the attempts of Houbigant, Lowth, Kennicot, Blayney, &c., for introducing alterations of the text by critical conjecture alone. I shall simply quote his general remark upon Blayney. After having severely censured "the petulant, conceited, presumptuous, and absurd Houbigant," he thus proceeds; "But turn we, reader, to an author of a different character, Mr. Blayney; to whom we are obliged for a learned, judicious, and pious commentary on Jeremiah." But he is touched with the distemper of con jectural insanity, and in his fits gives us the most frightful views of corruptions in the sacred text. See in his index the article of, Corrections Hebrew text by MSS. 272 ; Corrections Hebrew text by ancient versions only 30; Corrections Hebrew text by conjecture 66; in all 368. What an alarming number! Tell it not in Gath! Publish it not in the streets of Askelon! But it is only when viewed at a distance" (an assertion, which he subsequently endeavours to prove by a long and minute examination of them) "that they seem formidable. On a nearer view they are as harmless as the shadowy monsters, which appeared to oppose Æneas in his way to the Stygian lake. CHAP. II. Mr. Bellamy's New Translation. Object of it. His Incompetency. Proved from Genesis XIX. His Novel Translation of Ver. 5, 25, 32. Singular Disquisition on the word p. Ignorance in supposing the existence of a preterpluperfect tense in Hebrew. In the preceding chapter I have given a short account of the writers upon the subject under consideration, who florished in the last century. And here perhaps I might terminate the enquiry. But at the commencement of the present century one of so peculiar a character has appeared in the catalogue of biblical translators, that it would be as improper to overlook, as it is mortifying to notice him. I allude to Mr. J. Bellamy, who, supported by a liberal subscription, has recently undertaken to give a new translation of the Bible from the Hebrew alone. His object is, as he himself states, "to stem the torrent of infidelity, by enabling those, who have not studied the Hebrew language, to silence the objections, which have so long been, and still continue to be, advanced against the divine truth."* Unlike however his predecessors in this arduous enterprize, he strenuously maintains the absolute integrity of the Hebrew text; and deems not only the Masoretical vowels, but even the Masoretical accentuation, of which nevertheless he seems to have a very superficial knowledge, undoubtedly original. In contempt likewise of every other interpretation given to that text by the most ancient, as well as by more modern translators, he blazons forth his own Classical Journal, No. XXXVI. p. 225. as the only correct and faithful one: as alone conveying the genuine sense of the Hebrew in all its pristine purity. He has already published the book of Genesis with an introduction and copious notes, in the former of which he asserts that the present text " is as perfect as the autograph of Moses ;" and not only that word for word and letter for letter, but that "vowel for vowel and accent for accent" has always been accurately copied from an authentic standard; "and that the words of Christ have been hitherto verified, where he says, that not one ira, or one tittle shall pass from the law, until all be fulfilled." And if indeed there be any point, upon which he more particularly prides himself, it is his attention to the minutiae of vowels and accents. Yet is it impossible to read a page of his translation without perceiving, that he wants himself to be informed upon subjects, on which he undertakes to inform others. As the public appear to attach considerable importance to this vain undertaking, and as the latest production usually excites the greatest attention, I shall examine it more minutely, than I should have otherwise thought necessary; confining however my remarks, that I may not be too prolix, to a part of the nineteenth chapter only; a chapter which exhibits a specimen of perverted and illiterate interpretation seldom paralelied. In the fifth verse, instead of the words, "that we may know them," Mr. Bellamy substitutes, "for we will detect them;" because “the word which is rendered know, is translated variously, by which any thing is made known; as know, conscious, understand, direct, detect, &c. Prov. x 9; he that perverteth his ways, shall be known (detected.) Psal. lxxvii. 19; thy footsteps are not known (detected.) It refers to the mission, on which these two messengers came, in order to put an end to idolatry; but who were נדעה * Introduction, p. ix, xiii. Ibid. p. xxiii. assailed by the enthusiastic idolaters of Sodom, who did not say as is said in the vulgar version, that we may know them, but we will detect them." I must confess that this ingenious argument to prove knowledge and detection (to say nothing of knowledge and direction) one and the same thing appears not to me very satisfactory, or even intelligable. we may be said, for example, to know a pious and good man, but we cannot without absurdity be said to detect him. Granting however the words to be perfectly synonymous, what shall we obtain by it! A clear sense in the passage? Certainly not; since we are required to proceed a step farther, and admit, what we are told in the note, but what we should have never suspected from the text, that the words we will detect them signify we will put them to death; for in immediate continuation of the former remark it is added, "Thus they were determined to put them to death, in defence of their religion." Another sublimation this, still more subtle, and more incomprehensible, from what we before contemplated as a mere caput mortuum. Nor is this all; for after only two short intervening verses we are given to understand, that to know means not simply to detect and to put to death, but also to approve of; for in ver. 8, the vulgar version, as he terms it, which has these words, "Behold now I have two daughters which have not known man," is thus corrected by him; "Behold, now with met two daughters who have not approved of man.” Instances of an unpardonable negligencet are not unfre * The alteration of "I have" into "with me" unfortunately gives neither the Hebrew nor the English idiom of the expression. The Hebrew literally is, "Behold now [there are] to me two daughters;" that is, I have two daughters, as the established version translates it. A remarkable one occurs Gen. iii. 23, where instead of the correct translation, as in the established version, "to till the ground," he renders the clause, “when he had transgressed on the ground;" for quent; but in the 25th verse an alteration is introduced, in which it is difficult to say which predominates most, inattention, or conceit of superior sagacity. The established version runs thus; "he overthrew those cities." This he says should be, "he overthrew the cities of the God," The reasons assigned for the change .את הערים האל are the following; "The N or the prefixed to In pursuance also of the same object, and to rescue the which alteration he gives the following reason; "The word y is rendered to till; but this word with this construction means to transgress. See Deut. xvii 2. where the same word both consonants and vowels is rendered by the word transgressing." Had the expression been as he states it to be, and even writes it in Roman characters, his criticism would have had some application; this however is not the case. It it not to transgress, but y to serve or to till, when connected with the word ground. Surely he must have known a Resh from a Daleth. But he seems to have hastily run it over with a careless eye, wrapt up in the self important office of clearing Scripture from, what he terms, "useless repetitions, which always obscure the sense, and frequently subvert the meaning, as in this passage." |