margin, if it be prefixed to a correction, in which case the mar gin exhibits the rejected reading; or to one in the inferior margin, if it be but a various reading. In every case, there is also a corresponding number in the notes, which expresses the authorities by which the reading is supported, or on which the various reading rests. This plan is in accordance with that of Griesbach's revision; and the complete execution of it would give us a work which would advance the criticism of the Hebrew Bible to a conformity with that of the Greek New Testa

ment.

To examine successively the several emendations of the "Codex Criticus," would occupy too many of our pages; the labour, however, which a rigid scrutiny of its readings would require, is evidently unnecessary, as our studious readers will doubtless be desirous of inspecting the work itself. After citing a few particular examples, we shall satisfy ourselves with reporting the able and judicious manner in which the present Editor has disposed his readings and authorities.

The first of the amended readings is ry for ry, Gen. i. 11. for which the authorities cited are, a-c-d. .' S V (A) (T)-E; denoting respectively, a few Hebrew codices, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint, Syriac, and Vulgate Versions, the Arabic Version, and the Targum, varying in their reading from the text of the London Polyglot; the final E being appended, to signify the coincidence of the English Common Version with the adopted correction. It is for the sake of remarking on this last particular in the enumeration, that we have noticed the emendation in question. Where our Translators,' says Mr. Hamilton, did vary from the printed text, their emendations are in many places confirmed by manuscripts, as is the case wherever the letter E occurs in the notes.' Nothing, we think, can be more unworthy of notice, than the assertions which have been so very boldly hazarded, that King James's Translators were not competent Hebrew scholars: we have no doubt that they used Hebrew exemplars. But we cannot agree with Mr. Hamilton's judgement in their favour, founded on the coincidences which he has marked between their version and the readings of Hebrew manuscripts which support the amended text. The Italic "and" in the Common Version, inthe alrea cited passage, is no proof that the Translators read the vau in their copies of the original: that the versions exhibit the reading in question, sufficiently accounts for its introduction into their text. But the Translators, we apprehend, did really mean to declare by their insertion of the "and" in Italics, that the conjunction (vau) was wanting in their Hebrew copies. We conclude this to be the fact from the circumstance, that, in the

:

less modern English versions of the Bible, the "and" is inserted, not in Italics, but in the common letter of the text. We shall give some instances of this from a comparison of passages in Cranmer's Bible, and the version of James's Translators of the latter we use two copies, Norton and Bill's edition, 4to. 1620, and that of Barker, 8vo. 1639. There is considerable diversity in the use of Italics in subsequent editions. Gen. xvii. 19,-" and with his seed," xviii. Î1," and it ceased." xxxi. 13-" and where." In these and numerous other cases, Cranmer's Bible exhibits no variation in the words printed in Italics as inserted by James's Translators. As, therefore, the predecessors of the Translators of the Common Version, have not distinguished the words in question by inserting them in a different character, it would seem that the latter put the conjunction into Italics, to denote that, in their copies of the original, there was no corresponding particle. So, in Gen. xxi. 33, the reading of Cranmer's Bible is," And Abraham planted a wood:" that of the CommonVersion is, "And Abraham planted a grove." The printed Hebrew text omits the name of the Patriarch. In the Co"dex Criticus," it is inserted as a reading possibly true. In like manner, the numerous instances in which Mr. Hamilton has marked the coincidence between the Common English Version, and the amended text of the " Codex Criticus," in the proper use of the feminine pronoun, afford no evidence in favour of the Translators' critical appreciation of Hebrew authorities: the reading of the versions, and the necessity of grammatical construction, being obvious and sufficient reasons to account for their rendering.

Gen. xxv. 8, The English Common Version is cited as agreeing with the corrected text of the original: the latter has "days," the former reads "years;" there is therefore a real verbal discrepancy in the case.

Isaiah iii. 8, Lowth, on the authority of the Syriac Version, which is probably faulty in this instance, reads "cloud of his "glory," a harsh expression. In the "Codex Criticus," the reading is, "eyes." The authorities are decidedly opposed to the change proposed and adopted by Lowth.

Isaiah iii, 17, 18, The substitution of "Jehovah" for "Lord," is perhaps a proper emendation. We notice it, however, principally for the purpose of correcting Mr. Hamilton's statement in his notes, respecting the usage of the Common Version and Lowth as to the words in question. In the verses to which we have referred, the Common Version and Lowth are both quoted as supporting the reading "Jehovah." In both cases, however, Lowth reads "Lord," in which he adheres to Vol. XVIII. N.S.

2 B

the received English text. The more modern reprints of King James's Version, have indeed "LORD” in capitals in these passages, as if the original were "Jehovah;" but, in both the early copies of it before us, the word is printed without capitals, denoting that the original, as read by the Translators, was "Adonai." In chap. iv. 4, " Jehovah" is the reading of some manuscripts; the printed text has "Adonai." Lowth reads, with the early copies of the English Common Version," Lord;" but the modern copies have the reading in capitals," LORD." Mr. Hamilton has not noticed this example. In chap. vi. 1, Lowth reads "JEHOVAH;" the Common Version, in every edition which we can at the present time consult, has "Lord," in agreement with the printed Hebrew text: Mr. Hamilton gives "Jehovah" as the corrected text. In chap. x. 16, Lowth again reads "JEHOVAH;" the copies of the English Common Version are again uniform in reading "Lord;" Mr. H. has exchanged the reading of the printed text, Adonai," for the reading of the manuscripts, "Jehovah." But in chap. xi. 11, where the printed Hebrew text exhibits "Adonai," and the manuscripts, with whom Lowth and Mr. Hamilton read, have "Jehovah," the English Bibles of 1620 and 1639 read "Lord;" those of a later date" LORD." The irregularities of this kind are frequent, and the references in Mr. Hamilton's notes to the English Version and Lowth, are both incorrect and defective.

66

The English Translators have the reading "to go," 2 Sam. xix. 15, from which Mr. Hamilton infers, that they translated, not from the Basil editions of the Hebrew Bible, which read л, to come down, but from the Venice edition, which has n, to go. This we apprehend to be a very unsound conclusion, inasmuch as the Translators observe no uniformity in their renderings of these expressions, reading sometimes to go, and sometimes to come, in both verbs. The entire critical history of the Common Version is exceedingly obscure and perplexed; though its excellence is unquestionable, and the proofs satisfactory that our Translators were competent in Hebrew learning. That the versions, particularly the Septuagint and the Vulgate, should have had considerable influence in the formation of the received English text, cannot appear either doubtful or surprising to any one who considers that the previous English translations were the basis of this text, and that those translations were derived in a considerable measure from the ancient versions. The first of the rules ordered to be observed by King James's Translators, namely, that the ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishop's Bible, should be followed, and as little altered as the original

Hamilton's Codex Criticus.

323

would permit, was allowing the Hebrew text of the Old Testa ment but a limited influence, since it bound the Translators to the adoption of an existing vernacular version. Where, therefore, the ancient versions, or the previous English translations, exhibit the readings of King James's version, it would be quite impracticable to discriminate between the instances of their copying the readings of their predecessors, and of their deference to the Hebrew text. To such examples, then, as Mr. Hamilton proceeds to adduce, as proving the use made of particular copies of the Hebrew Bible by those Translators, it is quite clear that substantial objections may be taken. He quotes the Basil edition (Munster's) of the Hebrew Scriptures as containing the reading D, Euphrates, 2 Sam. viii. 3, which is wanting in the Venice edition of 1526, but which the English Translators of 1611, have inserted in their version: from this coincidence of reading, Mr. H. would infer the use of the Basil edition by the Translators. But the ancient versions have the reading Euphrates, which is also inserted in the vernacular translations that preceded the public version. This case, therefore, can afford no evidence to prove the supposed deference to the Basil edition. So, in Mr. Hamilton's next example, 2 Chron. x. 16, the argument is equally inconclusive. By putting saw in Italics,' says Mr. Hamilton, they prove that they translated from the Venice edition, which wants the word, not from the Basil, which reads 1.' But it is difficult to understand how the English Translators with the Venice edition before them, which reads without 187, should have inserted in their text its corresponding word "saw" in Italics. Is it not quite as probable that they had before them the Basil edition, which exhibits the word, and which, therefore, they chose to follow, but, perceiving that the Septuagint and the Vulgate omit the word, they preferred to insert it in Italics? Cranmer's Bible, too, reads "saw" in this passage. Before we can safely establish points of this kind, and affirm what is coincidence and what is derivation, we must possess much more ample and correct materials than those of which Mr. Hamilton has given us specimens in the preceding examples. It is much to be regretted that the Editors and Translators of former times have been so sparing in communicating the particulars of their proceedings; and we apprehend that this regret in time to come, will not be limited to the versions preceding those of our own contemporaries. The defects of this kind of our critical knowledge, it would be vain to think of supplying otherwise than by a minute and extensive comparison of authorities, which, we fear, it would now be impracticable to procure. A critical history of English

translations of the Bible, might, however, be yet executed in a manner much superior to any existing work of that description.

On the value and utility of the publication before us, it is unnecessary for us to expatiate. The purity of the text of the Bible, is a subject which possesses the highest degree of importance. This" Codex Criticus" presents in a condensed and commodious, and, what is of no small consideration, cheap form, the results of Kennicott's and De Rossi's labours in sacred criticism. To many persons, it will be an excellent substitute for their very costly productions; to others, it will exhibit in a convenient manner the arrangements and corrections properly available in the construction of a complete edition of the Hebrew Bible. It may have also the good effect of leading some worthy persons to dismiss their fears for the integrity of the Scriptures. Mr. Hamilton has executed his task with ability and care. His leanings are uniformly of the cautious kind. Conjectural criticism he altogether discards; and though he may not perhaps give satisfaction to every critical reader in respect to his omission of some emendations which have been adopted by other Editors, (as in the case of the repetitions which are found in the Samaritan Pentateuch,) he has furnished an excellent specimen of a critical edition of the Hebrew Bible, which will be thankfully accepted by scholars. We trust that it will be the means of exciting an interest in the object, gratifying to the learned and respectable Editor, and conducive to the accomplishment of the undertaking which he recommends.

Art. III. Christian Fellowship, or the Church-member's Guide: to which is added, a Pastoral Charge, delivered to the Rev. Thomas James. By J. A. James. 12mo. pp. 242. Price 5s. Birmingham.

1822.

WE anticipate nothing but good, and great good, from the free and full discussion of every principle involved in either the sentiments or the practice of Protestant Dissenting Churches. Objections are brought against their constitution and mode of proceeding: let them be fairly met. Practical evils exist let them be acknowledged, and the remedy, if there be one, pointed out. It may possibly be found, that a departure from the very principles charged with originating those evils, is the cause of their existence.

A work of this kind was much wanted, and that part of the religious public for whose use this manual has been prepared, are much indebted to Mr. James for supplying the deficiency.