The When imperfections therefore are imputed to our established translation, these imperfections must be understood to consist, not in theological, but simply in philological, inaccuracies. And it is only upon a scale of this kind that we are to estimate the importance attached to them. absolute necessity then of the proposed measure being wholly out of the question, and the great expediency of it resting upon such a basis, have not our rulers always acted with wisdom and discretion in resisting the headstrong torrent of literary opinion, and in not suffering themselves to be borne down by its impetuosity? They have been indeed repeatedly told, that our established translation was taken from an incorrect, or, as the fashionable phrase of the critic is, corrupt text, and that it abounds with philological errors; but they were at the same time assured that those errors involve no essential point of faith or morals. And what confidence had they in the stability of the new criticism? Or what reliance could be placed on the individual exertion of those critical powers to which they were to look for the emendation as well of the text as of the translation? Specimens of the supposed improvements have, it is true, been long abroad; but have these proved satisfactory in themselves, particularly as to their general result, or have they challenged universal concurrence?" Might not another race of more scrupulous critics arise, who, contemplating the licentious innovations of their predecessors with equal astonishment and disapprobation, might choose again to adopt a more sober line of criticism, and make it necessary to undo much, if not all, of that which had been so recently done? Other reflections, I doubt not, of greater force, suggested themselves to prevent the prudent hand of power from intermeddling in an enterprize, where the object in view seemed not worth the perplexity and danger of the pursuit; where there was much to lose, but little to gain. Howsoever that might have been, we may certainly conclude, that no trivial motives could have occasioned the total rejection of a proposal so earnestly pressed upon the attention of government by men of high character, rank, and talent. Indeed the plain policy of the question must have always been something more than problematical; for surely were the project adopted of revising a translation of the Bible, the general excellence of which is on all sides admitted, and to which the nation has been accustomed for full two centuries past to look up with veneration, not solely for the purpose of verbal corrections, but also for the purpose of introducing in some places novel senses, in others senses diametrically opposite to the former, and that without a possibility of explaining to the common reader the principles of the change, might not such a proceeding shake the very foundation of public confidence altogether? But let us argue the question of expediency upon another ground, and see if any thing like a plausible case has been made out in support of it. The advocates for a new translation say, that the present one is taken from a bad text, and is itself replete with philological inaccuracies. This they indeed assert; but has this assertion been proved? Certainly not. The very basis of the whole argument has solely rested upon the ground of mere assumption. Much has indeed been written upon the discordance between the printed Hebrew Bible, and Hebrew Manuscripts; and we know, that the collations of Kennicott and De Rossi point out the passages, in which that discordance exists. The first step therefore towards the formation of an amended text must be a critical arrangement and application of these materials. But has any thing of the kind been yet attempted? Dr. Blayney indeed long since proposed that a select committee of divines should be appointed by government "to examine into the state of the Hebrew text, and to restore it as nearly as possible to its primitive purity."* But it may be well questioned, whether such a step would have been either desirable or effectual? If the talents of those, who might have been appointed to the task, had been in the highest degree respectable, as I doubt not they would have been, still I fear that the critical world would have looked with an eye of suspicion, if not of distrust, upon the labours of a committee thus constituted. Had a committee of the kind alluded to taken place, it would of course have been selected from the most eminent scholars of the day; from men like Lowth, Pilkington Durell, Kennicott, Blayney, &c. who had distinguished themselves in Hebrew literature, and who had already individually laboured in their various publications" to restore the Hebrew text as nearly as possible to its primitive purity." But how would they have attempted to effect this object? The whole tenor of their respective writings demonstrate, that it would have been by the aid of an 'arbitrary criticism. The restoration of the Hebrew text to its primitive purity was the point, which in all their publications they kept constantly in view; and this they endeavoured to restore by exchanging the received readings for others, which they selected at pleasure, without any certain clue of discrimination, from the mass of manuscript collations furnished by Kennicott, sometimes preferring the reading of a single manuscript, sometimes that of more, and generally one sanctioned by the authority of a MS. or MSS. supposed† to be ancient. * Preface to Jeremiah, p. ix. The most ancient MS. collated is No. I. Bodl. which in Kennicott's judgment is as old as about the middle of the tenth century, and which is written in the Spanish character. But De Rossi forms a different opinion of its antiquity, referring it to the twelfth century. Ob Keri, quod habet, et lineas Masoræ destinatas, videatur certe recentior et ad xii. seculum referendus. Vol. i. p. lix. And Bruns decides its character to be not Spanish but Italic. Hispanicum esse characterem hujus codicis nego et pérnego. Italicus, quem Kennic. intermedium vocat, esse videtur. Dissert. Generalis Kennic. Ed. Bruns, p. 339. What certainty on such points can we have, when critics of eminence so widely differ in opinion from each other. U U They also endeavoured to restore it by correcting it in conformity with readings deduced at will from the ancient versions; "A true text," says Lowth, "as far as it is possible to recover it, is to be gathered from the manuscripts now extant, and from the evidence furnished by the ancient versions of the readings of manuscripts of much earlier times.”’* Nor is this all; for they took the liberty, particularly Bishop Lowth himself, not only of transposing, but sometimes of altering the Hebrew letters, so as to superinduce a change of sense in the passage. Thus he remarks, a change of one of the similar letters for the other, when it remarkably clears up the sense, may be fairly allowed to criticism, even without any other authority than that of the context to support it.”† · Upon such principles then we may conclude, that their restoration of the text would have been conducted. But could a restoration of this kind have proved satisfactory? It might indeed have pleased for a short period; but after the labours of Griesbach in the text of the New Testament, we may be sure that no more modern critic would have approved of any application of manuscript collations, unarranged, and unclassified. With respect likewise to the versions, the immensity of various readings in the Septuagint alone which have since been collected, sufficiently evince, that, before we attempt to correct the original text by them, they themselves must be corrected. And as to the liberty of transposing and changing similar letters in the words of the text, by way of clearing the sense of the context, who would now become an advocate for it? Indeed even those, who were ambitious of seizing this slippery rule of criticism, as it twisted and glided before them, soon found, that it constantly eluded their grasp, and began to abandon the pursuit of it. I contend therefore, that no case has yet been made out sufficiently strong to warrant the public appointment of + Ibid. p. 51. * Isaiah, Introduction, p. 57. a committee to undertake a new translation of the Bible upon an improved text. It was surely incumbent upon those, who so zealously recommended the measure, to point out where this improved text was to be found, to realize their own dreams respecting it, and not to make government a party in pursuing the mere phantom of their own imagination. To have appointed a committee for this purpose, which must have been deficient in the means of executing the trust reposed in it, would have been little better than an attempt to revive the tyranny of the ancient Egyptian taskmasters. When biblical critics are agreed upon the formation of an improved text, it will then, I apprehend, be time enough to take the public adoption of that text into consideration. But what have been, and what still are, considered by the advocates of the measure, as adequate materials for the emendation in view? The answer is obvious; the collations and the versions. Although, therefore, I maintain, that these materials should have been applied to some effectual purpose, so as to have uniformly produced an amended text, if that were possible, before the subject was at all pressed upon the attention of government, I nevertheless admit, as I have already remarked, that many ingenious specimens, of what it was supposed might be done in this way, were furnished by individuals of learning and ability in their notes upon detached parts of Scripture. Their efforts however, in the judgment of foreign, and therefore the most impartial, critics, completely failed of success; more, I am persuaded, from a defect of materials, than from a defect of talent. When the collations of Kennicott appeared, they seem to have disappointed public expectation, particularly on the continent. The following is the statement of Baver upon this point in his "Critica Sacra ;" Magna, qua animi tenebantur, expectatio fallebatur, et quidem vel ideo, quia æquo majus quid omnes speraverant. Et quo magis antea |