V. 5. Ch. ii. curse. It is an anomaly of precisely the same nature as the preceding; and it must tend to destroy all confidence in Hebrew writ to be informed that, in one instance, one and the same word may mean God and perdition, and in another, one and the same word blessing and cursing. We only now revert to the passage to observe that the learned editor, with the same candour he exhibits in the preceding passage, admits the erroneous construction of his very excellent friend, and inclines to the opinion that it may be, and therefore ought to be, in every instance, rendered in the former sense. These directly opposite significations of the word 7 have given rise to a curious anomaly in a modern language; the word · segnen which, in German, invariably signifies to bless, and is, throughout the Bible, as invariably applied to explain the Hebrew term in its holy meaning, follows it also in its deviation from it; and the dictionaries tell us, upon the credit of these six passages, that it sometimes signifies to curse. It would sound harshly in our ears, if the same liberty had been taken with our language; that the word bless had been indiscriminately used; and when Johnson had told us, that in these it had a directly opposite signification.' passages We should, in such case, have as much discredited Johnson's opinion, as we do that of any German lexicographer who will undertake to affirm that segnen ever means to curse: and all that can be collected from the German rendering is, that the translators by confining themselves to one and the same term in their translation, shew obviously that they attached but one and the same meaning to the original word. Segen, indeed, the German substantive from which the verb segnen is derived, imports not only a blessing, but occasionally a charm, an enchantment, a spell, a sorcery, and of course something in opposition to a blessing. But these derivations are clear and successive; so are the opposite senses of consecration and execration in the Latin term sacer, and our own synonym devote or devoted: and even those of the Hebrew be may be followed up by a similar clue. Some such words, possessed of antagonist significations, each indirectly issuing from the other, are to be met with in all languages: but is not one of such words: there is no possible chain by which the contradictory sense of blessing and cursing can be equally referred to it. Ch. iv. 20. Because they are not made for continuance they perish.' In this ingenious and quite new construction, the translator has evinced a very superior taste and judgement. By uniting to the participle on she has avoided the error into which all our commentators have fallen, by joining it to 17381 and who have thus لا been obliged to supply a word, to make out the meaning: They perish eternally, Meshim (led.), without man's putting it to heart; or, as our version renders it, without any regarding it: whereas by combining with ow the sense is far better, and word for word rendered with the most grammatical accuracy." We admit the ingenuity of this new construction: but it is tautological, and unnecessary. The common interpretation does not absolutely require the supply of any word to give it a meaning, nor does, properly speaking, signify because. The literal rendering, and in the order of the words, is, " Imperceptibly (without notice or perception) they are for ever consuming." Ch. vi. 6. Will the insipid be eaten because there is no salt? Is there any taste in the drivel of dreams? Upon the first line of this couplet Dr. Randolph observes very justly, This construction is not quite correct. Miss SMITH evidently wishes to preserve the force of an which clearly implies causation. It had been better therefore to have put it thus: Can one eat what is insipid from want of salt? thus coupling the want of salt with the insipidity occasioned by that want. The latter part of the verse, the drivel of dreams, is derived from Parkhurst; vid. his Dictionary on on. It is certainly no very favourable amendment; but Schultens, who supports the idea, makes by far the best defence of it. The babarder of the French, futilia et absurda proferre, is a happy iliustration.' We may add, that to translate thus is to drivel awake. Our bible version though confused in the former part of the couplet, is clearly and nearly correct in the latter. Ch. viii. 6. They are finished for want of thread.' Dr. Randolph observes, evidently right, p is often used in this sense: and the metaphor of the shuttle is preserved.' To us it is very far from being evidently right. But right or wrong, Miss Smith is indebted for the rendering primarily to A. Schultens, whose version is Et consumuntur expirante tramâ.” And we here have another proof of her being acquainted with collateral aids, and especially with that of Scott, who has avowedly copied the passage from the Dutch critic, as Miss Smith probably did from the former. Why is the 1, and, omitted in this version? Such omissions, sometimes of real consequence, are frequent. Ch. ix. 9. For our common rendering-" which maketh Arcturus, Orion, and the Pleiades, and the chambers of the south," Miss Smith gives us He maketh the blight, the cold, and the genial warmth, This we think is obviously from Dr. Stock, whose version is "Who maketh the blight, the cold, and the warmth, And the chambers of the south." The additional words genial and prepareth in the new translation are errors of commission. They are neither necessary nor in the original. Dr. Randolph does not altogether approve of this change from the common text. We altogether disapprove of it. Ch. xiii. 3. I desire earnestly to speak to the Almighty, I should rejoice to reason with God.' In a subjoined note the fair author proposes another version, and we copy it as an additional proof that she had not settled her text. • Nevertheless I will speak to the Almighty, It is my pleasure to reason with God.' We prefer the common version to both these. The 1, and, which commences the second line of the couplet, is here also omitted as in Ch. vii. 6. Ch. xiv, 13, 14. So man lieth down, and shall not arise, we Till there be no heavens he shall not be awakened, He shall not be disturbed from his sleep. O that thou wouldst hide me in the grave! We like the whole of this rendering except set a mark, for which we would substitute the common reading. And agree with Dr. Randolph, that it seems scarcely possible for words to paint more beautifully, or more strongly, a belief and hope in a future resurrection and judgement: and yet strange to tell, this passage has been adduced in direct proof of the contrary.' Ch. xv. 31. Let him not trust in prosperity, being deceived, For his palm trees shall be vanity :' We do not approve of the alteration in the first line, but there is an orientalism in the second which pleases us, and the text will bear it. Ch. xvi. 19.-21. Yet now behold! in heaven, is my witness, My mediator, my friend, To GOD his eyes drop tears. And he pleadeth for man with God, Upon this passage the learned editor favours us with the following note. For the singularly beautiful, and, let me add literal version of this passage, Miss Smith is partly indebted to Mr. Parkhurst; and unless the correctness of the translation be disputed, it doubtless contains another explicit avowal of Job's trust and confidence in a Redeemer, who was to come, mighty to save. One exception, however, must be made, (unless she read final for) to her changing the person of the possessive pronoun; which in conformity to grammar and perhaps also in point of taste, had better remain unaltered: A my mediator or advocate, my friend; and why render y terminating with the same pronoun, his eyes, and which very word also, in the 9th verse of the succeeding chapter, she justly translates mine eyes. Had it not been better to have done the same here? for it would not have varied the act of intercession, but only the mode and urgency of the suit. The whole then would read thus, Yet now behold! in heaven is my witness, And He, who knoweth my actions, on high; To GOD mine eye droppeth tears, (i. e. I pour forth my lamentations to GOD,) And He (vid. my Mediator) pleadeth for man,' &c. The looseness of Miss Smith's rendering is obvious: but we are afraid her learned friend's correction, can hardly make it support the high and important doctrine which the note glances at. The real rendering, allowing full force to the particle 1, in its different meanings in different places, is we apprehend as follows, Yet now behold! my appeal is to heaven, Deriders of me are my companions: As the offspring of man with his fellow. , in the fourth line, (b) has the force of , as in Joshua vii. 5. and other places. Ch. xix. 22. For our common rendering, "why do ye persecute me as God?" we have here, Upon which we have the following note of the erudite editor. This translation is wholly inadmissible; and is evidently occasioned by Miss Smith's reading for ; Why do you persecute me as God, is certainly a strange expression to apply to the persecutions of man and Miss SMITH is not singular in her opinion, that here did not signify God, for one of the best rabbinical commentators, R. Levi Ben Gerschom, prefers taking for the pronoun these with the n deficient, as it is used in I Chron. xx. 8. Why do you persecute me like these, alluding to the 18th and 19th verses.' We do not approve of Miss Smith's alteration, for it has far less force than that of our established version: but it is by no means so inadmissible, as Dr. Randolph apprehends. The original transferred into Arabic characters would be, literally, like a deer; for we have only to read for 125 , to have it ut cervum: and we thought we had here traced for the first time, a proof of Miss Smith's acquaintance with Arabic, and her bringing forward such knowledge to her assistance. But on turning to Parkhurst we find he has made 8, a deer, a derivative from bx, and given it under § xv. Reiske however considers, in this very passage, the textual word itself, as synonymous with the Arabic or 8, and has rendered it expressly persequimini me ut cervum?" 66 quare Ch. xix. 24. 25. 26. This very obscure passage is thus rendered, chiefly from Parkhurst. • But I know that my Redeemer liveth, Then shall my skin encompass this, (body) Mine own eye shall see him, and not another, Upon this version we have a very long and elaborate note, from the pen of the excellent editor, in proof that it developes, and is designed to develope, the patriarch's. acquaintance with the evangelical doctrine of the redemption of the world by our blessed Saviour. In the course. of the argument we think Warburton is treated somewhat too contemptuously; nor are we altogether satisfied with its force. We do not mean to say that this triumphant doctrine was unknown to the patriarch and his friends, but the present sublime exclamation is not sufficiently demonstrative. We prefer St. Jerom's rendering of , by redemptor, or redeemer, as we have it in our common version, to vindicator, or avenger, or any other word that has since been employed, and especially by the continental critics: but we have no decisive instance of its signifying redeemer in the evangelical sense of the term, or that implied in the Christian Scriptures. For the rest, though we cannot allow our established reading of this passage to be correct, we have never yet seen any that is preferable to it. We lament that we have not space to enter critically, and at length, into what we apprehend would form a clear and verbal rendering. |