that, inasmuch as (precise date unknown) the gift of ‘‘(livine inspiration” is said by Protestants
to hare ceased about 1750 years ago with the last Apostle, nobody claims
for these English Translators any supernatural assistance during the progress of their
pious labors; and, therefore, in matters appertaining to the merely-human department
of linguistic scholarship (whilst we doubt not their excellence as men, their attainments,
nor their good faith), we must concede the chance that their production, owing to man's
proneness to err, may be found to fall short, in a literary point of view, of the standard
by which a similar performance would be judged were a new Translation of the Old Testament
“ authorized,” after the same fashion, at the middle of this XlXth century.
I . Th e H i s t o r i c a l T estihonjt.
In the year 1603, owing to the enormous defects recognized in all popular translation!
then current, the revision that had been ordered in the days of Elizabeth was carried
into effect by James. Fifty-four of the most learned graduates of the- Universities of '
Oxford and Cambridge were appointed to the task, seven of whom died before the work
was completed : (38) among the last, Lively, (39) the best if not the only Hebraist m
the translation, whose labors were of short duration ; and, “ much weight of the work
lying upon his skill in the Oriental tongues,” his loss was irreparable ; because the surviving./
orty-senere translators rejected the assistance of the only remaining Hebraist in
England, viz., “ Hugh Broughton,-fellow of Christ College, Cambridge, who had certainly
attained a great knowledge in the Hebrew and Greek tongues.” Indeed, says the very
learned Bellamy, (40) from whom we derive the fact, “ it was well known that there was
not a critical Hebrew scholar among them ; the Hebrew language, so indispensably necessary
for the accomplishment of this important work, having been most shamefully neglected
in our Universities ; and, as at this day [1818], candidates for orders were admitted witk
out a knowledge of this primary, this most essential branch of biblical learning. It was,
as it is at present, totally neglected in our schools, and a few lessons taken from a Jewi«
term-time, whose business is to Judaize[!], and not to Christianize, serve to give the character
of the Hebrew scholar,” in England.
In consequence, then, of the inability of the forty-seven translators to read one (and the
oldest, the aboriginal “ divine word”) of those “ saered-tongues” of which their servile
dedication make^parade, “ it appears they confined themselves to the Septuagint (Greek)
and the Vulgate (Latin) ; so that this was only working in the harness of the first translators
; no translation (excepting perhaps Luther's, 1530-—1545), from the original Hebrew
only, having been made for 1400 years,” says Bellamy.
“ If we turn,” continues elsewhere this outspeaking writer (whose erudition nemo m
imperitus will contest), “ to the translations made in the early ages of the C h r i s t ia n Charck,
we approach no nearer the truth; for as the, common translations in the European languages
were made from the modern Septuagint and the Vulgate, where errors are found
in these early versions they must necessarily be found in all the translations made from
them.” .
Whether the Vulgate and the Septuagint versipns are faultless will be considered anon.
Our present affair is with king James’s translation, and oertainly appearances are not
flattering.
We learn from Fuller, (41) how at once, on its first apparition, objections were raised
against its accuracy in England; but as these emanated chiefly from Romanist scholarship,
in those days of reformation at a discount, their validity is slurred over by Protestant
ecclesiastics. Gradually, as Hebraical scholarship struggled into existence — that suoh
(38) F u l l e r : Church History; 1655; pp. 44-46.
(39) Ibid, p. 47 — and Horne: Introd. to the Crit. Stud, o f H. Scrip.; 1838; ii. pp. 70, 80; note 5.
(40) The Holy Bible, newly translated from the Original Hebrew; with notes critical and explanatory; London,
1818, 4to — published by the subscriptions of Royalty, Nobility, and Clergy; but never completed, and now out
of print. Our quotations are from the “ general preface.”
(41) Church History ; pp. 58, 59 — also Horne: Introd.; ii. pp. 76-78.
giants as Walton,(42) 1657, had redeemed the Oriental •wisdom of Oxford — the voice of
the great Dr. Kennicott (43) was uplifted a century later, 1753-9, protesting vehemently
against the perpetuation of fallacies which the forty-seven translators’ ignorance of Hebrew
had spread over the land through king James’s version. He commences— “ The reader
will be pleased to observe, that, as the study of the Hebrew language has only been reviving
during the last hundred years,” (44) &c.— that is, only since the time of Walton, his predecessor:—
which passage implies that fifty years previously to the latter’s epoch, 1657,
(i. e., at the time of the forty-seven translators, 1603-11), the study of Hebrew was all
I but defunct, or rather it had scarcely yet begun to exist ; that is, in JSngland.
This point was considered so familiar to every general reader, that no hesitation was
felt when stating it, 1849, with reference to the same question, (45) in the following words:
“Now the Hebrew language in 1611 had been a dead language for more than two thousand
years, and though these men (the forty-seven translators aforesaid) were renowned for
their piety and learning, yet very'few, if any of them, were competent to so important a
task. In fact, the Hebrew language may be said only to havè been recovered within the
last century by modern Orientalists : and from the ignorance of these very translators of
| the original language, the Old Testament was taken mostly from the Greek and Latin
versions, viz : the Septuagint and Vulgate. Being, then, a translation of bad translations,
which had passed through numerous copyings, how could it come down to us without
I errors??’ - rj.
Nevertheless, want of ordinary information on Scriptural literature prompted a reviewer,
(with intrepidity characteristic of that undeveloped stage of the reasoning faculties which,
j in accordance with Comte’s positive philosophy, has been already classed as “ the theolo-
l gical,”) to indite these remarks :— “ Dr. Nott, again, speaks disrespectfully of the English
version of the Scriptures. He makes the astounding assertion that * the Hebrew language
- may be said only to have been recovered within the last century, by modern Orientalists.’
Most surprising is it that any one should believe that the Jews should have wholly lost a
, knowledge of their ancient and sacred tongue ; and that a knowledge of it should only
I have been recovered by modern Orientalists, displays an amazing want of reading and
scholar-like accuracy, and a credulity exceedingly rare, except in an unbeliever.” (46)
“(Mutato nomine, de te fabula narratur ! ” Under the head of KNâAN [supra, p. 496], the
I “Association ” may find a series of facts on the permutations, which the so-called “ Lingua
! Sancta*” of the Israelites has undergone, still more “ astounding,” where we took occasion
[ to repeat and enlarge upon the positions of Dr. Nott’s “ Reply.” In the meanwhile, the
“ipse dixit” above quoted of Kennicott, that a century and a half posterior to the forty-
« « translators of king James’s version, the study of Hebrew was only “ reviving,” may,
r by some, be considered as authoritative as that put forth, in 1850, in proof of the united
! scholarship of an “ Association.” 5
“ This only is certain, that, in Nehemiah’s time, the people still spoke Hebrew ; that, in
the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabees, the Hebrew was still written, though
f the Aramæan was the prevalent language ; and, on the'contrary, about this time, and
[ shortly, after Alexander the Great, even the learned Jews found it hard to understand difficult
passages of the old writings, because the language had ceased to be a living speech. The
reign of thé Seleucidæ, and the new influence of an Aramæan people, seem gradually to
• ave destroyed the last traces of it (47) and this about two thousand years ago !
| (42) Biblia Sacra Polyglotta— comphitentia Textus Originalis — Hebraicos cum Pentat. Samarit., Chaldaicos,
ræcos, Versionumque Antiquarum — Samarit., Græc. Sept., Chaldaicæ, Seriacæ, Lat. Vulg., Arabicæ, Æthio- I Picæ, Persicæ.
(43) Author of Velus Testamentum Hebraicum; cum variis Lectionibus; Oxon. 1780; and of Dissertatio Gene-
ralis in Vetus Test. Heb.; 1780.
(44) I. Dissertation — State o f the printed Hebrew Text o f the O. Test, considered; Oxford, 1753; p. 307.
I (45) N o t t : Op. eit.\ p. 134.
(46) The Rev. Dr..H owe, in The Southern Presbyterian Review, “ conducted by an Association of Ministers;”
„ ¡HBr®! S.C.; vol. iii. No. 3.; Jan. 1850 — refuted by Dr. N o t t : “ Chronology, Ancient and Seriptural,” in
^Whern Quarterly Review; Nov. 1850.
1* ) Gesentus, apud Parker’s De Wette: i., Appendix, p. 457 — compare also p. 221.