remark, once more, upon the subject of this discretionary rejection, that it is attended with the most obvious inconsistency. If the account of Dinah is to be discarded from a Family Bible, as being offensive to delicate minds, why is not that of Joseph and Potiphar's wife, and that of David and Bathsheba, to experience the same fate? If it be said, that the two latter are of consequence, as inseparable links in the chain of history and precept-so is the former, it may be answered; for without it, how can Jacob's observations upon the character of his two sons, Simeon and Levi, be understood? [See Gen. xlix. 5, 6.] Omit the thirty-fourth chapter of Genesis, and there is an hiatus in the forty-ninth which nothing can fill up. The same discretion which expunges certain verses in Rom. i. assuredly cannot, with any propriety, retain similar expressions in the Epistle of St. Jude; and yet the latter is untouched by Mr. Watson. Again, if the names and salutations at the end of the Epistle to the Romans be pronounced to be superfluous, why are not those at the conclusion of other Epistles to be considered equally redundant? In addition to these more open violations of the Sacred Text, the editor has assumed the privilege of making such verbal alterations, as he imagines will be an improvement to the sense. -in הִרְבִּיתָ הַגּוֹי לֹא הִגְדַלְתָ הַשְׁמְחָה .3 .For example, in Isaiah ix stead of adhering to the authorized version, "Thou hast multiplied the nation and not increased the joy," he reads, "Thou hast multiplied the nation, thou hast increased their joy." In this, he is supported, as would at first sight appear, by Bishop Lowth, who says, that eleven Hebrew MSS. justify such interpretation. The Bishop supposes the true meaning of the clause to depend upon the acceptation of one of two Hebrew words, which are spelt differently, but have the same pronunciation. The one has a negative, and the other a relative, signification. "to [lo], is an adverb of negation, but [10], is a personal pronoun, and signifies " to him," or "to it." Now as the former is frequently spelt in Scripture with vau, inserted in the middle, it was certainly very easy for transcribers to make the mistake, particularly if they copied from dictation, by writing the one letter for the other, or by leaving out the & aleph. But Mr. Watson's version cannot by any possibility be right; for 1 is never used in the plural number, and cannot mean their. It is true that with which it may be said to agree, might, therefore, in some cases, here it evidently does not so. p, to which forms the is a noun of multitude, and take a plural pronoun; but Whereas the following verb nominative case, is plural. This affords some presumption, that is the right reading; and then the passage may be rendered, according to Bishop Lowth's suggestion, interrogatively. For several of his other alterations, Mr. Watson has not even so much authority as for this. Among others, in 2 Kings they arose early in the morning, behold they were all dead corpses," he substitutes, " And when the morning arose, behold they were all dead corpses." The infelicity of this new reading is the more glaring, because he retains the words of the authorized version in the passage of Isaiah xxxvii. 36, which in the original is not only parallel but literally the same. A reference to the Septuagint only would have shewn the editor, that however he might desire to help the sense by giving different substantives to the two relatives, they, he could not take the liberty of writing, "And when the morning arose," Kai ὤρθρισαν τοπρωΐ, καὶ ἰδοὺ πάντες σώματα νεκρά, is the Greek expression in the second Book of Kings, and Καὶ ἀναστάντες τοπρωί, εὗρον πάντα τὰ σώματα νεκρά, is the language of the Greek translators of Isaiah. Now the true explanation of the passage we take to be this: 12, the plural of the future tense, with conversive, signifies," and they arose at dawn of day, or very early," a proverbial phrase from the root "he threw over the shoulders," intimating the early hour, as soon as the morning dawns, when the traveller casts his cloak over his shoulders. To the verb, as it seems to be used in 2 Kings, and by Isaiah, there is no specific nominative case; it is much the same as if we said, quand on se levoit; when the indeterminate pronoun on relates to no particular persons. Mr. Watson is evidently wrong; because is the substantive the morning, with the preposition in, prefixed. This ablative will hardly admit of being translated as a nominative case, merely for the sake of getting rid of a verbal awkwardness. We really, however, do not feel so much inclined to look for faults in the execution of the work, as to protest against its general principle, and against the unwarrantable liberty of garbling the Bible, under any pretence whatever: we will therefore take our leave of Mr. Watson, with a declaration of our sincere regret, that so much patient research among approved commentators, so much historical reading, and so much honest intention, should have been thrown away upon an undertaking, which never can be countenanced by any who value the integrity of Scripture. The Cottage Bible, and Family Expositor. Nos. 1, 2. Simpkin and Marshall. 1824. THE mischievous tendency of the example set by Mr. Watson, which we have attempted to shew in the preceding article, is, in fact, already apparent. "The Bible arranged for family reading" has been followed by a publication called, "The Cottage Bible, and Family Expositor; containing the Authorized Translation of the Old and New Testaments, with Practical Reflections, and Explanatory Notes, calculated to elucidate difficult and obscure Passages." This work is printed in numbers, price Is. each, to be continued monthly; and to judge from the following avowal, it is edited by one of those Latitudinarians, who are neither members of the Church of England, nor of any other church, but conform to the discipline of this or that communion, as it may suit their opinions or convenience for the time. "In answer to enquiries relative to the editor's theological principles, he has no hesitation in saying, that they are in harmony with the doctrinal articles of the Church of England, and other Reformed Churches." The notes are taken from writers of every denomination, and from every species of literature; critical, historical, philosophical, poetical, &c. &c. But our present objection lies against that violation of the purity of the sacred text, of which we have complained at some length in our notice of Mr. Watson's book. The prospectus, or plan of the work, will shew to what extent this violation proceeds. "This Work, it will be seen, comprehends,-1. The Sacred Text in the usual Authorized Version, in a new clear type. This, for the conveniency of Family Reading, will be distinguished into paragraphs, as the sense may allow, adopting the usual mark (¶) in our common Bibles. But as there are passages, especially in the Old Testament, manifestly unsuitable for reading in Families, as Hebrew genealogies, enumerations of the tribes, laws respecting the sexes, and some other matters peculiar to the Jews; these will be printed in a smaller type, and so distinguished that they may be omitted in Family reading without difficulty or confusion. Some phrases also exceptionable to females, will be exchanged for others more suitable to the present state of our language and of society: yet, that no mutilation of the text may be alleged, even these changes will be pointed out in the notes at the bottom of each page. "2. The text being divided into paragraphs, a short practical Exposition is given to each, accompanied with occasional extracts from Bishops Hall and Horne, Mr. Henry, Dr. Doddridge, Mr. Scott, &c. with the author's name appended." The liberties thus taken with the text, though not so daring, as in the other production, are quite enough to put the seal of public censure upon the "Cottage Bible." For example, instead of following the reading of the authorized version in Gen. ix. 23, we find the following substitution: "And Shem, and Japhet took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward and covered their father: and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father uncovered." It is obvious that this refinement veils the whole meaning of the passage. We select the following note, to shew the taste with which the comments are conducted. Gen. ix. 4. "Some brutes there have been in our own country, and in our metropolis, who have eaten living animals for a wager even in modern times." Another observation, and we have done. Of what use is it to print those passages in a smaller type, which the editor is pleased to consider, "manifestly unsuitable for reading in families," unless it be to direct the young and the inquisitive how to find them with greater facility? The Book of Psalms, in an English Metrical Version, founded on the Basis of the Authorized Bible Translation, and compared with the Original Hebrew; with Notes Critical and Ilustrative. By the RIGHT REV. RICHARD MANT, D.D. M.R.I.A. Lord Bishop of Down and Connor. Svo. 506pp. 12s. Rivingtons. 1824. WHEN we first opened the volume, and saw that this new metrical version of the Psalms was in rhyme, we felt some regret that another attempt should have been made in a department of literature, in which all who had previously tried their powers, and among the rest the noble bard himself, whose lyre was lately silenced for ever, had completely failed. We were, therefore, the more agreeably surprised to find, upon a closer investigation, that Bishop Mant had risen above the standard of comparative merit in this perilous undertaking, even where so great a master of the poetical art, as Lord Byron, whose "Hebrew Melodies" are very mediocre performances, had fallen considerably below it. The reason why Lord Byron failed, is obvious. He had not the reverential feeling to be impressed with their serious tendency, and he did not understand the language in which the Psalms were written; it was, therefore, impossible that he could give a faithful resemblance of that which he had never closely studied. A person who has the gift of poetry, may write an original hymn, which shall be as beautiful as his other poems; but if he profess to offer an imitation or translation of any devotional composition, without being affected by its strains, or having any critical knowledge of the native beauties in which it is arrayed, the risk is, that he will produce something very unlike what he thinks to transform, and very unworthy of his own -reputation. The hazard is increased in a tenfold degree if he shackle himself with rhyme, and consent to add this embarrassment to difficulties which are already insuperable. The learned prelate, whose book is now before us, enters the lists prepared at every point, and possessing every advantage. He has studied Hebrew sufficiently to be able to examine the construction and peculiarities of the language, to enjoy its beauties and sublimities, and to feel the force of what he undertakes to convey from the sacred text in the idioms of his own native tongue. In particular, none of the features of that miscellaneous collection of Hebrew poems, known under the name of the Book of Psalms, have escaped him; and this familiarity, with their character, has enabled him to accommodate his measures to the imagery and structure of the original. With these first and indispensable requisites for the work, Bishop Mant assumes, and very justly too, high ground at the onset; he comes armed with the panoply of a sound divine, and presents himself not as a mere versifier, or poetaster, but with the worthier ambition of rendering the poetical excellence of the Psalms subservient to a nobler estimate of their value. "I am persuaded," says his Lordship, "that a due perception and feeling of such excellence is signally conducive to their effect in the higher department of religious and moral improvement, for which after all they were composed, and without which they are no better than sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.'" Therefore, in examining the poetical merits of this version, we must keep in mind, that they are intended to be ancillary only to its merits, as a work of theological importance. A metrical version of the Psalms, to be faithful to the original, must not only breathe the soul of poetry, but the devotional spirit of the Hebrew bards. To be correct, it must use parallel images, and equally figurative language, and must assimilate in style and orientalisms: it is not enough that it should give the interpretation and sense of the archetype. To be pleasing, it - 12 |