Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

indeed, genitives are placed before the noun by which they are governed, and the accompanying article; but as "the genitive (we quote the words of Matthiæ § 277.) stands very frequently before the article and the noun," and as the sentence in its present form is intelligible, there does not appear to us much reason for a change. If any, however, were to be made, the emendation offered in the note seems worthy of being adopted.

With respect to the notes on the remainder of these excerpts, Mr. Dunbar has added to their value by many useful observations. These, however, we have not room to notice. We hasten to close this paper by a few general remarks.

To his vernacular translations, we could have wished our Professor had paid more attention; and, if he had consulted his own reputation more, and the real advantage of his students less, he would have done so. But this does not altogether appear to have been his aim. Knowing that, when once the complete and entire meaning of the original author is comprehended, it is comparatively a trifling matter to seize the idea, and exhibit it in a captivating dress, he set himself rather to assist the student in his way, than to execute the work. Hence in his scrupulous anxiety to attain this object, he has occasionally expressed himself so much more in the Greek than in the English idiom, that in one or two of those passages on which we have animadverted, our strictures entirely arose from this circumstance. Elegant and easy translations are now so universally the vogue, that it is dangerous to adhere too steadily to a faithful transference of the author's words; and we would, in a friendly manner, admonish Professor D. to comply with this prevailing fashion in any future annotations, even at the expense of his sounder judgment. It is a good thing to have a little of the flippancy of the scholar. People will gaze at it, when they will respect nothing else.

Were we, however, seriously required to point out the defects of this work as it is now offered to the public, we would specify principally the inaccuracies of the press, and the unsuitableness of the references to the Professor's "Greek Exercises," as they refer not to the last, but to a former edition. Both of these we ascribe to his desire that the volume should be ready for the business of his class but the evils are to be regretted, because few only of the former are noticed in the Errata, and the student is in a great measure deprived of the assistance of the Exercises, a book which, for its size, contains more of the Syntax and Idiom of the language, than any other with which we are acquainted.

But defects of such a nature disappear, when we come to estimate the real merit of the work. However hastily printed, it has not been hastily conceived. Study only, and laborious research, aided by the actual duties of teaching, could have enabled the Professor to bring together such stores of information,—all hap

pily tending to one point,-the improvement of the student. To write notes is not very difficult, but to write them as is done in the volume under review, requires experience as well as knowlege. Hence, every thing that seemed likely to embarrass or impede the learner, whether it assumed the shape of a corrupted reading, or obscure allusion, or involved syntax, has engaged his attention; and his notes throughout display the same searching minuteness and accuracy, which distinguish his "viva voce" prelections. In fine, the volume in its present amended state, is well suited to answer the views of its learned editors, to support its long established reputation in every respectable seminary of education, and to furnish additional proof of the eminent talents and acquirements of Professor Dunbar.

BIBLICAL CRITICISM.

WHEN we consider the alarming progress of infidel publications circulated in every part of the kingdom, threatening the destruction of the Christian cause, by showing the contradictions that are to be found in the authorised version of the Bible; among the great variety of valuable information which is given to the public in the Classical Journal, nothing appears to promise so much good, as that kind of biblical research which strikes at the root of deistical objections, and silences the clamor of this description of sceptics, by showing them that no such objections are to be found in the original Hebrew text. Already have the good effects begun to operate; I have been informed by a learned Prelate, that there never was a time when the Hebrew language was so much attended to as at this period. Nevertheless, I will venture to say, that until the Hebrew be taught in our public schools, and made as necessary a qualification for ordination as the Latin and Greek, we shall never have any critical Hebrew scholars.

But this does not appear to meet the evil, though it be a preparatory step. The evil must be met by a revision from the Hebrew text only; and if this be done, there will be an end to the objections against the Bible. But it has been said by some reasoners, that one man is not equal to such a work as that of the translation of the Bible. No doubt, in a multitude of coun

sellors is wisdom; but then those counsellors must know their subject; and as applicable to the present case, they must know more of the language than those who have hitherto opposed the New Translation. I would however ask such reasoners, why they think that the monk Jerome was equal to such a work? for the Latin vulgate is the work of Jerome, and from this monkish translation all the European translations have been made.

As an additional proof of the existing errors, and which will be allowed by all the liberal and learned clergy and laity, I shall refer the reader to Joel ii. 23: Be glad then, ye children of Zion, and rejoice in the Lord your God; for he hath given you the latter rain moderately, and he will cause to come down for you the rain, the former rain, and the latter rain in the first month. It is not possible to place things more opposed to each other than this verse is to the plain meaning of the Hebrew. We are here told, that God had given them the former rain moderately, and that he would cause the rain to come down, the former rain and the latter rain; and thus they were given to understand that they should have a plentiful vintage, that their floors should be full of wheat, and that the vats should be full of wine and oil, that they should eat in plenty and be satisfied, and praise the name of the Lord their God, vs. 24, 25.

If we take the passage as it stands in the authorised English version, or in any European version, and ask, Where is the sanctity of this verse? we should conclude that there can be no superior sanctity in that which is common to all lands. The rain for the production of the fruits of the earth is given to all the world. The divine ordination is given in Genesis, ch. xi. 6: But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground: it rises and falls by the philosophy which God has planted in nature. Summer and winter, seed-time and harvest, are to continue as long as the sun and moon shall endure. From this it will be seen that there is no superior sanctity made known in this verse in the authorised version, above what is customary to all lands. The whole in the common version is made to refer to plenty of rain, to produce the fruits of the earth, and thus we have only a sensual perishable view of one of the most sublime, glorious, and consoling passages in the sacred volume, which in the most convincing manner confirms divine revelation, and the truths of the Christian religion.

Having thus shown, agreably to reason and the common operations of nature in supplying rain on all the earth, that the authorised version of this verse is erroneous, I shall now proceed to show by the true translation of the Hebrew, that the

subject introduced in this verse renders it worthy of being called the word of God.

There is no authority for the words, former rain moderately; this is the translation of pha moreh litsdaakah. But ha moreh, rendered the former rain, cannot have any such a meaning. This word literally means the teacher, see Hab. ii. 18. a teacher: here the reader will see that the same moreh, is rendered even in the common version, a It also in the authorised version is rendered in various places, to teach, see 2 Kings xvii. 28. and taught.-2 Chron. Xxxvi. 22. teaching.-Job xxxvi. 22. who teacheth like him.Prov. vi. 13. he teacheth with his fingers.

word, teacher.

plitsduakah, is translated in the common version by moderately; but it is thus translated in this verse only, in all the scripture, for it has no such meaning. See where the same word is properly translated, Ps. cvi. 31. Is. v. 7. for righteousness.-Hos. x. 12. in righteousness. The first clause reads literally. Now, sons of Zion, be glad, and rejoice ye before Jehovah your God; for he hath given to you, the teacher of righ

teousness.

The next clause is as improperly translated as the first.

,geshem moreh umalkosh baarishon גשם מורה ומלקוש בראשון

is rendered, the ruin, the former rain, and the latter rain. The
words
php malkosh baarishon, are rendered, the
former rain and the latter rain. But there is no authority for
the word former, or the word latter, or the word rain: it is a
translation altogether opposed to the obvious meaning of the
Hebrew word, in every other part of scripture; and to suffer
the scripture to be its own interpreter, is, no doubt, the
unerring method of interpreting the sacred record. It solves all
difficulties-silences all objections-reconciles all contradictions
―removes all stumbling blocks; and shows the moral justice of
God in his dealing with his creatures. There are seven words
out of the nine in this clause, that have not even a semblance
of authority in the Hebrew, the former rain, and the latter
rain. Four times the word rain occurs in the version, whereas
it is but once used in the original, and the word moreh,
which is rendered as a noun by the word rain, is the participle
active of the verb to teach.

In the first clause we are told, that a teacher of righteousness was promised, for, as was the custom with the sacred writers, the prophet here refers to the promise of the Messiah; and in

this last clause, by a striking figure, we are informed that he was to descend with his teaching, as rain. So in Ps. cx. the Psalmist compares his progeny to the dew of the morning, for multitude, who were to worship him in the beauty of holiness. See as above, where the same word moreh, both consonants and vowels, is truly translated, in the authorised version, by teaching; see 2 Kings xvii. 28. moreh, taught (teaching). 2 Chron. xv. 3. moreh, teaching.

The word wp malkosh, which is rendered the latter, has no such meaning; it signifies to gather, see Job xxiv. 6. they gather: also it refers to the gathering in of the crops at the end of the year, Amos vii. 1. which is improperly rendered, the latter growth.

The word baarishon, which finishes the clause, is rendered the former; but there is no authority for annexing the word rain to either of these words, for the word moreh, (as above) is the participle benoni, or active, of the verb to teach. This word n baarishon, means at the beginning, see Ruth iii. 10.-Gen. x. 10.-before-time, 2 Sam. vii. 10.

Thus when this verse is translated agreably to the Hebrew, we have a striking description of a teacher of righteousness, who was to descend, and who was, by his teaching, to abolish the Levitical sacrificial worship, all rites, ceremonies, types, and ordinances; and to restore the divine communication, ‡ vipbo umalkosh baarishon, as in the gathering, or assembling, at the beginning: the worship of God without sacrifice as at the beginning, viz. when the mediate communication, which was appointed by the cherubim at the fall, or the mediatorial office, was to be given up to the Father; all sacrificial worship was to cease at the coming of the teacher of righteousness; and the divine communication was to be again immediate from God, as baarishon, at the beginning, when no sacrifices were required. When every one was to sit under his own vine, and under his own fig-tree, receiving his teaching from this teacher of righteousness; even as it is said in the preceding verse, the fig-tree and the vine do yield their strength.

After having thus translated this passage above ten years since, without referring to any writer, I was sending the article for insertion, when turning to Poole, I was highly gratified on finding that he was of the same opinion. I give the quotation from his learned work verbatim, which may be acceptable to your readers. It will show, that in translating from the original Hebrew only, I am not singular, but that there have been some learned and honest men who have ventured to look over the

« AnteriorContinuar »