Egyptians, who reckoned by the rural year, were about 23 or 24 days behind time, at the commencement of the new Sothic period, in the year 138.

We have seen that those, who invented the cycle called the Ner, calculated the length of the solar year more exactly, by nearly 5 minutes, than was done afterwards by Hipparchus, jamais assez loué, as M. De Lambre says. Is it not then rather surprising, that this great astronomer should yet speak of the Ner, as of a cycle of which the discovery indicated little or no science? M. De Lambre of course did not write with the intention of decrying the reputation of the ancient Egyptians and Chaldeans as astronomers; but his book, I might say every page of it, announces his prejudices upon this subject. The truth is, that Bailli had estimated so highly the knowledge of his unnamed nation of astronomers, and had exhibited so many proofs that a great system of science once existed, that modern philosophers felt their presumed immense superiority in astronomy in danger of being disputed. They had long been in the habit of comparing themselves with the Greeks, and of triumphing in the comparison. But here, all at once, the flood-gates of scepticism were thrown open, and nations, whom the Greeks never designated but as Barbarians, were set up as the rivals in science of the moderns themselves. This was intolerable; and the progress of such rash opinions was to be checked. The Greeks were now to be extolled as the first people of antiquity, who knew any thing about astronomy; and as their competition with the moderns was not to be dreaded, satisfied vanity was not afraid to laud their exertions :—as the man without jealousy praises the boy, who begins to show some skill and strength in the manly exercises, and bravely wrestles with superior strength.

M. De Lambre takes an easy method of destroying the reputation of the Chaldeans and Egyptians for science, with those who are willing to be on his side of the question. The Greeks, who came back from Babylon, or Memphis, after the Persian invasion, and who by the way never understood either the Chaldean or Egyptian language, promulgated the strangest, and often the most contradictory accounts of what they had learned. He, who speaks most to the discredit of the Orientalists, is sure to have his testimony recorded by this great modern astronomer. Thus, in mentioning the report, that the Chaldeans held comets

to be planets, and attempted to predict their returns, he adds with a sneer, that Epigenes, who had studied among the Chaldeans, reported that they believed comets to be merely fiery meteors. "Apollon Myndien dit que les Chaldéens regardoient les comètes comme des planètes visibles pendant une partie de leurs révolutions, et qui doivent revenir à des intervalles plus ou moins longs. Cette idée est raisonnable, et l'on ne peut que leur en savoir beaucoup de gré, quand on lit tout ce que les Grecs ont écrit sur ce sujet: il est fâcheux qu'Epigène, qui avoit aussi étudié chez les Chaldéens, ait affirmé qu'ils ne savoient rien des comètes, et qu'ils en attribuoient la formation à des tourbillons de matière enflammée."

Here two Greek astrologers are brought forward to contradict each other about the knowledge, which the Chaldeans had of the nature of comets. Both had studied at Babylon; and I question not the skill of either in casting nativities. Seneca praises Apollonius, and Pliny and Censorinus laud Epigenes. But these astrologers did not visit Chaldea until two or three centuries after the time of Cyrus. The temple of Belus, which seems to have been á vast observatory, had been destroyed: the Priests (that is, the Chasidim, and Chartomi,) had been oppressed and degraded. Witness the reports of Diodorus, of Strabo, and of Arrian. But between the two Greek astrologers how are we to judge? Of Apollonius Myndius we know little; but we do know that Epigenes ascribed an antiquity to the Chaldeans, which displays pretty clearly the value of his evidence. He said that the Chaldeans had inscribed their astronomical observations on bricks during a period of 720,000 years! Apollonius may have stated the opinion of the ancient Chasidim with respect to the nature of comets. This opinion coincides with the truth. Where, or how, was Apollonius to have known of it, unless he had heard of it at Babylon? Pythagoras indeed had apparently held the same opinion; but it is evident from Aristotle, that it was rejected by the Greeks in general. Aristotle mentions, but with evident contempt for the notion, that the Pythagoreans taught that a comet is a planet, which appears after a long interval of time, and which, at the apex of the hyperbola which it describes, approaches as nearly to the Sun as the planet Mercury. This notion was apparently one of those which Pythagoras obtained from the Chaldeans.

283

NOTICE OF

MR. BELLAMY'S New Translation of the BIBLE.

I HAVE noticed the arduous undertaking of Mr. Bellamy to furnish us with an improved version of the Bible. His annunciation appeared instantly to call forth general congratulation, and was honored even with royal encouragement. Believing, from all appearance, the purity of his intentions, I am assuredly one of those who sincerely wish he were in the way of attaining his object; an attainment of everlasting importance to our nation, and to the world. You, Mr. Editor, interesting yourself in this undertaking, in a way which might be anticipated from your known disposition to make plain the paths towards the investigation of truth, have repeatedly proclaimed your arena open to Mr. Bellamy, and to others inclined to discuss the merit of his labors. And you have not only, in good Christian spirit and liberality, kept open doors for discussion, but (aware, no doubt, how prone men are to make stubborn darlings of their own opinions) you have also, very properly, required that, previous to their entrance on your lists, they be well anointed with the essential oil of good temper. I avail myself of your kind permission, and shall humbly endeavour to abide by the conditions.

First, as to the necessity of a new version of the Bible? With due deference, I state my opinion in common with many others, that our present authorised translation, as to all points of faith, is almost all we can desire. There are, however, as others long ago, and as Mr. Bellamy points out, several passages of minor importance, and there may be some of more momentous character, rendering collation with the original text very desirable. A new version will be an Herculean labor for an individual; yet, in proportion as the task is mighty, so will be the meed of public obligation if he perform it. Should these observations meet the eye of Mr. Bellamy, let him not consider them as the offspring of hostile feeling, or sent forth to derogate from his fairly-earned esteem. I set out with the plain declaration, that I join him only in few of his opinions, and shall take the liberty of expressing my dissent from others, and the

reasons of such dissent, as far as I may be able, in that spirit of good-will which the book under our consideration enjoins us to exercise. With Mr. Bellamy I think the points and accents INDISPENSIBLE to the right understanding of the text of the Hebrew Bible; that with their aid we perhaps possess more even of the true ancient pronunciation than we do of any other dead language; and, considering that the Bible contains the only ancient Hebrew compositions extant, interpreters have attained a wonderful precision; and more still is attainable through means in our possession, and by progress in oriental learning.

I dissent from Mr. Bellamy's notion of the "absolute purity of the Hebrew text" as we now possess it; nevertheless, under all circumstances, there can be but one opinion, that even its present degree of accuracy is providen tial; and, as one of your learned correspondents (M. No. xxiii, page 81,) has justly observed, it is doctrinally pure.

Thus, on our earth there are craggy precipices and stupendous mountains, which to the circumscribed vision of man are deemed irregularities; but to the erudite philosophic mind, taking in the range of our system,-of the universe, this planet which we inhabit is justly considered as a regular globular figure: so is the doctrinal purity of the Bible, and the magnitude of its excellence contemplated with the minor discrepancies which appear upon it from the frailty of man, through whose hands all that passes is of necessity more or less imperfect. I here except the original inspired penmen. Who can concur in the conclusions that must be drawn from the tenor of Mr. B.'s assertion, that all the Hebrew learning from the most distant ages to the present day (with the exception of his own!) has produced translations of the Bible so faulty as to be the main cause of all the Deism and infidelity in the world! He should be advised to divest his mind of that self-sufficiency which leads him to cry down the useful labors of others, and ridicule, as ignorantly bestowed, the public patronage of universally acknowledged abilities and industry. I am here alluding to what Mr. Bellamy writes in your Journal about Dr. Kennicott, and other learned and pious men. Is he apprehensive that the opi nions of these worthy characters on the Hebrew language will encourage the devotees and promote the spread of Deism? Is it not fervently to be desired that all others of exalted

།

ecclesiastical rank would add their contributions to their laudable endeavours? The members of the established church would abide by the risk of some, or all, of that dignified body rejecting the dogma of " absolute purity."-In Classical Journal, No. xxxviii., I happened one day to open the book at page 248, where is to be seen a string of unconnected passages quoted from our present version of the Bible. I will declare to you, Mr. Editor, what struck across my mind at the first glance, and before I read the context, and saw the signature at the end of the tract. I imagined a sceptic himself, by some unaccountable manœuvre or fortune, had deceived your circumspection, and gained admittance upon your arena. But behold my apprehensions were unfounded! It was merely Mr. Bellamy, pro tempore, travestied in the torn skirts of our venerable translators, to prepare us by this contrivance, and raise our greater admiration when he should appear in his own robes of "absolute purity."

Mr. Bellamy is blamable for holding out in mutilated quotation the authorised version of the country. In this manner the best book in the world may be made to say any thing, to assert the most ridiculous absurdities, or the wildest dreams of delirious infidelity. Admit Mr. Bellamy's good intentions: allow the advances he may have made in Hebrew literature; confess that some of his versions may be recommendable; yet, unless he banish the untenable dogma of the "absolute purity of the Hebrew text,"-unless, for one passage which he mends, he abstain from marring a hundred, it is easy to foretel the lamentable result of his lucubrations. As to the literal purity of the Hebrew text, the arguments and quoted proofs of your correspondent Kimchi, see No. xxxv. 151, are conclusive; they have not been answered by Mr. Bellamy, and are unanswerable! Yet the very description of some of the errors (so manifest that it may appear wonderful they have been suffered to exist) prove at the same time a jealous care and reverence in the preservation of the Bible. That such feelings have been excited or inspired, must have been the especial favor of a guardian providence.

It is very evident from the tenor of Mr. B.'s writing, that he considers his own creed as the basis and sine-qua-non of biblical discussion; that to his predecessors having (fortunately for us!) been devoid of it, are attributable all the errors in our translations, of which he imagines he has