digieuse, d'un travail infatigable, bon ami, et ennemi violent, qui avoit de l'érudition, mais peu de jugement et de bonne foi, et dont le stile est rude et peu poli.' Quod testimonium unice confirmatur ex vita et actis Dempsteri non vulgaribus, quæ dili genter illic narrata legi omnino merentur, præter ea quæ Erythræus, et ipse Dempsterus de se suisque posteritati tradidit in Epistola, qua Jacobo I. Britanniarum Regi Commentarium ad Antiquitates Rosini dedicavit. Illa vero Antiquitatum Rom. Paralipomena, et notæ in Corippum ac Claudianum, inter Dempsterianæ eruditionis monumenta dignis laudibus prædicanda sunt, quamquam de notis ad Claudianum peræque dici possit, quod de notis ejus in Corippum Barthius ad Stat. Theb. xii. 418. illas sæpe parum facere ad poëtæ emendationem, licet idem Barthius Lib. xxi. Adv. cap. 13. bene de Corippo meritum esse eruditissimum Dempsterum, nullam ætatem negaturam adfirmet. Sed his longe splendidius et augustius est Etruriæ Regalis opus, Thesaurum Etruscarum Antiquitatum complectens, quod in Academia Pisana elaboratum apud Magnum Etruriæ Ducem depositum reliquerat, quum ad Academiam Bononiensem, ubi an. 1625. obiit, evocaretur. Id suo tempore ut ineditum et inter Ducis Etruriæ cimelia reconditum laudat Erythræus, ubi quum per multos annos delituisset, hoc demum seculo inde erutum et e tenebris vindicatum fuita viro inter Anglos illustrissimo Thoma Coke, et insignibus Antiquitatum Etruscarum Thesauris ditatum; atque egregia Philippi Bonarotæ, variis ingenii ac doctrinæ monumentis inter Italos clarissimi, Appendice auctum prodiit Florentiæ 1723."

A REPLY

To KIMCHI'S Article in the last No. of the Classical Journal on Mr. BELLAMY's New Translation of the Bible from the Original Hebrew.

Ir the judicious reader will look back to the time of the sixteenth century, when the present version of the Bible was made by the command of king James, he will find that the English language at that period, compared with its present accuracy and propriety, was rude and barbarous; and so far as it has respect to the Bible, in some instances too indelicate for public reading..

It will also appear, on account of the great improvement in the learned languages, particularly in the Hebrew, that those contradictions in the authorised version, which have enabled objectors to shake the very foundation of society, have no authority in the sacred language, but have been made by the ignorance of the first translators in Hebrew, continued in the translation of Jerom, and copied from the Latin Vulgate into all the European translations. The necessity of a new translation from the ori ginal Hebrew only, has also been shown by the best Hebrew scholars in this country, such as Lowth, Kennicott, Blayney, Newcome, &c. Such a translation only will, as they declare, silence the cavils of objectors.

. Those who devote their time to the pursuits of literature, and lay their labors before the public, are entitled to our thanks; and it is much to be wished that such a spirit should be manifested between those who are of discordant opinions in England, as we see manifested among the controversialists on the continent. This liberality of sentiment is not always adopted in this country, and the illiberal spirit in some articles in the periodi cals is so generally lamented among our continental neighbours, that the learned Dr. Gesenius, Professor of Hebrew in the University of Halle, when on a visit a few months since to this country, told me, that nothing was more astonishing to them than to see the opposers of any thing new in the literary circle in England, conduct themselves with such abuse, and even personal invective.

The opposers of the new translation have not contented themselves with attempting to show any demerit; the writer of the articles in the Quarterly Review has even solicited subscribers to withdraw their names, and has had the hardihood to boast that he has succeeded. See Quarterly Review. Others have attempted to give their opinions, without even having read either the text, or the notes of the translator on those passages on which they have commented.

It was not possible to calculate on any opposition to an attempt to improve the common translation of the Bible, by any man professing christianity; but particularly from any of the clergy, whose very existence depends on a removal of those improper translations, which serve only to support the cause of infidelity, by enabling objectors to advance them, in order to show, as they term it, "the disordered state of the Bible." It is, however, proper to observe, that the great body of the clergy, and of the intelligent public, believing that the Bible may be proper to put into the hands of the rising generation, with all that chastity of

expression which we find in the Hebrew text, have long wished to see an object so desirable accomplished; and it is also proper to observe that those among the clergy, who have attempted to calumniate the new translation, aniount to no more than six or seven, and who are said by the most learned Rabbies in England to be ignorant even of the rudiments of the sacred language.i

It will hardly be believed by posterity, that a person writing to silence the objections advanced against the Bible, objections sedulously sent forth for no other design than to subvert the government, and to destroy the religion of the Bible, should be opposed by the very men who either are, or ought to be, the supporters of both Church and State. A professor in one of our Universities, speaking of the new translation, has these words; "His proposal goes to the formation of a theological version, which shall obviate the scoffs of infidelity, silence objections, and preclude scepticism. What critic can approve of such a project ?”2

Mr. Whittaker, in order to crush the new translation, makes use of a very dangerous expedient; he says, "The revisers of the sacred volume, be they who they may, have either not dared, or not thought fit, to strike out the errors from the inspired volume, for there they remain to the present day." So that rather than have a revision, the very word of God itself, in which he gave his commands to man, is by these persons to be set down as corrupt, and our faith and hope to be shaken; and the gates of infidelity are to be thrown open, by impugning the sacred original, rather than the absurdities should be removed by a faithful translation from the Hebrew.

I observe in the last number of the CLASSICAL JOURNAL an article on my translation of Gen. vi. 14. Make thee an ark of gopher-wood: rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. This is as it stands in the common version. The New Translation thus ; Make for thee, an ark of the wood of Gopher; rooms thou shalt make in the ark; for thou shalt expiate in it, even a house, also with an outer room for atonement.

See in the CRITICAL EXAMINATION of Mr. Whittaker's remarks on the new translation, the letter of the chief Rabbi of the Portuguese and Spanish Synagogue, the learned Dr. Raphael Mildola, on the ignorance of the Hebrew exhibited by that writer.

2A Rev. Dr. in the Church of England, who is an excellent Hebrew. scholar, writes thus to me: "Is the man out of his senses? every critic will approve of such a project, where the Hebrew will sanction it."

1

Your correspondent Kimchi does not come under the description of abusive writers; and if he should pay a little more attention to his subject before he commits himself to print, he will, I am of opinion, be more liberal. He surely has not read either the New Translation, or the note on that verse, or he could not have made so serious a charge against the translation. Kimchi is still of opinion that the word 5 kopher, in this verse, means pitch, because some of the ancient versions have thus translated it, and all the European versions from the copy of Jerom. My lexicon is the Bible itself; and your writer S. T. in your No. says, "The Quarterly Reviewer thinks that the word kopher, means asphaltus, bitumen, or pitch, used to smear over wood or other things. The unprejudiced reader will acknowledge that Mr. Bellamy has offered the most convincing reasons for his translation of this important passage; the declaration of the scripture itself. He says, The word kopher, which the translators have rendered pitch, has no such meaning in any part of scripture, and, excepting this solitary verse, it is not translated by pitch in any part of the Bible. The word which is always used, and which is the proper word for pitch, is zepheth. See Isa. xxxiv. 9, and the streams thereof shall be turned ( le zepheth) into pitch-Exod. ii. 3, and daubed it with slime, (i ubazaapheth) and with pitch. Now as zepheth is the only word in the Bible that is used for pitch, and as the word, kopher, uniformly throughout the scripture means alonement, or redemption, the reader who is in search of truth, will probably admit that there is the best of all proof, the scripture, for Mr. Bellamy's translation."

Yet Kimchi, by his silence concerning these proofs, advanced from the best authority, the scripture, on the uniform meaning of kopher, is very anxious to have it understood that he also thinks it means to smear over. He says, "The authorised version of Gen. vi. 14. gives a simple and natural sense to the passage. Let us view it in conjunction with the context. Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. And this is the fashion thou shalt make it of,' &c. The 14th, 15th and 16th verses contain instructions for making the ark, and give directions for the coating, or covering, and the dimensions. All is plain and clear and intelligible." I must deny this positive assertion. It is not said that "directions are given for the coating, or covering," except in the common version. Therefore instead of the 14th verse giving "a simple and natural sense to the passage, in conjunction with the context"-instead of being

plain and clear and intelligible;" we have an unnatural sense, no way in conjunction with the context; all is vague and ob

scure.

But, says Kimchi, "If we suppose that the primary sense of kaaphar, is to cover," supposition proves nothing. Kimchi should have told us where, kaaphar, is to be found in the sense of to cover. He may turn to kapheer, i. e. merciful, yekuphar, to cleanse, Numb. 1v. 33. But it is not possible for him to show that kopher ever has any other meaning in scripture, than atonement, expiation, ransom, or satisfaction.

Deut. xxi. 10.

But yet there appears to be a little doubt in the mind of Kimchi that Mr. Bellamy may be correct; for he says, "But admitting Mr. Bellamy to be correct in rejecting the authorised version admitting him to be right in the meaning which he affixes to (kopher) in Gen. vi. 14, is he correct in his own translation of the words? Let us refer to the Hebrew text.

עשה לך תבת עצי-גפר קנים תעשה את התבה וכפרת אתה מבית ומחוץ בכפר

3. The words are thus translated by Mr. Bellamy ; Make for thee an ark of the wood of Gopher, apartments thou shalt make in the ark, there thou shalt expiate within and without by atonement. Now notwithstanding all Mr, Bellamy's professions of translating the Hebrew literally, I am much mistaken if he has not failed in giving a literal translation of those words, even allowing him to be correct in his remarks on the word (kopher). He has translated (vekaaphartha)there thou shalt expiate,' and has given no translation of the word (othah) it. Perhaps Mr. Bellamy, or his apologist S. T. will say, that ↑ (vau) has the sense of 'there in two passages of scripture, 2 Kings xxv. 22, and Jer. xv. 8. These passages are mentioned in Taylor's Hebrew Concordance as having (vau) in the sense of "ibi," and Noldius also mentions. the latter passage. In the former, (vau) is translated "even" in the authorised version, which is a common meaning of the particle, and makes a better sense than that which Taylor, has affixed to it; and Noldius's, translation of the latter passage is forced and unnatural. I think your critical readers will allow that these constitute a very slight foundation for Mr. Bellamy's new translation of (vau). I have already observed, that Mr. Bellamy gives no translation of N (othah) it. Why, I know not, unless because it would not accord with bis new translation of the passage. Had he given a plain and literal translation of (kopher) and (kaaphartha), the absurdity of the innovation