Images de page
PDF
ePub

p. xiv. he again reminds the reader, to remember that the present authorized version and all the national versions of Europe were translated from the Latin Vulgate; and thus all the errors made in the early ages of the Christian church have been perpetuated.'

6

In answer to all this, we aver most distinctly that our authorized version was made, not from any trauslation either ancient or modern, but directly from the original Hebrew and the Greek. We apprehend that, with every considerate reader, the simple affirmation of the translators themselves to this effect will, be amply sufficient. We have alluded already to the title-page of the version. We now add a passage from the preface. If,' say they,' you ask what they had before them, (in framing this translation,) truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New'! And it will be allowed (we think) that they knew the fact as well as Mr. Bellamy, and are as worthy of belief. But the fact is capable of the most satisfactory proof. If the reader will take the trouble of comparing a few verses, in the 1st chapter of Genesis for instance, of the English version, with the Hebrew, the Greek Septuagint, and the Latin Vulgate, (he may find them in Walton's Polyglott, ranged in parallel columns,) he will at once be convinced, from the agreement of the minuter words and turns of expression, that it was made directly from the Hebrew. For example, at Gen. i. v. 2. the English version has, the earth was without form and void. Here the words of the Greek are Ἡ γῆ ἦν ἀόρατος καὶ ȧxataσxévaσtos, in which the literal sense of the two adjectives is 'invisible' and' unformed,' agreeing substantially with the original, but not closely expressing it. The Latin is, Terra erat inanis et vacua,' where the two adjectives express the sense of void,' but not without form.' Thus no one translating the Greek or the Latin would have been led to the exact expression which our English version gives. It is only from the original that the expression without form and void' is derived, the Hebrew expression bearing exactly this meaning. At the end of the same verse, the English is, 'The spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.' The Greek has, πνεῦμα θεᾶ ἐπεφέρετο ἐπάνω τῷ ὕδατος ; the Latin, Spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas;' from either of which expressions a translator would give the spirit of God moved or was carried upon or above the water.' It is only from the Hebrew that the peculiar expression is obtained moved upon the face of the waters,' which is the closest possible rendering of the words an So at v. 3. the English version gives, Let there be light,' which is the exact translation of the Hebrew. The Vulgate has, Fiat lux,'' Let light be made,' the same as to sense, but differing in words. This then affords a proof that the English was not translated from the Latin. Again, at v. 6. the English version renders,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

הסים

[ocr errors]

6

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

'Let

'Let it divide the waters from the waters.' The Hebrew idiom here is peculiar, so that, while the sense is plain, the expression does not admit of exact rendering into English. In this instance, the words of the English version happen to have a close conformity with the Latin Vulgate, but they differ very widely from the Greek, where the expression is, Εστω διαχωρίζον, ἀνὰ μέσον ὕδατος καὶ ὕδατος literally, Let it be dividing between water and water.' The text therefore proves that the English version was not formed from the Greek, as the other did that it was not formed from the Latin. If the reader proceeds, he will find it manifest, beyond all question, that the general character of the English is to conform closely to the Hebrew in those passages where, the sense in all versions being the same, there is a partial difference in the turn and form of the expression, and that it frequently varies either from the Greek or from the Latin, or from both, so as to afford the clearest proof that it was not made mediately from them but directly from the Hebrew. With all we know of Mr. Bellamy, we feel not a little surprized, that he should have ventured on an assertion, which the slightest examination would wholly disprove.

[ocr errors]

Another of Mr. Bellamy's methods of disparaging the authorized version is by general insinuations against the competency of the persons employed on it. It was well known,' he says, p. ii., ' that. there was not a critical Hebrew scholar among them.' Again, 'the translators have left it' (the authorized version)' defective in mood, tense, person, gender, infinitive, imperative, participles, conjunctions, &c. and in many instances, almost in every page, we find verses consisting in a great part of italics, in some, a third part, and in others, nearly half,-so that the meaning of the sacred writer is by these interpolations always obscured, and in many instances perverted.' In another place, he says, 'For the most part, these italics are lamentable corruptions which pervert the sense of the original, make the sacred writer say what he never did say, and which, in things the most important, charge God with commands he never gave. Had the Hebrew been critically understood by the translators, so as to have translated from it only, there had been no necessity for many of these additions in the text.' p. xi. And he winds up all, with affirming, that in a number of instances the modern translations are no better than comments, which are as opposite to the sense of the original text as error is to truth.'

Assertions of this nature, however calumnious, as they are not grounded on any particular instances, cannot be fully confuted without a distinct consideration of every text to which they may apply, that is, without going regularly through the Bible. We shall have a few words to say respecting the insertions in italics, before we close this Article. In the mean time, we desire the reader to remem

[blocks in formation]

ber that no insertion of any kind is made in the English Bible, which did not, in the judgment of the translators, appear necessary to express more clearly and fully the sense of the original Hebrew; yet these are represented by this daring perverter of the truth as interpolations, obscuring the sense, making the text speak what was never intended, and charging God with commands he never gave!

But Mr. Bellamy is not more courteous to the other existing translations; since the time of Aquila, A. D. 128, (he says,) I do not find that the translators in any one instance have confined themselves to the Hebrew only.' p. x. And he makes it his own peculiar boast that he translates literally from the pure Hebrew text only.' -p. 2.

From his general manner, we readily comprehend what he means by translating from the Hebrew only'; namely, that he throws aside the assistance afforded by the best ancient versions, and attends solely to the Hebrew text. Now we have no hesitation in saying that, had our translators proceeded in this way, they would have forfeited that reputation for sound judgment and learning, which they have so justly established, and produced a version by no means entitled to that high character which the present bears. Let us recollect a little how the matter stands. The Hebrew, in which the books of the Old Testament are written, has ceased to be the vernacular language of any nation for more than 2000 years; and, what is very different from the case of the Greek and Latin languages, of which abundance is come down to us, both in poetry and prose, we possess in the ancient Hebrew those books only which form the volume of the Old Testament. Under such circumstances, if we had no translatious of them, made in times when greater advantages for interpretation were afforded, than we now enjoy, we should frequently be at a loss to ascertain the true sense. Many words and forms of construction occur in these books, some perhaps only once, others not more than two or three times; and if we were left to discover the meaning of them either from the context, or from internal evidence, we should find the task of translating the Scriptures with certainty, often very difficult, and sometimes even impossible. But, providentially, we possess, together with the Hebrew, several valuable versions of great antiquity, which accurately record the meaning of the original as it was understood in those early times, and therefore afford a most important guidance to us in interpreting it at present. We have, in the first place, the Greek version, well known by the name of the Septuagint, which has ever been prized most highly by both Jews and Christians as conveying generally the true interpretation of the Hebrew. This version was made at a time (about B. C. 270) when the language of the Bible had scarcely ceased to be vernacular; for, although the Jews who returned

returned from the 'captivity used a mixture of the Hebrew and Chaldee, yet it is probable that some societies of them, who escaped the general captivity by flying into neighbouring countries, still spoke the original language quite or nearly in its purity or if the language was not at that time any where strictly vernacular, yet it had ceased to be so only for a short period: many writings in it of various descriptions then existed, no doubt, which have since been wholly lost, not to mention grammars, dictionaries, and other assistances for interpretation, remaining from the period when the language was in use. Thus no reasonable doubt can exist that the authors of the Septuagint version possessed the means of making it most faithful to the original. That they really did so make it, is confirmed by the fact of its general reception amongst the Jews from the first, by its being quoted by many early writers who had the best means of ascertaining its fidelity, and by the concurring opinions of all antiquity. But the circumstance which affixes as it were the seal of authority to the accuracy of the Septuagint version is, its being quoted by our Saviour and the inspired writers of the New Testament. We observe that Mr. Bellamy, with a view to his own purposes, strains every nerve to make his readers hold the Septuagint version in contempt, and calls that which we possess, the spurious Septuagint. Hard names carry no weight when unsupported by solid arguments; and not a semblance of argument is produced by him to excite the least suspicion that the version now called the Septuagint is materially different from that which has always borne this name. We readily allow indeed that it is not a perfect work as it is the production of human beings, it contains errors and imperfections; as it has been preserved by human means, it has suffered occasionally by negligence and mistakes of transcribers. But we speak the concurring sentiment of all learned men when we affirm that, taken as a whole, it has come down to us in a state of great purity and perfection; and that we have the highest possible authority for deeming it to convey, in the main, a faithful record of the true sense of the Hebrew Scriptures.

But, in addition to the Septuagint, we possess other important assistances derived from antiquity for the interpretation of the Hebrew. We have the Samaritan version, made, as is thought, before the birth of Christ; the Chaldee Paraphrases, or Targums of Onkelos on the law, and of Jonathan on the prophets, being free translations of the Scriptures, made about the time of Christ; we have the Syriac version, made, according to constant tradition, not long after the time of the Apostles; the Latin Vulgate, formed from St. Jerome's translation from the Hebrew, which was made at the close of the third century. We have also some scattered fragments of three translations of the Old Testament into Greek, all made in the

R 3

the second century severally by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, together with versions of less antiquity into eastern and other languages; all these, having been made, more or less, with advantages for the right interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures, far greater than any modern translator possesses without their aid, are justly entitled to very great consideration. And a person who professes to translate from the Hebrew only,' or who, in other words, wholly throws aside the valuable assistance of the ancient translations, pro claims in the outset his utter want of judgment, and tells the public that while he is attempting to execute an important work, he neglects some of the most valuable means of executing it faithfully.

We now proceed to a particular consideration of some of those passages, in which Mr. Bellamy, from his knowledge of the Hebrew, professes to make discoveries of the true meaning of the original, which have escaped the penetration of every former translator. In doing this, we beg to remind the reader that in questions which concern the meaning of words in the dead languages, we cannot, in the nature of things, bring the point at issue to a mathematical demonstration, but must refer it to the common authority and consent of mankind. If, for example, Mr. John Bellamy should think proper in his wisdom to contend that the word niger in the Latin language signifies white, and not black, as has been universally thought, and should pretend to prove that, in every passage where the word occurs in Latin authors, a much better sense would be made by translating it white, than black, we could never prove to a demonstration that he is wrong: we could only plead the concurring authority of all who have interpreted the word, to shew that it really signifies black,' and that it is used with this sense wherever it occurs.

The first passage to which we shall direct our attention is Gen. ii. v. 21, 22. where it has always been understood, that woman was formed by the Almighty from the side of man. The English translation, agreeing with every known translation, states that, after the Lord God had caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, 'he took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman and brought her unto the man.' A beautiful reason is afforded in the words which follow, for this dispensation of the Creator, that it was designed as a symbol of the close and entire union that should subsist between a man and his wife, who is bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, and that they two should be one flesh.' That the infidel objector may have found matter for his scoffs in this, as in other passages of Scripture, affords not the slightest proof that it is really deserving of ridicule, or that it records any thing inconsistent with reason or with the known perfections of the Deity. But our

present

« PrécédentContinuer »