On this page
-
Text (2)
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
roination of his known poetry does not , I think , increase the probability of this notion : certainly we cannot assume , as Mr . B . appears to do , that , if ancient , it must have been written
by * Moses , and that ; if not agreeing with his other writing's , it cannot oe ancient . If Moses was only the compiler of at least a considerable part of Genesis , we can hardly draw a conclusion from the comparison of a portion of that work with the book of
Job , supposing it to be his composition ; and , after all , if the Satan of the introduction to Job meant , as seems , I think , pretty certain , not a wicked and malignant spirit , but
either an angelic s ' ervaiii of God , whose office it was to try , by suffering- and temptation , the real characters of men , or a simple personification of Job ' s afflictions , —and it was not at all intended to assert the actual existence
of such a being , —then , even supposing the history of the fall to have been written by the same author , we can see no propriety in the introduction of such an imaginary being there . Mr . B . is mistaken in supposing 1 Chron . xxi . 1 , to be the first place where the word Satan occurs in the
Bible . It is found in the Pentateuch , Numb . xxii . 22 ; in 1 Sam . xxix . 4 ; 2 Sam . xix . 22 , &c : it certainly then was not introduced at a late period , and mav , for aucrht we know , be as old as any other Hebrew word .
The resemblance between the prophetic vision in Zech . iii . and the imaginary poetic scene in the opening of Job , is not such as to warrant the conclusion that , they were written about the same time . Jostxiia is only
introduced into the presence of the iingel of Jehovah , and the opposers of the re-building" of the temple arc obviously intended by the adversary . These remarks are designed to vindicate the patriarchal character of
the Book of Job , 'ih winch J feel much interested , an <) > YfM > ^ p view are submitted to the candid . consideration of your readers , ' ami especially of your excellent correspondent .
Whilst my pen is in my hand I am tempted to express my surprise that Ben-Davi <\ ( p . 24 ) should seem to ascribe to Mr . Belsham the wcll-knoWn theory of Astruc , * adopted and im-* In his " Conjectures snr Jes Mc " -
Untitled Article
pfoved by Eichhorn , and since maintained by many learned nien , respecting the composition ' of the Book of Genesis . I will not here enter into
the defence of this theory , but I can _ not agree with your correspondent in thinking the style of the Book of Genesis uniform ; the difference between" ttie first chapter and the second and third * striked ' me as very
remarkable , greater tlian any we can observe between sjBvcral p f the prophets . To my rniff ^ , Ben-David ' s explanation of Moses' intention , in his manner of using the different names of the Supreme Being-, seems far-fetched and fanciful \ whilst his choosing to give
some explanation shews that he thought the circumstance deserving of attention ; £ his , however , is but one of several important arguments employed by those who consider the Book of Genesis as a compilation , and if Moses be allowed to have been the compiler , there cannot be said to be any historical evidence against this opinion . W . HINCKS .
Untitled Article
Maidstone , Sir , November 30 , 1821 . MR . WELLBELOVED having announced his intention of publishing more fully his views relative to the origin and design of the three first chapters of Genesis , " any remarks on what he has already published on
the subject of those chapters , till we arc favoured with his additional observations , may be thought premature . But as he has , nv his notes on the third chapter , expressly said , that its doctrine cleajrjy is , " that before the
fall of man the serpent had the use of reason and . speech ,, and also walked erect j" and as I canAot ^ help tliinkinff that this interpretation , ^ highly incredible in itself , and irifeeoncileablc with similar passages of Scripture , I &m induced to offer the tallowing hints for his consideration anxji . that of your
readers . And I am the ino ^ e prompted to do it , from the hopjej . thaf he may , in his preliminary observations , " led to reconsider a subject , the jujrt interpretation of which i $ evidently of considerable importance to those rational views of scriptural princip ^ which in general he advocates wid moires origiuaux qui out sei vi a A * ^ iiitic . " Ed .
Untitled Article
206 On Mr . IVellbeloved ' s Interpretation of the
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), April 2, 1822, page 206, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2511/page/14/
-