pretence to great antiquity. The 
 utmost exertion of human intellect could not 
 have accounted for the origin of things in a 
 manner so simple, yet so true, and confirmed in 
 so many instances by subsequent philosophical 
 researches. No human wisdom could have 
 devised a system of laws, so well calculated to 
 make a nation virtuous arid happy; or, to use 
 the words of its divine author, D^^HS r\y?DD 
 t2/^1p^ ''i^l '' a kingdom of priests, and a holy 
 nation." — Nor could any thing less than a pro- 
 phetic spirit have systematically predicted so 
 many thousand years ago, events, which human 
 sagacity could neither have foreseen, nor even 
 conjectured; — and which yet have been suc- 
 cessively verified, and are accomplishing even 
 in our days.* He, then, that can read these 
 books, either in the original, or even in a trans- 
 lation, and yet deny their sacred character, may 
 as well look at the glorious orb of the day, and 
 
 * Sec (lie predictions contained iii Lev. xxvi. Dent. iv. 
 xxviii. xx-^ii. 
 
19 
 
 deny it light, or contemplate the wonders of 
 nature, and deny that there is a God. 
 
 The very manner in which these Books 
 have been handed down to us, whilst it ought 
 to excite our warmest gratitude, ought at the 
 same time to convince every reflecting mind, 
 that nothing short of the providential hand of 
 Omnipotence, could have preserved them from 
 destruction. For let it be remembered, that 
 the nation to whom they were originally given, 
 were ,^"}i/ D^p Dj; " a stiff-necked people;" 
 — a people who with the most astonishing 
 events before their eyes, were continually en- 
 quiring, r.S'Dis* liJ^lpn ^^; \:;':n " is the Lord 
 amongst us or not?" Let it be remembered, 
 that they were prone to idolatry, and that most 
 of their kings were continually endeavoring 
 to withdraw them from the true worship. Let 
 it further be remembered, that no nation was 
 so often enslaved, nor suffered such dreadful 
 calamities. Now any of these circumstances 
 were, according to the usual course of things, 
 sufficient to destroy these records. If the reader 
 has any doubt on this subject, let him reflect 
 on the many great empires that have flourished 
 within the last three thousand years, and con- 
 sider what has 'become of them? What has be- 
 come of their wisdom, their laws, their insti- 
 
 B 2 
 
20 
 
 tutions, and their records? Have they not all 
 vanished, nn 12^^11 11^^^ ^iB^ '^ as chafF be- 
 fore the wind?" And yet, the Jews, a handful 
 of men, oppressed, persecuted, hated, and de- 
 spised, have preserved this sacred treasure even 
 to our days. ISJ either the wickedness of their 
 rulers, nor their own, to us unaccountable, infa- 
 tuation after heathen abominations; nor the 
 galling yoke of their enemies, who fain would 
 have enslaved their minds, as thev did their 
 bodies ; have been able to extinguish their love 
 of God, nor that knowledge of the law, which 
 their Divine Legislator had promised ^^7 *^3 
 1]/"]T ^2p n^Ci^ri should not be forgotten by 
 their offspring.* 
 
 Even now, when infidelity employs all its 
 efforts to undermine religion, under the plau- 
 sible but false pretext of enlightening the 
 mind J — when a mistaken zeal holds forth the 
 tempting and seducing allurement of worldly 
 advantages, at the expense of faith; — when 
 hypocrisy, disguising an unprincipled indif- 
 ference to all modes of faith, under the name 
 of a conversion, makes a traffic of religion, and 
 
 * The same was promised by Isaiah iJi'lD^ S/ 
 ^Xiy. ^5);p') ^''Sp Isai. lix. 21. 
 
21 
 
 barters conscience for gold; — the conscientious 
 Jew still clings to the religion of his ancestors, 
 and repels, with an honest disdain, the prof- 
 fered boon. The Old Testament is still his 
 BOOK OF faith; it is still periodically read in 
 the synagogue, and the study thereof forms the 
 most important branch in the education of 
 Jewish youth. Now what but the hand of God 
 could have effected this? What but his omni- 
 potent power could have brought about events, 
 so contrary to the usual course of things, through 
 so long a succession of ages? And, what but his 
 Divine Spirit could have predicted these events? 
 
 If the Deist say, I will believe nothing but 
 what reason approves — I would fain ask him, 
 what stronger proof can reason require of the 
 sacred character of this book, than the accom- 
 plishment of its numerous predictions? If he 
 believe not in miracles, or if he will believe 
 nothing, but what is attested by a miracle, I 
 tell him that the preservation of these writings, 
 and of the nation to whom they were originally 
 entrusted, notwithstanding the repeated efforts 
 to ejctirpate them, are in themselves miracles. 
 
 Most deservedly, therefore, have these 
 books been looked upon by Jews and Christians, 
 as the most valuable gift that could have been 
 bestowed by divine mercy upon mortals. 
 
22 
 
 How highly the Jews have valued this 
 sacred treasure, may be inferred from the nu- 
 merous sacrifices they have made for it. It is 
 for this, and the divine truth it contains, that 
 they have given up all that frail man in general 
 holds most dear. Wealth, liberty, and worldly 
 distinction, were abandoned — nay, when their 
 enemies would have extorted from them this 
 precious heirloom, when the implacable spirit 
 of persecution left them no alternative, but the 
 sacrifice of their lives, or of this, the sole other 
 possession left to them, they freely surrendered 
 life itself, rather than forsake the law. It 
 is for this they have endured, with patient 
 resignation, calamities greater than ever befel 
 any other nation, and persecutions so dreadful, 
 that the bare recital harrows up the soul, and 
 sends a chilling horror into the inmost recesses 
 of the heart. It is for this, (and I cannot 
 write the words without the grateful exception, 
 above all, of the happy island, the free and 
 generous nation in which my own lot is placed,) 
 that the Jew is still hated, and persecuted in 
 almost all parts of the world. Yet, from the 
 captivity to the present day, amid the sorest 
 calamities, under the most systematic persecu- 
 tions, they have not forsaken their holy wri- 
 tings. The study of the law and its proper 
 
23 
 
 interpretation, have at all times been considered 
 by their best and wisest men, as the most im- 
 portant of all occupations, and as the most 
 noble of pursuits. 
 
 Such then was the esteem in which this 
 sacred volume was held by the Jews. Nor have 
 Christians valued it less. In every age have 
 they shewn a laudable zeal to uphold the vene- 
 ration to which it is so justly entitled. Many 
 of their most pious, and most learned men, have 
 studied the language in which it was originally 
 written, in order to make themselves acquainted 
 with its precious contents, and to transfuse 
 them into their respective languages. Nume- 
 rous are the translations they have made in 
 various countries, and in various ages; still 
 more numerous are the comments which they 
 have written. Differing from the Jews in par- 
 ticular doctrines, it is no wonder that they 
 should have given a different interpretation and 
 application to many prophetical passages which 
 they had considered as having reference to such 
 doctrines. But still, in the main, there is a 
 unanimity respecting the literal sense, and the 
 verbal interpretation of the sacred text, be- 
 tween the followers of the two religions, the 
 more remarkable, considering the unreasonable, 
 but deadly hatred, which formerly subsisted 
 
24 
 
 between them. In short, it may safely be said, 
 that no object of knowledge has ever engaged 
 the intellect of mankind so long, so generally, 
 so intensely, or in so many various directions 
 and points of view, as the Old Testament. 
 
 A book, then, that has thus commanded 
 the veneration of the most enlightened part 
 of mankind — a book, that has had so many 
 translators, so many commentators — a book, 
 that has been read by millions of good and 
 wise men, though of opposite religious persua- 
 sions, with profit and delight — a book, whose 
 ordinances and precepts are still religiously 
 observed by a whole nation — such a book, must 
 surely be understood; at least as to the equi- 
 valence of the words to those of other lan- 
 guages adopted as their correspondents ! — 
 Should, therefore, any man rise and say, I 
 allow every thing that can be said in its com- 
 mendation; I allow its authenticity, its inte- 
 grity, and its divine origin; but I maintain that 
 this book has hitherto been a dead letter; that 
 the Jewish and Christian translators, have been 
 ignorant of the rudiments of the language in 
 which it is written; and that they have, con- 
 sequently given us the misinterpretation of men 
 instead of the word of God ; — we certainly 
 should question his sanity. We should naturally 
 
25 
 
 ask such a declaim er, if your position be true, 
 then for what have the Jews suffered such tor- 
 rents of their best blood to flow? On what have 
 their Rabbles, and the learned of the Christian 
 nations, been employed for the last eighteen 
 centuries? On a book the plainest passages of 
 which have been misunderstood ! Is it possible 
 that these pious, and good, and learned men, 
 should have been so deluded? — And is it then 
 consistent with the notions we ought to have of 
 God*s mercy and goodness^ to suppose he *would 
 give mankind a book for their guide and rule, and 
 yet suffer its contents to remain hidden for so long 
 a period! Indeed, so ridiculous is the idea, that 
 of all the silly arguments which infidels have 
 brought against Scripture, they never had the 
 folly to state such an absurdity — convinced 
 that it would be laughed into scorn. 
 
 Extravagant however as this proposition is, 
 yet has it been asserted by a gentleman, who, if 
 we take his own testimony, is the greatest He- 
 braist that this or any age has ever produced ; 
 and it is still maintained by him, with an obsti- 
 nacy that has no parallel in the annals of litera- 
 ture. 
 
 The reader must be aware, that I allude 
 to Mr. John Bellamy, author of a book, which 
 he chose to call, a New Translation of the 
 
2^ 
 
 Bible ; but which might, with more propriety, 
 have been denominated, a New Bible: for so 
 little has it of the spirit and contents of the 
 original, (except where it copies the authorized 
 English Version,) that were the inspired penman 
 to reappear and read this production, he would 
 hardly be able to recognize a single sentiment 
 as his own. 
 
 Ever since the year 1810, has this gentle- 
 man endeavored Tthrouffh the medium of the 
 Classical Journal) to impress on the minds of the 
 Public, that all the existing translations of the 
 Old Testament contain the grossest Errors, the 
 greatest inconsistencies, and the most palpable 
 contradictions. Whether from ignorance or 
 Avilful misrepresentation, he wishes to make us 
 believe that none of the European translators 
 ever consulted the Hebrew text, but that they 
 all blindly followed some blind guide. At one 
 time he tells us that this blind guide was 
 Xanthus Pagninus;* and at another, (such is 
 
 * The reader may judge of Mi*. Bellamy's opinions by 
 (he following extracts : 
 
 (Classical Journal, No. i. p. 143). " When the Hebrew 
 was translated into the Latin language by Jerome, the Hebrew 
 was so imperfectly known to Christians, that he was obliged 
 to obtain the assistance of a Jew, who was himself but mode- 
 rately acquainted with the Latin tongue : therefore, it is not 
 
27 
 
 his consistency!) that it was the Vulgate. This 
 ancient Version he does not even honor with 
 the name of a translation. Every Biblical 
 scholar knows that its author, Jerome, took 
 the greatest pains to obtain a knowledge of the 
 Hebrew. His works shew that he was well 
 acquainted with that language j but Mr. B. 
 tells us " that he knew very little of the 
 Hebrew." Jerome expressly declares that he 
 made one of his translations from the Hebrew, 
 but Mr. B. knows better ! He insists on it, that 
 it was made from the Septuagint;* and, with 
 
 strange if we find so many errors, and some of a serious ten- 
 dency." — " The English, and most of the European transla- 
 tors, have followed the copy of Xanthus Pagninus, who lived 
 in the fifteenth century." 
 
 (Page 147.) " To this cause may be attributed the 
 origin of those errors and contradictions which appear in 
 all European translations.^^ 
 
 (No. xvi, page 375.) "But the seeds of this depar- 
 ture (from the religion and morality of the Bible) have been 
 sown in the minds of those who were strfficientli/ intelligent 
 to point out the inconsistencies and contradictions which have 
 so long disgraced all the European translations, &c." — " It 
 is, I repeat, astonishing, and a reproach to eveiy Christian 
 nation, that the pure, unadulterated word of God, has not been 
 given to the people of Europe!" 
 
 * (No. xvi. page 377.) "And in the ninth cen- 
 tury, Jerome began to mend the first Latin translation by 
 
28 
 
 his usual consistency, he sometimes says that 
 it was a mere revision of the old Latin transla- 
 tion. And from such statements, or rather 
 mis-statementSj he concludes that all the Eu- 
 ropean translations, (and of course all the ancient 
 translations too, as often as they agree with the 
 European translations') are wrong j and that none 
 have given us the pure word of God. 
 
 As for the English authorized Version, it 
 is the chief butt of his anger, and the favorite 
 theme of his abuse. The translators of course 
 knew nothing of the Hebrew, and consequently 
 the translation contains not only errors, incon- 
 sistencies, and contradictions, but " accounts of 
 Circumstances as opposite to truth as light is 
 to darkness;^'* and " passages which deny that 
 
 the Hebrew, which was (I suppose he does not mean the 
 Hebrew) made from the Septuagint," &c. — " From these 
 early periods may be dated the beginning of those errors^ 
 inconsistencies, and conlradictionSy which at this day stand 
 in all the translations," &c. 
 
 (Page 379 ) " Now, when we recollect that it ttms seven 
 hundred years after the dispersion oj" the Jews that the first 
 Christian translation ivas made from the Hebrew into the 
 Greek, and that two hundred years afterwards Jerome (who 
 was obliged to employ a Jew to read Hebreic) began to mend 
 the old Latin translation which was made from the Septua- 
 gint," &c. 
 
 * Class. Journ. No. ix. p. 75. 
 
29 
 
 God is a being of lo've and merci/"* His aver- 
 sion to this respectable and important work is 
 so great, that although he repeatedly tells us 
 that the sole aim of his labors is to defeat 
 Deists, yet he compliments these mischievous 
 men with the epithets of " Ingenious men, 
 sufficiently intelligent to point out the inconsis- 
 tencies and contradictions which have so long 
 disgraced all European translations:^* (see C. J. 
 No. xvi. p. 375.) and justifies their blasphemies 
 at the expense of the English Version. " / 
 acknowledge^ (says Mr. J. B. No. xvi. p. 378.) 
 that in the English, and in all Europea7i transla- 
 tions, a charge of this nature, (that is to say, that 
 the Old Testament is not of divine origin,) is 
 too much in favor of the Deists!*' 
 
 Upon what slight grounds these heavy 
 charges are made, and upon what a rotten 
 foundation they rest, the reader will have an 
 opportunity of judging, when he comes to 
 (Chap. V.) in which I have given several 
 extracts from Mr. B.*s Biblical Criticisms, with 
 observations upon them. Suffice it for the 
 present, that Mr. B. has made these serious 
 charges against the translations; and having 
 done so, has given, by way of compensation, his 
 
 * Class, Jour. No. ii. p. 299. 
 
 L 
 
30 
 
 own interpretation of the obnoxious passages. 
 Most of these interpretations were, however, so 
 extraordinary, and so contrary to every prin- 
 ciple of grammar, as to excite the attention of 
 the learned; several of whom* took the liberty 
 of shewing him that he was not always the most 
 fortunate in his suppositions, that he was some- 
 times mistaken, and not unfrequently very in- 
 correct. In short, they made it appear more 
 than doubtful, whether Mr. B. possessed that 
 proficiency in the Hebrew to which he laid 
 claim. This did, however, not stop his fervid 
 career; for let it be observed, that whoever 
 dares to dissent from this great man, is, if a 
 jew — a ^^juf/aizing Jew;'' and, if a Christian 
 — " a7i ignorant man'' — *' an approver of errors'* 
 —-or ''an interested publisher of a Bible!" t 
 But though this may be the most prominent, 
 it is by no means the most curious feature of 
 his Replies. By a peculiar turn of mind, and 
 on a principle of interpretation, in which, at 
 least, he is quite original, Mr. B. construes 
 
 * Dr. G. S. CJark, W. A. Hails, C. Leo, &cc. 
 
 •f See (Class. Jour. Nos. vii. xi. xiv.) the polite manner 
 in which he treated his opponents. See also his First and 
 Second Reply to the Quarterly Review. 
 
31 
 
 silence into approval, and non-contradiction into 
 assent.* And as the learned and unlearned, 
 who never said any thing against his curious 
 conjectures, were by far more numerous than 
 those who did, he by virtue of this new logic, 
 concluded that he had a most overwhelming 
 majority in his favor; that a learned and dis- 
 cerning public approved of his labors; and 
 that he was the only man in the kingdom 
 capable of producing a new translation of the 
 Bible, from the Hebrew only! 
 
 Well, Mr. Bellamy has made the attempt. 
 His translation of the three first books of the 
 Pentateuch has been for some time before the 
 public; and a more extraordinary work never 
 issued from the press. In this wonderful pro- 
 duction he renews his former charges against 
 all existing translations, and particularly against 
 the authorized Version. With his usual cour- 
 tesy, he compliments its authors " with having 
 
 * " In the prospectus of the new translation, I have 
 given fourteen passages, which I have contrasted with 
 the same passage in tlie Vulgar version; and amongst this 
 number his Lordship has only found one, which he attempts 
 to shew is not truly translated. As he has been silent re- 
 specting these thirteen important passages^ it is an acknow- 
 ledgment that they are correct P'' — (Mr. Bellamy's Answer 
 to the Bishop of St. David's ) 
 
32 
 
 worked in the harness of others;*' — with " having 
 been guilty of interpolations;** — with " having 
 left it (the Bible) defective in mood, tense, per- 
 son, gender, injimiive, participle, conjunction, 
 &c." — and with ** not having had a critical He- 
 brew scholar amongst them.'** As if, how- 
 ever, he had anticipated, that notwithstanding 
 his dauntless assurances to the contrary, the 
 Translators would still be judged to have, 
 generally speaking, given us the correct sense 
 of the Original and the translation to have 
 been, for the far greater part, built on the solid 
 foundation of grammatical rule and the Maso- 
 retic text ; he goes a step further, and en- 
 deavors to persuade us, that all the eminent 
 grammarians, both Jews and Christians, that 
 have flourished within the last eighteen centu- 
 ries, have been ignorant of some of the most 
 obvious rules of the language, and dares (what 
 does he not dare?) to call such men — men to 
 whose talents and industry we are indebted 
 for our present knowledge of the Hebrew — 
 "pretenders to grammatical knowledge!'* t He 
 
 * See Preface to Mr. B.'s translation. Part II. 
 
 •j- " It is also said by these pretenders to gramiuatical 
 knowledge, that verbs in the simple preter form are to be 
 frequently translated in the future time." — (Introduction, 
 
33 
 
 pretends to have discovered a distinct sign for 
 a pluperfect tense so obvious, that it " only 
 required industry to trace it.'* And yet this 
 obvious rule " does not appear to have been 
 known either by Jews or Christians since the 
 dispersion of the Jewish nation!" 
 
 Nothing, perhaps, is more indisputable than 
 what grammarians have said respecting the 
 power of the Hebrew 1. Its very name and 
 form indicate its use ; for the word TJ signifies 
 a hook, and is therefore the sign of connexion ; 
 yet Mr. B. says (Introduction^ p. 22.) " Writers 
 of grammars in general, not having ascertained 
 the different modifications of the t van in other 
 languages, (in English answering to between 
 forty and fifty conjunctions!) and not having 
 attended to its general use of connecting the 
 tenses of the preceding verbs, have, &c, called 
 this 1, the vau conversive.'* — In short, were we 
 to beheve Mr. B. we ought to take all the 
 translations, comments, and grammars, and 
 commit them to the flames. 
 
 p. 26.) Now, most Hebrew graminarians of note have said 
 so; and whoever can read a Hebrew Bible, will find this 
 rule confirmed by numei-ous examples. And yet, such men 
 are to be called pretenders to grammatical knoivledge/ 
 * Introduction, p, 39. 
 C 
 
34 
 
 Mr. B. having thus destroyed the authority 
 of the translations, and freed himself from the 
 trammels of grammar, was of course at liberty 
 to make any thing and every thing of the sacred 
 text. Under the pretence of giving us some- 
 thing new, he adopts the most foolish conceits 
 and the most whimsical conjectures of ancient 
 writers; and, by twisting the Hebrew words, 
 he boldly attributes them to the sacred 
 penman. And when he does give us some- 
 thing new, it is generally so insupportably ab- 
 surd, that the wonder lies, not in its having 
 first occurred to Mr. Bellamy, but in its having 
 occurred at all to any man in his right wits. 
 
 In almost every page, nay, almost in every 
 line, has he taken the most unwarrantable li- 
 berty v/ith the sacred text; not in difficult pas- 
 sages where conjecture or a choice of opinion is 
 allowable, btit in the plainest narratives, and 
 in passages relating to points of faith, concern- 
 ing which there has hitherto not been even a 
 shadow of doubt. No wonder, then, that his 
 translation differs from all others ; but the 
 worst is, that it differs most of all from the 
 holy book which he pretends to translate. 
 That this is not a bare assertion, the reader 
 may convince himself by perusing the next 
 chapter to which I refer him. 
 
35 
 
 CHAFc II» . 
 
 MR. B.'s UNWARRANTABLE ATTEMPTS TO GIVE AN 
 ENTIRE NEW SENSE TO VARIOUS PARTS OF 
 SCRIPTURE. 
 
 NO part of Scripture is perhaps less liable 
 to misinterpretation, than that contained in 
 Gen. ii. 21—25, in which the formation of Eve 
 is related. The narration is so circumstantial, 
 the words so plain, that it is impossible to mis- 
 take the sense. Hence all translators, whether 
 ancient or modern, whether Jews or Christians, 
 agree in interpreting those passages as con- 
 veying the sense, that Eve was formed out of 
 the mail. This has also hitherto been the belief 
 of all those who derive their faith from the 
 Bible. The all-discovering eye of Mr. Bellamy, 
 has, however, found out that our ancestors have 
 all been in the dark; that those passages have 
 totally a different sense from what the learned 
 have supposed them to have; and that the first 
 of womankind was not formed out of the man, 
 but was " created separately from the dust of the 
 ground," This discovery is as extraordinary, as is 
 
 c 2 
 
36 
 
 the critical skill by which the ingenious author 
 endeavors to support it; and shows at once the 
 astonishing progress which Mr. B. had made 
 in the art of twisting words from their natural 
 meanings, to signify any thing and every thing. 
 It therefore claims precedence of all his whim- 
 sical interpretations. Let us proceed to exa- 
 mine it. 
 
 THE FOLLOWING IS THE TEXT OF THE ORIGINAL. 
 
 I V • " TV.""" T T ; • ■* T "^ : - • - - 
 
 ni^ik) D"Tsn-|p npyi'i/^ pb'isn'Di^ n^rih^^ np) 
 w'i^t2 ""S r]^i^ «")p^ D^ib ^n'^2D 1^21 ^Dvyo 
 
 ... . T • "It* : • T : • t t - t"S; •• 
 
 izss-ni;;) r^Ki-riK :i'•*^^-^ri;> ]^'h}i : nj^rnnj?S 
 
 TV tt; t; ;•: I-t; 
 
 ENGLISH AUTHORIZED VERSION. 
 
 Gen. ii. 21. A7id the Lord God caused a 
 deep sleep to fall upon Adanij and lie slept: and 
 he took one of Ms ribs, and closed up the Jiesh 
 instead* thereof. 22. And the rib, ivhich the 
 
 * llcb. instead her; ^^)£ a rib, being fem. in Hebrew. 
 
37 
 
 Lord God had taken from man made* he a 
 woman, and brought her unto the man, 23. And 
 Adam said^ this is nowf bone of my bone, and 
 
 flesh of my fiesh: she shall be called Woman, 
 because she wds taken out of Man. 24. There- 
 
 fore shall a man leave his father and mother, and 
 shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one 
 
 ,flesh. 
 
 In order to have a proper view of this 
 subject, and to see the substantial correctness 
 of this translation, it will not be amiss to refer 
 back to Gen. i. 26. where the inspired writer 
 tells us 10'?V3 Dl?''7"-n;;iJ D^i'7S Sn^^l " And 
 God created the man in his image.** — That we 
 might not mistake the words 10?V3 in his 
 image, as referring to Adams's, or the man^s 
 image, (as Mr. B. and a certain Deist before 
 him had done)t the inspired writer adds, 
 1n^? »S"33 D\i'?i? 0*7^5 " In the image of God 
 
 * Heb. And he built, Sfc. 
 
 t Heb. This once, as Jonathan has explained it 
 
 mn s'?! i^3Dr sin 
 
 J See Classical Journal, No. viii. page 307 — 311. where 
 Mr. B. gives a most curious interpretation of this, and the 
 preceding verse; and, amongst other delicious things, tells us 
 that TD'?i!!2 means " in his (man's) image!" See also in 
 the Appendix, Remarks, &c. (originally published in the 
 Anti-Jacobin Review, for 1815) on Mr. B.'s translation 
 of this passage. 
 
38 
 
 created he him;'' and he further adds, 1?J 
 Dn j< i^"|Il r!2p.3T " Male and female created he 
 them,*' To obviate the seeming contradiction 
 which arises from the two last clauses, one of 
 which implies that man was created alone, — • 
 the other, that there was a male and a female, 
 — the inspired writer introduces in the next 
 chapter a more circumstancial account* of the 
 formation of Adam j and clearly shews, what 
 he meant by the terms iriJ^ and D^^^ : — thus, 
 Dn^n m D^"i'7^^: "n IV'H " And the Lord 
 God formed the man," which refers to his bodily 
 organization, and that the matter was IP 12)^ 
 
 * Amongst the >^<'-)^r] ^DV "i hn: miD ":ib 
 
 thirty-two rules of interpreting the Scriptures, taught 
 by Rabbi Jose, the Galilean, we find the following, viz. 
 
 Generate cvi succedit factum quod sit tantnm prioris 
 determinatio. This ancient author exemplifies his rule by 
 the very passages under consideration. (See D7l^ m]3"^7n 
 Itinera Sterna, Cap. iii.) 
 
 Many learned men have found great difficulty in ac- 
 counting for the apparent repetitions of the same facts, 
 which are found in several parts of Scripture; and have 
 hastily concluded that the passages containing those facts 
 were transferred by the sacred historian, from diverse pre- 
 existing documents. But the preceding rule removes all 
 the difficulties, and clearly shows that the supposed repe- 
 titions are in reality nothing but elucidations and integra- 
 tions of facts previously mentioned in a general manner. 
 
39 
 
 nplJ^.n " dust from the ground -,'* hence man's 
 mortality. He then proceeds, and says, ns^ 
 D^?n T\12^'l VSi^S " and he blew into his nostrils 
 the breath of life,** Now this, both by infer- 
 ence from the immediate agency of the Creator, 
 and by the express declaration of the Scriptures 
 itself in the following word, is to be under- 
 stood in contra-distinction from the mere animal 
 life of the inferior creatures, which the ground 
 itself was enabled and commanded to commu- 
 nicate. It evidently, therefore, refers to the 
 Soul, that celestial spark which makes man so 
 pre-eminent in the scale of beings; and for 
 which alone he is said to be formed in the 
 image of God, After Omnipotence had thus 
 joined two opposites, the perishable with the 
 imperishable, the inert with the most active 
 principle, then fH^n \l}^f} DHSH \-1^] " the 
 
 * English, and most other translations, " of the dust of 
 the ground." Had this been the meaning of the inspired 
 writer, he would have said ^/D^^^|^ "liii/^. It seems, there- 
 fore to me, that by omitting the J^, and putting ")2i7 in the 
 absolute f(^rm, he alluded to the body, which, notwithstand- 
 ing its exquisite organization, is still but dust. In the same 
 manner did Abraham express himself, T^SI "IDI^ "'DJXT 
 ^^lAnd I am but dust and ashes" Gen. xviii. 27. 
 
 t Onkelos renders this clause mi? DINH T\^T]^ 
 ^5 / /DD " -And she (the soul) became in man a speaking- 
 spirit;" or rather, "Thus man became a speaking being;" 
 
40 
 
 man became a living soul:** such as we find 
 him even now, with wants, appetites, and 
 impulses, arising from his earthly organization, 
 and with a soul whose transcendent powers and 
 faculties enable him to think, reflect, discern truth 
 from falshood, and render him capable of that in- 
 ward joy, which arises from virtuous pursuits. 
 
 The inspired writer next informs us, in what 
 condition man was, after thus coming from the 
 hands of his Maker. In opposition to pagan 
 philosophers, who supposed that the progenitors 
 of mankind were originally destitute of reason 
 and language, crawling about, like other ani- 
 mals, in woods and deserts, to seek a scanty 
 subsistence;* he tells us that Adam was placed 
 
 alluding to that inward speech of the soul, arising from 
 
 thought and reflection, which is the chief characteristic of 
 
 man. 
 
 For the signification of the word Ji^^Jj see Mainionides' 
 
 More Nebochim, part i. chap. 41. 
 
 * Necdum res igni scibant tractare, nee uti 
 Pellibus, & spoliis corpus vestire ferarum: 
 Sed nemora, atque cavos tnontes, silvasque colebant 
 Et frutices inter condebaut squalida membra, 
 Verbera ventorum vitare imbresque coacti. 
 Nee commune bonuni poterant spectare, nee ullis 
 Moribus inter se scibant, nee legibus uti. 
 Quod cuique obtulerat prsedse fortuna, ferebat, 
 Sponta sua, sibi quisque valere k vivere doctus. 
 
 LucR. 1. V. 
 
41 
 
 by his mercifal Creator in the garden of Eden, 
 where every thing was prepared to supply his 
 wants. Further, that God laid an injunction 
 upon him, on the observance of which the 
 continuance of his felicity in this earthly abode 
 would depend. Adam must, therefore, have 
 possessed free *will and choice; for a creature 
 destitute of these, cannot be commanded. Fur- 
 ther, that Adam possessed principles of reason, 
 and consequent powers of insight, adequate 
 to the invention of language ; not a lan- 
 guage of gesture,* which according to some, 
 
 * That the languag^e of gesture and vision preceded oral 
 language, was not only a favorite opinion amongst pagan phi- 
 losophers, but it has been embraced by many eminent men 
 amongst the moderns. They have dignified it by the name of 
 natural language, as if the interpretation of its signs were 
 intuitively known. This is, however, far from being proved; 
 on the contrary, there is every reason to believe that we learn 
 to interpret these signs in a similar manner as we do others, 
 namely, by observation and experience. If so, its priority 
 must fall to the ground: nor is it likely to have been at 
 any time the only medium of communication. Equally im- 
 probable is it, that oral language should owe its origin to 
 compact, agreement, or common consent; for how was con- 
 sent to be obtained without language } Nor is it more philo- 
 sophical to suppose that the Deity condescended to teach our 
 first parents how to speak. Besides, holy writ expressly 
 attributes the invention to Adam; and the whole structure of 
 language shows that it is of human origin. 
 
 It would lead me too far from my present subject, were I 
 here to state fully my ideas regarding the origin and struc- 
 
42 
 
 must have preceded every other, but oral lan- 
 guage j —a language too that was not arbitrary, 
 
 ture of the Hebrew language. I shall therefore only remark, 
 that the established opinion that the Hebrew roots, or primi- 
 tives, are all triliteralj useful as it may be in a grammatical 
 point of view, is far from being proved. The following are 
 my reasons for doubting this position. 
 
 First: because, whether language be of divine or human 
 origin, it is improbable that three sounds should have been 
 employed to express that which might have been expressed 
 by one. Secondly: because, in most languages, particularly 
 in those that can justly lay claim to originality, we find that 
 words of prime necessity, and which are most likely to have 
 formed the first vocabulary of man, are all monosyllables. 
 Such is the case in Hebrew; thus m'X light; \l/^ fire; 
 nS the mouth; T^ the hand; \^ the tooth; 3>5 father; 
 
 T I •• T 
 
 OJ^ mother; |3 ^^i *>on; &c. Now, to say that these mono- 
 syllabes were derived from triliterals or dissyllables, is, in my 
 opinion, inverting the order of nature, which always proceeds 
 from the simple to the compound, and not from the compound 
 to the simple. Thirdly : because many of Ihe roots, which 
 have hitherto been .considered as primitives, are evidently 
 compounds, and may be resolved into their elements. Thus, 
 for instance : — 
 J^^5i^ the sun, may be resolved into C-|^ there, and \l})l^ 
 
 fire; i. e. the distant fire. 
 7li^3 i^ hod, or ripen, into J^3 came ^^i^ fire, j]J upon; 
 i. e. that which has undergone the action of fire 
 or heat. 
 ^^?3 io explain, from J>53 to come, or bring, "|ij^ light. 
 "1^53 « tvell, from "J3 "* it 11J^ light; on account of its 
 reflecting light. 
 
43 
 
 arising from compact or common consent, 
 because as yet man was alone; but a language 
 
 JJj2L to sivaUoiv, from J?^ to come, enter, ^y^ the 
 swallow, or throat. 
 
 7j73 o- husband, from J^^l ^"^^ 7^' 
 
 Dti/^ spices, odoriferous substances, from Ji^^ come Cti^ 
 distance, on account of their acting on us at a distance. 
 
 7^J " camel, from QJ protuberance, addition, promi- 
 nence, and Sj/ upon. 
 
 3nt gold, from HT this 3(1 yield, an account of its duc- 
 tility. 
 
 "iriT splendor, from HT and mi^- 
 J/TIZD /or "J^j loherefore, from HQ ?«Aaf, j/Tl"^ 'o know, 
 i. e. what dost thou know, or what is thy reason. 
 
 ijl^ when, from HD t<^^ta^ Jlj/ d?we, i. e. at what time. 
 
 iriD to-morrow, from HQ lu/m^, iHi^ ofter. 
 
 YTM2 to wound, from IQ/Vom, and VH an arrow. 
 7")J/ uncircumcised, from "llj/ ^A;iM, /if upon. 
 
 ■)£0Q razM, from HD and "{£0 « ''ow, because it descends 
 as if it were in rows; whereas, the rain that comes 
 down in imperceptible drops is called T'j/Ji', from 
 "Ij/Ji^* hdir;^ and that which descends in large drops 
 is called i|2^Zl"|, from 31 much, large. 
 
 DHD " coal, from ,"12 here, DH /'^a^- 
 
 n"iii ajioicer, blossom, from HD Af»'^» H^H smell. 
 
 HD^ *f<^*''» from }^V z5A7te ^ yVom ^i^ the skin; just as 
 "l^ii/, is from J^Ji^ raised "11^ </«e sArin. 
 
 It therefore appears to me, that, instead of referring 
 monosyllables to triliterals, we ought to invert the order, and 
 refer the latter to the former. In short, the simpler the 
 word, the more it is, in my opinion, entitled to be regarded 
 as a primitive. But then it will readily be asked, how came 
 
44 
 
 expressive of, and founded on the nature of 
 things. For thus Scripture tells us, " And the 
 
 these primitives into existence? Did they result from compact 
 or agreement, — so that they are in their nature entirely- 
 arbitrary? Decidedly not: as in this case we should only fly 
 from one difficulty to another. For, if language be of divine 
 origin, it cannot be supposed that God would teach men 
 words that were not founded in reason ; and if it be of humaa 
 invention, it is equally improbable. For what invention has 
 man ever made, in which reason had not its full share! 
 The only way then to account for these words, is to consider 
 them as onomatopoeia. That the Hebrew primitives are of 
 this nature, I hope to shew in some future work, which I 
 intend to publish on this subject. For the present I must 
 content myself with giving a bare hint of it. 
 
 To enable the reader, however, to enter into my views 
 — let us suppose Adam to have, for the first time, fixed 
 his attention on an object, such as an animal, for in- 
 stance. He would of course take notice of its most ob- 
 vious qualities, such as its form, figure, colour, &c. and 
 these, combined in the mind, would constitute the idea he 
 had of the animal. Now, suppose that whilst he viewed 
 the animal, he noticed the emission of the sound, which we 
 call breathing. This would undoubtedly form a part of the 
 idea he would have of the animal ; and when he came to recite 
 to himself what he had perceived, it would be — a being of a 
 particular form, colour, &c. and which emitted a particular 
 sound. These becoming associated in the mind, would recal 
 each other. Sound would recal form and colour, and form 
 and colour, kc. would recal the sound. The tangible and 
 visual qualities he could not easily imitate; sound, on the 
 contrary, he could; nay, he must, being by nature himself a 
 
45 
 
 Lord God formed from the ground, all beasts 
 of the field, and all fowls of heaven, b^ i^?^ 
 
 breathing animal. Was it not, therefore, most natural that 
 he should denominate the being he had contemplated, by a 
 sound which imitates breathing? thus, hah. And this is 
 exactly the Hebrew name for an animal, viz. ^H chai; mean- 
 ing literally, that which breathes. Suppose, further, he next 
 observed another animal of a different form, such as an 
 ox for instance ; as long as he observed it to possess the 
 property of breathing, he still called it "^n the breather; 
 but the moment he heard it emit the sounds of bah mdh, 
 he had a new name for it; by which henceforth he would 
 distinguish it : and this is, in fact, the Hebrew name for 
 cattle; thus nDHQ- 
 
 Again, suppose he beheld a bird. Wishing to have 
 a nearer view of it, he approached it. The timid animal 
 took wing — OFF went the bird, and by the fluttering of its 
 wings produced the sound off, or ?|J/ g^^ojff which then 
 become the name of every winged animal. Hence fllj/ 
 to fly; flJ/Dl/ the eye-lid; f\23 the wing, corner, extre- 
 mity ; hence P^HT to hover, move like a bird : and a number 
 of other words derived from the same root. 
 
 l^H^ esh, fire, "^T^ or, light, or fire, owe their origin 
 to a similar source. The former from the hissing or shooting 
 noise that accompanies it, particularly when the combustibles 
 are moist; the latter from the sound of a current of flame. 
 These primitives, and many others of the same kind, gave 
 birth to numerous other words. 
 
 Thus from the single word "ITJ^ light, comes 
 mi^Q a light, luminous body. 
 
 "13 a candle, or lamp. 
 miiD a candlestick. 
 nni bright. 
 "iriT splendor. 
 
46 
 
 DTfijn " And he caused them to come unto 
 Adam,'' '"h J<"lp1 HD ry)k'b « that he might see 
 what he ought to call it'," i. e. that Adam might 
 
 "linD clean, pure. 
 "IXD ornament, glory, 
 "iny a window, light. 
 D^nny noon day, intense light. 
 TnV oil, from its shining quality, 
 "in nS2 a well, -^ 
 
 •)TJ<^ a brook, v from their reflecting light, 
 
 "in 3 a river, 3 
 
 "IJ^Il to explain; i.e. to give,- bring light, elucidate. 
 
 \ to interpret, increase light. 
 
 n"l^ to teach, instruct; i, e. to give light to the mind. 
 n"nn the law, that which instructs, enlightens the mind. 
 nST to see. 
 ni^n a prophet, a seer. 
 ni^HD colour, i. e. what is seen. 
 
 Numerous other words might here be added, all derived 
 from this single monosyllable; but I have already greatly 
 exceeded the limits of a note. 
 
 I have thus endeavored to give a slight sketch of 
 my opinion regarding Hebrew primitives, more with a view 
 to solicit the attention of the learned to this very important 
 subject, than to claim any particular merit. I am aware 
 how apt the mind is to be misled in speculations of this 
 nature, and for this very reason I offer the preceding con- 
 jectures with that diffidence, with which propositions, that are 
 from their nature unsusceptible of demonstration, and which 
 at best can only rest on high probability, ought to be pre- 
 sented, before they have passed the ordeal of a thorough 
 investigation. 
 
47 
 
 see what name was most proper for each indi- 
 vidual : and the verse conchides by telling us, 
 that " whatever Adam called every living 
 creature is its name." But it seems not im- 
 probable, that the causing of the animals to 
 pass before Adam, was not merely for the 
 purpose of giving them names, but that he 
 might become acquainted with one of those 
 great ends for which he was created; — that 
 he was not to be a solitary selfish creature, but 
 the ^^/«e/' of mankind; and that consequently 
 a something was still wanting to complete his 
 being. Neither would it be irrational to sup- 
 pose, that it might be the design of the Al- 
 mighty to make him sensible of this want, that 
 he might duly appreciate the great blessing 
 which his Maker was about to bestow on him. 
 All this w^as effected by bringing animated 
 creatures into his view. Here, as they passed 
 before him, as he observed their respective 
 qualities and properties, he must have no- 
 ticed that they came by pairs, each male 
 attended by its companion, alike in every 
 thing, excepting the sexual distinction. Hence 
 the divine Historian, after having represented 
 Adam as giving names to animals, says, ^7^?'' 
 1}}; J^VD ^b " And to Adam he had 7iot found 
 
48 
 
 a Jielpi** ni3D* as his opposite, or rather, 
 as his counterpart; i. e. he had not found a 
 
 * This word occurs both in the Chaldee and in the 
 Arabic. In the former language it signifies to draw, extend, 
 lengthen, Sfc. The leading signification in the latter is to 
 be conspicuous, evident to the eye, to be in a direct line 
 with the eye of the observer. And in this sense it seems 
 to be used in the Hebrew. It occurs only as a particle; 
 but as all particles were originally either verbs or nouns, 
 I have ventured to render it in this passage as a noun. 
 
 Indeed were I allowed a conjecture of my own, I should 
 consider all the following words, 
 
 'Tj? 'TA '^'^J^5^ mi^ ,1^^\ ,tjj nj: n^n &c. 
 
 T • ; 
 
 though placed by Lexicographers under different roots, as 
 derived from the monosyllable ^J ; the primary signification 
 of which is, to be Jiexible, pliable, tender ; — hence the 
 young of cattle is called ^"TJ; hence also "fJQ nlilJD 
 tender, sweet, precious things, *J>j3 D"*^^il sinews, bands, 
 on account of their flexibility; metaphorically, a band or 
 tie; thus Isaiah xlviii. 4. 
 
 " Because I know thuu art obstinate, and thy neck is an 
 iron sinew." Literally, /rom mi/ knoicledi;e, i. e. from per- 
 sonal observation, I know that thou art hard, i. e. obstinate, 
 and a band of iron is thy neck, i. e. thou art as inflexible 
 as an iron band. Thus also Gen. xxx. 11. " And Leah said 
 ^^3 which has been rendered, a troop came, but which ought 
 
 T T 
 
 to be rendered a tie or bond came. In the same manner as she 
 called her third son ^^7, from m7 to join, so she called this 
 
49 
 
 being that was like himself, as was the case 
 amongst other animals. He felt a want which 
 the Almighty intended to supply. Therefore 
 " did the Lord God cause a deep sleep to foil 
 
 son *7J, as being a new bond of union. Hence also 
 
 T 
 
 ^^J^^ to tie; ^^^J^? ^ bundle : hence also *m)| a troop, or 
 a band of warriors, and from this T)J^ to make tear, invade^ 
 ravage, (just as from populus, a people; populo, I destroy, 
 ravage.) — See Gen. lix. 19. 
 
 Hence also "T^JJ a prince, a chief, the person who is at 
 the head of a nation, and forms the point of union. Hence 
 ^J3 that which is opposite to the eye, and as it were 
 linked to it. Hence "Jiin '^ ^^^^j ^^ manifest, or rather to 
 make known things or circumstances unknown before, whe- 
 ther relating to past or future events. (In this respect it is 
 distinguished from "ISD to tell, which only refers to past 
 events.) In this sense it is used in Gen. iii. 11. T'SH ""D 
 nnt^ DT^i/ ^3 ^b " Who told thee that thou wast naked ?" 
 
 T T " • I : 
 
 Which may, perhaps, be better rendered. Who made known 
 to thee that thou art naked? i. e. From what circumstances 
 dost thou know that nakedness is a shame ? " Hast thou eaten," 
 &c. For, in point of fact, no one had told him that he was 
 naked. It was his own discovery : for thus we are told, in 
 chap. iii. 7. that after they had eaten of the tree of know- 
 ledge, " and they knew they were naked." Thus also Gen. 
 xli. 28. "What God is about to do (doth) Ifijn he shewetk 
 to Pharoah," it should be, he manifested or made known to 
 Pharoah. This will explain the reason why this verb is used 
 in Hebrew in the Hiphil and Hophal forms only, because 
 the action which it expresses is in its very nature causal. 
 
 D 
 
50 
 
 upon Adam, and he slept" It was not a natural 
 sleep, arising from the lassitude of animal func- 
 tions, but purposely caused by God, to eifect a 
 particular end, — an end which is described in 
 the following verses; viz. " And he took one 
 of his ribs, and closed up the flesh,'* &c. &c. 
 
 This, then, explains what at first seemed 
 contradictory; for, though Adam was at first 
 created alone, yet as he contained within him 
 that, which by being afterwards separated from 
 him, was to complete the species, Moses with 
 great propriety says DHJ?^ i<"l3 " created he 
 thejn." And here the infidel will probably 
 exclaim — What necessity was there for all 
 this? Could not God create the woman at 
 once, apart? Undoubtedly he could. But 
 revelation does not only inform us what God 
 can do, but what he actually did. But why 
 did he so? Now it woukl be a sufficient reply 
 to such a querist, if we contented ourselves 
 with noticing the impiety of thus scruti- 
 nizing the works of our Maker. As well 
 might we ask, why did our Creator place both 
 eyes in front ? Why not one before and the other 
 behind? Why did he make five and not three 
 or ten fingers to each hand? But in this in- 
 stance, the reasons are so obvious, that it is 
 surprising any reasonable being should not dis- 
 cern them. 
 
51 
 
 First, then: because, in a physical point of 
 view, the male and female are but one, and 
 cannot exist as a species without each other. 
 
 Secondly: because God wished to inculcate 
 this important truth on the mind of man, that he 
 was to consider his mate, as the future compa- 
 nion of his toils and pleasures; not as a separate 
 being that was merely to be subservient to his 
 lust, much less as one over whom he could 
 exercise a tyrannical sway, but as a part of 
 himself, as a member of his body. If he 
 injures her, he injures himself. If he debases 
 her mind, or ill-treats her, he inflicts misery 
 on himself. In short, they were to be both " as 
 one flesh,'* animated by the same aim, guided 
 by the same principles, both laboring for each 
 other's welfare, as well as for the welfare of 
 their oflspring. 
 
 Thus the foundation of social happiness 
 was laid, not in mere convenience, nor in sen- 
 sual gratification, but in mutual support, and in 
 domestic tranquillity. The sacred writer, there- 
 fore, properly concludes the narrative, with this 
 important observation, "^2^ m^*^ 2^^ P ^V* 
 
 * Several translators have rendered this passage in an 
 imperative sense, but in my humble opinion without sufficient 
 authority. The verse seems rather to elucidate a general 
 
 D 2 
 
52 
 
 " Hence it is, that man leaves his father and 
 mother, and attaches himself to his wife, and 
 they become as one flesh." 
 
 From this we may further learn, that man 
 was not originally a solitary animal j that there 
 was no promiscuous intercourse permitted; that 
 it was not merely precluded by the circum- 
 stance that there was but one of each sex, but 
 
 fact, than to imply a command. The words 13"?^ upon this 
 basis, generally rendered the same as "Ij} therefore, do not, 
 in my opinion, express the same thing- ; but are chiefly used, 
 when a fact not previously accounted for, is explained by 
 an author, and deduced from circumstances mentioned by 
 him before; as in this instance, where Moses having given 
 the history of the formation of Eve, adds, that this accounts 
 for the fact so universally known ; viz. " that men leave 
 their father and mother," &c. Moses Mendelson has very 
 properly translated this verse, " Duruin verldszt der mann 
 seinen Voter, und seine mutter, und hdnget an seinem 
 weibchen,^' Sfc. The verb 3Ti/^ being in the future, rather 
 favors this interpretation. For on strict examination it 
 will be found, that whenever the inspired writers wish to 
 express general truths, such as axioms, aphorisms, or facts 
 not relating to definite time, they either express the subject, 
 and predicate only, omitting the copula; or, if the pro- 
 position requires a verb, such verb is mostly in the future. 
 
 Thus, prov. X. 11. n^pu/i ^Di pnv •«D D^^n l^pD 
 
 D^n HDD^ " The mouth of a righteous man is a well 
 of life; but the mouth of the wicked covereth (Heb. shall 
 cover) violence." Numerous examples may be seen in Pro- 
 verbs, Psalms, and Job. 
 
53 
 
 interdicted for all times; that marriage is by the 
 will of God a natural, as well as z. positive law; and 
 that society is not mevely political, hut natural. 
 
 So far, then, the whole account of the 
 creation and formation of man, is not only con- 
 sistent, but replete with most important in- 
 struction. There is not a sentence, nay, not a 
 word in the whole narrative, but reveals some 
 important truth. Mr. B. is however dissatisfied 
 with this account; and, with the Deist, thinks 
 it not true. " Admitting, says he, (in the name 
 of the Deist), it were possible that God had 
 taken out the rib without any pain to Adam, 
 what do we gain by this, or what virtue could 
 have been given to the simple bone, by being 
 first made a part in the body of man? or was 
 man made with an extra rib? Did not God know 
 that in such a case he should have part of his 
 work to unmake? Could not infinite wisdom 
 have made the woman out of the same materials 
 as he made the man? &c."* He therefore 
 
 * These silly questions put me in mind of what the 
 Talmudists relate, concerning a certain Emperor, who ad- 
 dressing himself to Gamaliel, said, J^^H ^22 DD^H/J^ 
 " Your God is a thief; for he stole a rib from Adam." 
 His daughter who was present, asked his permission to reply. 
 Having obtained it, she requested him to order one of his 
 
54 
 
 believes, that the woman was separately created 
 from the dust of the ground, and consequently 
 forces his rude conception into the Hebrew 
 text. 
 
 The following is Mr. B.'s translation. 
 
 Gen. ii. 21. "Now Jehovah God caused an in- 
 active state, to fall upon the man and he slept: then 
 he brought one to his side: whose Jlesh he had e?i' 
 closed in her place. 22. Thus Jehovah (^od built 
 the substance of the other ^ which he took for the 
 manj eveti a woman: and he brought her, to the 
 man. 23. And the man said; Thus this time, bone 
 after my bone; also flesh, after my fesh: jor this 
 he will call woman; because she was received by 
 the man. 24. Therefore a 7nan will leave, even 
 
 officers to arrest certain persons. The Emperor asked her 
 what they had done ? to which she answered, that they had 
 broken into the house, taken away a silver bason, and 
 leaving a golden one instead of it. The Emperor smiled, 
 and said, would we had many such thieves ! Well, said the 
 daughter, why then do you find fault with God ? It is true 
 that God took a rib from Adam^ but he replaced it by a 
 beautiful maid. But, said the Emperor, why did God not make 
 the exchange whilst Adam was awake? — See the daughter's 
 reply, and the story at full length in Senhtdriii, chap, iv. 
 
 That infidels and Deists should ask such silly questions, 
 admits of an easy solution; but that Mr. B. should lay such 
 stress upon them, and insert them in the same page with 
 the word of God — this is indeed to be wondered at ! - 
 
55 
 
 hisfatlier, and mother; for he mil unite with his 
 wije; and they shall be, for one fesh.^** 
 
 This Mr. B. calls a translation ! Now I 
 beg any impartial reader to peruse this rhap- 
 sody, and see whether he can make sense of 
 it. What are we to understand by " he brought 
 one to his side 'whose fesh he enclosed in her 
 place? What by " the substance of the other 
 which he took for the man?*^ &c. what by 
 *' bone after my bone?** And yet this trash is 
 to be fathered on the divine and inspired wri- 
 ter! — I have no wish to wound the feelings of 
 any man; but I must declare that such an at- 
 tempt is, in ray opinion, a most daring impiety. 
 
 Let us, however, compare this pretended 
 translation with the Hebrew text, and see 
 whether it will stand the test of grammatical 
 examination. 
 
 The first word in which Mr. B.'s inter- 
 pretation differs from all existing translations, 
 is n^Tin, which he renders an inactive state-; 
 but this does not express the meaning of the 
 Hebrew. The word is derived from DTI, the 
 primary meaning of which is, to close up the 
 senses, to reduce to a state of insensibility. 
 As a verb, it is only found in the passive. 
 
 * I have retained Mr. B.'s punctuation, that the reader 
 may appreciate his knowledge of the Hebrew accents! 
 
36 
 
 and signifies to become confounded, entranced, 
 &c. and nOTin expresses a state when the 
 external senses are deadened for a while, 
 and the mind remains bewildered, conscious 
 only of confusion and uneasiness; or an CoccejuSf 
 expresses it, An quia quibus omnia membra 
 dolent sensibus uti non possunt. Nam stupor 
 hie intelligitur. 
 
 The wprd has however different applica- 
 tions; and the ancient Hebrews, who certainly 
 were the best judges of the language, tell us, 
 that there are three sorts of mDllH, namely, 
 
 : XtO^'DID first, that which relates to sleep ; 
 secondly, that which relates to prophecy; (see 
 Gen. XV. 12.) and thirdly, the strongest of 
 all, that which precedes death. (See Midrash 
 Rabbah, chap. xvii). In the instance before us, 
 the first Hebraists have rendered the word by 
 a deep sleep. Thus Jonathan ^r\'p'*^]J ^^TM^^ 
 " a deep sleep." Aben Ezra explains it by 
 npTH nrJi^ " a strong sleep.'' Kimchi, and 
 most Hebrew commentators the same; Coccejus, 
 Parkhurst, Taylor, and most lexicographers, by 
 deep sleep, Mr. B. says, if we rendered it 
 thus, there would be an unnecessary repetition; 
 but I do not see it in that light, for without 
 \^^'^^ we should not know the real sense of 
 the word n^SniH; and without this, we might 
 
57 
 
 suppose that the sleep was natural; whereas 
 the inspired writer wished to inform us, that 
 it was caused by the Almighty. The Transla- 
 tors have therefore very properly rendered this 
 word, a deep sleep. 
 
 The next word is 'r\'p'^^, and he took, which 
 Mr. B. renders and he brought, grounding his 
 authority on (Numb, xxiii. 28.*) where the 
 English version renders np"^! by " and he 
 brought.^t 
 
 Now for the first : — it certainly is rather 
 strange, that Mr. B. should rest ou this 
 authority, after having repeatedly charged the 
 Translators with ignorance of the Hebrew. 
 
 Secondly : supposing he had changed his 
 opinions respecting their competence, he ought 
 first to have shewn that they have given in 
 the cited passage the literal meaning ; whereas, 
 as an Hebraist, he ought to know that they 
 have only given the general sense : the literal 
 meaning of 01/73 n^5 p'?^ '^^'^^ being, and 
 Balak took Balaam, and not brought ; for when 
 
 * In the most correct Hebrew Bibles this will be 
 found to be the 32nd verse of the 23rd chapter, though in 
 the English translation it is the 28th verse. 
 
 ■\ Mr. B. cites several other passages to support his in- 
 terpretation ; but it would be a waste of time to make any 
 observation on them, as they are evidently mistranslations. 
 
58 
 
 the Hebrew writers wish to express the idea 
 of bringing, they employ the Hiphil of the 
 verb ^m to come; thus, J^Il^l and he caused 
 to come, or he brought. See Gen. ii. 19, 22. 
 iv. 3, 4. 
 
 Thirdly : granting, for the sake of argument, 
 that r\p'^'\ in Numbers xxiii. 28. could not be 
 otherwise rendered, than by and he brought, 
 it would be no authority to render it so here; 
 because, though strictly speaking, a word 
 cannot have more than one primary signifi- 
 cation, yet it may be used in combination 
 with other words, to express different appli- 
 cations of the same image, and therefore even 
 different ideas. In such cases, as the variation 
 depends on the associated words, it must be 
 gathered from them, and not merely from the 
 primitive word. Every one knows in what a 
 variety of senses the verb to take is used in 
 English, when associated with other words; as, 
 to take notice ; to take care; to take oath; to 
 take xving; &c. Nor do the annexed words 
 always determine the particular meaning; as 
 for instance, the words to take in, may signify 
 to enclose; to deceive; to admit; &c. In such 
 cases, the particular meaning must be collected 
 from the context. It is the same with the 
 word Dp? ; its primary signification is, to takCf 
 
59 
 
 but it has various applications, according as the 
 words expressing the object are followed by 
 D, \t2,from\ 7X, to; or whether the object to 
 which the verb relates is, either near or at 
 a distance ; whether it is merely handed, or 
 offered by way of present, &c. Hence Hp? 
 may be rendered in English by various words, 
 but yet not without taking the circumstances 
 into consideration. 
 
 Now it seems to me that the Trans- 
 lators of the English Version did take those 
 circumstances into their consideration, and 
 had some reason for rendering the word 
 differently in different passages. Thus, for 
 instance, in Gen. xviii. 4, 5, 7. they rendered it 
 by to fetch, because, as Abraham is represented 
 to be at the outside of his tent — the water, 
 the bread, &c. could not have been within his 
 reach, therefore they were not takenhni fetched, 
 — In chap. ix. 14. they rendered it by, to 
 marry Vm]3 Tip? "who married his daugh^ 
 ters ;"' because, though it is very good English 
 to say, to take a wfe, yet it would not sound 
 so well to say " the takers of his daughters,^* 
 which is the literal sense of the Hebrew. — In 
 1 Sam. xii. 3. the word Tinp'? occurs three 
 times; twice they have rendered it, / have 
 takeUf and once / have received. This they 
 
60 
 
 did not from caprice, but because they found the 
 last Tinp? connected with 1^^ a bribe; now a 
 bribe cannot be taken without being first offered; 
 and to take a thing when offered, is to receive 
 it. — In the same manner did they render np''T 
 (in Num. xxii.) a7id he broughty because the 
 preposition 7^< though not expressed, is under- 
 stood. But here, (in Gen.) T\T\^ is not followed 
 by 7K to, but by O from, and consequently, 
 np'^1 cannot with propriety be rendered and 
 he brought', but, as it is in the English and 
 other Versions, and he took. 
 
 T\T\)^ Mr. B. renders this word the same 
 as the English Version " one,"*^ — but tells us in 
 his notes, that it means Eve, or the woman. 
 The following are his words : — ^" Therefore this 
 clause wull truly read, " Then he brought one to 
 his side.*' But this interpretation is unautho- 
 rized by the Hebrew text, and inconsistent with 
 the whole narrative. 
 
 First: there is no authority to say that 
 the word one means a woman, any more than 
 an elephant, or a crocodile; no mention 
 having as yet been made of Eve. Mr. B. 
 might express himself in this random manner, 
 leaving his readers to guess his meaning, but 
 it is not the usual style of the inspired writer, 
 who rather than be misunderstood, uses, what 
 
61 
 
 we, with our notions of elegant diction, call a 
 pleonasm. Had Moses meant by ^^^5 Eve, he 
 would at once have made use of the word 
 
 Secondly: the phrase " and he brought 
 one to his side," is not agreeable to Hebrew 
 idiom. To express such a thought, a Hebraist 
 would say, He brought — to the person, not 
 to his side. Instances Gen. ii. 19. ?^^ i^TT 
 D^sn "and he brought unto the man:'* Gen. 
 ii. 22. ni^n h^ nxn^l " and he brought her 
 unto Adam." 
 
 Thirdly: according to this interpretation, 
 Eve must already have been in existence ; 
 whereas her formation is not described, even 
 according to Mr. B.*s Translation, till the 
 22d verse. 
 
 Fourthly: this interpretation is totally 
 inconsistent with the preceding clause, where 
 we are informed, " God had caused a deep 
 sleep (or an inactive state, as Mr. B. will have 
 it,) to fall upon Adam ; and this surely would 
 have been unnecessary, if Eve were merely to 
 have been brought to his side. It is also 
 inconsistent with verse 23 and 24. In short, 
 the whole is a mere whimsical conjecture; 
 and there cannot be the. least doubt that T)T\^ 
 enc, belongs to the next word Vr\')p7)!D, as it 
 
62 
 
 is rendered in all translations whether ancient 
 or modern. 
 
 VrU'"^^^ Mr. B. renders this word to his 
 side. In doing this he has committed three 
 grammatical errors. 
 
 First, The letter D which he renders, to, 
 has no such meaning in any part of Scripture. 
 It is a fragment of l^^, from, denoting origin, 
 or tlie point of time or place at which motion or 
 action commences. The examples which he 
 cites from Deut. i. 17. Num. xvi. 9. Isaiah 
 vii. IS. Ezek. xxxiv. 18. which all consist of the 
 same phrase DDO lDi!CT] *^ an parvum est vobis" 
 •* Seemeth it but a small thing unto you," are 
 not at all to the purpose, and only show that 
 he has blindly followed Noldius; or that he 
 copied, without judgment, the English Trans- 
 lation, instead of consulting the Hebrew text.* 
 
 * The Hebrew scholar need hardly be told that the 
 Hebrew generally expresses the comparative by ^; as 
 J^f^^TJID pinD sweeter than honey; ''"iXJiJ '^ stronger 
 than a lion. Literally, siveet from honey ; strong from 
 a lion. Such expressions do not sound well to modern 
 ears, but they are nevertheless founded on the nature of 
 things. For the intension and remission of qualities are 
 best ascertained from contrast, which shows at once where 
 the excess or defect lies. Thus if an object possessing the 
 quality of sweetness is contrasted with another already 
 
63 
 
 Secondly : l^'r^ll/'?^ is evidently plural, thus, 
 Sing, ^b)!!; Plu. mi/^V '• with the possessive pro- 
 
 known to possess it in a certain degree, such as honey for 
 instance, and the compared object still deserves the epithet 
 of sweet, it follows that it has the quality of sweetness 
 in a superior degree; consequently, it is sweeter than the 
 object from which the comparison commences. Besides, 
 many adjectives, particularly those denoting quantity, are 
 entirely relative, and owe their names to the different points 
 of view in which we consider them. " It is with reference to 
 the little," (says the learned author of the Philosophical 
 Arrangements, p. 191) " that great is called great; with 
 reference to J'ew that majii/ are called matii/" Again, " so 
 merely relative are many of these excesses and defects, that 
 the same subject, from its different relations, may be found 
 susceptible of both at once. The mountain, which by its 
 relation to the mole-hill is great, in relation to the earth is 
 little.''' The same will hold good with regard to a gift, 
 benefit, or distinction. These will appear either large or 
 small, great or little, not from their intrinsic value, but from 
 the merit or demerit of the persons on whom they are con- 
 ferred. From these considerations, the force of the Hebrew 
 expression will appear evident. Moses wishing to make 
 Korah and his associates sensible of the great distinction 
 which God had conferred upon them, did not say, pj/^H 
 
 dd'? i^ ^^ ^^''^^ '® y^^' ^^^^ D3^ toi^ion is it uttie 
 
 from you', — i. e. considering your own unworthiness, do 
 you not think that the benefits you enjoy, are greater than 
 you are entitled to ? Or, in other vs^ords, is it not sufficient 
 for you, that the Almighty has elected you as his immediate 
 servants, and seek ye the priesthood also ? 
 
64 
 
 noun, Sing, wh): ; Plu. m^V^)i• This very cir- 
 cumstance ought to have convinced Mr. B. that 
 his interpretation is wrong; for even Mr. B^ 
 would hardly venture to render that clause 
 ** and God brought Eve to Adam's sides" 
 
 Thirdly : because though 1/7^ doth some- 
 times mean a side,* yet, as this is only its 
 derivative, and not its primary meaning, it 
 ought not to be rendered so here without the 
 least necessity. 
 
 As the whole of Mr. B.'s misinterpretation 
 arises from his misconception of this word, 
 which in spite of the greatest authorities he 
 will have to signify a side, and not a rib, the 
 reader will pardon me if I enlarge on this sub- 
 ject. And, first, let us see by what ingenuity 
 
 These remarks are equally applicable to the other three 
 passages cited by Mr. B. No blame can be attached to the 
 translators for rendering the passages in the manner they 
 have done ; but to infer from their translation that J2 sig- 
 nifies TO, betrays, to say the least of it, a great want of 
 critical disrriniination. 
 
 * I am aware that several Hebrew writers have rendered 
 V^)^ in this verse by side; intimating that Eve was formed 
 out of Adam's side; but then they have only given it as a 
 J^1*7, not as the literal meaning of the word; nor has ever 
 any of them dreamt that Eve was created separately. The 
 merit of this discovery, therefore, belongs exclusively to 
 Mr. B. 
 
65 
 
 Mr. B. proves J^/if to signify a side. " In this 
 place only (says Mr. B.) in all Scripture is S^ilS 
 rendered to mean a rib. Now, when any word 
 makes the passages inconsistent with reason, 
 also when such word in other parts of Scripture 
 can have no such meaning, nor application, we 
 may rest assured that it is improperly trans- 
 lated." '' The word vr\vb)iD is applied to 
 things of the same kind, order, dimension, or 
 quality, Ezek. xli. 6. o?ie over the other, Hebrew, 
 " chamber over chamber." Exod. xxvi. 26, 27. 
 " Five for the boards of one side of the taber- 
 nacle, and five bars for the bars of the boards 
 of the OTHER SIDE of the tabernacle." 
 
 So that because l^l)i is rendered in some 
 parts of Scripture by side, it never can, accord- 
 ing to Mr. B. mean a rib. Now by the same 
 reasoning 'XV-.- cannot signify the thigh, because 
 it is sometimes used to express the side, or the 
 shaft; T]B)^ cannot mean the arm, because it is 
 sometimes used to express a particular dimen- 
 sion. Surely it requires no great learning to 
 know that in most languages, and particularly 
 in the Hebrew, words originally appropriated 
 to the various parts of the human body were 
 afterwards transferred to such parts of inani- 
 mate objects, which bore a resemblance to 
 them. Thus W)kl primarily denoted the head, 
 
 E 
 
66 
 
 and '7-?n the foot, of the human body, but 
 afterwards they were used to denote the 
 upper and lower extremities of things, as 
 nnn U;i<l the top of the mountain, \Tb'^n ^^yi 
 the feet of the table ; HD the mouth, to express 
 opening in general, as "li^nn ''D the mouth of 
 the will, &c. But, says Mr. B. i/'?^ is in no 
 other part of Scripture rendered by rib! Well, 
 and what then? Could not Mr. Bellamy's 
 sagacity discover the reason of this ? It is, 
 because the inspired writers had in no other 
 part of Scripture occasion to speak of this part 
 of the body. Certain it is that the Hebrew 
 language has no other word to express a rib, 
 but j/ /V ; and the most ancient Hebrew writers 
 whenever they had occasion to speak of a rib, 
 made use of no other term. Thus we find in 
 
 the MisHNA, iTmif'?:*^ 21"! iian::':! :jn \d r^h^1 
 
 " Supposing a beast fell from the roof and most 
 of her ribs are broken." (Tract. Cholin, 
 chap. 3. sect. 1.) 
 
 Thus also treating of the dissection of the 
 
 TDn ]n-|p the r\^^f2 says, 
 
 ^T\^h i!''}?2 i^in:^ m m-Ti^^n ;;ji3 n\n ^?^i 
 ;"iDi .13 n^t::^ >Db n:n:T n^nn ,r\i2i mj/S^; 
 ^nm ,]^^^D nwb^ ^n^ nn n'-m 7\i:b ^b i^2 
 1*7 J^n ■,n^^ ni n:iW 'd"? n2r^:^ jsdd nwb)i 
 
67 
 
 n>:D .Tn irji itoD'?^ m:D-i mx'b^; '•nt:''! .]'7;;d'7D 
 
 " He (meaning the priest) did not touch the 
 back bone till he came to the two small RIBS, 
 which he cut, and gave to him to whom they 
 belonged. He then went to the vertebre, and 
 leaving two RIBS on each side, he gave the part 
 to whom it belonged, &c. &c. He then went 
 to the left side, and left two BIBS at the 
 top, &c. Sec. (Tract. Tamid, chap. iv. sect. 3.) 
 Both Onkelos and Jonathan have under- 
 stood this word in this sense, for both have 
 rendered it by the corresponding Chaldee word 
 '^nwhllD de costis ejus. But I forget! Mr. B. 
 has found out that the Latin translation of this 
 word is inaccurate, and that the learned critic 
 of the Quarterly Review who cites it, "/5 igno- 
 rant of the grammar of the Hebrew and Chaldee.'* 
 Because, says Mr, B. " the radix of ^■n;;'?;/Q is 
 ^1? to swallozvy* for support ; and support, aid. 
 
 * The Talmudists have ransacked ahnost every part of 
 the human body, and explained why Eve was made from a 
 rib in preference to any other part of the human body. 
 Thus they say (Midrash Rabah, chap. 18, p. 225). 
 
 ]D s'?! ,n^:ipD iSnn ah-^ i^yn ]0 s^ .nc'iSi 
 
 E 2 
 
68 
 
 help, are nearly of the same import, and I/7V 
 means to leaUy to halt, to rest; and the eastern 
 people when they halt or rest, generally lie on 
 the side, to renew their strength, and thus 
 acquire support." Ergo, ^■^li/7J/D must mean 
 3, side.* Wonderful man ! By such reasoning 
 
 n'?::' n^n p i^*?! .n->jn^''y i^nn »^W ]r«n 
 rT':n^5JP ^^nn .s'?^ nSn ]d t^ht n^nm ^^nn 
 
 :nDi:3D ^^n m-i;; n;::i;7ti^ n;;j^n 'l'7^i:l^^ 
 
 God did not form her out of Adam's head, that she mio^ht 
 not be proud — not from the eye, that she might not gaze on 
 every thing — not from the ear, that she might not listen to 
 every thing — not from the mouth, that she might not be too 
 talkative — not from the heart, that she might not be of a 
 jealous disposition — not from the hand, that she might not 
 meddle with every thing — not from the foot, that she might 
 not be a runagate — but from a part, which even in a naked 
 person, is covered, namely, the rib. It seems, however, there 
 is a snug corner which these sages have never thought of. 
 For, according to Mr. Bellamy's derivation '^n"'>/7i/D must 
 mean from his swalloiv or throat; Eve must then have 
 been formed out of Adam's throat. No wonder then that 
 the ladies are so fond of prattling ! 
 
 * Lest the reader should imagine I have mistaken the 
 sense of Mr. B.'s words, I give the following extract from 
 his Second Reply to the Quarterly Review; (C. J. No. 38. p. 
 255.) " The Chaldee word which is chosen by Onkelos for 
 
69 
 
 you may easily make out that "^JlM^/pD means 
 a goose. Because 1^1/ means to swallozvy and 
 a swallow is a bird, and so is a sparrow ; and a 
 sparrow and a goose are synonymous terms : 
 witness the word asparagus, which is a corrup- 
 tion from a sparrow goose ; ergo, Tni/Ti/l^D must 
 mean a goose ! Q. E. D. But to be serious. 
 Did it never strike this great philologist that 
 if V'h be the radix of ^"^^i;'7;;D, the second V 
 must be a servile letter, a thing which he hardly 
 would dare to maintain? However, to satisfv 
 Mr. B. that the Chaldee word means a rib, and 
 not a side,^ let him look at Jonathan's para- 
 phrase, and he will find the following words 
 
 the interpretation of the Hebrew word VJl^^'/i^SD tendered 
 in the common version, his ribs, is Tnj/7l7ZD> which comes 
 from the radix ^'l'^ ^<> swallow for support. See Prov^ xx. 
 25. devoureth. — Obad. 16. swallow. So that the interpre- 
 tation which Onkelos gives to the word Vmj/7KD is helps, 
 aids, supports, and not ribs, as in the common version. This 
 is in perfect agreement with y/V? in its root, which means 
 to lean, to halt, to rest, Gen. xxxii. 31, 32, &c. ; and so it is 
 applied to mean side, as the eastern people when they halt or 
 rest, generally lie on the side, to renew their strength, and 
 thus xQ({mre support ! /" 
 
 * The Chaldee word for side is ^^^0D 
 
70 
 
 T • : - ; 
 
 "And he took one of his ribs: it is the thirteenth 
 rib of the right side." Now, unless Mr. B. is 
 prepared to say that Adam's right side was a 
 TRiscA DECAGON, he will allow that TIU'vl^C) 
 must mean "of his ribs ;" and instead of charg- 
 ing the Translator of the Chaldee version, and 
 the Quarterly Reviewer with ignorance, ac- 
 knowledge his own errors. 
 
 n^nnn 1:^2 IJD^I Mr. B. renders these 
 words by " whose flesh he had enclosed in her 
 place ;" and lest he should not be understood, 
 explains in one of his notes what he means by 
 these words. Had he found such an interpre- 
 tation in any other version, he would un- 
 doubtedly have said " modesty ought to cover 
 it with a veil." He may think it very ingeni- 
 ous, but I can assure him that it has not even 
 the merit of novelty. It will be sufficient to 
 cite the words " DIpD'? J^\^ H^lVi ^V' with- 
 out pointing out the part of the Talmud where 
 it occurs. It certainly is not a little remarkable, 
 that Mr. B. who so often exclaims against 
 Jewish interpretation, should here adopt a most 
 whimsical interpretation of an ancient Rabbi ; 
 improving it by rendering, contrary to gramma- 
 
71 
 
 tical rule, 111^^ 1JD''1 " whose flesh he had en- 
 closed.'* 
 
 " And the Lord God built the substance 
 of the other.'* The word which Mr. B. renders 
 substance is in Hebrew HS; a particle which 
 according to the authority of the first Hebrew 
 grammarians is the sign of the objective case. 
 But Mr. B. mistaking, as I suppose, Aben 
 Ezra's meaning of "13in OV;/ M2D n^^ DJJiD^ 
 (Comment on Gen. chap, i.) has taken it in 
 his head, that ^^5 means substance. Then 
 according to him we must translate 7)in r\^ 
 the substance of the shadow ! 
 
 I^7yn According to this great Hebraist 
 means of the other. The reader will natu- 
 rally ask, why, Mr. B. has just labored very 
 hard to prove that Vl^ means a side, how then 
 can it be rendered of the other? A little 
 patience, kind reader ! Nothing is impossible 
 to such a Translator. He gives you nothing 
 but what " is confirmed by other parts of 
 Scripture;" and where the original fails him, 
 he does not scruple even to stoop for support 
 to the reviled English Version, always abiding 
 by this golden rule, that " Scripture must be 
 its own interpreter." In this instance, he cites 
 Exod. xxvi. 27. not indeed the Hebrew, which 
 would not have answered the purpose so well. 
 
72 
 
 but the English Version, viz, " the other side of 
 the tabernacle."* 
 
 As Mr. B. has cited this passage to confirm 
 his own interpretation, it follows (for I can 
 hardly suppose he would designedly mislead 
 his readers) that he imagined the Translators 
 have rendered I^/V, by, the other. If so, 
 I really pity his ignorance : — as it is evident, 
 that it was the word n''JIi^n they have rendered 
 so, and not V^)S. Consequently, before Mr. B. 
 can justify this whimsical translation, " and 
 Jehovah God built the substaiice of the other," 
 he must expunge the word I^/V from the origi- 
 nal, and interpolate iT'^JJi^H ! 
 
 And this is the gentleman that dares abuse 
 all former Translators ! — dares to charge them 
 with ignorance ! — dares to offer a new transla- 
 tion of the Bible ! — In what an extraordinary 
 age do we live ! 
 
 I will not tire the reader's patience by 
 any further remarks on this famous interpre- 
 tation. It is sufficient to say, that the succeed- 
 ing passages are executed in the same style. 
 
 * The corresponding- Hebrew words are, J/7^^ the side 
 ofj pli'Dnthe tabernacle, Jl^^JiTl the second or other, th&i 
 is to say, the second or other side of the tabernacle. 
 
73 
 
 One thing must appear evident, that the author 
 of the New Translation, instead of endeavor- 
 ing to find out the true sense of the original, 
 adopts certain opinions, and by mangling the 
 Hebrew words, contrives, somehow or other, 
 to fasten them on the inspired writer. 
 
 In the same manner has he perverted 
 almost every word in Gen. ix. 21, 22, 23, 24. 
 merely to give plausibihty to his strange 
 notions, that Noah was a high-priest! that he 
 had a tabernacle! and cherubim! and symbols! 
 
 And what havoc did he not make in that 
 part of Scripture, wherein the intercourse of 
 Lot and his daughters is mentioned. The 
 sacred Historian relates an historical fact; 
 accounting at the same time for the origin 
 of two nations, whose history was in some 
 measure connected with that of the Israelites, 
 and whose conduct had a very great influence 
 upon them. In giving the particulars of this 
 event, and in connecting it with the preceding 
 narrative, the inspired writer has shewn us 
 that every deviation from rectitude is preg- 
 nant with evil, and sure to be productive of 
 the most pernicious consequences. For it is 
 evident, that had Lot not separated himself 
 from his virtuous benefactor, Abraham, and 
 had he not taken up his abode with the most 
 
74 
 
 wicked of men, he would not have been 
 exposed to the danger of being involved in 
 their ruin; nor could the recorded transaction 
 with his daughters have taken place. The 
 sacred Historian wished most probably also to 
 point out, that good intentions alone do not 
 justify improper means. For, certain it is, that 
 the conduct of Lot's daughters did not proceed 
 from low appetite, but that it was a moral 
 aberration, arising from the excess of a feeling, 
 in itself excellent; namely, the maternal in- 
 stinct, or desire of offspring.* Considering 
 
 • Nothing, perh<njs, more strongly evinces the teme- 
 rity, the profligacy, and the ignorance of Infidels and 
 Deists, than their objecting to this, and similar passages of 
 the Bible, under the pretence of their immoral tendency. — 
 Sunk in the grossest sensuality, they (an find nothing in such 
 narratives, but what calls forth the most impure thoughts, 
 and thus wickedly transfer tlieir own perverted feelings 
 to the narrator. Instead of considering the age, the customs, 
 the manners and state of society, (considerations without 
 which it is impossible to form a proper judgment of any 
 transaction,) they judge events of the remotest antiquity, by 
 the present constitution of society ; nay, often by the most 
 perverted feelings of the most corrupt state of the same. 
 — No wonder, then, that they come to such erroneous 
 conclusions. 
 
 Indeed, it would almost provoke one to smile, if it were 
 possible to smile on so serious a subject, to hear these 
 
75 
 
 the narrative in this point of view, I do not 
 see any reasonable objection to it. But Mr. B. 
 
 apostles of iniquity exclaim ag'ainst the morality of the Bible ! 
 — against the morality of that Book, the whole scope and 
 only purpose of which is, to purge away the impurities of 
 human nature, and to make men holy. " YE SHALL BE 
 HOLY," says the word of God, " FOR I THE LORD 
 YOUR GOD AM HOLY."— And yet the morality of this 
 book, is to be called in question ! — and by whom ! — by men 
 whose courses are as corrupt as their principles are vicious. 
 — Men whose daily practices are in direct contradiction to 
 their hypocritical cant — and of whom it may, therefore, 
 JHStly be said "Ipji^ WW'p'2'Cr\ nZ?r H^^/D U'p']]) 
 Dn5S3 They do the deeds of ZIMRI, and claim the 
 reward of PHTNEHAS. 
 
 Such ravings scarcely deserve serious refutation ; nor 
 would I have noticed them, had not the New Tianslator 
 countenanced these l)lasphemies, by imputing to the transla- 
 tions the very things which Deists alledge against the sacred 
 book itself. — " On reading this passage,'^ says Mr. B. in 
 one of his notes, " evert/ individual must necessarily feel 
 that disgust tchich is impossible for all the powers of 
 language to describe P' It is in vain to say that his 
 objections are directed against the translations only. For, 
 as I have elsewhere observed, should it turn out, as un- 
 questionably it will, that the translation of these passages 
 is substantially correct, the censures levelled against it 
 must fall with equal force on the original. And thus is the 
 Bible laid prostrate at the feet of unbelievers, by the very 
 man who professes to defend it. 
 
76 
 
 who is sure to re-echo the mnrmurings of 
 Deists, having persuaded himself that Lot was 
 
 In order to remove the erroneous impressions which 
 such objections, when backed by the authority of a believer 
 in revelation, are calculated to make on weak minds, we will 
 endeavor to place this subject in its proper light; relying on 
 the candid reader's pardon, if, with this view, we exceed the 
 usual limits of a note. 
 
 A celebrated author, to whom the following may justly 
 be applied, " Vir in divinis Scripturis eruditissimus, 8^ in 
 secularihus nobiliter doctus, carmine excellem, Sf prosa, 
 eloquio, disertus, sensu profundus, ingenio suhtilis, asser- 
 tione nervosus, vita 8f conversatione sanctissimus appartiit^* 
 — has recommended the Bible as the Statesman's Manuel. 
 And one lesson at least of sound state policy, one most 
 instructive warning for " the nations of the earth, and for 
 all that bear rule therein,'^ does the Bible present to us in 
 the history of those races and communities, who had made 
 civilization the substitute for true cultivation, instead of its 
 result and accompaniment ; declining in morals in exact 
 proportion to their progress in artificial manners : till at 
 length conventional refinements, and a strained delicacy in 
 language and demeanor, so far from being the natural 
 polish and bloom on the fruit of inward holiness, were but 
 the varnish and provocatives of sensuality and unclean 
 imaginations. Nothing, indeed, can be conceived more 
 oflensive to a pure mind, or more alien from the healthy 
 condition of a moral being ; — nothing more hateful in itself, 
 or more pernicious in its consequences, than that mental 
 familiarity with impure images and vicious recollections, 
 which infecting and leaveninjr the whole mass of our 
 
77 
 
 a saint, and that a saint cannot be guilty of 
 a fault, even unintentionally, concluded, that 
 
 associations, degrades the best and holiest of our nature 
 into recoUective links and suggestions of the meanest 
 and foulest. And, yet, to such an extreme has this unchaste 
 hypocritical mock-modesty been carried in certain periods of 
 that ower-civilization which (as we have already observed) is 
 itself but the lying counterfeit of substantial cultivation, that 
 it has been almost forbidden in good society, or at least 
 hazarded with a sort of apologetic shrinking, to express 
 in simple and appropriate terms the domestic bonds and 
 proprieties in which. 
 
 Relations dear and all the charities 
 
 Of father, son, and brother, 
 
 subsist and originate: thus defaming as impure or unseemly, 
 what God himself has pronounced chaste, not unbefitting 
 holiest talk ! and this too, forsooth, because it is feared, the 
 means by which the inferior tendencies of our nature are 
 taken up into, and hidden in our nobler affections, our proper 
 humanity — even as the dark and heavy mist is raised, refined, 
 transpierced, and as it were clothed by the genial light, that 
 awakens and calls it forth — lest, I say, the very means. 
 
 By which adulterous lust was driven from man 
 Among the bestial herds to range, 
 
 might be instantly connected in their own minds, and those of 
 their hearers or readers, with impulses (or rather with re- 
 collections of vicious abandonment to impulses) which in 
 the bestial herds themselves appear rather a brief resumption 
 of their individual will by nature, tlian an act of their own. 
 
 Now among the many and various characteristics of the 
 Bible, neither the least strikiu": uor the least affectin'r trait 
 
78 
 
 no such intercourse had taken place; and that 
 Lot was not inebriated. Now the Jews had, at 
 
 is the prominence every where given to the rational maternal 
 instinct, to the instinctive desire of offspring in woman. 
 This indeed is woman-hood itself, and all the contra-distin- 
 guishing womanly virtues are (more or less remotely) 
 derived from this. This, in a natural state of society, is 
 the predisposing, not seldom the strongest, but generally the 
 earliest, ground of the conjugal: revealing itself manifoldly, 
 long before the natural means to its proper object exist in 
 thought or wish. - And accordingly, the Bible brands with 
 the mark of folly and debasement, both in man and woman, 
 every act and every behavior evincing the existence and 
 predominance of the animal JEsttis, by and for itself 
 singly, and not subordinated to higher ends and desires 
 more properly human — while by express prohibition, and 
 special example, it attaches the name and penalty of 
 atrocious guilt to the crime of intentionally separating the 
 former from the latter, the appetite from the instinct, the 
 gratification from the duty. On the other hand, these 
 sacred writings are equally distant from the proud pre- 
 sumptuousness and unnatural austerity of those monkish 
 ascetics, who would dehumanize, and thus demoralize their 
 disciples under the pretence of a super-moral and angelic 
 purity ! — What uncorrupted heart can read the stories of 
 Rachel, Leah, Ruth, Hannah, and others, without seeming 
 to breathe the pure elastic atmosphere of a world that had 
 not yet lost its child-like innocence and simplicity ! What 
 uncoutaminated mind can contemplate those primordial scenes 
 of domestic tranquillity and pure modes of life, without feeling 
 a regret that they should ever have been supplanted by what 
 
79 
 
 least, as great a veneration for the Bible as 
 Mr. Bellamy: and I dare assure him, that in 
 
 we call refinements of manners ! Flow polluted, how debased, 
 nay, how depraved must those beings then be, who in reading 
 these faithful transcripts of patriarchal times can feel no other 
 emotions, save such as degrade human nature ! When there- 
 fore Infidels exclaim against these histories as having a 
 tendency to immorality, the only answer they deserve to 
 have is this — " Ye sons of Belial ! ye little think that in 
 thus attempting to throw discredit on the Bible, you proclaim 
 your own shame — you uncover your own nakedness, and lay 
 open the filthy sources whence your objections flow. — It is to 
 you, and men like you, that the Prophet alluded, when he so 
 emphatically exclaimed, " JVoe unto them that call evil 
 good, and good evil ; that put darkness for light, and 
 light for darkness f" 
 
 The preceding remarks will equally apply to the trans- 
 action under immediate consideration. For as we have 
 already observed, the conduct of Lot's daughters did evi- 
 dently not proceed from blameable motives. Having wit- 
 nessed the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, they held 
 it for certain, that excepting themselves and their father, 
 not a human being was left. Now we know that in that 
 remote period of the world, the parental feeling was much 
 stronger than it is now. To be barren, was to cease to 
 exist: for the word ")pI/> Dlpj/'. /warren, literally means 
 to be eradicated; to be torn up by the root. To be child- 
 less was considered as the greatest of calamities: whereas, 
 on the contrary", a numerous offspring was considered as 
 the greatest of blessings. " Give me children, (exclaimed 
 Rachel), or else 1 die!" — And when llip Almighty who 
 
80 
 
 this respect at least, we have not degenerated 
 from our forefathers. And yet they did, and 
 we do believe that such an intercourse took 
 place; and so thoroughly were they persuaded 
 
 alone knows the secret thoughts — who alone can judge of 
 the purity of our intentions, had heard her prayer, she 
 joyfully exclaimed, ^JlDtn TlN^ D^Phi^ =1DX " God 
 has put an end to my shame!" — With such feelings, then, 
 and under circumstances so peculiar, were these daughters 
 led to commit a crime forbidden in the same sacred books 
 as the blackest and foulest of sins. So far then is this nar- 
 rative from containing any thing that has a tendency to im- 
 morality, that I think it must, if viewed in its proper light, 
 have the contrary effect. At all events it serves to point out, 
 and confirm this important truth, namely, that the moral 
 sense on which Infidels lay so much stress, is of itself 
 insufficient to guard us against excesses ; and that the light 
 of reason, unassisted by divine revelation, will often, like an 
 IGNIS FATUUS, lead us astray. 
 
 Instead, therefore, of joining the worst and most igno- 
 rant of Infidels in charges by which infidelity itself is 
 disgraced, let us rather return thanks to the faithful his- 
 torian, who, by placing before us the failings as well as 
 the virtues of ancient races, has furnished us with the best 
 means of imitating the one, and avoiding the other. And 
 instead of joining the New Translator in ignorantly supposing 
 that this narrative contains any thing that must make us feel 
 ^^ that disgust which is impossible for the powei-s of lan- 
 guage to describe,'''' let us rather join the wisest of men, 
 in declaring that nSITlf ^^ JllDi^ " The word of the 
 Lord is pure!" 
 
81 
 
 of Lot's inebriation, that the opinion has passed 
 into a proverb: for whenever they wish to ex- 
 press, in famihar discourse, that a person is dead 
 drunk, they say he is as (lIDti') drunk as Lot! 
 yet, in defiance of this traditional opinion, in 
 spite of the Hebrew text, Mr. B. will have it 
 tiiat Lot was quite sober; and to prove it, he 
 so distorts the Hebrew words from their obvious 
 meanings — makes such a confusion between 
 nominatives, genitives, datives, and accusa- 
 tives — and in a number of loquacious notes, 
 pours out such volumes of abuse against the 
 Translators, ancient and modern — that any per- 
 son at all acquainted with the rudiments of the 
 Hebrew, must be at a loss at which to be 
 most surprised — at Mr. Bellamy's ignorance,* 
 or at his presumption. 
 
 * To point out all the gross errors which Mr. B. has 
 committed in translating this single chapter, would take up 
 more room than I have at present to spare. I shall 
 therefore only notice a few of his blunders, in as far as they 
 relate to the passages under consideration. 
 
 Verse 25. — j)li,T\ D^")X/n» these cities; Mr. B. renders 
 
 •• T • T V 
 
 the cities of the God! — Now a mere tyro in Hebrew could 
 tell him that this is a gross grammatical blunder; for 
 when a plural noun terminating in Q'' is put in regimeuy 
 the (D) is invariably dropt, and the preceding vowel-point 
 (■) changed into {*•); nor could the noun in such case pos- 
 
 F 
 
82 
 
 CHAF3 ii]r<» 
 
 THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED. 
 
 IN the preceding Chapter, we have given 
 some examples of Mr. Bellamy's New Transla- 
 
 sibly retain tFie definite H. — According to Mr. B.'s trans- 
 lation the word corresponding with cities of, ought to have 
 been nj/, and not D^'li/H- 
 
 Verse 26. — VnHi^'ipyV'O'w behind him, Mr. B. renders, 
 q/ier his posterity ! 3^ifJ a pillar, he renders, a memorial! 
 rhl2 salt, destruction/ 
 
 Verse 30. — n"li//D3 '^^ renders properly enough in his 
 text, a cave; but in his notes he tells us it means a meadow ! 
 and refers his readers to chap. xx. 33. without mentioning 
 what book he means. I suppose, however, he means the 
 Book of Judges, where the established Version renders 
 mj/0 (quite a different word) by meadow. And this he 
 calls translating from the Hebrew only ! 
 
 Verse 31. — VlJ^S very properly rendered in the 
 established Version, in the earth; as Lot's daughters imagined 
 the destruction had been universal ; yet he will have it to 
 mean the land. 
 
 Verse 32. — Hpti^J is evidently in the hiphil form, and 
 therefore correctly rendered in the established Version, we 
 will make our father drink; yet the Hebrew grammarian 
 renders it as if it were in the simple form (7p,) we will 
 drink ! The same blunder is repeated in verse 33, and 
 with double aggravation in verse 34, where he renders 
 
83 
 
 tion; and we have seen, not without astonish- 
 ment, the liberties which he takes with the 
 
 ISpIi^i we will make him drink, by, we will drink ; 
 altogether omitting- (IJ) the sign of the objective pronoun. 
 He renders every where the verb 33 Ji^ to lie down, by 
 TO ABIDE, and Dip to rise, to stand up, by to marry ! 
 
 Verse 36. — irT^Dt^D frotn their father, he renders, 
 by UNKNOWN TO THEIR FATHER: thus rendering 
 the single letter ?2 A^m, by UNKNOWN TO!! 
 
 Having thus exhibited such wonderful specimens of 
 Hebrew learning, he has the assurance thus to express 
 himself in one of his notes. " Some may ask, how could 
 the Jews be deceived as to their language ? would they not 
 have detected this error ? (The question is certainly impor- 
 tant — now mark his answer!) — " I, (Mr. BELLAMY) would 
 observe that the Jews have no advantage above the Christians 
 in acquiring a knowledge of the language; had they, surely 
 before this day it would have been shewn, that all those 
 palpable contradictions and inconsistencies which disgrace 
 the translations, are not to be found in the original: it 
 would have advanced the credit of the Jewish as well as 
 the Christian religion. But indeed the far greater part 
 of the Jews in all nations, though they pronounce the 
 Hebrew, or read the Hebrew Bible, yet they know not the 
 meaning; and are obliged to gain their knowledge of the 
 original from the national translations." Now leaving Mr. 
 B.'s readers to admire the logic of this passage, I must 
 calmly ask Mr. B. himself, whether he has ever heard of such 
 men as Jonathan, Onkehs, the author of the Mishnah, the 
 composers and compilers of the Talmud ^ or of Sadias, 
 Maimonides, Aben - Ezra, Jarchi, Kimchi, Abarhanel, 
 
 F 2 
 
84 
 
 original. But all this is nothing, comparatively 
 speaking, to the daring liberties which he has 
 taken with the sacred text in other parts of 
 Scripture; and particularly, with that part 
 relating to the tenth plague which the Almighty 
 brought upon the Egyptians. The following 
 are the passages which describe, and refer to 
 this most awful event. 
 
 I .. .. _ y .. ^ . , . . . . T : - T 
 
 "pjsi n^n in*?^^ ]^oti ^)1^}J'\ ^^ r^^ T^bh 
 
 Exod. iv. 22. " Thus says the Lord, Israel is 
 my son, even my first-born : — 23. And I say 
 
 Manasseh Ben Israel, Moses Mendelson, Hirtz Wessley, and 
 (it is no hyperbole when I say) thousands of others? — and 
 whether he intended to include these men in the minority 
 or in the majority? Be this as it may, I think his answer 
 is the most silly that could be given to so important a 
 question ! I hope, however, he will permit me to answer it 
 for him. It is, because the Jews have too great a reverence 
 for their sacred books, than to disfigure and mutilate them 
 in the same horrible manner as the modern translator has 
 dared to do. 
 
 * The following literal version is here given, merely 
 to show that the deviations in the English translation do not 
 materially affect the sense. 
 
 1. said 2! my first-born son is Israel 3. and I 
 said 4. send 5. behold I slay (>. thy first-born son. 
 
85 
 
 unto thee, let my son go that he may serve me: 
 and if thou refuse to let him go, behold I will 
 slay thy son, even thy first-born." 
 
 •jiD^P DnVP n*"?? "ii33''?3 rini : Dnvp 
 
 1 •• ; ; : • T " T - - 
 
 1 
 
 Thus says the Lord, about midnight I will 
 
 go out into the midst of Egypt : and all the Jirst' 
 
 born in the land of Egypt shall die, from the 
 
 first-born of Pharoah that sitteth upon his throne, 
 
 eve?i unto the frst-born of the maid servant that 
 
 3 
 
 is behind the mill; and all the frst-born of beast, 
 Exod. xi. 4 — 6. 
 
 I .... . . ^ ^ , T . _ -f . — . _ . . . J _ 
 
 ilD3 '^n isp3-'7j;; y^^n f\v^^ -)iD3p Dnyp 
 : nipn^ "il33 bji nlan n^n? -^m ••atpn 
 
 And it came to pass, that at midnight the 
 Lord smote all the frst-born in the land of 
 Egypt, from the frst-born of Pharoah that sat 
 
 1. said 2. I go out 3. cattle 4. and it was in 
 half of the night 5. and the Lord. 
 
86 
 
 on his throne unto the Jirst-horn of the captive 
 that was in the dungeon; and all the Jirst-born 
 of cattle. Exod. xii. 29. 
 
 In consequence of this awful event we 
 find (Exod. xiii. 2.) that God commanded 
 
 Moses ^^"W) •'ias onybs ntoa -li::^''?^ "^^r^lp. 
 
 " Sanctify unto me the first-born,'* &c. &:c. 
 The particulars relating to this command are 
 s^iven in verse 12 and 13. which last verse con- 
 cludes with the following words ZH^ '^^^'^~W\ 
 ni^n ^^233 " And all the Jirst-born of man 
 amongst thy sons thou shall redeem.'* The divine 
 writer proceeds, ver. 14, 15. 
 
 ^nm^ n^rnD I'mb inn ?j?n ^^i^tf'r^? ^^^] 
 
 t:i;1 Dli? "ii33» Dnvp p.s:3 "li^r'js njn^ 
 DH") "i^|i"^3 nin^S nn? "'^i:? is-'^jtr nonn 1133 
 
 6 
 
 ^wc? «7 5^(2// be when thy son asheth thee in 
 time to come, saying, what is this ? that thou shalt 
 
 6. shall ask — 7. to-morrow, or in future time — 8. and 
 
87 
 
 say unto him. By strength of hand the Lord 
 brought us out from Egypt, from the house of 
 
 9 
 
 bondage: and it came to pass when Pharaoh 
 
 10 
 
 Would hardly let us go, that the Lord slew all 
 
 the first-horn in the land of Egypt, both the first- 
 born of man, and the frst-horn of beast : there- 
 fore I sacrifice to the Lord all that openeth the 
 
 12 
 
 matrix, being male ; but all the firstborn of my 
 
 13 
 
 children I redeem, Exod. xiii. 14, 15. 
 
 Now I ask the candid reader who knows 
 any thing of the Hebrew language, whether 
 it is possible, without wilful perversion, to put 
 any other construction upon the above cited 
 passages, than what the translators have done ? 
 namely, that God had slain the first-born males 
 of the Egyptians, as well as those of their 
 cattle ; and that the laws respecting the sacri- 
 fices, and redemption of the first-born, were ex- 
 pressly instituted, for the purpose of keeping this 
 awful event alive in the minds of the Israelites, 
 from generation to generation ?* Yet, Mr. 
 
 9. servants or slaves — 10. hardened or resisted — 11. from, 
 &c. — 12. the males — 13. sons. 
 
 * These laws were most religiously observed by the 
 nation, not only during the existence of the temple wor- 
 ship, but even from the dispersion down to our own days. 
 
88 
 
 Bellamy dares to tell a learned world, that no 
 such event ever took place. " That there is not 
 any mention made in the original Hebrew tei% of 
 destroying the Jirst-born children^ hut only every 
 idol which was the firstling of beasts /" To support 
 this extraordinary assertion, and to father it on 
 the sacred text, he renders, in opposition to gram- 
 mar, in opposition even to his own authority, the 
 words "|Tl!53 1J2 " thy offspring of thy firstling F* 
 and he renders "1133 every where by firstling! 
 and he explains it to mean, not the firstling of 
 man, but of cows, goats,. '* and every species 
 of quadrupeds, also the serpent genus from the 
 leviathan to the snake!'* he. But as the words 
 DIJ^ "IIDHD chap. xiii. 15. " from the iirst-born 
 of man,"* could not so easily be metamorphised 
 into a firstling, what does Mr. B. do ! why, he 
 
 particularly that part of the law which relates to the re- 
 demption of the first-born, which amongst the Jews is called 
 pn |V12- A whole volume of the TM^12 and "llD'pn 
 treats exclusively of these very laws. 
 
 * In rendering the words "111 33 ^33 l^y ^^'y offspring 
 of thyJirstUng, Mi-. B. has not only violated the gramma- 
 tical rules of the Hebrew language, but also the first 
 principles of universal grammar : for the two nouns having 
 each a possessive affix, cannot upon any principle of grammar 
 be rendered as if the former were in regimen. 
 
89 
 
 renders the particle 22 by not* and dares to 
 make a negative out of an affirmative clause ! 
 
 * D or VQfrom, succeeded by "T^J/T and until, is equiva- 
 lent to the English words both inclusive, as indeed it is inva- 
 riably rendered in the established Version. 
 
 f Noldius in the long list of meanings which he 
 erroneously attaches to the single letter ^, tells us, it 
 answers to the Latin non ; an assertion as absurd as if an 
 English grammarian should make from and not synonymous 
 words, only because in the sentence " It is far from the trutli"' 
 not might be substituted for the words, far from, without 
 practically affecting the meaning ! But, indeed, the very 
 examples which he cites, show how completely he was mis- 
 taken. Where is the Hebrew scholar who will venture to 
 say, that " Et dixit, Justa est, non ego,'' (Gen. xxxiii. 16.) 
 is the proper translation of "^^JQD HPI^ "IDJ^^l; Oi** 
 
 .... 't : T 
 
 auscultare non sacrifcium est bonvm'' — of n!3TD l/lDti^ 
 mtO! The rest of his examples are of the same description. 
 I have no hesitation to say, that there is not a single instance 
 in Scripture where f2 <^^" with propriety be rendered as a 
 negative. 
 
 The following extracts will enable the reader to judge 
 of Mr. Bellamy's opinions on this important subject: — 
 
 (Note on v. 23. ch. iv. Exod.) " It must appear to the 
 serious and impartial reader, that the just and merciful God 
 would not destroy all the first-born children of Egypt fur 
 the wickedness and obstinacy of one man ; as is signified in 
 the common Version, &c. Words more pointed as referring 
 to the first-born children cannot be chosen. But (says Mr. 
 B.) the reader must remem.ber that this is only in the 
 common Version; no such statement can possibly be made 
 
90 
 
 THE FOLLOWING IS HIS TRANSLATION OF THIS VERSE. 
 
 " For it was when Fharoah refused to send 
 us forth; that Jehovah slew every firstling of 
 
 from the Hebrew. Besides it ivould make crying and 
 smiling infants, who had not offended, to suffer for the 
 sins of their parent s.^^ 
 
 (Note on 29. xii.) '* It has long been said, both by 
 ancient and modern objectors, that the execution of this 
 severe judgment on the whole population of Egypt, must 
 have been unjustifiably cruel, as millions of innocent people, 
 fathers, mothers, and infants, who could not offend, were not 
 accountable for the sins of their governors ; " It certainly 
 has this appearance as it stands in the translation.^* 
 
 I have neither leisure nor patience to copy the whole of 
 this note, which extends to seven closely printed columns ; 
 I therefore only give the concluding part, and refer the 
 reader to the work itself; assuring him, that he will there 
 find Mr. B. extended in all his glory ; surrounded by 
 specimens of Hebrew criticism, and logical reasoning, quite 
 worthy of the Author. 
 
 " Now, (says Mr. B.) for the credit of the Bible — of 
 the Christian religion — of humanity — and in justification of 
 the unimpeachable moral of God, let it be made known to 
 all Infidels, and pubUshed to all Christian nations, that there 
 is no mention made in the original Hebrew of destroying 
 the first-born children of the Egyptians ; but only every 
 idol which was the firstling of beast. And when it is 
 recollected that every Egyptian at this period had bis 
 household God, his firstling, even from Pharoah who sat 
 on his throne, to the prisoner who lingered in the dungeon 
 of that tyrant, and that these beasts were worshipped by 
 
91 
 
 the land of, Egypt ; NOT the first-born of maUt 
 BUT the FIRSTLING of beasts : therefore I sacri- 
 
 them, even the whole genus of the different species of 
 quadrupeds ; also the serpent genus in all its various species 
 from the leviathan to the snake, it is easy to conceive that 
 the poor who could not purchase a costly God might get a 
 God for nothing. (Indeed! — How lucky!) "and though it 
 was not deemed so fashionable to have a God of little worth, 
 yet the poor were not precluded." (How fortunate !) "Every 
 one was thus accommodated with a God which could be 
 carried about. (How convenient ! and were the firstling of 
 these also destroyed ?) Such was the polytheism of that age. 
 Therefore (a most conclusive reason, to be sure !) the words 
 of the text are by the sacred writer applied with full effect, 
 and are so plain that they cannot be mistaken, to what class 
 the word ^'^'^'^ firstling was applied, &c. &c. &c." 
 
 " Yet still the question may be asked (and a very 
 important one it is) why have not these things been known .^ 
 why have not the clergy given us this information ? which 
 clears the moral character of God from the imputation of 
 those things which would be dis£:raceful to man ? (Now 
 mark the answer.) I believe it will be acknowledged that 
 no doubt can be entertained concerning the candor and 
 learning of the clergy. — But a thing so important as that 
 of a national revision of the Bible, does not rest with them. 
 Much praise is certainly due to many of our learned prelates 
 and clergy, whose zeal for the love of truth has induced them 
 to labor for the accomplishment of so desirable an object 
 as a literal translation from the original Hebrew only. 
 Because their wish is to see the sacred volume in the 
 English language divested of those errors which have laid 
 
92 
 
 jice BEFORE Jehovah every opener (xf the matrix 
 being males; for exiery Jirst-born of my children 
 I redeem. 
 
 Thus doth this innovator presume, not 
 only to oppose the general belief of Jews 
 and Christians, but to change the word of 
 God from affirmative into a negative ! Surely 
 whoe.ver has a spark of religion within him, 
 must reprobate such unwarrantable attempts. 
 And yet, this gentleman tells us, in almost 
 every page, that he does these things for the 
 credit of the Bible — for the promotion of reli- 
 gion — and for the downfal of Deism! — How the 
 credit of the Bible is to be advanced by putting 
 in the mouth of its writers the most unintelligible 
 jargon, and the greatest of absurdities, I know 
 not. I am equally ignorant how religion is to 
 be promoted by pouring the most undeserved 
 abuse on its teachers ; — and it remains for 
 Mr. B. to explain how Deism can be defeated 
 by calling its abettors, *' ingenious," " of a 
 searching turn of mind,'* and by ascribing the 
 
 the foundation of infidelity, and of expressions ichich 
 modesty would cover with oblivion, but which are not to be 
 found in Hebrew; — I repeat — which are not to be found in 
 Hebrew." And this is the answer to the question— why 
 have not these things been known ! ! 
 
93 
 
 cause of their wickedness, not to the corrup- 
 tion of their own hearts, — but to the ignorance 
 of the translators. — For my part, so far am I 
 from believing Mr. Bellamy's publication calcu- 
 lated to diminish infidelity, that I am confident 
 it will, if not checked, increase it. 
 
 One of the evils which may be appre- 
 hended from Mr. Bellamy's works, I have 
 already stated in the preface ; namely, that 
 from his throwing such discredit on all former 
 translations, the confidence of those who derive 
 their religious tenets from those sources (and 
 they comprehend by far the greater part of 
 Jews and Christians,) must be shaken, and 
 they will consequently be left a prey to 
 sceptism, and an easy victim to the all-de- 
 vouring grasp of infidelity. 
 
 Another very great objection to Mr. 
 Bellamy's publication is, that he has collected 
 in his work such a mass of infidel objections 
 against the Bible, as is hardly to be found in 
 any single production of Deistical writers ; 
 and he has, in most instances, attached a 
 degree of importance to them, whicli they 
 really do not merit. 
 
 Whether it was at all decorous to place 
 the ravings of blasphemers, in the same page 
 with the sacred truth of revelation, is a 
 
94 
 
 question which a religious man will not be 
 ready to answer in the affirmative. Certain 
 it is that such attempts are sure to do more 
 harm than good. 
 
 The Bible is a book which happily is 
 read by all classes of people, literate as well 
 as illiterate. The former require not Mr. 
 Bellamy's learning to quiet their scruples, or 
 to silence Deists : they can apply either to the 
 resources of their own cultivated minds, or to 
 well written and approved works which treat 
 exclusively of such subjects. As for the illi- 
 terate, they are much better without them. 
 Such subjects can only bewilder their minds, 
 and produce what a wise and eloquent senator 
 has so well expressed, " a shallow Infidel."* 
 Now myriads of beings have hitherto read 
 the Bible with satisfaction and profit, without 
 knowing that such men as Collins, Tyndal, 
 
 * " Take a man from his daily labor, and point out to 
 him any moral precept of his religion, and he understands it; 
 but let the same man dive deep into questions, and doctrine, 
 and bring to his knowledge a few of the objections urged 
 against it, and with his slight information he becomes a 
 shallow Infidel." — Mr. Plunkefs speech on the Seditious 
 Meeting Bill, as reported in the Times Newspaper, 
 December 4, 1819. 
 
95 
 
 •Bolingbroke, Voltaire, and others of the same 
 description, ever existed ; and without being 
 aware of their blasphemous opinions. Mr. B. 
 has collected their objections, and placed them 
 in a conspicuous view, for the purpose, as he 
 tells us, to refute them. But has he forgotten 
 that whilst he teaches the illiterate to answer, 
 he also teaches them to ask questions — and 
 that whilst he endeavors to pull up Deism by 
 the root, he at the same time assists in 
 propagating its shoots, and in diffusing its 
 pernicious influence ! 
 
 Surely no sensible man would set his house 
 on fire, merely for the pleasure of extinguishing 
 it ! nor would a kind father place poison before 
 an inexperienced child, for the sake of pointing 
 out its antidote ! — If the ravings of Deists at 
 all deserve refutation, let it be done in separate 
 publications ; and let not their blasphemous 
 and venomous opinions, be placed at the very 
 source of the stream of life. 
 
 Were, therefore, Mr. Bellamy's refutations 
 the best that could be given, I should think 
 them misplaced, and consequently dangerous. 
 But how much more pernicious must his at- 
 tempts appear, when it is considered that he has 
 put the objections of Infidels in the strongest 
 light, and answered them often in the most silly 
 
96 
 
 manner; and that, instead of refuting them, he 
 has strengthened their cause, and furnished them 
 with fresh weapons of attack. 
 
 Let us compare Mr. B.'s opinions with those 
 of Deists, and see whether they are not equally 
 calculated seriously to injure religion. What does 
 the Deist say ? Why, " ye Jews and Christians, 
 you are the greatest idiots on earth; you believe 
 in things quite revolting to common sense; the 
 books you deem sacred are nothing but imposi- 
 tions; your ancestors were either as great fools as 
 you are, or the most wretched impostors.'* And 
 what does Mr. Bellamy say ? Why, he says, the 
 original Hebrew Scripture is certainly of divine 
 origin, but as for you Christians and Jews, you 
 are certainly a parcel of blockheads; your 
 ancestors were no better. They have taught 
 you things that do not stand in the original. 
 They professed to know something of this 
 ancient book, and you do the same ; . but I tell 
 you, that neither you, nor your fathers, nor your 
 fathers' fathers — neither Rabbi nor Bishop — • 
 neither Translator nor Commentator, ever un- 
 derstood its proper meaning. None but the 
 ancient Jews* in the time of Ezra, and I, 
 
 * The reader must recollect, that this is a hare assertion 
 of Mr. Bellamy's. It is doubtless for his own credit to have 
 
97 
 
 Mr. Bellamy, of Gray's Inn Lane, properly 
 understood it. This is the amount of Mr. B.*s 
 assertions. — Now I do not see any great differ- 
 ence between these two opinions. The one 
 tells us that the original work is an imposition — 
 the other, that the received sense of that work 
 is an imposition. — One accuses the original of 
 containing inconsistencies, contradictions, &c. — 
 the other removes these heavy charges from 
 the original, by kindly putting them on the 
 translations ; or, in other words, on the re- 
 ceived sense of the original. Both opinions ac- 
 cuse us and our ancestors of believing in things 
 which we do not understand ; — both impute ig- 
 norance to our best and wisest men ; — both are 
 equally absurd ; yet, nevertheless equally mis- 
 chievous. 
 
 Again, the Infidel accuses God of cruelty 
 for having slain the first-born of the Egyptians, 
 and for having ordered the destruction of the 
 Amalekites. And what does Mr. B. say? " O! 
 yes, you are right — God must be cruel if he 
 had acted thus, or thus commanded; but these 
 
 it supposed, that the ancient Jews were of the same mind 
 with himself. The motive for this assertion is evident 
 enough; but his proof, and the ground on which it rests, 
 Mr. B. has yet — to invent. 
 
 G 
 
98 
 
 things do not stand in the original.** Now if 
 it should after all appear that these things do 
 stand in the original, what follows ? Why, 
 according to Mr. B.'s argtiments, that God 
 must be cruel, or in Mr. B/s own words, 
 " ,u'njiistifiablij cruell^' Thus does this man 
 reduce us to the strange dilemma, either to 
 blot out the word of God, or to beheve him 
 unjustifiably cruel! 
 
 That such horrid assertions should proceed 
 from Infidels whose hearts are corrupted, and 
 whose minds are perverted, is to be lamented; 
 but that they should be entertained, even for 
 a moment, by a man who has a real reverence 
 for religion, is certainly unaccountable. 
 
 It is not my intention in this treatise to 
 refute the foolish assertions of Infidels. Enough 
 has been written on this subject by men of 
 wisdom and eloquence, in every respect more 
 capable of so important a task, than so humble 
 an individual as I am. But I cannot forbear 
 asking Mr. B. and Deists, why we must think 
 God unjustifiably cruel, if we believe him to 
 have slain the first-born of the Egyptians, or to 
 have commanded the destruction of Amaiek? 
 I suppose neither Mr. B. nor the Deist would 
 call a man cruel, for merely withdrawing, or 
 discontinuing a gift benevolently bestowed, 
 
99 
 
 from an object who had abused his bounty? — 
 I suppose also that Mr. B. and the Deists, 
 "who seem to have usurped to themselves a mo- 
 nopoly of the pure ideas we ought to entertain 
 of God, will allow that whatever blessings 
 Divine goodness bestows on his creatures, are 
 all so many bounties, so many gratuitous gifts, 
 to which we have no manner of claim — be- 
 stowed on us on the express condition that we 
 should not abuse them ; and if we do abuse 
 them, it is but just that we should forfeit them. 
 And yet the earth-born worm, the creature of 
 a day, who knows not in one moment what will 
 happen to him in the next, dares lift up his 
 unhallowed voice and accuse his Maker^ the 
 MIGHTY ^^i^Sn /? JDiiTti^ Judge of all the 
 EARTH, of cruelty! — because he thinks fit to 
 deprive his sinful creatures of a portion of those 
 blessings which they no longer deserve to enjoy? 
 It is true, Mr. Bellamy thinks the Egyptians 
 were innocent creatures, and " they ought not 
 to have been made accountable for the wicked- 
 ness of their governors." Now if it were so, 
 then the Almighty must have been equally 
 unjust for bringing nine plagues iipon these 
 innocent creatures; for Mr. B. acknowledges by 
 his own interpretation, that those nine plagues 
 were brought upon the Egyptians themselves, 
 
 G 2 
 
100 
 
 and not upon their cats and dogs, and upon 
 theiY Jirstlingsj and why should they have been 
 punished for the faults of their governors? 
 This Mr. B. has quite forgotten; perhaps he 
 reserves it for the next edition. But who has 
 told this daring man that the Egyptians were 
 innocent? Who could best ascertain their 
 innocence or guilt? An obscure scribbler who 
 forgets in one chapter what he writes in the 
 other, or the Almighty Being who searches the 
 most hidden thoughts of man? Doth not the 
 word of God expressly declare DIIVP HDIfH 
 ■^nD3 ^Vr\l^\ ^;3 n»S " And the Egyptians 
 made the children of Israel serve (or work) 
 witJi rigor P"* This evidently shov/s that these 
 " innocent creatures" were not unwilling in- 
 struments in the hands of tyranny, but that 
 they participated in the wickedness of their 
 governors. Besides, even according to Mr. B.'s 
 whimsical notions, that God only destroyed the 
 firstling of cattle, &c. and that the Egyptians 
 worshipped them, "Jrom the king that sat upon 
 
 * Mr. B. with his usual attention to Hebrew grammar, 
 renders this verse, " Then the Egyptians served the children 
 of Israel with rigor:" from which one might infer that the 
 Israelites were the niastei-s, and the Egyptians the slaves. 
 The word ITf^y'T is in hiphily and is therefore properly 
 rendered in the English Version, *' and they made serve." 
 
101 
 
 his throne to the slam in the dungeon" then must 
 these Egyptians have been most gross idolators. 
 And is idolatry with its host of abominations,* 
 no sin? — Does it deserve no punishment? Ido- 
 latry too, in sight of the most astonishing and 
 most miraculous events! And yet these men 
 were innocent! and ought not to have been 
 made accountable for the crimes of their go- 
 vernors! And God must be thought unjustifiably 
 cruel, if we admit that he killed the first-born 
 of the Egyptians! — Admirable reasoning! wor-. 
 thy of such men as Mr. B. and the Deists. — For 
 my part, I can admit neither their premises nor 
 their conclusion. I shall therefore continue to 
 
 * " Moreover this was not enough for them, that they 
 erred in the knowledge of God, but whereas they lived in the 
 great war of ignorance, those so great plagues calledjthey 
 peace. For whilst they slew their children in sacrifices, or 
 used secret ceremonies, or made revellings of strange rites ; 
 they kept neither lives nor marriages any longer undefiled : 
 but either one slew another traitorously, or grieved him by 
 adulteiy. So that there reigned in all men, without exception, 
 blood, man-slaughter, theft, dissimulation, corruption, un- 
 faithfulness, tumults, perjury, disquieting of good men, 
 forgetfulness of good turns, defiling of souls, changing of 
 kinds, disorder in marriages, adultery, and shameless un- 
 cleanness. For the worshipping of idols not to be named 
 is the BEGINNING, the CAUSE, and the END of all 
 EVIL."— (Wisdom of Solomon, xiv. 22—27.) 
 
102 
 
 believe, with the religious part of mankind, 
 that the Almighty did slay the first-born male 
 of the Egyptians ; and shall further believe that 
 God is just and "merciful; and that 
 
 i^:i>3^ D^i/ii'iiT D2 ^'^b^ D^pnv "n ""S-n ant:?'' 
 
 " The vi^ays of the Lord are right, the just 
 walk in them, and the transgressors stumble.'* 
 
 But to return. — How the Deists are to be 
 silenced by such strange interpretations, is to 
 me a mystery. The Deists who revile Scrip- 
 ture, and object to. the plainest statements as 
 they are given in the translations, they will, for- 
 sooth, believe Mr. Bellamy, when he tells them 
 " that Adam made a tabernacle^ in which there 
 were cJierubims T* and, " that Noah had a taber- 
 nacle too, which he took into the ark!" — and 
 " that Ham was cursed, because he went into his 
 father's tabernacle! and there saw the symbols 
 of nis father !" and " that Lot was a saint, 
 and a high priest^ and of course had a taber- 
 nackr and " that the sons of Jacob had also 
 a tabernacle^ which they took with them into 
 Egypt, and brought up with them into the 
 wilderness!" — All this, and the like barbarous 
 trash, for which there is not a tittle of autho- 
 rity in Scripture, Mr. B. thinks the Deist will 
 believe! — Let him not deceive himself: the 
 Deists of our day are not such credulous 
 
103 
 
 beings, except where their belief has been 
 bribed before-hand by their sensuahty. It is in 
 points of disbehef that we are to look for their 
 credulity.— But I will tell Mr. B. in what 
 points he may safely reckon on the belief of 
 Deists, and flatter himself with the applause 
 of Infidels. They will believe him, when 
 he tells them, that our ancestors, whether 
 Jews or Christians, were ignorant men; — men, 
 that believed in inconsistencies and contradic- 
 tions; — and in things " as opposite to trulh, as 
 light is to darhiess^* — And though the Deists 
 will, perhaps, have no better opinion of Mr. 
 B.'s transcendent abilities, and of his infalli- 
 bility, than the reader has, yet will they avail 
 themselves of his groundless assertions, to jus- 
 tify their own unwarranted attacks against reli- 
 gion, and against the piety and wisdom of its 
 professors. 
 
 That this is not a mere supposition, the 
 reader may be convinced, when he reflects on 
 what actually took place on Mr. Carlile's trial. 
 This mischievous man, the generalissimo of 
 blasphemers, seems to have read some of Mr. 
 B.'s publications J and what effects had they 
 on him? Did they remove his objections? did 
 they lessen the ardour of his diabolical 
 pursuits? No such thing. But he did make 
 use of Mr. B.'s great authority to justify his 
 
101: 
 
 own wicked conduct. The following is the 
 mode of argument, and the words which he is 
 reported to have made use of on his trial. 
 
 " I cannot omit this moment of reading 
 '* to the Jury another document, which is very 
 ** appropriate for my purpose. This is the 
 " prospectus of Mr. Bellamy's New Version of 
 " the Bible, dedicated by permission to the 
 " Prince Ilegent." 
 
 " The material differences between the 
 " present translation and Mr. Bellamy's New 
 " Version, as set out in the prospectus, occur 
 «' principally in these passages; 2 Kings. Isaiah 
 " ix. 3. Prov. xvi. 4. 1 Sam. xvi. 23. and chap. 
 ** ii. 25. Gen. xxiii. 22. chap. vi. 3. and chap. 
 " xxxvii. 3. and Jer. iv. 10. and chap. xx. 27. 
 *' In all these the new reading causes a very 
 ** material alteration, and gives a very different 
 " sense from the old one. This variation, 
 " Carlile contended, sanctioned by the names 
 " of Bishops, was a tacit admission that the 
 " old version was wrong. The author, (Mr. B.) 
 " he continued, had gone farther, but it was 
 " sufficient for his purpose that there was a 
 " difference in the translations. Jir. B. had 
 " admitted that as the Bible at present is xvorded, 
 *' the objections of the Deists are not entirely 
 " without foundation ;^^ hut he pretends that 
 " in these passages the sense has not been 
 
105 
 
 " carefully preserved. Yet this was the book 
 " they had all been accustomed to read, which 
 " was read at schools, and which it had been 
 " said, if men believed not, they should be 
 " damned. How then is it, that when another 
 " man comes in with a book very different, he 
 " is countenanced — he may also say, if you 
 " read not my book, you shall be damned. 
 " That should serve to show the folly and 
 " absurdity of submitting what was purely 
 " matter of opinion, to the consideration of a 
 " court of law.'* 
 
 Such, then, is the use which the Deist in 
 chief, made of Mr. B.'s labors; — such is the 
 use, which the deluded men, who range 
 themselves under his banner, will most pro- 
 bably make of them. And should they choose 
 to avail themselves of Mr. B.'s arguments, and 
 of his extraordinary grammatical rules, they 
 will have fresh weapons to stab religion to the 
 very 'heart: for they have only to follow his 
 example, convert nominatives into objectives, 
 datives into ablatives, affirmatives into nega- 
 tives, and vice versa, and the reader may be 
 sure, that these ingenious me?i, as Mr. B. calls 
 them, will convert wisdom into nonsense, and 
 truth into falshoods. 
 
106 
 
 CHAFc IV* 
 
 MR. BELLAMY S EXTRAORDINARY ASSERTIONS. 
 
 HAVING in the preceding pages stated 
 some of Mr. Bellamy's extraordinary opinions, 
 and shown the utter contempt which he enter- 
 tains for all former translations, we proceed to 
 lay before the reader some of his no less ex- 
 traordinary assertions. 
 
 ASSERTION T. 
 
 Mr. B. ushers in his great and glorious 
 work to the notice of the public, by one of 
 those strange assertions so peculiar to him; and 
 lest it should escape the attention of his readers, 
 he puts it on the very cover of his Holy 'Bible. 
 It is as follows — " It may be necessary to 
 inform the reader that no translation has been 
 made from the original Hebrew since 128* 
 
 * EiCHHORN, whose extensive erudition and Biblical 
 knowledge no one will question, is not quite so positive as 
 Mr. B. as to the year when this translation was made. 
 
107 
 
 years of Christ.*' Now I appeal to every Biblical 
 scholar, whether it is possible to conceive a more 
 gross mis-statement ? Is it not well known, that 
 the bare description of the translations that have 
 been made from the Hebrew since that period 
 would fill a volume ? The learned Critic, who 
 reviewed Mr. B.'s book in the Quarterly Review, 
 took notice of this mis-statement. Mr. B. de- 
 fended it. It is worth while to examine his 
 defence. The follov/ing are his words — " I , 
 " have said, and again affirm, that no national 
 '* translation of the Bible was made from the 
 " Hebrew only since 128 years of Christ. The 
 " Critic, not with that Christian courtesy which 
 " generally constitutes the character of the clergy 
 " says, that it is completely and absolutely false; 
 " and no assertion can be more palpably untrue. 
 *' To specify a few only — there were the Greek 
 " translations of Symmachus and Theodotion. 
 *' The translation of Theodotionis properly a revi- 
 " sion of that of Aquila. Theodotion was agentile 
 
 *' Ich getraue mir duher so weuig, sein zeltalter hier zu 
 herechnen, als ich lust habe, heyiii mangel gewisser nach- 
 richten zwischen den Julircn 90, 96, 128 und 130, nach 
 Christus gehurt mit andern herum zu wanken, um sein 
 uebersetzungs jalir zu bestimmen. — ( Einleitung in das 
 Alte Testament, kap. Hi. B. 1.) 
 
108 
 
 proselyte to Judaism, and as is said by Mont- 
 faucon was but meanly skilled in the Hebrew, 
 having left a vast quantity of Hebrew words 
 not translated. He attempted only to polish 
 the language of Aquila; consequently his 
 work was never understood to be a translation 
 from the Hebrew only. The translation of 
 Symmachus is allowed to be a more elegant 
 performance than that of Theodotion, yet his 
 expressions are not always conformable to the 
 Hebrew original: it cannot, therefore, be a 
 translation from the Hiebrew only ; it was 
 merely a refined revision of those of Aquila 
 and Theodotion. That of Aquila, however, 
 was made directly from the Hebrew, he being 
 well acquainted with that language ; and, as he 
 was brought up under Akiba, had an advan- 
 tage which Theodotion and Symmachus had 
 not. For these reasons I have said, that there 
 has been no translation from the Hebrew only 
 since the time of Aquila.*' 
 
 Whether the intelligent reader thinks these 
 reasons sufficient or not, I will not stop to 
 enquire. I shall therefore only observe, that 
 unfortunately for Mr. B.'s defence, the words 
 only and national^ on which he lays so much 
 stress, are not at all to be found in the pas- 
 sage in question: and as this- is a mere 
 
109 
 
 question of fact, which any person wlio has 
 the use of his eyes may decide by looking at 
 the cover of Mr. B.'s Genesis, or Exodus, it 
 must appear very extraordinary that any man 
 who values his reputation for veracity, should 
 thus defend one mis-statement by another. 
 
 Besides waving even the foregoing objec- 
 tion, it is well known that there were numerous 
 translations made from the Hebrew only.* Such 
 is the TargumOnkelos, Jonathan, and Jerusalem. 
 Such are the various translations made by the 
 Jews in various languages. For instance, Sadias' 
 Arabic: Rabbi Jacob Tawa*s Persian: Rabbi Jo- 
 seph Franco Serrano's Spanish; Elias Levita's 
 German; Rabbi Joseph's Ben Alexander's Ger- 
 man; Rabbi Joseph's Wintzenhausen's German; 
 Rabbi Jekuthiefs German; JMoses Mendelsohn's 
 German. I have now in my library a Penta- 
 teuch printed at Constantinople, A. M. 5312, 
 containing, besides the Hebrew text, Rashi's 
 Comment, and Targum Onkelos, two transla- 
 tions; one in Spanish and the other in Greek, 
 
 * Those that wish for full inforijiation on this, as well 
 as on the subject of the translations of the Scriptures in g-e- 
 neralj may consult the following- works I^D ; D^^^Ji'"' ^JlSJi' ; 
 ;1D^TV "n^?D Wollii. Bib. Heb.; Calmet's Dissertations; 
 Mendelssohn's Heb. Preface to his German Translation; 
 and particularly Eichhorn's Einleitung, &c. 
 
110 
 
 both in Hebrew characters. Now all the above 
 enumerated translations were made by Jews 
 from the Hebrew only. How then can Mr. B. 
 obtrude such an assertion on the public, that 
 " no translation was made from the original 
 Hebrew since the year 128 of Christ 1!" 
 
 ASSERTION II. 
 
 " In the fourth century Jerome made his 
 Latin version from this Greek translation; 
 from which came the Latin Vulgate." (Cover 
 of Mr. Bellamy* s translation.) It is not clear 
 from this phraseology, whether the author 
 meant to say,, that Jerome's first or second 
 version was made from that of Aquila, of 
 which he speaks in the preceding sentence, or 
 from the Septuagint, as Mr. B. repeatedly 
 asserts in other places; nor wliether the Vulgate 
 came from the same Greek translation, or from 
 the Latin version. Be this as it may, Mr. B.'s 
 statement is equally incorrect; as it is notorious, 
 that Jerome made his second translation from 
 the Hebrew. Whether from the Hebrew only 
 or not, is not at all the question ; but whether 
 he made his version from the Hebrew, or 
 from the Greek only, which latter, Mr. B.'s 
 words as quoted above, are calculated to 
 
Ill 
 
 convey. This mis-statement was also noticed 
 by the learned Critic before-mentioned ; and I 
 only notice it again, to show how Mr. B. has 
 defended it. 
 
 He defends this assertion on the authority 
 of a few extracts from an " Essay for a New 
 Translation of the Bible published in 1727." 
 But as a Biblical scholar, he ought to have 
 gone to the fountain head for information. Why 
 did he not consult Jerome's own works, or the 
 works of many learned men who have written 
 on this subject ? Had he done so, he would 
 soon have found that Jerome made one of his 
 versions from the Hebrew. Besides, Mr. B. 
 with all his quibbling is obliged to admit that 
 Jerome did translate from the Hebrew. — For 
 thus he expresses himself in his reply to the 
 Quarterly Review — " But, although Jerome 
 ' was desirous of adhering to the Hebrew, it ap- 
 pears that he endeavored to confine himself 
 ' to what he thought the sense of the Hebrew, 
 
 * more tlian to the literal sense of words and 
 
 * phrases," &c. &c. " The sense therefore 
 ' given by Jerome was the serise which he 
 ' and the Jew* that assisted him, thought to 
 
 * Poor Jew ! the Inquirer after truth detests thy 
 name ; and forgets that but for tlie Jew.-;, lie might even 
 now be an idolatrous heathen! 
 
112 
 
 " be the true sense ; not the sense obtained 
 *' by showing the meaning of the same words in 
 " other parts of Scripture^ which can possibly 
 " have no other meaning or application as I have 
 " shown in my translation. So far, then, is this 
 *' from proving that the version of Jerome was 
 " a translation from the Hebrew only, that it 
 " merely shows how anMous Jerome was to 
 " make a new version from it, and that he 
 " was over-ruled by the superstitious bigots in 
 " his day." (Mr. Bellamy's Reply to the Quar- 
 terly Review.) From this last sentence it would 
 appear that Jerome was only anxious to make 
 a new version, but that he was prevented from 
 doing so by superstitious bigots.* — But how 
 
 * That Jerome met with great opposition from the 
 bigots of the day, is true ; but it is no less true, that 
 notwithstanding all opposition, he accomplished his object. 
 And when we consider the obstacles he had to surmount — 
 when we reflect that at the time he wrote there were neither 
 grammars, nor lexicons, nor any of those numerous reser- 
 voirs of information, which we in our day possess — his 
 translation, notwithstanding its numerous errors, (many of 
 them, perhaps, the offspring of his emendators) ought to 
 excite applause instead of censure. 
 
 The reader may form some notion of the gross super- 
 stition, and the still grosser ignorance of that age, from the 
 
113 
 
 does this agree with what he says just before: 
 " The sense therefore given by Jerome, was 
 the sense which he and the Jew that assisted 
 him thought to be the true sense." Did the 
 bigots compel him to give this sense ? And 
 whence was it derived, from the Greek, or 
 the Hebrew? Either one or the other of 
 these statements must be wrong: and I once 
 more appeal to the learned reader, whether the 
 
 story mentioned by St. Austin in one of his Epistles to 
 Jerome ; and which I extract from Mr, John Gregory's Dis- 
 course on the Seventy Interpreters, &c. published in 1671. 
 
 " A certain Bishop had g-iven way, that this new 
 Latin translation should be read in his church, but with 
 very ill success: for when the people understood that St. 
 Hierome, in the prophecy of Jonah, had put it down 
 Hederam, instead of that which anciently, according to the 
 Greek, had been Cucurbitam, there was a great tumult 
 raised amongst the parishioners, insomuch that the Bishop was 
 forced to ask counsel of the Jews ; who notwithstanding that 
 they had answered that the original word might bear either 
 of the constructions, yet the people would not be contented 
 till the Bishop had blotted out Hedera, and set down Cucur- 
 
 bila, according to what it was before." Now it is very 
 
 probable, that neither the one, nor the other, is the proper 
 term for the Hebrew \Vpp kikojon, which more probably 
 meant the plant, from which the oil of kiki, mentioned by 
 Herodotus (B. ii. Euterpe) was expressed; — and bearing the 
 same name in Hebrew also: thus, p'^p \?2U/> ^h^ o«7 of kik: 
 — as may be seen in Treatise Shabbath, Chap. ii. Mishna i. 
 
 H 
 
114 
 
 assertion that, ^^ In the fourth century Jerome 
 made his Latin 'version from this Greek transla- 
 tion from *which^^ 8^c. is not a mis-statement, cal- 
 culated to convey to the illiterate, falshoo^ 
 instead of truth. 
 
 ASSERTION III. 
 
 ** And from the Latin Vulgate all the Eu- 
 ropean translations have been made, thereby 
 'perpetuating all the errors of the first transla- 
 tors" (Cover of Mr. B.*s translation.) — Again: 
 (Oeneral Preface, p. 1.) " For as the common 
 translations in the European languages were 
 made from the modern Septuagint and Vulgate^ 
 where errors are found in these early versions* 
 they must necessarily be found in all the trans- 
 lations made from them." 
 
 That these assertions are false, no one at 
 all acquainted with the subject will need me to 
 remind him. Pagninus* Latin translation was 
 by Mr. B.'s own confession, made from the He- 
 brew. So were Sebastian Munster's, Chatillon's, 
 Tremellius* Latin translation, Luther's German, 
 Radzvil's Polish, Diodati*s Italian, and in 
 
 How can a modern Septuagint be called an early Version ! 
 
115 
 
 short, every European translation of note. And 
 granting, that the authors of these several 
 versions have, in addition to the Hebrew text, 
 consulted the Septuagint and Vulgate, how 
 does it prove that they have perpetuated their 
 errors ? For my part, I think it is the duty of 
 every author who writes on an important sub- 
 ject, to consult the labors of those who have 
 been engaged in similar pursuits; to adopt their 
 sentiments, if he find them true; and not, from 
 a mere love of novelty, to reject the wisdom 
 and good sense of former ages. None but the 
 most vain or the most ignorant would undertake 
 the translation even of a profane ancient author, 
 much less of so important a work as the Holy 
 Scriptures, without consulting former transla- 
 tions. The very circumstance therefore of the 
 European translators having consulted other 
 translations, in addition to the Hebrew text, 
 is a proof that they wished not to perpetuate 
 former errors. That they did not do so, might 
 easily be proved from their own productions, 
 were it necessary. But as the main purpose of 
 this mis-statement was, it may be presumed, that 
 of repudiating the English Version, let us exa- 
 mine whether his assertions respecting this im- 
 portant work are more correct. 
 
 H 2 
 
116 
 
 ASSERTION IV. 
 
 (Preface, p. 2.) " The last revision (of 
 the English Version) was undertaken in the 
 year 1 603, when fifty-four of the most learned 
 in the universities of Oxford and Cambridge 
 were appointed, seven of whom died before the 
 work was finished, &c. But it appears that they 
 confined themselves to the Septuagint and the Vul- 
 gate! so that this was only working in the 
 harness of the first translators!" 
 
 But how does it appear, " that they con- 
 fined themselves to the Septuagint and the 
 Vulgate ? How does it appear that they were 
 only working in the harness of others ?" From 
 Mr. Bellamy's dictum? If this be authority, 
 I will bring an authority to contradict this as- 
 sertion — an authority somewhat more respecta- 
 ble than Mr. Bellamy's, in the judgment of all 
 impartial readers. I mean the authority of the 
 fifty-four, or rather (as seven of them died 
 before the translation was finished) of the forty- 
 seven learned men : as will be seen by the fol- 
 lowing extracts from their no less modest than 
 dignified Preface. 
 
 " But* it is high time to shew in brief 
 " what we proposed to ourselves, and what 
 
 * Vide the Translators' address to the reader, inserted iu 
 the Holy Bible, printed by Thos. and John Buck, A. D. 1630. 
 
117 
 
 *' course we held in this our perusal and surrey 
 '* of the Bible. Truly (good Christian reader,) 
 *' we never thought from the beginning, that we 
 " should make a new translation, nor to make 
 ** of a bad one a good one, &c. but to make a 
 ** good one better, &c. To that purpose there 
 " were many chosen, that were greater in other 
 " men's eyes than in their own, and sought the 
 " truth, rather than their own praise.'* Again: 
 *' they came, or were thought to come, to the 
 *' work, not ea:ercendi causa (as one says) but 
 " exercitatiy he. Therefore such were thought 
 " upon, as could modestly say with Saint Hie- 
 *' rome, EtHebrceum serynonem ex parte didicimus 
 *' et in Latino pene ah ipsis incunabulis^ ^c. detriti 
 *' sumus. Both we have learned the Hebrew tongue 
 '* in party and i?i the Latin we have been exercised 
 ^^from our cradle. Saint Hierome maketh no 
 " mention of the Greek tongue, because he 
 '* translated not the Old Testament out of Greek, 
 " but out of Hebrew, &c. — If you ask what 
 
 " THEY HAD BEFORE THEM, TRULY IT WAS THE 
 " HEBREW TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, THE 
 
 " GREEK OF THE NEW. The Same Saint Hierome 
 ** affirmeth, and Gratian has not spared to put 
 " it into his decree, that as the credit of the Old 
 " Books (he meaneth of the Old Testament) 
 " is to be tried by the Hebrew volumes, so of 
 
118 
 
 " the New by the Greek tongues ; he meaneth 
 *' by the original Greek. If truth is to be tried 
 *« by these tongues, then whence should a trans- 
 " lation be made, but out of them? These 
 " tongues, therefore, the Scriptures we say in 
 " these tongues, we set before us to translate, 
 " &c. Neither did we think much to consult the 
 ** translators or commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, 
 " Syria, Greek, or Latin ; no, nor the Spanish, 
 " French, Italian, or Dutch," &c. 
 
 Now I ask the candid and impartial reader, 
 whether we are to believe Mr. Bellamy when 
 •he says, " It appears that they confined them- 
 selves to the Septuagint and the Vulgate," or 
 the translators themselves, when they tell us 
 that the?/ had the Hebrew test of the Old Testa- 
 ment before them,'* and that they only consulted 
 former translations. I dare anticipate that the 
 impartial reader will decide for the latter. But, 
 if this authority be not sufficient, I beg the 
 reader to examine even the first few chapters 
 of the English Version, and compare them 
 with the Septuagint and Vulgate; and I am 
 sure he will be convinced from numerous va- 
 riations, that the translators have neither con- 
 fined themselves to the Septuagint and Vulgate, 
 nor " have they only been working in the har- 
 ness of others." 
 
119 
 
 It may perhaps be said, that Mr. B. has 
 proved that the English, and all the other 
 European Versions, contain inconsistencies, con- 
 tradictions, &c. That Mr. B. has said so re- 
 peatedly, I know; whether he has proved it, 
 will be seen in the following chapters. My 
 present purpose, however, was only to remove 
 the pernicious impression, which his assertions 
 — that all former translations are mere copies 
 from the Septuagint and the Vulgate, and that 
 they have consequently only perpetuated the 
 errors of the ancient Versions — are calculated to 
 produce; and I hope I have proved that such 
 assertions are unwarrantable and unfounded. 
 I shall only cite a few more of Mr. B.*s mis- 
 statements, and then close this chapter, for 
 fear of being too tedious. 
 
 ASSERTION V. 
 
 " Indeed, it was well known that there was 
 not a critical Hebrew scholar amongst them, 
 (i. e. amongst the translators of the English 
 Version); the Hebrew language, so indispensa* 
 bly necessary for the accomplishment of this 
 important work having been most shamefully 
 neglected in our universities, and as at this 
 day all candidates for orders were admitted 
 without a knowledge of this primary, this most 
 
120 
 
 essential branch of Biblical learning. It was, as 
 it 'is at present, totally neglected in our schools; 
 and a few lessons taken from a Jew in term time, 
 whose business it is to Judaize^ and not to Chris- 
 tianize, serve to give a character of a Hebrew 
 scholar." 
 
 Whether these calumnious expressions were 
 meant as a reproach to Christians, or Jews,^ — 
 whether they were intended to depreciate the 
 Hebrew learning of the former, or to deprive the 
 latter of the only post of honor (if an honor it can 
 be called) which they are permitted to occupy 
 in the universities, Mr. B. can best tell. But, 
 whatever his intention might have been, I think 
 his assertions are equally ungenerous and un- 
 founded. Christians, indeed, can not be affected 
 by his contemptuous expressions. A nation 
 that has produced such men as the translators 
 of the English Version — a nation that can boast 
 of a Wotton, Walton, Lightfoot, Louth, Taylor, 
 Parkhurst, &c. — a nation that still possesses so 
 many eminent Hebrew scholars, need little 
 care what a Mr. J. Bellamy may say con- 
 cerning their Hebrew learning. But the Jews, 
 they, against whom so much prejudice still 
 exists, — they may be affected by every breath 
 of calumny.* For though it is true, that 
 
 * Witness recent events on the Continent. 
 
121 
 
 under the protection of a benign government, 
 their condition in this country has been much 
 ameHorated, — though it is true, that by the 
 progress of knowledge, and particularly by 
 the recent benevolent exertions of philan- 
 thropic writers, of a Cumberland, Witherby, 
 Edgeworth, &c. much of former prejudice has 
 been removed and is daily diminishing; yet 
 it is also true, that too much prejudice still 
 remains in the mind of the uninformed classes 
 of Christians against this unhappy people. It 
 was therefore totally unnecessary for him to 
 accuse the Jews of a crime they are not guilty 
 of, unless it was his wish to light up afresh 
 the almost extinguished torch of religious dis- 
 cord, and to sow enmity between men and men. 
 I should not have noticed this calumny, had 
 not Mr. B. treated the Jews, whenever he thinks 
 proper to mention them, with the most unde- 
 served insult ;^ excepting when their supposed 
 
 * The following- is the manner he speaks of the Jews, 
 (Class. Jour. No. iii. p. 852.) " But Christians cannot look 
 up to Jews for information in the Hebrew ; few of them 
 understand the construction of the language, and fewer still 
 can lay claim to a talent for Hebrew criticism, &c." Jewish 
 tales, &c. Jewish subterfuges, are very favorite expressions 
 
123 
 
 approbation flatters his vanity;* and had be not 
 repeated this ungenerous charge in several 
 places, and in one place in particular, with ten- 
 fold malignity. t Now, surely, he who pretends 
 
 with him. And the miD^H '^7J/I1 the Masorites, to 
 whom we are indebted for the integrity. of the original, are, 
 " a few Jews who know no better than that Ji^J is written, but 
 not read." (Class. Jour. No. xvi. p. 233.) 
 
 * And, after all, Mr. B. has the modesty to say (Class, 
 Jour. No. xxxviii. p. 247) in answer to the learned Critic, 
 who told hiin in the Quarterly Review, that he had failed 
 in confuting the strictures passed on particular texts casually 
 selected as specimens of the whole — "Failed!" says Mr. B, 
 ** only in the estimation of this Interested Reviewer, but not 
 in the estimation of able Hebrew critics in this country, both 
 Jews and Christians!" Now I think Mr. B. must have made 
 a mistake; and I challenge him to produce a single Jewish 
 Hebrew critic who approves of his interpretation. Besides, 
 of what value can the approbation of men be who do not 
 understand the construction of the language ! 
 
 f (Class. Jour. No. xvi. p. 380.) " For as Judaizing 
 teachers are permitted to creep into the environs of our 
 universities, under 'a pretence of teaching Hebrew, who never 
 omit exposing what they call the weaknesses of the Christian 
 system, and which indeed accounts for the Jewish subter- 
 fuges made use of by some thus taught, who have unfortu- 
 nately given way to such unfounded antichristian views, this 
 will in a great measure put a stop to any thing of this 
 nature. And if this noble example be followed up in all 
 our classical establishments, it will finally prevent the con^ 
 lamination of the principles of our youth, support the 
 
123 
 
 to be so well acquainted with the law and 
 literature of the Jews, ought to know that 
 neither is their religion one that encourages 
 proselytism, nor are its followers solicitous about 
 making converts. But why should the Jews 
 complain when the enquirer after truth — the 
 teacher of morality — has not even spared his 
 Christian brethren ? Contempt is perhaps the 
 only reply which such malignant assertions de- 
 serve. 
 
 ASSERTION VI. 
 
 " The work now laid before the public is 
 as literal a translation from the pure Hebrew 
 text only, as the idiom of our language will, in 
 
 church, and benefit the Christian religion. Teachers of this 
 description are not even permitted to enter the precincts of 
 the universities on the continent: the heads of the colleges! 
 will not allow it. And if the chancellors of our universities 
 do not see the evil of such permission, every head of a col- 
 lege ought to prevent all attempts of this kind," Very 
 humane advice! — And so, the gentleman, who with the Deist 
 trembles for the life of an idolatrous Amalekite and Jebusite, 
 and who is ready to accuse God of unjustifiable cruelty, if 
 he had slain the first-born of the Egyptians, — a man of such 
 squeamish humanity, thinks nothing of depriving a few 
 honest men of their bread, and of casting a stigma on a whole 
 people ! 
 
124 
 
 most cases admit of; independent of the opinion 
 of any men, or set of men, however learned or 
 respectable," &c. (General Preface, p. 2.) 
 Hebrew scholars may easily decide whether 
 Mr. B.*s translation is literal or not, by com- 
 paring his work with, the original; particularly 
 verses 1, 3, 5, 9, 14, 15, 31. chap. i. Gen. — 
 verses 2, 3, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25. chap. ii. 
 verses 7, 8, 10, 11, 17, 21, 23,24. chap. iii. 
 verses 7, 8, 9, 15, 25. chap. iv. verses 14, 22. 
 chap. vi. and the like. But as to Mr. B.'s as- 
 sertion, that his translation was made " from the 
 Hebrew text only, independent of the opinion of 
 any man, &c.'* I hope to prove, in the following 
 sheets, that the only presumed authority for his 
 misinterpretations, is the English Version; the 
 translators of which have, for particular reasons, 
 to be explained hereafter, given in various in- 
 stances an equivalent to the sense of Hebrew 
 words and phrases, instead of their literal and 
 primary meanings. This they have done only 
 under peculiar circumstances. But Mr. B. with- 
 out taking the trouble of ascertaining the cause 
 of such deviations, — without distinguishing be- 
 tween the primary and derivative sense of words, 
 or between same and equivalent, has taken their 
 interpretation in those peculiar instances, for 
 the primary and general sense, and applied them, 
 
125 
 
 without the least discrimination, whenever they 
 suited his fancy; and consequently has, in 
 many places, produced great absurdities. When, 
 therefore, he tells us, that his interpretations are 
 ** confirmed by ether parts of Scripture^ where the 
 same tuords written with the same letters and with 
 the same vowels can have no other meajiing,'^ it 
 amounts only to this, — that he finds that the 
 translators of the English Version have so 
 rendered it; and he forgets that he has re- 
 peatedly charged these men with ignorance; 
 and that they had not a critical Hebrew scholar 
 amongst them ! I could fill volumes were I 
 to take notice of all Mr. Bellamy's mis-state- 
 ments; but I presume the preceding specimens 
 are sufficient to show what importance ought 
 to be attached to any statements deriving their 
 sole authority from Mr. B.*s assertions. 
 
126 
 
 MR. b/s charges against FORMER TRANSLATIONS, 
 AND PARTICULARLY AGAINST THE ENGLISH VER- 
 SION, ARE TRIVIAL AND GROUNDLESS. 
 
 WERE any one to form his opinion of the 
 European and English Versions by the manner 
 Mr. B. speaks of them, he might be led to 
 believe that they really do contain the most 
 objectionable matter. Let us therefore exa- 
 mine on what ground the several serious charges, 
 he brings against them, rest. 
 
 FIRST ATTACK. 
 
 Mr. Bellamy's first attack on the transla- 
 tions, is inserted in Classical Journal, No. 1. p. 
 144. and entitled Biblical Criticism. This being 
 his maiden essay, he introduces himself to the 
 classical readers, by giving them the important 
 information, that " when the Hebrew Bible was 
 " translated into the Latin language by Jerome, 
 *' the Hebrew was so imperfectly known to 
 " Christians, that he was obliged to obtain the 
 " assistance of a Jew, who was himself but 
 " moderately acquainted with tlie Latin tongue; 
 " therefore it is not strange if we find many 
 " errors, and some of a serious tendency.*' 
 
127 
 
 " The objections which Deists have 
 " brought forward, and which, if admitted, 
 " would subvert the Christian rehgion, have 
 *' never yet been refuted either in this or in any 
 ** other nation!*' and therefore he announces 
 his intention of doing that which (according 
 to his assertion) lias not been done hitherto, 
 either in this, or in any other nation. 
 
 " The passage, (says Mr. B.) which I 
 
 " have chosen, is the first verse of the thirty- 
 
 *' eighth chapter of this book, (Job) which is 
 
 " the same in all European translations, as it is 
 
 " in the English Bible. Deists, from the earliest 
 
 '* ages of the Christian church, have taken this 
 
 ** passage as it stands in the translation; but it 
 
 ** should be remembered that the Hebrew lan- 
 
 '* guage was not then understood by Christians, 
 
 ** and that the peculiar idiom of this most an- 
 
 ^' cient, elegant, and expressive oriental tongue, 
 
 ** was for a long time completely lost, and its 
 
 *' luminous expression obscured by the Greek 
 
 " language, which the church was obliged to 
 
 " use, as it was known in all the nations of the 
 
 " Grecian empire, not only during its con- 
 
 " tinuance, but also to the time of the council 
 
 " of Nice in the fourth century, when Con- 
 
 " stantinetl 2 Roman Emperor embraced Chris- 
 
 " tianity. To this cause may be attributed the 
 
 ** origin of those errors and contradictions^ which 
 
128 
 
 " appear in all the European translations, but 
 *' which are not to be found in the Hebrew 
 " Scriptures." 
 
 The verse in the original is as follows: 
 
 " which in the translation is rendered, " Then 
 " the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, 
 " and said." (C. J. No. 1. p. 147.) 
 
 Passing by for the present the ridiculous 
 historical and chronological blunders, and the 
 general confusion of this statement, I need 
 only appeal to those who know any thing of 
 the Hebrew, whether a more correct transla- 
 tion can be given ? But because Deists fancy 
 " that it is derogatory to the majesty of the 
 Divine Being to manifest himself in a storm 
 to those who walk uprightly;" therefore, the 
 translation must be wrong. Now supposing these 
 ingenious men should fancy that it is derogatory 
 from the majesty of the Divine Being to ma- 
 nifest himself at all to men, then all those 
 passages, in which in our present Versions, 
 God is represented as having manifested him- 
 self, must have been falsely rendered, and all 
 the different Translators, from the seventy 
 included, must of course have been blunder- 
 ers, or copyists of blunders ! Surely such 
 silly objections do not deserve serious refu- 
 tation. But so complaisant is Mr. B. that 
 
1:^9 
 
 for the sake of the Deist he gives a new 
 translation of this passage. He renders it thus, 
 " Then the Lord answered Job niVDH \D 
 because of his trouble, or the portion of his 
 trouble, and said.** — Should any one ask, how 
 can \f2Jromf be rendered by because of? Mr. B. 
 answers, because " \^ is a Chaldean word:" — 
 that is to say, a particle which occurs repeatedly 
 in every part of the Hebrew Scriptures is a 
 Chaldean word!* And because the translators 
 of the English version have rendered it in 
 
 * ID/^^"*' according to Mr. B. is a Chaldean word, and 
 signifies " because of the portion." 
 
 This reminds me of a story I once heard of a certain 
 young academician, who, boasting of his Hebraic knowledge, 
 was asked by a Clergyman, whether he could tell him the 
 meaning of the word ^\l} Shalach in Levit. xi. 17. where 
 the unclean beasts, fishes, &c. are described? The young man, 
 puzzled, but not dismayed, exclaimed, with that effrontery 
 which is no unusual companion of ignorance, ! shalach ! 
 I, — I — know what it is — it is— a MAD FISH.— ^ mad fish ! 
 said the Clergyman ; surely, you must be mistaken. — I'^Ji' 
 is in the list of birds — and how should 2ifish come amongst 
 
 birds? — How ? replied (he young Hebraist, how? why, 
 
 because it was a M.A.T>fish.' to be sure. 
 
 So here : should any one ask Mr. B. how comes this little 
 Chaldean word so frequently amongst the Hebrew words? 
 Mr. B. might with great propriety reply,— Why, Sir, you 
 know I have deprived it of its, proper sense ! 
 
 I 
 
Daniel xii. 11. "because of," therefore, Mr. 
 B. thinks himself justified in rendering it so 
 whenever it suits him. Further, because Hi^^? 
 signifies to number, and Hrp a part, or portion, 
 therefore ]0 from, may be rendered " because of 
 the portion.^' — What doth the reader think of 
 this specimen of philology! So far then for this 
 little Chaldean word, as Mr. B. calls it. 
 
 Now for the word fTljLfpn— " This word, 
 (says Mr. B.) which the translators have ren- 
 dered the "whirlwind, can have no such meaning 
 or application here. It means trouble, and 
 may be rendered whirlwind, only when it is 
 applied to the elements, denoting a troubled 
 state of the atmosphere ; but when it has 
 reference to man, it can have no such signifi- 
 cation in any part of Scripture, but literally 
 means a disturbed or troubled state of the 
 mind." Now the reader might naturally sup- 
 pose that Mr. B. has brought some proof that 
 mi^Dn is in this passage applied to the mind, 
 or that he had produced a single example 
 where rnj^'DH is so applred. — No such thing. — 
 But because the Translators have, for obvious 
 reasons, rendered irD^T (the passive of the 
 verb "Ij/D by,) xvas troubled — 2 Kings vi. 11. 
 — therefore, must TTSV^ not mean a whirlwind, 
 
131 
 
 but trouble — and rni/DH must be rendered, 
 according to Mr. B. his trouble! 
 
 Now supposing for a moment that mj^D 
 could be rendered trouble, — by what magic can 
 m^DH be rendered his trouble ? where is the 
 Hebrew for his? — Could not the great scholar 
 see that m;/Dn has the definite (T in which 
 case the substantive cannot possibly admit a 
 possessive pronoun after it?* — But, as if his 
 great Hebrew skill were not sufficiently ob- 
 vious, he adds the following curious note. 
 — " As the word Hli/Dn has a feminine 
 termination, some may take it for a noun 
 feminine," (then Mr. B. supposes it is not 
 feminine!) " and conclude that if the word 
 were to be rendered trouble, it should be her 
 trouble, not his trouble;*^ (what abominable 
 nonsense!) " but this is not a universal rule, 
 the n is also affixed to nouns masculine, Gen. 
 xii. 8. ThT}\^ his tent." 
 
 I shall make no other observation on this 
 note, than that it contains more grammatical 
 errors than phrases; and that the person who 
 could deliberately pen such a note must be 
 
 * A mere tyro in the language would have told him, 
 that, if mj/D meant his trouble, it could not admit the 
 definite H, the. 
 
 I 2 
 
132 
 
 ignorant of the very rudiments of the Hebr ew 
 language. 
 
 All that may perhaps be said in favor of 
 the author is, that this was his first attempt at 
 Biblical criticism J and first attempts, as the 
 reader well knows, seldom succeed. Let us 
 therefore proceed, and see whether Mr. B. has 
 succeeded better in his second attempt, or ra- 
 ther in his second attack on the Translation. 
 
 SECOND ATTACK EXAMINED. 
 
 Mr. B. as usual, prefaces his Biblical Cri- 
 ticism with a disquisition on Deists; and 
 having unblushingly told us that " there are 
 some passages in the translation that deny 
 these positions," (namely, that God is a being 
 of love and mercy!) he then proceeds, 
 
 " Thejirst passage I shall notice, which is 
 " diametrically opposite to those pure ideas we 
 " ought to entertain concerning the love and mercy 
 " to God, is in Amos, chap. iii. 6. which in the 
 *' translation is rendered ' shall there be evil in a 
 " city, and the Lord has not done it?'' This passage 
 " as it stands in the translation naturally leads 
 " the mind to conclude that God is the author of 
 " evil; for the translators having rendered T^ll^V 
 " by the word done, it follows of course (in Mr. 
 
133 
 
 " B.'s opinion) agreeably to this reading, that 
 " there is no evil of which the Lord is not the 
 " author." — Mr. B, then proceeds to show that 
 T\m ought to be rendered TAKEN VEN- 
 GEANCE ; and then the verse will -read, not 
 as in all European translations, shall there he evil 
 m a cit'/y and the Lord has not done it ; but as 
 follows, — " shall there be evil in a city, and the 
 Lord has not Hti'^ taken vengeance T* — C. J. 
 No. ii. 299. 302. 
 
 I refer the reader to the Appendix, where 
 he will find my remarks, (originally published 
 in the Anti-Jacobin Review for 1815,) on this 
 extraordinary translation. I venture to say, that 
 a blunder more glaring is not to be found.* 
 
 * T^\2^)J to take vengeance. The reader may have heard 
 of a blundering Hebraist who, finding in a Lexicon that ^^T\ 
 meant to plough, and "QTh meant bread, actually rendered 
 
 liJi^nnn DriKT ddJ? Dn^i ^^^ Exod. xiv. i4.— i. e. 
 
 " The Lord shall fight for you, and ye shall hold your 
 peace," by " The Lord shall make bread, and ye shall 
 
 plough.'" Or, of the Frenchman who, translating Cibber^s 
 
 play of Love'' s Last Shift, rendered these words by, La derniere 
 Chemise de Vamoiir. Now I really think Mr. B.'s rendering 
 nji^^ by to take vengeance, is entitled to the palm. Indeed, 
 I confess I was a long time at a loss how to account for so 
 strange a mistake, till looking, by chance, into Taylor's 
 Concordance, 1 found there under the root T\W]J the words, 
 
134- 
 
 Indeed, I believe Mr. B. himself has since 
 become sensible of it ; for in his republication 
 of the contrasted passages, and in the Intro- 
 duction to his Genesis, he has substituted the 
 word REQUITE, instead of taken vengeance. 
 But in doing so, he has only changed one error 
 for another equally glaring. Mr. B. indeed 
 says (Introduction, p. xxxi.) " Concerning the 
 '* passage, Amos iii. 6. Shall a trumpet be bloivn 
 '* in the city, and th. people not be afraid? Shall evil 
 '* be in the city, and the Lord has not done it? 
 " The last clause of which I (Mr. B.) have 
 '* translated and Jehovah has not requited it." 
 (As if he had never translated it, and the Lord 
 has taken 'vengeance.) And he then proceeds 
 — -" It is hardly to be believed, that olyectors 
 " are to be found bold enough to say that TW]^ 
 " is never to be found in the sense of to requite. 
 ** If the reader will turn to 2 Sam. ii. 6. he will 
 " find that the word is found m the sense of, to 
 " requite. — " And now the Lord shew kindness 
 ** and truth unto you : and I also iltl/Pi^i will 
 " REQUITE you this kindness." 
 
 has taken vengeance ; the last word being- purposely printed 
 in italics to indicate that it doth not belong to the root. But 
 Mr. B. i suppose, overlooking.the diffen nee in the type, be- 
 lieved that Taylor meant to include the third word in the mean- 
 ing of T]\l!V ! This will then account for his strange blunder. 
 
135 
 
 Now, notwithstanding this taunt, I am bold 
 enough to tell him that the single word nu/^ 
 cannot, with any degree of propriety, be ren- 
 dered by " to requite,'* (the Hebrew word for 
 requite being 7bJI and not n:i'l?, (see Gen, 1. 17. 
 Psalm vii. 5.) Nay, I tell him further, that a 
 person cannot proclaim his ignorance in stronger 
 terms, than by insisting that this word signifies 
 the same thing, as to requite. But, says Mr. 
 B. I have proved that the English Version 
 renders T^\:;'^^ by " I will requite." — Were I 
 inclined to cavil, 1 might ask him, of what 
 benefit the authority of this version can be to 
 him, after having told us that its authors .had 
 not a single critical scholar amongst them ? — 
 But, waving this objection, I may be permitted 
 to tell him, that his arguments are as unfair as 
 his statement is uncandid. For it so happens 
 that the passage under consideration consists 
 of three distinct clauses, in each of which the 
 verb T]\1^U occurs, (and it was rather disinge- 
 nuous in Mr. B. not to state this circumstance,) 
 as may be seen from the following Hebrew text. 
 
 ns*rn nm^n D::nN n::^;;^ ^djx dji 2. 
 
 On comparing this text with the Englisli 
 Version, it might appear, to a superficial reader, 
 
136 
 
 as if the Translators had rendered the first 
 verb (ii^P)) by shew ; and Ht^^JJ by requite ; 
 and such sound reasoners as Mr. B, might hence 
 infer that ^^iJ means to shew, or to requite; 
 but, in point of fact, it was neither the single 
 word ^V^ nor ^U/iJH they have so rendered, for 
 it is evident that they did not intend this as a 
 literal translation: it is not a translation of 
 •words, but an exchange of idioms, i. e. different 
 words having the same meaning. Thus they 
 have rendered the first clause which literally 
 is, and now may the Lord do with you kindness 
 
 and truth by — " And now the Lord shew 
 
 kindness and truth unto you."' The second clause 
 which literally means and I also will do with you 
 this favor ; they have rendered, " and I will requite 
 you this kindness.** Mr. B. might therefore as 
 well insist that the French verb avoir signifies 
 to be, because he finds the following phrases 
 J'ai Jaim-, vouz avez tort rendered in English 
 ^^ I am hungry ;" " you are wrong;" as to infer 
 from this translation that T\tl^]J means to requite. 
 That the literal meaning of ^Ji'i/^i is / will 
 do, and not I will requite, the reader may easily 
 decide by perusing the following translations of 
 this verse. 
 
 THE TARGUM. 
 
137 
 
 SEPTUAGINT. 
 
 iroiYiau jxeG v^m to ctyx^ov raro, oTk tvoiYia-xtt to p?/iia tsto, 
 
 Luther's German translation. 
 iSo THUE nun an euch der Herr barmhertzig- 
 keit und treue ; und Ich will euch auch guts thun 
 das ihr solches gethan habL 
 
 FRENCH TRANSLATION. 
 
 Que maintenant done VEternel 'veuille user 
 envers vous de gratuite, et de verite : de ma part 
 aussi je vous ferai du bien, parce que vous avez 
 FAIT cela. 
 
 If after this Mr. B. still insists that T\m 
 means to requite, let him enjoy his opinion. 
 To me it appears very clear that the rendering 
 of this verb alone without reference to its ac- 
 companiment, by to requite, is no less a blunder,* 
 than to render it, as Mr. B. has once before done, 
 by to take vengeance. 
 
 THIRD ATTACK EXAMINED. 
 
 Sir W. Drummond published an Essay on 
 a Punic Inscription. Mr. B. ever ingenious 
 in finding opportunities of detracting from 
 the English Version, thought proper to no- 
 tice this Essay in order to '* illustrate many 
 particulars of the most ancient part of the 
 
138 
 
 Bible, and to reconcile the manifest incon- 
 sistencies of passages as they stand in the 
 translation," fixes on verse 6. 1 Sam. xxii. 
 which runs thus, 
 
 iri'-im HD-in bu/i^n nnn nvnn 2i2;v b^a^m 
 
 ...- TTT :• •• T -- t;-- •" t; 
 
 ENGLISH TRANSLATION. 
 
 " Now Saul abode in Gibeah, under a tree 
 in Ramah, having his spear in his hand, and all 
 his servants were standing about him." 
 
 " This passage," (says Mr. B.) " as 
 it stands in the translation, is incorrect j 
 when we read that ' Saul abode in Gibeah 
 under a tree in Ramah,' it certainly must 
 strike every reader as absurd and impos- 
 sible for Saul to abide in the city of Gibeah, 
 and at the same time under a tree in the citj/ 
 of Ramah." Besides, if he had at that time 
 been in Gibeah, or in Ramah, there was no 
 necessitv for him to abide in those cities^ while 
 all his servants were about him, " with his spear 
 in his hand." (C. J. No. 5, p. 201.) 
 
 Now I must needs ask this criticiser, why it 
 was impossible for Saul to be in Gibeah and at 
 the same time under a tree in Ramah ; because 
 he chooses to take for granted, that this Ramah 
 was a city ? But who told him so ? Might not 
 
139 
 
 Ramali* have been the name of a particular 
 part of the city of Gibeah ? just as we call one 
 part of London, Tower-hill, or another Snow- 
 hill ? And what absurdity is there in saying 
 that a man sat under a tree on Tower-hill, in 
 London ? But, says Mr. B. Saul had his spear in 
 his hand ! — Well, and supposing he had, — what 
 then? Is this so extraordinary ? Cannot a man 
 be supposed to sit under a tree on Tower-hill 
 in London, with a sword in his hand ? parti- 
 cularly a man like Saul, to whom the spear was 
 a constant companion, (see Sam. xviii. 10. xix. 
 9. XX. SS.) But Mr. B. must needs find fault, 
 right or wrong, and charge the translators of 
 the English Version with blunders, of which 
 the most contemptible writer would hardly be 
 guilty. Where was his charity ! 
 
 Mr. B. then gives his own translation, 
 with which it is not necessary to trouble the 
 reader : and proceeds thus — 
 
 " Fidelity, particularly when the Scriptures 
 " are the subject, is the duty of a translator; 
 " but in the Bible translation of this passage. 
 
 * H/DT sig-nifies in Hebrew high, elevated. It was the 
 name of several places on account of their elevated situation, 
 and may on this account have been either the name of a 
 particular part of Gibeah, or of a place in its vicinity. 
 
140 
 
 " (l Sam. xxii. 6.) the translators have passed hy 
 " a word which is as necessary as any other, as it 
 *' informs us of what description V"TDI7 his ser- 
 " vants were; this is the word D''3V3n* hannitsa- 
 *' bim. This word means garrisons, 2 Sam. viii. 6. 
 " &c. The last clause V*?!/ D^aVJ VIIV h2^ will 
 " then read, * and all his garrison soldiers about 
 " him.'" Garrison soldiers indeed! Why just 
 garrison soldiers? Was Saul reduced to such an 
 extremity as to be obliged to call the soldiers 
 out of their garrisons ! Ai^d where were the 
 fortified places whence these garrison soldiers 
 were drawn ? unless it be some of those castles 
 which Mr. B. so often builds in the air! Be 
 this as it may, let Mr. B. enjoy the merit of 
 rendering the last clause, contrary to the first 
 principles of grammar,! by garrison soldiers. 
 But when he dares accuse the Translators 
 
 * Both these words must be misprints, the Hebrew 
 word in this passage being D''3V3 ; i^nd I cannot believe 
 that the author has intentionally put a H to it, in order to 
 favor his interpretation. 
 
 t If D^DV3 meant garrison, for which yet there is not 
 the least authority, then must the word corresponding with 
 servants (Mr. B.'s garrisons) be in the genitive ; thus, ^13^ 
 and could not according to the genius of the language have 
 a possessive pronoun, which yet is the case here. 
 
141 
 
 of *want of fidelity^ he does that, at which as an 
 honest man he ought to feel regret — because 
 it is not true that the translators have passed 
 by the word D''3i^2. — They liave rendered it, as 
 every Hebrew scholar must render it, by "were 
 standing; thus, VlDj/ vDI and all his servants 
 D^3V3 were standing 1v>' about him. And what 
 becomes now of his accusations ! They rest on 
 as solid a foundation as the castles of his garri- 
 son soldiers. So much for Mr. B.'s notice* of 
 Sir W. Drummond's Essay. 
 
 * This notice, which occupies nearly twenty pages of 
 the Classical Journal, is altogether a most curious piece of 
 composition. Besides critical acumen, Mr. B. has exhibited 
 most wonderful philological and logical powers. As a speci- 
 men of the former, take the following: " KavT/j is literally 
 from DJ2 kanes, a basket. Tuber from 13^ some- 
 thing elevated, or raised above the plain or surface. Term 
 from D"l^ term, time. Cable from 733 cable." — Would 
 the author be kind enough to tell us from what part of the 
 Bible he has taken these Hebrew words, and who told him 
 that DID nieans time, and that D33 is a basket? 
 
 As a specimen of the latter, take the following. " Thus 
 *' we read Jud. xii. 0. concerning the Ephraimites, that they 
 *< could not pronounce the ^ shin ; bat instead of it they 
 *' pronounced the "Q sujnech, and the reason is evident. 
 *' Ephraim was a native of Egypt, and as he pronounced 
 ** himself, so he taught his children to pronounce after the 
 " Egyptian manner; but the rest of the sons of Jacob re- 
 
142 
 
 FOURTH ATTACK EXAMINED. 
 
 The fourth tirade against the Translators 
 is contained in Mr. Bellamy's Critical Remarks 
 on Dr. A. Clark's Annotations on the Bible. 
 This article, as its title imports, was professedly 
 written against Dr. C; but Mr. B. having once 
 determined to act on the offensive, thought it 
 as well to exercise his strength by a few pre- 
 vious blows at the translation. Accordingly, he 
 begins his critical remarks by lamenting " that 
 " in this enlightened age, &c. &c. a desire for 
 " biblical knowledge, such as is consistent with 
 " the original Hebrew, should not have stirred 
 ** up the zeal of the learned in all Christian 
 *' nations, to attempt a revision of those nume- 
 " rous passages in all the European translations 
 " which are inconsistent with the original, and 
 
 " tained the pronunciation of the country from which they 
 " came; and thus it was that the Ephraimites could not pro- 
 " nounce \^ shin, but with a D s^amech, who, when they 
 •' were told to say 'r\l'2.\!} Shibboleth, with a ^ shitiy said 
 " Tw3,D '^^^^ a D samech. The reason why they retained 
 " this mode of utterance after so long a period is obvious ; 
 " the tribes were distinct states, and did not mix with each 
 " other." (C. J. No. v. p. 204.) Did this logician not know 
 that Manasseh was also a native of Egypt ! ! 
 
143 
 
 " which stand opposed to custom and rational 
 " usage among men in every age. Since the first 
 " translation of the Hebrew Bible into the Latin 
 " tongue, when these errors were committed by 
 " the translator, and from which all the European 
 " translations are copied, no successful efforts 
 " have been made, to give the translation, where 
 *' it is objectionable, the language of the original. 
 " But accounts of circumstances as opposite to 
 " truth as light is to darkness, and contrary to 
 " every idea we have of right reason, on the 
 " ground of which the Hebrew scriptures are 
 ** written: are permitted to disgrace the pages of 
 " the Bible, though not any thing of this na- 
 " ture is to be found in the original." 
 
 Now after this declaration, one would 
 suppose Mr. B. would have condescended to 
 point out those ^^ account of things, ^x. which 
 disgrace the pages of the Bible.'* Oh, no! that 
 would be gratifying the reader's curiosity too 
 soon, and spoil the plot. Therefore, instead of 
 explaining himself, he turns to the ostensible 
 object of attack. Dr. Clark.* After giving this 
 
 * Dr. Clark is undoubtedly fully capable of fightiiis;- 
 his own battle, particularly against such an antagonist. But 
 I cannot avoid remarking, that if it be an error in Dr. C. to 
 
144 
 
 gentleman a few ineffectual blows, and railing 
 at him for the space of nearly two pages, he turns 
 again to the translation, and thus expresses 
 himself. 
 
 " In the 14th and 16th verses, as they 
 stand in the English and in all the European 
 translations, we understand that " Abimelech 
 gave to Abraham sheep, and oxen, and men 
 servants, and maid servants, and a thousand 
 pieces of silver, but there is no authority 
 for this translation in the original.** (What 
 daring effrontery !) " We do not find that there 
 was any consideration given on the part of 
 Abraham for all this profusion of valuable 
 property; for it was not enough that Abime- 
 lech should restore his wife to him which 
 was all he could reasonably expect, (!) but 
 the good king must give him sheep and oxen, 
 and men servants, and women servants, he 
 
 refer J^TD to HDD H/^^j it must be the same in Jonathan 
 and the Jerusalem Targum, for both render it so; the former, 
 by liyj^ they; i. e. the thousand shekels of silver: the latter, 
 is still more explicit, for thu^ he paraphrases this clause; 
 
 tsn y\r\^) nP?"^ W^ ^^■.^. ^'5^': ^'7 ^1^^^ 
 
 J^lpin SSD2 \ — As for Mr. Bellamy's rules, they are like 
 
 - T ; " 
 
 Lis criticisms ; and his criticism like his rules. 
 
145 
 
 " must also give him a thousand pieces of 
 " silver: and all this to a sojourner, and a 
 *' stranger.'* — The reader may perhaps say, 
 if this be all that Mr. B. has to alledge 
 against the translators, he ought not to have 
 been so very harsh in his censures: for whether 
 the translation of this verse be right or wrong, 
 there surely is nothing in it to disgrace the 
 pages of the Bible. — But stop, kind reader, 
 Mr. B. has a great deal more to say. And 
 first, we must have another digression : for 
 digressions are very useful in this species of 
 composition, as they serve to distract the 
 attention of the reader, and give our writings 
 the appearance of profundity. Well, Mr. B. 
 makes a digression, for the sole purpose of in- 
 troducing Aben Ezra as asserting something 
 about i^in, which that learned man never did 
 assert; and of charging him, for this supposed 
 assertion, with a deviation " from the grammar 
 and syntax of the language!"* Having thus dis- 
 
 * It is curious enough to find Mr. Bellamy charging 
 Aben Ezra, one of the, g-reatest Hebraists that the world ever 
 produced, and whom Cardan places among the seven won- 
 ders of learning and talent, with a deviation from Hebrew 
 granimar and syntax. — The pigmy attacking the giant ! and 
 how does lie do it? by misrepresentation. Mr. B. says, 
 " Doctor {! !) Aben Ezra refers the maseuline pronoun J^TH 
 
 K 
 
146 
 
 patched Doctor Aben Ezra, (as Mr. B. is pleased 
 to call him,) he resumes his subject. " This 
 has often been considered by Deists* as a very 
 objectionable passage, because it is contrary 
 to right reason to suppose that this transaction 
 
 to the conduct of Abimelecli." But this is not the fact. He 
 refers it tu Abraham ; for after stating- his own opinion and 
 that of some other commentators, he concludes with the 
 following words : — 
 
 "•D ^n-iDi^ ii^/i^'D i^'TT'ti nvr\b ]"idi Tnri 
 ^riK ■it:^^ D">-F3i;'7T ib dti; moD sin unm^ 
 
 " It is more likely that the meaning of this clause is, 
 as I have before explained, namely, that "jv ^^^^ H^n 
 D'^J^^ niDD means, " Behold he (Abraham) is to thee a 
 covering of the eyes, (i. e. a protector) as well as to the 
 servants that are with thee," &c. Now in the name of truth 
 I ask Mr. B. how he could so mislead his readers by 
 telling them that Aben Ezra refers the masculine pronoun 
 to the conduct of Abimelech, when he in the plainest 
 terms asserts the contrary ? Surely Mr. B. ought and must 
 feel some compunction: or he must be compunction proof! 
 
 * Plato tells us in his Cratylus, that whenever the 
 composers of tragedies find themselves involved in any 
 difficulty, they are sure to fly to their machinery, and 
 introduce the gods in order to relieve them from their 
 embarrassment. Mr. B. seems to have copied them in some 
 respects; for whenever he is at a loss for an argument, 
 and which is not unfrequently the case, he is sure to bring 
 in his Deists ; as if their absurd assertions were really of 
 any importance. Though I really do not know to whom of 
 the blunderins tribe he means to refer in this instance. 
 
147 
 
 took place m the order in which it is related in 
 the translation. Neither could Abraham, who 
 is declared to be a prince and the richest 
 monarch in all the east, (will Mr. B. have the 
 goodness to give us his authority for this 
 declaration !) have accepted such favors without 
 making an adequate return; for honor was a 
 peculiar trait in his character."* Having thus 
 made the venerable Patriarch, first a stranger 
 and sojourner, then, the richest monarch in all the 
 east, he tells us that Abraham was a shepherd 
 king; and, after a few more digressions, he 
 proceeds to state the principal objection against 
 the translation. Now, kind reader, guess what 
 it is ! but no! you will not find it out were 
 you to guess till doomsday. It is — but let 
 
 * Tliese silly charges, and the unjust attack on Aben 
 Ezra, are again repeated in a note on verse 14. chap. 20. of 
 the new translation of Genesis. The learned reader will 
 have observed, how many marks and betrayals of ignorance 
 or confused recollections (as this of the sJvepherd kings, for 
 instance) I have been obliged to pass unnoticed, even in the 
 passages, that I have selected " from the rank and tangled 
 wilderness" of Mr. B.'s criticisms, for the purpose of par- 
 ticular exposure: unless indeed I had doubled the size of 
 this volume, and in the zeal of confuting errors, too glaring 
 for the most part to need confutation, have stifled or over- 
 layed my own work with the motley patch-work from Mr. 
 B.'s wardrobe. 
 
 K 2 
 
148 
 
 Mr. B. be his own interpreter, lest he should 
 accuse me of misrepresentation — " It is then 
 " said in the translation; and Abmelech took 
 *' sheep^ and oa:en, and men-servants^ and maid- 
 " servants, and gave them to Abraham.'* But 
 the word THEM does not occur in the 
 original, therefore cannot be applied to Abi- 
 melech's giving the persons and cattle to 
 Abraham. — So because in translating an 
 elliptical clause, the translators have ventured 
 to supply the word omitted, but evidently 
 understood in the original, therefore the trans- 
 lation of the whole sentence must be wrong — 
 and rip'^l must not mean " he took," — nor IIT'I 
 " and he gave," — nor could Abimelech have 
 given Abraham any presents — and all those 
 who believe it, must be blockheads — and Mr. 
 Bellamy is the wise man ! Truly I do not know 
 which ought to excite greater contempt, the 
 premises, the deductions, or the writer who 
 has the effrontery of charging the translation 
 with containing accounts of circumstances that 
 are as opposite to truth as light is to darknessy 
 &c. — But to proceed — Mr. B. having thus (as 
 he imagined) convicted and driven out the 
 old translation, he must of course present a 
 substitute of his own providing. Nothing 
 in the world is more easy. For we have 
 
149 
 
 only (no matter whether right or wrong) to 
 render ^]p'^^ by ** and he 7'eceived" and \TS^^ 
 " and he brought** — and then out comes our 
 little elegant translation as snugly as we can 
 wish it: — it will read thus. — ** And Ahimelech 
 received* sheep, and o-ren, and men-servants, and 
 women- servants ; and he brought to Abraham and 
 restored to him Sarah his wife.'* Now is not this 
 a very elegant and correct translation? — But, Mr. 
 Bellamy (will the learned reader ask) " waving 
 all other objections, what becomes of the Hebrew 
 accents, about which you say so much ? What 
 becomes of those infallible guides ? According 
 to your translation, the word mnsti'1 and maid- 
 servants, ought to have an J^rinjTIi^ (^) and 
 Dni^^?"? " to Abraham, ought to be without it, 
 — whereas in looking in the Hebrew Bible, I 
 find the contrary; mn'!::^*! having only a jtOp 
 (:) and Onn^Nl'? has the ^^n^]ns!— Your's must 
 surely be wrong, and the slandered English 
 translation must be rigt !" — I cannot tell 
 
 * In the new translation of his Genesis, Mr. B. renders 
 this word Hp^lj by had received. This I suppose is grounded 
 on his newly discovered, rule about the Hebrew pluper- 
 fect tense: evidently showing that he mistook a ^^/1^'Tp 
 for a XOJi^Sl' This is not the only place where the author 
 has made such a mistake. 
 
150 
 
 vvliat reply Mr. B. may make to this question, 
 unless it be to charge the interrogator with 
 being a Judaizing Jew! But I have to ask 
 this gentleman a more serious question, and 
 which he will find it still more difficult to 
 answer. It concerns indeed that abstruse point, 
 personal indentity: my question being this — 
 " Is the Mr. Bellamy, the author of Critical 
 Remarks, and the translator of the 20th chapter 
 of Genesis, the same individual as the Mr. Bel- 
 lamy, who translated the 17th verse of the 21st 
 chapter of Genesis ? I ask this question, be- 
 cause in perusing the Hebrew Bible I find that 
 a verse, similar to that under discussion, occurs 
 in Gen. xxi. 27. differing only in this — that in 
 chap. 20. l'7D''3X is the nominative, and Dm3i^ 
 has the prefix h, but in chap. 21, DHI^i^ is the 
 nominative, and l'7D''3i^ has the prefix h; also, 
 that the two words mHDii'l W^HU which are 
 in the former, do not occur in the latter. In 
 every other respect they are perfectly similar, 
 as may be seen by the following. 
 
 D''73i;] -Ij?31 ]i^V i2^^^^^ ni^n Gen. XX. 14. 
 
 AT T : - : I •• . - T : 
 
 ]m n]>y\ ]^^if J^n"",?^ npi] Gen. xxi. 27. 
 
151 
 
 Now the reader knows, how Mr. Bellamy, the 
 author of Critical Remarks, the translator of 
 verse 14, chap. 20, has vilified the translators 
 for rendering the verse in the manner they 
 have done — that he insisted that 7^p'^^ means 
 
 " HE RECEIVED** — and ]!^^^ " HE BROUGHT," 
 
 and how he by this ingenious contrivance 
 made tlie whole verse read thus: 
 
 And Abimelech RECEIVED sheep, and 
 oxen, and man-servants and woman-servants, and 
 BROUGHT to Abraham, ^c. 
 
 And as the same words under the same cir- 
 cumstances cannot have two different meanings, 
 one would suppose that verse 27, chap. 21, must 
 be rendered in the same manner, viz. 
 
 And Abraham received sheep, and oa:en, and 
 brought to Abimelech. But I find Mr. Bellamy, 
 the translator of the twenty-Jirst chapter, renders 
 this verse exactly, excepting a slight error, in 
 the same manner, as those blockheads the trans- 
 lators — thus : 
 
 And Abraham took sheep, and oxen, xvhich 
 he gave to Abimelech ! 
 
 I must therefore renew my question; which, 
 if it be answered in the negative, I must com- 
 pliment the latter, Mr. Bellamy, for his courage 
 in thus venturing to differ from his brow-beat- 
 ing name-sake, who will tell him that the (Mr. 
 
153 
 
 Bellamy alter) had proved that Hp^l is not he 
 
 took, nor in"*"! he gave: but if my question 
 
 be answered in the affirmative, then must Mr. 
 Bellamy be the most inconsistent gentleman 
 that ever put pen to paper. — And this is the 
 man who charges the translations with contra- 
 dictions and inconsistencies ! 
 
 So much for Mr. Bellamy's Biblical Cri- 
 ticisms. Now let us turn to his new translation 
 of Genesis, and see whether his objections 
 ajrainst the established Version, or rather 
 against all former translations, are not of the 
 same complexion. 
 
 FIFTH ATTACK. 
 
 I have already observed (p. yi.) that Mr. 
 B. has taken it in his head that the particle 
 nbJ means substance. He, accordingly, mis- 
 translates the very first verse of Genesis: thus, 
 *' In the beginning God created CD^i^H r\^ 
 J'lSn nsi* the substance of the heaven, and 
 
 * I am aware that some of the Talmudistical writers have 
 often indulged in similar conjectures. Thus we find I^IT 
 mina::^ iTliS hj t^ll i^l^pi: Rabbi AUiba com- 
 mented or gave an additional explanation to every passage 
 where the word ^^5 occurs in the law. But then it must be 
 
153 
 
 the substance of the earth. A most unwar- 
 rantable interpolation of two words. For the 
 Hebrew word for substance or essence is DVj/. 
 Had therefore the sacred writer intended to 
 speak of substance, he would have said D!i^i7 Jli^ 
 
 recollected that they did not do it to supersede the obvious 
 and plain jnoianing of words, for they themselves repeatedly 
 say, 1D1ti^'S!2 ^5^V J^"lpDn )''^5 Before we venture to give 
 any extra meaning to the text, we must first ascertain its 
 obvious meaning. If Mr. B. wishes to be convinced of his 
 error, let him try to render the word pi^, in the following 
 passages by tlie substance of 
 
 Gen. v. 2. Dli^ U12ti; HkS ^1'p^^ And he called the 
 substances of their names Adam. 
 
 And he built the substance of Ninevah, and the substance of 
 the city of Rehobath, &c. 
 
 Jud. ix. nj^ll r\r\)i< 'Q^1T\T\ Sv n^^ Thou seest the 
 substance of the shadow, &c. 
 
 But it is evident that Mr. B. has never reverted to the 
 force of the syllable sub. in substance ; or to the reason 
 why the old grammarians have called the nominative (and 
 rightly as far as, and as often as it is an agent spoken of) the 
 subjective case, the true agent being hidden from the bodily 
 senses, and lying as it were underneath fsubjectumj the 
 sensible external, which is therefore named the object : and 
 the accusative case the objective. We seethe shadow; it 
 is an object, Jacet ob oculos — But who would talk of the 
 substance of a shadow ? Perhaps Mr. Bellamy, whose objec- 
 tions are in fact but the shadow of a substance ! 
 
154 
 
 Li'^^U/n, Sec. Nor was there the least occasion 
 for it; for the verb i^l2, which according 
 to the first authorities signifies to bring into 
 existence, evidently implies that the veri/ things 
 to which it refers have been brought into 
 existence by the almighty Jiat: and what is 
 the calling forth from nonentity, but the pro- 
 duction of the thing in its very essence? But 
 Mr. B. not satisfied with this interpretation, 
 must charge all the translations with errors. 
 In one of his precious notes, he says, " The 
 " next word in the second proposition in this 
 " verse is TM^, elk, which in all the translations 
 ** is twice omitted in this verse. Some trans- 
 " lators have thought it to be a mark of the 
 " accusative case simply after an active verb; 
 " but if so, there must be a repetition of the 
 " article the, as the following word D"'Dti' has 
 " the emphatic prefix H the by which it is trans- 
 *' lated the heaven, I say if this word Di< eth 
 " comprehends no more than simply the accu- 
 " sative, there must either be a repetition of 
 " the article the, and so U^12^T\ nx must be 
 " translated the the heaven, or the word i^^^, 
 *' must be passed over, without being trans- 
 " lated as it is in the translations." 
 
 Now though Mr. B. chooses to say, " Some 
 translators have thought HiS to be the sign of 
 
155 
 
 the accusative case simply," &c. he must 
 have known that every grammarian of note, 
 has thought and said so; — and that the Hebrew 
 Bible, from which alone gramm.atical rules can 
 be drawn, says so in every page; nay, Mr. 
 Bellamy himself must have thought so, or have 
 been guilty of the very fault with which he 
 charges the translators; for in ninety-nine times 
 out of a hundred where n^^ occurs, he has 
 exactly followed the old translators; and if it 
 be a crime in them to pass over^ this word, 
 it must be equally so in the New Translator. 
 As for his assertion of " I say if this word,'* 
 he. CDJi'il must be translated the the heaven, 
 I can hardly believe Mr. B. knew what he said. 
 Whoever dreamt that rii^ means, tJie? all that 
 grammarians have said concerning it, is simply 
 this, that it is the sign of the objective. And 
 must a noun having the sign of the objective 
 be always taken in a definite sense? Must 
 dominum mean, the JLord, because it is in the 
 accusative? Or hunc dominum the the Lord? 
 A similar objection against the translation 
 is made by Mr. B. in note, v. 3. *' From what 
 " has been said, and from what follows, it will 
 " appear evident that the Sun was created on 
 " the first day, and not on the fourth (i) as has 
 " been supposed by most commentators; and 
 
156 
 
 " that when God spake the creative word,* his 
 " powerful influence produced IM^H TM^ the 
 " substance of the light, or the body of the sun. 
 " For the Hi^ which means the very substance 
 " of the thing spoken of, is not noticed in the 
 " common version." Now besides the absurdity 
 of the supposition, that light and the sun are 
 the same thing, or that the substance of light 
 is the body of the sun, it so happens that the 
 objector has himself rendered ^^^ D^'^'?^< i^T'') 
 11>irT by, " And God saw the light was good," 
 thus passing over the word nj^ about which he 
 makes such a noise. The new Translator must 
 therefore have forgotten his own words; as he 
 would hardly condemn himself. 
 
 SIXTH ATTACK. 
 
 Note on verse 2. '* And the Spirit of God 
 moved.'* " There are in this verse, in the 
 '* translation, no less than four conjunctions 
 " copulative where the T is translated by the 
 
 * But the word of God was not "n^^ flJ^ •>n"* Let 
 there be the substance of Hght, but "11 J? "Tl^ let there be 
 hght. This very circumstance ought to have convinced Mr. 
 B. that, Xy^ in verse 4. can be nothing else but the sign of 
 the ficcusative. 
 
157 
 
 " word and; which ought not to have been done 
 " in anv one instance.'* Ao^ain, "the"! occurs 
 " ninety-two times in this chapter, which the 
 " translators have rendered by the conjunction 
 " copulative and. But they ought to have 
 " known, that the T has different modes of 
 " expression, according to construction, even 
 " as various as conjunctions in our language. 
 " The rule for the choice of the corresponding 
 " conjunction in other languages cannot be 
 " mistaken by those who understand the He- 
 " brew/' 
 
 From which we are to infer that all such 
 former translators who rendered the ^ by and^ 
 must have been ignorant of the Hebrew. This 
 indeed, is only a repetition of what Mr. B. had 
 told us in his introduction, viz. " Serious errors 
 " have been made also by the improper trans- 
 " lation of the 1 &c." and that " it answers to 
 ** the following English* words; and, when. 
 
 * The reasoning- by which 3Ir. B. suppoi-ts this bold 
 assertion is very curious. " Allowing, says he, that they 
 ' (the first Translators) understood the different apphcations 
 ' of the T, which according to construction answers to vari- 
 ' ous conjunctions in other languages, it evidently appears 
 ' that as Jews they tvere not critically acquainted with the 
 ' conjunctions to which the T conesponded in other Ian- 
 
158 
 
 " yea, but, even, moreover, likewise, also, thou, 
 " when, for, which, who, with, now, because, 
 " as, thus, before, even, that, nor, therefore, 
 " nevertheless, whence, whose, though, till, 
 " afterwards, again, except," &c. Now, is it 
 not a most unpardonable boldness in any writer 
 to assert that such men as the translators of the 
 Septuagint, that such men, as Aquila, Theodo- 
 tion, Symmachus, &c. &c. were ignorant of the 
 import of a particle which occurs repeatedly in 
 every page? — Is it not revolting to common 
 sense, and contrary to the first principles of 
 language, to suppose that a single letter should 
 have such a variety of meanings r — and if it 
 had, — would the classic writers of the Old 
 Testament have made use of it — and left their 
 readers to conjecture which of the 74 (accord- 
 
 " guages, so as to choose the propei- conjunction ; and the 
 " Gentile translators were not critically acquainted with the 
 " Hebrew, so as to enable them to translate the T agreeably 
 " to its various acceptations, as understood by the ancient 
 " Hebrew," &c. (Introduction p. xv.) So that according- to 
 this great Logician, neither Jew nor Gentile could possibly 
 unravel the mysterious meaning of this single letter (!) and 
 consequently before a translator can venture to give its 
 proper meaning, he must become a literary hermaphrodite. 
 — Might we not ask Mr. B. by what magic power has he 
 then been able to discover its genuine meaning ? 
 
159 
 
 ing to Noldius*) or the 50 senses according to 
 Mr. B. they meant to express? In my opinion 
 such a word would be totally unfit for any 
 
 * Though Mr. B. nowhere states his authority for giving- 
 the Hebrew particle such a multiplicity of meanings, it is 
 pretty evident that he drew this precious lore either from 
 Noldius' Concordantia Particularum, &c. or from Taylor's 
 Concordance. Both these learned men have collected nu- 
 merous examples wherein those particles have been rendered 
 by translators, in particular instance, by various words. 
 "Whether they have, by such a collection rendered any essen- 
 tial service to Hebrew learning, is a question on which it is 
 unnecessary to enter at present. Certain it is that most of 
 the examples which they cite, are mistranslations. But in 
 justice to these learned men it ought to be stated, that they 
 have no where hinted, that it is at the option of a translator 
 to pick and choose, without the least discrimination, any 
 meaning which he may happen to find in their Concordances. 
 On the contrary, the modest and learned Mr. Taylor, 
 distinctly says, in the preface of his Concordance — " But 
 " to form a just sense of a word we ought to take in the 
 " sense of the whole verse, perhaps of the whole para- 
 " graph to which it belongs." This necessary limitation 
 Mr. B. has entirely overlooked. It is sufficient for him to 
 find in either of these authors, that the letters 12, 7, ^, ^, do 
 each, in some instance represent the nominative, genitive, 
 dative, accusative, and ablative, — and without stopping to 
 enquire whether these authors, however learned they were, 
 might not possibly have been mistaken, (as assuredly they 
 were) he makes each of these letters express any of the six 
 cases whenever it suits his fancy. In the same manner he 
 
160 
 
 language; nay, in no language could such a 
 word exist. But above all, I must ask, has not 
 the HebreM' language particles of every de- 
 scription to answer to the long list which Mr. 
 
 finds in Noldius' Concordance ^ rendered by iion (and which 
 by and by is a gross error) and all at once Q becomes a 
 negative. Deists pretend that the translations represent 
 God as the author of evil, Mr, B. is of the same opinion. 
 At a loss hov»f to answer their objection, he turns to Taylor's 
 Concordance, and in the long list of applications under the 
 root nji^i/j finds the words " has taken vengeance.^' Judges 
 xi. 3G. — Without giving himself the trouble to look into the 
 Hebrew Bible, which would at once have shewn him, that 
 it was not njj^>7> ^"t HlOpJ tlU/^ which the translators 
 have so rendei-ed, he adopts this meaning; and strangely 
 enough renders the single word HCi^i' in Amos, " he has 
 taken vengeance !" — And when this glaring blunder is pointed 
 out to him, he turns again to the Concordance where he finds 
 Tlti/V^ in Samuel rendered by " I will requite," and of course 
 nti'^Z in Amos must mean he requited — I do not say posi- 
 tively that Mr. B. has exactly followed this process. I give 
 it only as a conjecture, which is highly probable. For on no 
 other principle can 1 account for the very strange mistakes 
 he had made. Be this as it may; it is very obvious that 
 with such unwarrantable licences, — with such want of discri- 
 mination and judgment — and with such a disordered imagi- 
 nation, it is no very difficult task to produce a new transla- 
 tion. It remains however to be seen whether the learned of 
 this country will sanction, by their approval, attempts which 
 must make the Hebrew BibJe DVl^lD n^THD ^^ ^*- 
 trodden down by every innovator. 
 
161 
 
 B. has given? such as nn^^ thou; "It^'l!? ^who, 
 "which, that; DJ also, ]^^5Q whence, nn]/ now, TID 
 Wzew; P"), 'T^5, ^?^^; HD? Wzj/, j/IlD wherefore, &c. 
 Now when a writer having thus a choice of words 
 uses one in preference of another, it can only 
 arise from two causes : either from the writer's 
 ignorance of the true import of the excluded 
 word, or because he thinks that the adopted 
 word expresses his conceptions better than the 
 other. That the inspired writers knew the 
 import of these particles as well at least as Mr. 
 Bellamy, will readily be granted ; consequently 
 when they use the T where our Critic fancies 
 they ought to have used other particles, such 
 as D^ aho, "IJi^i^ who, &c. it could not proceed 
 from ignorance, but because they did not wish 
 to express the ideas which the excluded words 
 convey. And if so, how dare Mr. B. or any 
 man put into the mouth of the inspired wri- 
 ters words which they never intended to ex- 
 press? Instead, therefore, of blaming the 
 translators for rendering the ^ whenever the 
 genius of the language admitted of it, by the 
 copulative conjunction, I think they ought 
 rather to be commended. For though the repe- 
 tition of the copulative may make a translation 
 less elegant, yet by thus strictly adhering to 
 the original, it makes the translation more 
 
 L 
 
 jT. 
 
162 
 
 faithful; and this is the chief object to which 
 a rehgious reader looks. 
 
 SEVENTH ATTACK. 
 
 Note on verse 3. " Let there be light, 
 and there was light.'* " I refer the reader, 
 ** (says Mr. B.) to the note on the 26th verse, 
 " where I have shown that the word let is 
 " improper as to language — that it cannot be 
 ** used as spoken by the Creator— and that 
 *' there is no authority for it in these verses." 
 But whilst Mr, B. refers the reader to his 
 notes, I beg leave to refer him" to his Critical 
 Remarks in the Classical Journal, No. viii. 
 p. 309, where he maintains that T\\L^^1 is the 
 future of Niphal! that it does not mean we 
 will make, but " let be made." Now, which 
 of Mr. Bellamy's writings are we to believe, 
 his notes, or his Critical Remarks? 
 
 Again. " In the last clause of this verse 
 " lit? '^rT'l which is translated, and there was 
 " light; tlie word there, is supplied. So that 
 " the sublimity of the original is in a great 
 *' measure lost." Now if it be a fault thus 
 to supply a word, he has himself been guilty 
 of it in verse 6, 14, and in other places; thus, 
 '' Be there an expanse," — " Be there a divi- 
 sion,"- -" Be there lights," &c. 
 
163 
 
 Further. " The clause is worthy of God, 
 " and literally reads thus, " Be light, and light 
 " ivas.'** But in this case the Hebrew must 
 have been ITi^ H^H be light, whereas it is ^^"l 
 he shall be "11*^ light; literally " It shall be 
 light." It is therefore evident that the English 
 translation adheres closer to the original than 
 the New Translation! 
 
 EIGHTH ATTACK. 
 
 Gen. ii. 25. Dl^'H D^ZSli;^^ D^^iti^ Vri^.l 
 
 All translators and commentators, with- 
 out exception, agree that the sense of this 
 passage is, that our first parents were then in 
 that state of innocence, in which nakedness 
 excites not the feeling of shame.* Their minds 
 had not yet been debased by lust. 
 
 * Aiistotle ia his Rhetoric describes this feelitig", as a 
 perturbation of the mind, proceeding from evils either past, 
 present, or future, which procure disgrace. In his Ethics, 
 he defines it to be, the fear of disgrace; and, hke another 
 kind of fear, (he adds) it appears on the countenance; for 
 men when ashamed, blush. — Locke (in bis Essay concerning 
 the Human Understanding) defines it as an uneasiness of 
 the mind upon the thought of having done something which 
 is indecent, or that will lessen the valued esteem which others 
 
 L 2 
 
164 
 
 " Nor those mysterious parts were tlien conceal'd : 
 Then was not g"uilty shame ! Dishonest shame 
 Of nature's works, honor dishonorable. 
 Sill-bred, how have ye troubled all mankind 
 With shows instead, mere shows of seeming pure, 
 And banish'd from man's life his happiest life. 
 Simplicity and spotless innocence ! 
 So pass'd they naked on, nor shunn'd the sight 
 Of God or angel, for they thought no ill." 
 
 With great propriety, therefore, have the 
 translators of the Enghsh Version rendered 
 this passage ahnost verbatim, " And they "were 
 both naked, the man and his wife, and were not 
 ashamed." Mr. Bellamy, however, cannot, or 
 will not believe that Adam and Eve were 
 naked, when left in the garden of Eden; and 
 consequently, the translations must all be wrong. 
 — I give Mr. B.*s weighty reasons for his dis- 
 belief in his own words. 
 
 " The common translation of this verse 
 *' (says Mr. B.) supposes, that Adam and Eve, 
 " as soon as they were created, were left naked 
 
 have for us." I prefer Locke's definition, as the sense of 
 sha,nie is, in my opinion, not necessarily combined with the 
 fear of losing reputation. Be this as it may, it is certain 
 that in a state of iiKiocence (as is even now the case in child- 
 hood) neither \he feeling, nor its cause, could, possibly have 
 had an existence. And this is exactly what the inspired 
 writer communicates, and what the translations express. 
 
165 
 
 " in the garden of Eden, &c. But had this been 
 " as stated in all the translations, it must appear 
 " that thev could not have answered the end, for 
 '* which they were put into the garden, viz. to 
 *' dress and to keep it." Mr. B. is still more 
 explicit in his note on verse 7, chap. iii. " Many 
 " reasonable objections have been made to this 
 " statement hy intelligent men ^^ in all ages, sanc- 
 
 * The wisdom of these intelligent men, may easily be 
 inferred from their very objection. The. best way to cure 
 such ivisf acres of their disbelief, would be to treat them, 
 as a certain ancient Rabbi once treated an unbelieving 
 disciple. The story may be found in Medrash Koheleth, 
 It runs as follows. 
 
 " A certain heathen came to Rav, (a famous Rabbi,) 
 and said, "i~nj^ ^J^'^li^ '^31 " Master, teach me the law." 
 The Rabbi took an alphabet, and pointing to the first letter, 
 told him V\^^ I^DH^ " say aleph." — The heathen refused, 
 —saying, V^^^ NIHl "ID'''' ]i^D " who tells me (i. e. who 
 will convince me) that it is an a/eph ? The master pointed at 
 the next letter, and desired him to say ^ beth ; the pupil still 
 persisted in saying, " who proves to me it is a beth ?" The 
 Rabbi irritated by such unreasonable opposition, took hold of 
 his disciple and turned him out of doors. The heathen then 
 went to Samuel, f another Rabbi, J and made the same re- 
 quest. " Master, teach me the law."— I will teach you, with plea- 
 sure, replied the Rabbi. But you know before you attempt 
 to understand the law, you must first learn to read it; and in 
 order to read it, you must first learn the letters. Therefore, 
 (taking the alphabet, and pointing to the letters,) say ^ 
 
166 
 
 " tioned by the history, which shows that this 
 " could not have been the case." It has been 
 asked, " how it was possible for man, in a state 
 *' of nakedness, to dig the ground, and to dress, 
 " and to keep the garden in order?" for we see 
 *' all animals are prepared with a fence to their 
 " feet, suited to their necessities, which man is 
 ** not; but without which he would have been 
 " incapable of doing any thing of the kind." 
 Well, then, according to Mr. B Adam and Eve 
 
 aleph; 3 hcth. — O! exclaimed the heathen, who tells me 
 that this is an aleph — that this is a betb? Convince me 
 first, and I will believe you! The Rabbi, who was an expe- 
 rienced tutor, instead of entering' into argument with his 
 refractory pupil, laid hold of his ear and gave it a sound 
 pull.— ! >p"TlX !''3'1Ti^ My ear! My ear ! bawled out the 
 disciple. — O! you have hurt uiyear! — Thy ear! sayest thou, 
 — replied the master; — why, it is not thy ear — it is thy great 
 toe! " Yes, yes," exclaimed the heathen, " it is — it is my 
 ear — I know it is!"-:—" But how dost thou know it?" asked 
 the Rabbi. — 0! I know it, because my father and mother 
 told me so. — Well, said the master, since thou believest thy 
 father and mother that this is thy ear, believe me that this 
 is an aleph — this a beth, &c. Whether the man became 
 convinced by force of argument, or by force of the jiull, 
 the book does not say. Enough, he was convinced, applied 
 to his studies, and became a most excellent Hebrew scholar. 
 
 Now I repeat that the best answer that can be given to 
 the queries of Mr. B.'s intelligent men, would be, to give 
 them a few slight pinches on their ears. 
 
167 
 
 must have had clothes, and each a pair of shoes 
 too ! — Mr. B. proceeds, " I shall therefore en- 
 " deavor to give what appears to me the real 
 " state of man at that period, by confining niy 
 " views to the literal meaning of the Hebrew, 
 ** confirmed by other passages where the same 
 " word can have no other meaning nor applica- 
 " tion: which is, as observed, allowing Scripture 
 " to be its own interpreter.'* — The following is 
 Mr. Bellamy's literal translation. 
 
 " Notso they were both of them prudent, the 
 man and his xvife ; far they had not shamed 
 
 THEMSELVES." 
 
 What connexion there is according to this 
 interpretation between the first and second part 
 of the sentence ? — how it can be reconciled 
 with the subsequent narrative, particularly with 
 verse 21st. Then God ordained (made) j^r the 
 man and his wife coats of slcin^ and he clothed 
 them ? — how the same word can with any 
 propriety be rendered both prudent and im- 
 prudent ?* — or, in what sense the new Trans- 
 lator uses the words, they had not shamed 
 
 * In verse 7. chap. iii. he renders it stibtle. In verse 
 10 and 11, he renders it imprudent, and puts in the mouth 
 of fiod the following ridiculous expression ; icho declared to 
 ihee, that thou tcast bnprudent? (! ) 
 
168 
 
 THEMSELVES; — whether as in the following 
 lines of Pope ; 
 
 Who shames* a scribbler ? Break one cobweb thro'. 
 He spins the slight self-pleasing thread a new — 
 
 or in the sense of disgrace ?t — it is not worth 
 while to enquire. I shall therefore confine my 
 observations to his grammatical errors. 
 
 " The lexicon writers (says Mr. B. in a note 
 " on V. 25. chap, xi.) and from them, the trans- 
 " latorsjt have placed the word D^/21"li/ gnarou- 
 " mini, rendered naked, under the root nii/-, but 
 " it certainly belongs to the root D"*!/ from which 
 " comes the word subtle, craft, guile; and in a 
 " good sense, wisdom, prudence. See the same 
 *' word both letters and vowels necessarily so 
 " translated, Job v. 12. He disappoints the 
 *' devices of D^DIi;; the crafty;" &c. &c. Now I 
 beg leave to observe, that the whole of this is a 
 mis-statement from beginning to end. — It is not 
 
 * When the Hebrew wishes to express a similar idea, 
 it makes use of the form hiphil ti^^Hin h*^ made ashamed. 
 
 f In this sense it is never employed in the Hebrew. 
 
 J Mr. B. is sometimes very unhappy in his phra.. 
 seology. I cannot suppose that he meant to say that the 
 translators have placed the word under the root D^^l and 
 the reader will perhaps doubt whether such a thing as a 
 Hebrew lexicon was in existence at the time when the Greek 
 or Chaldean translations were made. 
 
169 
 
 true, that " all lexicon writers have placed this 
 word under the root ^m." Kimchi, Buxtorf, 
 David de Pomis, Coccejus, Parkhurst, Taylor, 
 have all placed this word under the root D*)!/.* 
 Nor is it true that the word in Job v. 12. 
 is the same as the one under consideration. 
 Here, the word is DVwTii/ gnaroiimmim^ the D 
 having a dagesh, which causes that letter to be 
 pronounced as a double letter; but the word 
 in Job V. 12. is D''01^ gnaruniim: the D 
 being without a dagesh. And this is the mark 
 by which the signification of the two words 
 may be ascertained. The Masorites have given 
 the following rule to distinguish the two words, 
 viz. IV^m ]\s'?^t3i;; ]^ai ]^DOn " The wise 
 are weak^ the naked stro?ig ;" i. e. when the 
 word CDinj/ has no dagesh, the D being then 
 pronounced as a single letter, it signifies wise^ 
 subtle, crafty: but when the letter D has a 
 dagesh, in which case the Q is pronounced as 
 a double ni, it shows the meaning of the word 
 to be naked. Now the word here (in Gen.) has 
 the dagesh; it is therefore evident that its 
 meaning is naked and not prudent; and that 
 
 * I notice this merely as a mis-statement, for I really 
 should not consider it a crime to place it under the root Hlj/- 
 
170 
 
 Mr. B.*s translation is neither confirmed by 
 other parts of Scripture, nor is it even con- 
 sistent with common sense. 
 
 NINTH ATTACK. 
 
 Of the same complexion is his translation 
 of the third chapter ; of which I shall notice 
 only a few instances. Thus, Gen. iii. 7. the 
 Hebrew text is 
 
 ESTABLISHED VERSION. 
 
 " And the eyes of them both were 
 opened, and they knew, that they were naked; 
 and they sewed fig-leaves together, and made 
 themselves aprons.'* 
 
 MR. Bellamy's translation. 
 
 Nevertheless the eyes of them both, had 
 
 been opened; thus they understood ; hut they 
 
 "were subtle : for they had intenvoven the 
 
 foliage of the fig tree ; and had made for 
 
 themselves enclosures. 
 
 Now as if Mr. B. had anticipated that no 
 one would understand this barbarous stuff, he 
 adds a number of notes by way of comment. 
 
ITl 
 
 And first he rails against tlie translators for 
 having rendered ninpSfi") in the imperfect 
 tense. " It is," says he, " the pluperfect ;" 
 and is tridy rendered " they had been opened,** 
 referring, as he pretends, to the time when 
 God gave his command to Adam as related in 
 the preceding chapter ! — Now this ridiculous 
 interpretation is contradicted by Mr. B.*s own 
 translation of the preceding verse. For thus 
 he renders the fifth verse of this chapter. 
 " For God hioweth, that in the day ye eat of 
 the same, DP'^^i/ inp5?l ^^'^^ your understanding 
 shall be opened." It is therefore evident that 
 their eyes, or rather their understanding, had 
 not then yet been opened. For else how could 
 the serpent have said so? or how could the 
 prudent Eve have believed what she must have 
 known to be untrue? 
 
 TENTH ATTACK. 
 
 The next observation which Mr. B. makes 
 is on the words, " and they sewed." He very 
 facetiously remarks, " at this period we under- 
 stand that there were no implements to enable 
 them to perform the operation of serving." — 
 Now this silly objection has long ago been 
 answered by Aben Ezra, who, in his comment 
 on Genesis says. 
 
172 
 
 " Those that require a needle are fools, for 
 they CAdam and Eve) might have accomplished 
 their purpose, xvith a thin piece of 'wood.'' 
 
 ELEVENTH ATTACK. 
 
 nhjn Mr. B» renders enclosures. But this 
 is not its proper meaning. The proper signifi- 
 cation of "Ijn is to girt, encircle ; the noun 
 may therefore be rendered either, a girdle, an 
 apron, or any thing which is girt around the 
 waist. Mr. B. refers to Eruvin, fol. xxii. 2. (I 
 suppose he means the 31isJma, chap. ii. sect. 4.;) 
 but he only exposes his deficiency' in rabbinical 
 learning, for the word mun to which he 
 refers, does not even there mean an enclosure, 
 but as WoTTON has properly rendered it, girt, 
 (in with ropes.) See Wotton's Eruviii, 
 
 TWELFTH ATTACK. 
 
 t^fD nf} ^p^ HDni^n nifj ^zvh Gen. iii. 2.7. 
 
 " To till the ground whence he was 
 taken." Mr. B. renders this clause, when 
 he had transgressed on the ground therefore 
 he was taken therefrom. 
 
 In one of his notes he thus expresses 
 himself — The word "1D>''7 lagneabor is rendered 
 to till, " but this word with this construction 
 
173 
 
 means to transgress; see Deut. xvii. 2. where 
 the same word both consonant and vowels, is 
 rendered by the word transgressing." 
 
 I confess when I first read this note, I 
 could hardly credit my own eyes. Unwilling 
 to believe that a person who lays claim to 
 Hebrew learning could commit so gross an 
 error, I was inclined to think that the word 
 131/7 and its accompanying reading lagneabor, 
 were both jnisprinls. Unfortunately, Mr. B. 
 has been so very explicit, as to preclude the 
 possibility of such a supposition. For he tells 
 us that the word in Deut. xvii. 2. *' lias the 
 same consonants as the w^ord here in Gen. 
 iii. 26." — This is however not the fact. In 
 Deuteronomy the word is -)3j;'7 derived from 
 13^ to pass over, to transgress; and is written 
 with a 1 resh (r) : but here the word is T^J//, 
 derived from "73j/ to serve, to labour ; and is 
 written with a T daleth (d): so that Mr. B. 
 must absolutely have confounded the two 
 letters.* To be sure, as the two letters are 
 
 * A blunder apparently arising' from a similar source 
 occurs in Mr. B.'s Translation Gen. xi. 6. where he renders 
 "inj^ Dj/ \T] " Behold one people," by " behold another 
 people,'''' as if the Hebrew word had been ")nj?> another. 
 However on consulting' Mr. B.'s note, the reader will find 
 
174 
 
 somewhat similar in shape, such a fault might 
 easily be committed by a school-boy, who is 
 
 that the error in that instance did not arise from his 
 inistaking the letters, but is owing to a source no less 
 discreditable; namely, the bad use he made of Taylor's 
 Concordance. (Consult that work under the root "TPli^ 
 and compare the citations, with those contained in Mr. B.'s 
 notes.) 
 
 The following mistakes, however, cannot be ascribed to 
 this cause, and must be owing- to Mr. B.'s mistaking either 
 the letters or vowel-points. 
 
 Thus for instance in Gen. iii. 24. he renders n^lH « 
 sword, by BURNING, and refers us to Gen. xxvi. 40. " where 
 3"in CHEREB means drought:'''' but the word there is not 
 3")n but 2"in choreb ; he must therefore have mistaken 
 the (cholem) for a (segol.) 
 
 Gen. X. 10. ^r^2'lnD rV^'^1 Mm " Now the 
 beginning of this kingdom tvas,'" which (excepting the first 
 w^ord) is the same as the English Version; yet in his notes 
 he says " ^TMl Thei, is not noticed in the common version, 
 which means, revived," &c. Now the Hebrew word which 
 signifies to live, revive, is written with a p] cheth, but not 
 with a pj he, as is the case here. 
 
 Gen. xi. 9. r-),Sn-^2ni:)5^ n' bhi DJi^ "-S " For 
 
 IVTT T- -T T* 
 
 there the Lord confounded (or mixed) the language of all 
 the earth." Mr. B. having rendered H^ji^ (ii^ verse 1.) by 
 
 T T 
 
 band, he renders Jl^Ji^ here by doctrine, thus: " Because 
 Jehovah had confounded the doctrine;'" and in his note he 
 says Jl^li' SHEPHOTH means to set in order; and refers 
 us to 2 Kings iv. 38. Ezek. xxiv. .3. But in those places 
 
175 
 
 -just learning his alphabet ; but that a translator 
 of the Bible — the gentleman who (as he tells 
 
 the word is ]^£jji' ^^'^^ fcholemj not with (pathach) as it 
 is here. 
 
 Gen. xviii. 2. nStliiJI " And I will see," Mr. B. 
 renders it " I will distinguish ;" and in his notes he says 
 *' With the same radical form this word is rendered I will 
 SHEW MYSELF," 1 Kings xviii. 15. But the word there is 
 nS*l»^ / will appear; be seen. 
 
 Gen. xxii. 12. nH.^ D^n^N! }>Jn'> ''2) tJ^'^t thou art 
 a fearer of God, i. e. " that thou fearest God." Mr. B. 
 rejects the pronoun ^n^? (thou) entirely; and renders the 
 rest of the clause " that HE feareth God," as if the 
 word were J«^Ti I confounding- (:) with ['). Now the reader 
 must not forget that Mr, B. is the author of an Essay on 
 Hebrew Points, &c. 
 
 Gen. iv. 16. IH^ l^f- B- spells it " '\fX^ tsochar," 
 mistaking n for H- 
 
 Gen. xlix. 25. '^1^P^ Mr. B. spells it " "{li;;'^! ve 
 yangnvreka" mistaking^ a [X) for a (T) : to be sure as this 
 is a very hard word, there is some excuse ! We will therefore 
 take another less difficult. 
 
 Gen. 1. 16. :]p1'' b^ ll^^l " and they commanded to 
 Joseph," i. e. they commanded some one to tell .Joseph, &c. 
 The English Vei-sion gives the sense, though not the literal 
 meaning of the words, thus; "and they sent a messenger 
 unto Joseph." Mr. B. however renders it, and they went 
 FORTH to Joseph ; as if the word were li^yiT : this was my 
 first impression when I read Mr. B.'s text. To be convinced 
 
176 
 
 us) has studied the Hebrew, for thirty years 
 — should be guilty of it, is very strange. Still 
 more strange is it that Mr. B. should have the 
 temerity of attacking the English translation, 
 (nay, all the translations) on grounds so hollow, 
 and so insupportably absurd. 
 
 From the preceding examination, I hope 
 it appears evident, that Mr. B.'s objections are 
 are as trivial and unfounded, as his own inter- 
 pretations are erroneous and contrary to the 
 first principles of grammar. Whatever there- 
 fore may be the demerits of the English and 
 other existing translations, yet they are in my 
 opinion as superior to Mr. B.'s version, as light 
 is to darkness, and truth to falshood. 
 
 whether I was right in my conjecture, I went to his granary 
 of learning', I mean his notes, and was sent to Deut. xxiii. 
 9; 1 Chron. xxiv. 7; Prov. xxx. 27; Ezek. xs:iv. 12. I went 
 and looked, {the reader may do the same, if he pleases,) and 
 was convinced that the modern Translator had mistaken here 
 the (1) for an (^) ! Were the slandered Translators and Com- 
 mentators to rise from their graves, and hear their Detracters, 
 would they not have a right to tell them, " Good men ! before 
 ye presume to find fault with our works, go, go good men ! 
 and learn your letters !" 
 
177 
 
 EXTRAORDINARY QUOTATIONS. 
 
 IT was originally my intention to de- 
 vote this Chapter to the following important 
 Inquiries. 
 
 First. An inquiry into the merits of Mr. 
 B.'s extraordinary discoveries : the discovery, 
 for instance, of a distinct sign for a pluperfect 
 tense in the Hebrew language :* or, his solu- 
 tion of what he calls the Ungual proble^n. A 
 problem, gentle reader! which was no problem 
 at all, but well known to the learned Compa- 
 triots and Contemporaries of Ezra,! (of whose 
 knowledge on this subject, alas ! no record or 
 document is in existence ;) lost since the time 
 of Ezra J and now happily recovered, or dis- 
 covered, by Mr, B.'s mighty genius. 
 
 Secondly, An examination of his no less 
 extraordinary rules. Such, for instance, is Mr. 
 B.*s injunction, that because the Hebrew has 
 no neuter gender, therefore, in rendering the 
 
 * See Mr. B.'s Introduction, p. 39. 
 t Ibid p. 40. 
 
 M 
 
178 
 
 Hebrew pronouns relating to inanimate objects 
 into English, we must never use the pronoun 
 IT, but the masculine or feminine pronouns 
 HIM, HER.* Such, too, is Mr. B.'s other rule, 
 that because Hebrew verbs have no inflections 
 to denote the subjunctive mood, therefore the 
 verbs must never be rendered in this mood:t as 
 if the Hebrews had never had occasions to 
 speak in a contingent and doubtful manner, but 
 had always expressed themselves in the indi- 
 cative mood : or rather like Mr. B. himself, in 
 the positive. 
 
 Thirdly. An examination into his Consist- 
 ency; as for instance, when in his Biblical 
 Criticisms, he censures Dr. G. S. Clark for 
 suggesting that "'^H'^-nSi (Jer. xx. 7.) might be 
 rendered tho2i hast persuaded me — while in his 
 Introduction he adopts the same rendering, and 
 claims merit for it. — Or when in his General 
 Preface he asserts that the Jerusalem Talmud 
 was composed A. D. 300 — and " the Maso- 
 
 * Class. Jour. No. iii. p. 635. 
 
 t See Mr. B.'s Note on v. 20. chap. i. " P|S1^"i can- 
 not (according' to him,) be rendered that may Jiy ; there 
 is no subjunctive mood! in Hebrew!" — Again Gen. xviii. 
 19. " I have observed that there is no subjunctive mood 
 in Hebrew, so that the word may is improper!" 
 
179 
 
 rites were an order of Commentators among 
 the Jews, who rose about the 450th year of 
 the Christian ^Era;" — while in his Introduction 
 he says, the Jerusalem Talmud was written 
 about the year of Christ 200,* and the Babylo- 
 nish before the year 500. And yet " both these 
 Talmuds quote the MasoritesT* That is to say, 
 a book that was written A. D. 200, quotes men 
 that were not born till 250 years after ! 
 
 Fourthly. I intended to inquire what Mr. B. 
 means hy Chethib and Keri translators? — what 
 by major and minor propositions?^ — what by 
 ancient and modern Masorites — and where the 
 line of separation is to be drawn ? — I also in- 
 tended to inquire into his wonderful knowledge 
 of accents; — into his new system of punctuation ; 
 — into his chronological dates, he. &c. But 
 finding how far I have already transgressed the 
 limits originally prescribed to this work, I am 
 forced to confine my remaining remarks to Mr. 
 B.'s extraordinary quotations. 
 
 Quotations, according to Dr. Johnson, " are 
 passages adduced out of authors, as evidence or 
 
 * In his Essay on the Hebrew Points, &c. &c. he tells 
 us, " the Jerusalem Talmud was written about the year of 
 Christ 230." Which of these chronological dates doth Mr. 
 B. actually mean ? 200, 230, or 300? 
 
 M 2 
 
180 
 
 iJlustrations." From this definition it would 
 appear as if the only legitimate use to be made 
 of quotations was, — either as evidence of facts 
 not generally known ; or in illustration of sub- 
 jects involved in obscurity; or for the purpose 
 of authorizing opinions not generally admitted. 
 Now though the use of quotations might thus 
 have been limited in Johnson's time, yet the rea- 
 der may rest assured that modern practice has 
 greatly extended their utility, and of course, in- 
 creased their importance. I shall specify only a 
 Tew of the various uses that maybe made of them. 
 
 First, then : they may be used for the 
 purpose of exhibiting an author's extensive 
 research and vast erudition. 
 
 Secondly : to satisfy an author's vanity.* 
 For it is no little honor to be acquainted with 
 the Jews of the time of Ezra— or with Dr. Ahen 
 Ezra; — vvith Rabbi Adah bar Ahavah,t — and 
 
 * " Quoting' of authors," says the facetious Selden, 
 " is most for matter of fact, and then I write them as I 
 would produce a witness, sometimes for a free expression., 
 and then I give the author his due, and gain myself praise 
 by reading- him." — (Table Talk.) 
 
 f According- to the testimony of the most creditable 
 Hebrew writers, this great Astronomer was born on the very' 
 day when ti'llpn 1J^3"1, the compiler of the Mishnah, 
 died. He must therefore have flourished in the second 
 century — yet Mr. B. says, he was born A. D. 1058 ! 
 
. J81 
 
 the still more famous Rabbi Bechajahj — with 
 Rabbi Onkelos, and translator Symmachus; — 
 with Plato, and Cato; — with Euripides, and 
 Maimonides ; — with Jonathan ben Uziel — and 
 Laben ben Bethuel; — with the author of Mase- 
 cheth Purim — and Rabbi Jacob Baal Haturim. 
 O! how glorious it is to appear amongst so 
 many Stars! 
 
 Thirdly : they may be used by way of 
 ornament; — like golden fringes to shabby robes 
 — or like little bells around some favorite ani- 
 mal's neck. 
 
 Fourthly: they may be used to fill up a 
 vacant corner; like side dishes on the festive 
 board : — which though they do not gratify the 
 palate, yet serve to feast the eye — and which, 
 in the present case, are often the only digestible 
 articles. 
 
 There are various other uses to which quota- 
 tion maybe applied, but I have no time to enlarge. 
 
 Now, the reader may perhaps think that 
 in order to avail ourselves of their services, 
 some learning — some acquaintance with lan- 
 guage — and some industry and patience is 
 necessary: — if the reader thinks so, I can as- 
 sure him he is very much mistaken. Formerly, 
 indeed, these ingredients were requisite. But 
 in our happy days, when the greatest ingenuity 
 
182 
 
 has been exerted to abridge manual labor, the 
 exertions of the intellect have by no means 
 been neglected. Instead, therefore, of perusing, 
 as in former days, the ponderous volumes of- 
 ancient writers, — instead of turning over their 
 musty leaves, — instead of learning the languages 
 in which their thoughts have been deposited, — 
 we have only to apply to the work of some 
 literary drudge, who may have had the pati- 
 ence to collect the opinions of ancient sages, — 
 copy the quotations and references, as we there 
 find them, and transfer them to our own work. 
 Glorious invention! — to write learnedly without 
 learning, and obtain the name of a discoverer 
 with no other or greater trouble than that of 
 the man, who discovered a horse that exactly 
 suited his purposes, by merely leading him out 
 in a dark night from another man's stables. 
 
 To be sure, there is some little dangerattend- 
 ing this species of transfer. It may so happen 
 that the newly acquired property may liave some 
 little defect. Thus for instance : the original 
 proprietor may have damaged the property, by 
 making a slight error ; or what is no less pro- 
 bable, the blockhead of a printer may have 
 done it for him ; and then — but what then ! 
 have not many great men discovered the same 
 truths, though they had never seen each other? 
 
183 
 
 and why may not the same happen with regard 
 to errors ? As for printers, — who ever expects 
 the printers of our days should be wiser, or 
 more learned than those of former times ! It 
 is not at all singular, that they should commit 
 the very identical errors and errata, which some 
 of their predecessors did a hundred years ago! 
 Once more then: Hail glorious invention! 
 which saves literary men so much trouble, 
 and so much pains. 
 
 I was led into this train of thinking, by the 
 perusal of some of Mr. B.'s quotations, which, 
 to say the least of them, appear to me very 
 extraordinary. For the amusement of the 
 reader I will cite just a few of them. 
 
 FIRST EXTRAORDINARY QUOTATION. 
 
 " The learned Buxtorf says, that this 
 important branch of Hebrew learning has al- 
 together been neglected^ both by Jews and 
 Christians, if not lost. He observes, " the vowel 
 points and accents are called Di/D magnam, (pV^ 
 tangam^ I suppose Mr. B. meant to say) i. e. 
 REASON, SENSE, JUDGMENT. They bear this nam&^ 
 because by right pronunciation, they give a right 
 se?ise and meaniiig to the words, and by true 
 
184 
 
 distinction in readings they give the sense of the 
 passage." (Mr. B.'s Introduction, page 17.) 
 
 Mr. B. would undoubtedly have obliged 
 his readers, had he stated from which of Bux- 
 torf's works, he made this extract. As it is, 
 Mr. B. will pardon me if I doubt the correct- 
 ness of this quotation: and this for two reasons. 
 
 First, Because Buxtorf was too well ac- 
 quainted with Hebrew literature, to include 
 vowel points and accents under the same de- 
 nomination : the vowel points being known 
 amongst grammarians by the term nmpi, dotSy 
 points; or T\^}i^1T^ vowels ; from V^^ to move, 
 because they give motion to the consonants. 
 
 Secondly. Because Buxtorf was too good 
 a grammarian to have rendered accents and 
 vowels^ two nouns plural, by ^V^, which is in 
 the singular. He would at least have called 
 them D^'C^p ! In fact if my memory is not very- 
 treacherous, I may venture to say there is no 
 such passage in Buxtorf 's works. I find indeed 
 in Buxtorf 's Lex. Chald. Talmud, et Rab. the 
 Chaldean word Di^tD rendered by Gustiis, Sapor: 
 Metaphorice Ratio, Sci7sus, consilium, judicium, 
 sentential causa. — I iind the same definition with 
 little alteration in the Epit. Rad. HEB.et Chald. 
 But it is evident that this has not the least 
 
185 
 
 reference to the grammatical term D>^lO, of 
 which he indeed gives a separate definition;* 
 and even in this not a word is said about the 
 vowel points. One thing however I find in the 
 latter work,t and it is, to be sure, most singular, 
 namely, that the leading root is mis-spelt exactly 
 in the same manner as it is in Mr. B.*s Intro- 
 duction, viz. Oj/Q instead of Dj/CD ! 
 
 SECOND EXTRAORDINARY QUOTATION. 
 
 *' Jonathan the Paraph rast, who lived 
 about forty years before Christ," says, — " The 
 accents are to the letters, what the soul is to 
 the body.'* (Introduction, p. 17.) Mr. B. 
 has again omitted chapter and verse. But I 
 can assure the reader that no such passage is 
 to be found in any work of Jonathan's. 
 Something similar is indeed to be found in 
 
 * The following' is Buxtorf s defiiutiou of the gtaraiua- 
 tical term D>/C3 (" See liis large work,") D^CO Accentus, 
 apud grammaticos, sic dictus, quasi Sapor i^' Gust us suavis, 
 turn dictionis, cujus legitimum pronimciationem denotat ; 
 ium sententia', quam membris distinguit. Pluraliter 
 
 t^'herc are several editions of this ■vvork. The one in 
 my possession wants the title page ; I can therefore only 
 describe it, as the English Edition, published by il. Whitaker 
 and S. Cartwright, A. D. 1G45. 
 
186 
 
 Bechaja's Comment,* on Gen. xviii. 3. where 
 he quotes the following words from the very 
 ancient book IM^n "li:D Bahir ; attributed 
 to Rabbi Nechuniah, the son of Hakaiieh, who 
 lived before the destruction of the temple, 
 viz. 
 
 *' The vowel-points of the letters in the 
 law of Moses, are like the living soul in the 
 body of man." 
 
 If there be such a passage in Jonathan 
 as that quoted by Mr. B. (which I maintain 
 there is not) let Mr. B. produce it ! 
 
 * Had Mr. B. read the chapter in Bechajah, where 
 this passage occurs, he would perhaps not have taken quite 
 so many liberties with the Sacred Books, as he has done. 
 For Bechajah says inHD Hl/mj liS r\l^p:> P]^D1!D.i 
 D'?1I/n " He that either adds, or omits even a dot of the 
 law, destroys the world." — Again; V/DPH nDD *Y^T\12iT] 
 
 ni^^J '^T>7 J^l^i " He tliat changes even a pathach for 
 a kametz, may either destroy the sense of the passage, or be 
 guilty of blasphemy." Several instances of which he gives. 
 f This citation may also be found in ")TJ^ ^Ci/13^ 
 m*lp^ The reader may find this and similar passages 
 quoted in Buxtorf's Comment. Musoi\ Also in the book 
 
 nnrn ^iipn 
 
187 
 
 THIRD EXTRAORDINARY QUOTATION. 
 
 " Rabbi Judah, on the Mishnah, says, 
 '* If all the prophets were equal to Moses, thei/ 
 " had no power to alter a letter, or point of the 
 " law.'* — No chapter, no verse. (Mr. B.*s 
 Introduction, p. 17.) 
 
 Rabbi Judah says so! Where ? In which 
 of the numerous volumes of which the Talmud 
 consists, doth Rabbi Judah say so? I conjecture 
 Mr. B. is again mistaken. Something like such 
 a passage is to be found in the book Zohar. 
 It runs as follows. 
 
 j^nmj^-r ^im t\)^ i'^^ds ni^a ^t^t n"np2 t^in 
 
 *' Should any one say, that the points 
 were ordained by the Scribes, — God forbid ! 
 for were all the prophets of the world even 
 like Moses who received the law on mount 
 Sina, they durst not invent (add) even a single 
 small dot in a letter; nay, not even a small 
 letter of the law." 
 
 What then could have induced Mr. B. to 
 say, that. Rabbi Judah on the Mishnah says, 
 "If all tlie prophets were equal to Moses," &c. ! 
 
188 
 
 FOURTH EXTRAORDINARY QUOTATION. 
 
 ** In the beginning, rr^ti^Sin. This word 
 (says Mr. B.) has been variously interpreted. 
 Grotius has ventured to render it thus; when 
 FIRST — Simeon, before. But as this idea 
 gave rise to the Pagan doctrine of the 
 eternity of matter, and there being no autho- 
 rity for it in the Hebrew, it has been justly 
 rejected by all sound critics. The Jerusalem 
 Targum, in wisdom — TertuUian, in power. — • 
 Philo, Rabbi Bechai, and Castalio, in order, 
 before all — and MaimonideSy with matter ! 
 Onkelos, the Septuagint, and Jonathan Ben 
 Uziel, have properly been folloxved by the 
 Eur'opean translators, who have given the 
 ivord its true radical meaning; in the begin- 
 ning.'* — (Mr. B.*s Note on v. 1. chap. 1. 
 Genesis.) 
 
 This note certainly exhibits a great display 
 of learning, to be sure ; but, as for correctness, 
 it is on a level with the preceding. 
 
 First, then, Mr. B. is incorrect in stat- 
 ing, that, the radical meaning of n*'J^'S'l5 * is, 
 " In the beginning." 
 
 * IT'&i'i^")!! Is unquestionably derived from the pri- 
 mitive li^Ji^'n, the primary signification of which is, the 
 HEAD, and it is only by metaphor that it is used to express 
 
189 
 
 Secondly: he is equally incorrect, when 
 he states that Onkelos and Jonathan have 
 rendered it so. The term which Onkelos uses 
 is,* ]"'P'T(P3 ; that which Jonathan employs, is 
 
 the conceptions of chief , principal, top, sum, beginning, &c. 
 Now n^t^'J^n being- the abstracted noun expresses these 
 conceptions as if subsisting^ by themselves. It is therefore 
 an abuse of language to say that its primary meaning is, 
 IN THE BEGINNING. — The Hebrew word corresponding 
 with beginning is Dynn from 7nn he began. 
 
 * This word ]^0*TpII is evidently plural. To the best 
 of my recollection thisj is the only instance in which Onkelos 
 makes use of it. Jonathan employs it once in 2 Samuel xx. 
 in the sense of before, prior. Both these authors use the 
 word r^lp <D as the corresponding term of the Hebrew 
 D"'3D'7 D'^JD/Dj formerly, antecedently. Their transla- 
 tions are full of mystical allusions to the cabalistical opinions 
 of the ancient Jews, and indeed it is impossible to understand 
 them without some acquaintance with our ancient writings. 
 Thus for instance. Gen. ii. 9. ]T^3"]5 U'^Tfl'^ "7\ ^/^P^T 
 D*fp/-D " -'^•id the Lord God planted a garden eastward of 
 £den"— which Onkelos renders, ^^^JJ U'^Tt}^ ^"' 3^3") 
 V72n'pbl^ VIV^ ^"^ ^'^® L*^'"^' ^^'^ ^^^ planted a garden 
 in Eden formerly: alluding to what the Talmudists say, 
 "that the garden of Eden v/as one of the seven things 
 that preceded the creation;" and by which they meant 
 that the reward of the good — their eternal happiness, was 
 one of those purposes for which God created this world. 
 
190 
 
 i^h)^ ]D, neither of which words, I am pre- 
 pared to prove, signify in the beginning. 
 
 Thirdly : Mr. B. is no less incorrect 
 when he says, " that Rabbi Bechai* renders 
 it, IN order; before all. Because Bechaia 
 distinctly says, n^t^^Xin T\hD tDJ^^iin -]!! bV 
 n^Wmz "IDS l^i^D " According to the plain 
 sense the meaning of Bereshith is the same as 
 Barishonah. Now this last word does not 
 
 and therefore antecedent in the order of thought. (See 
 Jonathan's Paraphrase of this passage.) I am therefore 
 firmly persuaded that in making use of the word *pZ3*Tp3» 
 Onkelos intended to convey something more than the mere 
 simple sense of the word. 
 
 Since the above was written, I found the following 
 passage in the book, " HTlp^ ITi^ "'ii^l^'? (a book of 
 great authority amongst our learned men.") D^ 'p31i^ DJ 
 
 ncDn n^2'T^: u'r\^i u^i:;1u;^ tdi yDip2 DJin 
 
 ^5r,"'/!21p3 D^'^n i^h 1'^'^^ " Onkelos also rendered 
 (rT'Ji^I^m) by ]''DlpIl i- e. with those that tvere before; 
 because he alluded to the tkhtij-two tvai/s of wisdom;" 
 (for an explanation of this, see the book Jezira, chap. 1.) 
 and therefore he did not use the term KH^DIp^' 
 
 * Bechaja explains the Hebrew text in a quadruple 
 manner; 1st. Literally. 2nd. Philosophically. 3rd. AUegori- 
 cally ; and 4th. Cabalistically. But in neither of them does 
 he interpret the word in the manner attributed to him by 
 Mr. B. 
 
191 
 
 signify, IN ORDER, nor before all, but, in the 
 Jirst, or atjirst* 
 
 Fourthly : Mr. B. is still more incorrect 
 when he asserts, that Maimonides renders 
 H"^K^^"13 by, WITH MATTER. Indeed I cannot 
 find words to express my surprise at Mr. B.'s 
 attributing so revolting an opinion to Maimo- 
 nides ! What ! Maimonides who in so many 
 places confutes this very opinion— and in More 
 Nebochim, part ii. chap. 13. thus expresses 
 himself. 
 
 th'i^jni:; sin nyif2 nl^r^ yi:)^^^ ^d '?d nyi 
 "rT" t^iMn i2^J2 }^vd: b2 o h"i Aib::^^ 
 "r\^ Di:;n:2;') •■l^?22n '^i^r\n itm^ is^vdh ct:'n 
 
 ^^liDn ]D insi W^jn -finn:^ hd i<h^ b}b: s"?! 
 i^ivnn -en::' no ^SiD msvD^n nh^ h:^ n^5 
 
 ni;i:nm ^ni/i^nn -inj^ "^^d: ]D?n o : D^isin^n 
 
 * It would lead me too far from my present purpose, 
 were I to enter here into a minute disquisition of the various 
 matters involved in the above misquotations. But as these 
 are in themselves not destitute of some interest, 1 intend to 
 treat of them more largely in the Appendix. 
 
 In the same part of the work, I shall endeavor to show 
 the particular sense of the words i^^^J^ \f2 >Y'?2lp2 
 and theii- cabalistical allusions. 
 
192 
 
 " l^ie opinion of all those who believe in 
 the law of Moses is^ that the whole universe, 
 that is to say, every being, excepting the Creator, 
 (blessed be he) was produced by the Almighty 
 from nonentity : that God alone existed, and 
 nothing else besides him ; 7ieither ongel, nor 
 sphere, nor any thing contained within the sphere ; 
 but that God alone has produced all through his 
 will from nothing. That even time itself is 
 amo7igst the things created. For time results 
 from motioji, and motion is but the accide^it or 
 phenomenon if things imoved; and since the thing 
 MOVED, was itself created, it follows that the acci- 
 dents thereof were so likewise.** — Now can such 
 a man be supposed to say that God created hea- 
 ven and earth with 7natter ? — Impossible! — and 
 such too is the fact. — Maimonides never said so.* 
 
 * Neither Mr. B. r,or tiie book from which he appears ti> 
 have transferred this extraordinary quotation, state in which 
 of Maimoiiides' works the quoted words are to be found. I 
 conjecture, however, that the error in whatever quarter it 
 may have originated, arose from misinterpreting JMaimonides, 
 words in More Nehochim, part ii. chap. 30. — There, the 
 .levvish Philosopher, gives first a definition of the words 
 pii-'J^I and ri/nn; then he repeats again what he has so 
 (jlien expressed before, viz. that time was the result of 
 
193 
 
 FIFTH QUOTATION. 
 
 The extraordinary quotation which I shall 
 presently lay before my readers, is contained 
 in the seventh column of Mr. B.'s first Note on 
 Ver. 1. Chap. i. Genesis. The New Translator 
 introduces it by the following observation. 
 
 Thus: " the word T^^ ought to be so trans- 
 lated, (i. e. it ought to be rendered by substance) 
 where the idiom of the European languages will 
 admit of it, as it always greatly elucidates the 
 mbjecty by giving it the true meaning of the ori- 
 ginal Hebrew. This was the understanding of 
 the ancient Hebrews before Christy as may be seen 
 in the writings o/'Onkelos, whose paraphrase 
 has always been held in the highest estimation by 
 them. He says, (and now for the quotation) 
 '' In the beginning of all created beings, motion 
 " and time, within the compass of the first week; 
 " God, the only adorable one, created, made 
 
 creation, and did not exist prior to it. And lest a contrary 
 inference should be drawn from a misconception of the 
 meaning" of the word rT^Ji^J^TDj *" ^/'^ beginning, he adds ; 
 
 D^^innnm D^:i^^i;n ot^'n i^nn " And the true 
 
 meaning of this verse, (i. e. Gen. i. 1.) is thus — With the 
 beginning, i. e. the beginning- inclusive, did God create all 
 that is above and below y Or in other words — God created 
 iieaven and earth, including the beginning — even time itself. 
 
 N 
 
\9^ 
 
 " out of nothing, hij infinite power, and infi- 
 '* NiTE WISDOM, this Heaven, and this Earthy and 
 " the vast number of extended spheres^* 
 
 And Onkelos said this ? so Mr. Bellamy 
 asserts. And this passage, in the course of 
 his thirty years profound and miscellaneous 
 researches into Hebrew and Chaldaic Litera- 
 ture, J\lr. Bellamy found in the writings of 
 Onkelos ? so Mr. Bellamy's words imply : and 
 so beyond all modest denial Mr. Bellamy meant 
 his readers to understand. Strange ! passing 
 strange ! for most certain it is, that neither 
 the one nor the other is or can be true; and 
 tliat for the best of all reasons. No such 
 passage exists in the work of Onkelos: nor, 
 I dare add, in any work written by any Jew 
 either before or since the time of Ezra ; nor 
 in any book com})osed in the Hebrew language, 
 scriptural or rabbinical, or in any one of its 
 dialects or sister languages ! But I must not 
 even by silence or delay be accessary to an 
 obvious but yet a mistaken and injurious 
 inference. I must not suffer my readers even 
 for a moment to infer, that this passage was a 
 non-ens^ till Mr. B. first called it into existence. 
 The passage did and does exist in a book, and 
 (if something more than a hundred years can 
 confer the honors of antiquity,) in an ancient 
 
195 
 
 book; not indeed in Greek, Roman, or Oriental 
 languages, but in the mother tongue of its 
 author: to wit, in plain English! This author 
 (according to the title page of the book, dated 
 London 1698, my only authority in this point,) 
 was a Mr. Walter Cross, M. A. who speak- 
 ing in his own person, delivers, as his own 
 sentiments, the passage which stands below 
 in column 1 : —beside which in column 2, I 
 have reprinted from Mr. Bellamy's pages the 
 passages attributed by him to ONKELOS, and 
 presented to his readers as a translation from 
 that celebrated Paraphrcist.* 
 
 Citation from Walteij, 
 
 Cross, M. A. 
 
 London A. D. 1098. 
 
 " In the beginning of all 
 " created Being-, Motion, 
 *' time or season, within the 
 " compass of the /frA'f week, 
 " probably the first of Sep- 
 *' tember. God the only 
 
 Mr. Bellamy's asserted 
 Citation /"ram ONKE- 
 LOS. f 
 
 " In the beginning: of all 
 
 " created being-, motion and 
 
 " time, within the compass 
 
 " of the first week; God, 
 
 " tUe only adorable one. 
 
 * So he is most frequently entitled, though it would be 
 perhaps difficult to state any sufficient cause for denying to 
 him in particular the character of a Translator. 
 
 f The learned are by no means agreed as to the parti- 
 cular period when this author flourished. According to the 
 most respectable authorities his work must have been written 
 about the beginning of the second century. 
 
 N 2 
 
196 
 
 *' adorable one, aud that on 
 " this very bottom, created, 
 " inadeoutof mere nothing, 
 " / A'ay, by infinite Power 
 " and skill brought forth, 
 " without the assistance of 
 " any antecedent matter, 
 " these heaven, and this 
 " very earth. The vast 
 " quantity of most extended 
 " spheres." 
 
 *' created, made out of 
 *' nothing, by infinite 
 " POWER, and infinite wis- 
 " DOM, this heaven, and 
 *' this earth, and the vast 
 " number of extended 
 " spheres." 
 
 Any observation of mine would but disturb 
 the impression which this fact cannot fail to 
 make on every honorable iriind. But supposing 
 my reader to have finished his reflections, I 
 will now endeavor to gratify the curiosity which 
 I must anticipate as having excited ; and with 
 the less scruple, because in effecting this pur- 
 pose, I shall be found not to have at all digressed 
 from the main object of my work. 
 
 Some time ago, as I happened to pass one 
 of those rag fairs of literature, called book 
 stalls, the habit of hovering over which I have 
 in common with many of my betters, living 
 or departed, my eye was attracted by a small 
 volume with the following singular title, re- 
 specting an art no less strange, the name 
 of which at least was new to me : viz. ^fie 
 'S'iTgljmtcal ^rt; or, the Art of Expounding 
 
197 
 
 Scripture by the POINTS, usually called 
 ACCENTS, but are really tactical: a gram- 
 matical, LOGICAL, and rhetorical instrumeiit of 
 iiiterpr elation, hy Walter Cross, M. A. London, 
 1698. I bought the volume, and amused my- 
 self on my walk homeward with conjectures 
 concerning my 'eagbnxical ^rt. Need I say, 
 that my earliest leisure hour was devoted to its 
 perusal? Well! , passing over, as impatient 
 readers are too apt to do, the Address to the 
 READER, and beginning with Chapter the first, 
 entitled by way of distinction, ^ ii£t£Ctfon of 
 t&e ^agi&mical ^rt, at the bottom of the very 
 first page but one, I lit on the following pas- 
 
 " The two foundations of the Hebrew language, are 
 its letters, twenty-two in number; and its points, fifty-five." 
 
 Thus confounding under the same deno- 
 mination two things totally distinct: viz. the 
 vowel points, properly called i^mpi dots or 
 points, and D'^Dj/O accents, 
 
 A few lines onward I was struck with the 
 following words : — 
 
 " The third sort (of points) are to be the subject of 
 this discourse, which the Jews usually calM iQpi^ judgment, 
 sense, reason.''^ 
 
198 
 
 And a little further on, page 3, with the 
 
 following :- 
 
 " The. learned Buxtorf says, ' these points hear this 
 general name ^ (i. e. Dj/lO) because by right pronunciation 
 they give the word a savojtr ; and by true distinction give 
 the sense of the verse.' " 
 
 On reading these passages, it struck me 
 that I had met with a similar confusion of 
 words and definitions, in some recent work ; 
 but — I passed on ; and in page 33, I found 
 the following passage. — 
 
 " Let us to him add I3ohar, coteniporary with Jona- 
 than the Paraphrast, forty years before Christ, on Gen. 
 xviii. 3. The points are to the letters what the 
 
 SOUL IS TO THE BODY." 
 
 Now let the reader compare this with Mr. 
 B.'s quotation from Jonathan, as mentioned in 
 page one hundred and eighty-five of this work. 
 
 I proceeded further, and in page 34, I 
 found the following. — 
 
 " The Jerusalem f Talmud J is thought commonly to 
 be composed Anno Christi 230 by R. Jochunan ; the ichole 
 of both (i. e. of the Jerusalem and Babyloniai;) before Anno 
 Christi 500. And yet both often quote the Masorites, 
 Hieros, Me gill, c. iv. — Bub. Gr. Nodurim f I suppose he 
 meant NedarimJ c. iy. 37. Megilla, c. i. 3. and Kidduschim, 
 
199 
 
 (Kidduschiii it ought to be, I suppose) c. i. 30. Therefore 
 the FORMER Masorites were before the Tabnudists/^* 
 
 * The reader may cnmpai(- the above with (lie following 
 extract from Mr. B.'s Essay on the Integrity of the 
 Herrew Scripture, No. 2. — " The Jerusalem Talmud 
 was icrltten ahont the year of Christ 2-UO. Rabbi 
 Jochanau, president ; and the Bubijlonish before the i/ear 
 500. Both these Tulinuds (jiiote the Masorites, Hieros, 
 Megill, r. 4. — nodaimm. (1 suppose Mr. B. also means 
 NedurimJ c. 4. 37. kidduschim." (An English Hebraist 
 would certainly Si[)ell this word, Kiddnshin, and I suppose 
 Mr. B. like Mr. C. meant to have spelled it so.) " Hence 
 it is evident that a reference is made to the first Maso- 
 rites.'''' On comparing this extract, and what Mr, B. says, 
 on the same subject in his Introduction, with the quotation 
 from Mr. Cross's work, it will be seen, that in the main 
 they all agree. Into the correctness of the assertions them- 
 selves, 1 think it unnecessary at present to inquire. But that 
 two individuals, of dates so distant, should by pure chance 
 coincide in the same false spelling, viz. Nodarim for u'^1"TJ 
 
 • T ; 
 
 JSedarim ! That both authors being Englishmen, and com- 
 posing in English for linglish readers, should both agree in 
 adopting the German spelling of a word, the Hebrew charac- 
 ters of which (I^Ji'THp) correspond precisely to the English 
 letters kiddus bin in sound! — And that both authors, or 
 the printers employed by them, should super-induce on the 
 same foreign orthography, the same final blunder of im for 
 in! — This complex coincidence is, I allow, of little import- 
 ance in itself; but surely, it is odd, strikingly, perplexingly 
 odd ! 
 
^200 
 
 This, the reader will be pleased to compare 
 with Mr. Bellamy*s remarks on the same sub- 
 ject, in page fourteen of his Introduction. 
 
 Proceeding still with my new purchase, in 
 page 37, I found the following. 
 
 ** And R. Jehvda in the Mischna sai/s,* ' lis not 
 " lawful for us to make any distinction in the verses, 
 " which Moses has not made. And Zohar to the like pur- 
 " pose. If all the prophets were equal to Moses, they had 
 " no power, neither to alter letter nor point in the law.'' " 
 
 Now compare this with our third extra- 
 ordinary quotation, t and it will, perhaps, offer 
 a solution to our difficulty. 
 
 * Mr. Cross is vvroug', for thoug-h there is a similar 
 passage in the Gemara, Ht^'D D^pDii ^^T SpIDD b'2 
 13^pDD S'? p^^ " ^^^ must not make a stop or division 
 of passages, which 3Ioses has not made;" yet it was not 
 Rabbi Judah that said so. 
 
 f The following extract is from Mr. B.'s Essay, Sec, 
 " Jonathan, the paruphrast, who lived forty years before 
 Christ, says, ' the accents are to the letters, what the soul is 
 to the body.'' " 1 have already observed, that Jonathan never 
 said so. — Further, *' Rabbi Judah, on the Mishnah, says, 
 ' It is not lawful to make any alteration in the 
 passages which were not made by Moses i if all the 
 prophets were equal to Moses, they had no power to alter 
 a letter, or point of the law.' " 
 
 How Mr. B. came to attribute these sayings to Rabbi 
 Judah, he alone can tell. 
 
201 
 
 I still continued to proceed, and found my 
 author making a distinction between yorw^er and 
 latter Masorites; or, in the language of Mr. B. 
 between ancient and modern Masorites. I found 
 in him likewise, a great deal about majors, 
 and minors, and jyf^opositions :* — and, still more, 
 about the extraordinary powers of the Hebrew 
 accents. — And I further found the necessity 
 of attending to the accent strongly enjoined 
 by him, and exemplified in numerous passages, 
 
 * Mr. Cross not only gives rules in prose but in verse 
 too. The following- are a few specimens of his poetic 
 rules : which as a suitable accompaniment of the ^rt 
 'S^agj^tnfcal, might have been entitled, the art of making 
 the unintelligible still more unintelligible. 
 
 RULES OF PUNCTUATION GRAMMATICAL, 
 
 RULE I. 
 
 Silluk the sentence and the verse doth end, 
 Athnach in two divides, and so attends. 
 Segolta. Three will have, or not appear; 
 Mercmali in verse doth to them both come near ; 
 Inferior game Reb. gereschate doth play, 
 Because as Vicar he comes in the way. 
 
 RULE III. 
 
 A minor doth the third in order use, 
 If for their mate the former two refuse. 
 Or if the first two kinds of accents wear. 
 Or differing syntax to the sequel bear. 
 
202 
 
 many of which I recollected to have previously 
 seen in Mr. B.'s Biblical Criticism, and in his 
 Introduction; and the translation of those 
 passages appeared to me so substantially similar 
 to those with which Mr. B. had treated his 
 learned readers, that had it not been for the 
 great distance of time that intervened between 
 the two authors, I must, even though nothing 
 more decisive had turned up, hav'e been tempted 
 to believe that Mr, Cross had made too free 
 with Mr. B.'s work. I allude to 
 
 Verse 15, Psalm, x. " Break thou the arm of the wicked," 
 &c. Isaiah, xlix. 5. " Though Israel," &c.* Judges, vi. 
 24. " And Gideon," &c. uud particularly 2 Kings, v. 18. 
 
 RHETORICAL RULES. 
 
 RULE II. 
 
 If that the verse do three propo's contain. 
 Which distinct in their subjects do remain. 
 And not with silluk three such Lords there be. 
 Which thou may know as verse and prose agree, &c, 
 
 RULE VI. 
 
 If third a major or minister points. 
 When minor second from the first disjoints. 
 And third with second, nor with first accords. 
 Or, if a fourth a minor has aboard. 
 All such are of Rhetorical record. 
 
 } 
 
 * See Mr. B.'s Essay, Stc. (C. J. No. 18. page 402—403.) 
 
203 
 
 the translation of which Mr. B. so often presses 
 on his readers as if it were a new discovery of 
 his own.* Now all these unexpected things 
 certainly surprised me. But how shall I ex- 
 press my astonishment when at the end of the 
 book, in a small treatise, entitled, A Specimen 
 (^ a Comment on the Old Testament, I found the 
 following passage. — 
 
 •' John in his Gospel, c. i. v. 1. interprets 3 and 
 iT'Ji'J^'n to us turning it h a^yri in the beginning. So the 
 Isx. so Onkelos, and Jonath, Ben, Uziel Bekadmin,\ and 
 so the Vulgar, and so the most usual translations. Hence 
 
 * To hear Mr. B. speak about this translation, one 
 would imagine that he, at least, thought it a most wonderful 
 discovery. That it is not so, 1 need hardly tell the learned 
 reader. Doctor Lightfoot gives the very same translation, 
 in vol. T. p. 80. Also in vol. ii. p. 4t}9. (Edition 1684.) 
 Calmet has a whole dissertation on the subject. (See 
 Dissertation sitr la Priere que Nauman fait a Elissee, i^c. 
 TOM. ii. par. ii. p. 193.) The same may be found in Mr. 
 Cross's book, p. 90. and in various other authors. But 
 notwithstanding all those authorities, it appears to nie that 
 the Established Version gives the correct sense of the ori- 
 ginal. Nor can I see how any one can with propriety infer 
 from this verse, that Naaman wished to dissemble, or that 
 the prophet sanctioned it. 
 
 t This is not the fact : as Onkelos only renders it by 
 Bekadmin, but Jonathan renders it by min avid; and neither 
 words signify, e« the beginning. 
 
204 
 
 the others fall, Hierus. Targum in ivisdom, Tertull. in 
 poicer ; Procop, in his empire. 2. In the foundation. 3. 
 In the head or sum. 4. In the foundation. Philo in order 
 before all. So R. Bechai and Castalio. Maimonides with 
 
 MATTER." 
 
 In the first moments of surprise, I 
 thought it possible I might be deceived, — that 
 instead of reading Si)e ^ag^mical .^it, I was 
 actually reading Mr. Bellamy's first note on 
 Chap. 1. Genesis. I turned to the title page, 
 and found that it was not a visual deception, — 
 that I was in fact reading Mr. Cross's work, 
 and not Mr. Bellamy's: and my astonishment 
 of course increased. — I put the book by, and 
 began to ponder on this most extraordinary 
 ch'cumstance. How, I asked myself — how is it 
 possible that two authors living at such a vast 
 distance in time from each other, should yet 
 coincide in so many particulars, - nay, shoidd 
 commit the very same errors ? — and that not 
 in one or two instances, biit in so manv ! And 
 how is this to be accounted for ? Had I been 
 a believer in the transmigration of souls, I 
 should certainly have thought Mr. B.'s soul had 
 pre-existed in Mr. Cross's body; or (what 
 amounts to the same thing) that Mr. Cross's 
 soul during its peregrination had fallen in love 
 with Mr. B.'s body, and taken up its abode there 
 
205 
 
 for a short time. But I had no faith in this 
 doctrine, notwithstanding its having been a 
 favorite dogma of my forefathers, particularly 
 the CabaHsts; this thought, therefore, speedily 
 gave way to the following — " Perhaps, Mr. B. 
 has — but the suspicion only arose; — I stifled 
 it in its birth. Nay ! said I, — Mr. B. is too 
 honorable to be guilty of so degrading an ac- 
 tion; — he is too pious to commit so mean a 
 fraud! — besides, he has too great a contempt for 
 the opinions of his predecessors, thus to appro- 
 priate their sentiments I 
 
 My reader will but do me justice in be- 
 lieving that I have no pleasure in the detection 
 of any writer's literary weaknesses, while they 
 remain within the bounds that permit the con- 
 science to regard them as mere weaknesses. 
 But having discovered so many strange things 
 in ray new acquaintance, it struck me, that I 
 might perhaps find something relative to the 
 Jifth Extraordinary Quotalion, which as we have 
 before observed, Mr. B. attributes to Onkelos. 
 I took up my book, and read on. And now let the 
 reader picture to himself my surprise, on finding 
 ir) the very next page, almost verbatim the very 
 passage which Mr. B. has ascribed to Onkelos. 
 I have already given the two passages in parallel 
 columns, that the reader might compare them, 
 
206 
 
 and form his own opinion on this extraordinary 
 subject. But this having been done, a sense of 
 justice obliges me to say, (and if at the same tim« 
 it furnishes any shade of an excuse to Mr. Bellamy 
 he has ray permission to make the best of it,) 
 that though Mr. Cross mentions the Paraphrast, 
 (a name given by many writers both to Jonathan 
 and OnkelosJ and though he has put inverted 
 commas before the passage in question; cir- 
 cumstances from which an ignorant or very in- 
 attentive reader might infer that he had given the 
 passage as a quotation from the paraphrast, — 
 yet that in fact it contained only his own senti- 
 ments; nor had he any wish to make the reader 
 suppose otherwise : the inverted commas, in- 
 deed, being employed for a contrary purpose, 
 that of attracting especial attention to the 
 paragraph, as being his own sentiments. The 
 case is this. Mr. Cross starts the ques- 
 tion, whether the world was created in the 
 month NisAN, (corresponding with the month 
 of March) or in Tishree, (corresponding with 
 September) and gives his own opinion in favor 
 of the latter. And then by way of confirma- 
 tion, he adds the following words. To this the 
 Jews PARAPHRAST. Cabbal. Historical agree; 
 to this nature agrees^ every thing having its seed 
 in itself, and its fruit ripe ; to this the Gospel 
 
207 
 
 agrees, Christ being borti in this month. Thus 
 the year and day agree, beginning both from 
 their evenim*; season. So the sun was created in 
 Libra. The sense of the verse is thus :* — 
 
 * In the beginning of all created Being, 
 ' Motion, Time or Season, within the compass 
 ' of the first iveek, probably the first of Sep- 
 ' tember. Goo the only adorable one, and 
 
 * that on this very bottom, created^ made out 
 
 * of mere nothing, / say, by infinite Power 
 
 * and skill brou(>:ht forth, without the assistance 
 
 * of any antecedent matter, these heaven, and 
 ' this very earth. Tiie vast quantity of most 
 ' extended spheres.' TVide a specimen of 
 THE Taghmical Art, page 13, 14.) 
 
 All further comment is superfluous. The 
 whole case now lies before the intelligent 
 reader — and he may be safely left to his own 
 reflection. It might have been deemed safe 
 and easy for any man to make himself appear 
 
 * And here Mr. Cross, in order to distinguish his (Mr. 
 Cross's own) paraphrase from his preceding- Comments, 
 places tlie same inverted commas, or marks of citation, to 
 the paraphrase as to the verse itself; a practice which indeed 
 is usual enough in cases where the writer desires to distin- 
 guish any particular passage from the context, though both 
 are written by him in his own person. 
 
208 
 
 strikingly original, at the price of being mon- 
 strously absurd. But to pillage what a pauper 
 in learning would not pick up, to become a 
 servile copyist, not (as the flatterers in former 
 times) of the wry neck of an Alexander, but 
 of the hump-back of a Thersites — and to pass 
 off the fardel of bombasted rags for a birth-gift 
 of nature — Ohe Satis! 
 
 I beg leave to assure the reader, that it was 
 not without great reluctance, nor without pain, 
 that I laid this case before him. For neither my 
 disposition nor inclination would ever induce me 
 unnecessarily to wound the feelings of any man, 
 much less to bring so serious and so heavy a 
 charge against any individual. But truth, which 
 ought to be dear to every bosom, demanded 
 this sacrifice of my own personal feeling, to 
 the general interest of society : and the same 
 sacred cause requires me thus publicly to 
 declare my firm belief and persuasion, that 
 Mr. Bellamy has transprinted the passages in 
 question with few and merely verbal changes, 
 from the book of Walter Cross, and not from 
 Jonathan, nor from Onkelos, nor from his 
 own or any other translation of Jonathan or 
 Onkelos. He can easily disprove this charge 
 if it be false, and retort a heavier accusation 
 on the accuser. I ask no quarter. If I 
 
200 
 
 have wronged him, he must have it in his 
 power to avenge himself amply ; and while he 
 vindicates his own character, to expose and 
 brand that of his antagonist. Let Mr. Bellamy 
 make a public and solemn declaration that he 
 did not borrow the passages in question, in 
 words or substance from ^fie ©agj^mical ^rt of 
 WaUtx €ross, M. A. And if he will point out 
 in the works of Jonathan and Onkelos the 
 particular places and parts, where he bond jide 
 read, and from which he did cite the pretended 
 Citations aforesaid, I for my own part will 
 believe him. At all events, let him but con- 
 vince me of error in this latter point, and I will 
 recant the preceding charges. That such a 
 series of repetitions of the same odd assertions 
 in the same words, and with the same mis- 
 spellings, should be the work of pure accident, 
 a mere I^csus Fortunes and Chance-medley of 
 co-incident wits, can never indeed be made to 
 appear probable. But probability and truth are 
 not always on the same side: and so with my 
 full consent, in spite of these "" lingtial problems,'' 
 Mr. AValteh Cross and Mr. John Bellamt, 
 both alike originals, may enter the temple of 
 Fame, hand in hand, like the two Kings of 
 Brentford, smelling to the same nosegay. 
 
 o 
 
210 
 
 The reader will willingly excuse me from 
 exemplifying the talents of the New Translator 
 by any further specimens. Indeed to notice all 
 his errors, inconsistencies, contradictions, mis- 
 statements, and misquotations, would be an 
 endless task, a waste of time, and labor ill 
 bestowed. I therefore quit Mr. Bellamy's 
 works^ and I hope for ever. 
 
 I cannot, however, take my final leave of 
 the intelligent reader, without asking his per- 
 mission to anticipate certain objections which 
 may probably be made to this humble produc- 
 tion. And I trust, that my anxiety in this 
 respect, even though it should be deemed 
 superfluous, will be attributed rather to the 
 fears of an author new to the public, than to 
 any unbeseeming vanity in the man. Some 
 may, perhaps, be of opinion that this publication 
 was unnecessary, as Mr. B.'s errors have 
 already been exposed by the learned Mr. 
 Whittaker ; and by the learned Critic of the 
 Quarterly Review. Others, that I have treated 
 the subject with too much levit}' : while others 
 again may think that my censures on Mr. B. 
 are too harsh. In answer to the first objection, 
 I beg leave to observe, that I have read, with 
 pleasure, both publications — that I entertain a. 
 
211 
 
 due sense of respect for the labors of their 
 several authors, though neither of them are 
 personally known to me. Further, that I am 
 convinced that no couipetent reader, free alike 
 from prejudice and from prepossession, will 
 deny either of these Critics the merit of having 
 most ably exposed many of Mr. B.'s errors. 
 But as my remarks, though on the same sub- 
 ject, are not exactly the same; — as by far the 
 greater part of them had been written before 
 either of the before-mentioned publications 
 appeared; — as my views extended much further, 
 namely, to the obviating of the consequences, 
 which both Mr. Bellamy's errors and the tone 
 in which they have been advanced are calcu- 
 lated to produce ; — and lastly, as Mr. B. still 
 continued to persist in those errors, and to add 
 a fresh stock to them, I thought this publication 
 would not be entirely useless; and I hope it will 
 not be wholly unacceptable to the public in 
 general. 
 
 To the second objection, I shall reply in 
 the words of the famous M. Pascal; "II y a 
 bien de la difference entre rire de la Religion, 
 & rire de ceux qui la profanent par leur 
 opinions extravagantes. Ce ceroit une impiet^ 
 de manquer de respect pour le verites que 
 TEsprit de Dieu a revelees; mais ce seroit une 
 
 o 2 
 
212 
 
 autre impiet6 de manquer de mepris pour les 
 faiissetes que I'esprit de I'homme leur oppose." 
 Let it be considered too, that I had really 
 no alternative but that of denouncing Mr. B.'s 
 attacks, on tlie score of their mischievous pre- 
 sumption, in the austere language, which alone 
 would beseem so heavy a charge ; or the more 
 cheerful way of evincing his claims to a laugh, 
 by the exposure of his absurdity. 
 
 Besides, many of Mr. B.'s errors are so 
 ludicrous in their essence, and still more so in 
 their origin, that I defy the gravest of his 
 readers, provided they are not totally unac- 
 quainted with the subject, to retain their gra- 
 vity during the perusal. 
 
 Who, for instance, can read his egregious 
 mistakes in rendering n'\l/^ by he has taken ven- 
 geance; — I^'2V by the other ;—\^^^^, arid he taher- 
 nacled; — D^^V^ "^'^l*?'^ garrison soldiers; with the 
 like, and forbear smiling ? Who can view the 
 long line of tabernacles, which it has pleased 
 him to erect for our forefathers, extending from 
 Adam to Moses, and from Paradise to the Wil- 
 derness, not interrupted even by the Deluge, — 
 for in the ark too there was a tabernacle; — who, 
 I say, can behold these things, and not feel an 
 inclination to smile r Who can read his tedious 
 notes, of which it may well be said, 
 
213 
 
 *' Such laboi'd nothings, in so strang^e a style. 
 Amaze the unlearn'd, and make the learned smile" — 
 
 with his thankless, graceless, groundless invec- 
 tives against the translators of the Established 
 Version, and often for no better reason than 
 because he himself, forsooth, chose to mistake 
 a *T (d) for a "1 (r), — or a H (h) for a n (ch) ! 
 Who would not be willing to alternate the 
 weariness produced by the wordy dulness, or 
 the indignation excited by the presumptuous- 
 ness of the r ai ler, v^'ith SiU honest laugh at his 
 absurdities ? Or at least with a half-forgiving 
 smile, that balances (as it were) between con- 
 tempt and pity? If any of my readers can con- 
 template such a medley of heedlessness, self- 
 importance, and temerity, with an unaltered 
 broWy I shall admire their gravity, and make 
 confession, that I do not, myself, possess such 
 a happy temperament. 
 
 I now come to the third objection ; to 
 which I reply — It is true I have in a few in- 
 stances used strong language, yet I hope not 
 stronger than the subject warranted : — nay, 
 absolutely required. I wish, indeed, to be in- 
 formed, how it was to be avoided. Who can 
 read Mr. B.*s works, and the charges of igno- 
 rance, inconsistency, contradiction^ he. which he 
 prefers against all former translators and com- 
 
214 
 
 mentators, — and that not once, twice, or thrlc^, 
 but repeatedly, I might almost say incessantly, 
 as if he intended to secure, by tliese repeated 
 repetitions, what he knew his arguments were 
 little calculated to effect, — who, I say, can 
 read such attacks — knowing them at the same 
 time to be unfounded — without indignation ? 
 Above all, I ask. how any man, vvith a due 
 reverence for the word of God, could see the 
 simple and beautiful passages of Scripture con- 
 verted into a senseless "jargon, without approv- 
 ing and indulging that feeling? Not only 1 could 
 not always suppress my feelings, but in some 
 glaring instances I did not dare attempt to do 
 so. But I solemnly declare, that instead of a 
 disposition to exaggerate, I have endeavored 
 rather to soften the truth, by modifying the words 
 in which it was conveyed. And if, notwithstand- 
 ing such endeavor, any expression not warranted 
 by the subject should have escaped me, I beg 
 it may be pointed out to me, and I will most 
 willingly retract it. For against Mr. B. per- 
 sonally, I do not entertain even the most distant 
 feeling of hostility. Personally indeed, he is 
 only not unknown to me. Tantum vidi. And 
 in fact it is not against Mr. B the man — but 
 against Mr. B. the Author, that my observations 
 are directed. It is his opinions, and the argu- 
 
215 
 
 ments by which, and the spirit in which, he has 
 supported and propagated them, that I condemn. 
 In short, it is not against him only, even as an 
 author, that I wrote the preceding remarks, 
 but against that lawless licence, which, bidding 
 defiance to sound criticism, would fliin make 
 out of Hebrew words and idioms any thing 
 and every thing ; as if this language was not 
 like all others, subject to rules— rules resting 
 on the sure foundation of psychological prin- 
 ciples. It is this, against which I protest. 
 
 I protest also against those mischievous at- 
 tempts of converting the simple and plain truths 
 of Scripture, into allegories; and its beautiful 
 historical narratives into dark mysticisms: thus 
 substituting the vain imagination of man for 
 the word of God; and burying our sacred trea- 
 sures under a vile heap of rubbish. Against such, 
 and the like attempts, have enlightened men,* 
 
 * The learned and enlightened Aben Ezra has in many 
 parts of his valuable writings reprobated these attempts. (See 
 his preface to his Comment on the Pentateuch. In his Intio- 
 duction to the book of Lamentation, he has the following 
 beautiful lines. 
 
 ,D'>pT *^ll/D2 DHQ 
 
216 
 
 Jews as well as Christians,* lifted up their 
 powerful voices, even in the dark ages of super- 
 stition. But why should I appeal to the autho- 
 rities of men, when Scripture itself doth in the 
 most explicit terms tell us in what sense its 
 words are to be understood? For thus says the 
 word of God—" For this commmidment which I 
 
 .D^pinai Dnn33 '^ly^z ^'^^>r^ .^^in \:im^n i-ni 
 .DV^n;; onanm :icoij:^2d >^'\ipi2r\\:; ,tids \2^ 
 
 Of which the following is the general sense — " Therefore, 
 may the sense of the passages be compared to bodies, and 
 alleg'ories to garments: some of which, like silk, are thinly 
 iiipun, others are as coarse as sack-cloth : but the plain sense, 
 i, e. the body, must be represented in choice words, by choice 
 rules. For so have our ancient wise men declared, " The 
 text must be interpreted according- to its obvious sense." 
 
 * Lord Bacon, speaking on the same subject, uses the 
 following words : " They are to be interpreted according to 
 the latitude, and the proper sense of the place, and respec- 
 tively towards the present occasion whei'e the words were 
 uttered; or in precise congiuity from the context of the 
 precedent and subsequent words ; or in contemplation of the 
 principal scope of the place, &c. &c. And further on, he 
 makes use of this most beautiful simile; " Certainly us 
 wines which at Jirst pressing run gentli/, yield a more plea- 
 sant taste, than those where the icine press is hard wrought; 
 because those somewhat relish of the stone and skin of the 
 grape, so those observations are most ivholesome and sweet, 
 which flow from Scripture gently expressed, and naturally 
 expounded.'' 
 
2i7 
 
 command thee this day, is tiot hiddeji* from thee, 
 neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that 
 thou shouldst say, who shall go up for us to heaven, 
 and hying it unto us, and make us understand 
 it, that we may do it. Neither is it beyond the 
 sea, that thou shoiddst say, who shall go over 
 the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and 
 make us understand it, that we may do it? But 
 the xvord is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth and 
 in thy heart, to do it?'* (Deat. xxx. 11 — 14.) 
 Thus does God declare that his Holy Law is not 
 beyond our comprehension, that it is adapted 
 and suited to our capacities. — But if you be- 
 lieve our allegorizers, the Law, I mean its sense, 
 is to be found no where : — no where at least, 
 except in the dark recesses of their disordered 
 imaginations. Thus do these men, in direct 
 opposition to the declaration of God, make his 
 Holy Word of none effect; convert light into 
 darkness, and substitute darkness for light. 
 
 It is against these pernicious attempts, 
 embodied as they are in Mr. B.'s works, that. 
 
 * Tlie Hebrew corresponding- with this word is rii^7D3 
 from |j57^ a ivonder, tliat which is above human comprehen- 
 sion. So that God expressly declares here that his Holy 
 Word is suited to our understanding, that it is not incom- 
 prehensible. 
 
218 
 
 I have employed my feeble pen. But above 
 all, his endeavors to destroy the authority of 
 Established Versions, by representing them as 
 replete with errors and inconsistencies, and as 
 the causes of infidelity, appeared to me at 
 once to call for reprehension and antidote; 
 convinced, as I was, and must continue to be, 
 that such assertions tend to the destruction of 
 all religions, leading by necessary inference to 
 the conclusion that all revelation must for 
 mankind in general be worse than useless. 
 
 Indeed the attempt to connect the sophisms 
 and slanders of infidels with the justly re- 
 spected names of the Translators, by ascribing 
 the former to the pious labors of the latter, is 
 in itself, independent of its pernicious tendency, 
 so palpably calumnious and so manifestly 
 unjust, that no reprobation can be too strong. 
 For it is notoriously untrue that the blasphemies 
 of unbelievers have had their source in the 
 translations. Reptiles of this class (if I may use 
 the words of a most learned Author) " are not 
 of one place or of one season. They are the 
 perennials of history: and though they may 
 disappear for a time, they exist always in the 
 egg, and need only a distempered atmosphere 
 and an accidental ferment to start up into life 
 and activity." Such men existed in fact, long 
 
219 
 
 before translations were thought of; nay, they 
 existed even during the time when the language 
 of Scripture was yet a living tongue. Indeed 
 had these traducers read the Scriptures with 
 due attention, they not only would have found 
 this to be the case, but they also would have 
 found the true source explicitly stated; and 
 they would further have found the only way in 
 which such wicked men ought to be addressed. 
 Read what the inspired Psalmist says on the 
 subject. (Psdlm xiv. 1.) 
 
 D^i'?N ]\s{ 13^3 *'733 IDl^ " Tlie fool says 
 in his heart there is no God.*' And he adds the 
 true and only cause of this wicked assertion, 
 because n'?^'?^. in^j/nn in^nt^^H They have 
 corrupted and made their works abominable : 
 2y^~n'^i! Y'^ " there is none that does good,'" 
 and as he still more emphatically expresses 
 himself, in verse 3. inJ^'Di. ]\S{ " iiat/ not even 
 ofie." And when the same divine writer con- 
 descends to expostulate with these wicked men, 
 how does he do it ? — not by adopting the 
 
 ♦ The primary signification of this word, appears to 
 nie to be — a retrogression towards nonentity, corruption ; 
 an approach to the state of putridity, and is used metapho- 
 rically to express a degraded state of mind, a corrupted 
 heart. 
 
220 
 
 language of mysticism, but by appealing to 
 their own feelings, and to tlie common sense 
 and experience of mankind. For thus he 
 expresses himself, (Psalm xciv, 6 — 10.) 
 
 ^b ii^^^"! nn-n^ D^pin^i mrj: "i;i ^^,^)^ 
 
 " They slay the widow and the stranger, 
 and murder the fatherless. And say the Lord 
 does not see, neither does the God of Jacob 
 regard it. Understand, ye ignorant amongst 
 the vulgar: and ye fools, when will ye be 
 wise ? He that planted the ear, shall he not 
 hear? He that formed the eye, shall lie not 
 see ? He that chastiseth nations, shall he not 
 correct ? He that teaches man knowledge, shall 
 not he knoxv."* 
 
 This then is the true source of infidelity; 
 and this is the true way in which its abettors 
 
 * Many translators have rendered the last clause of 
 this verse, as if connected with the foUowing^ passage, thus : 
 He that teaches mUn knoicledge, viz. the Lord, he knows 
 the thoughts of man, ^"c." I have, however, followed the 
 English translation as more cousouaut to the scope of the 
 whole passage^ 
 
221 
 
 ought to be answered. But if this be, as it 
 doubtless is the best way, it is no less certain 
 that to flatter the vanity of these mischievous 
 men by calling them intelUgent men ; of an in- 
 genious turn of mind; &c. &c. must be amongst 
 the very worst. Or if a worse still be possible, 
 it will be that of extenuating the guilt of the 
 zealots of irreligion by exaggerating the human 
 deficiencies and mistakes of the translators, in 
 order to represent these as the origin and occa- 
 sion of the noxious vapours that overcloud the 
 understanding of unbelievers — vapours that 
 are in fact exhaled from the putrid swamps 
 of their own already corrupted morals — from 
 an evil heart of unbelief: for the effects of 
 which neither the real nor tlie asserted 
 imperfections of the translations can afford 
 even a plausible pretext. For let it never 
 be forgotten, that but for the piety that 
 suggested, and the industry that executed, 
 those important labors, Scripture would now 
 be Dinnn l-iDD as a sealed book ; — and that 
 whilst tiiose pious and learned men have 
 opened for us the sacred treasure — whilst they 
 have enabled us to peruse the word of God 
 with ease, they have also enabled us to detect 
 the comparatively trifling errors which, from 
 the absence of the numerous aids, that 
 
Providence has since then placed within our 
 reach, they have unintentionally committed. 
 
 As for the difficult passages in the Scrip- 
 tures, respecting the true interpretation of 
 which translators as well as commentators 
 differ, (and I allow there are such) surely this 
 ought not to excite surprise. For let us but 
 for a moment consider the number, the extent, 
 and the profound nature of the various subjects 
 of which the Sacred Volume treats. Let us 
 reflect on the vast distance of time that has 
 elapsed since its first promulgation; — that many 
 of its historical narratives relate to ancient 
 races and nations with whose history, manners, 
 and modes of life, we are but imperfectly ac- 
 quainted; — that it not only embraces every 
 thing that concerns our present state of exist- 
 ence, but reaches far, very far beyond it.* I 
 
 * There have been learned Christians, I know, who 
 have denied this position. But an attentive perusal of 
 the Old Testament, particularly tlie prophetical books and 
 the Psalms, will, I aui persuaded, convince every impar- 
 tial mind that the doctrine of a future state was not 
 only known to the ancient Israelites, but known as one of 
 those grand truths that admitted not even a shadow of 
 a doubt. Indeed a revelation unaccompanied with this 
 necessary knowledge appears to uie incomprehensible. 
 
22S 
 
 say, let us consider all this, and then instead of 
 being surprised at the difficulties occasionally 
 met with in the sacred writinejs, we shall rather 
 feel a grateful and devout wonder, that there 
 are so few. For in point of fact, what are 
 these difficulties in comparison with the innume- 
 rable plain, simple, unadorned truths, maxims 
 of wisdom, and rules of life, with which the 
 holy writings abound ? They are what a grain 
 of sand is to the stupendous globe — what a 
 drop of water is to the mighty ocean ! 
 
 But even these difficulties are far from being 
 unsurmountable. And indeed wherein lies the 
 improbability? — in what respect is it incompati- 
 ble with the attributes and the known dealings of 
 the Great Father towards the sons of men, that 
 it should have been so intended, in order to keep 
 alive our attention to these sacred volumes ? 
 — which gracious purpose is most securely 
 
 Without this important truth, ali the wonderful events, all 
 the miracles, nay, the law itself, could not have had an 
 adequate object. 
 
 I owe it, however, to truth, to remark, that the denial 
 has been the opinion of individuals only in any church 
 denomination. At all events, the contrary is maintained in 
 the stron2:est languag^c 1)y tiie established church of Eng^land. 
 See article vii. 
 
224 
 
 effected by uniting a motive for continued re- 
 search with the hope of successive attainment; 
 a motive, I, say, which, not arising from any 
 depressing necessity, leaves the intellectual 
 powers free and tranquil; and a hope, which 
 the experience and analogy of past success 
 strengthens into a warrantable expectation ? 
 For every period of the indixj'tduaVs life, God 
 has allotted an increase of light, for such as 
 seek light in the spirit of love and childlike 
 docility : and why not for the different periods 
 in the growth of a whole community, nay, of 
 the whole civilized family of the human race ? 
 What though there are places in the majestic 
 stream of Revelation, where (if I may use the 
 happy simile of an old llieologian) the 
 elephant must swim; are there not a thousand 
 hard by, where the very lamb may safely ford ? 
 But, as I have observed before, even these diffi- 
 culties are not unsurmountable. They require, 
 as do indeed all the works of God, application 
 and study ; but above all, they require a pure 
 uncontaminated mind, a well disposed and un- 
 corrupted heart, without which all wisdom 
 becomes folly. 
 
 Once more then, instead of detracting from 
 the labors of our predecessors, let us gratefully 
 
225 
 
 acknowledge the obligations we owe them; and 
 with fervent hearts let us offer thanks to that 
 gracious God who has furnished us with so 
 many and various means of reading and un- 
 derstanding his Holy Word, that we may our- 
 selves find how truly the wisest of man has 
 described it to be, HSTIV Hi'?.^ ni^J^ THE 
 WORD OF GOD IS PURE! 
 
 FINIS. 
 
APPENDIX: 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 ^ME a^w^m^m^u iF(S)mmmB iBumiiiiiiss 
 
 MR. BELLAMY'S BIBLICAL CRITICISMS; 
 
 WITH A LETTER 
 
 So tj^e lEUitor of tj&c ^nti jacobin IRebtctD, 
 
 ON THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 MR. BELLAMY'S INTENDED TRANSLATION. 
 
 Extracted from the before-mentioned Journal for 1815. 
 
The Author will not, he trusts, be accused of any 
 personal inconsistency, should the tone of feeling: which dictated 
 sundry expressions in the pages following be found to differ from 
 tfee impressions left on his mind after a full, earnest, and minute 
 consideration of the subject. On the contrary, he dares hope 
 that every candid Reader will consider such expressions as 
 decisive proofs that the Author, far from having been actuated 
 by any hostile feeling towards Mr. Bellamy, had commenced the 
 controversy with prepossessions in his favor — prepossessions, 
 which he solemnly declares, have given way only to the superior 
 influence of truth, and not before they had become inconsistent 
 with the Author's inward conviction; derived from long, close, 
 and impartial Inquiry. 
 
iiiPipiapjDa; 
 
 (A.) 
 To THE Editor of the Antijacobin Review. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 In looking over No. XIX. of the 
 Classical Journal, my attention was attracted 
 by Mr. Bellamy's Proposals for publishing a 
 new translation of the Holy Bible; and parti- 
 cularly by the contrasted passages : which I 
 suppose have purposely been added, to enable 
 the public to judge of the defects of the old, 
 as well as of the superior merit of the new 
 translation. Some of those passages have 
 already been inserted in the Classical Journal, 
 and have, I believe, not appeared to many 
 Hebrew scholars either so satisfactory, or so 
 conclusive, as their author imagined them to 
 be. For my part, I candidly confess, that, 
 after reading Mr. B.'s Biblical Criticisms, (as 
 
230 
 
 well as the contrasted passages,) with due 
 attention, it appeared to me that the author 
 had, in most places, entirely misconceived the 
 literal sense and spirit of the original; that he 
 had attached significations to many Hebrew 
 words, such as " ]P because; ^'^^ he has taken 
 xieimeance; '^lyik^'^ and he commanded; T\^)3\let 
 there he made ; ini?]^^/ to answer him ; ^'iiV.T}^^ 
 and he (man) idolized himself;'* kc. — which they 
 neither have, nor can have j and, in short, 
 that he has deviated considerably more from 
 the original, than has been done by the trans- 
 lators of the Established Version. Yet as long 
 as his misconceptions were confined to the 
 Classical Journal, a work which, like your 
 valuable pubhcation, is chiefly read by men of 
 science and erudition, no great harm was to 
 be apprehended from them.— I, therefore, did 
 not think it necessary to expose his errors. 
 But, as the author now ventures to give his 
 discoveries to the public at large, I think it an 
 incumbent duty upon all those who value the 
 word of God, and who are anxious that the 
 stream of life should flow from its fountain 
 head pure and unmixed, to state their objec- 
 tions to the translations of such passages as are 
 neither ^^ conjirmed hy other parts of Scripture ,** 
 nor consistent with the original. 
 
231 
 
 Surely tlie learned author is not aware of 
 the serious injury which he will do, uninten- 
 tionally, to truth, and to the sacred cause of 
 religion! His very name, as well as the long 
 list of subscribers, consisting of the first cha- 
 racters of the country for dignity, piety, and 
 learning, (who were doubtless actuated by the 
 purest motives, in honoring his intended pub- 
 lication with their patronage) will give the 
 new translation a degree of authority, the more 
 pernicious, as it may have a greater tendency 
 to mislead those, who having no means of 
 ascertaining the accuracy of a translation, must 
 be guided chiefly by the judgment of their 
 superiors in knowledge. Were we once to 
 allow conjecture to usurp the place of truth, 
 and admit ever}^ fanciful interpretation as the 
 genuine word of God, there is no knowing 
 where the mischief would stop. Then, indeed, 
 would Deists have cause to triumph, by putting 
 into the mouth of the inspired writers, any 
 thing that their idle fancy might suggest. 
 And who could deny tliem the same privi- 
 lege, which the defender of divine revelation has 
 himself taken ? 
 
 Urged by these considerations, I offer the 
 annexed remarks on Mr. B.'s Biblical Criti- 
 
232 
 
 cisms and contrasted passages, to your im- 
 partial judgment, &c. &c. 
 
 Rema?'ks on Mr. BeUamy's Contrasted Passages 
 and Biblical Ct^itidsms. 
 
 I SHALL begin my remarks with the second 
 verse of the Contrasted Passages, as it has 
 ah'eady appeared in the Classical Journal, vol. 
 
 i. p. 301. n'm iS*? niTi t;^^ n;;-j n^nn d« 
 
 J^ T T T : - *^ r ^ T V : • 
 
 rendered in the Established Version almost 
 literally, " Shall evil be in the city and the 
 Lord hath not done it." (Amos iii. 6.) 
 
 With this translation Mr. B. finds fault; 
 because, as he says, "■* it is diametrically opposite 
 to those pure ideas which ice ought to efiteriain 
 concerning the love and mercy of God.'* Cer- 
 tainly, if the Hebrew word T)JJ1 and its corres- 
 ponding English word evil, denoted nothing but 
 moral guilt, then, indeed, would the passage be 
 objectionable. But every well informed reader 
 knows, that these words convey in their re- 
 spective languages, sometimes the idea of moral 
 guilt, and sometimes that of physical evil, ac- 
 cording as the sense and context may be. — Dr. 
 G. S. Clarke, who, in my humble opinion, is 
 
^33 
 
 not so very ignorant of the Hebrew as Mr. B. 
 chooses to represent him, has ah-eady given him 
 this information; (Classical Journal, vol. iii. p. 
 485.) and I will venture to say, that no one, 
 except Mr. B. and the Deist, has ever con- 
 ceived that the inspired writer or his translators 
 meant any thing else by Hi/"! evil, than calamity^ 
 or misfortune. 
 
 There are numerous passages in Scripture, 
 where the words in question cannot have any 
 other meaning. Thus: " For how can I endure 
 and see n^">3 the evil (or calamity) that shall 
 come unto my 'people.''* Esth. viii. 6. 
 
 " Let us cast lots that we 7nay /mow \p'?J^3 
 rii^tn i^in^ for whose cause this evil is upon 
 us.** Jonah i. 17. 
 
 The prophets Ahijah and Jeremiah have 
 both made use of the term Din in the same 
 sense. The former, when speaking in the 
 name of God to Jeroboam ; h^ n;/"! ^^^3D ''::n- 
 Di/^n^^ n^3 Behold I will bring evil upon the 
 house of Jeroboam. 1 Kings xiv. 10. The 
 latter, when addressing the inhabitants of Jeru- 
 salem ; " Thus says the Lord God of Hosts, 
 the God of Israel;* njL?") ^^2^ ^2}r\ ^' / >will 
 bring evil upon this place.** Jerem. xix. 3. If 
 evil means moral evil only, what answer will 
 Mr. B. give to Deists should they object to 
 
234 
 
 these passages? Will he tell them that ^^3D 
 like nji'J/ signifies to take vengeance ? — Perhaps 
 he may, for he has just as much authority for 
 the one as for the other. 
 
 Now what regards the word Hti*^ Mr. B. 
 tells us, with an unbecoming confidence, that it 
 hath above two hundred different branches or 
 modes of expression, kc. It means, " to take 
 vengeance, to requite,''* &c. — Buxtorf, Park- 
 hurst,* and Taylor,t could only give this word 
 two significations. They were too ignorant to 
 know that to take vengeance, was one of its 
 primary meanings! This grand discovery, which 
 alone is sufficient to immortalize any one's name, 
 was reserved for Mr. Bellamy's inventive genius! 
 To be serious: how Mr. B. could possibly tliink 
 that n^J^ means to take vengeance^ might well 
 seem unaccountable. I know Mr. B. will say, as 
 
 * Parkhurst under llie root T]^]3 says, this is a general 
 word like do and make in Eng'lish. He adds, that it Jias 
 various applications, twelve of wliich he enumerates; but it 
 is evident that they all partake of the nature of the root, viz. 
 to do, or to make. 
 
 t Taylor cites the passage in Judges xi. 36. but it seems 
 that by putting the word vengeance in Italics, he wished to 
 indicate that it did not belong to the root nji^j/j but to another 
 word ; as will appear hereafter. 
 
235 
 
 he lias already said, Classical Journal, vol. iv. p, 
 173. Have I not " conjirmed this rendering hj 
 a reference to another part of Scripture (Judges 
 xi. S6.) Xi'here the same xvord, xvritten with the 
 same vowels, cannot have any other meaning V* 
 With great deference to Mr. B.'s superior 
 abilities, I am bold enough to tell him, that 
 the same word can he and is* rendered other- 
 wise by the Englisli, and other translators. 
 
 The Established Version renders n^>f by 
 "he has taken!" — Should Mr. B. rejoin: but 
 how then are we to account for the word " ven- 
 geance'* which the translators have given us? — 
 I will tell him. — Not that they could possibly 
 have been guilty of so palpable an error, as to 
 suppose that the single word T\^'^ includes the 
 idea of ve?7geance,hut looking at the Hebrew text, 
 as every translator ought to do, they found such 
 
 * The Septuagint renders Hti^^ in this passage by 
 Ttoiyjacci. The Targuin by "7^3]/. The Latin by prcpstititf 
 also hy fecit . Corcejus is still more plain on the subject ; 
 for under the article nDP3 h^ quotes the passage "j*? 'H^^J 
 m/2p3 which he renders hy fecit tihi ultiones. Yet Mr. 
 Bellamy tells us that HCi'i/ cannot be otherwise rendered, 
 than by — he has taken vengeance / 
 
236 
 
 a word as i^l^p^^ (\) which means vengeance. They 
 have, therefore, properly translated the Hebrew 
 ?|''5)KD niDP^5 nin^ tj'? nti^j; by " The Lord 
 has taken vengeance for thee of thy enemies" 
 Now as no such a word as riiZSf?^ is to be 
 found in Amos iii. 6. your learned readers 
 will allow, and Mr. B. will do the same if he 
 be open to conviction,* that the rendering of 
 TW^ by " he has taken vengeance,^^ is neither the 
 '* literal sense of the HebreWy*' nor " confrmed 
 by any other part of Scripture.'* 
 
 I intend. Sir, with your permission, to 
 continue my remarks on Mr. Bellamy's Bibli- 
 cal Criticisms in your succeeding numbers. 
 For the present I shall conclude with requesting 
 your learned readers, that if they find the pre- 
 ceding observations wrong, they will have 
 the goodness to correct me. For rest assured. 
 Sir, that I am at all times more ready and 
 
 * I must do Mr. B. the justice to say, that he has, 
 since the first publication of this article, given up this absurd 
 translation, about which he had written so much. Whether 
 he ought not to have explained the motives that induced 
 him to abandon this child of folly, is a question which I 
 leave to the reader to decide. 
 
237 
 
 willing to acknowledge my own errors, than to 
 expose those of others. 
 
 I am. Sir, 
 With respect and esteem, 
 
 Your humble Servant, 
 
 HYMAN HURWITZ. 
 
 Highgate, Nov. 30, 1814. 
 
 To THE Editor of the Antijacobin Review. 
 
 DEAR SIR, 
 
 Encouraged by your approbation, 
 I send you a few more remarks on Mr. Bel- 
 lamy's Criticisms, the insertion of which will 
 oblige. 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 Your very humble Servant, 
 
 HYMAN HURWITZ. 
 
 Highgate, March 10, 1815. 
 
 Remarks on Mr, Bellamy^ s Critical Remarks on 
 Dr, A. Clark's Annotations on the Bible. 
 (Classical Journal, Vol. iv. p. 307.) 
 
 Mr. Bellamy having in his former re- 
 marks, (Classical Journal, vol. iii. p. 465.) 
 
23S 
 
 convinced himself, that D^"^'7^^* is a noun sin- 
 gular;— that C does not form the plural; — that 
 n7Sn, in 1 Sam. iv. S. is not plural ; but that 
 it ought to be rendered as in Gen. xxxix. 19. 
 '* after this manner ;"f — that M?^5 is also sin- 
 
 * In differing from Mr. B. respecting' the word D^H/i^* 
 I wish to be understood as objecting only to his assertions, 
 that it is singular as far as regards its grammatical con- 
 struction ; and that it is never used in the plural. That 
 the same word frequently denotes the Divine Being, the 
 Creator, the one only God, admits not of a doubt. This, 
 however, is no proof that the same term when applied 
 to other beings is not plural. There are instances in all 
 languages, of words having plural termination, which yet 
 denote single conceptions, and of others that are used in both 
 numbers. 1 shall explain this subject more fully in my 
 future remarks. 
 
 t The learned W. Hailes has already told Mr. B. 
 (Classical Journal, vol. v. p. 249,) that it was not n/J^H, 
 but n7i^n D^nmDs which the translators have rendered 
 by, " after this manner," (Gen. xxxix. 19.) Had Mr. B. 
 read that chapter with attention, he would have found that 
 the same words occur in the 17th verse, and that they are 
 rendered, by " according to these words." The reason of 
 this distinction is obvious. In verse 19th, the two words 
 are connected with HJi'i/j /'«" did ; in verse 17 with "inim? 
 and she spoke. Mr. B. however, instead of acknowledging 
 his error, persists in it; nay, he goes a step further, and says, 
 (in Classical Journal, vol. vii. p. 227.) " that it icas not 
 T^bi^n ft(^ ''«* rendered in the singular, but 71?^^ H/i^n 
 
239 
 
 gular; — that the English translators have erred 
 in rendering imn^ D^nhi^n vbi^ ^'7}: Uti; ""D, 
 V^^^ '*J2D by, " Because there God appeared 
 to him when he fled from the face of his 
 brother;" (Gen. xxxv. 7;) — and that it ought to 
 be : *' Because there they (Jacob and his family) 
 appeared before him, the God* of his flying Jrom 
 
 on three ivords each j)lurul ! Thus telling his antagonist, 
 in pretty plain terms ; Sir, you charge me with having made 
 one blunder ; you are wrong, I have made no less than three. 
 
 My limits will not permit me to notice all the errors 
 which Mr. B. has committed in that article. I cannot, 
 however, avoid observing, that he is as unjust in attributing 
 want of critical knowledge to Mr. W. Hailes, as he is in- 
 correct in stating that the translators have omitted to translate 
 the word D^nVJ* (1 Sam. xxii. 6. ;) the contrary is the fact. 
 They have very properly rendered it by standing; thus, 
 yhV Cn^J ri2V h:^\ and all bis servants were 
 standing about him, (Sam. xxii. C.) His rendering Tt*f3i.» 
 D'^UVi by garrison soldiers, is not only unauthorised, but 
 contrary to grammatical construction. The examples which 
 he cites from 2 Sam. viii. G — 14.; 2 Chron. are not at all to 
 the purpose; for the propriety of rendering D'^n^\fJ there, by 
 garrisons, is very questionable. Besides the words are not 
 the same. Here it is D^D'V]. nitzabeem, whereas in the 
 examples, it is D^Zl"'lf^ n'tzeebeem, and not D'l3•5^^ as 
 Mr. B. has represenled it. 
 
 * Mr. Bellamy, who so strenuously defends the vowel 
 points and accents, for which he deserves praise, might have 
 perceived that his translation is in opposition to the accents. 
 
240 
 
 the face of his brother (It) — that I^SD, in 
 Gen. iii. 22. is wrongly translated by all the 
 European translators. "It should be appointed" 
 (Fine specimens of a grammatical knowledge of 
 the Hebrexv!) I say, after doing all this, Mr. 
 B. proceeds, (Class. Journal, vol. iv. p. 307,) 
 to give the learned world, what he calls a nexo 
 translation of D"Ii^ r\^V^ U^Th\^ ICi^^'l. (Gen. 
 i. 26.) This passage is rendered in the Esta- 
 blished, and in every other Version, (erroneously, 
 no doubt, because Mr. B. will have it so,) by 
 " and God said, let us make man in our image," 
 &c. Now Mr. B. contends, that this is not a pro- 
 per translation; but that it ought to be rendered 
 thus: " And God commanded, let man be made 
 in our (the Israelite) image:'* and as he explains 
 it afterwards more fully, " that Moses, speaking 
 to the people, informed them that God created man 
 in their (the people's) image,** 
 
 Whoever reads the grand exordium with 
 which Mr. B. introduces this child of folly to 
 
 For JD\l7i^ being accented with ?JAp np| (:) a disjunctive 
 accent, equivalent to our comma, or semicolon, cannot belong 
 to the succeeding word. The literal meaning of in"133 is 
 certainly in his Jiyivg, or whilst he teas in the act of 
 jiying ; but by what rule Mr. B. can render it by, of his 
 jiying, I leave him to explain. 
 
241 
 
 the notice of his readers, might ahnost be 
 tempted to conclude, that Mr. Bellamy (who, 
 according to his own assertion, was " ready to 
 reject all the translations, hitherto given, of this 
 important passage," for this J(Wori(c) imagined, 
 that the learned world would consider it as 
 the offspring of his fruitful imagination. But 
 what will the great Hebraist say, when I show 
 him that this fanciful interpretation was cited 
 by a very learned Hebrew commentator, who 
 lived above 600 years ago ? and cited by him 
 only to be characterised as nonsense^ What 
 will he say, when I make it appear, that this 
 adopted child is of a very suspicious breed — 
 not a Jewish opinion, but that of a Deist? This 
 may appear strange, but it is the truth: and 
 the Citation itself which shall be forthwith 
 produced, will establish the fact beyond a 
 doubt. 
 
 To THE Editor of the Antijacobin Review. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 Before I proceed to lay before your 
 readers the extract which I promised in my 
 last communication, permit me to point out a 
 few errors in Mr. Bellamy's translation, with 
 
 Q 
 
242 
 
 which the Hebrew Deist cannot be charged; 
 as they exclusively belong to Mr. B. 
 
 " The word "1p^^''l vayomer^ says Mr. B. 
 (Classical Journal, vol. iv. p. 308.) as applied to 
 the supreme^ in this seiise, means literally, he 
 COMMANDED. Chrou. xxi. 27. nin^ "l^^^"! 
 "^S/D^ The Lord commanded the angel. — 
 Chron. xxii. 1. Tl'n ^ipj^''! and David com- 
 manded.— 2 Chron. xiv. 4. niin"*^ "l^*^"! And 
 commanded Judah. — 2 Chron. xxix. 30. "l^^^"! 
 'jn^Pini AND Hezekiah commanded. — Esther 
 iv. 13. ''?"7"}p "l^^^l then Mordecai com- 
 manded. — Dan. ii. 2. '^7;2.'l "lipj^"! and the 
 King cojmmanded." — / have examined upwards 
 of two thousand places of scripture where "l^i^"] 
 vayomer occurs, and I fnd that the word thus 
 written, was always used when God commanded ; 
 also by kings, patriarchs, and all in every situa- 
 tion exercising authority in the imperative or 
 commajiding style,*' he. 
 
 Now the first thing that must strike the 
 attentive reader in perusing the above, is, that 
 Mr. Bellamy, who, as he tells us, had the 
 patience to examine above two thousand pas- 
 sages wherein HD^^''! occurs, (and there are few 
 books of Scripture where it does not repeatedly 
 occur in almost every chapter,) should quote 
 his examples from books written after the 
 
243 
 
 Hebrew had ceased to be vernacular, viz, 
 from Chronicles, Esther, and Daniel ; and 
 not from some earlier divine writer ! And after 
 all, what authority has Mr. B. for rendering 
 ■l^^^''^ in the quoted passages by he commanded? 
 Not the Septuagint,* nor the Targum,t nor 
 any other ancient translation, but forsooth, the 
 Vulgate, and the English Version ; the trans- 
 lators of which Mr. B. had so often, and so con- 
 temptuously, stigmatized with ignorance of the 
 Hebrew! 
 
 As I have no such contemptuous opinion 
 of these translators, but can pay them the re- 
 spect due to their general merit, without being 
 blind to their defects and inaccuracies in par- 
 ticular passages, I should not abject to this au- 
 thority, provided Mr. B. could prove that in ren- 
 dering IDS^T in some places by commanded^ they 
 meant it as the literal signification. There is. 
 
 * The Septuagint renders "l^J^*^! every where, by Kaj 
 £»7re or EtTTEc 
 
 f I have not had an opportunity of examining- the Tar- 
 gum on Chronicles ; but in Esther, and indeed in every other 
 place, this word is rendered by "l^i^T and he said, and not 
 by T^p^l and he commanded. 
 
 In the Latin translation of Pagniuus it is rendered by et 
 dixit ! Even Luther, who is not the most literal translator, 
 has rendered it in Chron. xxi. 27. by Und Gott sprach. 
 
 Q 2 
 
244 
 
 however, not the least ground for such a sup- 
 position. Had Mr. B. perused the Bible with 
 a little more attention, he would have found 
 that the phrase "^f^'pO? 1^^^). occurs in the same 
 chapter, verse 15 ; also in 2 Sam. xxiv. 16. 
 and that T]^^\'^ is there also, the nominative, no 
 one will question ; yet, in both places, have the 
 English translators rendered it by he said. He 
 would also have found, that 1900 out of the 
 2000 times where that word occurs, they have 
 so rendered it. Of this, however, I will not 
 speak positively, as I have really not taken the 
 trouble of counting the passages, considering 
 such an occupation as a waste of time. 
 
 In short. Sir, it appears to me that the 
 translators were fully aware of the true import 
 of the root "IDJ< ; the primary signification of 
 which is, to manijest our thought through the me- 
 dium of speech, uniting, or any other mode of 
 communication;* and hence it acquires its se- 
 condary and figurative sense, in which it is 
 used to designate any inward act, by which the 
 mind renders itself or others conscious of its 
 thoughts or emotions. Thus, Gen. xxvii. 41. 
 13^3 'Wi)^ "lp^i^^ and Esau said in his heart, i. e. 
 
 * See Moreh Neborhiin, part i, chap. 65. See also Coc- 
 cojus under the root ")^J^ 
 
245 
 
 he thought. 2 Sam. xxi. 16. in nS: ni^n^ "IPS^I 
 ^W^2 ID^n T]0 1 Sam. xx. 4. what saith thy 
 soul ? i. e. what does thy soul desire ? When, 
 therefore, the divine writers make use of this 
 word, they merely wish to represent, thut the 
 subject of their discourse, or narration, mani- 
 fested his will, thoughts, or sentiments. What 
 the nature of those sentiments are, whether 
 they contain a command, interrogation, condi- 
 tion, promise, wish, &c. must be gathered from 
 the context J but not from "IDS'^I. Thus a 
 
 r And he said, take 
 Command T|55 T\'^ J?3 Hp 'M^^'^\ ] thy son. Gen. 
 
 (_ xxii. 2. 
 
 r \nd he said, if I 
 Condition D-rp3 i^V'^^ °^ "l^^'^- \ fi»J '^ Sodom. 
 
 C xviii. 26. 
 
 .; . r And he said, I 
 
 Negation H'^nC^'X ^7 ")??^^''^ •] will not destroy. 
 
 (. xviii. 28. 
 
 ^[_ . rAnd he said unto 
 
 Interrogation HS^K 17 I^J^^'l ] liim, where art 
 
 C thou? iii. 9. 
 
 „ _ . ^ , ^ ^- •£_ .i rAnd he said unto 
 
 Promise T^JLT-lT m^ HS 17 IDi^"! ] him, so shall liiy 
 
 C seed be. xv. 5. 
 
 rAnd Laban said, 
 
 t \V( 
 
 V, XXX. 34. 
 
 would it were 
 
 AVish ^innn^ ^T)) ^b \2h inm I reordingtoThy 
 
 I'ords. Gen. 
 
 In none of these passages can lOS"*! be 
 rendered by commanded. However, when a 
 sentence contains a general command, order, 
 promise. Sec. a .translator may think himself 
 
246 
 
 justified in substituting a verb, expressive of 
 those actions, in place of 'n22S"*\ Of this licence 
 have the translators availed themselves, and 
 have, therefore, rendered the root li2i^, by com- 
 manded, ordered, bade, pi^umised, appointed^ &c. 
 Now, on examining the examples which 
 Mr. B. quotes, it will be found tliat ")Di^''1 is 
 in all (excepting the first) followed by the infi- 
 nitive, or the gerund (as some grammarians call 
 it) with the prefix Q-j) ; implying an order or 
 command, without specifying the persons that 
 were to execute it. In the first example also, 
 there is evidently an ellipsis, for it does not 
 mention what the Lord said to the angel. Nor, 
 indeed, was it necessary, as this is a mere 
 repetition of verse \5, of the same chapter; 
 
 And he said to the angel that destroyed^ it is 
 enough, stay now thy hand. It is, however, 
 probable, that the English translators thought 
 that the words r\T\l h)^ i3-in ll^'sDTh were 
 understood. They have, therefore, in this, as 
 well as in other cited passages, substituted com- 
 manded instead of he said, as more congenial to 
 the idiom of the language. So far they were 
 right. But to say that the literal meaning of 
 ■12DJ^">T is, and he commanded^ or even to render 
 
247 
 
 it so, when no command is implied, is in my 
 humble opinion, an error of no small mag- 
 nitude. 
 
 Mr. Bellamy's distinction between "l^«n 
 vayomer, and n^t^n vayomar, is equally erro- 
 neous. They are both used as the third person 
 singular, and even myomer often occurs without 
 being followed by the nominative. To me it ap- 
 pears really astonishing, that a gentleman who 
 has written so much on the Hebrew vowel points 
 and accents, should not know, that the only 
 distinction between the two words is, that 
 1)5^'': myomer is used when it is closely con- 
 nected with the word or words following it, as, 
 -lij^ ^•^^ D^ribi^ '\^P\ And God said, it shall be 
 light. nii'iSn % n^^^l And he said to the 
 woman: (Gen. iii. 1.) whereas "IJQi^n vayomaVy 
 is used when it is separated from the succeeding 
 part of the sentence by a pause; in which case 
 it is accented with the disjunctive accents IpT 
 ]tOp zakeaph katon QK) or ^^n^inX atlmachta (ij) 
 which are equivalent to our comma, semicolon, or 
 colon. Til us, l-'A^n ^nsnn^T And he blessed him 
 and said, blessed be Abraham, 8sc. Gen. xiv. l7.— 
 rv\r^'^ ^n^^ "ipi^^l And he said, O Lord God, 
 XV. 8.— ^?:^^ i^Cl^^ "^•?? ni2^''1 And he said, I 
 am Abrahayn's servant. Gen. xxiv. 34. This 
 distinction is absolutely necessary. Substitute 
 
vayomer in the two last sentences, and the 
 signification is immediately altered. The first 
 must then be rendered. And the Lord God said. 
 The second. And Abraham* s servant said, I am. 
 How far then Mr. B. is justified in saying (in 
 Classical Journal, vol. iv. p. 308.) " From 
 what has heen said it will he allowed by the learned, 
 that VAYOMER, comprehends vayomar, hut the 
 latter does not comprehend the formery* I leave 
 the learned to decide. 
 
 Let us now examine what Mr. B. says 
 respecting riJi'^3 nangaseh.- 
 
 " I have selected, I believe** says Mr. B. 
 (Classical Journal, vol. iv. p. 309.) " all the pas- 
 sages where this form of the xmrd {y^V)^\ nanga- 
 seh) occurs, which is rendered in the first person 
 plural future of Kal. I shall, therefore, show that 
 the word in these places may be rendered 7nore 
 consistently with the Hebrew, and 7nore agreeably 
 with the idiom of our language. I do not mean 
 to contend that the word does not comprehend in its 
 effect the plural; (then Mr. B. admits it is plural,) 
 hut I DO ASSERT that as it is the passive of Kal, 
 it ought to be rendered in conformity thereto.** 
 
 Mr. B. then proceeds once more to tell 
 us, that T]W}1^_ nangaseh is the Niphal, (what 
 part of the passive it is, he does not choose to 
 
249 
 
 say) and as a proof that it is so, he cites above 
 twenty passages where that word occurs, and 
 contends, in opposition to the EngUsh, and, I 
 beheve, every other existing translation, that 
 it ought to be rendered in every one of those 
 places in the passive: thus, " Let there he made'' 
 " SJiall be made,*' &c. 
 
 This wonderful proof, as (he calls it,) he 
 thinks is quite sufficient to justify his rendering 
 TWV.X in Gen. i. 26. by. Let he made. 
 
 Now, Sir, passing by Mr. Bellamy's pre- 
 sumption in asserting that Hti'I/^, nangaseh, is 
 the passive in the cited passages, (thereby ren- 
 dering most of them totally unintelligible) 
 though all other translators have considered it as 
 the first person future plural of i^Tfl/; — (for what 
 is the authority of Hebrew learning of all ages, 
 and of all nations, in comparison with Mr. 
 Bellamy's strongest of arguments, I do assert!) 
 1 venture to say, that he has here advanced as 
 a proof, what in reality is not a fact, and that 
 he has thus laid himself open to be charged 
 either with ignorance, or what is worse, with 
 a wilful violation of the first principles of the 
 Hebrev/ language. 
 
 Mr. B. admits that n^>/3, nangasehis plural, 
 yet contends that it is the j)assive. Surely one 
 of the two must be wrong. If it be plural, it 
 
250 
 
 cannot be passive; for the passive plural i& 
 ili^i!2, 7iengdseh, and not nangaseh ; and if it 
 be passive, it cannot be plural. 
 
 It requires no great skill in Hebrew, to 
 know that nangaseh, like 7)121, nigleh, and all 
 other verbs whose third radical is H, can in 
 Niphalhe nothing else than either the third per- 
 son masculine singular perfect, or the participle 
 masculine. In this form it occurs only once in 
 Scripture, HJ:^;;:* HM It^'.Sl Neh. v. 18.— and, 
 strange as it may appear, Mr. B. has neglected to 
 cite this passage, though he quotes verse 12. of 
 the same chapter, where nangaseh is evidently 
 the first person plural of Kal, and not of Niphal. 
 
 To conclude, this word has been very un- 
 fortunate in the hands oi' Mr. Bellamy. He 
 makes of it, and does with it, just what he 
 
 * Rejecting the vowel points, T]\U]i2 may be the first 
 person plural future passive; but even then, it cannot be trans- 
 lated by " Let there be vnacle." The word, corresponding 
 to such an expression, is the third person future, HJi'^^ 
 yebvgsch, as nTH 1217] i*? Hti^I/'' " Let this thing be 
 done for me." Judges xi. 'S7.—nu;V'> 7]l)^\J^ " And 
 
 V T •• T - : 
 
 let it be done according to law." Ezek. x. 3. The same in 
 Kal. Ip^^l n;/"lD 7lt*V^ " Let Pharaoh do, and let 
 hiiii appoint." Gen. xli. 34. — Besides, Mr. B. who has every 
 where adopted the vowel points, will hardly venture to desert 
 thorn now. 
 
251 
 
 pleases. And we need not wonder that he, 
 who could tell the learned world that Hti'I/ 
 signifies io take vengeance, should endeavor to 
 make us believe that T^^V^, nangasehy is a pas- 
 sive plural ; and then to render it as the third 
 person singular. 
 
 Having thus pointed out what peculiarly 
 belongs to Mr. Bellamy, I shall proceed to show 
 that what regards the rest of this strange trans- 
 lation, he is not even entitled to the merit of 
 invention; if, indeed, any merit can be attached 
 to such absurdities. For this purpose it might 
 be sufficient to refer to Aben Ezra's* Commen- 
 taries on Genesis : but as many of your learned 
 readers may not be in possession of that valuable 
 work, I shall take the liberty. of giving an ex- 
 tract from it, adding such explanations as may 
 tend to prove what I have before advanced. 
 
 * Abraham Aben Ezra, a ceJebratecl Rabbi, was born 
 A. M. 4879, at Toledo in Spain, and died in the year 4954. 
 His commentaries on the Old Testament, have deservedly 
 been esteemed both by Jews and Christians. They are 
 printed in Bomberg's and Buxtorf s Bible. His Commen- 
 taries on the Pentateuch, are separately printed in various 
 Editions, with two comments. One denominated Q'^^'H llp^ 
 j\P/cor chayim; the other t^Dl^ vHi^j Ohel yoscpli. The 
 one now before me was printed at Amsterdam, A. M. 5482. 
 
252 
 
 The following is what Aben Ezra says on 
 
 this subject. Dt^' nm:^ rho o Dnai« :2r> 
 
 hi!ii2 pnD nt^iri."! " it is the opinion of some, 
 that nangaseh is the participle of Niphal,"* 
 
 :in« urh n-^v: n^^rs '\m)^^ 12:3 as in (Neh. 
 
 V. 18.) " And that a7«■67^ fnangaseh) tt'a5 made 
 (or prepared) for one day." 
 
 " And they say that the words in our image, 
 AFTER OUR LIKENESS, are the words of Moses ; 
 that is to say, that Moses meant by the word 
 OUR, his own image, and that of the Israelites,"! 
 
 D^^^^ h^ 212; Vin::' " And they assert, that 
 the (1), (the sign of the possessive pro- 
 noun HIS,) in the word ^u}^2, refers not to 
 Q\"l'?i^ God, but to DTJ^n the man; thus, And 
 
 * Mr. B. says the same, " that nang^aseh is Niphal," 
 without, however, stating wliat part of the passive he con- 
 sidered it to be. 
 
 f Mr. B. is of the same opinion. These are his words : 
 " Noiv, as in this narrative, Moses teas speaking with the 
 people, he informed them that God created man in their 
 image, viz. 13D7^3> "* our image," says flioses, "which 
 he obviously (obviously indeed!) applied to themselves.''' 
 (Class. Jour. vol. iv. p. 310.) 
 
253 
 
 God created man in his image, viz. in man^s 
 image.''* 
 
 d;; P21 D^n'^s^nti^ Drn'?^ o'^vn wi^^^ 
 DTi^n n^^ nii/v n^nbi^n ^d 1D^5 ■)'7^^^ nu^i; 
 
 th)i2 " They add, that the word D''^'7^5, in 
 Gen. ix. 6.t belongs to the following word 
 n^l^. The verse will, therefore, be rendered 
 thus. " Whoso sheddeth man^s blood, by man 
 shall his blood be shed, for in an image, God 
 made man.'* 
 
 2b ion ^M^^n nn *' But," says Aben 
 Ezra, " this interpretation is nonsense." "'D 
 
 D■T^5 nm:^ \t ^^ nvnb ]M^i^in hnt " For 
 
 what regards the first, it ought to liave been 
 thus; and God said, " let a made man he;" 
 but as there is evidently no such word, nangaseh, 
 must remain the first person plural of Kal. 
 
 ^iT.Tt:' Dnip Ub^ l'? "Further, How can the 
 
 * Mr. Bellaray has the very same words, " So God 
 created man in his (man's) image.'" (Class. Jour. vol. iv. 
 p. 310.) But not being able to get over the subsequent 
 part of the sentence, he not only contradicts himself, but 
 makes the inspired writer do the same, by rendering 
 ^n^^ l^ia U^nb^ Vh)S2, by "which image was 
 created in the similitude of God.'''' 
 
 t Mr. B. says nothing on this verse. Perhaps he has 
 reserved it, a.s a separate article, for the ClassicalJournal, 
 
954 
 
 (l) of 1^'7Va relate to D1.Sn? This would be 
 to suppose that man had an image before he 
 was made, which is evidently an absurdity." 
 
 Aben Ezra does not here state whom he 
 means by D^IDli^ W\ (an expression generally 
 used by rabbinical writers to designate an 
 author whose name they do not wish to 
 mention.) I have, however, the authority of 
 his commentator, Ohel Yoseph, to say, that it 
 was no sainl that advanced this opinion. For 
 he expressly states, Dm3« "ID*^ nint^ HCOtr^n 
 
 U^M^^n nr nbnnn " in another part Aben 
 Ezra says, that this expounder (whose opinion 
 he quotes) was Joslmatig, whom he mentions 
 with the Heretics, or Deists, in the beginning of 
 his Commentaries." (See Aben Ezras preface.) 
 Whether Mr. Bellamy lias ever seen Aben 
 Ezra's quotation or not, I will not take upon 
 me to determine. Most likely he has not. 
 For he has too high an opinion of his own 
 abilities, to look to Jews for information.* 
 "Few of them understand the construction of 
 the language, and fewer still can lay claim to 
 a talent for Hebrew criticisms." — No, certainly 
 
 * Classical Journal, vol. ii. 852. 
 
255 
 
 not; not even such men as Aben Ezra, Mai- 
 monides, Kimchi, Mendelssohn, &c. &c. I am 
 not at all disposed to charge the inquirer after 
 truth with plagiarism, though he has accused 
 others of that crime on much slighter grounds,* 
 thinking, as I suppose, that no one has a right 
 to commit an error but himself. As for the 
 similarity, why may not an ancient Deist, and 
 a modern Anti-deist, coincide in opinion on so 
 important a subject? Be this as it may, I hope, 
 Sir, that you, as well as every candid reader, 
 will agree with me, that after all that has been 
 said on this subject, Mr. B. had better resume 
 his preconceived opinions^ than persist in defend- 
 ing so unwarrantable an interpretation ; and 
 that, if he must needs give us a new tra?islatio?i, 
 let him either leave this verse as it stands in our 
 present Version, or, at least, give us something 
 more palatable than his New Translatioii of Gen. 
 i. 26.t You will, perhaps, also agree with me, 
 that such unwarrantable and inconsistent inter- 
 pretations of the Holy Books, will, instead of 
 
 * Classical Journal, vol. iv. p. 17G. 
 
 f If the reader will take the trouble and look in Mr. 
 B.'s New Translation, he will find that Mr. B. has very 
 obligingly followed this advice. 
 
256 
 
 silencing the Deist, only encourage fresh inno- 
 vations ; and, instead of promoting religion 
 and truth, only tend to injure that sacred cause. 
 
 I remain. Dear Sir, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 HYMAN HURWITZ. 
 
 Highgate, April \Qth, 1815. 
 
 (B.) ^ 
 
 On the primitive signification of the Hebrew 'word 
 n'':^X"13; the Chaldean words ]'^Dlp2 and 
 ^IM^ jD, and of the parlicidar sense in 
 which Onkelos and Jonathan use these 
 words. 
 
 Having promised in page 191 of 
 this work to treat more largely of these words, 
 I now proceed to redeem my pledge. This I 
 do the more willingly as the subject is not 
 itself unimportant ; and as it may perhaps not 
 be uninteresting to the general reader to know 
 why translators and commentators have dif- 
 fered so much in the interpretation of this 
 first word of Scripture. The subject, I confess, 
 is involved in some obscurity, but I will 
 
257' 
 
 endeavor to throw as much light upon it, as 
 my humble abilities will enable me to do. 
 
 The Hebrew word corresponding to the 
 English word beginning is Ty)T\T\ j derived from 
 iT^T^ he began. The Chaldean verb answering 
 to this latter is ntr. Thus, Gen. vi. 1. onXH bm, 
 rendered both by Onkelos and Jonathan by 
 1>5nt:' they began.— Gen. x. 8. bnT\ J^IH, Onhehs 
 and Jonathan """Iti^ i^in, he began. From ^"15i^, 
 comes the Chaldean J^^TIJi^, the beginning — a 
 word repeatedly made use of by Jonathan and 
 the other Targumim to express beginning ; but 
 not by OnkeloSy who in such cases uses the 
 word ^^1: m^n* 
 
 In some instance we find the word nvHl^S 
 used (at least in the opinion of some trans- 
 
 * The same term (i^ti'*^1) is used in the Syriac Testament 
 for beginning. Thus, Malt. 8. xxiv. ^^i/^l y^Hl^ \^1 yh?^ 
 ^'p^ni ]"'3i^ " AH these are the beginning of sorrow." 
 Ver. 21. J^^*?;;*! nn^'li'''"! " The beginning of the 
 world." Sometimes the word rTiJi^^")!!! is used. Thus, Matt. 
 
 ** He that made — from the beginning, male and female made 
 he them,"— Verse 8. ^^3^n "^IH ^h \'l n^l^^l2 ]0 
 " from the beginning it was not so." 
 
 Jonathan uses the word ^^ti'^^'^3> when he wishes 
 particularly to allude to the creation: thus, Isaiah xxviii. 29. 
 ]^1j^ji^")3 ^1*TD> ''*^ order of the creation. Job xli. 2. 
 n'^ti'i^lD "^"Tiny* *^^ works of the creation. 
 
 R 
 
-258 
 
 lators) in the sense of before, at Jirst ; and 
 then both Onkelos and Jonathan render it by 
 i^n^D1p3 before; at frst; in the frst place. 
 See Gen. xiii. 3.*— xli. 21.— xliii. 18, 21. But 
 in air other places where nbnT) can have no 
 other meaning than beginning ; the Targumim 
 make use of the word )^^Y\^ which has the 
 same signification. Thus, 
 
 " The beginning of the words of his 
 mouth is foolishness.'* — Eccl. x.*13. 
 
 ^"^ n^^-i"" niDsn r^^nn 
 
 T : - : • T : T - • : 
 
 *' The fear of the Lord is the beginning 
 of wisdom." — Prov. ix. 10. 
 
 * Jonathan renders the word D THDZl ''*^re — and here 
 only — by J^7njii VQ'^ f'om which many learned men have 
 inferred that Jonathan used these words iu the sense of 
 •beginning. But from the book, Zohar, on this very verse 
 we may learn with the highest probability what Jonathan 
 meant by the word K7^^^ |Q. See Zohar, vol. i. on (Gen. 
 xiii 3.) 
 
259 
 
 " In the beginning of barley-harvest," 
 — 2 Sam. xxi. 9. 
 
 T T ; • - ■ : • 
 
 " In the beginning of their dwelling theVe.'* 
 " — 2 Kings xvii. 25. 
 
 Now as for H'^ti^t^'^n, it is, as we have already 
 observed, evidently derived from the primitive 
 ti'i^"! the HEAD. But as the head is the chiefy 
 principal, and iippei^most part of the body, the 
 word denoting it, is figuratively employed to 
 denote these various conceptions. Thus, Num. 
 xiv. 4. 0'ik'^ "^^^^ " J^(^t us appoint a head:'' 
 i. e. a captain, a chief, — Exod. xix. "inn \^)kl 
 " the TOP of the moimt." Nehem. xl. 17. ^i^^^"^ 
 n^nii^n " The principal .of the beginning ;^* 
 i. e. the chief of those tliat began. In these 
 cases both Onkelos and Jonathan use the word 
 
 ti^lS*1 is also figuratively used to express the 
 
 Number, Sum; as in Numb. i. 2. — xxvi. 2. 
 
 'PNtnj^l-rJ^ n"7^f'73 t^^i^n-njj 1i^^ " Tale ye 
 
 the HEAD of all the congregation of the children 
 
 II 2 
 
260 
 
 of Isracl^'^ i. e. take their sitm ; number them. 
 In tliis case, Onkelos renders it by )3J^in 
 number; Jow/7//^aw, sometimes by jUIi'in, and 
 sometimes by D1DD sum, 
 
 U})k'\ is also used in a few instances to 
 express metaphorically, the beginnings and then 
 the Targumiin render it by their 'iW^I or i^^lTli^: 
 thus, Eccles. ^^D T;;") ^)k'\12 " from the begin- 
 ning to the end." Targum, Nli^''") p. 
 
 Ezek. xl. 1. n3^»n {^^i^-ljH Targum, ^tr^nn 
 ^^]l£i'■T " In the beginning of the year.'* 
 
 Psalm cxix. iCO. nps* "?|nni \l}^1. Tai% 
 gum, ^^"p "i;::JnD ^rV'^ " the beginning of thy 
 word is truth." 
 
 From Ji^i^") comes also the ordinal j'lJi'N") 
 n;::\S"), Onkelos \S;::-rp; Jonathan \S;D■Tpor^^^2:p, 
 FIRST in number :—2Lni{ the adverb ni5i^J^"13 
 HiJ:^.^"! Onk. and Jonathan i^H^Dip, i^n^X:-rpn 
 and once in 2 Sam. xx. pP7P?: — First in time, 
 before ; — first in order, at the head; and first 
 IN PLACE, In the first i^lace^ i. e. the place 
 where a person had been before. 
 
 From ^^5") comes also the abstract term, 
 n^ti'i^l Headness,'^^ (if I may so call it) or that 
 which is chief in point of dignity, time, or place, 
 as the reader may see by the following examples. 
 
 * Aquila has very properly retained its primitive uieau- 
 iiiir — he renders it h xEipa^aiw. In the Ileadness. 
 
261 
 
 Gen. x. 10. iri5'?^P T\^^>^'^. Onkelos 
 renders it. iTmoto ::'''"1 which may either sig- 
 nify the beginning; or tlie chiej' part of hi^ 
 kingdom. But Jonathan and the Jerusalem 
 Targum render it *^M^, ^M^U:/, the beginning, 
 
 Levit. xxiii, 10. D?TVi? ^""J^'i^l Onkelos 
 ]''D'Tl^n r/n thejirst of your harvest: but Jona- 
 than renders it "'TT'ti' the beginning* 
 
 Deut. xi. 12. T\imr\ n^ti^X-ip Onk. .^t^nO 
 Xnt^'l; Jon. )^T\^'^\ )lC^yrm \12 ''from the begin^ 
 ning of the yearS* 
 
 AMOsvi. 6. U^ILV:^ n^ll^^lthefrstorbest(f 
 oils; Jonathan \^2tD jTIC^'O ti^^l the chief or 
 best of good oils. 
 
 Prov. i. 7. W^, n^t!>«-} ^;^ nST the Targnm 
 renders it, ^H )^rbm i^nDDH W^-^ " The chief 
 of wisdom is the fear of the Lord." Whereas 
 
 * Many learned men have supposed from this and similar 
 passages that Jonathan uses the word "I'niJ^ for first, but 
 an acquaintance with the traditional law of the Jews and their 
 ancient writings, on which Jonathan's translation is chiefly 
 founded, will clearly shew, that he used the word in the same 
 sense which he always does, viz. the beginning. In the 
 instance before us, the traditional law says, that the omer, 
 thejirst sheaf, must be the first amongst the first; that is to 
 say, were a hundred sheaves cut in the same hour, none 
 would be proper for the offering, but the one with which the 
 cutting began. 
 
262 
 
 1] ni^T nD:^n n^:i?«n (Psalm cxi. lo.) the Tar- 
 gum renders, in the same manner as he has ren- 
 dered ^^ ni:?"i: '^^^^ T^bni^ by ^5n;:J:)m '>^'\'^ti; 
 
 t^nbt^l i^rh'H'^ " The beginning of wisdom is 
 the fear of the Lord." 
 
 Now in which of the various senses, the 
 word in Gen. i. 1. is to be interpreted, was 
 the first difficulty of tlie translators and com- 
 mentators. 
 
 The second difficulty was this : as all 
 Hebrew nouns termuiating in T\^ have both 
 the absolute and relative forms alike, it was 
 doubtful whether the word ought to be 
 rendered, " In the hegimiingy^* or, " In the 
 beginning of," 
 
 The third difficulty respected the mean- 
 ing of the prefix "2 ; whether it ought to be 
 rendered in, according to its general signifi- 
 cation j or FOR, as in Gen. xxix. 17.; — or 
 WITH, as expressive of instrumentalitij ; as in 
 Gen. lix. 22. 
 
 The fourth difficulty was whether the word 
 is to be taken in an indefinite, or in a definite 
 sense. If in the latter, then the 3, ought, ac- 
 cording to grammatical analogy to have the 
 vow^el-point kametz : thus, 3, " in the ;'* 
 whereas in this instance the 3 has a sheva. 
 
263 
 
 Hence the various conjectures concerning the 
 meaning of this word. 
 
 The following are a few of the numerous 
 interpretations which the translators and com- 
 mentators have given it. '^ In the beginning" — 
 In the beginning of."^ — " in the first instant." 
 
 -^AT first — in the HEADNESS — BEFORE FOR- 
 MERLY — With that which is called, first, viz. avis- 
 DOM.t — For the sake of that which is denominated 
 first, excellent; viz. the law.$ In short, whole 
 volumes have been filled with the mystical 
 and allegorical meanings of this word, and the 
 interpretation of the first verse of Genesis. § 
 
 * Jauchi and several other commentators have con- 
 sidered the three first verses of Genesis as forming but one 
 sentence, thus: — In the beginning of the creation of heaven 
 and earth, &c- God said let. there be light, and light was. 
 
 f The Jerusalem Targum renders Jl^ti'J^nil by J^DDin3j 
 tcith wisdom, meaning the second Sephiro called nDDH 
 SAPIENTIA, which though second in order, is first with re- 
 gard to our conception; and is therefore termed Jl^Ji'^^T 
 the first. 
 
 + The ancient Jews, particularly the Cabalists, affirmed 
 that the laio and several other things were prior to the 
 creation of the world ; and that it was for the sake of the 
 Law, according to some, or for the sake of the Israelites, or 
 for the sake of the good, that the world was created." 
 
 § The book in^H ''Jlpn* attributed to Rabbi Simon, 
 son of Jochiah, (an octavo volume consisting of nearly 300 
 pages) is written as a sort of mystical comment on the first 
 verse of Genesis only. 
 
264 
 
 The obvious sense of which however is this— 
 That when this system "was brought into existence^ 
 it was the almighty being xvho created it, or 
 called it forth from nonentity, — This is the 
 general proposition — all that follows is but 
 explanatory.* 
 
 From the preceding observations, it ap- 
 pears that though n^t^^^")!! may by a possible 
 equivalent be rendered l7i the beginning, yet 
 the words are not actually synonymous. — It 
 also appears that whenever Onkelos or Jona- 
 than wish to express, beginning, they use parti- 
 cular words. — The former uses his ^^Ji''^"). Ji^"*"!; 
 —the latter his N^n^li'. Had they therefore 
 
 * The above will appear to the majority of readers, 
 and perhaps are, little more than laborious minutiae. But 
 they are the minutiae of men, whose erudition is beyond 
 doubt, and whose talents are known to have been in propor- 
 tion to their learning, by other and unequivocal proofs. One 
 important inference may therefore be drawn even from these 
 superfluities of research, even from this too anxious desire 
 to extract the whole contents of the sacred text, viz. that 
 the judgment respecting the comparative worth and value of 
 the sacred writings, so often and so earnestly expressed by 
 the writers abore quoted, was not formed hastily, or by men 
 who had given but a superficial attention to the work they had 
 thus extolled: since it is evident, that their very errors arose 
 from the excess of the contrary virtue; and since however 
 they differ in the interpretation of the word fl^J^'i^in, they 
 all agree in this, that God created the world. 
 
265 
 
 intended to render the word iT'ti'i^ll in the 
 sense which Mr. Bellamy and Mr. Cross say 
 they have, they would undoubtedly have made 
 use of one or other of the preceding terms. 
 Instead of which, Onkelos renders it by i^PIH? 
 which evidently does not signify. In the begin- 
 7img, but BEFOxiE — or mth what was before ; 
 alluding, as we have ah'eady observed, either 
 like the Jerusalem Targum, to wisdom^ sapientia; 
 i. e. one of the ten HTT'DD numerations; or to 
 some other cabalistical notion. (See note, page 
 190.) Be this as it may, it appears evident 
 that Onkelos did not render ri'^t^'J^ll — In the 
 beginning. 
 
 Some of the preceding remarks will equally 
 apply to Jonathan.^ This ancient translator 
 
 * In thus attributing the paraphrase on the Pentateuch 
 to Jonathan, I beg- to be unflerstood as merely giving the 
 generally received opinion. For I am aware that there are 
 many passages in this work that could not possibly have been 
 written by that ancient author. Indeed, there is great reason 
 to suppose that this work was not composed until the fifth or 
 sixth century. The Talmud distinctly ascribes the Chaldean 
 translation of the prophets to Jonathan, but does not say a 
 word about any translation of his on the Law: and indeed, 
 whoever will take the trouble of comparing the style of the 
 two works, must be convinced that they cannot both be the 
 production of the same author. (See Mendelssohn's Hebrew 
 preface to his German translation: also Eichhorn's Einlei- 
 tung, &c.) 
 
266 
 
 renders r^^tl/i^l^ by i^blii ]D, — words very 
 seldom used by Jewish writers.* Now I con- 
 fess that many learned men have supposed that 
 Jonathan used these words as equivalent to 
 heginning. But with every deference to the 
 learning and talents of my predecessors, I may 
 be permitted to differ from them in this instance. 
 I shall state my reasons, that the learned reader 
 may judge, whether they are well founded or 
 not. 
 
 First then, a priori, it is hardly probable that 
 Jonathan, who of all the translators is the most 
 mystical, should neglect so fine an opportunity 
 as that which this word otlers, and on which. 
 
 * To the best of my recollection this word occurs only 
 twice in the Paraphrase on the Law ; about six or seven times 
 in Jonathan's translation of the Prophets; and once in the 
 Chaldean translation of Job. Onkelos never uses it : nor do 
 I recollect to have met with it either in the Talmud, Zohar, 
 or in any of our ancient wi'itings, except in an ancient Chal- 
 dean poem which is chaunted in the Synagogues on the 
 Pentecost, previous to the reading of the ten commandments; 
 and even in this poem it is used in the sense oi first as may 
 be seen in the following distich. 
 
 Before I speak the words, (i. e. the ten Commandments) or I 
 begin the song, \ first request permission and consent. 
 
267 
 
 as we have before observed, the Cabalists have 
 written whole volumes. — Secondly :— the sense 
 of words of uncommon occurrence can only be 
 determined by tlie matmer in which the author 
 uses them in other places. Now, on examining 
 the passages in which Jonathan uses these words, 
 it appears to me that he meant to express by it 
 'prior, anterior, or rather a state of existence 
 anterior to the one of which he. speaks; as may 
 be inferred from the following examples. 
 
 Ezek. xvi. 55. " When thy sisters Sodom 
 and her daughters shall return, (|np"|i^/) Jona- 
 than inb^iTJ^? to their former state ;" — " and Sa- 
 maria and her daughter sliall returp .]\17''1J^? 
 to their former state, and thou and thy daugh- 
 ters shall return pTTi^? to your former states." 
 Here, the word cannot with any propriety be 
 rendered in the hegmning. 
 
 So in Isaiah i. 26. HDi^.^l^S TDDSi^ r\Tti;t^^ 
 
 -I "T. '•-; T'l; 
 
 n^rii'nn? 'V:^V)^\ which Jonathan renders ^1D^^ 
 
 J^'^^lt? ]D "12 " And I will appoint over you 
 just and upright judges as at first ; and thy 
 kings will reign as formerly, or antecedently,** 
 i. e. before the captivity. Here too the word 
 cannot be rendered in the begi7ining, because it is 
 well known, that the nation was not governed 
 in its beginning by kings, but by judges; 
 
268 
 
 as indeed is expressed in the very first clause 
 of this sentence. 
 
 Again, in Isaiah xl. 20. where the prophet 
 expostulates with the idolaters, and directs 
 them to the three great sources of knowledge : 
 viz. first — reason and experience; second — 
 human testimony; and third — revelation. 
 
 Thus, ti'i^ip ^%r\ xi'?,':! ^)^i2^,r) ^iSn ii/^n )^Shr\. 
 
 Dp? which Jonathan renders thus : ]1i/"tn )lhT\ 
 Do ye not know, i. e. does not your own 
 reason tell you ; — pHj/^t!^ j^?n- Have you 
 not heard, i. e. from huriian testimony ; — 
 
 n^jr^t^m mo laii; j^'^nN* ]d ^yr\r\^ iS^n- 
 
 Is it not told you in that which was prior, 
 (the Law) that God ordained the work of the 
 creation ? i. e. Are you not taught in the law 
 who it is that has created every thing ? 
 
 Further, Isaiah xhii. 18. imr^n % ni^:b7j:i 
 he renders |l'7::nDn )^^ iS'7\S jQ-Il; neither shall 
 you consider the things that were antecedently. 
 
 There are a few other places where this 
 word is used, and where evidently it has some 
 mystical allusion. Thus Jer. xvii. 12. Jona- 
 than renders the word ]'i:^\S1D by ^5^^J< jD 
 alluding to what the Talmudist and Gabalists 
 affirm respecting the nH^H NDD, which, ac- 
 cording to them, was one of the things that 
 were prior to the creation. 
 
269 
 
 So also in Job xx. 4. the Targum renders 
 the words Ti/* *'2J2Jrom ever, by ^57^^5 ]D. Indeed, 
 I was for some time at a loss how to account for 
 this interpretation, (particularly as the Hebrew 
 TT is mostly rendered in the Chaldee, by i^ulV, 
 ti/V ever, everlasting) until I found the fol- 
 lowing exposition of this verse, in Mechash 
 Bereshith. 
 
 "OUT i:) ^^12 niTT T\^^r\ Dost thou know 
 this from old, &c. {Job xx. 4.) which Rabbi 
 Simon renders thus, 
 
 ■»'?;; DTi^ D^::' "»>:: ^?'7S t^Mib pop ib ]\^ nnii 
 : p« 
 
 " The Law knows what took place before 
 the creation of the world; but as for thee, man, 
 thou hast no business to enquire, save into sucli 
 things as have happened smce man was placed 
 upon earth.*'* This then explains what tlie 
 Targum means by the word ^57^K ]D. 
 
 Considering therefore all circumstances, I 
 think myself warranted in concluding that 
 Jonathan (or whoever was the author of the 
 paraphrase on the Pentateuch,) used the words 
 
 * For a further elucidation on this subject, see the 
 Mishna Tract Chagigah, chap. ii. 1. 
 
270 
 
 K'^Ii^ \D in the sense of 2^^^or, and like the 
 other Cabalists he wished to convey some 
 mystical allusions ; viz. ^l^^ \D " For the sake 
 of that which was prior," (i. e. the law) &c. did 
 God create the heaven, &c» 
 
 But whether my conjectures in this respect 
 are well or ill founded, it appears certain, that 
 Mr. Cross was grossly mistaken when he asserted 
 that Jonathaii and O?ikelos rendered n^t^'i^"l3 
 in the beginning I and that " R. Bechai rendered 
 it, before all, in order /" and " Maimonides, 
 WITH jmatter 1" Mr. Bellamy might there- 
 fore have done fidly as well had he left Mr. 
 Cross in quiet possession of the honor of these 
 discoveries, without appropriating these errors 
 to himself, and placing them at the very head 
 of his Holy Bible. 
 
 K. .lubtuift, Vrmitr, 3i, Brick Lane, Wiutecliiipi !• 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 Page 1, 1. 17, omit all. 
 
 20, 1. 23, omit comma after faith. 
 
 25, 1. 14, for idea read supposition. 
 
 63, 1. 26, for OI^^H icail LDi^DH- 
 
 66, I. 7, for u'zV/ read ii;eZ/. 
 
 67, 1. 9, for lihs read ribs. 
 71, 1. IG, after why, insert ? 
 
 78, I. 7, for natural substitale uncorrupted. 
 
 78, 1. 15, after and insert wherein it is. 
 
 79, 1. 20, for hlameahle read huse. 
 
 86, 1. 17, for DnVP read D^Vp. 
 
 88, 1. 16, for metamujpJiised, read' jnetamorphosed. 
 
 93, 1. 16, for sceptism read skepticism. 
 
 102, 1. 15, for chcruhims read chendnm. 
 
 118, I. 9, for 5yna read Syriac. 
 
 128, 1. 27, for blunders read' blunderers. 
 
 149, 1. 21, for rigt read rio-/;f. 
 
 150, 1. 26, for npiT read np''1 
 170, 1. 8, for D'P'II/ lead D/'2"l''if 
 174, 1. 24, for fl^Ji^ read fl^Li' 
 211, 1. 24, for ?CMr read leurs. 
 
 1. 26, for le read les. 
 
 033, 1. 12, for ni;"i3 lead n;;i3 
 
 • 1. 15, for r\]nT] i-ead Hi/Tn 
 
 239, 1. 26, for U^y^l read D''i*^- 
 
PUBLISHED BY THE SAME AUTHOR, 
 
 1. \'\l\l/"> Tyy^p A HEBREW DIRGE, chaunted in 
 the Great Synagogue, St, James's Place, Aldgate, on tire 
 Day of the Funeral of Her Royal Highness the PRINCESS 
 CHARLOTTE: translated into Enghsh Verse by S. T. 
 Coleridge, Esq. Price 2s. 
 
 2. The TEARS of a GRATEFUL PEOPLE, a He- 
 brew Dirge and Hymn; chaunted in the Great Synagogue 
 on the Day of the Funeral of his late most Sacred Majesty, 
 KING GEORGE the THIRD : translated into English 
 Verse. Price 2s. 
 
 3. The ELEMENTS of the HEBREV»^ LANGUAGE. 
 Price 5s. 6d. 
 
 " To tliose who prefer learning Hebrew with the points, we 
 strenuously recommend the nse of this Grammar ; and we wish the 
 Author every success iii' the prosecution of his worlc." — Critical 
 Review, 1808. 
 
 " This is tlie first Hebrew Grammar, composed in our language, 
 for the Jewisli people ; and it is the first in wliich we have seen it 
 recommended to teach learners by the power o( tlie letters; i. e. to 
 call A, ay, instead of Aleph; K, ^c, instead of Beth, &c. This is 
 another instance of prejudice vau(|ni^^hed. 
 
 " As to tlie execution of the work itself, we find in it much to 
 praise. It must be considered by all who know (lie effort required 
 in composing elementary treatises, as a very useful and respectable 
 performance. The author leads his pupil in a step-by-step manner 
 more gradually, and we think more eftectually, than other writers. 
 
 " Our readers will perceive, that this grammar contains a variety 
 of learning: it docs honor to the master of the Jewish school; and 
 we take a pleasure in announcing that a second part, which will 
 complete the work, may be expected. — Literary Panorama, Dec. 1807. 
 
 " To supply this deficiency, by furnishing a work which may 
 render the attainnunt of the language easy and expeditious, is the 
 object of Mr. Hnrvvitz; and the manner in which it is accomplished 
 proves that he was well qualified for the task. 
 
 " Tlie volume comprehends what may be called " Hebrew 
 reading made easy," a spelling book and vocabulary ; and the same 
 method is taken in teaching the elements as if it were a living tongue. 
 The use of it, however, needs not to be confined to the Jews; and 
 we recommend it to all young students in the language, as a treatise 
 from which tliey may receive considerable benefit. 
 
 " The vowel points are used in teaching the pronunciation ; 
 and in the notes, subjoined to the end, which contain many interesting 
 particulars relating to the language, we find a very ample discussion 
 of the subject, with strong arguments to prove the necessity and 
 antiquity of these points."— Monthly Review, 1807. 
 
V