Imagens da página
PDF
ePub

been confidered as a neceffary adjunct to every representation of the Jewish Legiflator.-Aquila renders the words xspaтwdns nv, and the Vulgate admits the fame erroneous interpretation, “Et ignor abat Mofes quod cornuta effet facies fua."

On ver. 7. the Bishop remarks, fuppofing the Prophet to Speak, "I faw," feems harfh; and therefore I propofe i thou fawef, addreffed to God.'-We must confefs, that we de not fee the neceffity of this correction of the Hebrew text;-nor do we think it more harfh, or more unnatural, for the Prophet to reprefent himself, as having been a witness to events long fince paft, than it is to defcribe things future, as now prefent; a mode of expreffion which occurs in every page of the prophétic writings. We are inclined therefore to acquiefce in the prefent

.I Jaw ראיתי reading

Verfer. is much more happily tranflated by Bifhop New come, than in the old English verfion

The fun and the moon stood ftill in their habitation;

By their light thine arrows went abroad;

By their brightnefs, the lightning of thy fpear."

The common tranflation is comparatively obfcure and inelegant -The fun and the moon flood ftill in their habitation; at the light of thine arrows they went, and at the fhining of thy glittering fpear. On the words ' n n in ver. 17. Bithop Newcome remarks, As fignifies to produce, as a tree or a

[ocr errors]

field; see Gen. i. 11, 12. Pf. i. 3. will naturally denote fruit. Hence To xaρov in the New Teftament, Matth. iii. 10, &c.'

[ocr errors]

This obfervation is ingenious: but with refpect to the word we think, that neither Bishop Newcome's tranflation, nor the old verfion, expreffes its full force and elegance. The Septuagint approaches nearer to the Hebrew-evσétal Epyor inaias-Thus Horace has fundus mendax, and fpem mentita feges.

And here candour obliges us to own, that a tranflation of the Minor Prophets is attended with peculiar difficulties. The obfcurity, in which they are involved, in common with the other parts of the facred volume, arifes, in fome degree, from the fingular concifenefs of the Hebrew language, from its numerous afyndeta, and the paucity of its moods and tenfes, from the frequent omiffion of prepofitions, and the nice and various fignifications afcribed to its particles. But befide thefe, and other difficulties, incident to every tranflator of the Hebrew Scriptures, there are others, not lefs difcouraging, which Bfhop Newcome had more particularly to encounter. Such are the want of hiftorical records, for the illuftration of many facts, to which the writings of the Minor Prophets refer, the nature of those unac complished prophecies that occur in them, and which the

E 2

event

event only can diftinctly explain; and, above all, the fhortness of the several books, which deprives the tranflator of that moft fruitful fource of juft criticism, the comparison of a writer with himself. A prophecy confifting but of a few chapters muft of course contain words, and phrafes, about the meaning of which, as they occur but once, we can only form conjectures from the context, or from analogous terms in the fifter dialects.

We have before obferved, that there are few inftances in which our Tranflator has not adhered to his own rules. The following are among the number of thofe that we have no

ticed.

Amos, iii. 3. is rendered by Bishop Newcome,
Can two go together,

Unless they meet by appointment?'

But is not the expreffion, meet by appointment, one of thofe modern phrafes, which he has himself very properly profcribed, in page xxiii of his Preface, and very pointedly condemned in other tranflators of the Scriptures?

Amos, iv. ver. 9. is rendered,

I have fmitten you with blafting and with mildew very much." Whether this tranflation of the paffage be more accurate than the common English verfion, which, in compliance with the Maforetic divifion of the fentence, connects the word

with the following claufe, we will not take upon us to determine. But furely the expreffion very much is evidently deficient in point of dignity, and its pofition at the end of the fentence feems to render it particularly unharmonious.

Amos, vi. 14. is rendered by Bifhop Newcome, in exact conformity indeed with the Hebrew original, but in direct oppofition to the rule laid down by himself (Rule V.), as follows: Surely, behold I will raise up against thee, O houfe of Ifrael, Saith Jehovah, the God of Hofts,

[ocr errors]

A nation; and they fhall opprefs you, &c.'

The ftructure of the fentence in the common tranflation is infinitely more natural, and better fuited to an English ear: "But behold I will raife up against you a nation, O houfe of Ifrael, faith the Lord God of Hofts, &c."

Hofea, xiii. 14. is rendered, we think, rather obfcurely,
O Death, where is thine overthrow ?

O Grave, where is thy deftruction?'

The words thine overthrow, and thy deftruction, feem naturally to point out an overthrow, and a deftruction to be fuffered; rather than to be inflicted by death and the grave. Of this obfcurity, indeed, the learned Tranflator appears himself to have been fenfible, for he has added the following note to explain the paffageThe deftruction inflicted by death.' But certainly a tranflation defigned for general ufe, inftead of requiring notes to explain its

meaning,

meaning, fhould speak a language intelligible to every capacity.

Habakkuk, i. 9.

All of them fhall come for violence;

The fupping up of their faces fhall be as an Eaft wind;
And they fhall gather captives as the fand.'

Though the word i be rendered, perhaps with stric literal propriety, the fupping up, and though the Tranflator may fhelter himself under the authority of the common English verfion, and that of the learned Peters on Job, yet we cannot but be apprehenfive that the phrafe will convey either an improper meaning, or rather no meaning at all to the mere English reader. At the fame time, however, we must be candid enough to confefs, that we know no unexceptionable word which we can recommend to be fubftituted in its place; unless indeed we follow the Syriac verfion, and that of Symmachus, which appear to have read, or, what amounts to nearly the fame, admit the conjecture of Houbigant,, when the fentence will run thus: Before their faces, &c.

But we forbear to infift any longer on this moft irksome part of our office. We will not fatigue ourselves, or difguft our Readers, with a tedious enumeration of trifling inaccuracies. On the contrary, we cannot exprefs our fentiments on this fubject more exactly, or more forcibly, than in the words of a celebrated writer of antiquity-Καθαπερ γε καὶ ἐν τοῖς κολοσσικοῖς ἔργοις, ἐ τὸ καθ ̓ ἕκασον ἀκριβὲς ζητεμέν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς καθόλα προσω ἔχομεν μᾶλλον, ἢ ἔιη καλῶς τὸ ὅλον · ὅτως καν τέτοις ποιείσθαι δεῖ τὴν κρίσιν.

In the work at large, but more particularly in the Notes, the Bishop has enjoyed the advantage of fome particular affiftances in addition to thofe which the prefs affords. Thefe, which he enumerates in the most candid and grateful manner, confifted principally in the accefs which he had to the inedited papers of Dr. Durell, Dr. Wheeler, and Archbishop Secker; in collations of the Coptic verfion made in the 2d century; and of the Pachomian MS. ; to which must be added fome obfervations of Dr. Forfayeth, Archdeacon of Cork, which occupy no inconfiderable part of the Appendix.

There is alfo a curious communication on Haggai, ii. 6, 7, 8,9 from the learned Dr. Heberden, which deferves to be particularly noticed, as it tends to fhew the mifapplication of a prophecy, which, as it ftands in our tranflation, is evidently predictive of the Meffiah. It is true, that whatever cannot be properly applied to the fupport of Chriftianity, ought readily to be parted with, fince even the belt caule may fuffer from an unskiiful or unfair defence. On the other hand, there feens an alarming

E 3

alarming propenfity in fome modern writers to relinquish evidence on the first fulpicion of its authenticity; a propenfity, which, though it may be perfectly confiftent with the best intentions, feems to carry candour to an excefs, and may be conftrued by the enemies of our faith into lukewarmnefs and indifference.

Whether this prophecy of Haggai deferves to be ranked among thofe proofs, which fhould not haftily be yielded to our adverfaries, is a queftion now before the Public. That our

Readers may judge in fome degree of the prefent ftate of the controverfy, we fhall tranfcribe the paffage as tranflated by Bishop Newcome, together with Dr. Heberden's communication, fubjoining a few curfory obfervations of our own. For thus faith Jehovah God of hofts:

Yet once more, in a fhort time,

I will shake the heavens and the earth,
And the fea and the dry land:

And I will shake all the nations;

[ocr errors]

And the defire of all the nations fhall come ;

And I will fill this House with glory;

Saith Jehovah God of hosts.

The filver is mine, and the gold is mine;

Saith Jehovah God of hofts.

Greater fhall be the glory

Of this latter Houfe than of the former,

Saith Jehovah God of hofts:

And in this place will I give peace,

Saith Jehovah God of hofts.'

Dr. Heberden's communication is as follows:

The Prophet in thefe verfes encourages the Jews just returned from captivity to rebuild their temple, and affures them that the fplendour and riches of this new building fhould be very great, and that it fhould be far from being as nothing in the eyes of those who recollected the grandeur of the firft temple. This is the obvious meaning of the words, and no other perhaps would ever have been thought of, if the Vulgate Latin had not tranflated

6

[ocr errors]

Defideratus cunctis gentibus: He that is defired of all nations,' inftead of the defirable' or precious things of all nations;' which is the true tranflation of these words; and this fenfe of them is to be found in all the old verfions, the Vulgate excepted. But the Vulgate happened to be the only one which was understood and read for several ages; and hence arofe the opinion that Chrift muft be the perfon defired of all nations, and that he would add glory to this 'temple by his prefence.

"In deference to this opinion the English tranflators of the Bible have followed the Vulgate against the plain conftruction of the Hebrew text, and have differed from all the other old tranflations.

"The learned father Houbigant, who, as a Romanist, is ready to pay all due regard to the Vulgate, acknowledges that

*Or, defirable things.

being

the

the nominative cafe to a plural verb 1 must be a plural noun, and ought to be tranflated precious things:' that it is limited to this meaning by the mention of filver and gold which follows, and that nothing more was intended by the Prophet than the common richness of the building and its furniture.

"It appears from 1 Maccabees, i. 21, 22, that the fecond temple was in fact very richly ornamented; and in the 23d verse of the fame chapter Antiochus is faid to have taken away the filver and the gold and the precious veffels; which, if the book had been written in Hebrew, would probably have been the very word mentioned by Haggai.

"It is obfervable that this Hebrew word is found in Daniel, xi. 43, joined with gold and filver, and is tranflated in the English Bible, precious things. Ifaiah likewife, lxiv. 11, mentions the deftruction of the temple, and together with it 13 all our or its pleafant things, nearly the fame word with that of Haggai. See alfo Joel, iii. [Hebr. iv.] 5, and Nahum, ii. 9. [Hebr. 10.]

"Befides, according to Jofephus, it is not true that the Meffiah's prefence ever added to the glory of the temple which was building in the time of Haggai: for the Jewish hiftorian affures us, in the plaineft words, that, before Chrift was born, this temple was pulled down, and the foundations of it were taken away by Herod the Great, who built an entire new one in its room: his words are, ̓Ανελὼν δὲ τὰς ἀρχαίες θεμελίες, καὶ καταβαλόμενος ἑτέρως, ἐπ ̓ αὐτῶν τὸν ναὸν yse. Jofeph. Antiq. 1. 15. 11. 3. [Herod] after he had taken away the old foundations, and laid others, upon them erected the temple. Now, if there be any difference between rebuilding and repairing, if Haggai's temple differed from Solomon's, and was a fecond temple, then Herod's was not the fame with Haggai's, but was truly a third temple. [The learned Mr. Peirce, on the Hebr. xii. 26, p. 189, zd. edit. allows this to be a third temple.]

"The most plaufible objections to the Chriftian religion have been made out of the weak arguments which have been advanced in its fupport: and can there be a weaker argument than that which fets out with doing violence to the original text in order to form a prophecy, and then contradicts the exprefs teftimony of the best hiftorian of thofe times in order to fhew that it has been accomplished ?"

Bishop Newcome's opinion is to be collected from his Notes. He thinks that the true reading is 1, and that the vau has been omitted because it was fupplied by a point, In fupport of this conjecture, he obferves, that the LXX. render it Ta ixλExla, and the Arab. electa, exquifita. He adds, that the word is ufed plurally with the force of the fingular, like delicia or fpes, in Latin, Dan. ix. 23. (where LXX. and Arab, rightly fupply, vir defideriorum). That Cantic. v. 16. we have 1531 et ipfe totus defideria, for defiderabilis. That Catullus ufes amores for a perfon; and that Cicero thus addreffes Terentia and Tulliola, Valete mea defideria.

The Bishop confeffes, that there is a difficulty in applying n to a perfon, and that we fhould expect to find in the E 4

text

« AnteriorContinuar »