time of James ever looked at the Hebrew? If they did, it is obvious that they did not understand the grammar of the language.

It is not a little surprising that this critic is determined not to understand me, where I say, that "no translation of the Bible has been made from the original Hebrew Bible ONLY, since the time of Aquila;" for he says, "In answer to all this, we aver most distinctly, that our authorised version was made, not from any translation ancient or modern, but directly from the Hebrew and Greek." He is not willing to understand that I say, from the Hebrew only. But I will convince him, if he will admit of fact as proof, that our translation was made directly' neither from the Hebrew nor the Greek.

Isaiah, ix. 3. "Thou hast multiplied the nation and not in creased the joy; they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil." This passage is one of those which has perplexed all commentators, in all ages. The first proposition states, that God had multiplied the nation, but that he had not increased the joy-the second, that they rejoiced before him as men who returned from the harvest, or as those rejoiced who divided the spoil. I have said that this error has been copied into all the European translations, from the versions made in the first ages of the Christian church; and that this error has been made from the improper translation of shaamchou, which is translated as the present tense of the verb joy, viz. they joy. But it is the third person plural preter, and should be translated as the same word is in the common version, Psa. xxxv. 15. they rejoiced. See Introd. p. xxxiv. The psalmist here refers to the state of the church in former times, when they worshipped in the beauty of holiness, and he says in the second proposition, Tow they rejoiced in thy presence.

Some translators, to get rid of the contradiction, have changed the wordlo, which is the proper negative, for 15 lov, "to him," and have thus translated it, "Thou hast multiplied the nation and to him increased joy." I have avoided this unjustifiable liberty, and by giving the true translation, have retained the negative as the sacred writer has left it; and thus we find there is no contradiction in the passage..

לא

But our received English translation is at variance both with the Hebrew and with the Septuagint; for while the English retains the negative, and errs in the tense of the verb; the LXX. reject not, and give nothing better than a comment, viz. "The multitude of the people whom thou hast brought in gladness, they joy before thee." Now as this translation is evidently made neither from the Hebrew nor the Greek, I leave the public to determine what credit can be given to this confused, intemperate, and

any

anonymous critic, by declaring, "In answer to all this, we aver most distinctly, that our authorised version was made, not from translation ancient or modern, but directly from the Hebrew and Greek."

Gen. xxii. 12. Nyeree, is rendered as the second person singular preter, viz. thou fearest; and is in the common version applied to Abraham. But it is the third person singular preter, and is in the Hebrew applied to Isaac.

Abundance of examples might be given in almost every page of the received translation to show, that the translators did not translate from the Hebrew only; but these are sufficient to establish it as a fact which cannot be controverted. I now ask the critic, who has quoted the answer of the translators in 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." I now ask him, was there any propriety in his quoting this answer? For if the translators had had a thousand Hebrew Bibles before them, and even this critic himself, as the superior of their assembly; where would have been the use of this pompous display, if they had not understood, as it is undeniably evident they did not understand, the grammar of the language? And what must be the feeling of the learned and the unprejudiced reader, when he hears this same critic assuming all the consequence of deep learning in Hebrew, where, speaking of those who have attempted to improve some parts of the translation, he says, "Of the many at-. tempts of this description, some have proceeded from injudicious and incompetent persons, and have speedily sunk into oblivion:" charging me with an unpardonable crime, because I have said, that the translators have erred in mood, tense, person, participles, &c.? Undoubtedly such reader will say, that this vain and presumptuous accuser either does not understand the Hebrew grammar, or is ignorant that this is the case in the received translation. He ought to have known both, before he had attempted to profess himself a critic in Hebrew. And both he would have known, had he bad patience to have read my Genesis, instead of reading a few detached notes in five or six pages. Nay, had he even read the introduction, which is the custom of every judicious reader, he would have found that I am perfectly correct in saying, that the translators have erred in mood, tense, person, participles, &c.; examples of which are to be found in almost every page of the received translation.

Notwithstanding all the proofs that have been given by the learned in all Christian nations, concerning the imperfections of. the Greek Bible, called the Septuagint, this gentleman says,

"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." I have shown in the Introd. p. xii. that this is a serious mistake. Christ and the Apostles always quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures. Where the Septuagint agree with the original, it may be said that Christ and the Apostles agree with the Septuagint. But where the Septuagint are at variance with the Hebrew, and the quotation. is consistent with the Hebrew, then it must be admitted that the Hebrew was always quoted by Christ and the Apostles. But this Advocate for received errors gives no proof whatever that Christ and the Apostles did not quote from the Hebrew. And yet a few quotations will show that Christ and the Apostles quoted from the Hebrew only.

66

John ch. ii. 17. ζῆλος τοῦ οἴκου σου κατέφαγέ με, is a quotation from Psalm lxix. 10. Np, for the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up." Luke xxiii. 46. from Psalm xxxi. 5. PEN TT. Chap. xx. 17. from Psalm cxviii. 22.

66

the stone which the builders » אבן מאסו פנה לראש היתה אבונים

refused, is become the head of the corner." In these passages the Septuagint agree with the Hebrew; we have therefore authority to say that, so far, they are quoted from the Hebrew.

In the following passages we find, that the quotations are made from the Hebrew verbatim, and not from the Septuagint., Matt.' xxvii. 46. Ηλί, Ηλὶ, λαμὰ σαβαχθανί. Psalm xxii. 1.

,למה עזבתני

nay na, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me."

But the latter clause of this first verse in the Septuagint is not only inconsistent with the Hebrew, but with the whole tenor of the Christian religion. It stands thus in the Hebrew, P

Ny, "Why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?" But the Septuagint, paxpàr ἀπὸ τῆς σωτηρίας μου οἱ λόγοι τῶν παραπτωμάτων μου. “ The words of my transgressions are far from my salvation." Abundance of reference might be given, but these are sufficient to prove that Christ and the Apostles quoted from the Hebrew only, and never from the Septuagint. Indeed it is truly absurd to suppose that native Hebrews should have been in the habit of quoting Greek, to people who did not understand a word of Greek, in order to convince the Hebrew nation, that Christ was the Messiah foretold by the Patriarchs and the Prophets in the Hebrew Scriptures. The reader will see what credit can be given to this critic in his positive declaration, where he says, "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." He is evidently altogether unworthy of credit; and I am really ashamed to waste so much precious time on the subject.

The Advocate for received errors (p. 252.) has thought proper thus to introduce the author of the New Translation.

"The

person whose work is now before us, Mr. John Bellamy, some time ago issued proposals for publishing a New Translation of the Holy Bible.' We confess that, from the first, we augured no good from them." "We found too," he says, "several specimens of his new translation, printed in parallel columns with the corresponding texts of the received version. These specimens perfectly astonished us."

It may be necessary here to inform the reader, that at the same time that my proposals were published, this very writer had issued proposals for a mere reprint of the Old Translation. It surely would not have lessened the value of any reprint of the Old Translation, to have given the correct meaning of the following verses, amongst others, in those passages which occasioned so much astonishment to him: such as,

OLD TRANSLATION.

Amos iii. 6. Is evil in the city, and the Lord hath not done it ?

Jer. iv. 10. Ah, Lord God! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, Ye shall have peace :

Ch. xx. 7. O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived; thou art stronger than I.

NEW TRANSLATION.

Is evil in the city, and Jehovah hath not requited it?

Ah, Jehovah God! surely to desolation thou hast desolated this people and Jerusalem, for saying, Ye shall have peace:

O Jehovah, thou hast persuaded me, thus I was persuaded; strengthen thou me. I am truly sorry that this Advocate cannot discuss subjects, particularly of this serious and sacred nature, without bitterness! What reason can be assigned for the virulent abuse, which he heaps on me in every page? I have not spoken against his reprint of the Old Translation. But this writer sets out with a determined resolution to condemn all I have said; though he must be sensible that I am writing, as I have been for twenty-one years, to silence the objections of infidels, who in a time of great national trouble, by these very objections, were the cause of much danger both to the church and state. Surely he ought not to take a part in favor of that description of men, by endeavouring to stop the circulation of a translation, which is in

1

tended to stem the torrent of infidelity, by enabling those who have not studied the Hebrew language, to silence the objections which have so long been, and which continue to be, advanced against the revealed truth.

In p. 262. this ADVOCATE says, "The first passage to which we shall direct our attention, is Gen. ii. 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 the man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."

I have said, and truly, that this version exhibits an improper repetition; when we are told that a deep sleep had fallen on Adam, there was no necessity to say, and he slept. The word tardeemah, rendered a deep sleep, has no such meaning: it signifies "an inactive state of mind." And in this state the common version says, God took from him one of his ribs, and formed it into a woman.

The Advocate asserts in the face of the public, that I have brought forward the objections of infidels; but he ought at least in common liberality, to have stated the reasons why those objections were cited. When it is recollected that his credit and profits, as a biblical editor, depend on his writing down my translation; his motives for such conduct may easily be appreciated by the candid public. It surely does appear questionable, that, when an humble individual, however illiterate he may strive to make me appear, and however despicable the anonymous opprobrium, which he attempts to heap on me, may cause some of my countrymen to consider for a time my labors to be, the whole purport of my labors, and the sacred object they had in view, however imperfectly executed, should have been purposely withheld from the attention of the reader. This may be a very appropriate way of conducting calumny; but it cannot be either a liberal or an impartial mode of executing the task of a judicious critic. What possible motive could induce him to pass over in silence the evident and acknowledged reason why I have brought forward the objections of infidels? I leave the reader to determine. It is repeatedly declared in my work. I have done so with a design of silencing for ever the pernicious objections of that dangerous set of men. I have said, p. 11. of the first part: "Admitting it were possible (French deists and infidels have said) that God had taken out the rib without any pain to Adam, what do we gain by this? or what virtue could have been given to the simple bone, by being first made a part in the body of VOL. XVIII. CI. JI. NO. XXXVI.

P