the concerns of man by his providence. It would be asserting, in plain terms, that the Scriptures have been mutilated by "the casualties of copyists, and the corrosions of time," which, if admitted, would render the words of Christ of no effect; because those Scriptures which he commanded to be searched, would become the work of man; and liable to similar objections in every age and nation till, perhaps, not a vestige of the original Scripture was to be found. What good can such writers propose to the present generation and to posterity, by inculcating doubts in the minds of the public as to the purity of the sacred original? Did they consider, how they expose the religion of the Bible by such a conduct, they would not so incautiously lay open the Christian cause to the attacks of Freethinkers, who will readily join them in their attempts to weaken, or destroy the genuineness, or authenticity of the original Hebrew scriptures.

It has been often asked, how have we various readings? The reason is obvious; after the dispersion of the Jews, Christians in the early ages of the church began to produce copies of the-Hebrew Scriptures, and not being acquainted with the Hebrew language, as appears in their writings, produced spurious copies. This accounts for the different readings resorted to by those who bring this forward as an objection. Hence the translations of the Septuagint, Arabic, Coptic, Ethiopic, Syriac, and the Vulgate, (which does not deserve to be called a translation) wherever they differ from the original Hebrew, are spurious, and ought to be rejected. Let objectors examine the authorised copies in use among the Jews, which have been handed down to them from the time of their dispersion, and they will find that they all agree; there are no different readings, consequently they must be the same as the autograph of Moses.

It has been the custom of some of your learned correspondents to quote the objections made by Dr. Kennicott, where he has supposed that there was a necessity to correct the original Hebrew Scriptures, and thus they have been led into serious errors. I have had occasion to make some remarks on this attempt to improve the word of God by the inventions of man, and will again refer the learned and unprejudiced reader to some of the Doctor's proposed mendings Exod. xv. 2. my strength and my song is the Lord. He says that n vezimrath "being irregular, should probably be . Agreeably to the Chaldee, Arabic, and Vulgate versions, the yod is necessary to , four of the six valuable MSS. agree in reading it so." But this is a weak argument in support of the authority of these MSS. If a hundred MSS. or a hundred translations were found to agree in reading it thus, are we to ruin the sense of the passage on that account? The English translation is consistent with the original, except in the transposition of the word jah, and the possessive pronoun improperly added, which does not occur in

vezimrath. The true translation of this passage evidently shows that we have no occasion to adopt such corrections as Dr. Kennicott has proposed. The literal translation is; My strength,

and song, is JAH. If Dr. Kennicott and his followers had been competently skilled in the language, they would have known that the possessive pronounyod, was not at all necessary to n vezimrath, for as it occurs in nazi, 'my strength,' and as the ↑ vau, conjunctive is prefixed to the following noun

zimrath,

it connects the pronoun, in sense, therewith. Who would suppose, when the clause is translated as it literally stands in the Hebrew, my strength and song is Jah, that my song is not understood, as well as my strength? It is far more elegant and expressive, there is no tautology in the Hebrew Scriptures: but Dr. Kennicott has been induced to give what he calls, a necessary revision of the Hebrew Scripture from the English translation of this clause. The accents on nazi, and jah, confirm this reading; to which I refer the Hebraist.

By the same objector, and others who have copied from him, we are told that " in the SEVENTH day, in the present Hebrew copy, is probably corrupted from 10 in the SIXTH day, as the Samaritan, Greek, and Syriac versions." But Dr. Kennicott, and your correspondents who have supported him, ought to have known that the clause is not in the SEVENTH day, that is, with the numeral written with the seventh letter of the alphabet, † zain; but that the ordinal numbers are used, as they always have been, in the Hebrew Bible, that is, they were always written at full length to avoid

in the בַּיּוֹם הַשִׁשִׁי ,in the SEVENTH day בַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי,error, thus

SIXTH day.

The learned and the intelligent, whether they understand Hebrew or not, must readily grant, that such mistakes as these, made by those who boldly write, and declare that there is a necessity for the correction of the Hebrew Scriptures, cannot easily justify their assertions. Thus, by erroneously concluding that irregularities and inconsistencies have been "foisted" into the original, they have presumed to find fault with the pure Hebrew, and have labored to corrupt the word of God, by substituting the bold additions of the Greek, Arabic, Samaritan, and Syriac translators, whose versions were made after the dispersion of the Jews, when the Hebrew language was but little known among Christians.

Before I conclude, I may be allowed to say, that in this day of Biblical inquiry, an attempt to reconcile those numerous contradictory parts of the translation, which have been brought forward to invalidate the truths of revelation, will, I trust, be very acceptable to all ranks of Christians. It will give no small degree of pleasure to the admirers of the divine records, when they know that there are no contradictions in the original Hebrew, though they are to be met with in the translations, and that when such passages are truly translated, they are perfectly consistent with reason and the intention of the sacred writer.

J. BELLAMY.

ON BENTLEY'S CALLIMACHUS.

To the EDITOR of the CLASSICAL JOURNAL.

How must petulance and ill-manners abound, when they overflow without the smallest provocation! In your tenth No. (p. 287.) I wrote a short article to suggest that a certain edition of Callimachus, &c. called Bentley's, was not the work of the great Bentley. It turns out that I was so far right; and, by the help of the worthy Nichols's very useful collection of literary facts, it is now ascertained that the real editor was the Rev. Thomas Bentley, one of the nephews of the great critic. (See Nichols's Literary Anecdotes, Vol. iv. p. 491, note.) So far is very well; and we might mutually rejoice that a common error has been refuted.

But your correspondent, S. S. I., chose to give himself the air of ridiculing my reasons; though they were, in fact, very good; and his own objections very foolish. I argued,

1. That Bentley was not likely to publish a classic author anonymously, at the very close of his life.

2. That he was not likely so to praise himself as he is praised in that edition.

3. That he was never at Rome, as that editor declares he had been.

Now, S. S. I. not being able to perceive the difference between publishing a classical book, and such a work as the Phileleutherus Lipsiensis, cannot see the first improbability; and thinks that the two other circumstances may be accounted for by the desire of concealment. Really, if a man cannot see why an author of established fame should not wish to conceal the very circumstance which would stamp the chief value on his book, it is hardly worth while to tell him. Or if, assigning no probable reason for such concealment, he can suppose that such a man would invent false insinuations for the sake of making it effectual ;-nothing can be seen in such a supposition, but the strange perverseness of the supposer's mind. Why Bentley wished to conceal, at first, his being the author of the Phil. Lips. we all know, except perhaps S. S. I.

On my conjecture about Dr. Warren, I laid no stress; and any one who was not determined to misunderstand, might have sup

posed that I spoke of the similar appearance of the two books; not the resemblance of the title-pages, which, as belonging to different works, must announce different things. Now, if S. S. I. does not know that a resemblance in the form and typography of a book is more evidence of a particular editor, than a vellum binding, he has very common things to learn relative to books, notwithstanding his conceit. That the matter of the edition in question is unworthy of the great Bentley, I thonght as well as he; but I hoped to rest the fact upon reasons less likely to be misapprehended by perverseness. Here, I own, I was mistaken. T. Bentley's edition of Cicero de Finibus I had not seen; otherwise I might possibly have thought of him as editor. This conjecture certainly accounted best for the name of Bentley being always currently attached to the edition.

But your learned correspondent cannot finish the subject without falling into another mistake. Speaking of Dr. T. Bentley's editions of De Finibus, Casar, and Callimachus, he adds: " these, unless we mistake, are the only classical works published by the Doctor's nephew." Then, what is the meaning of these words of his informant, J. Nichols, in the very note from which he drew his other facts? "May 21, 1713, was advertised, in a neat pocket volume, the most correct and beautiful edition ever yet printed of Q. Horatius Flaccus, ad nuperam Ricardi Bentleii editionem accuratè expressus. Notas addidit Thomas Bentleius, A. B. Coll. S. Trinitatis apud Cantabrigienses alumnus. Cantab. typis Academicis, impensis C. Crownfield?" S. S. I. will say, perhaps, because he is a disputer, that this edition, though advertised, was never published: but, as the edition stands fully recorded in catalogues, this subterfuge will not help him. The fact, then, is that Thomas Bentley published four, not three, classical books.

After all, what provocation could my former communication have given? I will venture to say that there was no arrogance in it; nothing that affected to be elaborate, as your correspondent sneeringly calls it. I had observed a common error, and I wished to correct it. I gave my reasons. If your correspondent did not like them, (as a distorted mind will seldom like right reasons) he might have given what he thought better: but why should he attack me, whom he knew not, and with whom he agreed on the main question?—I will tell you why: because he fancied he perceived an occasion for vain triumph over an unknown writer, and could not resist the temptation. This is the truth, let him disguise it as he will.

June, 1814.

N.

No. XVII. p. 36.

WorM