CLASSICAL CRITICISM.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL.

I

SIR, Beg leave to submit to your consideration the following remarks on a passage in the Medea of Euripides, which I think has been greatly misunderstood: I form this opinion chiefly from Mr. Tate's observations in Mr. Dalzel's Collectanea Majora, vol. II. p. 173. of the Notes: the passage, to which I allude, is contained in the five first lines of Medea's address to the Chorus, at her first entrance on the stage.

Mr. Tate supposes that Euripides rather speaks in his own character as a philosophic poet, than adapts the sentiment to the character and situation of Medea: my opinion is directly the reverse. Medea, it will be observed, had been sent for by the Chorus: she might naturally, on this account, without knowing their reasons, have supposed that she had incurred their censure, or that her conduct was liable to some suspicion. She was, therefore, anxious to remove it by a general reflection on the hasty judgments men are apt to form of those, who live a quiet and retired life, and the injustice of deciding on characters at first sight, without knowing the disposition of the parties. The principal object was to remove any prejudices they might have entertained against her, from not seeming ready to make them acquainted with her situation, and also to gain their sympathy and confidence by a detail of her wrongs. The sentence then, on this view of the subject, ought, I think, to be translated thus, without having recourse to an avanohoulia, or forced construction, which should always be avoided if possible" Corinthian women, I have come abroad lest you should in any respect blame me ; for I have known many men, that were respectable, some in retired life, others in public stations; and these, passing quietly through life, have procured for themselves an ill character, and the charge of indolence." There are here unquestionably only two descriptions of persons alluded to; the one in retirement, out of view, the other in public: no third description was intended by the old as opposed to the two former; for here is merely the demonstrative pronoun pointing out these two classes, who were really respectable, but who, from the cause stated, had their characters misrepresented by the censorious and spiteful.

Respectfully Your's,

Edinburgh, Dec. 16. 1811.

G. D.

THE BIBLE.

NO. II.

THE Notice of the author of an article on this subject, (No. vi. p. 483.) having been originally attracted to the CLASSICAL JOURNAL, by two articles in that work reflecting upon his Hebrew Criticism and Poetry, he considered himself justified, not only in communicating his Defence, but, as in so doing, he necessarily became himself a reader, in further remarking what appeared to him remarkable, either in the conduct of the Journal, or in the assertions of any of its writers. He, therefore, supported the impeachment (No. 1. p. 144.) of defects in the present, or authorised translation, as by many it is called, of the Bible into English; correspondently with his own sentiments, publicly expressed several years past, in a Sermon on the Fast, 1808, and a Sermon on the Everlasting Fire of the Athanasian Creed. But, as he dissented from the same writer respecting Job xxxviii. 1. he expressed his dissent in six lines without design of plagiarism, with which he has been consequently charged, and to which accusation he by no means pleads guilty' in his Notice of the Answer to his Defence, some time since sent to the Editor.

In that Article, No. vi p. 484. his assertion respecting the absence of vowel points from the Syriac should have been qualified by the parenthesis, as usually printed;' which was afterwards communicated to the Editor for a future correction. Upon these points, or original oriental vowels, whichever the advocates on either side please to name them, an opinion, to which the established character of the writer will gain attention, is before the readers of the Journal, in No. vII. p. 68.

With that elegant scholar it is almost painful to differ; but, that the Apostles always quote from the Septuagint,' No. vII. p. 241. the profession, whom it concerns, have not been accustomed to allow ;--any more than Hebraists have, that (p. 244.) Dis of the singular number.' Its plurality hath been hitherto maintained by both the punctuators and the anti-punctuators, by both Buxtorf and Parkhurst: and, for the support of such plurality, theClassic Moses' promised, No. vi. p. 485. and now sent to the Editor, may be seen; until the arguments to prove, that Dyim does not form the plural,' shall come into the country, which they may by the same coach with the Niolic serpent,' and the beginning of the Antediluvian Churches.' No. vII. p. 243. and Preface at the end, p. 8.

To this company, and to some more, attention may be paid, now that the Editor of the Classical Journal possesses both the promised Classic Moses, and the Notice of the Answer, which latter VOL. v. No. IX.

I

occasioned a short delay to the former. Due respect will certainly be prepared to be paid to the beginning of those Antediluvian Churches, the end of which probably was, that as Noah was the metropolitan and sole bishop, Shem, Ham, and Japhet, the priests, and their four wives, the deaconesses, the congregations exercised their violence and injury by converting the materials of the buildings to the repair of their roads; without suspicion of the deluge, which was soon to close the scene, excepting only as far as documents concerning these churches could descend from one of the eight to the Author, in A. D. 1811. of A brief description,' &c.

That the Apostles always quote from the Septuagint,' may best be seen by reference to the late Dr. Randolph's Tables, and the late Dr. Owen's Modes of Quotation; and a controversy has existed on the question, whether the quotations were made from the Hebrew, or from the Greek. Marsh on Michaelis's Introduction to the New Test. v. 1. p. 475. But, if these books are now scarce, a new comparison of the Hebrew with a literal English translation, of the Septuagint Greek, and of the New Testament Greek, can, in parts, or parcels, be made for the readers of the Classical Journal.

In the mean time, as something, possibly intended for arguments to prove that DN is of the singular number,' stops the way in No. vi. p. 465-469. and No. VIII. p. 310. et seqq. it may be asserted, first, that it seems useless to obviate the plain and incontrovertible declarations, which prove that D is not a plural, but a noun singular.' Such incontrovertible declarations, some may think, should have satisfied the learned Dr. A. Clarke; although possibly, like others, he may have expected arguments instead of declarations.'

First, then, in 1st Sam. iv. 8. the word N, God, is supposed to be plural by Parkhurst and Dr. Clarke, because it is connected with N, on the ground of the plural termination.' Supposed to be plural? If a school-boy reads, Deus optimus maximus, does he suppose Deus to be singular, because it is connected with optimus maximus, on the ground of the singular termination?' He equally knows, that us is the singular termination in Latin, and the plural in Hebrew; and arguments to prove the contrary would even to him appear equal to arguments to prove that black is white. But, arguments are superfluous, if incontrovertible declarations' (the reader may observe the solecism) can prove.' Thus, declarations are to prove, where no proof is wanted; for, who ever attempted to prove incontrovertibles? And how can incontrovertibles prove? Dr. A. Clarke, equally learned and modest, as he appears to be, disdained to reply, or he would have done so, as

was partly expected, in No. vII. and the readers of the Classical Journal, instead of seeing assertions maintained by arguments, and substantiated by proofs, continue to be inundated with incontrovertible declarations;' with what, for want of arguments and proofs, the writer of them will continue to insist are both.

"Had this writer but attended to the original, he would not have been so hasty in concluding, that D, God, was a plural noun," p. 465. It may be replied; had this writer not been séconded by the classic Sir W. D. it would have been almost madness to have publicly noticed the absurdity of this declaration. Without attending to the original, a plural Hebrew adjective in agreement with a plural Hebrew substantive, would have. been mechanically rendered by English plurals: but, had Dr. A. Clarke attended, as he doubtless did attend, to the original, he would probably not have seen occasion to render the Philistine speech differently from King James's translators; - he would rather have rendered it precisely as they have done. Had no adjective been added, as in v. 7. the substantive, as a plural of intensity, might have been rendered in the singular, this great God; but the adjective may show, that the speakers of the Philistines meant not alone Jehovah; by these mighty Gods they possibly designated also to their soldiers the visible objects of the ark and its accompaniments, which they represented as the idols of the Hebrews, and their preservers from the Egyptians. Because, therefore, Dr. A. Clarke attended to the original,' and also to the authority of Parkhurst, he was not so hasty in concluding, that D, God, was a plural noun;' but he was deliberate in following Parkhurst, who could not justly be charged with being hasty in concluding,' after having adduced thirty-one instances of D, God, joined with adjectives, pronouns, and verbs plural.

But even allowing it to be not very material, whether Dbx, God, (such as the Philistines might wish to represent him to their soldiers with the view of inspiring courage from despair,) be in. that speech translated, as it is in v. 7. in the singular, or as it is in v. 8. in the plural; in either translation D, God, although singular in English, has ever been (until now) esteemed plural in Hebrew; and it has been called the plural of intensity, denoting the great God: a thing well known to Hebraists. The adjective, expressing might or celebrity, added to the substantive by the Philistine officers, was probably of good effect with their men. Of the plural of intensity, a Hebrew scholar of the oriental vowel' school wrote, "Ultimo loco observanda est illa Hebræi sermonis proprietas, quâ Pluralis, tam masculinus, quàm femininus, usurpari potest de una re, quæ, in suo genere, magna est et quodammodo excellens; ut D (Yimmim,) maria, pro mari

אלהים

magno; (Tannim,) dracones, pro dracone prægrandi; DN (Adhönim,) domini, pro domino magno et potente; (Elöhim,) numina, pro numine admodùm colendo; D (Kedhöshim,) sancti, pro Deo sanctissimo;

pro bestia grandi, qualis est elephas;

(Behemoth,) bestia, (Maccöth,) plage,

pro plagâ gravi ; ♫ (Nehäröth,) flumina, pro flumine magno, &c." Schroederi Institutiones ad fundamenta linguæ Hebrææ, P. 130.

Another declaration is-Dr. A. C. must (had he but attended to the original) have been sensible, one would reasonably conclude, that the Egyptians were not smitten with the plagues in the wilderness, but in Egypt; and that for this reason there must have been some error in the translation of this verse, which Dr. Clarke will do well to remark, when he publishes this part of the Bible.' This declaration also, as an evidence, proves against the declarer; for, had Dr. A. C., or had he not, attended to the original, he must have been equally sensible, one would reasonably conclude, that the Egyptians were smitten with the plagues in the wilder ness, as well as in Egypt. Dr. A. C. was neither so fastidious against the English language in the time of K. James, nor yet so ignorant, as not to comprehend plagues in the sense of smitings, or blows or to perceive, that the English followed the Greek, πατάξαντες ἐν πάσῃ πληγῇ (from πλήσσω): thence plaga, Latin, and plague, English. K. James's translators might have written, with all the smiting, or, with every blow in the wilderness, which they clearly meant.

But how is this to prove that Elohim is not a plural, but a noun singular? Is it to prove it, by saying nothing of Elohim, but only of plagues? And yet the Declarer declares, without evidence, or proof From which it is plain, that Elohim, God, is not a plural noun, and that this passage in Samuel is most injudiciously translated. If this is plain from his assertion, then any thing may be made equally plain from any declaration that it is so.

The next declaration is yet to come; but not to prove that Elohim is a noun singular, otherwise than by saying nothing of Elohim, and only by translating after this manner. There are

three words in the original Hebrew, which are not rendered truly,.

,האלה אלה הם .and which are only noticed by the word these, viz

which ought to be rendered as in Gen. xxxix. 19. after this manner, or with these things.' The three words not rendered truly, and only noticed by the word these,' are by K. James's translators trulv rendered, these -?these are.' Taking the Hebrew in the order in which it stands, and converting the plurals of intensity into singulars, the words would be, (the three