Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

of considering them critically, we should first compare them, and note down with exactness every variation: we should then consult the ancient versions with care, and see what assistance they may afford if these methods fail, we may now use our own judgment, applying the rules of grammar, and trying the sense by similar modes of expression: if the text still remains embarrassed, we ought to consider lastly, that the words may have been transposed, or improperly divided, that letters may have been added, omitted, misplaced, altered, &c. and accordingly endeavour to rectify the whole upon that consideration. And that we may be the better prepared for this difficult branch of criticism, it would be advisable to note down in a separate book, all the additions, mutations, transpositions, &c. of words and letters, which we may observe in collating the several passages, according to the following scheme,-by glancing upon which we may perhaps be enabled to rectify an error, that might otherwise occasion no small degree of difficulty.

2 Kings xxiv. 18, &c. and Jeremiah lii, 1, &c.
Compared according to Simon's Heb. Bible.

2 Kings xxiv. 18, &c. v.

Jeremiah lii. 1, &c. v.

.3 ויהודה השליכו אותם

(.Ch. xxv) .1 בשנת התשיעית .4 בשנה התשעית

נבוכדראצר
ויחנו

[blocks in formation]

וידבר

.20 וביהודה

השלכו אתם

[blocks in formation]

וידברו

6.

.7 ואת בני שחטו .10 וישחט מלך בבל את בני

וגם את כל שרי יהודה שחט

ברבלתה

.11 ויבאהו מלך בבל בבלה

ויתנהו בבית הפקדת עד יום

מותו .12 בעשור

נבוכדראצר
עמר לפני
בירושלם
.13 הגדול

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

From 2 Kings xxv. 22-26, is not found in the 52nd chapter of Jeremiah, and therefore is not collated; though it easily might be with Jer. xl. 5, 7—9, and xli. 1, 2.

.31 יהויכן וחמשה מלכתן

ויצא אתו מבית הכליא .32 ממעל לכסא מלכים .33 ושנה לפניו תמיד

[blocks in formation]

.27 יהויכין ושבעה מלכר

מבית כלא

.28 מעל כסא המלכים

.29 ושנא

תמיד לפניר

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

And so on through the Alphabet.

Chesterfield, April 20th, 1819.

W.

OBSERVATIONS ON MR. BELLAMY'S REPLY TO KIMCHI.

I HAVE just read, in the number of the Classical Journal for March, Mr. Bellamy's reply to some remarks of mine on his New Translation of the Bible; and especially on his new and extraordinary version of Gen. vi. 14. As I do not wish to enter at great length on the discussion of a subject which has already occupied much abler pens than mine, and which, I

trust, has been nearly set at rest, I shall chiefly confine myself to Mr. B.'s new version of Gen. vi. 14, and his charge of infidelity levelled at those critics who differ from him as to the present state of the Hebrew text.

After the able, detailed, and satisfactory manner in which Mr. Whittaker has confuted Mr. Bellamy's assertion, that all Modern Versions of the Bible derive their origin from the Vulgate, I did not expect that he would again venture to assert "that those contradictions in the authorised version, which have enabled objectors to shake the very foundation of society, have no authority in the sacred language, but have been made by the ignorance of the first translators in Hebrew, continued in the translation of Jerom, and copied from the Latin Vulgate into all the European translations." Mr. Bellamy perseveres in maintaining that those who disapprove of his new translation are hostile to any improvement of the authorised version. This is by no means the case. I should rejoice as much as Mr. B. to see the learning and talents of our first Hebrew scholars directed to bring the authorised version to a higher degree of perfection; and, I believe, not a few of Mr. B.'s opponents concur with me in this sentiment. The point at issue between us, is simply whether Mr. Bellamy is, or is not, competent to so important and so difficult a task. I wish, as I have said before, to impute no ill design to Mr. B. On the contrary, I believe he means well, and thinks he shall promote the cause of religion by his projected alterations of the English Bible. But I believe him to be too little skilled in Hebrew Criticism, too careless and inelegant as an English writer, too fanciful in his theories, and too deficient in judgment, to execute with ability and success the task he has undertaken these are not merely my own opinions. Many Hebrew scholars, whose sentiments are intitled to far greater respect than mine, have expressed their opinion as to his incompetence; nor am I aware that any Hebrew critic of note has expressed a favorable opinion of those parts of Mr. B.'s translation which have hitherto appeared. Mr. B. says, that many excellent Hebrew scholars have approved his work. Why does he not produce their names? If they are really excellent Hebrew scholars, their testimony in his favor will doubtless have weight with the public. It is with reluctance that I bring charges of incompetence against Mr. B.: but my respect

1

Bellamy's Reply to Kimchi, Classical Journal for March, 1821. p. 123.

for that which has been generally considered as one of the best versions of the Holy Scriptures in existence, will not permit me to suffer such groundless accusations of inaccuracy. and contradictions to be brought against it, without some attempt to repel the charge.

I

Without further preface I will proceed to the consideration of Gen. vi. 14. With regard to the meaning of the word, I have little to add to the unconfuted arguments in my former letter. I have never asserted that signifies "to cover" in any passage of Scripture. Yet that to cover is its primary sense is the opinion of some eminent Lexicographers. I confess I do not understand what Mr. Bellamy means by the following passage: "It is needless to attempt to show the want of information in Kimchi respecting the translation of (vau) by ibi, there: the truth is obvious, as proved by the common version." What, truth is proved by the common version? Does Mr. B. quote that version which he censures so much, to prove that means ibi? but let me ask, has Mr. B. taken the trouble to ascertain whether is EVER translated there in the common version? The reader will be surprised to learn that is not translated there in the common version, either in 2 Kings xxv. 22, or in Jer. xv. 8, or in any other passage in the Bible, as far as I can learn. Taylor gives the sense of ibi in two passages, Noldius in one, and I endeavoured briefly to prove that it has not that sense in either passage, and consequently that Mr. B. has no sufficient authority for giving it that sense. Mr. B, says that I have wrongly charged him with omitting the translation of

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

[othah]. "To show the reader," says he, "the manifest injustice which is done by the misrepresentation of the new translation, I quote the note on the word [othah], page 42 of the new translation. I shall now refer the reader to the intermediate words in this clause, ' 8 [othah mibayith]. THESE WORDS ARE RENDERED ONLY BY THE WORD, WITHIN. N [othah] is a compound word, of Л oth, which here means in, see 1 Sam. vii. 16—ix. 15. Psa. xvi. 11.—cxl. 13. Ezek. xlvii. 23, and the feminine termination ha, which, agreeably to the Hebrew, reads in her; but according to the idiom of our language, in it, or within. Accordingly I have

2

texit, operuit, linivit, oblinivit, obturavit, Schindleri Lex. Pent,

to cover by smearing, &c. Taylor's Heb. Conc.

to cover, overspread, Parkhurst's Heb. Lex.

Bellamy's Reply, p. 127.

« ZurückWeiter »