Abbildungen der Seite

that the translation is consistent with the original, except in the transposition of the word 17 Jah, and the possessive pronoun my, improperly added in the English, which does not occur innan Vezimraath. The true translation of this passage

shows that we have no occasion for such' mendings as are proposed by these gentlemen : the literal translation is, My strength and song is Jah. Thus by erroneously supposing that irregularities and inconsistencies have been foisted into the original, they have presumed to find fault with the pure Hebrew, and have labored to corrupt the word of God by substituting the bold additions of the Greek, Samaritan, and Arabic translators.

But no attention is ever paid by these gentlemen to the true oriental vowels; how would these random translators be able to understand the various meanings and applications of the same root of a word, were they to attempt a translation without attending to the vowels? We have an example in this word which will prove that no such chance-reading can ever ascertain the true meaning: For instance, this word en Vezimraath, with this form and construction, means a song, and as it is applied to God, a song of praise ; but the same radical form (by which I mean the letters as they stand in the body of the language, viz. 72 Zmrth,) is met with in other parts of scripture which cannot mean

a song: therefore these contenders for the naked consonants would be totally at a loss how to render such passages. We find in Amos ch. 5. 23. that the very same radical form of the word viz. Zmrth, with the variation of one vowel only, non Vezimrath, does not mean a song, but the melody, or tune, viz. and the melody. The many meanings and applications of a word cannot be known by the radical form, but in its vast variety of ideal bendigs it depends on the variation of the vowels, as is the case in all other languages.

By the same objectors we are told that “ ; did in the seventh day, in the present Hebrew copy, is probably corrupted from ba in the sixth day, as in the Samaritan, Greek, and Syriac versions." But Dr. Kennicott ought to have known, and this objector, before he had so strenuously supported him, that the clause is not ? D12 in the Hebrew, but that the ordinal numerals are always used as they always have been, in the Hebrew Bible,



.in the sixth day בַיוֹם הַשְׁשִׁי .in the seventh day בַיוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי as

From such proofs of the probablys, and conjectural mendings of these gentlemen, I hope it will be allowed that this objector has been too precipitate in condemning; for surely I am justified in saying that all such translators are mere innovators---superficial scholars-altogether unqualified, and mere pretenders to a critical knowledge of the Hebrew language. These, I allow, are“ strong

I expressions," and I have, to use the words of this writer, “produ

[ocr errors]

ced something more satisfactory than my own assertion for suck description to be credited.”

This objector asks five questions all in one breath; it is an easy matter to ask questions. He says, “will Mr. Bellamy say that Dr. Kennicott's publication consists of corrections similar to Dr. Co's? Has your correspondent never heard of such things as various readings? Does he know that there are other MSS. besides those from which the received text was taken ? Is he acquainted with any independent sources of authority, as the Septuagint, the Samaritan, the Syriac, and the Targums ? (and it is from these that Dr. K. has made his collection) or is he prepared to state and to prove, that the present printed text is taken from MSS. that were either the autographs of Moses and the prophets, or else exact copies of them, and that the versions, and all the MSS. where they diffor from it, are erroneous ?” I answer that Dr. Kennicott's publication not only consists of corrections similar to Dr. C.'s, which I have proved above, where like him, he substitutes one letter for another, one word for another, but the learned must allow, that, if possible, it is as dangerous. I have certainly “heard of such things as various readings :" but as to the independent sources of authority which this objector talks of, there are no independent sources of authority except the Hebrew.- I will also ask him, for he seems ignorant of it, did he never hear of a more modern, as well as of an ancient Septuagint ? and the Samaritan, the Syriac, and the Targums are but translations. For the original Septuagint, which was translated from the Hebrew about 350 years before Christ, was destroyed, not a single copy of it was preserved; and at the dispersion of the Jews, the Hebrew language was in their hands only, to the time of Jerome; and further, these translators had not the advantages we have at this day in acquiring a knowledge of the language. I also know that, during this and other periods before the time of Jerome, many MSS. even of the original Hebrew were made by Christians, but these MSS. as occasion required, were reprobated by the learned, as well as the unlearned, Jews who could read their Bible, on account of their inaccuracy. This will account for the great number of different readings your correspondent stumbles at, on which account, like Dr. K. and De Rossi, he flies to the Greek, Samaritan, and Syriac translations. This writer should recollect that the Jews have always been the guardians of the Hebrew scriptures, and that it is as impossible for any corruptions to creep into the text, as it would be for any alteration to be made in the original works of Homer, or Virgil, withont being detected and exposed. Even every Jew school-boy who can read his Bible is as capable of pointing out the error of a letter, as an English school-boy is of detecting an error in the orthography of a word. It is a truth, whether this well-meaning writer will believe it or not, such is the construction of the Hebrew


[ocr errors]


[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

the Hebrew text.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

language, that it is not possible either for one word, or for one letter to be put for another, without being detected by a critic in the language. On this ground I feel no hesitation in declaring, in answer to the fifth question, that I prepared to state and to prove that the present true printed text is taken from MSS. that were the exact copies of the autographs of Moses and the prophets ;” consequently where the Mss. and versions differ from it, they must be erroneous.

“ If he is not," continues this writer, “ Dr. K. and De Rossi have done the Christian world essential service: for such noble and disinterested views as these, are they to be called innovators ?” but this gentleman perhaps is not aware that the word disinterested does not well apply to Dr. K., for his whimsies cost the government upwards of £20,000. and not a single article did he bring forward to refute the idle and unfounded objections of the Deist. But they certainly have been useful in building, instead of destroying the temples of Deism, by his attempt to create suspicions respecting the absolute integrity of

This writer is at a loss to know what I mean by the absolute integrity of the Hebrew text: he says, “I should feel myself indebted to Mr. B. if he would explain what he means by the absolute integrity of the Hebrew text. Does he understand that the printed text is free from all mistakes ? if he does, let a few instances suffice to answer him— Ist. The printed text is at variance with Mr. Bellamy. Mr. B. has rightly informed us that the meaning of the word of is, he said. No. IV. p. 851. If he will turn to Gen. 4. 8. he will find, 1778 227 5x1p 70% and Cain said to Abel his brother; but what did he say ? The Hebrew is silent. The Samaritan and Septuagint add, 79VT 753, let us go into the field. With this addition, the words following possess consistency, and it came to pass when they were in the field.-So shall we find, when we have the true translation, that the whole passage possesses consistency, without any mendings from the Samaritan, or the Septuagint. Here is a bold addition with a witness, and it is a proof that neither the Samaritan translator, nor the Septuagint, understood the various applications of the verb 28 amar, agreeably to its construction which always fixes its ideal meaning. Its true meaning in this verse is to speak, to converse, and the same struction with this rendering is niet with in 66 places of scripture in the present authorised translation. The passage I say pos

I sesses consistency, “ without copying the comment of the Sama. ritan, translator, or the Septuagint: thus, And Cain spake, (or talked) with 1bel his brother, and it came to pass when they were in the field.I ask this.writer where is “ the printed text at variance with what I have stated ? "

We are next told, that “the printed text is at variance with quodations in the New Testament from ancient prophecy. An instance

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]


[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]


Teen sible.


[merged small][ocr errors]

,אזנים כרית לי

of this” (says this writer) “occurs in Ps. 40.7. 192931N, translated, my ears hast thou opened, compared with Hebrews 10. 5. ocõlece xatnptíow poł, and surely if common sense, the connexion, the structure of the sentence, and the evidence of the LXX, and the New Testament are to be regarded, this one instance is a strong proof of the faultiness, if not of the corruption, of the present text, unless Mr. B. will assert that all these should be sacrificed when they oppose his beloved hypothesis of the purity of the Hebrew text.”-Iam of opinion that all evidences should be sacrificed, when applied to oppose the purity of the Hebrew text. For graut but to the Deist that the Hebrew text is corrupt, and it is all he asks. And on the other hand, with respect to those who may nevertheless be excellent scholars as to general learning, (but who on account of their inexperience in the elements of the Hebrew, should not attempt Hebrew criticism) allow them but the privilege of additions, and corrections from the LXX, and the Samaritan translations, with such mendings as are proposed by Dr. Kennicott, De Rossi, this writer, and the whole family of those, who have a perpetual desire to mend the scriptures by changing

word for another, one letter for another, who alter without any proof from scripture where the same words occur which can have no other meaning; and the whole genuineness and authority of the sacred scriptures would be swept away at once. Had these gentlemen but attended to the idiom and phraseology of the Hebrew, common sense, the connection, the structure of the sentence, and the evidence of the LXX, and the New Testament, would have convinced them that the above objection which is taken from Dr. Kennicott, and which has often appeared in the support of Deism, is no “ proof of the faultiness, or of the corruption of the present text."

What but profound ignorance of the true meaning and application of the word could induce the translators to render ? karitha, opened? It means to prepare, or make, and it is first applied to the preparing of the sacrifice, or making the covenant.


In the same day בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא כָּרַת יְהוָה אֶת אָבְרָס .18 .15 .Gen

the Lord made a covenant with Abraham. And as to the word D1 aznaim, rendered mine ears, they certainly had no authority to trauspose the pronoun, and to reject the preposition 5 lamed: were this admitted, the scriptures might be made to say any thing. Now whether we say with the Hebrew, ears hast thou prepared for me, which is certainly more strikingly significant than the LXX, who have changed it for süps, body; it amounts to the same, as it must necessarily mean that there must be a body where ears are found, which are a part of the body. The word D?3Ix aznaim, plainly means the obedience both of the body and the soul, whereas the word owuce can only be applied to the body. This



for the transgression of my people teas he מפשע עמי נגע למו read

arises from the peculiarly energetic, and idiomatic phraseology of the Hebrew, which could not be preserved in the Greek, which Dr. Kennicott, De Rossi, and this writer ought to have known, and would have known, had they been as competent in the Hebrew, as they were in Greek. From which it is certain that this apparent discrepancy does not arise from “ a corruption foisted into the

a text," as is supposed by these writers, but for the reasons above. It would be absurd to render róyos fuoũ, ??? the book

λόγος εμού, of methe word of me, as it would be to render the above passage agreeably to the syntax and idiom of the English. I say it must evidently mean that as God had prepared ears, he must have prepared a body, as was meant by the Hebrews, and as it was also understood by the LXX.

This writer next observes that, “ the printed text is in opposition to MSS. in the hands of both Jews and Christians in the time of Origen.” He quotes Isaiah 53. 8. “ where our present copies stricken.Dr. Kennicott is again cited to prove that in the time of Origen iras laamo, was written nors to death, and Bishop Lowth might have been cited also, for he has fallen into the same

This writer gives a long paragraph concerning a conversation of Origen with a Jew, and that he confounded them with the reading of this word, by urging upon them the reading to death; and therefore he argues that the Hebrew text is not now the same as it was at that time. He concludes by saying, “if such was the reading at that time, alas for the absolute integrity of the Hebrew text.' This author writes here very guardedly, he does well to say, “ if such was the reading at that time;' it was his business to prove, if it were to be proved, that it was the reading at that time, and not to conclude by buts, ifs, conjectures, and suppositions. What does all this amount to? here is not a single passage produced from the scripture by any of these writers to prove that fraş laamo, was ever written was to death, no proof but the monkish tale of Origen and the Jew. Now admitting that Origen had such a conversation with a Jew, he must have been a very ignorant Jew indeed, not to know that such a thing as in laamo to be written instead of op laamuth, was impossible. Does not this writer know, for Dr. K. ought to have recollected, that there were ignorant Jews at the time of Origen as well as at this


[ocr errors]


It was reasonable to expect that this writer should have given us some proof from scripture that this word was so rendered ; I will refer him to a passage or two, which, if what he states were true, ought then to make good sense when so rendered. Deut. 39.

33 The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir in?

« ZurückWeiter »