. 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. 2 Kings xxiv. 18, &c. v. Jeremiah lii. 1, &c. v. .3 ויהודה השליכו אותם .20 וביהודה השלכו אתם נבכדנאצר (,Ch. xxv) . בשנת התשיעית .4 בשנה התשעית נבוכדראצר .8 אחרי * וישיגו את צדקיהו בערבת ,9 בארץ חמת משפטים 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 מותר .12 בעשור נבוכדראצר עמד לפני בירושלם .13 הגדול 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. And so on through the Alphabet. Chesterfield, April 20th, 1819. W. OBSERVATIONS ON MR. BELLAMY'S REPLY TO KIMCHI. 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 • Bellamy's Reply to Kimchi, Classical Journal for March, 1821. p. 123, three of the passages quoted the word is eth: in one eeth, and in the remaining passage I find the compound word Nitto: and though N [othah] is a word of very frequent occurrence, I challenge Mr. Bellamy to bring forward any one passage in the Hebrew Bible, in which any one translator or lexicographer of reputation has given N [othah] the sense of in it. In his first new translation of this verse, Mr. B. had very properly followed our authorised version in translating within: a sense which it frequently has. See Exod. xxv. 11. xxvi. 33. xxxvii. 2, &c. In this latter passage the expression bears much resemblance to that in Gen. vi. 14, MY” PINDI ' " And he overlaid it with pure gold within and without." But in his amended translation he has given the sense of even a house. certainly signifies a house; but I defy Mr. Bellamy to produce a single passage of Scripture in which the sense of even is given to by any translator or writer of authority. I believe he will find equal difficulty in proving that ever signifies an outer-room. with an outer-room." If, in addition to numerous grammatical errors which Mr. Whittaker has proved him to have committed, Mr. B. can produce no authority, besides himself, for also ומחוץ » in the ומחוץ and to מבית to אתה the sense he has given to passage under discussion, I think no one will be at a loss what weight to attach either to his censures on the authorised version, or to his new translation. I now proceed to Mr. B.'s grave charge of infidelity, levelled at those who hold that the text of the Old Testament has suffered from the faults of transcribers. "Now if this be simply the state of the case," says Mr. B. " if the sacred inspired volume be corrupt, through the errors of transcribers, we do not know to what extent those errors have been committed, the whole genuineness and authenticity of Scripture would be swept away at once. A better argument than this could not be put into the hand of the objector; it surpasses all that ever was advanced against the truths of the sacred volume. 'But,' says Kimchi, it has suffered more or less, as every human work has done, from the occasional carelessness or mistakes of transcribers.' Here then our modern Kimchi, and every one who believes in divine revelation, are at issue. If the sacred Scriptures be divinely given, if the sacred writers were inspired to write them, then they cannot be a human work, or the work of man, as Kimchi ventures to assert. They would be of no greater authority than the Koran or the Veda.”1 ! Bellamy's Reply, p. 180. |