« AnteriorContinuar »
Br.-Politiani Carmen M. S. Viri multis nominibus di-
ger de Accentibus—In quendam parvum et macilentum, 185
A REPLY To the Quarterly Review on the New Translation of
the Bible from the Original Hebrew. By J. BELLAMY.
No. II.- Continued from No. XXXVI. p. 231.]
There is no difficulty in the application of this word by gngarom, when “ the nicety of construction,” which this gentleman talks about, is understood. The difference of the application depends on the difference of the orthography, or, if this extraordinary Hebraist will again allow me, “ the nicety of construction;" for, throughout the Scripture, when this word is written with the y vau, or in its absence, with the vowel holem, pronounced gnaarom; it uniformly signifies naked. Job i. 21--xxiv. 7, 10-xxvi. 6 Eccl. v. 15- Isa. xx. 2, 3, 4, 58-Amos ii. 16., as in the received translation. But when the root of this word is applied by the sacred writers to mean prudent, subtle, crafty, it is not written with the holem, or the o, but with the shurik, or the long
Gen. iii. 1-Prov. xii. 16, 23-xiii.1 6.--xiv. 8~xxii. 3xxvii. 12-xiv. 15—Job v. 12-xv. 5-Prov. xiv. 18., and is
pronounced gnauruum. Therefore the passages in Job i. 21-xxiv. 7-Isaiah xx. 2. are perfectly right as they stand in the received translation: there would have been no necessity for the 'ADVOCATE for received errors to ask, “ What would be the sense of these passages, if prudent were substituted for naked ?" had he understood « the niceties of construction” between any gnaarom, " paked," and Diwy gnaaruum,“ subtle or prudent.” Examples of this description, where an alteration is produced by the intro
VOL. XIX. Cl. Jl. NO. XXXVII. A
duction of u instead of o, are to be found even in our language ; as in the word poor, with the u, is pour-fool, foul, &c. From which it will appear to the learned reader, that the ADVOCATE has yet to learn even the rudiments of the Hebrew language, though he bas presumed to represent himself as deeply learned in “ the peculiarities of idiom and the niceties of construction." But, as I have observed, he is not alone : many there are, and he is onedesiring to be a teacher of the law, understanding neither what he says, nor whereof he affirms.
What now becomes of the ostentatious conclusion of this gentleman's note, where he says, “ It were endless to recite passages of this description, in which the undoubted sense of the word is
naked,' and in which it would be in contradiction to all sense, as well as in opposition to all authority, to give it the sense of ' prudent,' which Mr. Bellamy has the confidence to
say it cannot bear :" Let the learned and the impartial reader determine. It is therefore undeniably evident, that this important passage
in the original Hebrew has no reference whatever to the bodily nakedness of our first parents, because the word d'ory gnaaruumim, which the translators have rendered naked, never means nakedness of the whole body : but throughout the Scriptures it siguifies, even in the received translation, wisdom, prudence; to be wise in heart: “ I wisdom dwell with prudence."-" The wise in heart shall be called prudent.” Prov. xvi. 21.-“ Wisdom applied to practicePractically wise.” Johnson. The passage is truly rendered, “ Thus they were prudent for they had not shamed themselves, or," they had not made themselves ashamed.” On the passage Gen. vi. 6. the critic indulges his spleen to
The version reads, “ It repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.” I have shown that the word ON)' yinaachem, never means to repent throughout the Scripture ; that in nearly seventy places it is rendered to be comforted, satisfied, according to idiom; and that where it is translated repent, it is improperly translated. I do not, as this “ perverter" of my words says, “ quietly allow sixty passages where this word is translated repent,” to be right.
But I am told, that I “ spend much time in going through all these texts, and attempting to show that, in each, the word comfort should be substituted for repent.” He affirms, “ We need not say that his labor is unsuccessful, unless indeed the success he aims at be to, discredit the Bible by making it unintelligible. For instance, i Şam, xv. 29. · The Strength of Israel will not lie, nor repent.' How absurd must it be to say, 'The Strength of Israel will not lie, nor be comforted ?' But the Critic has been too hasty in his conclusion, as usual ; if he had had patience to examine the nar