mitted to exist from the beginning of the world. But the truths contained in the Hebrew Scriptures, and in the translations, have raised martyrs in defence of the former, though they have not prevented the perpetration and existence of the latter. I proceed next to state my reasons for dissent from Mr. Bellamy's new versions, and select for more particular examination Gen. vi. 14. and 2 Kings v. 18. The first on the subject of the Ark. עֲשֵׂה לְךְ תֵּבַת עֲצֵי־גפֶר קְנִים תַּעֲשֶׂה אֶת־הַתֵּבָה וְכָפַּרְתָּ אֹתָהּ מִבַּיִת וּמִחוּץ בַּכֹּפֶר: Our authorised translation is, "Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch," -as literal as possible! The latter part of the verse, however, וְכָפַּרְתָּ אֹתָהּ מִבַּיִת :וּמִחוּץ בַּכֹּפֶר Mr. Bellamy translates, "For thou shalt expiate in it, even a house also with an outer room for atonement!"3 See Classical Journal, xlv. 125. I prefer and defend the common translation, 1st, On the authorities of the Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Arabic, Syriac and Chaldee versions; on the authority of the commentators, lexicographers and grammarians, both Jewish and Christian, whose works are extant, and against whose united Hebrew learning surely Mr. B. cannot be serious in opposing his own. 2dly, Our authorised version has decided preference, because it shows a plain and consistent sense. Mr. B.'s, with all his comment, is unintelligible, and discordant completely with the context. 3dly, Mr. B.'s version cannot be substituted for the one which the English and ALL translators have given, because the latter is and can be proved to be grammatically accurate and conformable to the received meaning of the words כפרת אתָהּ and כפֶר In your No. 38, in the list of selected passages, he gives a different version to this, and thus flounders amidst his own conflicting opinions. 2 מחוץ appears no where but as an adverb or preposition, and cannot any way be deduced to mean an outward apartment. 3" Atonement" would have been, in this passage, expressed by הַכְּפָּרִים hak-kiffeurim, if it had been intended, and by no other word. On the 1st position it cannot be thought necessary to dwell; sufficient is the bare mention, or reference to the numerous, and indisputably learned authorities, who have passed and approved the present version; and to them Mr. Bellamy is opposed! On the 2nd point, if we turn to the chapter in question, we find the object of God's commandment to Noah is solely as to the formation of the ark, and that precaution especially which was to preserve it on the universal sea, and when buoyant over the deluged earth. But Mr. Bellamy would obliterate this altogether, and make the words allude to a religious ceremony which has no sort of connexion with the command as to the structure of the ark. The Hebrew words in this passage are all used in their primary meaning. How can we reconcile to common sense as follows: "Rooms shalt thou make in the ark," in one comma, and "thou shalt expiate therein by atonement," in the other? the very next verse proceeding in the description of the ark! And thus Mr. B. breaks in upon the plain and connected narrative of the building of the ark, with a supposed command relative to the atonement! Besides, it appears from the tenor of the Bible, that Aaron, the archetype of Christ the Mediator, was the first high priest ordained by God to officiate in the sacrifice for atonement. And it is to be remarked, that the words כפר על kiffeir gnal, in Pignel, to atone, (I place the Hebrew verb in the infinitive) are never used except in reference to that ceremonial, which being typical of the Christian redemption, it follows that, consistently with this divine dispensation, Mr. Bellamy's version of the passage cannot be received. Proceeding to the 3rd and last position, let us examine Mr. B.'s grammatical arguments for the ejectment from the Hebrew Lexicon of כֹפֶר kofer, as meaning "bitumen," or pitch, the word used by our translators. It appears but once in the Bible, affirms Mr. B., with this signification. Granted. But this singularity appears to have existed ages before he was in the world, with the knowledge and notice of men who must have been more competent, incomparably more competent, to decide on its continuance in such sense, or on its ejectment. There are numerous passages in the Bible, says Mr. B., where this word and כָפַר in Kal, as in the verse of Genesis under consideration, are translated as meaning, atonement, 14 redemption, or to atone, to expiate, and the like. My reply is: that כָפַר in Kal, no where in the Bible signifies to atone or expiate! 1 We read that on the great day of expiation, the ceremonial was constantly performed by the great high priest at the golden altar, which appears to have been in an elevated situation. The sprinkling of the victim's blood UPON the altar; the priest laying his hands UPON the head of the scape-goat; and, symbolically, the sins of the people; the elevation of the host; the attitude of the priest OVER the congregation;-and finally, his benediction, extending his hands towards or over them; are all impressively intimated by the accompaniment of עַל in composition with כְפֶר in Pignel. But in the passage of Genesis no על accompanies the verb, which is used in Kal, and in its primary meaning. See all the lexicons, commentators and translators. The kindred languages, the Arabic, Syriac, and Chaldean, are an host of evidence for our translators. In the former Kafar, is levit, oblevit, linimento obduxit, in its primary acceptation.-See Willmet's Lexicon, page 643. The Syriac Lexicon of Michaelis informs us, page 429, صمدزا Kufra bitumen, Gen. vi. 14. and Exod. ii. 3," in TWO PASSAGES in the Bible. The Chaldean Lexicon shows כופראbitumen, and the three words above noted, are used, not only in the versions of the Bible, but in other original writings in those languages. T Highly unreasonable and absurd is the declaration of Mr. B. of the inadmissibility of etymological evidence from the cognate dialects in illustration of the Hebrew. It is a declaration to which I may venture to say none of your readers will accede. Supposing, (which is not the case,) that no analogy whatever could be traced between כפר in the acceptation of bitumen or pitch, and the same as meaning ransom, (for it never means atonement in reference to an actual sacrifice, as Mr. B. would have it) and that, for the one passage in which it is used in the former sense, there are six or seven where it is properly translated in the latter; yet the fact of its being in common use with the first meaning among a That is in reference to the office of this ritual. cognate people, speaking a dialect of, and co-existent with, the Jews, and the same kindred nation handing it down to us in their writings, must, before the tribunal of common sense, be decisive as to the accuracy of such acceptation. Suppose again, the word dare in Latin appeared only once in the writings of a single author with a particular sense, and with a different meaning in many other passages of the same work; notwithstanding this, if in Italian, Spanish, and Portugese, we find the word dar and dare in the same acceptation as it appears, though but once, in the Latin writer, such continuation in the same import through a lapse of ages, stamps on it indisputable authority. And this is no more than the merited portion of credit that the word כֹּפֶר in the meaning of pitch, obtains from the words before noted in the Arabic, Syriac, and Chaldee languages. There is another peculiarity as to the employment of the verb כפר in the passage under question; it is found in Kal, and will compel Mr. B. to recede from his new version on his own ground. He properly admits the indispensible necessity of the points, and that the different forms of the verb have their respective and distinct meanings. As just noted, we find in the verse under consideration כָפַרְתָּ kafar-tha in Kal. In all the other passages in which it is translated (and most accurately) to atone, this verb is invariably in Pignel: but the verb in Kal (Mr. B. agrees with me!) cannot mean the same as when it is in Pignel: hence it must have, and all translators have given it, a different signification in Gen. vi. 14: and Mr. B.'s version, on his own axiom, must be rejected as inaccurate; or on him lies the onus probandi, that all the other above mentioned 60 or 70 passages are erroneous! There is nothing anomalous throughout the Bible in the employment of this verb in all its forms: on the contrary, it appears everywhere strictly in conformity with the acknowledged principles of the Hebrew Grammar. Thus כפר in Kal, to overspread (with pitch). It appears but once in this acceptation: but all the other meanings are rationally deducible from this primary idea, which, as collected from all the lexicographers and commentators, seems to be expressed by Stockius, -" Generatim tegendi vel obducendi significationem obtinet." The very next pas sage in which it is found is Genesis xxxii. 21, where Jacob, desirous of reconciliation with his brother, and approaching him with bountiful presents, says, אֲכַפְרָה פָּנָיו בַּמִּנְחָה Akaffrah phanaiv bam-mincha, in our Bible, " I will appease him with the present." Here we have the verb in another form, in Pignel; as Kal denotes the simple, momentaneous action, so the verb in Pignel means the intensity' or continuance of the action. There is a peculiar energy in this Hebrew phrase, and almost intranslatable ad literam. The sense, however, is preserved in our common version. It may be paraphrased thus: "I will effectually overspread his coun tenance with my offering." That is, I will operate on his feelings, and thus his returning affection will manifest itself in his face, the index of the mind. The suffusion of bitumen on wood, &c. changes its appearance, and preserves it, and this simple action is expressed only by the verb in Kal; but continued everlasting obliteration, and, figuratively, reconciliation and atonement, are most properly and metaphorically denoted in the Pignel form. Thus, in these two first passages in which the verb occurs, we have at once an instance of the true sublime, a beautiful yet natural transition from the simple to the figurative sense, and, in my humble opinion, one among many of the satisfactory examples of the necessity of the points; by the means of which this form of the verb is chiefly distinguished. Prov. xvi. 15. is completely parallel. We now, proceed to the passages in which this verb, still in the Pignel form, but in composition with the preposition על, signifies to atone. The primary signification of על is over, and from this notion we have that of protection naturally suggesting itself, also in the figurative sense of "for the sake of;" and more than 60 times, as noted before, this particle appears most clearly with these significations. I quote a few of the numerous passages: תְּכַפַּר עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּחַ Exod. xxix. 37. "Thou shalt make atonement for the altar." xxx. 10. " And Aaron shall make וְכִפֶר אַהֲרֹן עַל־קַרְנָּתָיו atonement on the horns of it." It is worth remark, that the despised Septuagint, in about 70 passages, expresses this Hebrew verb, not by the primary ἱλάσκεσθαι, but by the intensive ἐξιλάσκεσθαι : an evident proof that the Pignel form of the verb, and of course the points, existed in the time of those translators: |