be a Heemantive noun feminine, and, consequently, that it is truly rendered in the national version, "the gathering."-But Mr. Bellamy, notwithstanding the lapse of more than a year between the publishing of his "New Translation" and his “Critical Examination," declares, in the latter work, this noun Л to be an infinitive, which, in the former, he had represented as the third person sing. future: and this too, on the authority of the Common Version, on which he has bestowed so much unqualified abuse. He finds, from his concordance I suppose, that p (the same word with the preposition prefixed) occurs in Proverbs xxx, 17, and that it is, in the King's Bible, which none of its numerous advocates pretend to be literal, rendered"to obey ;" and having discovered from Lindley Murray that "to obey" is the infinitive of the English verb, the New Translator concludes, and "some grammarians" may think naturally enough, that the Hebrew word which it represents, must of necessity be the infinitive also. He then proceeds, "Will our critic inform his readers how the same word, with the same vowels, in this verse in Genesis, is converted into a noun? But he must remember that there is no authority whatever for the article the; viz. the gathering: so take away the article the, and the word gathering remains in the common version, which some grammarians would call a participle." Does Mr. Bellamy wish this to be considered as a proof of his assertion that the Hebrew is the most certain and correct language in the world? He first converts a noun substantive feminine, into a verb of the third person singular future; after the lapse of a year, he declares it to be the infinitive; and then, to crown the whole, says that there are "some grammarians" (and this Vindicator of the Hebrew does not find fault with them) who would call this unfortunate noun a participle. In number 9 of his Appendix, Mr. Whittaker shows Mr. Bellamy's improper translation of Gen, iv, 4. "N7 (3rd pers. sing. pret. Hiph.) And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock.' King's Bible. But Abel, came even with firstlings of his sheep.' New Version. Mr. Bellamy's interpretation would have been correct, had the original been No2 (3rd pers. sing. pret. Kal.) See Grammar." In number 65 he in like manner animadverts upon Mr. B.'s version of Gen. xxiv, 1. " (part. Ben. sing. masc.) And Abraham was old, (and) well stricken in age.' King's Bible. 'Now Abraham was old: the days had come.' New Version. This error is similar to that noticed in Art. 43." That your readers may have the whole matter before them, I will quote the whole of Article 43. "Gen. xviii, 11. D'N (part. Ben. pl.) Now Abraham and Sarah (were) old (and) well stricken in age.' King's Bible. Now Abraham and Sarah were old, the days had come.' New Version. This would require the Hebrew to have been (3rd person pl. pret. Kal), even allowing the accent Siphcha to convert this word into a pluperfect or remote preter. Mr. Bellamy has also omitted the preposition prefixed to the ensuing word.” Now all these observations, Sir, being evidently at first sight in strict accordance with the grammar of the language, your readers will wonder what objections the most fastidious critic could possibly make to them. Mr. Bellamy, notwithstanding, attacks them with great asperity, and congratulates himself on having obtained a complete victory over his antagonist. That I may avoid the charge of misrepresentation, I will quote all that he has said on this subject. "But as this gentleman has boasted of the liberality of the Syndics of the University in defraying the expense of his work, why did they not first call upon him to correct his book, when he had made such unpardonable errors in grammar? See in his Appendix, art. 9, where he says N baa is the third person singular preter in Kal; and art. 65, where he declares that the very same word is the participle active. And yet this gentleman pretends to be a grammarian, and pompously sends forth an Appendix, stating this and others to amount to one hundred and thirty-four errors in the New Translation. Surely this has escaped the eye of the learned Syndics of the University, or they would not have countenanced by their purse and authority the publication of a work, the author of which, as it evidently appears, cannot conjugate a simple verb, in Hebrew. Now in consequence of his having made a verb, befel, where I have made a preposition, before, I suppose he thought it would give him a plausible opportunity, among others, of saying, as he has said in the following words, Any attempt to arrive at the meaning of this extraordinary phraseology being quite beyond the scope of human ingenuity, we can only observe that the New Translator has rendered a noun substantive in Hebrew, not by a verb, but by two verbs. This gentleman has been hurried on by his passion to misrepresent the New Translation. If he regard his honor, or the credit of his profession, he will acknowledge his error publicly."-Critical Examination, page 48. He resumes the subject in page 128: "But this objector says, 'Mr. Bellamy's interpretation would have been correct, had the original been baa, third person singular preter, Kal; see grammar.' But with all this gentleman's parade about grammar, what will the learned and unprejudiced reader say to his grammatical, not to mention critical, knowledge, when in the Appendix, No. 65, on Gen. xxiv, 1, he tells his unconscious reader, that this very word N baa, which in No. 9 he positively declares to be the third person singular preter in Kal, he as positively, in page 316, No. 65, declares to be 'the participle Benoni (active) singular masculine.' There needs no other argument to prove this gentleman's utter defection in the grammar of the sacred language. It would be absurd indeed to translate 2 Kings x, 21. there was not a man left that COMING not, instead of, there was not a man left that CAME not. Ch. XXV, 8. COMING Nebuzar-adan, captain of the guard, instead of, CAME Nebuzar-ad-an, captain of the guard. Thus it is properly translated in the preter tense came, in above a hundred places in the authorised version, and in above fifty as I have rendered it. This objector, however, calls this one of the one hundred and thirty-four errors in the New Translation. The reader will see, that whether the New Translation be sanctioned by the grammar of the Hebrew, or by the authorised version, this gentleman and his party must condemn it. I have, in the course of the last ten years, met with many such sciolists, who have passed themselves off for great Hebrew scholars, but who did not know a noun from an adverb in Hebrew; others who, like our critic, could not distinguish the THIRD PERSON SINGULAR Preter from the PARTICIPLE BENONI SINGULAR MASCULINE."-page 129. Our author gives his opponent the coup de grace in page 142, where he thus writes:-"Gen. xxiv, 1. N (participle Benoni, active, sing. masc.) And Abraham was old and well stricken in age.' King's Bible. Now Abraham was old: the days had come.' New Version. See on Gen. iv, 4. where our critic says that this word is the third person singular preter." It is impossible, Sir, that any one not entirely unacquainted with the very rudiments of Hebrew grammar, could indite such matter as I have just now quoted; such observations as these can excite no other feeling than pity for the ignorance and presumption displayed by their author. Had we not the fact before our eyes, we should be apt to deem it impossible that any one, presuming to instruct others, could be so deficient himself in the very first elements of his profession. Here, however, we find Mr. Bellamy making it a matter of grave charge against his opponent, that he has consi בָּא dered in one place to be a verb and in another a participle. This alone would be sufficient to show the illiterate habits of this gentleman, and ought to convince him how totally unfit he is to meddle with subjects of this description. Let me, Sir, beseech this author to turn to Buxtorf's Thesaurus, and there he will see that in Kal the 3rd. pers. sing. masc. pret. and the part. Ben. sing. masc. of verbs having vau for their second radical, are alike as well in consonants as in vowels; he will also find from the above learned performance, (and not from that only, but equally well from any other,) that verbs with vau for their second radical in Kal, have the sing. masc. imp., the sing. masc. part. pret., and the infinitive, all written alike. Nor is this resemblance of one part of the verb to another confined to this conjugation or to this description of verbs; our author will, if he take the trouble to examine, discover it in almost every conjugation and in almost every description of verbs; and the only possible way, as you well know, Sir, in which it can be determined whether, in such case, a word is the preterite, or whether it is the participle, whether it is the imperative or whether it is the infinitive, whether it is a noun or whether it is a verb, or any other part of speech, is by attending to the construction. Of this Mr. Bellamy seems to be ignorant. I have now, for the present at least, done with Mr. Bellamy; and sorry am I not to be able to recommend him to the notice of your readers for any literary excellence. I may, Sir, at no very distant time, in order to prevent delusion, and to re-assure those whose minds may have been troubled by his assertions of the defective state of the National Translation, introduce him again to your readers; I may then present to your view some of the errors and misrepresentations of which he has been guilty, in what he calls "The Anti-Deist." In the mean time, if he should think fit to reply to any of the observations which I have felt it my duty to make in the preceding pages, let him do what he promised to do in his "New Translation," and which if he had done no one would have complained: let him, in short, produce authority for his assertions and opinions; for unless they be corroborated, they will be of no weight whatever with any one at all conversant with the subject. Cambridge, 1822. J. WILLIAMS. 346 COMICORUM GRÆCORUM FRAGMENTA; SPECIMEN EDITIONIS A G. BURGES. No. II. [Continued from No. XLIV. p. 288.] SEMEL jam fragmenta quædam Comicorum Græcorum, a Plutarcho conservata, tractavi in Cl. Jl. N. 44. p. 277 et sqq, iterumque alia, utcunque lacera, quæ scriptori eidem, hac in parte, pretiosissimo debentur, componere libet. Verba Historici in Periclis vita, T. 1. p. 153. D. ita vulgantur: Τῶν δὲ Κωμικῶν ὁ μὲν Κρατῖνος ἐν Χείροσι στάσις δέ, φησιν, καὶ πρεσβυγενὴς χρόνος ἀλλήλοισι μιγέντε μέγιστον τίκτετον τύραννον, ὃν δὲ κεφαληγερέταν θεοὶ καλέουσι, καὶ πάλιν ἐν Νεμέσει, μόλε ὦ Ζεῦ ξένιε καὶ μακάριε· Τηλεκλείδης δὲ, ποτὲ μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν πραγμάτων ἠπορημένον καθῆσθαί φησιν αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ πόλει καρηβοροῦντα, ποτὲ δὲ μόνον ἐκ κει φαλῆς ἑνδεκακλίνου θόρυβον πολὺν ἐξανατέλλειν· ὁ δὲ Εὔπολις ἐν τοῖς Δήμοις πυνθανόμενος περὶ ἑκάστου τῶν ἀναβεβηκότων ἐξ "Αιδου δημα γωγῶν, ὡς ὁ Περικλῆς ὠνομάσθη τελευταῖος, ὅτι περ κεφαλαῖον τῶν κάτωθεν ἤγαγες. Atqui scripsit, aut debuit scribere, Plutarchus, Τῶν δὲ Κωμικῶν ὁ μὲν Κρατῖνος ἐν Χείρωσι, Στάσις δὲ καὶ πρεσβυγενὴς Κρόνος ἀλλήλοισι μιγέντε μέγαν Τιτάνα, καὶ πάλιν ἐν Νεμέσει, [εἴ τι] μέλει σοὶ Ζεῦ σχίνου μακροκάρανε, Τηλεκλείδης δὲ ποτὲ μὲν διὰ τῶν κοινῶν ἀποροῦνθ ̓ ἦσθαι καὶ κραταβαροῦντα, ποτὲ δ ̓ αὖ νεῦμ ̓ εὖ κινεῖν κεφαλῆς οἷόν τ ̓ εἶναι δεκακλίνῳ [οἴκῳ, καὶ,] φασὶ, πόλει [κεῖνον] θόρυβον πολὺν ἐξανατέλλειν, ὁ δὲ Εὔπολις ἐν τοῖς Δήμοις, πυνθανόμενος περὶ ἑκάστου τῶν ἀναβεβη κότων ἐξ ᾅδου δημαγωγῶν, ὡς ὁ Περικλῆς ὠνομάσθη τελευταῖος, λέγει, Οπερ κεφαλαῖον τῶν κάτωθεν ἦν, ἄγεις Inter hæc nonnulla tam sententiæ quam metri causa emendavi supplevique, partim ope Codicum, ingeniique partim. In primis Κρόνος vice Χρόνος exhibent Varr. Lectt. Optime. Etenim πρεσβυγενὴς Κρόνος est populus, quem sub persona senis in scenam introduxit ipse Comicus in Equitibus; idemque jure dici poterat Κρόνος eo sensu, quo ridetur Justus in Nub. 929. Κρόνος ὤν. Quod ad πρεσβυγενής cf. omnino Aristoph. Nub. 358. χαῖρ ̓ ὦ πρεσβῦτα παλαιογενές : neque omitti debet Pla |