magnitude of the object and the arduousness of the service. If we are to judge of the future from the past, a translation of the Christian Scriptures which shall be at once popular and correct is a task surpassing the powers of any individual, however gifted and accomplished: such are the variety and extent of learning which it requires; such is the intenseness of the application which it implies! It is chiefly, if not altogether, from the contributions of sound theological scholars that we can hope to be furnished with a satisfactory revision of the Public Version.

As the epistles of the New Testament are, confessedly, the most obscure portion of it, we feel a pleasure in Philalethes having selected some of them for the essay he now makes: those which he has translated, are perhaps less difficult than others that might be mentioned; yet they contain passages calculated to exercise the diligence, and try the ability, of scholars and of critics. Whoever succeeds in giving a new version, which shall be tolerably accurate and neat, of the several Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, and to Titus, and of the general Epistle of James, affords a pledge of his capacity of doing justice to the remaining apostolic letters.

We congratulate this translator and his readers that his Version is from the text of GRIESBACH. He speaks of it as being chiefly that of the very learned professor: had it been altogether his, we know not that Philalethes would have been chargeable with servile veneration. His deviations from Griesbach we shall notice and appreciate hereafter in the mean time, we must declare that the almost perfect correctness of this celebrated Editor's text is attested by every review to which it has been submitted. Incessant toil, rich stores of theological knowledge, and the faculties of a sagacious and discriminating mind were employed in framing it. They who have read his Commentarius Criticus, &c. will deeply lament that he did not live to complete a work in which we accompany him, as he applies the best rules of criticism to the various readings in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, and weighs au

thorities, rather than numbers them. There have been those who assailed his positions and deductions, and scattered insinuations against his editorial character, if not from invidiou motives, certainly in a most invidious manner: but he was as much the superior of his antagonist Mat thaei in temper as in argument and biblical learning and the diguity with which, in the Comm. Critic, he exposes many of that writer's mistakes, and repels his splenetic attacks, has not escaped our observation. Biblical criticism had a favourite son in Griesbach her decisions were made by his voice; while on all occasions he was the strenuous and successful defender of her province and her rights. In the preface to bis Symbola Criticæ he also speaks as became him of Matthaei and his attempts: and, though he declines giving a reply to mere personalities, manifests his zeal for the interests of the great cause to which his life was devotedthe adjustment of the text of the Christian Scriptures; "non committam ut bona, quam tueor, causa detrimenti quid, meâ desidiâ, capiat, nec, quantum in me est, ut ad Machstrichtianorum et Whitbianorum temporum exilitatem res critica sacra rursus deprimatur."

Not that we would blindly defer to the authority even of a Griesbach. Biblical students and scholars should, as much as possible, investigate and apply for themselves the principles of philological criticism. Our only view in offering the preceding re marks, was to intimate that, usually, Griesbach is a most secure guide, and that whoever dissents from him in respect of the readings of the New Testament should clearly mark the variations, and be prepared to esta blish the solidity of the ground of his dissent.

Who Philalethes is, we are ignorant, and shall not conjecture. For many reasons, to some of which we cannot but attach a good deal of importance, we experience satisfaction in not knowing the name and situa

The first part of the Comm. Critic. was published at Jena in 1798, the second, in 1811. It extends only to the two first Gospels.

tion of the author. All of us have too strong a propensity to be biassed by personal attachments or antipathies: and we are desirous of forming and of publicly expressing our judgment on this translation, sine irâ et studio, be

fore the veil which conceals the translator is withdrawn. Indeed, we are far from being of opinion that, in the present state of society and of learning, the cause either of literature or of good manners and morals is served by the indiscriminate appearance of a writer in his own person. A man's sentiments and reasonings, the fruits of his researches, the results of his invention, the decisions of his taste and his discernment, and the effusions of his fancy, must be considered independently on any factitious circumstances: they are not the worse because they are anonymous; while by their being so, delicacy and modesty are often gratified, prepossessions obviated and prejudices disarmed. The single exception is when he communicates to the world facts, or alleged facts, whether in regard to the living or the dead, to things or persons, to individuals or societies. Here his disclosure of himself is essential; since we cannot otherwise pronounce on the credit due to him as a witness. Yet here, in the only case where critical propriety and moral justice imperiously call for it, a writer's name is frequently withholden; while in matters of mere reasoning and speculation we see it pompously obtruded.

The present translator professes to have "bestowed much care and labour upon the work, with the view to render it at the same time faithful and clear." Of care and labour his Version, we think, bears evident marks and his proposed end seems, on the whole, to have been answered. He further says, that

"He has made the translation as literal as, according to his judgment, the idioms of the respective languages would allow and he has preferred the words of the authorized Version wherever they appeared to express the sense of the apostle with precision, and in a perspicuous and pure style."

These are excellent rules for a translator of the Scriptures: nor has Philalethes often overlooked them.

"Perspicuity," he adds, "ought surely to be a principal object in every transla

neces

By a participation of the spirit under which the apostles wrote," Philalethes, no doubt, means an enlarged view of their object and situation, and some degree of resemblance to their highly devotional and moral habits. If this be the sense of his language, we agree with him: nor can he design to assert or intimate that inspiration is necessary to a comprehension of the full import of many passages in the writings of inspired men. The letters of Paul could scarcely be obscure to the original readers of them: and we must be cautious of substituting our own conceptions-those, it may be, of a modern age and a mo dern creed-for the ideas of native Jews and Heathens recently converted to Christianity.

"Some persons," observes Philalethes, "have required that the same words in the original should be rendered uniformly in the translation; but to mention this as a canon of criticism must be to expose its absurdity, to the view of every one who two languages have many terms exactly equivalent, and of precisely similar latitude in meaning and construction. Frequently the sense can be determined by the context alone."

considers that no

we have not tied ourselves," say they, "to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe that some learned men some where have been as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places, (for there be some words that be not of the same sense every where,) we were especially careful,

and made a conscience, according to our duty. But that we should express the same notion in the same particular word; as, for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by purpose never to call it intent, if one where journeying, never travelling, &c.: thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than wisdom."

"All parade of learning" is disclaimed by Philalethes," in the few notes that are given. An alteration in 2 Thess. ii. 7, which might excite surprise," ," he therefore notices here.

The alteration shall be examined in its place: our readers will then judge' whether Philalethes has with reason deviated from the text, whether he has regarded the rule, DURIOR lectio præferatur. We much commend him for giving few notes, for preserving distinct the offices of a translator and an interpreter of the Scriptures.

Nor shall we censure this writer for declining to consult many preceding translators or commentators. Yet whoever attempts a version of any part of the Sacred Writings, should compare his labours with those of the best authors in the above class that have gone before him, and not least

with the translations of the Bible into

rope.

some of the languages of modern EuThe merits of Doddridge in this character are, perhaps, greater than several of his readers imagine: but whether they be so eminent as to justify the entire use of him, preferably to other translators, we may be permitted to make a question. High praise is likewise due to Castalio and to Newcome. That Philalethes is not partial to Macknight, we by no means wonder. A want of discrimination characterizes this laborious commentator. It is singular that Macknight ascribes to the apostle Paul an intentional obscurity of style. †

Of Schleusner and of Principal Campbell, Philalethes speaks with judgment, modesty and candour. We know experimentally, that Schleusner's Lexicon, &c., valuable as it is, ought not to be followed with implicit deference; being more useful in the hands of a student of a certain standing, than in those of a novice.

To the theological scholar, in his fibrary, Campbell's Translation, &c. will be not a little advantageous; but in the family and in public worship it is. inadmissible.

Philaletkes and we shall, probably, be at issue, as to some passages in which he has admitted into the text, "the sense rather than the words of

the sacred writer." Nevertheless, the principle and its application will be review of his translation. more conveniently discussed in our

ART. III.-The Anti-Deist: being e Vindication of the Bible, in answer to the Publication called The Deist. Containing also a Refutation of the Erroneous Opinions held forth in The Age of Reason, and on a recent Publication, entitled, Researches on Ancient Kingdoms. By John Bellamy. Author of The New Translation of the Bible from the Original Hebrew. 8vo. pp. 100. Longman and Co. 1819.

MR

R. BELLAMY has attracted translator of the Bible, who is foully great notice as an original bespattered by the Quarterly ReviewRegent. He is confident in his Heers, and patronized by the Prince brew learning, to which he has devoted his whole life, and stoutly maintains that all that is morally, philosophically or chronologically incorrect in the Old Testament, is an error of the translation. With this

hypothesis he meets the present busy tribe of Deists, who for want of Hebrew, will, we predict, be silent before him.

Thus he maintains that the Hebrews did not purloin the jewels of the Egyptians, but only borrowed money of one another, the poor of the rich, wrestled with Jacob was an Edomitish for the journey; that the man who judge, that the wrestling was only contending in argument with regard hollow of the thigh was a form of to property, that the touching of the administering an oath, and that there is no authority for the clause," the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint;" that the sin of the daughters of Lot was not incest, but marrying idolaters of Zoar, the proper reading of Gen. xix. 36 being, "Thus both the daughters of Lot conceived un

known to their father;" that Jephtha did not sacrifice his daughter; that David did not put the people of Rabbah under saws, harrows and axes, but settle them to these implements of labour; that the builders of Babel did not plan a tower whose top should reach to heaven, but one whose dome or ceiling should be like the firmament or heavenly host, which the Babylonians worshiped, cum multis aliis.

The Deist may turn round upon Mr. Bellamy with an objection against a divine revelation which for ages has been mistaken in its principal facts, and which the majority of the learned still understand in a sense which he himself allows makes it unworthy of God, and therefore incredible. Mr. Bellamy should, we think, have met the objection, though in doing so he might have scandalized the reputed orthodox believer.

A few objections to the New Testament are answered. The following exposition of the variations in the

inscription on the cross, as given by the four Evangelists, is very ingeni

ous:

the king of

the king of

the king of

"Answer. "Now so far are the apostles from disagreeing in this matter, that it appears they all are in perfect agreement. Matthew says,They set up over his head his accusation: what was this accusation? Was it, This is Jesus? No, for all Jerusalem knew it was Jesus. His accusation was THE KING OF THE JEWS. Mark says, is accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.' Luke says, And a superscription also was written over him, THE KING OF THE JEWS.' And John says, And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross:' what was this title? Was it Jesus of Nazareth? Common sense says no; Jesus of Nazareth could not be a title. He says, consistently with the other apostles, that the title was, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

“Thus it is evident, that notwithstanding the apostles are called liars by these objectors, they perfectly agree; not even a single word is varied by any of them respecting his accusation and title; for they all say it was, THE KING OF THE sixty years after the crucifixion, saw the JEWS. And if John, who wrote in Asia, necessity of mentioning his place of abode, in order to give the Asiatics an opportunity of ascertaining the truth of the things he was declaring; Matthew, Mark and Luke, who wrote their books at a very early period after the crucifixion, did not of Jerusalem what they already knew, viz. see necessary to inform the inhabitants that Jesus was of Nazareth."-Pp. 90, 91. ART. IV.-The Scriptural Meaning of the Title SON OF GOD as applied to our Lord, considered in a Discourse delivered before the Warwickshire, &c. Tract Society, at Wolverhampton, July 28, 1818. By John Kenrick, M. A. 12mo. pp. 38. Birmingham. Printed and sold by Belcher: in London sold by Hunter and by ` Eaton.

1818.

sense." must admit.