Imágenes de páginas

proceeds, would dislocate and corrupt the whole of its narrations. According to this new and curious arrangement, wc have the dictation of the sacred ode, hut no record of its having been sung; and the introduction of Miriam, the prophetess, and her company, in the 20th verse, is perfectly inexplicable! What would Mr. Bellamy make of Judges v. 1. mm -icrni, " Then "sang Deborah and Barak, the sou of Abinoain, on that day, "saying," &c. a passage precisely corresponding to the passage in Exodus: Would he render the future of the verb, nami, ". Then '• shall Deborah sing, &c."? To what command would he refer the order, and what part of the preceding chapter would he include in a parenthesis? In what manner would be operate upon, 2 Sam. xxii. 1, *rn -ai'i, "And David uttered the words of this "song in the day that Jehovah delivered him out of the hand of "all his enemies, &c."?

The verb 1ST is in the future form : must we read," Then David "shall sing," &c. ? Every man in his proper senses, who can read Hebrew, must perceive that, in the lust two examples, the future verb is used to describe actions in past time, and cannot be otherwise construed; and he will, without hesitation, read Exod xv 1. in exactly the same manner; "Then Moses sang, &c." Mr. Bellamy's irrationalities are made in his own pages so very conspicuous, and they are so perfect iu their kiud, that to exhibit them is to refute them.

Concerning verbs written in the future form, and translated iu thepreter tense. In the section which this title heads, Mr. Bellamy attempts to assign the reason that verbs written in the future form with the vau i prefixed, are very frequently translated in the preterite, which, it seems, has remained concealed from the kuowlcdgc of every former writer since the time of Christ. lie does not condescend to inform us by whom it was understood at that period.

< I shall now proceed to develope the system which appears to be regular throughout the Scriptures.

• When a verb at tbe beginning of a subject is written in the prefer tense, and connected with verbs following, which describe an action taking place after the action described by the first verb; such following verbs are written in the future form, because the actions described by them ate future to the action described by tbe first verb at the beginning of the subject. And they are translated in the preter, because the i vau connected the preter tense of the first verb, which is connected with the same order, meaning, and application, as is signified by the first verb.

'Example. Gen. i. 1. the first verb is K*m bara, he created, which is, connected with "Mew»l vayomer, ami he said, in the 3d verse; turn vavare-, and he saw S"ia*i vayabdeel, and he divided, in the 4th verse; and »Op'> vayikra, and he culled, in the 5th verse; which verbs dth scribe actions after the action described by the first verb: therefore, being actions future to the first preter, they are written in the Jiiturt form, and the i van connects the preter tense of the verb Mil bara, with every verb, till the subject of these verbs terminates, which is "nx aor, light, or cav yarn, day, where the stop katon finishes th* proposition. This order runs through the whole chapter, every verb introducing a creation of particulars, with a reference to the first verb at the beginning of the subject, viz. the creation.

'Ch. iii. vers. 17. takes a new subject, which, as above, is introduced by the preter of the vgrb, rvwo shaamangta, thou hast heartened, followed by the future form of the verb, "jasni vatokal, and thou hast eaten ; so as above, the action described is future to the action mentioned in the preceding verb nscttr shaamangta, thou hast hearkened." Intro, p. xxxvii.

All this, we dare say, is demonstration itself in Mr. Bellamy's estimation. He has, however, taught us not to accept of even his demonstrations, till we ourselves have proved their correctness; we proceed, therefore, to examine this system, which it seems neither Jew nor Gentile for nearly eighteen hundred years has understood.

tm Gen. i. 1, is unquestionably a verb in the preter tense, and the following verbs, inclusive of Kip*) in the 5th verse, «re futures; but in what manner can the proposition be finished with the noun Uk or ov? The proposition extends beyond these words. nM> Hip "\wtfa is as much a part of the proposition, "And God called the light day, and the darkness he called "night," as "\\vnn »jai in the preceding verse is a part of the proposition, " And God divided between the light and between "the darkness." Hip kara, is no more the beginning of a subject, than is Mlp'l, and both equally describe actions subsequent or future to Mil. If the proposition finishes so early in the chapter, it rather finishes with irm Dv yum echad, day the Jir*t, at the end of the fifth verse.

Equally futile are Mr. Bellamy's remarks on Gen. iii. 17, which no more takes a new subject than the 14th or the 16th verse, in the former of which tbe future iniw is used, while the latter exhibits the preterite Idn. It is very unnecessary to pur* sue the subject for the purpose of convicting Mr. Bellamy of error; but as he has mixed up so much assurance with his erroneous effusions, and as it may be of some use to expose his disingenuous proceedings, and his pretensions to knowledge which be does not possess, we hope to be excused if we continue our animadversions, and extend them to Mr. Bellamy's observations on the 4th chap, of Genesis.

'Chap. iv. The first verse begins with tbe preter: Now Adam 3»T yaadang, knew, followed by the futures inni va tahar, and she conceived; n'pni va taled, and she bare; 1DNJT) va tamer, and she said. Vers. 3d, rjom va toseph, and she added; 'in va yehi, and he aw. And the proposition ends at the following word 1NY (son, sheep. The simple rnr.TEn again begins at the Iiead of the series, rvr,\ va haayah, and it was, followed by the future forms Wi va yehi, and it was; NT1 va yaabee, and he had brought; verse 3d."

What could induce Mr. Bellamy to write in this manner, but the veriest fondness for the offspring of his perverted miucl? He never could have, but for this folly, ventured to affirm that 'the proposition ends at the following word p*V:' it is plainly carried forward to the conclusiou of the verse, as every unbiassed reader must acknowledge. Mr. Bellamy saw the Theter rrm in his way, directly opposed to bis system, and therefore he stops short, and contrary to fact, affirms that the proposition closes with fHir tson, sheep! The simple Preteh rrm does not begin at the head of a series; it is not connected with the third verse; with the series following, it has nothing to do, being limited in its application by its relation to the former clause of the second verse: nor can it be translated in this passage by the expression "and it mas." It is the verb to the nominative Cain, rrn ppi, "And Cain was." The whole passage needs only be read, to refute Mr. Bellamy's hypothesis, aud to expose his very unfair manner of supporting it. "And Adam knew "[W) Eve his wife, and she conceived and bare (inni inni) Cain, "and said, (IDWii) I have gotten a man from the Lord. (Vs. 2.) "And she again (*pni) bare (rn^>) bis brother Abel, and Abel was "{Tn future) a keeper of sheep, but Cain was (n»n preter) a "tiller of the ground." The future tense of verbs, with reference to past time, frequently begins, not only new subjects, but new books. V. Joshua i. 1. Judges i. 1. 1 Samuel i. 1.

On the Pluperfect Tense. The rule for the proper use of this tense, is among the discoveries made in Hebrew philology by Mr. Bellamy. To all other Hebraists has it been unknown since the dispersion of the Jews. How felicitous are the times in which we live !' The learned Bochart,* (Buxtorf, we suppose,) is cited by Mr. Bellamy as a witness to the neglect of the 'accentual reading' by both Jews and Christians, neither of whom understood it in his day! Was he himself acquainted with it? We are always (it may be unfortunate, but we are always) tempted to suspect the originality of Mr. Bellamy's discoveries. But, to return to our criticisms, let us hear this Magister Hebreeorum deliver his doctrine on the Pluperfect Tense.

'The rule for the modification of the preter tense, depends on the accent tomb pashta, i. e. to put off, which is its meaning. That is, it is so called, because it puts off the time of the verb to a time more remote.

'I shall now refer the reader to the proofs for the existence of this modification of the preter tense. See Gen. xvi. ',, that she

Vol. X. N. S. C

Had conceived; ch. xix. 17, when they Had brought them forth: ch. xxxiii, 19, he Had there spread; ch. xxxv. 7, I"4, For there He Bad repaired the altar, also he Had preached; Jacob Had erected: ver. 15, Jacob Had called the name of the place where God Had spoken with him, Beth-el. This first modification of the perfect tense, which carries the mind to a period beyond the common preter, is properly the first aorist of the Hebrew. The second occurs by a repetition of the accent KttfQ (tsttfb) pashta, on the verb. See Gen. ii. 18, And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone „evidently referring to the most remote time, the first state of man, before the creation of Eve. Ch. iv. 1, she had conceived, viz. as soon as they were created, i. e. in Eden, agreeably to the divine command. See on ch. iv. 1.; again, ch. vi. 7, / have created, referring to the first of the human race, the most remote as to person and time, and therefore the aorist is repeated on the verb. Ch. iii. 17, / commanded thee. This plainly carries the mind to the state in Eden when God had commanded them, saying, Thou shah not eat thereof. Ch. xlii. 5, They came, viz. at the first, or most remote time of their going into Egypt. Ch. xliv. 7, That be far from thee; clearly meaning that which was the most remote in the mind of God. Ver. 20, 22, Wt said; that was, at the most remote time, concerning the subject in question at their first journey. Vers. 21, 23, Thou, saidst; at the tame period.'

The rule for the pluperfect tense depends, it seems, on the accent au?a pashta : a single pashta puts off the time of the preter to a time more remote than the simple preter, and a doublepashta removes it still more remote. So says Mr. Bellamy; now for his proofs. Gen. xvi. 5, " She had conceived;" the verb iimn is without pashta! Ch. xix. 17, "When they had "brought them forth, he said, 1D«1:" nothing can be more evident than that the verb—" he said" refers to a time following that of the verb MV> in the preceding clause ; it was after "they "had brought them forth," that " he said :" but according to Mr. Bellamy's doctrine, the verb b-.n»,i refers to a time more remote than the verb sv, the latter verb having only one pashta, while the former has double pashta. Ch. xxxiii. 19, " He had thero "spread:" the verb naj, he spread, has no pashta! In the following verse, 20th, the verb, he built, mto Dtt> am, " And ha "built there an altar," has no pashta. We find, however, in the subsequent part of the verse, a pashta on the verb wip'i, u And he called:" the altar, we imagine, must have been built before it could be named, and therefore Nil?*1 does not express an action more remote than ami. As to Mr. Bellamy's translation of the former verb, by " he preached," we shall find some other place to consider its merits. How does the circumstance, that the coming of Jacob's sons into Egypt for the first time, is recorded Gen. xlii. 5, prove the verb itc, " they came," to be in the pluperfect tense? If it had a thousand pashtas, it would not be a verb expressive of remote time: it simply denotes that Jacob's sons were now come into Egypt.

Of the more remote use of the preter tense, by a repetition of the accent pashta on the verb, Gen. ii. 18, "Jehovah God had "said," is Mr. Bellamy's first example. There is however no previous record of the Divine declaration, to which this formula can be applied, no previous mention to which it can have reference. The accent pashta is used in precisely the same manner, Gen, iii. 13, " Ann the woman said," (iDMrn with pashta): not, had said. In the same way it occurs in vs. 17, " And thou hast "eaten," (brum with pashta) not, hadst eaten. "Jehovah God "said," is the proper translation of the introductory words Gen. ii. 18. For the second example, we are referred to CIi. iv. 1. " She "had conceived," an expression which,according toMr. Bellamy, refers to the most remote time, i. e. that which preceded the Fall! But to what remote time can jrp DTHrrt, "• And Adam knew '* Eve bis wife," refer? No pashta marks the verb jn\ The whole description evidently refers to a period subsequent to the expulsion from Eden, which is the subject of the concluding verses of the preceding chapter. In Ch. xxi. 2, we have" And she bare," (T?m with pashta,) which has no reference to remote time. In Ch. xxix. 35, " And she conceived," (inn) with pashta) occurs without remote reference: and the same verse exhibits an example of the use of double pashta (loam), " And she said," which cannot be construed as including remote time, even according to Mr. Bellamy's own rendering, " Moreover the "conceived again, and bare a son, and she said, Now I will "praise Jehovah." If " I commanded thee," Gen. iii. 17, carries the mind to the state of Eden, does not the same expression, " I commanded thee," in the 11th verse, carry the mind to the same state? But the verb in the latter verse, is without pashta, and as no doubt can possibly arise as to the time of the verb in both examples, which is precisely the same in each, the ■ accent on the verb in the 17th verse, can have no relation to the time of the verb. Again : " That be far from thee," ch. xliv. 7, Mr. Bellamy should have recollected, does not relate to God; it is used by Joseph's brethren in reference to themselves. Mr. B should also have known that the word nW>n, (which is not improperly rendered in English idiom by "fur be it") has nothing to do with distance. The same formula, rtr'bn without pashta, occurs in vs. 17; consequently without remote reference.

We entreat the patience of our readers a little longer while we proceed to shew the utter falsity of Mr. Bellamy's ill-imagined system, and to demonstrate his entire want of acquaintance with Hebrew accentuation. In Gen. i. 8, «np,i occurs without pashta; in vs. 10, the same word takes pashta. In cb. ii. 2,3, the verbs nu*i*, fei* ^ai» are all without pashta, while the next verb n:i"'i

« AnteriorContinuar »