they could not solve. We know not whether this is to be understood of those passages in which they HAVE NOT attempted to explain away miracles, but the Professor HAS. Certainly, in speaking of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, of the manner in which Lot's Wife became a pillar of salt, and of the passage of the children of Israel through the Red Sea, which afterwards overwhelmed their enemies, the old translators have attempted no elucidation of the miracles: they have made no attempt to solve those difficulties which an infidel might find in such narrations. But it seems that the learned Professor deemed this needful and desirable. He therefore gives us to understand, that the fire and brimstone which rained down from heaven is only a circumlocution for the lightning ; that this lightning set fire to the naphtha, which abounded in that region; and thus caused the conflagration, in a merely natural way: and that Lot's wife, when she looked back, grew stiff with terror, and so perished in the general destruction; while “ others think that a monument was raised in remembrance of her, of salt, which abounded in that country !” And when the children of Israel came to the Red Sea, a violent storm of wind drove back the waters, and produced a remarkable ebb of the sea; so that the Israelites were able to march over a broad bank which stretched from one shore to the other, in a part of the sea which could not commonly be waded !

As the Professor tells us he has retained whatever he considered as good and useful in the old annotations, we are warranted in concluding that whatsoever he has rejected was, in his opinion, not good or useful. We have already given some instances of observations which he thus rejects and condemns; and we need only add further, that under this sentence are swept away all those notes in which the old translators took care to point out continually the harmony between the Old and New Testament, by shewing that the principles of true religion, and the

way of salvation, are the same throughout the Bible. Again : the Professor tells us, that he has consulted the wishes, not of one class of readers only, but of many. This expression will not perhaps convey to the minds of our readers the sense which, on investigation, it will be found to bear : namely, that, while he has consulted the wishes of one party by now and then inserting orthodox expositions, he has also liberally added such as will better suit Arians, Socinians, Pelagians, Jews, and Infidels. This is liberal with a vengeance ! and this is the true character of the work : it is intended to please the liberal of all parties. And it should be remembered, that in Nederland there are multitudes who style themselves orthodox, but liberal; and probably this is the very designation which van der Palm himself would be most ambitious to obtain. We are afraid that there are not a few in our own country who aspire to, or merit, the same appellation, and we very earnestly warn our readers to beware of them. We observe, by the way, that we have discovered many traces of this liberal orthodoxy in the notes to Bagster's Comprehensive Bible; and, whatever praise we might concede to that work in other respects, we recommend that the notes be read with much suspicion. In fact, liberal orthodoxy is becoming far too much the fashion in the religious world, both among Churchmen and Dissenters. Now this sort of monstrous and most unseemly admixture is what we particularly loathe and abhor. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump: and we deem it a part of our duty, as Christian Reviewers, to point out and condemn the leaven of liberalism wherever we find it.

Passing over some other points, which, though not by any means unimportant, would too long detain us, we observe the spirit of liberalism most distinctly in the Professor's account of the third purpose which his annotations serve-namely, particularly to give account of other translations or expositions,” besides those which he has adopted. Here we must pause a little ; for, as we cannot duly estimate the excellence of our own authorized version, without considering the marginal readings as well as those which stand in the text; so neither can we understand the true character of van der Palm's translation, without taking into the account the various renderings which he gives in the notes—often leaving it doubtful which he himself would prefer. And it has particularly struck us, in examining this part of his work, that when he mentions other renderings, or other senses which may be put upon any passage, they are almost uniformly of a lower standard than those which he has adopted in the text. So that he seems to bring us as low down in the text as for very shame he daremor (perhaps we should say) as far as he can, without too much startling his readers; but in the notes he gives us to understand that “deserving students of the Bible,

men whose labours “ * justly demand regard,” would often bring us down much lower-even into downright Socinianism !-We now proceed to give a few specimens.

Gen. xlix. 10 is thus rendered in the text : The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor the staff of command from between his feet, till Shiloh comes; and him shall the people obey.

In the notes, not to dwell on other particulars, we have, instead of " till Shiloh comes," till one comes to Shiloh : and not one word is added to shew the falsehood and folly of this

[ocr errors]

rendering. This is to curry favour with the Jews, to whom the liberalism of the Professor of course extends, though it be at the expense of giving up, without proof or reason, one of the plainest prophecies of Christ! For the same reason, retaining the translation in the text, he tells us that Shiloh may be understood either of David or the Messiah! Thus any absurdity, rather than maintain the plain meaning of the prophecy! for how the verse can, with any sort of propriety, be applied to David, passes comprehension. And that van der Palm is influenced by this disposition to yield every thing to the Jews, as well as to other enemies of the truth, we may learn from his notes on Isai. vii. 14-16: which he thus translates :

14 Therefore shall the Lord himself give you a sign: behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and name his name IMMANUEL.

15 Milk and honey shall be eaten, until he knows to reject the evil and to choose the good.

16 But before this child shall know to reject the evil and choose the good, that land shall be forsaken, whose two kings distress you.

The translation of verses 15, 16 is a needless departure from the old version (which exactly agrees with our own, both as to connection and expression), and seems to be an alteration merely for alteration's sake, which, in a new translation of the Bible, ought always to be carefully avoided. But the evil lies in the note :

14 If these words must be explained of the wonderful birth of the Saviour of a pure virgin, then we find here one of the most express and direct prophecies, which are to be found in the Old Testament.

If these words must be explained ! What? is not even this sufficiently clear? The Professor goes on indeed to reason in favour of this interpretation ; but liberalism requires that he should put an If before it-partly because it must not be rashly assumed that any real and decided prophecies are to be found in the Old Testament (Neologians would represent what seem to be such, as only shrewd guesses, which happen to have been confirmed by the event); and partly because it would be illiberal to decide, even upon such a plain point as this, in a peremptory manner. Therefore, too, the interpretation of Jews and Socinians is also given in the note—with some notice indeed of its being strained and improbable, but still in such a manner that Jews cast it in the teeth of Christian missionaries, and

say, “ You see van der Palm himself does not consider it as decisive;" and this is quite sufficient for a Jew, who, of course, will gladly creep out at any hole whatever, when urged with such a passage. But we must not forget that there is a note also on the word Immanuel : i. e. God with us; the pledge of God's highest favour and protection ! NO. III.VOL. IV.

3 T

This, then, is all that is signified by this word Immanuel ! So that again we have all idea of the Divine nature of our Lord set aside, and the glorious mystery implied in that name kept entirely out of sight! And though, in the note on Isa. ix. 6, he says that “the names given to the Royal Child cannot without extravagance, and (perhaps one might say) without blasphemy, be explained of any but a Divine (goddelijken, literally godlike) person;" yet even this, to one who knows any thing of the Dutch Remonstrants in general, or of van der Palm in particular, will still appear unsatisfactory : for many will acknowledge the Divinity of Christ (Goddelijkheid), who deny his Deity (Godheid).

Job xix. 25-29 is thus rendered : 25 Yea, I know that my Goël liveth, he shall at last stand up for the dust :

26 "And after this my skin is wholly mouldered away, then shall I, released from my flesh, behold God!

27 Whom I shall behold for my good, and mine eyes shall see, no more estranged (from me)! How gasps the longing within me.

28 Then shall you say : why persecuted we him! when the ground of my matter (or the truth of my case) shall be discovered.

29 Tremble then on your own account for the sword, for flaming it avenges the misdeeds of the sword ! so that ye shall know : there is a judgment.

We have no objection to leave the word Goël untranslated ; for we know of no word, in any other language, which expresses the full force and meaning of the Hebrew: but when a man leaves a word untranslated in the text, we must look to his notes to see how it is that he intends us to understand the passage. In such a case the translation is only to be found in the note; wherein we read :

....... Only two opinions can here be noticed : either, that we here find Job's prospect in eternity, when God would not only no longer treat him as an enemy, but on the contrary vouchsafe him the beholding of his presence and the enjoyment of his highest favour : which exposition may agree very well with the letter of the text. But if we extend this further, and here introduce the day of universal judgment, when public sentence shall be pronounced on every one's guilt or innocence, then it must be feared that we do not enough keep in view the light and the dispensation of those times. Meanwhile many are of opinion that even the state of the soul in the life to come cannot be intended by Job, because this is carefully kept out of sight throughout the whole of the dis. pute between Job and his friends. There then remains a second explanation, which is by no means destitute of probability. According to this, Job here sets forth his unshaken confidence, that God will not always permit the apparent triumph of his friends, but one time or other bring his innocence to light, though it be after his death, with visible execution of vengeance and punishment on those who had thus undeservedly slandered him. Göël has then here the oldest and proper signification of avenger of blood; for Job's slandered innocence was the same thing as the shedding of innocent blood, according to ch. xvi. 18, where what is noted should be compared herewith. The sword, before which his friends must tremble (ver. 29), is the sword of that avenger of blood. The modes of speech

vers. 26, 27, that Job himself, after his death, would see and behold, for his good, God as such a defender and avenger, we must explain in this sense, that he as surely believed this as if he should see it with his eyes; thereby keeping in mind, that, according to the Eastern mode of representing things, a dead man actually saw his avenger rise up before him, when his murderer was punished; as then first his blood ceased to well up from the ground, and his cry for vengeance was hushed, according to ch. xvi. 18. When one thus reads all this, inspired with truly Eastern feeling, this place will be found, in expression, design, and connection, very agreeable to the rest of this speech, and of this book.

We hope our readers find this very satisfactory! The Professor also objects to translate the word Goël by Redeemer, because here it would mean too much ; but when he meets with the same word in Isaiah, he tells us that Redeemer means too little, for it does not express the whole extent of its meaning. This is true : but the due consideration of the original meaning of the word, even according to the interpretations which he gives in different places where it occurs, would utterly forbid its being confined in this place to the signification of avenger of blood, which he would affix to it. Significat enim Ebræum vocabulum, propriè et accuratè loquendo, ejusmodi assertorem et vindicem, liberatorem et redemptorem, qui, jure consanguinitatis motus, causam propinqui sui interfecti asserit, ejusque sanguinem vindicat : vel qui bona à consanguineo proximo, donatione seu venditione, vel quoque modo devoluta, et contractu quodam implicata, jure proprietatis pristinæ ei rursus asserit et vindicat. Hæc vis illa vocis dictæ est: undè facilè liquet, qualem Vet. Test. patres expectaverint exoptaverintque Messiam et Liberatorem. Glassii Philol. Sacr. “For the Hebrew word, properly and accurately speaking, signifies such an asserter and avenger, liberator and redeemer, as, moved by the the of consanguinity, asserts the cause of his slain relation and avenges his blood : or who again claims and rescues for him, in right of former property, the goods which were alienated by gift or sale, or in any other manner, and implicated in some contract. This is the force of the said word: whence it readily appears what sort of Liberator and Messiah the OldTestament fathers expected and longed for.” is properly the next of kin ; and the verb signifies, to do the part, or execute the office, of a kinsman: whence, by a little consideration of Eastern customs and Jewish laws, all the various meanings assigned to it in different places may be easily derived. We cona ceive, then, that the passage Job xix. 25—27 has been very accurately, though poetically, rendered thus :

I know
That He who loves me with a kinsman's love,
My own Redeemer, lives; and He shall stand
At the Last Day triumphant o'er the dust;

« VorigeDoorgaan »