Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

the reader against them. Mrs. Schimmelpenninck's opinion of the Authorised Version is given in the following passages :-" Before we enter into this proof" (that is, that all the Psalms relate to Christ), "it will be necessary to examine, why the Psalms have so currently obtained a mere historical and experimental sense, in defiance of the uniform tenor of every New-Testament quotation. We apprehend it to have been chiefly in consequence of the very unfortunate manner in which the Hebrew titles to the Psalms are translated, in our (in most respects) excellent version of the Scriptures. Our Authorised Version was published only a few years after the death of Queen Elizabeth, whose reign was the first in which we can consider Protestantism as established. We must then make due allowance for the Herculean task which the translators had to perform, and we must not be astonished at some errors. The errors which have been committed, however, in translating the titles of the Psalms are truly momentous. We do not scruple to term them so; because they all along furnish the reader with a false key to their interpretation. The translators having themselves always understood them of the literal, instead of the antitypical, David, in order to bear themselves out in this misconception, uniformly mistranslate the titles, to ascribe the Psalm to David, in violation of the plainest grammatical rules of He brew. Under the same mistake, they insert words of their own coining, to which the original gives not the least countenance, and affords no indication whatever: and lastly, being frequently unable to make any sense of the titles so misapprehended, in the literal construction, they throw up the task altogether, leaving the Hebrew words untrans lated, as they stand, without affixing to them any meaning whatever; thus leaving the English reader to imagine them the names of persons or of places."-Vol. i. pp. 84-86.

Again; "Our venerable Réformers do not appear to have possessed the true key of spiritual interpretation, especially as it relates to the Psalms. They have therefore continually mistranslated the titles, to make them fit in with their plan of literal interpretation; and where the titles have proved, as is continually the case, absolutely intractable to their views, they have left in the Hebrew words untranslated, as though they were proper names.' Vol. i. p. 106.

These passages, which I have given at considerable length, that I might run no risk of misrepresenting the sentiments of the authoress. will excite no small astonishment in every considerate reader. Mrs. Schimmelpenninck urges one of the heaviest charges that ever was made against the translators of the Authorized Version. She not only accuses them of incompetence for the great work which they undertook,-of momentous errors in translating the Psalms, and of misconceiving their meaning, but of mistranslating, "in order to bear themselves out in their misconceived opinions;" and that too "in violation of the plainest grammatical rules of Hebrew." (Vol. i. pp. 106, 107.) If this statement be any thing like correct, who can any longer place confidence in the production of such ignorant, partial, and unfair translators?

The authoress is very confident of the correctness of her assertions. "We request the reader," she says, "to follow us, step by step, through our proofs of these charges. They are most important to the conclusions we mean to draw therefrom." (Vol. i. p. 86.) Before I proceed to examine her proofs of such serious charges, it may be worth while to inquire whether Mrs. Schimmelpenninck has a sufficiently correct and extensive knowledge of the Hebrew language to warrant her in pronouncing so severe a judgment on the translators of our Bible. few passages will be sufficient to enable your readers, who are mo

A

derately conversant with Hebrew to form a pretty accurate opinion on the subject. Let us begin with Mrs. S.'s critical remarks on the 1st verse of the 1st chapter of Genesis, a verse as plain and clear as any in the Bible, and respecting the literal translation of which, (except indeed respecting the word 2,) I am not aware that any difference of opinion has ever existed. "The word Beraisheeth, in the beginning," remarks Mrs.Schimmelpenninck,"being literally in the head, chief, or ruler, many of the fathers have considered the spiritual sense of this passage (which is indeed its literal interpretation) as plainly pointing out Christ; and declaring that in and by him, who is established Head over all things, the triune God created the heavens and the earth." (Vol. i. p. 8.) The doctrine that the world was created by the instrumentality of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, can admit of no doubt in the mind of the sincere Christian. The only question is, whether this passage has any reference to the point. The word nws, says Mrs. S., literally signifies, in the head, chief, or ruler. Now the word n occurs about fifty times in the Hebrew Bible, either simply, or with the prefixes and suffixes, 5, 7, &c.; in not one of which places does it signify either head or ruler. Its common meaning is beginning, first fruits, principal, &c. It sometimes signifies chief as applied to things, but not, I believe, as applied to persons. The only rational way of ascertaining the sense of a Hebrew word is, either by comparing the various passages of Scripture in which it occurs, or by examining the best lexicons. The passages in which s occurs, will be seen in Taylor's Hebrew Concordance, from which I have transcribed the following references, in the order in which they are placed:-Gen. i. 1, x. 10, Deut. xxi. 17; Ps. cxi. 10; Prov. i, 7, viii. 22, xxii. 14; Mic. i. 13; Lev. ii. 12, xxiii. 10. With regard to lexicons, I know no better authority than Buxtorf, Schindler,

[ocr errors]

and Taylor. The following are the senses given to the word nws by these three lexicographers:-"Præcipuum, primum, præstantissimum, primitivum, primitia." (Buxtorfii Lex. Heb. & Chald.) "Præcipium, primitivum, primitia, origo, initium." (Schindleri Lex.) "Principuum, primum, primarium." (Taylor's Heb. Con.) In fact, Mrs. S. seems to have confounded the sense of the derivative nws with that of the primitive w.

Again, Mrs. S. remarks: "And the earth, Haaaretz. This name for the earth literally means the runner or revolver; from Raatzch, "he ran"*... At the time when the Scriptures were written, the earth was generally supposed to be the centre of the system, and the sun to move round it. How can we account for the philosophical truth of expression, in sacred writ, but by it admitting that it is indeed, as professes to be, the word of God, who created all things, and who therefore well knew their construction?" (Vol. i. p.12.) Mrs. S. is singularly unfortunate in this passage. Nothing can be weaker in argument than to found a doctrine on a conjectural etymology. It is like attempting to raise a building, not on the sand, but on the shifting surface of the ocean. She derives s from

"he ran," and refers to Parkhurst for authority; a very weak support in all questions of etymology. In the first place never signifies he ran, and in the second place, Parkhurst never asserts that it does. Under the root (under which Parkhurst has confounded the two roots and p), he says, "Various etymologies have been by learned men proposed of this word (N); the most probable seems to be that which derives it from breaking in pieces, crumbling." Mrs. S. seems to have mistaken the root which signifies," he was willing, he was pleased," for , which means he ran, but not he revolved. Both etymologies are equally fanciful. * In a note Mrs. S. refers to Parkhurst.

I will give only one specimen more of this lady's skill in Hebrew criticism, before I proceed to examine her assertions respecting the titles of the Psalms. After some observations on the 8th Psalm, she refers to Isaiah Ixiii, and states the Prophet as representing the celestial hosts as welcoming the "Conqueror in his ascent from Edom, 78, or the earth (as the root may be read differently pointed), and with dyed garments from Bozrah." In a note she adds; "The word Edom, red, and Adam, the ground or man, are in Hebrew the same word, only differently pointed." Mrs. S. equally mistakes in the text and in the note. If the reader will turn to Isaiah lxiii. 1, he will find that the word is not 078 but 0178, which never signifies either man or earth. Nor does D ever signify the earth or ground, but its derivative 8 has this sense.

It would be easy to accumulate other passages to the same effect; but these will be quite sufficient to convince any reader who will examine the Hebrew Bible, and any of the best lexicons, that Mrs. Schimmelpenninck's censures of the Authorised Version of the Bible are not to be admitted with implicit confidence, and to excite a regret that a lady who can write so well, and whose truly laudable object is "to encourage amongst her own sex a taste for Biblical reading, and for bestowing that portion of time, and that exercise and culture of the mind, on the infallible word of God, which in this age of increased intellectual culture is so often lavished upon vain accomplishments," should have ventured, on a slight knowledge of the Hebrew language, to accuse our translators of gross incapacity and unfairness. In my next paper, I shall proceed to the authoress's alleged proofs of her charge.

CLERICUS CORNUBIENSIS.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer. AT no period probably of the Christian church has the subject of CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 257.

Prophecy engrossed a larger share of public interest than within the last few years. The duty of devoting a very considerable degree of attention to this important part of Scripture has been widely acknowledged and acted upon, and innumerable explanations of prophecy, oral, printed, and in manuscript, have been the result. The extraordinary events, religious and political, of the last thirty or forty years, in conjunction with the wide diffusion of, and increased avidity for, Biblical literature, have induced a taste for studies of this nature in a great variety of instances; and in some it is to be feared with a larger infusion of zeal and sanguine expectation, than of sobriety, humility, or caution. The result has been, that in other quarters a distaste, not to say a repugnance, has been created for the study of prophecy altogether. It is not uncommon to hear a very superficial person descant with much volubility on prophecy, discussing the merits of contending schemes, and informing us with great accuracy which vial is now in a course of effusion, and what will be the order and arrangement of events to the conclusion of time; while learned and pious divines or laymen, who might be supposed to understand the matter at least as well as their informant, are contented to be silent,—or, if their opinion is asked, to reply, that prophecy, especially unfulfilled prophecy, is a subject which has not entered much into their line of reading, and that they would wish to be excused offering any opinion on its interpretation. Thus topics of a very interesting, and, I venture to add, highly useful, nature, are too often consigned, as if in contempt, to those who are least competent to handle them with advantage. The interpretation of prophecy is indeed, it must be admitted, a subject of so much difficulty that a cautious, sober-minded Christian will not enter upon the consideration of it without great modesty and self

2 P

suspicion. It must be allowed also, that the warm controversies which have been agitated respecting it are somewhat calculated to repel persons of peaceful disposition from the study; nor can it further be denied that such is the real uncertainty which must always attend the speculations of fallible interpreters of Scripture, in matters not plainly revealed, that it is natural that persons who prefer what is simple and practical, to what is obscure and not essentially necessary to be known, should often feel inclined to shrink from embarking on what they may consider a doubtful voyage of discovery. But still it is certain that prophecy,fulfilled or unfulfilled, constitutes a very large part of the hallowed writings; and, as if to obviate the objections of those who are inclined to slight this department of sacred literature, an express benediction is pronounced in the Revelations on those who devote due attention to it: "Blessed is he that readeth and they that obey the words of this prophecy." I would submit, therefore, for consideration to those Christians who profess-I might almost say who boast-a distaste for this kind of investigation, whether they are not labouring under a prejudice,-a prejudice which it becomes them to endeavour to surmount; whether they are not unintentionally treating with irreverence a considerable portion of Holy Writ, and denying themselves much instruction and comfort which a due study of the prophecies, with humble prayer to Him by whose divine inspiration they were given, is calculated to inspire. It is not to be wished that rash and ignorant persons should become interpreters of prophecy, any more than prophets; but is this any reason why those who have leisure and information for the pursuit, especially the clergy, should shrink from it, as if nothing could result from such researches but either doubt and disappointment on the one hand, or a pertinacious spirit and dogmatical

conceit on the other? Surely the study of prophecy-connected as it ought ever to be with humility and wisdom, and in due proportion, as respects its comparative importance, with other parts of Scripture— is calculated to produce effects very different to these. In order to prove this position, and to excite your readers to a just and proper attention to the subject, I shall trespass, in a succeeding paper, with a few brief considerations relative to the great usefulness of the prophetic parts of Scripture, reserving for a third some suggestions respecting the habits and dispositions necessary to be cherished by those who would turn the subject of prophecy to spiritual advantage.

M. P.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer. YOUR readers must be aware that it has been made a subject of considerable and anxious discussion, how far social meetings for devotional exercises ought to be encouraged among the friends and clergy of the Established Church. The beneficial effects of such meetings, under due regulation, are very obvious; nor are the evils to which they very generally give rise, less so. It is often, therefore, a delicate point for determination how to act as respects their encouragement or otherwise. Two highly judicious individuals, whose interesting memoirs you have lately reviewed, Mr. Hey of Leeds, and the Rev. Thos. Scott, have taken opposite views of the subject; the layman answering in the affirmative, and the divine in the negative. The remarks of Mr. Scott, in particular, have excited much inquiry, and certainly deserve to be weighed with great attention, especially by the clergy. At the same time, the subject is fairly open to a considerable latitude of discussion; and it is of great importance that it should be well understood in all its bearings, on account of the wide increase of

zeal and piety in our church, and the consequent eagerness happily displayed by many of her members for availing themselves of all the opportunities afforded in her venerated communion or spiritual improvement. May I request, there

fore, that some of your judicious correspondents who have had occasion to consider the question maturely would furnish the public, through your pages, with the result of their inquiries.

R. H.

MISCELLANEOUS.

LETTERS WRITTEN DURING A JOUR- young lawyer, gentlemanly in his

NEY THROUGH NORTH AMERICA.

(Continued from p. 224.)

Hartford, Connecticut, 1st March, 1821. In my last letter I mentioned our arrival at Portland on the 16th ult. I will now give you a brief sketch of our journey from Portland to Hartford.

At Portland I found, at a respectable boarding-house where I lodged, among other persons, the Governor of the state, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and eight or ten of the most respectable members. There was a common table at which all ordinarily assembled; and a common sitting-room, where they seemed to pass their leisure in reading the newspapers and smoaking segars. For the very first time since my arrival in America, I had actually at this boarding-house a parlour to myself, which arose from the circumstance of its being, in the first instance, designed for my bedroom. It was a luxury indeed to feel alone, and likely to remain so, without shutting myself up in my bed-chamber, in which I have lived for the last year when not in society or on the road. My hopes of retirement in my parlour, however, were soon shaken; for the landlord brought a gentleman in to me, who, after conversing a few minutes, said, he was come to take me into the dining-room, to introduce me to the company. He was a

manners, and, I found afterwards, had been educated at Harvard College, Cambridge. As we sat down to dinner, at one o'clock, he introduced me to most of the gentlemen by name, and, among others, to the Secretary of the State. The rest of the company, although I doubt not intelligent and acute, I certainly should not (at least on my first arrival in America) have guessed to be a body of legislators. The landlady presided, with Mrs. the wife of the Speaker, on her right; and the landlord sat down towards the close of dinner, after having waited on his guests, and assisted the waiters till all the company were helped. He was very civil, and came into my room half-a-dozen times in the course of the evening to look at my fire, and sce if I wanted any thing. An English landlord could not have been more respectful and attentive. In the course of the evening, the young lawyer also paid me a second visit, with real good nature, bringing in a friend, "lest I should be lonely." I give you these little incidents to shew the habits of the country. As they found me busy writing, however, they stopped only half an hour, and retired, saying, they would not interrupt me, but would attend me to any church in the morning to which I liked to go.

In the morning, accordingly, the young lawyer accompanied me to the Episcopal church, where a young minister preached on the im

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »