seological scrutiny could affect tlie divine origin insisted upon for the book itself by those
who make it the unique standard of all scientific as well as of all moral knowledge.
Instead, however, of the ordinary mode in which biblical history is presented to us in
books bearing the authoritative title of professed “ Christian Evidences,” the requirements
of archaeology demand that we should reverse the order of examination. In lieu, for instance,
of asserting it priori that the Creation of {he world took place exactly “ on October
20th, s. c. 4005, the year of the creation ” (21)— or sustaining, ex cathedra, with universal
orthodoxy, that Moses wrote the Pentateuch — it is incumbent upon us, while we deny
nothing, to take as little for granted. If such be the era revealed by the Text, our process
will lead us to that date, with at least the same precision through which Lightfoot (by
what method is unknown), ascertained that Anno Mundi I, “ Vlth day of creation . . . his
(Adam’s) wife the weaker vessell: she not yet knowing that there were any devils at a l l . . .
sinned, and drew her husband into the same transgression with h e r ; this was about high
noone, the time of eating. And in this lost condition into which Adam and Eve had now
brought themselves, did they lie comfortlesse till towards the cool of the day, or three o'clock,
afternoon.’’ (22) If the Pentateuch -was originally penned in the Mosaic autograph, the
proof will resile to our view, through archseological deductions, with the force of an
Euclidean demonstration.
The analytical instruments of archeology are purely Baconian; viz: proceeding from
the known to the unknown; through a patient retrogressive march from to-day to yesterday,
from yesterday to the day before; and so on, step by step, backwards along the
stream of time. Each fact, when verified, thus falls naturally into its proper place in the
world’s history; each event, as ascertained, will be found tabulated in its respective
stratum. It is only when our footsteps falter, owing to surrounding darkness or to treacherous
soil, that we may begin to suspect historical inaccuracies; but, at present, we
have no right to anticipate any such doubts, considering the averments of oeucumenic Protestantism,
of the orthodox sects, that the Bible is the revealed word of God.
Our inquiries are directed to a single point. We desire to . ascertain the origin, epoch,
writer, characteristics, and'historical value of but one document: viz.—The Xth Chapter of
Genesis; familiar to every reader. It is presented, however, to bur inspection as one of
fifty chapters of a book called “ Genesis ’’—this book being the first of thirty-nine (23) books
that constitute the compendium entitled the i£ Old Testament;” and the latter is bound up
in the same volume with another collection to which the name of “ New Testament” is
given: the whole forming together that literary work to which the designation of “ The
B i b i e ” is reverentially applied in the EnglishTongue — a name derived from byblos, the
Greek name for papyrus, being the most ancient material out of which its derivative paper
was made. Byblus, the Egyptian plant, gave to the Greeks their name for paper, and paper
their name for “ the book ” in to 0:0\tiov. On adopting Christianity, the Greeks designated
their earliest translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, ’ TO BIBLEION, as the book— “ par
excellence;” which words we moderns have adopted into our national tongue in the form
of “ Bible.”
With every desire on our part to obtain solution of our qUeries by the most direct road
and in the shortest method, we do not perceive the possibility of detaching a solitary chapter
of the Bible from the volume itself, until by archseological dissection we are enabled to
demonstrate that such separation is feasible. In consequence, it behooves U 3 to examine,
with as much brevity as is consistent with perspicuity, the entire Bible; and, if we hold
“ all the books of the Bible (24) to be equally true,” the Xth chapter of the first book will be
found unquestionably to be true likewise.
Soliciting that the reader should divest his mind, as far os in him lies, of preconceive
biases; we invite him to accompany us patiently through an investigation, in which the
(21) Rev. Dr. N oi.a u : The Egyptian Chronology Analyzed; London, 1848, p. 392.
(22) Harmony, Chronicle, and Order o f the Old Testament, &c.; London, 1647, p. 5.
(23) Mystic origin of the XXXIX “ Articles” of the Anglican Churoh. .
1241 Poole : London Literary Gazette, 1849, p. 432 - unaccountably suppressed in Horn JEgyptMCp, 1851.
subject banishes all ornament, but that cannot fail to elicit some portions of the
truth. .
The incipient steps of our analysis do not call for much expenditure of erudition. In
popular Encyclopaedias most of the preliminary information may be verified by the curious
reader; for Calmet, Kitto, and Horne, contain catalogues of the various editions of the
Bible, done jnto English, that have been put forth, during the last four centuries, from
A. D. 1526 down to the present year.
At the sight of such catalogues of different translations said to proceed from one and the
same original, few can refrain from asking, in all humbleness, why, if any one of them
were absolutely correct, jthould there have been a necessity for the others ? In the course
of studies carried over many years, we have been at pains to compare sundry of the most
prominent English translations (among them ancient as well as modern editions), not only,
with themselves, but often with the Latin, Greek, or Hebrew originals, of which each purports
to supply a faithful rendering. They all differ! some more than others; but in each
one may be found passages the sense of which varies essentially from that published by the
others. Hence arose in our minds the following among other doubts.
Some of these Translators can have known little or nothing of Hebrew—f o r they must
have translated from different originals®- or, they did not consult the Hebrew Text at all,
but rendered from the Latin or the Greek versions — or (what recurs with far more frequency),
each translator, wherever the original was ambiguous, rendered a given passage in
accordance with his own individual biases, or with the object of fortifying the peculiar
tenets of Ms Church, Kirk, Conventicle, Chapel, or Meeting-house. Now, these discordant
Bibles being thrust upon us, each one as the only and true “ Word of God,” it is humanly inconceivable
that God should have uttered that Word in so many different ways, and thereby
have rendered nugatory the comprehension of one passage, by permitting a translation,in significance
totally distinct, of the self-same passage in other modern editions. For instance,
that the reader may at once seize our meaning: there are few texts more frequently quoted,
especially under circumstances where consolation is administered; there are none perhaps
that have originated such Demosthenian efforts at pulpit-oratory, or have produced in some
minds more of those extatic emotions “ that the world Cannot give,” than the verse wherein
Job ejaculates— “ For I know that my Redeemer liveth.” (xix. 25). The “ Multitude of
those who are called Christians,” as Origen termed them in a. d . 253 (25); the “ Simpletons,
not to say the imprudent and the idiotic,” of Tertullian, a . d . 245; (26) the “ Ignorant”
of.St. Athanasius; a . d . 373(27); and the “ Simple believers” of the milder St.
Jerome, a. d . 385 (28); have always imagined, in accordance with the lower scholarship of
orthodoxy, that Job here foreshadows the Messianic advent of Christ. (29)
The context does not appear, philologically or grammatically, to justify such conclusion;
inasmuoh as the preceding verses (1 to 22) exhibit Job — forsaken by his kindred, forgotten
by his bosom friends, alien in the eyes of his guests and of his own servants ^overwhelmed
with anguish at the acrid loquacity of Bildad the Shuhite, protesting vehemently against
these accusations, and wishing that his last burning words should be preserved to posterity
in one ot three ways. To support our view, and to furnish at the same time evidences of
different translations, we lay before the reader three renderings of verses 23 to 26. He
can, by opening other translators, readily verify the adage that “ doctors differ,” although
the Hebrew Text is identically the same throughout.
(25) Commentary upon John; and Contra Cels., lib. viii..
(26) Ad Praxeam, sec. iii.
(27) De Incam. Verb.—contra Paid. Samosatce.
(28) Comm. in JEs. xxxii.
(29) Notes : Op. cit., p. 147 — “ That there is no allusion to Christ in the term [redeemer], nor to the resur-
eec ion to a life of happiness, in the passage, has been the opinion of the most judicious and learned critics for
the last three hundred’ years; such as Calvin, Mercier, Grotius, Le Clerc, Patrick, Warhurton, Durell, Heath,
Kennicott, Doederlein, Dathe, Eichhorn, Jahn, De Wette, and many others.”