indeed (s) admits of both these senses. "Should not my soul pine for the Rock, or stony Recess of darkness and death-shade," as mentioned in chap. xxviii. 3, in which the same term is used, and rendered by every one in the sense now offered."-Good's Notes, p. 359.

6

A gross mistatement, and a false assertion, in a few lines! In ch. xxviii. 3, the term is not ras, but 18. The former word uniformly means egenus,' destitute,'poor' never stone or rock; the latter invariably means lapis, stone. The words have no connexion with each other.

6

Ch. xxxiii. 19. pns and nans (aten, at'na) indeed whether in Hebrew, Chaldee, or Syriac, import a furnace,' and is so ren dered Gen. xix. 28.-Good's Notes, p. 387.

#

So rendered! On turning to the English common version, Gen. xix. 28, we meet with the word furnace, it is true: but if we refer to the same passage in the Hebrew Bible, we shall The former words

כבשן but אתונה nor אתון find neither

never mean "furnace" in Hebrew.

"Ch. xix. 5.-" And expose to myself)" The verb п, whence the present term implies rather " to publish," or "lay open," to "urge a charge in broad day-light," than "to plead," or simply "to act," or "speak."-Notes, p. 213.

In p. 154, Mr. would still justify,

I'

Good remarks Ch. xiii. 15, "But I 8: In our common version, "But I will maintain;" yet means rather to act or speak truly," justly, or righteously, to rectify, or justify, than merely "to argue, or maintain a cause, be its nature what it may."

One would have thought that the merest novice in Hebrew would have assigned such words as n and m to the proper root, which is not , as Mr. Good boldly and ignorantly asserts, but . The same sort of error occurs in the following、

note:

Ch. xii. 16.-" is a derivate from nw, to equalize, or make equal; and consequently implies equality, adequacy, competency, or sufficiency."-Good's Notes, p. 143.

Every Hebraist knows, that such words as a and mem can belong only to the verbs and . Mr. Good presents to us, at p. 128 (Notes) this identical" as a substantive, implying transgression or iniquity, from 3 to fail,' or rela, i. e, in duty, and hence to sin, or transgress." The word, as we have already stated, is from ♫y”. It has no such meaning as that of sin,' or transgression, in the Hebrew Bible.

·

Ch. xix. 12. And wheel their lines) The verb 30, whence 130, here made use of, implies in all its senses, Gyration, and denotes, to encompass, surround,' encircle, enring,' or wheel, and by no means to raise up,' though this is the common sense, ascribed to it in the present passage.Good's Notes, p. 214. VOL. V. N. S.

3 C

It is requested that the reader of this paper will verify the citations, that he may satisfy himself as to the fact of Mr. Good's having committed errors so gross as these. "The verb whence 120" says Mr. Good, "implies by no means to raise up." Did he ever know, or hear of such a meaning being attributed to it? What will the reader think of Mr. Good, when he is informed by a reference to the Hebrew Bible, Job, xix. 12. that the verb 10 does not occur in it? Such however is the fact. The words are, on which Mr. Good, after his accustomed manner, translates, "wheel their lines;"--but which the common version renders strictly and properly-"They raise up their way against me." The allusion is to the practice of besieging armies raising up works against a place. In this passage Mr. Good, with consummate boldness, renders by "their lines," i. e. "lines of soldiers in battle array." is way, path, manner, custom; never "lines" or ranks of soldiers.

Ch. xvi. 6. What will it avail me.) In the original ; in our common version, "What am I eased?" The meaning is not essentially different; but does not imply "to ease," but "to proceed," ," "increase," or "advance ;" and hence " to profit,” “benefit,” or "avail;" whence as a noun, implies, "a toll, "custom," "produce," "profit," or "availment."-Notes, p. 184.

is simply a verb of motion. The noun is applied in the sense of toll only in Chaldee, and is strictly and properly, "passing money," implying, not that " produce," or "profit," (as Mr. Good will have it,) is the radical import of the word, but, motion," i. e. passing along. In the common version the sense of the Original, is adequately conveyed in-"What am I eased?" and the literal translation of the words is given in the margin "What goeth from me?"

Ch xxxii. 2. Before God) The Septuagint renders it still differently, variov Kugiov, "in opposition to," or, as the adverse party to "the Lord."-Notes, p. 876.

66

This affords us a specimen of our critic's skill in Greek. Mr. Good must submit to be informed, that ivyrio Kuglov means, "before the Lord," and in this sense is a correct rendering of the -as coram Deo' would be in Latin. We shall subjoin a few specimens of Mr. Good's critical sagacity, for the purpose of ascertaining his claims to the character of a Translator.

- מאלהים passage

Job, vii, 7. "O! remember, that, if my life pass away,

Mine eye shall no more turn to scenes of goodness

This verse does not appear to have been understood by any of the translators, except Reiske; nor has it been connected, as it ought to be, with the subsequent verse. n, as a substantive, implies, wind,

air, breath, vapour, as a verb, to blow, or blow out; to breathe, inpire, or expire, to evaporate, pass off, or pass away, (abire,) in which last sense the Arabic is still used. I am persuaded that the second is the only construction in which the term ought to be regarded in the present place. It is a verb employed conditionally: Should my life pass away, or, if my life pass away." &c. &c.-Good's Notes. p. SS.

Surely, a correct taste will prefer the reading of the common version to Mr. Good's. It is far more in correspondence withi the state and feelings of the afflicted complainant. "O remember that my life is wind-mine eye shall no more see good." The sentiments conveyed in the former and subsequent periods separated by a pause, " O remember," &c. are quite in the manner of such a person as Job, abruptly piteous. Mr. Good's rendering reduces it to a mere truism. "O! remember that should life pass away, mine eye shall no more turn to scenes of goodness."

But to ascertain the proper meaning, the original words must be consulted, and without the least fear of contradiction, we affirm that (the word in the text which Mr. Good renders #bypass away,') is never throughout the Hebrew Bible, in which it occurs in instances almost innumerable, in a single instance employed as a verb, meaning to pass away.' It is, in the present case a noun importing breath or wind. "O! "remember that my life is wind," is an unimpeachable version of

Ixxviii. 39. "For he remembered that they were but flesh, a

And a parallel passage may be found in Psalm .זכר כי רוח חיי.

in the subsequent part ראות ויזכר כי בשר המה רוה .a wind, &c .

66

of the verse is not a noun, nor can it be rendered by scenes, it is the infinitive of the verb and means to 'see,' 'behold' to behold.' The marginal reading of the common version is literal and correct-" mine eye shall not return to see'

.לא תשוב עיני לראות וטב .good :

Job. xviii. 11. “And shall snatch him from) In the original 15 which has not hitherto been fully understood, and has hence been differently rendered-The real meaning of D is "to free." "to loosen, deliver," to take or snatch away," in the present instance eripere, in which sense the same word is used, Ps. cxliv, 7, 11, "Deliver me out of great waters." "Deliver from the hands of strange children, `i. e. “ take me, or snatch me away from," and hence accurately rendered "er pe,' by St. Jerom. The same idea is intended by the same word in the passage before us, "shall snatch him from his feet," Shall take from him the power of flight.-Good's Notes.-p. 206.

The verb D means, 'Aperuit,'' Dilatavit,' 'Liberavit,' and is always used in the last sense to express benefit conferred on the

object. In this way it may be rendered to natch's, namely, from some evil or danger; but it never is, or can be, used, as expressing the taking away in a hostile or unfriendly manner, which is the import of Mr. Good's interpretation of the word. This is a specimen of the manner in which Mr. Good interprets in numerous instances, and in which he manifests a radical want of Hebrew learning and the insufficiency of his skill in philological discrimination. He evidently knows nothing of the origin or import of the word 1757.

Job, xxxvi. 14. "They shall die in the youth of their soul) A most forcible and elegant phraseology, but which is strangely mutilated in our common version by the total omission of, "of their soul."-Good's Notes. p. 410.

The common version reads, "They die in youth." The margin has-" their soul dieth, i. e. in youth." The Hebrew, is DVD on, which, literally rendered, is-" Their soul shall "die in youth;" in exact accordance with the marginal reading, and the proper import of which is preserved in the textual rengird. never can be rendered "They die."

What we have cited constitute but a small proportion of the gross inaccuracies and blunders with which Mr. Good's Book abounds. Many errors pervade the text in cases in which nothing in reference to the passages appears in the notes. For instance, ch. xiv. 18. is translated by-"for ever," instead of "truly," or "surely.", ch. xxii. 4. is rendered "will he smite thee," &c. &c. &c.

Mr. Good's canon for the use of the Hebrew 1 vau, as an imperfect negative, remains to be examined. It is as follows:

'Whenever ↑ vau is employed negatively, it has the precise force of, and in its general range runs precisely parallel with, our own nor, and the Latin nec or neve; and hence is only an imperfect or half negative, requiring a preceding negative, as nor and nec require, to make the negation complete.--The imperfect negative may be employed alone in every sentence composed of two opposite propositions, when it becomes the means of connecting the one with the other: such propositions being in a state of reciprocal negation, and the former of course supplying the place of an antecedent negative to the subsequent and imperfect connecting particle.'—Notes, p. 6.

This canon is applied by Mr. Good in explanation of

Job i. 5. 19701 00 780n, sinning against, and serving or blessing God, are opposite propositions, constituting negations to each other; and are united by an imperfect negative particle, whose imperfection is cured or supplied by the relative negation of the first of the two propositions.'

In his letter to the Editor of the Eclectic Review, Mr. Good furnishes another example of the application of his canon?'

.4 .Eccles. i דור הלך ודור בא והארץ לעולם עמדת

6

• Here', says Mr. Good, the vau preceding is used in a half-negative 'sense, the other half negation being supplied by the contrast of the verbs pass away, and come with the verb abide for ' ever.' The The passage is rendered by him, Generation cometh, ' and generation passeth away; NOR doth the earth abide for ' ever."

What is a canon? A canon is a general rule. But Mr. Good's canon is so far from being a general rule, that it is no rule at all. If it be applicable in one case, it must be applicable in another, where the requisite circumstances are not wanting. Let us try it in reference to the very passage selected by Mr. Good, from Eccl. i. 4. Coming and going are as much opposed to each other as pass away and abide for ever; the former verbs constitute negations to each other as completely as the latter; and the one set of verbs is also connected by the particle, in the same manner as the other. According to Mr. Good's canon, then, the words must be rendered 'Gene

ration cometh, NOR does generation go.'

Again: in the cii. Psalm, v. 27. we have on ANI 1738) MOM. Here we have all the requisites of Mr. Good's canon, in a passage exactly parallel to Eccl. i. 4. The verb abide is in contrast with the verb to perish, and the particle connects them, which is cured of its imperfection' by the negation contained in the first proposition as related to the second, in exactly the same manner as is cured of its imperfection in Eccl. i. 4. The passage in cii. Psalm, if rendered according to Mr. Good's canon, will appear as follows: They shall perish, NOR shalt thou continue.' We need not remind our readers that the latter words refer to the Deity. This, we think, constitutes a reductio ad absurdum, and would be sufficient to demonstrate the fallacy of Mr. Good's canon.' It is, in fact, built on sand. Notwithstanding his confidence and his parade, it is a mere assumption throughout. Mr. Good's philological talents must be estimated by the proper proofs; but if he persist in urging any of the points to which the present remarks relate, he will only expose himself the more. Were he to act ingenuously, he would at once acknowledge his numerous and palpable errors; errors of which no accomplished Hebrew scholar could be guilty. Mr. Good was indebted to our lenity in the review of his work, which is in truth the most radically erroneous book we recollect ever to have read. Our extracts speak for themselves.

Articles on Clarke's Travels, Southey's Poet's Pilgrimage, Jones's History of the Waldenses, Accum on Gas, &c. will appear in he next Number.