which he was created. Therefore to produce that good, or to restore Adam to a state similar to that from which he had fallen, God created the woman, and brought her to the man.'

The fertility of Mr. Bellamy's genius, is equalled only by the depth of his Hebrew learning! Who must not regret the brevity with which he announces the brilliant discoveries of his gifted mind? The woman was created and brought to the man, to produce that good of which he had been deprived, and to restore him to a state similar to that from which he had fallen! Did the good of that state then consist in the society of a woman? And was the separation of a former companion by death or banishment, or some other kind of removal, the state of evil into which Adam had fallen, and the effects of which were remedied by the creation of Eve and her introduction to the first of men? Yet what other construction can be put upon the Author's language?

" пp", Mr. Bellamy translates- he brought one 'to his side,' than which a more inadmissible rendering could not have been proposed. None of the translators and critics against whom Mr. Bellamy is perpetually declaiming, have taken such liberties with the text of the Hebrew Bible, or set so completely at utmost defiance all critical sobriety. One' -What? To what substantive is the numeral adjective лл one' to be referred? There is no antecedent noun to which it can be related; but Mr. Bellamy ought to have known that An is never used but with reference to another word which determines its application. "One law," "one measure," "one 66 year,' ," "one curtain," "one chamber," and similar combinations, are perpetually occurring in the Hebrew Scriptures; but they contain no examples of construction so singular and indeterminate as that which is attributed to them in the present instance. Besides, nyby is a plural noun, and cannot, therefore, be translated side. Nor are these the only freedoms, gross and unauthorized as they are, which the Author has taken with the text; nannn hwa 710", be translates, Whose flesh be had enclosed in her place! There is no word for 'whose,' which Mr. Bellamy has interpolated. a flesh, has no feminine pronoun affixed. yn cannot be rendered of the other;' it cannot possibly be translated as Mr. B. has rendered it, who attributes to it the sense of other person. There is not, we venture to affirm, a single Hebrew scholar in the kingdom, who would ever think of imposing this sense upon the word. It is the very same substantive in the singular number, the plural of which Mr. Bellamy has translated side' in the 21st verse. Why has he not given the same meaning to the word in this verse, and rendered the other side?' The absurdity of

his version of the entire passage, must be obvious to every reader; the means by which he has attempted to support it, are not less unwarrantable. nphy is a noun in the plural number and feminine gender, with the particle n, from, or, of, prefixed, and with the pronominal masculine affix, of him, "his." The word is evidently used in the sense of ribs, and though Mr. B. is pleased to assert that only in this place in all the Scripture is the word rendered as meaning " ribs," his assertion is of little value the translators of the Common Version have inserted "ribs" in the margin 1 Kings, vii. 3, where the same word Ay occurs in the original text. But were this the only place in all the Scripture in which the word is thus translated, that circumstance would furnish no reason against the rendering, many words in the Hebrew Bible occurring in particular instances, in a sense different from their general usage but strictly corresponding to the radical import: which is the case with in this chapter. The same expression nyby, is used 1 Kings, vi. 15, 16, to signify" boards," which in relation to a building are strictly analogous to the ribs in the human frame or body; the word therefore is in this sense correctly interpreted according to the etymology of Hebrew terms. "Ones "of his ribs," is the proper rendering of vry л, and the preceding verb is as properly translated by the English verb "to take:"-" Jehovah God np took." nnnn in the next clause, is a compound word; nn signifying in the place of, and being the pronominal affix, feminine gender, agreeing with ns in the preceding member of the sentence-" in its "place he closed up the flesh," wa. The narrative proceeds orderly and correctly in the Common Version: "And the "rib which Jehovah God had taken from the man, he formed "into a woman, and brought her to the man." In Mr. Bellamy's version all is confusion: different meanings are given to the same word; a plural noun is translated in the singular number; and a sense is imposed upon the original terms which they never bear. Mr. Bellamy finds fault with the translators of the public version, for what he is pleased to call unnecessary and improper repetition; but have they ever reached the height of his offending in this very instance? It is surely, to use Mr. Bellamy's language, a manifest impropriety, such a one as no writer or speaker, knowing how to write or speak with accuracy, could be guilty of,'-to inform us that, after God had brought the woman to Adam's side, he brought her to the man!'

But we must not forget to refer the decision of these points to those unquestionable authorities' who lived at a time when the language was understood-Onkelos, and Jonathan the paraphrast. The sense which they give to the whole of

the passage is in strict agreement with that of the Common Version, and totally irreconcileable with Mr. Bellamy's novel and preposterously erroneous translation.

If Mr. Bellamy will look into the Targum of Jonathan, he will learn to his entire satisfaction, not only that ys means rib,' but, that, in Gen. ii. 21, it can, Jonathan being judge, mean nothing else. Mr. Bellamy's uncouth rendering of the 23d verse, appears still more improper from the notes appended to it, in which he informs us, first, that von haphagnam means literally-time, and refers to this second time, or trial,' when Eve 'passed before him'; and secondly, that the verb p, vikree, rendered, he called, is not preter, but the third person singular future in Piel, viz. he will call, and that it refers to God. ‹ On all which points it may suffice to remark, that cannot mean second time, or trial, that the verb p is not in Piel, that it is not rendered in the preter in the Common Version, and that the meaning of is not thus. The Common Translation is unimpeachable, and not to be exchanged for Mr. Bellamy's crudities.

For the word naked' of the Common Version, in the 25th verse, Mr. Bellamy has substituted the term 'prudentNow they were both prudent;' and in his note, he remarks:

6

'The lexicon writers and, from them, the translators, have placed the word y Gnaroumim rendered naked' under the root my, gnaraah; but it certainly belongs to the root by gnarom from which come the words subtil, craft, guile, and in a good sense wisdom, prudence.

Mr. Bellamy would seem to have courage enough to assert any thing. The lexicon writers have not placed the word under the root; as may easily be determined by a reference to the Lexicons of Castell, Buxtorf, Robertson, Parkhurst, and we believe almost every other lexicographer. Mr. Bellamy informs us in one page (p. 12) of his work, that oy primarily means subtil, crafty, and in another (page 17) that its primary meaning is uncleanness of soul! Unclean thing,' Deut. xxxiii. 14, xxiv. 1, as well as Shame,' Isa. xx. 4, he says, belong to the same radix oy; they have in fact, no relation whatever to it, being derivatives from the root . Beyond all doubt, the word by means "naked," though this is not the only sense of the verb or noun in its different modifications. Would Mr. Bellamy render Job i. 21- Subtil 'came I out of my mother's womb, and subtil shall I return 'thither?" The word occurs in several passages in which its meaning is equally definite and clear. Isa. Iviii. 7, "When "thou seest the naked (y) that thou cover him." Ezek. xviii. 7, " And has covered the naked with a garment." Onkelos, we must remind Mr. Bellamy, lived at a time when the

6

language was better understood than it is now,' and he certainly understood the meaning of Dy to be they were ' naked.' But it signifies nothing to Mr. Bellamy, what is the meaning of Hebrew words, when he would bend them to his own purpose: else he would never have translated the word imprudent,' Gen. x. 11,-a meaning which it never bears. If the word means in a good sense wisdom, prudence, and in a bad sense, subtil, craft, guile, it would indeed be strange that the sense of imprudence should be included in its uses, since imprudence necessarily implies that want of sagacity which appears to be the radical sense preserved throughout the different derivatives of Dy in its application to mental qualities.

Ch. iii. 7. Nevertheless the eyes of them both, had been opened; thus they understood but they were subtil: for they had interwoven the foliage of the fig-tree; and had made for themselves enclosures?'

6

From the Common Version it appears, that the eyes of our first parents were opened as an effect of their eating the forbidden fruit: Mr. Bellamy pronounces this to be an erroneous representation, and refers the opening of their eyes to a period prior, far prior to their expulsion from Eden, even as soon as they were created.' To open the eyes, in the language of the Scriptures, never refers to an original state, but invariably marks some change in the subject of the verb. That the expression in this verse denotes an effect of the first transgression of man, is quite evident; it immediately follows the description of their offence, and is in direct connexion with the 5th verse, in which Mr. Bellamy himself has rendered the words by inpan by then your understanding shall be 'opened;' but they are literally and more accurately rendered in the Common Version: " then your eyes shall be opened." As an example of the uniformity preserved by Mr. Bellamy in his translation of the Bible, we have prudent' (Ch. ii. 25.) subtil' (ch. iii. 7.) and imprudent' (ch. iii. 10.) as the rendering of the same radical word, which the Translators of the Common Version consistently render by the same expression. To complete the exposure of the egregious folly of this pretender to Hebrew learning in the nineteenth century, we have the meaning of the words in all those places, definitely fixed by masters of the language,' who lived not in London, in the year 1818, but before the dispersion of the Jews,' who must, as Mr. Bellamy assures us in another case, have perfectly known the meaning of the word, and who therefore are unquestionable authorities' on the subject. Onkelos reads Gen. ii. 25, ruby, And they were naked. Gen. iii. 7, aby

And they knew that they were naked.

6

וידעו ארי

Gen. iii. 10.

་

.because I was naked ארי ערטלאי אנא

२

V. 8. Moreover they heard the voice of Jehovah God, going forth in the garden, in the spirit that day :-'

We

What day? There is no mention of any day in the text. abide by the reading of the Common Version" in the cool of the "day," as the proper rendering of the passage, in support of which, it is important to remark that Onkelos did not consider the word as meaning spirit: he has in the stillness of the day, with which the Common Version is sufficiently in accordance.

• Ch. iji, 17. Cursed is the ground by thy transgression.'

The translators have rendered the word 2 bangboureka, for thy sake; but when any thing is done for the sake, or for the good-will we have for another, it is always understood that the thing done is good and not evil. This word, which in its radix means to pass over, or forgive sin, with a variation in its form, means also transgression.'

But

In another part of his work (p. 45. ch. viii.) Mr. Bellamy affirms that this word in its radix means to transgress!" He discovers an admirable dexterity in self-contradiction. waiving this, the expression for the sake of,' does not always denote that the thing done is good and not evil.' What would 4. Mr. Bellamy make of Ps. cvi. 32, "It went ill with Moses for their sakes" nay, which indisputably refers to the rebellious conduct of the Israelites at Meribah? To do a thing for the sake of, correctly means, to do it on account of, and is applied as well to things evil as things good. The concluding part of Mr. B.'s note, is an exquisite specimen of the talent which he possesses for the elucidation of the Bible.

The word 8 hadamah, from which comes N Adam, i. e. man, means the ground, earth, or dust---Hence it follows that the organized ground called Adam, was the ground that was cursed, and not the ground which God had blessed with the principle of generation to produce every thing necessary for the use of his creatures.' In Mr. Bellamy's specimens of contrasted passages, the following are included.

Old Translation.

New Translation.

Gen. iii. 22. And the LORD GOD said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever. In his Bible however, we have the following translation.

Then Jehovah God said, Behold the man was like one of us; with knowledge of good and evil: and therefore, if he will put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life; then he shall eat, and live for ever.

Moreover, JEHOVAH GOD said, Behold the man was as one of us, with knowledge of good and evil: therefore now surely he shall put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and live for ever.'