VII.-Explanation of Scripture Difficulties, No. II.

1. SCRUTINY OF No. 1. WITH A FRESH DIFFICULTY PROPOSED.

To the Editor of the Calcutta Christian Observer.

SIR,-In the valuable paper of your correspondent X. Y. " on Scripture Difficulties," I meet with a difficulty which I shall be much obliged to him if he will clear up. In page 556, he informs us that "in the four above instances, the word is . On examining these four instances, I find them printed in Italics, borrow twice, borrowed once, and the fourth instance is lent. I can readily imagine that borrow and ask are both represented by the same word; for this is so, in Hindústhaní: but how comes the same word which means ask or borrow to mean also "lend?" Moreover, the author's argument is, that the Israelites did not " borrow," nor the Egyptians "lend;" but that, the Israelites asked, and the Egyptians "gave" as presents. The word, should therefore also mean give-without which the charge of "immorality" alluded to by X. Y. will not be removed; for things lent should have been returned, not carried away. The author's argument (give me leave to observe) is at variance with the text, "and they spoiled the Egyptians;" for if the Israelites asked, and the Egyptians gave, the transfer cannot be denominated spoiling or plundering. Parkhurst, who is I believe pretty good authority, does not shew "lend" or "give" for the meaning of

.

I trust your correspondent X. Y. will continue his exposition of Scripture difficulties, and I would propose to him, the various translations of the word, which appears to have been very arbitrarily translated, sometimes being taken for" on this side," and sometimes for "on the other side." This difficulty is started by Volney in his Ancient History, vol. i. p. 56, with reference to Deut. i. 1; iv. 22; iii. 8; iv. 41-45, 46.

GENTLEMEN,

Your obedient servant,

A SUBSCRIBER AND CONSTANT READER.

2. REPLY TO THE PRECEDING.

To the Editors of the Calcutta Christian Observer.

In compliance with the request of one of your correspondents, who upon reading the paper, published in your last number, entitled Explanation of Scripture Difficulties, conceives there are two difficulties which require further explanation, I beg leave to suggest the following remarks in reply to his queries.

He states in the first place, that " On examining the four instances (of w to ask), I find them printed in Italics, to borrow twice, and borrowed once; and the fourth instance is lent. I can readily imagine that borrow and ask are both represented by the same word; for this is so in Hindusthání: but how comes the same word which means ask or borrow to mean also lend. The author's argument is, that the Israelites did not borrow, nor the Egyptians lend; but that the Israelites asked, and the Egyptians gave, as presents the word therefore should also mean give, without which the charge of immorality alluded to by X. Y. will not be removed."

I admit the force of this objection, and if I could have found a single passage in the Bible in which the word was correctly rendered lent, in the common acceptation of that term, I should not have advocated the interpretation which I have given. Taylor in his valuable Hebrew Concordance gives the following meanings to the word-1st, to ask, to give ; 2ndly, to borrow; and under these two heads, he gives a variety of subordinate meanings, among which will be found to give, but not that of lend, without a re

futation. But to satisfy the candid mind of your correspondent, it may be desirable to examine the passages in which the word is rendered lent by the English translators. Omitting the passages, the interpretation of which is at issue, the word is translated lend in the following texts: 1 Sam. i. 28. "Therefore I have lent him to the Lord ; as long as he liveth, he shall be lent unto the Lord." The simple question is, Did Hannah give and devote her son entirely to the Lord, or did she lend him with the idea of receiving him again? It is evident, she gave him up entirely, and therefore the passage ought to have been translated, "I have given or devoted him to the Lord; as long as he liveth, he shall be devoted to the Lord." The next passage, in which the word is rendered lend, is 1 Sam. ii. 20, "The Lord give thee seed of this woman, for the loan which is lent to the Lord." This Taylor correctly renders," for the petition or thing asked which she asked for the Lord." These are the only passages in which the word is translated lent; and with what propriety, it is conceived, must be evident to every individual. To express the idea of lending, Moses employs no less than four different verbsb, ban, way, qw, and surely if he had intended to say that the Egyptians lent to the Israelites, he would have employed one of these unequivocal terms.

But your correspondent observes in the second place, that my "argument is at variance with the text, and they spoiled the Egyptians;' for if the Israelites asked, and the Egyptians gave, the transfer cannot be denominated spoiling or plundering.'

The first meaning given by Taylor to y, the word here used, is, to pluck out of the hands of an oppressor, and this is the sense in which I understand it to be here employed. The Egyptians had for many years been dreadful oppressors to the Israelites, and now, by a just retribution of Divine Providence, they are made to give up the spoils. "The Egyptians were urgent upon the people that they might send them out of the land in haste; for they said, We be all dead men." They were like merchants in a dreadful storm, who willingly consent to throw overboard all their goods, if by any chance they may save their lives. Supposing merchants of another vessel, with whom they were at war, should follow that which had been in the storm, and take the goods which had been thrown overboard, might it not be said that they had spoiled the owners? Should your correspondent, however, still object to the conduct of the Israelites as unjust, I may remark further, that the word here rendered spoiled has not uniformly that signification. By consulting Psalm cxix. 43, he will find it thus rendered : "And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth." If the things were given to the Israelites, surely no one can accuse them of immorality for taking them, after the barbarous oppression and spoliation which they had experienced*.

Your correspondent alludes to another word (y) which he desires to see explained, as Volney has availed himself of it to discredit the sacred writers. No man perhaps ever laboured harder than he to overthrow the authority of the Bible, and yet no unconverted man certainly ever contributed so much to establish its authenticity. For proof of this, I refer to Keith's admirable work on the Fulfilment of Scripture Prophecy. To illus trate some of the darkest of these prophecies he had only to take Volney as his guide; and though the latter wrote expressly to discredit these prophecies, yet he has, without knowing it, furnished as many proofs of their exact fulfilment as he could have done, had he written expressly for the purpose. In his opposition we behold a wonderful sight; we see a flame

*The more common interpretation of the passage agrees very nearly with that of our esteemed correspondent. The Israelites demanded back their own. The Egyptians, in their fear, eagerly yielded up their goods, to satisfy this demand and so the people of Israel "spoiled the Egyptians."-ED.

bursting forth from the branches of the tree, which, while it consumes the tree itself, casts a brilliant light on all the dark parts of prophecy around it. That a word, having two opposite meanings, like the one in question, should furnish an opportunity for the cavils of infidelity, is nothing wonderful, nor can it be denied that such a use of words may sometimes cause real perplexity. The explanation given of the word by Taylor is this. "It commonly signifieth that part of a country which is the passage to or from a river. Thus the passage of the Jordan is the country which lieth next to the Jordan. We render it on this side Jordan or on that side Jordan, because it is to be understood of the country on either side of the river, according to the situation of the speaker or the sense of the place." Your correspondent will recollect that opar in Hindusthání is used in precisely the same manner. While on this side the river, we call the other side opar; but when we arrive on the other side, we call this opar. Now if there is any passage of Scripture which your correspondent thinks cannot be reconciled with the context, according to this interpretation of the word, and he will have the kindness to mention it, I will endeavour to give it an impartial examination.

Your's obediently,

X. Y.

VIII.-Notice of Mr. Wilkinson's Paper on the Siddhántas, published in the Journal of the Asiatic Society, for October, 1834.

We depart from our usual practice, by noticing a paper, which has already appeared in another periodical extensively circulated, and probably in the hands of many of our readears. This we do for several reasons. The paper is ably written, and generally interesting; it is the work of a warm friend to native improvement, and is adapted to be a really valuable and practical help to many Missionaries and teachers, who do not read the Asiatic Journal. The Astronomy of the Hindus, like that of the Egyptians, or, more lately, some of the fashionable geological theories, was a stronghold, within which the infidel, driven back from other points, always took refuge. Its alleged antiquity was utterly irreconcilable with the Mosaic history; and, though in itself incapable of proof, appeared to offer no data, by which we could determine its falsehood. And, if the system had been altogether imposture, it might have still held its ground; for, at one time, it could boast of the great names of Bailly and Playfair. But, unfortunately for its own stability, it contained a certain admixture of TRUTH; and, by that, its claims were destroyed. The extravagant periods of time, for which the observations were carried back, had already been generally suspected; but Mr. Bentley was, we believe, the first who brought positive proof of their falsehood. He showed that the formation of the lunar mansions, the earliest fact in Hindu Astronomy, happened not more than 1400 years before Christ;

and that the Surya Siddhánta, the most popular and esteemed, and generally reckoned the most ancient Hindu book on Astronomy, is little more than 800 years old. The easy and complete manner, in which he demonstrated this, may be understood by the following instances. The Surya Siddhánta reckons the motions of the planets, and the precession of the equinoxes from a certain epoch, which it pretends to identify by actual observation of a mean conjunction of all the planets in the beginning of the Hindu sphere. It further states, that the vernal equinoctial point was then in the same point with the planets; a thing absolutely impossible, and involving an error of no less than 60 days, as is evident from modern astronomical tables. Again, he determines more directly the date of the work by a table, of which the following is a specimen:

After this last period, the errors again increase, which surely affords the most decisive evidence, that the Surya Siddhánta was written somewhere about the year 1000 of our era. In a similar and equally convincing manner he proves that Bháskar Acharya, the author of the Siddhánta Siromani, wrote that work about 300 years ago.

And now that very system is likely, in the hands of Mr. Wilkinson, to clear the way for that knowledge by which it was undermined, and to serve as a pioneer for that religion which it was intended to destroy.

In order to understand how this may be done, it will be necessary to have a general notion of the present state of Hindu Astronomy, as branching out into three leading systems. The following is the brief but clear sketch given by Mr. Wilkinson :

The Hindus of India seem to have to have been at the time when Bhaskar A charya wrote, as at the present day, divided into three grand classes; viz. 1st, the Jains or Bauddhas, followers of the Bauddha Sutras; 2nd, the followers of the Brahmanical or Puránic system; and 3rd, the Jyotishis or followers of the Siddhántas or Astronomical system.

Ist. The Jains at that time maintained, and still maintain, that the earth is a flat plane of immense extent; that the central portion of it, called Jambudwip, is surrounded by innumerable seas and islands, which encompass it in the form of belts; that the earth now is, and has been, since its first creation, falling downwards in space; that there are two suns, two moons, and two sets of corresponding planets and constellations; viz. one, for the use of that part of the earth lying to the north of the mountain Merá, believed to be in the centre of Jambudwip; and the other for the use of the southern half of the world. The moon they believe to be above the sun, but only 80 yojans*; Mercury, four yojans beyond the

A yojan is four cos.

moon; and Venus, to be three yojans beyond Mercury. The Jain banyans, scattered through the cities and towns of Rájputáná, Málwá, Guzerát, and the north-west provinces of Hindusthán, profess this belief. The opulent Márwárí merchants and bankers, whom we find established at the three presidencies, and in all the large cities of India, are also chiefly of this persuasion. Their Gurús are the Jattís; the Sarangis are also a stricter sect of Jains.

2nd. The followers of the Puráns believe in a system very little dif ferent from that of the Jains. They also maintain that the earth is a circular plane, having the golden mountain Merú in its centre; that it is 50 crores of yojans in superficial diameter; that Jambudwip (which immediately surrounds Merú, and which we inhabit) is one lakh of yojans in width; that this dwip is surrounded by a sea of salt-water, also one lakh of yojans in width; that this salt sea is encompassed by a second dwip of two lakhs of yojans in breadth, and it again by a sea of sugar-cane juice of the same width; that five other belts of alternate islands and seas (each island being of double the width of its predecessor, with a sea of the same width as its adjacent island), succeed each other in regular order. The seas are of fermented liquor, ghí, milk, dhaí, and sweet-water. The Puráns assert, that the earth is not falling in space as the Jains maintain, but is supported by the great serpent Shesha. Such at least is the assertion of the Bhagavata, the most popular of the Puráns. In others the task of supporting the earth is allotted to the tortoise, or to the boar Varáha. The Puráns maintain that there is but one moon and one sun; that the moon however is at a distance from the earth double of that of the sun; that the moon was churned out of the ocean, and is of nectar; that the sun and moon and constellations revolve horizontally over the plane of the earth, appearing to set when they go behind Merú, and to rise when they emerge from behind that mountain; that eclipses are formed by the monsters Ráhu and Ketu laying hold of the sun or moon, against whom, as well as against all the other deities of heaven, they bear implacable enmity. VYA'sJí is believed to be the author of all the Puráns; he was probably the compiler of them; he is revered as divinely inspired. SHANKAR A CHARYA, who flourished about 400 or 500 years ago, distinguished himself as a supporter of this system, and as an enemy and persecutor of the Jains; he was also a reformer, but his reforms were confined to morals, and to religious institutions and sacraments. The followers of the Puráns are by far the most numerous of the three classes. The Brahmans generally, the Rájpúts, Kaiths, and indeed the mass of the population throughout India, all belong to this class.

3rd. The jyotishís or followers of the Siddhántas believe in a system widely differing from both of these. Their system is, with the exception of a few inconsiderable differences, that of Ptolemy. They teach the true shape and size of the earth, and the true theory of eclipses. The earth they place in the centre of the universe, around which revolve in order, as taught by Ptolemy, the moon, Mercury, Venus, the sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. The irregularities in the motions of the sun and moon they account for by supposing them to move, as also did Ptolemy, in epicycles, whose centres revolve in their circular orbits. The authors of the Siddhántas, and especially BHA SKAR A'CHA RYA, the author of the most recent and most popular Siddhanta, called the "Siddhanta Siromani," have spared no pains to expose and ridicule the monstrous absurdities of the Jain Sutrás and the Puráns. They have always professed in their writings the greatest admiration for the learned men of the West, the Ionians or "Yavans;" whilst the Puráns have denounced those who hold any communication with men of these nations, termed by them the