proceeds, would dislocate and corrupt the whole of its narrations. According to this new and curious arrangement, we have the dictation of the sacred ode, but no record of its having been sung; and the introduction of Miriain, the prophetess, and her company, in the 20th verse, is perfectly inexplicable! What would Mr. Bellamy make of Judges v. 1. 77127 wwni, “ Then “sang Deborah and Barak, the son of Abinoam, on that day, “ saying,” &c. a passage precisely corresponding to the passage in Exodus? Would he render the future of the verb, uni, “ Then li 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 he operate upon, 2 Sam. xxii. 1, 719 727, " 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 727" is in the future form : must we read,“ Then David s shall sing,” &c. ? Every man in his proper senses, who can read Hebrew, must perceive that, in the last two examples, the future verb is used to describe actions in past time, and cannot be otherwise construed ; aod he will, without hesitation, read Exod. xv 1, in exactly the same manner; “ Then Moses sang, &c.” Mr. Bellamy's irrationalities are made in bis own pages so very conspi. cuous, and they are so perfect in their kind, that to exhibit them is to refute them.

Concerning verbs written in the future form, and translated in the preter tense. In the section which this title heads, Mr. Bellauny attempts to assign the reason that verbs written in the future form with the vau 1 prefixed, are very frequently translated in the preterite, which, it seeins, has remained concealed from the knowledge of every former writer since the time of Christ. He 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 the beginning of a subject is written in the preter 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 are future to the action described by the first verb at the be. ginning of the subject. And they are translated in the preter, because the y 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 xna bara, he created, which is connected with #" cayomer, and he said, in the 3d verse; tenang vayare, and he saw 1972 vayabilecl, and he divided, in the 4th verse ; and spy vayikra, and he called, in the 5th verse ; which verbs describe actions after the action described by the first verb: therefore, being actions future to the first preter, they are written in the future form, and the 1 van connects the preter tense of the verb xna bara, with every verb, till the subject of these verbs terminates, which is 798 aor, light, or Or yom, day, where the stop katon finishes the 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 verb, nypu shaamangta, thou hast hearkened, followed by the future form of the verb, boxny vatokal, and thou hast eaten : so as above, the action described is future to the action mentioned in the preceding verb nyow shaamangta, thou hast heark. ened.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 bis 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.

M72 Gen. i. 1, is unquestionably a verb in the preter tense, and the following verbs, inclusive of you in the 5th verse, are futures; but in what manner can the proposition be finished with the noun or ON? The proposition extends beyond these words. Abis Nap yunbo is as much a part of the proposition, “ And God called the light day, and the darkness he called « night," as ywam yan in the preceding verse is a part of the proposition, “ And God divided between the light and between is the darkness.” **p kara, is no more the beginning of a subject, than is sp, and both equally describe actions subsequent or future to nya. If the proposition finishes so early in the chapter, it rather finishes with ann Or yom echad, day the first, 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 the future 7019 is used, while the latter exhibits the preterite yon. It is very unnecessary to pursue the subject for the purpose of convicting Mr. Bellamy of error; but as he has mixed up so much assurance with his erro. neous effusions, and as it may be of some use to expose his disingenuous proceedings, and his pretensions to knowledge which he 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 the preter : Now Adam 973 yaadang, knew, followed by the futures inmi va tahar, and she conceived ; 7579 va taled, and she bare; Joshi va tomer, and she said. Vers. 2d, noni va toseph, and she added; 77 va yehi, and he was. And the proposition ends at the following word INÝ tson, sheep, The

[ocr errors]

simple PRETER again begins at the head of the series, 7471 va haayah, and it was, followed by the future forms 179 va yehi, and it was; 23" va yaabee, and he had brvught ; verse 3d.”

What could induce Mr. Bellamy to write in this manner, but the veriest fondness for the offspring of his perverted mind? He never could have, but for this folly, ventured to affirm that • the proposition ends at the following word ?#8: it is plainly carried forward to the conclusion of the verse, as every unbiassed reader must acknowledge. Mr. Bellamy saw the rueTER 77971 ju bis way, directly opposed to bis system, and therefore he stops short, and contrary to fact, affirms that the proposition closes with pn3 tson, sheep! The simple preter 177 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 was.” It is the verb to the nominative

Cain, 777'P, “ And Cain_was.” The whole passage needs only be read, to refute Mr. Bellamy's hypothesis, and to expose bis very unfair manner of supporting it. “And Adam knew

(079) Éve his wife, and she conceived and bare (1761 9701) Cain, “ and said, (70XNI) I have gotten a man from the Lord. (Vs. 2.) “And she again (Foni) bare (1733) his brother Abel, and Abel was

(*" future) a keeper of sheep, but Cain was (797 preter) a 11

“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. I'. On the pluperfect Tense. The rule for the proper use of

this tense, is among the discoveries made in Hebrew pbilology by Mr. Bellamy. To all other Hebraists has it been unknown

since the dispersion of the Jews. How felicitous are the times 1 in which we live! The learned Bochart,” (Buxtorf, we sup

pose,) 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 Hebræorum deliver bis doctrine on the Pluperfect

Tense. 1 (The rule for the modification of the preter tense, depends on the

accent owo pashta, i. e. to put of, which is its meaning. That is, it is *s0 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. 5, that she Vol. X. N. S.


[ocr errors]

HAD conceived ; ch. xix. 17, when they had brought them forth; ch. xxxiii, 19, he was there spread; ch. xxxv. 7, 14, For there lie nad repaired the altar, also he had preached ; Jacob Had erected: ver. 15, Jacob had called the name of the place where God nad 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 nwb (wwb) 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 wan, 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. l. ; again, ch. vi. 7, I have created, referring to the first of the human race, the most remote as to person and time, and there. fore the aorist is repeated on the verb. Ch. iii. 17, I commanded thee. This plainly carries the

mind to the state in Eden when God had commanded them, saying, Thou shalt 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, We said ; that was, at the most remote time, concerning the subject in question at their first journey. Vers. 21, 23, Thou saidst ; at the same period.'

The rule for the pluperfect tense depends, it seems, on the accent ows pashta : a single pashta puts off the time of the preter to a time more remote than the simple preter, and

a double pashta removes it still more remote. So says Mr. Bellamy; now for his proofs. Gen. xvi. 5, “ She had conceived;" the verb non is without pashta! Ch. xix. 17, “ When they had “ brought them forth, he said, 701":” nothing can be more evident than that the verb_" he said,refers to a time following that of the verb 83' in the preceding clause ; it was after “ they “had brought them forth," that " he said :" but according to Mr. Bellamy's doctrine, the verb 08"? refers to a time more remote than the verb 43, the latter verb having only one pashta, while the former has double pashta. Ch. xxxiii. 19, “ He had there “ spread :" the verb 1703, he spread, bas no pashta! In the following verse, 20th, the verb, he built, nato dw zyn, “ And he « built there un altar," has no pashta. We find, however, in the subsequent part of the verse, a pashta on the verb map, “ And he called :” the altar, we imagine, must have been built before it could be named, and therefore ip does not express an action more remote than 3*". 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 13, “ 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. Bellainy's first example. There is however uo 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, “ And the woman said,” (10Nm with pashta): not, had said. In the same way it occurs in vs. 17, " And thou hast “ eaten,” (3001 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 Ch.iv. 1.“ She had conceived,"an expression which, according to Mr. Bellamy, refers to the most remote time, i. e. that which preceded the Fall! But to what remote time can 17 07871, “And Adam knew “Eve his wife,” refer? No pashta marks the verb vt. The whole description evidently refers to a period subsequent to the expul. sion from Eden, which is the subject of the concluding verses of the preceding chapter. In Ch. xxi. 2, we have“ And she bare,” (75m with pashta,) which has no reference to remote time. In Ch. xxix. 35, “ And she conceived,” (170with pashta) occurs without remote reference : and the same verse exhibits an example of the use of double pashta (ny), “ And she said,” which cannot be construed as including remote time, even according to Mr. Bellamy's own rendering, “ Moreover she 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, wbich 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 731377, (which is not improperly rendered in English idiom by "far be it,”!) has nothing to do with distance. The same formula, non 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. j. 8, 1999 occurs without pashta; in vs. 10, the same word takes pashta. Jo ch. ii. 2, 3, the verbs , , , , '

[ocr errors]

וישבה aslita , while the next verbון are all without ,ויכלו ,וכל ,גשה

« ElőzőTovább »