very racy of the received version, is not his own, but John Bellamy's!that translation which has been shewn to be full of the grossest errors and absurdities, and to be framed by a person who is no less ignorant of the plainest rules of Hebrew grammar than destitute of every other qualification for a Biblical translator! Thus, by a style of proceeding more truly astonishing than could have been imagined, Sir J. Burges assumes, not only without examination, but in the face of the clearest evidence, the accuracy of Bellamy's translation; adopts it as the test by which the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the authorized English versions are to be tried; and then, because these versions differ entirely from it, comes to the portentous conclusion-not that versions approved by the most competent judges in all ages are right, and that which rests on Bellamy's single authority is entirely wrong, but just the reverse; that these versions are all unfaithful to the original-and that Bellamy's alone gives the true and accurate sense! In addition to the lamentable weakness of judgment and incapacity which this proceeding betrays, there is, we regret to say, a want of ingenuous dealing in it, which demands the most serious reprobation. As we have stated, Sir James quotes a literal translation,' but studiously conceals the name of John Bellamy* in connexion with it; well knowing that the public were apprized of his demerits, and would not now set much value on a 'literal' or any 'translation,' professing to come from him. Again, when Sir J. Burges brings forward what he calls a literal translation,' the natural inference is that he is prepared to vouch for its being so; that he has examined it, and ascertained, on other grounds than the mere assertion of the author, that it is what its name implies, a true literal translation.' Now we beg leave to ask, has Sir James Burges done this? Is he able to do it? Does he possess knowledge enough of the Hebrew language to judge whether this or any other translation is literal? We see no symptoms in his book of his possessing such knowledge, and our belief is, that he does not possess it. How can he, then, as a man of principle, and an investigator of truth, bring forward, for the very grave purpose of shaking the con Sir J. Burges, in a flippant and angry Reply to Mr. Todd, recently published, pretends to complain that he is coupled by him with John Bellamy, and represented as advocating his cause; and says (Reply, p. 9) that, to the best of his recollection, there is only one passage in his book in which any mention of Mr. Bellamy, or any allusion to him, can be discovered.' The best of his recollection seems to be but bad when it suits his purpose. We think we can refresh it a little by reminding him that, through several pages of his book, he has quoted Bellamy's version as a literal translation from the Hebrew, and represented our received version as not a literal translation, because it does not agree with it. If this be not to shew his implicit faith in Bellamy's version, we beg leave to ask what can be so. We are not surprized that Sir J. Burges begins to be a little weary of the connection: on his account we wish that he had shewn a little more warinesss in entering into it. fidence fidence of the public in the authorized version of the Holy Bible, another version under the title of a literal version from the Hebrew,' in terms which imply his solemnly vouching for its being literal, when he knows that he does not possess one particle of the knowledge which would enable him so to do? All this, however, clearly proves that enough has not yet been done. We will not flatter Sir James by saying that we think him less likely to be gulled by the confident assertions of an ignorant empiric, than the rest of the world; but we will say, that a considerable number of persons who are indisposed to examine such matters for themselves, are at least as likely to be deceived as he is. In addition to this, as he assumes a tone of erudition, his authority may probably carry a certain degree of weight with some readers, and induce them to believe that Bellamy's translations are just, because he has expressed a deliberate opinion in their favour. On these grounds, we are inclined to hope that a further discussion of their merits will not be thought superfluous. In this discussion, we gladly avail ourselves of the assistance afforded by two works, in which the subject has been considered with a particularity, from which the limits of our Journal required us to abstain. The first and most important of these is entitled an Historical and Critical Enquiry into the Interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures, with Remarks on Mr. Bellamy's New Translation,' by Mr. Whittaker, of St. John's College, Cambridge. This gentleman has exposed in detail, and with peculiar success, the falsehood of many of Bellamy's assertions; and has particularly been enabled, by his accurate and intimate knowledge of the oriental tongues, to bring to the test his skill as a biblical translator. The second is a Vindication of our authorized Translation of the Bible, and of preceding Versions, from the Objections of Mr. John Bellamy, and of Sir J. B. Burges,' by the Rev. H. J. Todd, in which the author, abstaining from a critical discussion of the fidelity of the several versions, institutes, as his course of reading has enabled him to do with great advantage, an accurate inquiry into their history; pointing out the high qualifications of the authors of our received version for the task committed to them, and producing a mass of eminent authorities in favour of its general excellence. Mr. Whittaker properly begins his Enquiry by explaining what is meant when it is said that any particular translation of the Bible is made from the original. By these words it is merely understood, that its authors regarded nothing as authority, except the original Hebrew of the Old, and the original Greek of the New Testament, a condition which evidently is not violated by their consulting any number of prior translations during the progress of their work. No person would attempt a new version, without availing himself of the labours of former interpreters, unless his discretion was altogether overcome by self-conceit, or he was so bad a critic as not to be aware of the advantages resulting from a comparison of different independent translations. Accordingly, those who have undertaken this arduous task have invariably paid the greatest deférence to their learned predecessors, which respect has generally been proportioned to their own modesty, and has therefore been most shewn by men of the highest attainments. That degree of confidence in his own acquirements, which leads a translator to neglect or underrate those who have gone before him, usually proceeds from vanity, and may be esteemed no unsure token of inconsiderate rashness. 'It is hardly necessary to dwell on the utility of the Old Translations. There are many passages, particularly in the Old Testament, of such acknowledged difficulty, that learned men never did, and perhaps never will, agree about them. In these cases, if a translator feel any uncertainty, his object ought to be the selection of that interpretation from former versions, which, after mature consideration, he thinks the best; nor would he be justified in forsaking them, unless à priori he had reason to believe that their authors were influenced by prejudice, or the desire of supporting some favourite tenet. If in translating the Old Testament he considers none of the versions thus employed as of ultimate and decisive authority, it is contended that his translation is made from the Original Hebrew, and from nothing else.'—pp. 1—3. The soundness of these remarks will be appreciated by every reader. They shew the egregious folly of Mr. Bellamy's boast of translating from the Hebrew only, in the sense of referring to, and consulting, no preceding translation; a boast which is sufficient of itself to produce a full conviction of his utter incompetence to the office he has undertaken. Every preceding translation conveys the recorded opinion of the learned persons who framed it, as to the sense of the original; and, where several independent translations agree, a concurrence of opinions as to the sense is afforded, which leaves no room for doubt. By declaring that he translates from the Hebrew only, in the sense in which he uses the term, Mr. Bellamy declares that his regular plan is to discard the most valuable means of properly performing the task he undertakes. Mr. Whittaker proceeds to consider Bellamy's bold assertion that Jerome made his Latin translation from the Greek, and not from the Hebrew. It will be remembered that we mentioned it as an historical fact, too well authenticated to admit any doubt, that Jerome made his version from the Hebrew; and we sanctioned what we advanced by a quotation from the learned and accurate Brian Walton. Mr. Whittaker adopts a still surer method of proving it; for he refers to Jerome himself, and shews, from his own words, that he did translate from the Hebrew. In one passage, he says (Epist. 49, at Pammachium) Libros sedecim pro 6 ut prophetarum quos in Latinum de Hebræo sermone verti, &c. In another, in answer to some calumnies heaped upon him expressly on account of his translating from the Hebrew, and thereby departing from the version then received- Certe confidenter dicamme nihil duntaxat de Hebraicâ veritate mutâsse. Sicubi ergo editio mea a veteribus discrepat, interroga quemlibet Hebræorum, et liquidò pervidebis me ab æmulis frustra lacerari.'-(Apolog. adv. Ruffin.) We have ourselves since referred to Jerome's own declarations, and find proof heaped upon proof that he translated from the Hebrew. Thus, in his Epistle to Augustin, v. i. p. 747. Edit. Vallarsii, 1734,) he affirms that his object in translating was scirent nostri quid Hebraica veritas contineret.' Again, in the same, apparently in answer to doubts expressed on the fidelity of his version to the Hebrew original, he observes that, as all who understood Greek could judge what he had done in regard to the Greek Testament, eandem integritatem debueras etiam in Veteri credere Testamento, quod non nostra confinximus, sed, ut apud Hebræos invenimus, divina transtulimus.' Of the book of Job, he says, (Lib. contra Ruffin. v. ii. p. 524) quum rursum juxta ipsum Hebraicum verterem:' of the Psalms (p. 525.) Psalterium rursum juxta Hebraicum vertens, præfatione munivi:' of the books of Solomon, Solomonis libros ex Hebraico transferens.' Enough, and more than enough, has surely been said to place beyond all dispute the utter falsehood of Mr. Bellamy's assertion respecting Jerome: yet, incorrigible in error, he has the hardihood to repeat it, word for word, in his Second Part; and his champion, (Sir James Burges,) thus steps forward to confirm it! I will produce, he says, two witnesses, to prove that Jerome's version was not a new version from the Hebrew original, but that it was little more than a translation, and in many instances, a very close one, from the Septuagint, or, in other words, from Origen's Hexapla. My first shall be Jerome himself.' He then states that a violent clamour having been raised against Jerome, on the publication of his version, not only for attempting to introduce Judaism into the church, but for having entirely changed the Scriptures, and conducted himself in his translation as a Jew and an apostate, he replied in the following terms:- I entertain no intention to lessen the authority of the Septuagint, which I acknowledge to be divine-I have undertaken this work (his own version) for the instruction of the people, without any design of blaming the ancient version.-How do I contemn the ancient translators? In no way; but I labour in the house of the Lord, treading in the footsteps of those who went before me.'-pp. 106, 107. Is it possible!-is Sir James Bland Burges's obtuseness of understanding so great, that he cannot perceive how entirely these words of Jerome prove the very fact which he brings them to controvert? Why was this clamour raised against Jerome?' Not surely because he translated from the Septuagint, for this was the Scripture with which his opponents were familiar; but because he translated from the Hebrew directly, and thereby incurred the charge of conducting himself like a Jew, and changing the Scriptures (the language in which the sense of Scripture was expressed) from that to which the people were accustomed. To soften this clamour, and to reconcile the prejudices of his opponents, he declares in the words just cited, that he has no intention of blaming the ancient translators, or lessening the authority of the Septuagint; all which expressions prove still more conclusively, that he did not translate from the Septuagint for how then could it be necessary for him to declare, that he had no intention of lessening its authority? Such is Sir James Burges's first witness.' His second is no less extraordinary. 'I beg leave,' he says, (p. 108.)' to bring forward my second witness, which is no other than Jerome's own version, which, instead of being a new translation from the original Hebrew, is little more than a literal translation of the Greek Septuagint. The following table contains a collection of sundry portions of Jerome's version, with the corresponding passages of the Septuagint, and of the Hebrew text literally translated; which will shew, with their accordance with the former, and their disagreement with the latter, from which source they must have been derived.' To this second witness' our answer shall be very concise. The Hebrew text, literally translated, as Sir James calls it, is any thing but that; it is the Hebrew text most vilely distorted from its true meaning; it is, in fact, nothing more than Bellamy's translation of the Hebrew text, which Sir J. Burges has the confidence here also to produce, without stating whose it is, as a literal translation. It would indeed be surprising if Jerome's or any other version should agree with this. But such are the assertions of Sir James Burges, and such is his mode of proving their truth! We now follow Mr. Whittaker in his investigation of Bellamy's affirmations respecting all modern European translations having been made from the Septuagint and the Vulgate; these, it will be recollected, are as bold and positive as they can possibly be. "The common translations, in all the European languages, were made from the modern Septuagint and Vulgate.'-' From it (the Vulgate) and the Greek, all the European translations have been made.'From the copy of Jerome the Latin Vulgate made its appearance; and from this contaminated fountain all the European translations have been made.' These and similar assertions are scattered |