Imagens da página
PDF
ePub

trated both by the pertinacity with which we have resisted all correction, by authority, of the authorised version; and by the patronage which new translations, by persons without even the rudimental acquirements necessary for the purpose, have received from influential

sources.

The bigoted adherence to the version made in the reign of the first James, is partly to be ascribed to the fact, that even a scanty knowledge of the Hebrew language is confined to a very small number in this country. Too few are able to form any independent opinion of the accuracy of that version, for their voice to have any influence. If our whole priesthood, indeed, were obliged, as in Germany, to make some progress in Hebrew, as an essential to the office, we should then possess a large body, able, at least, to agree that there were errors, and what changes would remove them. As it is, however, the overwhelming majority of the ignorant and indifferent are satisfied with the judgments of some distinguished men, which are cited by Horne (Introduction, vol. 2, Pt. 2, p.79, § 99). This resistance of all improvement in any version of such a book as the Bible, is, nevertheless, not only irreconcilable with the Protestant principle of reverence for the Word, which is bound not to rest satisfied with less than the most perfect version of it possible; it, moreover, includes in itself a mis-appreciation of the immense advance which all philology has made since that time. No one, professing to be at all imbued with classical literature, can be ignorant that the labours of the last two generations have attained a clearer, truer, and more certain sense of the writings of Greek and Latin authors. For a closer investigation of those languages, by such scholars as Thiersch, the recent application of the affinity of the Sanscrit, and the consequent detection of the link between all the members of that family of languages called the Indogermanic, have severally and jointly aided in placing the significance of etymons and sentences in Greek and Latin considerably more within the sphere of our vivid feeling and apprehension. Of necessity, this improvement in classical philology has been accompanied by a corresponding impulse in the study of the Semitic languages. For, not only are all languages so essentially the same, (i. e., in so far as they all express sensations and thoughts by sounds,)

* The argument usually adduced for the inviolable preservation of the authorized version in its present state; namely, the danger of unsettling the faith of the vulgar, by a discrepancy between two editions of the Bible, is altogether inconsistent in a church which sanctions two prose versions of the Psalms, (one in the Prayer Book, and one in the Bible,) which differ from each other, at least as much as a really correct version of the New Testament would from the authorized version of the same.

N. S. No. 26.-VOL. 3.

K

that a fuller discovery of the laws of any one must throw some light on the structure of the rest; but the individual (and, in like manner, the generation,) who has acquired a philological knowledge of one language, has thereby gained a new capacity, as it were, to appreciate the genius of any other to which he turns his mind. From the modern enlarged view of language generally, therefore, it both would be probable à priori, and it is, in fact, certain, that the comparison of the sister Semitic dialects, and the consequent discovery of new phenomena both in forms and combinations, have placed the interpretation of Hebrew on a basis unknown to the seventeenth century.* Nor is there any ground to fear that Hebrew philology should abuse this increased confidence in its new strength, and rashly tamper with its sacred trust. Quite the contrary. In this, as in all other provinces of human learning, the highest degree of knowledge is accompanied by the surest instinct of its own limits, and is distinguished from the inferior grades, more, perhaps, by the difference of the points on which it distrusts itself, than by the mere sum of those on which it is thoroughly assured. But ignorance is proverbially bold, and cuts the knot which knowledge would not attempt to untie.

As all responsible bodies have thus unreasonably neglected to make such corrections in our common version as the honour of the Word demanded, and the improved instruments of interpretation rendered easy and safe, accordingly, it is not to be wondered that the zeal of private persons has made many attempts to supply so great a desideratum. Some few of these afford another evidence of the decay of theological learning, by the inadequate conceptions their authors appear to have formed of the acquirements necessary for the task, and by the public success which has nevertheless attended them for a time. Among them the case of Mr. Bellamy affords so striking an example, that it may be worth while to devote a few words to him before passing on to the immediate object of this paper.

Mr. Bellamy published two articles on Biblical Criticism in the first Number of the Classical Journal, in 1810, and continued his contributions for several years subsequent. In 1818, the first part of his new translation of the Bible appeared, of which the sixth and last part was published in 1834. For eight years, therefore, previous to the

*To such as might object that the dead languages cannot be changed by any alchemy of ours, but that the lapse of time must place us at even a greater distance from their life than our ancestors were; to such, it is enough to reply, that the constitution of light has not, as far as we know, changed since the sun first shone, but that Newton, nevertheless, first discovered its laws. There is a greater analogy between the two cases than my present space will suffer me to dilate on.

appearance of his Bible, he gave the public repeated opportunities for judging of his fitness for the work. Let us see, then, what satisfactory proof of his proficiency in Hebrew was contained even in his first article in the Classical Journal. It is a disquisition on Job 38, 1, and his object is to get rid of the rendering "out of the whirlwind." Having there first established that hassearah means trouble, he says of the preposition min, that "it is a Chaldean word, and means because of," Dan. 7, 11. It is also rendered to number, to distribute, "portion." He concludes, "Hence the sense will be, Then the Lord answered Job because of his trouble, or the portion of his trouble." This is, however, completely crowned by his note to the passage: "As the word hassearah has a feminine termination, some may take it for a noun feminine, and conclude that if the word were to be rendered trouble, it should be her trouble, not his; but this is not an universal rule; the is also affixed to nouns masculine; Gen. 12, 8, s, his tent." It would take too much space to enter on the measureless absurdity of this whole affair; yet two remarks are indispensable. First, in taking the at the end of hassearah to be a suffix, he thinks that a noun can have the article and a suffix at the same time, which is utterly impossible; next, he speaks as if the suffix varied according to the gender of the noun to which it is attached, instead of the noun to which it refers. Now although several persons at length published their refutation of his pretensions, nevertheless the length of time which he carried on the delusion (twenty-four years), the patronage his Bible met with after such a beginning, and the gravity of his opponents in the Classical Journal, together furnish a most humiliating picture of the then state of Hebrew philology among us.

T: T

Unfortunately, even the "Bible, with nearly 20,000 emendations," cannot be said to encourage the belief that there is any much greater diffusion of Biblical philology among us. It is the work of a pious man, who, without any of the obligations or ambitious motives which the profession of theology might be supposed to beget, devotes the leisure hours of upwards of thirty years to a correction of our common version, purely as a labour of love. Nevertheless his work is a deplorable example of the low estimate he has formed of the paramount duty of faithfulness to the original text, and of his gross misconception of the learning necessary to the office, attended, too, by an inexcusable effort to impose on the unwary, by a parade of that very host of MSS. Oriental versions, and commentators, the legitimate use of which he everywhere so humbly disclaims. I will, however, at present, confine myself to a very limited portion of his book, as, since I

began these observations, I have seen a perfectly just critique in the Eclectic Review, which, although it is the only unfavourable notice that I have seen, will enable me to pass over much that would otherwise have called for lengthened animadversions.* A comparison of the first chapter of Genesis will enable the reader to estimate what real improvements the new translation has made on the Authorized Version, what errors it has committed, and what emendations yet remain to be attempted.

A. Instances in which the new translation is really more correct than the Authorized Version:

V. 1. "The heavens" in the plural; also throughout the chapter. V. 11. "Fruit after its kind, whose seed is in itself;" also throughout the chapter, as v. 12, 24, &c.

V. 20. "That moveth, and let birds fly." This is right, as the verb is in the jussive. The rendering of the Authorized Version, "and fowl that may fly," can only mean that the waters produced fowls also. However, the margin has the correction.

There are other changes, such as food for meat, &c.; but these are all the real emendations I have remarked.

B. Instances in which the new translation commits errors avoided in the A. V.

V. 7. "And it was so," is left out.

V. 8. "Called the firmament the heavens."

The article does not

occur here in the Hebrew, and its use would be improper, as its absence marks the predicate. Cf. Ewald. § 480, 547. Compare also v. 10, "Called the dry land earth," &c.

V. 11. "Bring forth tender plants on its surface." These last words represent the " on the earth" of the original, and they are unwarrantably transposed from the end to the beginning of the verse.

V. 16. "The lesser one with the stars to rule the night." The word one is for the Hebrew light; and with the stars is liable to many objections. First the author translates, the sign of the object, as if it was the preposition; a point about which there is no doubt here: then he * Just one remark, arising out of his Preface. He there states that he has retained the word Gehenna, but that it is fully explained in the Index. On referring thither I find it was a place where the Jews "sacrificed their children to Moloch, Baal, and the sun." This is, to say the least, inaccurate. Several learned men think that the sun was worshiped under the name of Baal, and some say under that of Moloch too. Cf. Creuzer's Symbolik, 2. 267. There is also some evidence that Baal and Moloch were names of the same god: compare Jer. 19, 5, with 32, 35. In this case the words and the sun are a tautology. Secondly, the other theory is, that the planets Jupiter and Saturn were worshiped under the names of Baal and Moloch. And, lastly, I know of no passage which expressly mentions any other offering made to the sun, as such, except incense.

transposes it from the end of the verse; next he leaves out and: lastly, the idea of a joint sovereignty is foreign to all Oriental conceptions. This sentence might be rendered quite literally in Latin, with the aid of the Greek article, thus: et luminare ró parvum ad dominationem της noctis, et τάς stellas.

V. 21. "And every living and creeping thing which moveth." The original gives no authority for the words and creeping.

V. 22. "Fill the waters of the seas."

right.

The A. V. has in, which is

66

so God

V. 26. "Let us make mankind;" yet in v. 27 he has made man." The A. V. renders the same Hebrew word by man, in both places.

C. Instances which still require emendation:

V. 2. "Without form and void," is not an exact rendering of two abstract nouns. "Moved on the face," ought to be moving,―a proposition of state, distinguished by the subject being put first. Cf. Ewald. § 556.

V. 4. "Divided the light from the darkness." In this place, as also in v. 6, 7, 14, 18, the original always has " divided between," as is said in the margin.

V. 5. "And the evening and the morning were the first day." The original has and it was evening, and it was morning, day one. The word one in the Hebrew is the cardinal number, not the ordinal, which would be ; nor is there any article in the whole sentence.

V. 8. "Were the second day." Here again, and successively to the seventh day, both versions are faulty. It should be, day second. The sixth day is the first that the Hebrew calls day the sixth; and the seventh is the only one it calls THE seventh day.

V. 16. "Made two great lights," where the original has the two lights, the great the article being very prominent, to denote the only two great luminaries, the sun and the moon.

V. 20. "In the open firmament." Both versions have the word open, which does not exist in the Hebrew. The margin has the right rendering, on the face of.

In this list, the intelligent reader will observe, that I have avoided debateable points, and have confined myself to those which lie, as I think, most completely within the province of grammatical certainty. From this short specimen, he may also imagine what results a similar extended examination would produce; and may learn a wholesome dread of that mere smattering of learning, which has, in this case,

« AnteriorContinuar »