From the above observations, agreeably to the obvious and express meaning and application of the Hebrew words, when we attend to the relative determination of the branches of their respective roots, and in conformity thereto make choice of such words in our language as by this unerring method point out the varying inflexions of ideas; it must appear to the learned that the objections of the Deist, because the translation is inconsistent with reason, can no longer be made to this part of the sacred history. I have also shown that Dr. Clarke has committed some errors, particularly where, by differing from the Bible translation, he makes the masculine pronoun Hu, refer to the remote nouu p Cheseph, silver, instead of Abraham, and that there is no ground for charging the patriarch even with the least degree of prevarication. These conclusions are as erroneous as his com ment on the passage, where the three men were entertained by Abraham, for he there says, "he set a whole calf before them, new bread, but baked on the hearth, three measures of meal were baked on this occasion, which comes to more than two of our bushels, and nearly to fifty-six pounds of our weight; whence we may conclude, that men were great eaters in those days." The Dr. attempts to confirm this by a quotation from Homer, Odyss. 1. 14. ver. 74. where, he says, the poet makes his heroes great eaters. When Eumæus entertained Ulysses, he dressed two pigs for himself and his guest. "So saying, he girded quick his tunic close, And issuing sought the styes; thence bringing two Singed them, and slashed and spitted them, and placed COWPER. He quotes another passage where it is said, that, "a hog of five years old was slaughtered and served up for five persons." 66 Dr. Clarke forgets that Abraham had a very large family; we read of three hundred in his own house. Therefore fifty-six pounds of bread was but a mere trifle, where the consumption must have been so great. If Abraham had been an itinerant," a wanderer from place to place, without any fixed residence, instead of being, as he really was, the greatest shepherd-king of the east; and had had no family but Sarah and the young man who dressed the kid, as this writer seems to think was the case; there would have been some ground for supposing that this great quantity of provision would not have been provided, unless the men had been great eaters, as it could not have been eaten while it was good. I think this writer might have fairly said, that two bushels of flour would make near a hundred weight; but this mistake is excusable, it is not a scriptural one. But I may be told, if Abraham made a trade of selling menservants, and women-servants, how can this be justified? would it not be as bad as the slave trade? I should answer these questions by observing to such objectors, that Abraham was a patriarchal shepherd-king, that he had a great many people on his estates, besides those who are said to have been born in his own house, who got their livelihood under him, and who from their infancy were instructed in the management of sheep and cattle; literally, grazing farmers. These were the persons brought by Abraham to Abimelech to be engaged by him as managers of the sheep and oxen which were purchased by him of Abraham. A kind of bailiffs, so that it was doing them a great kindness to procure them such situations under the pay and patronage of the king of Gerar. Neither can it be admitted, as this writer thinks, that "all the Ġerarites were a righteous nation;" for it appears that a man who was a stranger in their country was always in danger of being murdered for the sake of his wife, verse 11. Nor is it possible that Sarah, at the age of 90 years, could be a beautiful woman. Human nature was the same in the time of Abraham, as it is now, for so we are told in this part of scripture. But the truth is, as it was the custom among the eastern nations for the women to wear veils, principally to protect their faces from the heat of the sun, and also from motives of modesty; Abraham was apprehensive that they might mistake her for a younger person, and so slay him for the sake of his wife. Therefore we are not to suppose what cannot be credited, viz. that a woman 90 years old was a beautiful woman, as this writer tells us, for he attempts to interpret the original thus, (as above)" for a covering to procure thee a veil to conceal thy beauty." The legends of the Koran, and the Arabian tales, are not more inconsistent with reason, than a supposition of this nature is with scripture. Thus I have endeavoured to silence the objections of the Deist to the circumstances related in this part of sacred writ in the translation; they can no longer be by them brought forward to ridicule the Bible. But I am aware that there are some persons so attached to old prejudices, that they would rather witness the alarming progress of Deism and fanaticism, which threatens the destruction of true religion, than they would suffer any alteration in the received translation, though it were the literal sense of the original, and though it silenced the objections which have been the cause of spreading anarchy and blood-shed, by disturbing the peace of religious society in Europe. To this description of Christian professors, who have done more injury to true religion than all the Infidels and Deists in the world, I say, if they be disposed to cavil at any thing I have advanced, I hope in future they will first endeavour to make themselves masters at least of the grammar of the Hebrew language, for many of the answers I have seen have been defective in this indispensable branch of mechanical learning. They may then consider themselves in some degree prepared to gain a knowledge of the elements of the Hebrew. But while such gentlemen are content with a knowledge of alphabet Hebrew to enable them to dabble in a lexicon for the root of a word, no matter if it be the third person singular preter, which forms the radix, it must go for singular or plural, participle active or passive, infinitive, or imperative, it is boldly sent forth, as I have shown, and shall have occasion to do: no wonder they should make such blunders by mistaking tense, person, mood, gender, &c. But there is another description of men, if possible more dangerous and mischievous than those mentioned above, viz. those who are bold enough to speak and write against the absolute integrity of the Hebrew text; Deists need no better supporters than such as these. They ask, if any continued miracle has been manifested for the preservation of the Hebrew scriptures: I may ask, if the works of Homer, Euclid, Virgil, and the most eminent Latin writers, are not the same now, and must necessarily continue to be, as they were when the authors were living? there can be no interpolation in their works, because the eye of the learned world was upon them in all ages, those bold attempts would have been made known, to the injury of the character, and the ruin of the interpolator. On this ground the scriptures in the original Hebrew claim the same protection. But the original scriptures are of a higher consideration can any man who believes the scriptures to be what they certainly are, the word of God, for a moment suppose that the God who gave them in the Hebrew language, and who governs the most minute concerns of Man by his providence, would not preserve his sacred word pure? to suppose the contrary, would be to conclude that the Bible is not the word of God, and that he does not govern the world by his Providence. Had these objectors the least semblance of truth, or probability to support them, which is not the case, what good can they propose to the present generation, and to posterity, by inculcating doubts respecting the purity of the original? concerning such it is said, "what are these wounds in thine hands? then he shall answer, those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends." Zach. 13. 6. These are enemies to true religion and the Bible, whatever their pretensions may be. I intend in a future number to give sufficient proof that the original Hebrew is as pure, and that the Hebrew Bible is as uncorrupt, as it was in the time of the venerable writer. London. JOHN BELLAMY. BIBLICAL CRITICISM. TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL. SIR, YOUR Journal has but lately fallen into my hands, and I have read parts of it with much satisfaction. I perceive that a considerable portion of it is dedicated to Biblical Criticism; and I value it much the more on that account; from a persuasion of the importance of furnishing a convenient medium through which the sacred text may receive farther illustration. Among your correspondents, Mr. Bellamy has furnished a paper in No. IV. on which I take the liberty of sending you a few remarks. After paying a compliment to the zeal of a learned Bishop, who has instituted an academy, in which the Hebrew language receives distinguished encouragement, Mr. B. proceeds to communicate to the public his opinion as to the degree of labor which may be necessary in the acquisition of that language. In doing this, if I am not deceived, our author has been led into inconsistencies, which can be accounted for only on the supposition that he has not fully made up his mind upon the subject. In p. 743. he admits the possibility of a person in three days, acquiring " that branch of the rudiments, which teaches the learner to find the radix of a word, and by this, its determinate meaning in the lexicon." In page 745. he says, "I think it would be a difficult task for a learner of a tolerable capacity, to be perfectly acquainted with the alphabet, in the space of three months, so as to write and understand the radicals and serviles, with their extensive meaning and application as prefixes, and suffixes, which can properly be said to be only a knowledge of the alphabet." Now every one who knows any thing of the Hebrew language, must know, that without such an acquaintance with the serviles as is here supposed, the learner cannot consult his Lexicon to much effect. I hope I shall not be considered as taking too great a liberty, if I say, that the present production discovers marks of precipitancy, which should be avoided by every one, and much more by one who comes forward to deliver opinions to the world, on subjects of no small difficulty, and of considerable importance. Even twenty years' attentive study of Hebrew will hardly authorise a man to pronounce so magisterially as our author does on the subject of the vowel points. After a judicious and candid examination into the merits of the question, a man may be led to conclude in favor of the points; but surely no man has a right to say, "That it is impossible to read or understand a word without them." Such a mode of speaking on the subject, savors more of the partiality with which a man regards a favorite, than the candor, that becomes a judge. If our author means by reading, reading according to the points: I believe no man will dispute his position. But if he means to affirm that there is no uttering the words of which the language is composed, without having recourse to the vowel points; this is surely an unwarrantable assertion. As to understanding the Hebrew, I do maintain, and can prove, that a man, who has never heard of the vowel points, and who has studied the language without any reference to them, in any shape, may yet be well acquainted with Hebrew: so that when he meets a new passage, he will as readily and as certainly perceive its meaning, as a man, who has made the points his study. But I will say no more now on this subject; as I may perhaps on some future occasion, if I shall be allowed, call the attention of students to it, through the medium of your Journal. I took the liberty before of suggesting that our author seems to express himself on different occasions, with some inconsistency. In p. 746. he writes thus: "I also differ from the opinion of a learned Rabbi, who was asked, how long it would require a person of good capacity to attain a critical knowledge of the language? He replied, from seven to fourteen years." From this, one would naturally suppose, that our author considered this to be a period of greater length than was necessary: yet he afterwards says, "That it must necessarily be more difficult than the Latin, Greek, or any language whatever." While he acquiesces in the opinion, that for the acquisition of Latin, seven years are necessary, and for that of Greek, fourteen. It may be, however, that the objection is not to the length, but to the shortness of the period: in which case I should have looked for a different mode of expression. But I have a more serious objection to the sentiments of our author, in the character of a theologian, than in that of either a grammarian or a critic. Let us hear him speak. "Why have not those contradictions, and improper renderings, which are to be found in the Bible translation, cover it with obloquy, and almost seem to impeach the moral justice' of God; on which account we are told by Deists, that, if these things be true, the scriptures cannot be of divine origin, and therefore must be the work of men: I ask, why have not the clergy (for in them alone we ought to be able to place implicit confidence respecting these things) 2 How does this epithet modify its subject, so as to distinguish it from any thing of the same kind? or in other words, is there any justice, but moral justice? Our author perhaps, by mistake, wrote "moral justice" for "moral perfections," or some similar expression. 2 Our author means, "if those things exist in the original." |