application of a great variety of passages in the Old Testamen by the writers of the New, in support of this doctrine, autho rises us to conclude, that the authors of these had precisely the same meaning, which their Christian commentators ascribed to them. The Targumin on Deut. xxxiii. 6. Is. xxvi. 19. Ezek xxxvii. 3. 5. Hos. vi. 2. xiii. 14. Dan. xii. 2. are satisfactory evidences of the opinions prevalent at the period in which they were written; and Josephus, speaking of the yyarτpiuutos at Endor, remarks, ἡ δὲ ἀγνοοῦσα τὸν Σαμουηλον, ὅστις ἦν, καλεῖ τοῦ τον ἐξ ἀδοῦ. The rabbinical Jews firmly believed the immortality of the say the מי שכפר בהחיית המתים) ,soul. Whosoever denies this most ancient commentators) shall not live in the days of the Messiah, even if all his other works be good. The the ND, the D on the one hand, and on the other, must be ארץ התחתית צלמות טיט היון דומה באר שחת the referred to ideas familiar to the people, for whose reading the respective works were intended, and certainly induce us to imagine, that these ideas were of very remote antiquity, at the time of the composition of the books in which these expressions occur. "Know thou," says Maimonides, "that man must necessarily dic, and be resolved into that, from whence he was originally composed.” We must, also, make considerable deductions from the statement of Epiphanius (Hæres. 9.) that the Samaritans neither knew nor believed the resurrection; at least, our present Samaritan Pentateuch avouches no such doctrine. The prejudices entertained by the Jews against them, and from them transmitted to the Fathers, who rarely had patience to weigh an assertion, whether it was or was not gratuitous, easily unravel the cause of the many aspersions heaped upon them. Hence we discover Josephus losing no opportunity of depressing them, if by so doing he can exalt his own nation; and as in later times the Pharisees indiscriminately applied the opprobrious epithet to both Sadducees and Samaritans, the latter became, frequently, charged with the Heresy, if not the Deism of the former. When Epiphanius admits, that the orifeo, who were Samaritans, acknowledged the resurrection, he completely refutes his other assertions, and it has been ably proved by Leland, that when the Samaritan Chronicon was written, this doctrine was by no means denied by them; therefore, both Jews and Samaritans argued from the works of Moses a future immortal existence. We have but little concern with the Karaites, who believed that the souls of the just, immediately after death, ascended to Olam Habha, and those of the wicked descended to Gihinnom. The books Yetsirah, Sohar, and Bahir, falsely ascribed to Abraham, but undeniably of very great antiquity, show that this doctrine was of no recent invention, and the Gentile and Cabbalistical schemes of Transmigration exhibit the various ways, in which man has endeavoured to explain to himself the eternal duration of the soul. Josephus says of the Pharisees, that they thought ψυχὴν δὲ πᾶσαν μὲν ἄφθαρτον, μεταβαίνειν δὲ εἰς ἕτερον σῶμα τὴν τῶν ἀγαθῶν μονὸν, τὴν δὲ τῶν φαυλῶν ἀϊδιῷ τιμωριᾷ κολάζεσθαι. These idle dogmata τῶν συζητητῶν τοῦ αἴωνος τούτου, (rabbinice PMD) St. Paul admirably refuted, in the 15th chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, which forms the lesson to our Burial Service, and therein established the genuine doctrine of the resurrection on its true and only foundation. Clemens Romanus, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, elegantly alludes to this subject, xaravonowμev, x. T. A. The fable, that the κατανοήσωμεν, κ. τ. λ. garden of Eden, Gihinnom, and the throne of glory, were among the seven things created before the foundation of the world, evinces the remote date which the Jewish fabulists ascribed to these opinions:-See Manasse Ben Israel, and the author of the book Cosri. We must bear in mind, that they borrowed largely from Plato and Aristotle, and in a great degree accommodated Scriptural interpretations to their notions; for instance, the rabbinical is immediately discerned in the Teλex of the latter. The sentiments of the Alexandrine school greatly influenced their theological inquiries, from whence the Gilgal Haneshamōth, &c. flowed to them from the puerile mysticisms of the oriental writers. No small portion of the Mithraic tenets is observable in the accounts of Or-Haensoph; and no small transcript of the ʊxǹ xooμoũ in the rabbinical legends of Pandälphon. But our position rests on a more stable basis than the idle dreams of these visionary men; and we have shown that that basis is divine Revelation. If the books of Moses inculcated no such doctrine, it is strange, whence the sentiments relating to an immortal state, which we have produced, before the times of the Jewish prophets, could have originated. But, if we admit the New Testament to be an adequate exposition, and our Saviour to be a correct expositor, we must, in opposition to certain learned men, decide that the books of Moses did contain these opinions; consequently, that a future condition of everlasting rewards and punishments was believed and expected by the ancient Hebrews. * الناس اخیاف وشتي في الشيم و كلهم يجمعه بيت الادم 1 DANIEL GUILDFORD WAIT. Blagdon Rectory. CLASSICAL CRITICISM. Ir appears very strange to me, that the acute genius of Ως προσβασιν τωνδ ̓ ὀρθιαν οίκων έχει None of these readings appear to convey a clear and accurate conception to the mind. Musgrave's, which Porson pronounces the best, seems too far fetched and distant from that simplicity, which is such a characteristic feature of Euripides. Valckenaer's conjecture inßao' àπŋvns (ut scil. yun subaudiatur) is liable to the same objection. ! The Arabic poet in Hamasa. What I would humbly propose then, as an improvement on this passage, is to read avayxn instead of the common dл, to substitute for Tε, putting a comma instead of a full stop after thus altered will be as follows, - λαβου δ' αύτου, τέκνον, TEXVOV. The passage ὡς πασ ̓ ἀναγκη πους γε πρεσβυτου φίλει χειρος θυραίας ἀναμενειν κουφίσματα. Take hold of him, my son, since it is quite necessary; yes, the foot of an old man usually requires the assistance of some foreign hand. An old man requires to be supported by the hand of another. This reading seems to convey at least a clear and intelligible idea; nor am I aware that an unwarrantable liberty has been taken with the text. The phrase ao' avayxn is quite legitimate as it occurs in Herod. lib.i.c.112. εἶδε πασα ἀναγκη ὀφθηναι exxeiμavov. Te and Te are often substituted for one another; and the former of these particles is often rendered as has been done here: see Monk's Alcest. v. 41. I have followed the advice of the great Porson in attempting to improve this passage; with what success, let others judge: and I shall be happy to discover that they, like me, can find oudev upeiσσov avayxns. Accents I consider as quite superfluous, and have therefore abstained from the use of them. We Hyperboreans cannot adapt our organs to such delicate inflections of voice as they require.' Edinburgh. A. C. ON MR. BELLAMY'S NEW TRANSLATION Ir is of importance to the public to ascertain whether Mr. Bellamy's censures of the authorised version of the Bible are just, and whether his new translation has the merit of superior accuracy. The main point at issue between Mr. Bellamy and his opponents is, not whether the authorised translation is or is not capable of improvement, for many of our eminent divines, who are fully sensible of its general accuracy and excellence, have expressed an earnest desire to see it revised and brought 1 If our Correspondent " followed the advice of the great Porson,” he would not "consider accents as quite superfluous."-ED. to a higher degree of perfection; but, admitting that there is room for improvement, whether what Mr. Bellamy considers as erroneous translations, are really such, and whether his new translation is likely to supply the desideratum-whether he appears competent, from what he has already written, to give us a more accurate and faithful version of the Hebrew Scriptures. I think the appendix to Mr. Whittaker's "Historical and Critical Inquiry into the interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures," compared with Mr. Bellamy's "Critical examination of the objections made to the New Translation," will go a great way towards determining the question. Mr. Whittaker, in his appendix A, charges Mr. Bellamy with violations of the Hebrew grammar in no less than 134 places in his translation of the book of Genesis alone. Mr. Bellamy denies the charge, and endeavours to support the accuracy of his New Translation. Now if Mr. Whittaker's charge can be substantiated in any considerable number of instances, no doubt can remain on the mind of any unprejudiced person as to the incompetence of Mr. Bellamy for the important task he has undertaken: a task which requires no ordinary share of application, learning, modesty, taste, and judgment. Mr. Bellamy professes to give a correct translation from the Hebrew only. Now it is necessary to a correct translation, that it should convey the sense of the original in words as nearly equivalent as the idioms of the two languages will admit. I say in words as nearly equivalent, for it is not possible to convey the sense of the original, if a strictly literal translation be given of every Hebrew word. Words must sometimes be supplied to complete the sense, and a single Hebrew word will often require 2 or more words to convey the meaning in English. I have been induced to make these observations, because Mr. Bellamy seems to entertain some singular opinions on the principles of translation. From the following passages he appears to think that a translation cannot be correct, unless every single Hebrew word is rendered by a single English word." I have said that the word haraah, which is rendered were with child, is but one word, consequently cannot be translated as a verb, a noun, and a preposition." 2 "This writer" (Mr. Whittaker,) "has attempted to show some skill on Gen. xxv. then ויגוע וימת אגרהם and says that ,8 See particularly Abp. Newcome on Biblical translations. |