« PreviousContinue »
For what reason, let me ask, did the translator compare the authorized and Douay versions with the original text, if it was not to select impartially that which corresponded most exactly with it? Has he done this? It will be observed that in one instance only does Pagninus's version correspond with that of the Scripture Lessons and the Douay-namely, Psalm xix. 10. The words in the authorized version are as follows:-“The judgments of the Lord are true [and] righteous altogether.” The verb p7y is used in both senses — to be righteous, and to be justified. “prý, Justificari, justum esse, haberi, vel asserere se.” (Buxtorfii Lexicon.) The only question, therefore, is, whether the authorized version or the Douay conveys the clearest sense, and the most consistent with the context.
“ The judgments of the Lord (are) true [and] righteous altogether.”.
Authorized Version. “ The judgments of the Lord are true justified in themselves."
Scripture Lessons. Judicet lector.
The word d'on, Psalm xix. 7, signifies perfectus, integer. It is sometimes applied to animals to be offered in sacrifice, free from defects or blemish ; but I believe it never signifies unspotted in the metaphorical sense of the word. The common expression which
, I ever signifies little ones. Buxtorf says in, simplex, fatuus. Nor does 7772 I believe, ever signify holy. The phrase Tyn pwy signifies for ever and ever; obwys, which is the word used Psalm xix. 9, signifies for ever. The words “O Lord," Psalm xix. 13, are interpolated, without any authority from the original.
The other passages I may safely leave to the examination of any person at all conversant with the Hebrew Bible, without further comment.
Let me now call the attention of the reader to the statement in the preface, that “ the translation has been made by a comparison of the authorized and Douay versions with the original. The language sometimes of the one, and sometimes of the other, has been adopted, and occasionally deviations have been made from both.” And let me ask, has the translator ably and faithfully executed this part of his task? Has he been careful not to deviate from the authorized and the Douay versions, where the sense is accurately conveyed in either of these versions ? And when he has so deviated, is his translation more literal and exact? This we shall now examine.
Psalm civ. ; Douay ciïi. Page 9, line ult., antelope. hart.
ibicibus. I would first ask, on what authority the translator has given to the verb Twy in two passages, in the second verse, the sense created and done? It cannot express both; and the authorized version is perfectly accurate. On what authority does he give to the singular noun 19 the sense of precious jewels, in close accordance with the equally false translation of the Douay ? 1D “ aurum," (Buxtorfii Lericon.) generally supposed to signify the fine gold of of Uphaz. “Root 115" (from whence ID) “applied to the finest gold, or such as has the least mixture of alloy.” (Taylor's Heb. Conc.) The translator has rejected statutes, which every one knows is the common meaning of Tips, and has substituted visitations, a translation equally well founded with those which precede it. It is true that the root signifies to visit, and the feminine noun singular derived from the root signifies visitation in some places, but I have yet to learn that the masculine noun ever has this sense. In translating from a language whose idiom differs so widely from that of the European languages, it is often necessary to depart a little from the exact literal meaning of the words, in order to convey the real sense in conformity with the idiom of the English language. For instance, no one in his senses would translate the words in the sixth verse of the first chapter of Genesis, “ And let it be dividing between the waters to the waters,” which is the exact literal translation of the words. Again, in Isa. v. 1, no one would translate, “ on a horn the son of oil,” which would con
vey no intelligible sense to the English reader. A translation may, therefore, be considered accurate and faithful which differs only from the precise meaning of the words, where the respective idioms of the two languages require such difference. Let us apply this principle to Psalm xix. 9. The noun nox is translated, both in the authorized version and the Douay, true. The translator has thought fit to alter this word to truth, because the Hebrew word is a substantive; but he seems not to have been aware of a well-known Hebrew idiom by which the abstract is frequently put for the concrete. says Glassius, “ abstractum pro concreto, seu substantivum pro adjectivo cum insigno emphasi et energia ponitur."* For one example, amongst others, he gives Psalm v. 10, “Internum eorum 2797 pravitates hoc est, cor eorum pravum est maxime et malitiosum.” Our English translators, who shew, on many occasions, a sound knowledge of the Hebrew idiom, have, therefore, rightly translated true instead of truth, and the Douay has, in this instance, rightly followed the Vulgate, which is supported by the Chaldee and the Greek, in giving the sense of the concrete instead of the abstract. One more remark will suffice, lest I should exhaust the patience of my reader, as well as my own. He has translated 77a bright. Looking into Taylor's “Hebrew Concordance,” with the view of learning why he should have fixed on such a translation of this common word, I found the following senses given to the root—“to make clean, clear, and bright." And in Jer. iv. 11, the verb is translated—to make bright. But even the verb has this meaning only in the literal, not in the metaphorical sense, and the adjective never has the sense either literally or metaphorically. I can draw but this conclusion: either that the translator was quite incompetent to the task he has undertaken, or that he has in many instances unfairly departed from the authorized version, substituting translations less faithful in themselves, and more in accordance with the Douay version.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant, Exeter, Murch 7, 1836.
THE TITHE BILL.
Sir,— The bill for the permanent Commutation of Tithes, is now before the world, and the radical and conservative leaders have shaken hands over it, and the representatives of the English nation chiefly members of the English church — have congratulated one another upon finding that, though on most other topics they are as wide as the poles asunder, there is one on which they may lay aside all enmity, and in imitation of a memorable example) be made friends together," —that one being the spoliation of Christ's church, an open, barefaced, gratuitous, legalized robbery; and the few who would venture to oppose such iniquity are actually laughed at, (see the debates in the House of Commons, Monday, Feb. 22,) on account of
Glassii Philologia Sacra, lib. iii., can. vii., de Nomine.
their having nothing better to advance than the “venerable arguments" of truth, uprightness, and integrity.
Let us consider some of the effects of this measure,
1. The sacred character of the clergyman's income will be destroyed. The clergyman will stand in a lower station than as the representative of the Levitical and Melchisedekian priesthood, to whom, under the providence of God, tithes were paid; and the parishioner will cease to feel that in honestly paying his tithes, he is not only satisfying a legal demand, but fulfilling the intention of the Most High, and seeking the special blessing pronounced by the phet. Thus a sacred link of connexion will be severed, which, though sneered at by gross and carnal minds, has not been without beneficial influence on both payer
and receiver. 2. Men's minds will be familiarized with sacrilege and profane and irreverent meddling with the things of God. Hitherto tithes have been considered not only as entitled to the same protection, quoad property, with all other property, but as having something of a reverent character about them, as being dedicated to holy purposes.
This charm will be wholly broken, and the coldest calculations of human expediency be the only ones admitted in treating of the subject.
3. The security of the parochial endowments will be most materially affected. 1. Prescription or titles (to say nothing of any higher claim) of centuries will be exchanged for an act of parliament of to-day: it is clear that the same principles of injustice and iniquity which sanction this monstrous and wanton invasion of all rights of property, making an act of parliament the only title for the estate, will equally sanction the simple abrogation of that title, without providing any substitute. 2. They will be declared to stand on a different footing from all other property, and so cease to have the protection which the law gives to other property. Hitherto all other proprietors, especially landholders, have aided in defending this through the mere bond of common interest; henceforth there will be no community of interest: the substitute for tithes will stand isolated, a mark for the spoiler, and regarded with an evil eye by those who have hitherto felt most interested in their defence.
4. How far the respectability, weight, and influence of the clergy (all which have aided their ministerial exertions and furthered the cause they are set to promote) will be injured by this exchange, when they will cease to be the oldest class of proprietors in the country, and appear mere stipendiaries of the country gentlemen, may be in some sort gathered from what has taken place in Scotland.
All these objections present themselves against the abstract proposition for change at all, and would remain in almost their full force, even though the commutation were to be conducted upon equitable principles, and the quit-rent upon the landlord's estate were intended to be equal in value to the clergyman's tithe. What shall be said, then, when it appears that so far are justice and equity from being consulted in this Bill, that the chief feature of it is the immediate, open, barefaced transfer to the landlord of a portion of the clergy
Vol. IX.-April, 1836.
man's income, varying from one fourth to nearly one moiety, with a further scheme for redemption at another sacrifice ?
Let us consider the practical working of the scheme. Take a parish, the tithes of which, when fairly valued, after deducting the expenses of collecting, amount to 2001. The first operation of the Bill, if the clergyman has been kind to his parishioners, will be to reduce them forty per cent.,—that is, to give him 1201. But if the landlord has money at command, or can borrow it, he may redeem this quit-rent by a term of purchase, which will reduce the amount considerably below 1001.
But it is said that, under the present system, the clergyman never insisted upon his 2001., and therefore, in point of fact, does not lose to so great an extent as would at first appear. But is there then no difference between a man freely and generously giving of his substance for kind will and good neighbourhood, and being forcibly plundered of that substance by those whom God has set to administer justice ? Or is the difference so slight, and the guilt in the sight of God which a nation must incur by such a course so trifling, that men should therefore hold their peace, and not bear witness against it?
But it is said again, that the obtaining the 2001, was utterly hopeless, lost beyond recovery, not a gift but already stolen, and that the Act merely stamps with the authority of law a robbery already tacitly assented to by the injured party: Answer 1. Even if the case were so, is it no evil that the law should do so, and encourage further robberies? 2. But is the fact of the hopelessness of obtaining the full amount correct ? Surely not. Are there not several districts in England where the full amount is generally obtained, by tithe being taken in kind? Is there any district in which it is not occasionally taken in kind? Is it not known and felt in all districts that it may be taken in kind ? and felt also that the not doing so is an act of forbear. ance on the part of the clergyman, for which thanks are frequently openly given?
What then is the case ?-in lieu of an independent property, the title of which was older than any in the land and associated with the most sacred recollections, the Bill proposes to give a quit-rent of half the value, secured by an act of parliament (!)
But it will be said, though the sum is less, it will be more easily obtained, more punctually paid. Indeed !--what reason is there to suppose this? Why should not a landlord ask for time as well as a tenant? Why should not a needy landlord expect a still farther deduction, by way of goodwill and neighbourhood, as a needy tenant? If the clergy have been tempted to injure the church by forbearing to assert their rights, their love of peace leading them to shrink from vexatious proceedings against a neighbouring farmer, will not the same motives operate in the case of a neighbouring gentleman, whose power of annoyance will be tenfold that of the farmer's?
Add one more consideration, and that is, the time when the valuation of the livings is to take place; a time in which agricultural produce is and has for some time been at a greater state of depression