FINDLAY’S DIVINE INSPIRATION 
directed to Nineveh, he fled to Joppa ; 
‘and there put himself under the protec- 
tion of the deities that were worshipped 
there, amongst which the whale or cetus 
held the principal rank. From Joppa, 
under the sanction of this deity, he in- 
tended to shelter himself from the eye 
of Providence, in Tarshish, or lartessus; 
but a storm arising, as he was crossing 
the Mediterranean, he, according to the 
well-known relation, was thrown over- 
board, and instantly swallowed by that 
very fish—which had been the object of 
his reverence. Three days afterwards 
*¢ the cetus was stranded, and within 
view of the temple of Derceto, and in 
sight of its numerous votaries, disgorged 
the apostate prophet.” The mariners, 
upon their return, recounted the sur- 
psig tale of what had passed on 
rd, and in the ocean. The inhabi- 
Thies 
Glasgow. 8vo. pp. 104. 
THERE are some passages of scrip- 
| ture which have exercised the critical 
skill of learned theologians, from a very 
‘early period of the Christian church to 
the present day, and which we apprehend 
will continue to divide the sentiments of 
interpreters till the end of time. The 
passage which forms the subject of the 
work before us, is one of this number. 
Of doubtful meaning as to the terms 
| which are employed, and the collocation 
of those terms, it will be explained, with 
greater or less latitude, according to the 
| Opimions which have been previously 
respecting the general system of 
the Christian faith. Let not the unbe- 
i conclude, that any injurious re- 
Boasion concerning the authority of 
‘scripture, may from such instances be 
y drawn. Were some of the most 
| celebrated works of profane antiquity to 
| be brought into one canonical collection, 
d profession of faith in the facts or 
nas which this collection would con- 
connected with the prejudices, the 
ngs, and the interests of men, as 
hose of the sacred canon now are, in the 
ace of one difficulty that now arises, 
OU Beis would spring up. Contro- 
sies without end would occupy the 
ars, and influence the passions of 
Olemics ; and the odium theologicui, the 
Onstant object of the sceptic’s ridicule, 
and of the real christian’s sorrow, would 
OF THE JEWISH SCRIPTURES. 127 
tants could not fail to receive a salutary 
lesson. The goddess they adored, the 
supposed empress of the seas, was dis- 
graced: her votary had been entombed 
in the body of the animal that served as 
a symbol of her divinity ; and the God 
of the Hebrews had displayed his power 
over their idol deities, ret their infatu- 
ated worshippers. Asa confirmation of 
this story, Mr. Bryant refers to the bones 
of a sea animal, which Pomponius Mela 
says, were preserved at Joppa; which 
Pliny informs us, were brought as a cu- 
riosity to Rome; and which Mr. Bryant 
concludes could be none else than the 
bones of the very whale that carried the 
prophet in its belly. 
Of the truth and the importance of 
these disquisitions, we leave our readers 
to. judge. 
Arr. VII. The Divine Iuspiration of the Jewish Scriptures, or Old Festament, asserted 
by St. Paul, 2 Tim. iii. 16.3; and Dr. Geddes’s Reasons against this Sence of his Words 
examined. By Rozsert Finptay, D. D. Professor of Theology in the University of 
be mild and harmless in comparison,of 
the infuriate and implacable zeal which 
would fire the breasts of embattled con- 
troversialists. Of no such degrading 
spirit does the work before us afford the 
faintest specimen, or encouragement. 
As a critic, and asa christian, Dr. Find- 
lay claims our reverence and our ap- 
plause. 
Dr. Geddes, in the preface to the 2d 
Vol. of his ‘Translations of the Bible, 
with great honesty, but with little cau- 
tion. or prudence, ‘avowed his disbelief 
of the inspiration of the books of the 
Old Testament, in terms that could not 
fail of proving highly offensive to the 
generality of Christians, ‘The. well- 
_known passage in the 2d epistle of Paul 
to Timothy, seeming to present a strong 
objection to bis decision, he professes to 
examine it with particular attention.— 
The result of his examination is, that the 
present reading i. is not genuine. 
The arguments upon which this result 
was formed, are: “ the copulative xa, 
which alone makes for the present read- 
ing, is wanting in all the ancient ver- 
sions except the Eth’opic ; also, in some 
Greek copies still extant. It was not 
read by Clement of Alexandria, Theo- 
dorus of Mopsuesta, nor by the Latin 
fathers Tertullian, Cassindorus, and the 
anonymeus authors of two treatises as- 
.cribed te Cyprian and Amovose; all of 
