« ZurückWeiter »
3. The invariable Principles of Poetry, in a Letter addressed to Thomas Campbell, Esq. occasioned by some Critical Observations in his Specimens of British Poets, particularly relating to the Poetical Character of Pope. By the Rev. W. L. Bowles. VI. 1. An Autumn near the Rhine.
2. Travels in the North of Germany. By T. Hodgskin, Esq.
of Society of Germany, and Parts of Holland and France; taken
4. Die wichtigsten Leben Momente Karl Ludwig Sands aus Wunsiedel.
5. Memoirs of Charles Lewis Sand, including a Narrative of the Circumstances attending the Death of Augustus von Kotzebue. Also a Defence of the German Universities.
Fables from La Fontaine, in English Verse.
VIII. The Gas Blow-pipe, or Art of Fusion, by burning the Gaseous Constituents of Water: giving the History of the Philosophical Apparatus so denominated; the Proofs of Analogy in its. operations to the Nature of Volcanoes; together with an Appendix, containing an Account of Experiments with this Blowpipe. By Edward Daniel Clarke, LL.D. Professor of Mineralogy in the University of Cambridge, Member of the Royal Academy of Sciences, at Berlin, &c.
IX. The Comedies of Aristophanes. By T. Mitchell, A. M. late
XI. Memoirs of Richard Lovell Edgeworth, Esq. Begun by
2. The Basis of National Welfare; considered in Reference chiefly to the Prosperity of Britain, and Safety of the Church of England. By the Rev. Richard Yates.
3. Substance of the Speech delivered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on Monday the 16th of March, 1818, on proposing a Grant of One Million for providing Additional Places of Public Worship in England.
4. A Sketch of the History of Churches in England, to which is
5. A Letter to the Right Honourable the Earl of Liverpool on
ART. I.-1, An Historical and Critical Enquiry into the Interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures, with Kemarks on Mr. Bellamy's New Translation. By J. W. Whittaker, M. A. Fellow of St. John's, Cambridge.
2. A New Translation of the Holy Bible. Part II. By John Bellamy.
3. Reasons in favour of a New Translation of the Holy Scrip tures. By Sir James Bland Burges, Bart.
4. A Vindication of our Authorized Translation and Translators of the Bible, in answer to Objections of Mr. John Bellamy and Sir James Bland Burges. By the Rev. H. J. Todd, M.A. 5. Supplement to an Historical and Critical Enquiry into the Interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures, with Remarks on Mr. Bellamy's New Translation. By J. W. Whittaker, M.A. Fellow of St. John's, Cambridge.
WHEN we last called the attention of the public to Mr. Bellamy's New Translation,' we pledged ourselves not to betray our duty by remaining in silence, while he or any one else was attempting to degrade the Bible, by capricious and ill-founded interpretations, tending to the perversion of its sacred truths.
Several circumstances have occurred which induce us to redeem this pledge without further delay. In the first place, it appears that, whatever may be the present opinion of the public respecting Mr. Bellamy's qualifications, he has not yet been led to form a just estimate of them himself: for, notwithstanding all that has passed, he has published a second part of his translation in the same style with the first. In this he commits the same blunders; displays the same ignorance of the plainest principles of Hebrew; exhibits the same vulgar and incomprehensible jargon; repeats the same exploded falsehoods; and treats with the same insolence the learned persons who framed our present authorized translation. In the next place, a clearer proof has been afforded, than we were prepared so soon to expect, of the advantage which the infidel is ready to take of his perversions. When Carlile was lately indicted for publishing Paine's Age of Reason, he asked, (prudently enough for his own purposes,) in reference to the position that the Bible is sanctioned by the common law of the land, what Bible is meant,
VOL. XXIII. NO. XLVI.
whether the Bible according to the authorized version, or that according to Mr. Bellamy's? If the former, he had the authority of this distinguished Hebrew scholar for asserting that it is full of the grossest errors, so as to deprive it altogether of the sacred character which might otherwise attach to it; and, to prove that he (Bellamy) was worthy of credit in such a matter, he quoted the names of the many eminent and illustrious persons,* who had subscribed to his publication.
But, in the third place, we are now supplied with positive proof that, even after all which has passed, there is some danger of the public being led into the belief that Mr. Bellamy's translations are truly derived from the Hebrew, and that his charges against the received version are not destitute of foundation. At least, there has appeared one individual who has publicly and unequivocally professed his belief in them—we allude to Sir James Bland Burges, Bart. This gentleman, we understand, passes in certain circles for a literary character. We are well aware that this term is one of extensive signification, and is sometimes coupled with qualifications sufficiently humble.-Be this as it may, Sir James, as far as we are informed, has hitherto confined himself to works of imagination; in the present instance, however, he has attempted a more serious style of composition, and launched into the field of Biblical criticism. By what course of study he had prepared himself for such an effort, and by what or by whom he was deluded into the belief that he was qualified to enlighten the public mind in this department, must be left to the conjectures of the reader.
His work is entitled 'Reasons in favour of a New Translation of the Holy Scriptures,' and he shews his own opinion of the performance by dedicating it to Lord Grenville, specially on account of his eminence as a statesman and scholar,' and his' dignified situation as Chancellor of Oxford.' We expected, of course, a discussion of such passages in the English version as, in the judgment of the author, are not sufficiently close to the original Hebrew, or do not express the sense with sufficient elegance and propriety; instead of which we found the greater part of his book occupied with a stale and tedious discussion on the origin and merits of the Septuagint version, prefaced by a desperate assault on us for our statements respecting it.
* The use made of the great and respectable names of those who subscribed to Bellamy's translation has been most unwarranted. The greater part, if not the whole, of those who gave their names to this publication were influenced entirely by the desire of promoting the cause of sacred literature, having been led into the persuasion that the person whose work they patronized was qualified to do service to this As soon as they discovered their error, and found that any thing rather than advantage to sacred literature was likely to be derived from this new translation, they without hesitation withdrew themselves from all support of it, and connexion with it.
The familiarity of Sir James Bland Burges with Coeur-deLions,' and Dragon Knights,' has evidently given him a chivalrous disposition; yet it is still a mystery to us why he should set his lance in the rest, and tilt so furiously at those who gave him no provocation. We never criticized his poetry-how was it possible we could, since we never read a line of it?-Yet the book opens as if the writer were smarting from recent criticism, and eager to revenge himself on us for the imaginary injury. Mr. Bellamy's new translation' (it is thus he begins) was continually rising in general estimation, when the Quarterly Review made a most virulent attack upon it, evidently calculated to crush it at the outset, and to intimidate those by whom it had been patronized.'-(p. 1.) How has this author the audacity to accuse us of virulence, or of a wish to intimidate? We came forward in the solemn discharge of a great but painful duty, actuated by loftier and purer motives than the confused intellects of our calumniators appear capable of appreciating, or even comprehending.
After wading through more than two-thirds of his book, we came to the professed subject of it, his 'Reasons for a new translation:' Sir James repeats, with little variation, the assertions of Mr. Bellamy, that our translators never pretended to translate from the Hebrew, and only copied with servility from the Greek and Latin. Quitting for the present all observation on this part of his statements, we hasten to his method of proving that our authorized version departs from the original. And here we must request the reader's particular attention. Through the space of thirty pages, he ranges in four parallel columns selected verses of the Bible, according to a literal translation from the Hebrew, to the Septuagint, to Jerome's version, or the Latin Vulgate, and to the received (English) version. He makes no remarks as he proceeds; but directs the reader at the outset to the general inference to be drawn from the whole, viz. that because the received English version agrees for the most part with the Septuagint and the Vulgate, and differs widely from that which he terms a literal translation from the Hebrew,' it must therefore have been made from the Septuagint and Vulgate, and not from the Hebrew. We will readily allow that his conclusion is sufficiently legitimate, provided his premises are sound. But what is meant, it will naturally be asked, by his literal translation from the Hebrew,' on which the whole of his conclusion depends? At first we were disposed to take for granted that he had himself examined the original Hebrew, had rendered it into English in what he deemed the most literal manner, and then concluded, from his own judgment of the sense of the original, that the received version is erroneous. Judge then our surprize, when we found that this literal translation from the Hebrew,' by which, as a test, he tries the accu