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 imagi nation; 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.

6

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 Bel lamy'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 cause. 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.

As soon as

The

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 criticised 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 intiWe 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 surprise, when we found that this literal translation from the Hebrew,' by which, as a test, he tries the accu

racy

racy

of the received version, is not his own, but John Bellamy's!that very translation which has been shewn to be full of the grossest errors and absurdities, and to be framed by a person who is no less ignorant of the plainest rules of Hebrew grammar than destitute of every other qualification for a Biblical translator! Thus, by a style of proceeding more truly astonishing than could have been imagined, Sir J. Burges assumes, not only without examination, but in the face of the clearest evidence, the accuracy of Bellamy's translation; adopts it as the test by which the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the authorized English versions are to be tried; and then, because these versions differ entirely from it, comes to the portentous conclusion-not that versions approved by the most competent judges in all ages are right, and that which rests on Bellamy's single authority is entirely wrong, but just the reverse; that these versions are all unfaithful to the original-and that Bellamy's alone gives the true and accurate sense!

6

6

In addition to the lamentable weakness of judgment and incapacity which this proceeding betrays, there is, we regret to say, a want of ingenuous dealing in it, which demands the most serious reprobation. As we have stated, Sir James quotes a literal translation, but studiously conceals the name of John Bellamy* in connexion with it; well knowing that the public were apprized of his demerits, and would not now set much value on a literal' or any transla tion,' professing to come from him. Again, when Sir J. Burges brings forward what he calls a literal translation,' the natural inference is that he is prepared to vouch for its being so; that he has examined it, and ascertained, on other grounds than the mere assertion of the author, that it is what its name implies, a true 'literal translation.' Now we beg leave to ask, has Sir James Burges done this? Is he able to do it? Does he possess knowledge enough of the Hebrew language to judge whether this or any other translation is literal?-We see no symptoms in his book of his possess ing such knowledge, and our belief is, that he does not possess it. How can he, then, as a man of principle, and an investigator of truth, bring forward, for the very grave purpose of shaking the con

Sir J. Burges, in a flippant and angry Reply to Mr. Todd, recently published, pretends to complain that he is coupled by him with John Bellamy, and represented as advocating his cause; and says (Reply, p. 9) that, to the best of his recollection, there is only one passage in his book in which any mention of Mr. Bellamy, or any allusion to him, can be discovered.' The best of his recollection seems to be but bad when it suits his pur pose. We think we can refresh it a little by reminding him that, through several pages of his book, he has quoted Bellamy's version as a literal translation from the Hehren, and represented our received version as not a literal translation, because it does not agree with it. If this be not to shew his implicit faith in Bellamy's version, we beg leave to ask what can We are not surprized that Sir J. Burges begins to be a little weary of the connec tion: on his account we wish that he had shewn a little more wariness in entering into it.

be 80.

fidence

6

fidence of the public in the authorized version of the Holy Bible, another version under the title of a literal version from the Hebrew,' in terms which imply his solemnly vouching for its being literal, when he knows that he does not possess one particle of the knowledge which would enable him so to do?

All this, however, clearly proves that enough has not yet been done. We will not flatter Sir James by saying that we think him less likely to be gulled by the confident assertions of an ignorant empiric, than the rest of the world; but we will say, that a considerable number of persons who are indisposed to examine such matters for themselves, are at least as likely to be deceived as he is. In addition to this, as he assumes a tone of erudition, his authority may probably carry a certain degree of weight with some readers, and induce them to believe that Bellamy's translations are just, because he has expressed a deliberate opinion in their favour. On these grounds, we are inclined to hope that a further discussion of their merits will not be thought superfluous.

In this discussion, we gladly avail ourselves of the assistance afforded by two works, in which the subject has been considered with a particularity, from which the limits of our Journal required us to abstain. The first and most important of these is entitled 'an Historical and Critical Enquiry into the Interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures, with Remarks on Mr. Bellamy's New Translation,' by Mr. Whittaker, of St. John's College, Cambridge. This gentleman has exposed in detail, and with peculiar success, the falsehood of many of Bellamy's assertions; and has particularly been enabled, by his accurate and intimate knowledge of the oriental tongues, to bring to the test his skill as a biblical translator. The second is a Vindication of our authorized Translation of the Bible, and of preceding Versions, from the Objections of Mr. John Bellamy, and of Sir J. B. Burges,' by the Rev. H. J. Todd, in which the author, abstaining from a critical discussion of the fidelity of the several versions, institutes, as his course of reading has enabled him to do with great advantage, an accurate inquiry into their history; pointing out the high qualifications of the authors of our received version for the task committed to them, and producing a mass of eminent authorities in favour of its general excellence. Mr. Whittaker properly begins his Enquiry by explaining what is meant when it is said that any particular translation of the Bible is made from the original.

By these words it is merely understood, that its authors regarded nothing as authority, except the original Hebrew of the Old, and the original Greek of the New Testament, a condition which evidently is not violated by their consulting any number of prior translations during

the

the progress of their work. No person would attempt a new version, without availing himself of the labours of former interpreters, unless his discretion was altogether overcome by self-conceit, or he was so bad a critic as not to be aware of the advantages resulting from a comparison of different independent translations. Accordingly, those who have undertaken this arduous task have invariably paid the greatest deference to their learned predecessors, which respect has generally been proportioned to their own modesty, and has therefore been most shewn by men of the highest attainments. That degree of confidence in his own acquirements, which leads a translator to neglect or underrate those who have gone before him, usually proceeds from vanity, and may be esteemed no unsure token of inconsiderate rashness.

It is hardly necessary to dwell on the utility of the Old Translations. There are many passages, particularly in the Old Testament, of such acknowledged difficulty, that learned men never did, and perhaps never will, agree about them. In these cases, if a translator feel any uncertainty, his object ought to be the selection of that interpretation from former versions, which, after mature consideration, he thinks the best; nor would he be justified in forsaking them, unless à priori he had reason to believe that their authors were influenced by prejudice, or the desire of supporting some favourite tenet. If in translating the Old Testament he considers none of the versions thus employed as of ulti mate and decisive authority, it is contended that his translation is made from the Original Hebrew, and from nothing else.'-pp. 1-3.

The soundness of these remarks will be appreciated by every reader. They shew the egregious folly of Mr. Bellamy's boast of translating from the Hebrew only, in the sense of referring to, and consulting, no preceding translation; a boast which is sufficient of itself to produce a full conviction of his utter incompetence to the office he has undertaken. Every preceding translation conveys the recorded opinion of the learned persons who framed it, as to the sense of the original; and, where several independent translations agree, a concurrence of opinions as to the sense is afforded, which leaves no room for doubt. By declaring that he translates from the Hebrew only, in the sense in which he uses the term, Mr. Bellamy declares that his regular plan is to discard the most valuable means of properly performing the task he undertakes.

Mr. Whittaker proceeds to consider Bellamy's bold assertion that Jerome made his Latin translation from the Greek, and not from the Hebrew. It will be remembered that we mentioned it as an historical fact, too well authenticated to admit any doubt, that Jerome made his version from the Hebrew; and we sanctioned what we advanced by a quotation from the learned and accurate Brian Walton. Mr. Whittaker adopts a still surer method of proving it; for he refers to Jerome himself, and shews, from his own words, that he did translate from the Hebrew. la one passage, he says (Epist. 49, at Pammachium) Libros sedecim

pro