Such is the position of Hebrew in the world’s philological history as a spoken tongue; yet
§| a knowledge of that language which is contained in the scanty relics of the Old Testa*
ment has been preserved, though but imperfectly, by means of tradition. Some time after
the destruction of Jerusalem in the Palestine and Babylonian schools, and after the eleventh
century in those of Spain, this tradition was aided by the study of the Arabic language
and, its grammar. Jerome learned the Hebrew from Jewish scholars. Their pupils -were
the restorers of Hebrew learning among the Christians of the sixteenth century; ” (48) that
is, on the .continent; for, with the exception of Lively, who died, and Hugh Broughton
whose aid was refused,, history does not record any man deserving the name of & Hebraist
in England, even during 1603-11. Finally, “ the name lingua sancta was first given to the
ancient Hebrew in the Chaldee version [made long after the Christian era, when Hebrm
had orally expired,] of the Old Testament, because it was the language of the sacred
books, in distinction from the Chaldee, the popular language, which was called lingua
profana. ” (49)
These citations here seem indispensable, lest dogmatism, peeping from out of its theological
chrysalis, should feel itself again called upon to “ astound ” a reader by charging us
with errors of its own commission: otherwise an apology would be due for this excursus,
We return to Dr. Kennicott.
After setting forth the causes of mistaken renderings in king James’s version, he
declares — “ A New Translation, therefore, prudently undertaken and religiously executed,
is a blessing, which we make no doubt but the Legislature [!] within a few years milj
grant us.” (50) Six years later, finding his humble prayer unheeded,- he comes out clamorously
against “ our authorized version ” : claiming that some of the earlier English translations
were more faithful and literal, (51) and backing his appeal with the subjoined
among other examples: e .
.Luke xxiii. 32. C h r i s t made a malefactor ! “ And there were also two other malefactors
led with him to be put to de a thins t e ad of “ two others, malefactors.” The Grtik
reads simply, “ And two others, evil-doers.” (52) _
Judges xv. 4. Three hundred foxes tied tail to tail,, instead of wheaten sheaves placed
end.to end! “ And Samson went and caught three hundred foxes, and took fire-1
brands, and turned tail to tail, and put a firebrand in the midst between two t^ls.” \
The Hebrm is, “ And Samson went and gathered three hundred sheaves of -wheat,
and taking torches and turning (the sheaves) end to end, set a torch in the midst
between two ends.” (53)
1 Kings xvii. 6. E l i j a h not fed by ravens, but by Arabs I “ And the ravens brought
him bread and flesh,” &c. In the Hebrew, “ And the 6RBIM (ditaB-dm) brought |
him bread and flesh.” Kennicott thinks Orblm, inhabitants of Oreb, or Orbo—“villa I
in finibus Arabum,” says St. Jerome: but, Arabs seem to us more natural and
correct. In no contingency “ crows ” ! (54)
It is superfluous now to continue our excerpta from Kennicott, or narrate how it comes
to pass that, owing to nice appreciations of the Text that none of them -could -construe,
the forty-seven (in Psalms cix.) have made pious king David (disputed author of that
(4S) D e W e t t e : Parker’s transi.; Boston, 1843; i. p. 128—cited by N o t t , in the “Reply.” Comp, also,Pit
f r e y : Academical Lectures on the Jewish Scriptures; Boston, 1838; i. pp. 8-20 — “ It is out of the question for
any man to suppose, that he can be acquainted with Hebrew as familiarly and thoroughly, as he may he
with Latin and Greek.”
(49) C o n a n t’s Gesenius: Hebrew Grammar; New York, 1846; p. 23.
(50) Op. cit.; p. 567. Cf., also, Munk: Palestine; Paris, 1845; pp. 433-436.
(51) II. Dissertation; Oxford, 1759; pp. 579, 580, seq.
(52) Sharpe: iV. Test.; p. 165.
(53) J o h n D o v e : Vindication o f the Hebrew Scriptures; London, 1771 — in his furious assault upon the {iAuthorized
Version,” and lamentations at English ignorance of Hebrew, also derides the “ foxes” ; p.71,seç.
G l a i r e : Livres Saints Vengés; Paris, 1845; ii. pp. 57, 58, contests the “ fagots.” — but vide C a h en : vi. PP-
68, 69, note 4.
(54) G l a i r e : Op. cit.; ii. p. 85, reads “ Arabes” ; but C a h e n , viii. p. 77,.“ corbeaux” — acutely adding, ‘Ml!;
versa historia fabularum plena est.”
rhapsody) (55) utter such fearful imprecations against his foes; when, in the “ original
s a c r e d tongue,” he actually complains that his enemies are heaping these outrageous maledictions
upon himself !
Well might the Reverend Doctor quôte Michælis — “ l am amazed when I hear some men
vindicate our common readings with as much zeal as if the editors had been inspired by
the Holy Ghost!” Still better does he terminate his earnest work with supplications for
a new Hebrew Text, and for a new English “ authorized ” translation.
Reader, these things were published at Oxford and disseminated over Great Britain
about ninety-four years ago — not in expensive folios veiled through the dead languages,
but in two English octavos — not by a “ skeptic” whose indignation at any kind of imposture
impels him to spurn it, but by that Church of England Divine, collator of six hundred
and ninety-two ancient Hebrew biblical manuscripts, (56) whose folios, together with the
Biblia Polyglotta of his illustrious precursor, Walton, are the only English labors on the
Scriptures that receive homage from continental erudition; as performances on a par with
the colossal researches of Germans, Frenchmen, and Italians, even unto this day !
Kennicott passed away. Other scholars followed in his footsteps. From a few of the
latter we extract what they have left in print respecting king James’s version, with a prefatory
citation from Bellamy, to whom we owe the collection. (57)
“ It is allowed by the learned in this day and every Christian nation, that the authorized
translations of the sacred Scriptures, in many places, are not consistent with the original
Hebrew. A few extracts are here given, from some of our most learned and’ distinguished
writers, who were decidedly of opinion, that a New Translation of the Scriptures was absolutely
necessary ; not only on account of the great improvement in our language, but
because the Translators have erred respecting things most essential. The following are
. some of the eminent men who have left their testimony concerning the necessity of a new
translation ÿ
‘ W ere a version of the Bible executed in a manner suitable to the magnitude of the
u n d e rta k in g , such a measure would have a direct tendency to establish the faith of thou-*
sands. . . . Let the Hebrew and Christian prophets appear in their proper garb : let us make
them holy garments ,for glory and for beauty ; . . . the attempts of individuals should be promoted
by the natural patrons of sacred learning.’ — (Bishop N ew c om b e .)
‘ Innumerable instances might be given of faulty translations of the divine original. . . .
An accurate translation, proved and supported by sacred criticism, would quash and silence
most of the objections of pert and profane cavillers.’ —r ( B l a c k w e l l ’s Sac. Class.
Pref, 1731.)
‘Our English version is undoubtedly capable of very great improvements.’ — (W a t e r -
lakd’s Script. Vindicated, Part 3, p. 64.)
‘ Nothing would more effectually conduce to this end, than the exhibiting the Holy Scriptures
themselves in a more advantageous and just light, by an accurate révisai of our vulgar
translation.’— (Dr. L o w t h ’s Visitât. Sermon, at Durham, 1753.)
‘ The common version has many considerable faults, and very much needs another review.’
— (Biblioth. Lit., 1723, p. 72.)
‘ The Old Testament has suffered much more than the New, in our Translation.’ — (Doddridge’s
Pref. to Family Expositor.)
‘ Many of the inconsistencies, improprieties, and obscurities, are occasioned by the translators’
misunderstanding the true import of the Hebrew words and phrases, showing the
benefit and expediency of a more correct and intelligent translation of the Bible.’ — ( P i l k -
ington’s Remarks, 1759, p. 77.)
‘ The version now in use in many places does not exhibit the sense of the Text ; and
mistakes it, besides, in an infinite number of instances.’— ( D u r e l l ’s Crit. on Job, 1772,
Pref.)--- . . .
‘That necessary work, a New Translation of the Holy Scriptures.’ — ( L o w t h ’s Prelim
Dissert, to Isaiah, p. 69.)
(55) Cf. d e W e t t e : ii. pp. 520-529 — and C a h e n : xiii. p. 247, “ Sommaire,” and p. 249, note 20.
(56) Diss. Gen. in Vet. T. Heb. ; 1790 ; Tables, pp. 110-112.
(57) Op. cit.: “ General Preface” ; 1818.