« ForrigeFortsett »
The kal conjugation, therefore, means that the person himself does not the thing mentioned, but that he does it by anothes person's aid, or that another person does it entirely for him ! Thus 703, 5:n, vow, which have hitherto, being verbs in the kal conjugation, been understood to mean he heard, he ate, he learned, do not mean he himself heard, he hims self ate, he himself learned, these latter modes of expresa sion being examples of the Hithpael conjugation, denoting that the person himself does the thing mentioned.' So that there exists a wide and important difference between he opens, and he himself opens ! Mr. Bellamy dreams, is one thing, and Mr Bellamy himself dreams, is another and very different thing! How would this gentleman render mba, a verb in the conjugation kal, and in the preter tense? Is its proper meaning any other than he himself
opened ? Does this conjugation not mean that the person himself' does the thing mentioned? Had the ineaning which Mr. Bellamy bas given to the word, been the meaning of the sacred writer, the word would have occurred in the kal con, jugation; its being in the Hithpael is a sufficient indication of the intention of the inspired author to express a notion very different from that which the ignorance or wantonness of the present translator would impose. The proper use of the Hitbpael conjugation is, to express a reciprocal meaning after the manner of the middle verb in Greek ; and therefore Baning in the text ie correctly translated, 'be uncovered himself, or he was uns “covered' by means of himself. It cannot be rendered • he bimself opened,' though, if it so please Mr. Bellamy, he may translate it,' he opened himself,' or he himself wan' opene l' by bis own means; but to render it he opened as a simple active verb, with an objective case, is an egregious blunder.
ASIN Aheloh is rendered by his tent.' • But,' says Mr. Be . there is no pronoun possessive, so that the word cannot be
translated his tent.' Nor is there any pronouo possessive affixed to the very same word, abon Gen. xii. 8. xiii. 3; in both of which examples, Mr. B. translates the word by his tabernacle.' abrezina, is literally, as in the Cominon Version, • in the midst of his tent.' 'The words are not as Mr. Bel. lamy's translation represents them, the accusative after a tran. sitive verb. 7in, with the particle 2 prefixed, can only mean, in the middle. Thus, in a passage exactly parallel, Josti. vii. 21, 96,789 yina in Achan's confession, is in the midst of my tent.
• I'he nakedness of his father,' is far too simple a phrase for our recondite philologist. now, he asserts, is not, as represeated in the Common Version, a noun singular; another biuno der ! Not only it is a noun singular in construction, but Mr. B.
with bis usual inconsistency, so renders it, Gen. xlii. 9, 12,
nakedness.' What does he nean by the symbols of his 'father?' This expression can signify only that emblems or images of Noah were used in the first age of the postdiluvian worship, and that the patriarch himself was an idolater! The terms thus perverted are, however, of too frequent occurrence to
. , , ' father's nakedness,'' thy mother's nakedness,' &c. Lev. xviii
. 7. The numerous parallel passages in that chapter, are too explicit and too stubborn to be at all bent to our Author's purpose.
On 1999 cannot possibly mean · And Aum exposed ;' the verb is in kal, and simply signifies, as in the Comunion Version,
And Ham saw. That this is its proper and only meaning, might he demonstrated by numberless examples.
Equally remote from true meaning and proper construction is Mr. Bellamy's strange rendering of the 23 and 24th verses ;
Setting up a vestment for a portion.' now is a noun femipine without any relative pronoun answering to which, interpolated by Mr. B., while the verb pena has the vau , prefixed, and must' therefore be translated with the copulative 'and,' which does not appear in his version. bw, it is true, is a noun singular, but construed with bw, it is properly rendered upon both their shoullers, as in Exod. xii. 34, *In their clothes
' , Onkelos, which indubitably proves that he understood cow in this passage to mean' shoulder,' and not postion.' The singular is used by the prophet Isaiah, cb. xlvi: ?, precisely in the sainę manner, with a plural verh, in 39 1790"; * they bear him
upon the shoulder.' non backwards,' occurs twice in the verse : in the former instance Mr. Beilam'y renders it by after
wards, in the latter by' buckwards,' though it is identically, in consonants and vowels, the same word : the Common Version is uniform and correct.
24 “Noah awoke from his wine." For this translation Mr Bellamy substitutes Noah ended his wine,' affirming that the word pp va yickets, does not mean aruke, neither is it
connected with any word that means sleep. Nothing can be either more disiogenuous or ignorantly 'erroneous: He himself translates this very word in more than one passage as being connected with sleep. • Jacob wuked (rp") from his sleep.' ch. xx. 16. ^ Pharaoh awoke' p7", ch. xli. 4. 7. ywy rendered in the Common Version,' hud done,' Mr. Bellamy .maintains should be translated according to idiom as it is in 1 Kings
viji 64; 2 Chron. vij 7, offered:' 'there is, however, no similarity in the construction of these passages. The expression in 1 Kings viü. 64; 2 Chron. vii. '7, is men aw nowy and
is the phrase used by על כתף ,על שכמם upon their shoulders *
,את אשר עשהה
is properly translated there he offered burnt offerings ;' but in Genesis the construction is totally different, and can be translated only as it appears in the Common Version nwy hwn nu, what he had done,' as in Exod xviii. 1. Omba nwy W by ne, all that God hud done.' Esther ii. 1,' What she had done, '
. This whole paragraph, for violent construction, and perverse interpretation, is altogether unequalled.
Chap xi. 4. And they said, Come, we will build for us a city, and a tower with his top like heaven; thus shall be made for us a name : or we shall be scattered upon the face of all the earth.'
• With his top like heaven.' The preposition ? is not a particle of similitude. Mr. Bellamy indeed is pleased to assert that the beth prefixed to Dipu shaamuyim, i. e. heaven, is
rendered in other parts of Scripture, with the same construc. tion, by like ; that is, with his top, or inside of the dome, like
heaven.' was lowever, does not mean dume, or, inside of a dome. He has not given any examples of the use of the particle ? with o'pw to denote likeness, nor is he able to give them: the a beth is in this passage, used precisely as in Deut. i. 28. ix. I. 'walled up to heaven,' sowa; fenced up to heaven, pow. Our learned commentator takes to himself the credit of forining an opinion, that this tower was built for idolatrous worship, an image of the sun being the principal object; whereas it is well known, that archbishop Tenison, in his work on idolatry, conjectures that the tower was built as a temple for the worship of the sun. Mr. Bellamy is original only in his errors.
xi. 6. Then Jehovah said, Behold, another people, all of them with a vain lip: even at this time they profane with offerings : and now shall nothing be restrained from them, all that they have ima. gined for offerings.
Mr. Bellamy charges the translators of the public version with taking unwarrantable liberties in rendering the D. the people is one,' and he remarks,
ons Echaad, in this verse, according to rule, is to be rendered by the word, another. See Exod. xxxvii. 8; 1 Sam. xviii. 18; 1 Kings xviii. 6; Ezek. xvii. 17;-xix. 5;Xxxvii. 16, 17;-xli, 11; Dan. viii. 13.
Admirable grammarian! according to rule means another! Let us exemplify this rule. Deut. vi, 4, will then read, “ Je. "hovah our God, is another Jehovah.' Exod. ix. 6. • Of the
cattle of the cbildren of Israel died not another,' importing that some of their cattle had died. Josh. xxiii. 14. Not another thing has failed :' some parts of God's promises therefore had failed. Now.great as are Mr. Bellamy's attainments in Hebrew, we think it may be well for him to be taught the correct rule for translating this word.
means another, it is preceded always hy a relative term, and as often as it occurs alone, and without reference 10 another similar word in the sentence, it must be rendered by a word expressive of unity, or, as in Gen xix. 9, as a demonstrative pronoun TT.NO • this one,' this fellow' In every one of Mr. B.'s examples, the construction is of the former kind; io none of then, is absolute, or at all parallel with Gen. ii 6. Exod. xxxvii. 8, • One cherub on the end on this side, and unother cherub, &c.' 1 Kings xviii. 6, Aliab went one way, and Obadiah went another way. Ezek. xix. 3, 5,
Ezek. xix. 3, 5, “One of her whelps,• another of her whelps.' xvii. 3. 7, a great eagle, -- un. other great eagle.' xxxvii. 16, 17, Une stick,-another
stick.' xli. II, One door,-another door.' Dan viii. 13. One saint,munother saint.'
Could Mr. B. have consulted his Hebrew Bible or bis Concordance for these examples, when he published as the result of bis examination, that 11 means
another where there is no foregoing word to which it bears relation ?
Equally unfortunate and unfounded are his remarks on murbe lagnusoth, which, he asserts,' means, to offer, and, in this pas
sage, offerings to idols, as it is so appliet, Josh. xxi. 23. • Huyt eni or if to offer. 2 Kings X. 24, 25, sucrifices and • burnt offerings.' A more disingenuous procreating it is scarcely possible for an author to adopt, determined as be may be to support an hypothesis, per fus et nefus. The indisputable meaning of ney is to do, or make, or constitute ; its determination being always evident from the words with which it is connected. It never means to offer, unless additional words occur to define and limit its application, as in the very examples to which Mr. B. refers. Joshua xxji. 23. D'D SW nas vsy nwys “ to offer peace offerings upon it.” 2 Kings x. 21, 25, b'na nowys ning " When they came to offer “ sacrifices" .3257 nwys “ offering the burnt offering.” But these examples entirely differ from the expression in Gen. xi. 6, which is accurately travslated in the Common Version.
Mr. Bellamy assures us that
• had Abram never gone into Canaan till after the death of Terah, it could not, according to the express words of Scripture, be said, that he had gone forth from the household of his father; for the household of a man has no existence as his, after his death. Abram must therefore liave gone forth to Canaan while his father was yet living' p. 60...
Yet it was long after the death of Terah that Abraham directed bis servant to go to his father's house;" 'IN n for a wife for his son Isaac, Gen. xxiv. 38. 40. Joseph and his "father's house," ras na dwelt in Egypt after the death of Jacob, ch. 50. 22. In all these passages the expression is pre
! cisely the same as in Gen. xii. 1. and furnishes the most complete refutation of this imaginary distinction. Jo the sime connexion, (p. 60.) it is remarked, that
The verbs 75 leke, 75 leka, depart, go, do not necessarily import that he (Abram) was at this period, to remove finally to Canaan! but when obra:1 went from Haran finally at 75 years of age after the death of Terah, a different verb is used, which embraces ihe idea ot going forth finally, returning not to the same state or place.'
so you is used Gen, xxiv 11, in relation to women going forth, () io draw water, who certainly returned to their babitations wine the customary supplies for the fainily. It is applied, Exod xvi. 4, to the Israelites going out every day to collect the manna ; Did they not return to the same place ? 7377 is applied, Judges vi. 21, to the angel's departure from Gideon, włoich was not prohably repeated ; to the going of the cart containing the ark, i sam vi. 8, which certainly did not return, since it was broken up at Bethshemesh, ver. 11. The words nyi and 73.7 are frequently used precisely in the same manner to denote motivu or action; the foriper therefore does not, any more than the latter, necessarily signify finally to go forth.
Ch. xii. 8. Moreover he had removed from thence to a mountain, eastward of Beth-el, where he pitched his tabernacle : Beth-el by the sea, with Hai eustward."
• Bethel by the sea" Mr. Bellamy's knowledge of sacred Geograply appears to be equal to his acquaintance with Hebrew philology. One of the nost inland towns in all Judea is here described by a gentleman who, of all translators of the Bible for the last two thousand years, alone understands the import of the original words of the scriptures, as situated by the sea !" Wheu le shall by his schooling bave advanced a few steps furthér in Hebrew grammar, be will perhaps be able to give the meaning of o'p, wbich he has yet to leari. Bethel by ibe sea,
with Hai eastward ! Did it never occur to Mr. Bellainy to ask himself what sense he was conveying to bis readers by these expressions? A reader of the Hebrew Bible or of the Common Version would learn, that the place wbere Abraham pitched his tent was between Bethel and Hai, the former being to the west, dip, the latter lying eastward.
«Ch. xiii 13 But the men of Sodom were wicked, even exceed. ingly sinful before Jehovah.
• '13. The authorised translation of this verse is very objectionable. No doubt, the wicked are sinners. But from expressions of this kind in scripture, which have been noticed, the reader will readily understand this ; they were wicked. There are various degrees of wickedlaess: persons Riay be wicked and yet have a respect for the worship of Gid. But chese idolaters, it appears, carried their hatred for the worship of God, us taught by Lot, to such a pitch, that it is