Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

observed throughout two or three slight distinctions in the use of the pronouns, which had become universal since the time of the translation; and thus the only real difficulty in the way of an ordinary reader was removed. For the rest, it is a faithful transcript both of the old translation and of the notes, with only this peculiarity, that the name Jehovah is retained untranslated wherever it occurs in the original. This work is a plain proof how needless are by far the greater part of the changes made by van der Palm; and we mention it the rather, because we conceive that he ought to have taken some notice of it, and to have shewn what were the imperfections and deficiencies which required it to be so entirely set aside, and the same kind of work professedly to be begun completely de novo. And we cannot but suppose that he would have mentioned it, had it not been that his real design was to set aside the old translation and annotations altogether, not so much because of the changes which the language has undergone, as because they were both too sound and too orthodox for modern illumination to endure.

But we have already said enough of Satan's design in this total change of the language; and we need only observe further, that this design does not end with setting aside the old Dutch Bible neither would that so much matter, if a really good and faithful version of the Scriptures in the modern dialect were substituted in its place. But the design extends much further: it extends to all the sound divinity in the land; to the works of the fathers, martyrs, and champions of the Christian church in Nederland: that is to say, to the works by means of which, in subserviency to the Bible, God has been pleased to edify and comfort the Dutch Christians for more than two centuries. Some will say, “ Oh, but if they have the Bible, that is enough. But such persons shew themselves to be exceedingly ignorant of the method of God's working; for he edifies and comforts his people by means of the streams, as well as immediately by the fountain; and those streams bring the living waters to the very doors of many, who would never go to the fountain, nor even know any thing of it, except by gradually tracing up stream to its source. If Christians do not understand this, Satan does; for it seems that he will even let men have the Scriptures for a time, if he is only permitted to set aside and destroy every thing else that is Scriptural: since by these means he may get the interpretation of Scripture entirely into the hands of his own party.

the

Leaving, however, this discussion for the present, though with full purpose to resume it when occasion shall serve, we wish to illustrate some expressions which we have quoted from van der

Palm's Preface. We see, then, that (with all his pretences of respect and honour) he makes little ado of setting aside the annotations of the old translators; and some of these, as needless digressions and unseasonable handling of theological controversies and speculations. Our readers will gladly know what sort of annotations are set aside on these pretexts: nor need we look far into the old and new editions of the Dutch Bible in order to find them.

In the old edition we find very sound and judicious observations on Gen. i. 26, 27, pointing out the reference to the great and fundamental doctrine of the Trinity ; -on Gen. xx. 13, on the use of the word Elohim, commonly with a singular, but sometimes (as in that verse) with a plural verb, in connection with the same great mystery ;-on Gen. xix. 24, reminding us that the first Jehovah is to be understood of the Son, and the second of the Father. But van der Palm sets aside all these as instances (we must suppose) of the unseasonable handling of controverted points; and in the last he tells us, that the expression "fire and brimstone from the LORD" is only a phrase of exaggeration, whereby we are to understand a very violent storm of lightning! So also, on Gen. xvi. 7-13, the old annotations point out distinctly that the Angel of the Lord there mentioned was the Lord of angels, the Lord Christ, who is also distinctly called both God and Lord; but van der Palm tells us, that the Angel is indeed called both God and Lord, "so far did he represent the Supreme Being himself, and speak in his name." So that here is a death-blow struck at once to all proofs of the Deity of our blessed Lord! Whoever represents God, and speaks in his name, may be called God, and is so called by the sacred writers!! Not that the learned Professor would allow himself to be called a Socinian. No: for sometimes (as on Ex. iii. 2) he seems to speak differently: not, however, in such a way as to set aside the former exposition-which, indeed, must be kept in mind whenever he seems to speak orthodox language; for a man who explains away Scripture in this manner cannot complain if his own orthodox language (when he uses it) is explained away by the same rule. We might multiply instances, but we need only remark, that, if we only turn to any of those passages which bear strongly and clearly upon the precious truths of the Gospel, and compare the annotations of the old translators with those of van der Palm, we never fail to find plain and lamentable proofs of the neologian spirit in which his work is composed.

But he tells us again, that sometimes we seek in vain for elucidation, in the old annotations, where it is needful and desirable; and he accuses the old translators of evading difficulties which

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 Church men 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 dare-or (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

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!

[blocks in formation]
« VorigeDoorgaan »