sapientibus; sed cum iis, quibus præclare agitur, si insunt simu lacra virtutis, &c.; utrobique enim usum communem spectan dum et secundum eum præcepta danda, recte censet vir sapientiss." Nov. Lectt. L. VII. c. 14. Trin. Coll. Camb. EDMUND HENRY BARKER. 1 MR. BELLAMY'S DEFENCE OF HIS BIBLICAL CRITICISMS. TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOUrnal. I observe in No. IX. of your Journal three articles sent by your correspondents, with some singular remarks, endeavouring to refute some of the translations I have given of difficult and contradictory passages, as they stand in the European translations of the Bible, in former numbers of your Journal. As the articles I have written are intended to silence the objections of the Deists, by proving, so far, that there is no contradiction in the original Hebrew, and having confirmed such translations by references to other parts of scripture where the same words occur, which can have no other signification; how far these gentlemen have succeeded in what they have attempted from the original, let the learned Hebraist determine, when he examines my articles with the hasty conclusions of these writers. It does not appear from any thing they have said, that they have weakened the cause of Deism, by a single objection; for we shall find that a great part which they have advanced can possibly have no other tendency, than to assist this description of men to create doubts in the minds of well-meaning Christians, concerning the authority and integrity of the sacred original. It is a rule with me, in every article I write for the Journal, or in any answer I give to the articles of others, to elucidate some difficult or controverted part of scripture, which Deists have always brought forward to show, as they term it, the disordered state of the Bible. By these elucidations, I do not mean "conjecture," as your correspondent Dr. G. S. C. says, No. III. p. 641. viz. where every other help fails in giving a suitable reading to the text, recourse can alone be had to conjecture, this has been the case with Dr. Kennicott and his supporters. But I mean that such translations should be confirmed by other passages where the same words occur, and which can possibly have no other meaning or application; and these are the translations which can only be admitted, and depended on with certainty. This gentleman, I think, has crowded in his article about twenty theological problems for solution; they are important, and deserve notice; and though he seems a little out of temper with me in some places, yet he appears to write in the spirit of Christianity. Your correspondent W. N. begins by showing that he is a decided enemy to what I have asserted, viz. the absolute integrity of the Hebrew text of the sacred scriptures. This is one of the most important biblical subjects that can possibly come before the public, for if the scriptures in the original are not now as pure as when they were given to the inspired writer, there would be but little dependence on any thing they contain. It certainly is a dangerous opinion for those to promulgate, who really believe the scriptures to be of divine origin, for in this case they are sapping the foundation of their divinity, and by so doing, they are enabling the Deist to destroy the truths of our holy religion. Nevertheless, though this gentleman has fallen into this error, I am confident he can have no such wish. He says, "an unprejudiced reader might justly inquire, what peculiar circumstances have preserved the Jewish scriptures in preference to the Christian, from the ordinary casualties of copyists and the corrosions of time. If the assumed fact be resolved into divine interposition, (and what but a continued series of miracles could effect it?) is it supposable that the author of Revelation should exert his almighty power to defend the law of Moses and the writings of the prophets from every mistake; while the gospels and epistles that contained the life and doctrines of the Messiah, of whom Moses spake, and to whom the prophets gave witness, were left to the ravages of time and the carelessness of transcribers, in common with the works of all other ancient writers ?" No. As an article is intended to be sent for insertion in the Journal, which may satisfy him on this subject, I shall for the present only ask, what peculiar circumstances have preserved the writings of Euclid, Homer, and Virgil; are they not the same now that they were in the time of those writers? there has been no alteration in their works, nor was it possible; because, (as I have observed) the eye of the learned world was upon them in all ages, which would soon have detected any thing of the kind, and ruined the character of the interpolator. On this ground only we are more certain that the present original scriptures are pure and uncorrupted, because a whole nation has been appointed the guardian of the sacred letter from the time it was given to the present day. Is it possible that any reflecting Christian, who believes in the providence of God, can for a moment doubt that he has in his providence, preserved both the Old and the New Testaments, not only "from the ordinary casualties of copyists and the corrosions of time," but also from the univer L VOL. VI. No. XI. sal efforts of all the Pagan nations, the Babylonians, Persians, Grecians, and Romans, who strove with the whole power of their empires to destroy the sacred records? What but a continued series of miracles could effect it? But when we seriously consider that the Bible is the word of God, who governs the world and the most minute concerns of man by his providence, can we, I ask, for a moment doubt that he, who gave the scripture for a rule of life to man, has preserved it pure to the present day? To suppose the contrary would be to conclude that the Bible is not the word of God, and that he does not govern the world by his providence. Let me again ask, what good can such writers propose to the present generation and to posterity, by inculcating doubts as to the purity of the sacred original. "these are This gentleman steps forward as the defender of Dr. Kennicott, De Rossi, and all those who wish to mend the original Hebrew. I hope I have as high a respect for the personal character of these writers, as your correspondent, and I hope he will remember that in any thing I say concerning the true interpretation of the original scriptures, I know nothing of persons; personal character has nothing to do here. When subjects brought forward by such writers for alteration in the original are proved to be altogether inconsistent with reason by such alteration, surely we are authorised to declare that Dr. Kennicott, De Rossi, and others of the same class, as Hebraists, were superficial scholars, mere innovators, altogether unqualified, and but mere pretenders to a critical knowledge of the Hebrew language. This writer says strong expressions, and a writer had need produce something more satisfactory than his own assertion"-Truth, and not victory, has been my pursuit, and ever since I have furnished any articles for the Journal, when I have answered those which have been signed by the name of the writer, I have always deemed it proper to sign my remarks with my own name, for nobody knows an anonymous writer. Though I never mean to answer the questions of such writers in future who do not sign their real name, I shall for the present adduce that kind of proof, which ought to satisfy this gentleman concerning the fallacy of Dr. Kennicott's statements of the necessity of new modelling the Hebrew scriptures. From the same quarter we are informed that the Hebrew text is defective in Exod. 15. 2. my strength and my song being irregular, should probably be Chaldee, Arabic, and Vulgate versions, the yod is necessary to , four of the six valuable MSS. agree in reading it so." Well, and suppose a hundred MSS. agreed in reading it thus, are we to make nonsense of the passage on that account? which it evidently would be if this translation were admitted. It must be obvious to the learned that the Hebrew is now the same as it was in the time of the inspired writer, and is the Lord, "that . Agreeably to the T:': that the translation is consistent with the original, except in the transposition of the word Jah, and the possessive pronoun my, improperly added in the English, which does not occur in 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 n 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. Zmrth,) is met with in other parts of scripture which cannot mean a song: therefore .in the sixth day בַיּוֹם הַשְׁשִׁי .in the seventh day בַיּוֹם 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 expressions," and I have, to use the words of this writer, "produ 66 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. C.'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, without 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 |