and to idolatrous worship in a primary sense!" and this too after maintaining, at p. 35, that this word is not used simply to signify idolatrous worship!' Ch. vi. 1. Now it was, when man begun to multiply on the face of the ground and daughters were born to them. : 2. When the children of the god, admired the daughters of men, because fair then they took for them women, from all which they chose. : 3. So JEHOVAH said, My spirit shall not strive with man for ever; because that he moreover is flesh: for his time shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4. The Apostates were on the earth in those days; and also after that time, when the sons of GOD came to the daughters of Adam who bare to them: these were the mighty, yea of old, men of name. 5. Now JEHOVAH beheld the great wickedness of man on earth: for he had formed every imagination of his heart, only of evil, all the day. 6. Yet JEHOVAH was satisfied that he had made the man on the earth: notwithstanding he idolized himself at his heart.' We must commence our remarks on these verses, by again referring to Mr. B.'s specimens of contrasted passages, which shew that his acquaintance with Hebrew words and Hebrew construction, is neither so intimate nor so accurate as to preserve him from translating the very same passages in a manner otally different. Common Version. Gen. vi. 3. And the Lord said, my spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh. 4. When the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, Mr. B.'s Specimen. Then Jehovah said, my spirit shall not always strive with man, because of the transgressions of his flesh. When the sons of the great came unto the daughters of men. In the first of these examples, Mr. Bellamy essentially varies from the reading of the Common Version: "Because of the "transgressions of his flesh," is a very different expression from, "For that he also is flesh." The text in Mr. B's present publication, is conformable to that of the Common Version: "Because that he moreover is flesh." After asserting with the utmost boldness the perfection of the Hebrew text, and the impossibility of mistaking the import of its words, he nevertheless can, at one time, tell us that a Hebrew word means 'transgressions,' and, at another, that the very same word, in the very same passage, means moreover.' He has positively declared that wanawa neither has, nor can have, any other meaning than" because of the transgressions of his flesh;" VOL. X. N.S. N and now he gives the words-" because that he moreover is "flesh," as the only proper translation of the phrase. Is Sons of the Great,' the same as "Sons of God?" Both these modes of expression are employed by Mr. Bellamy in his Specimens and in his Bible, in translating the very same Hebrew words. Still more extraordinary is the manner in which he has translated the very same expressions in the first verse: "The "children of the God!" Not one of the numerous authors against whom Mr. Bellamy so violently hurls his reproachful declamation, would ever have committed himself so egregiously as to translate the words on " by the several phrases, 'Sons of the Great,' Sons of God,' Children of the God.' in the 5th verse, is translated as if it were a verb, (“ he had formed,") although the same word occurs in the 21st of the viiith ! chap. where Mr. B. translates it the imagination! Again we must remind him of the canon of criticism which he has prescribed for himself and for all translators, a canon which he cannot be permitted to alter at his pleasure, after the severe invectives which he has directed against his predecessors; that the self-same word must invariably present the very same meaning. Vers. 6. 7. The man,' we wonder Mr. Bellamy did not render, the substance of the man, since this is a passage to which his critical canon at Ch. i. 1. is strictly applicable. Vers. 4. The Apostates.' The word on, says Mr. Bellamy in his note, has been understood by the translators to 'mean magnitude of stature; but it signifies to fall, to aposta'tize.' In answer to this assertion, we affirm that the root of the above noun bo signifies simply, to fall; never to apostatize from the true religion. That the word used in this text includes magnitude of stature, is quite certain from Num. xiii. 33, "And "there we saw and we were in our own sight as grass"hoppers, and so we were in their sight." I once thought,' says Parkhurst, this word might signify Apostates, persons fallen off from the true worship, faith, and fear of God,-but no doubt, 'there were spiritual Apostates before the time mentioned, Gen. 'vi. 4. And Num. xiii. 33, seems to determine the meaning of the word to be, such as fall upon others, assaulters, violent.' V. 6. Jehovah was satisfied. The original word is on, which does not mean to be satisfied. It is applied prorades to God, whose proceedings as the supreme governor of the world in relation to his creatures, it is impossible to describe otherwise than in terms accommodated to their apprehension, and borrowed from their own usage. Nor, strongly as Mr. Bellamy may declaim against translators and commentators for adopting language of this kind in reference to the Deity, has he found it possible himself to avoid the same practice: he represents God as building, clothing, remembering, saying in his heart, descending, departing, &c. &c. terms which can be applied to the Deity only as repentance, anger, joy, &c. are attributed to him. The question with a philological translator of the Bible, is, What is the literal import of its words, and the grammatical construction of its sentences? With their figurative meaning he ought not to perplex bimself, as it is no part of his business to explain it. With respect to pry, the only proper consideration is, the signification of the word; which is not satisfaction, but change of mind and feeling, to repent, to comfort,'-and here, he repented. Does Mr. Bellamy imagine that his version, which represents God as satisfied in having made man on the earth, at the very time He was about to destroy him, relieves the pressure of any objection bearing on the common translation, which describes God as repenting that he had created man? If so, he must be as shallow in theology as he is in philology. The only sense which can be given to the word on, is either he repented, or, he was comforted. Comfort, it is easy to perceive, may be included in the radical meaning of a word which correctly designates a repentant state of mind; but satisfaction, as a mental quality, never can be combined with repentance. We must again express our entire concurrence with the translators of the Common Version in their rendering of the sixth verse. Nor, so long as human language shall be the vehicle of instructing men in the knowledge of God, can any danger result from the practice of describing the Divine mind and conduct in a manner accommodated to the experience of mankind. That God is a material being, would be as just an inference from the phraseology of Mr. Bellamy's Bible, as the conclusion that the Infinite Intelligence is subject to human passions is deducible from the phraseology of the Common Version; the moral analogies are as proper as the natural ones. The same kind of treatment which Mr. B. has adopted in the preceding example, he applies to the word 2, which he renders he idolized himself at his heart,' understanding man as the subject, instead of God, to whom the expression-" he was "grieved at his heart," is correctly attributed in the Common Version. The verb never means "to idolize." Mr. Bellamy renders it, the men grieved themselves,' ch. xxxiv, 7. "To "grieve," is the proper meaning of the word, and it is used in application to God in the most unequivocal manner, Isa. Ixiii. 10, "But they rebelled and grieved (1) his Holy Spirit." Would Mr. Bellamy render this" they idolized his Holy Spirit?" The Apostle uses precisely the same language, as applied to God, "And grieve not (AUT) the Holy Spirit of God." Ch. vi. 9. Noah himself walked with God. 9. Noah walked with God. The verb hithhaleke, is in the Hithpael conjugation, and should be translated accordingly, viz. Noah himself walked with God. This then is in conformity with the whole narrative, for all the world had fallen into the worship of idols: there only remained Noah himself, with his family, as the visible head of the true church of God.' Preceding grammarians have supposed that they possessed an accurate acquaintance with the use of the verb in the Hithpael conjugation, when they defined it as including reflected action; but Mr. Bellamy has discovered that it denotes exclusive quality or action in the subject: Noah himself (only Noan) walked with God!' Does л in the Hithpael conjugation, 2 Kings xx. 3, denote that Hezekiah was the only person who in his time walked before the Lord? Mr. Bellamy should at least have studied his Grammar before he undertook to translate the Hebrew Bible. • Ch. vi. 14, Make for thee, an ark of the wood of Gopher; rooms thou shalt make in the ark: for thou shalt expiate in it, even a house, also with an outer room for atonement.' We must place by the side of this, the translation of the same passage as given in Mr. Bellamy's Prospectus. Make for thee an ark of the wood of Gopher; apartments thou shalt make in the ark: there thou shalt expiate, within and without, by atonement.' In his note, Mr. Bellamy complains that no mibayith, is not noticed in the Common Version, and he peremptorily insists that it is absolutely necessary to the right understanding of the sacred writer. Indeed it cannot be known (he says) without it; and it is surprising how Translators have dared to reject ' it.' This kind of writing is quite usual with Mr. Bellamy. As for the Translators, it may suffice to remark, that they have not neglected or dared to reject' this word. But if it would have discovered in them ignorance, or something worse than ignorance, according to Mr. Bellamy's account, to have omitted the word, (which they have not omitted,) what can be said for him, in daring' conform his translation, as given in his specimens, to the Common Version?-the very word, for the supposed omission of which he so severely reprehends the Translators, he has rendered precisely as they have done: 'within and without!!' What reliance can be placed on a translator who to day can pronounce a reading inadmissible as founded in ignorance, which he himself but yesterday most obstinately maintained, (Mr. Bellamy is obstinate at all times in his errors,) to be the only sense which the words convey,-the only sense intended by the sacred writer? We proceed to inform him, that a never means a house;' he is in this place guilty of the fault, which he so roughly censures in others, of interpolating the sacred text, there being no word in the original answering to 'room' in his translation. The entire phrase has no other meaning than "within and without." So: "overlay it (i. e. the ark) "with pure gold within and without;" Exod. xxv. 11. "He "overlaid it (i. e. the ark) with pure gold within and without;" xxxvii. 2. In both these passages, the expression is identical with Gen. vi. 14, pini mad. Onkelos and Jonathan the paraphrast, those unquestionable authorities,' those masters of the language,' both read, "Thou shalt cover it within and without:" they assuredly knew the language better than to commit themselves as grossly as Mr. Bellamy has done; they could see. nothing about atonement in the direction given to Noah for the construction and security of the ark. 6 To shew the extreme carelessness with which Mr. Bellamy has investigated the language of the original Scriptures, it might be sufficient to adduce his remark, that the word no mibayith, Numb. xviii. 7, should be translated, within the house in the 'vail.' The vail was a hanging which divided the holy from the most holy place, each of which had its appropriate services; those belonging to the latter, are mentioned as being done within the vail, while such as pertained to the former are represented as being done without the vail. The ark of the testimony was placed, no, within the vail. (Exod. xxvi. 33.) The blood of the sin-offering was to be brought by the high priest within the vail, n ' (Lev. xvi. 15.) The lamps were to burn without the vail, nos pino (Lev. xxiv. 3.) The table of shew-bread was placed without the vail, 6 n (Exod. xl. 22.) na nap (Numb. xviii. 7) is, for within the vail. It is perfectly absurd to render, within the house in the vail:'. Such a translation could have been given only by a person unacquainted with the idioms of the Hebrew text. Ch. vi. 16.-Thus Jehovah delivered him.' Such is the translation substituted by Mr. Bellamy for the rendering in the Common Version, " And the Lord shut him in :" he attempts to justify it in the following manner. 1. The word 20 va yisgor, rendered, he shut, means in its root, to deliver; thus a person is said to be delivered from an enemy by being shut up in a house, or a city, where the enemy cannot pursue him. In this sense the word occurs throughout the Scripture; Deut. xxiii. 15, thou shalt deliver; Josh. xx. 5, they will deliver; 1 Sam. xvii. 4;-xxiv. 18;-xxvi. 8; 2 Sam. xvii. 28; Job xvi. 11; Amos i. 9, &c. And accordingly, a word should have been chosen in other languages, consistent with its meaning and application, and with the idiom of the verb. The clause reads, Thus fehovah delivered him.' |