The Sun.
London, England, 1840-12-30 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION.

TRANSLATI

N OF THE BIBL[•

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

confidently trust for the insertion of the fol.
lowing to the candour I have both seen and felt. I
troubled you with a very few temperate remarks, which
have called forth some less appropriate to a .tine of socil I
sympathy by " J. E.," whether another " Little Stone,"
or alter et idem I, of course, cannot know.*
Allow me first to inform " J. E." that I neither am,
nor ever shall be, one of those whom he seems to dis•
like "as some men do a cat"—a Clergyman. 1110:e-
-over, that no one of this denounced class is privy to
what I write. However, 1 do not like bitter vocral
reflections or ascription of motives. "J. E." would
take it very ill if I was to insinuate that he wanted to
be the enriched founder of anew sect, or had any sel-
fish personal reason for wishing to disparage the present
version.

I am not a Hebrew scholar. I have known some very
clever laymen that were ; one of whom had so
little interest in upholding the Church Establish-
ment that he was a Quaker. From neither of these
did I ever hear—though perfectly in coofidence—any
thing at all resembling whet "J. E." says. Some few
mistakes, a few things which might have been more
clearly rendered—perhaps. But before " J. E.'s" long
claim to a species of " Eleutinian " knowledge of He-
brew, they should be supported by something more than
ipsc Alit. What do the Jews think of our version ?
—a question, by the way, I never yet heard asked—
but a very important one. "J. E." must be as well
acquainted as myself with the names of eminent lie-
brcw scholars that we have had, of whom I suppose
Dr. Kennicott and the present Professor Lee, of Cain..
bridge (whom I only speak of as an oriental scholar,
without entering into theological questions) hays not
been the least. Would not a person be thought a little
bold who should condemn by wholesale classical ver-
sions which a Porson had approved ?
I am not prepared to deny that the transiatori rdodted
many things—most certainly for all—from former ver-
sions : but that they were so faulty, again rests o s the
word of "J. E." Mr. Bellamy's translation, if I re-
collect right, has long been, in part, before th, p io.ie,
without the wonder-working effects attributed to it.
But if the office and ministration of the Clergy coul i be
destroyed by persons knowing as much of the fun ,da-
tion as themselves, what does " J. E." thick it. the
Greek Testament ? which I have known, and the fide-
lity of its translation, made at the seine time, gives me
some analogy as to the other.

I assure you, Sir, I am not at all a bigoted Church-
man, " Puseyite," or " Saint," in the popular accepta-
tion. But, with any errors which ought to he cor-
rected, I should be sorry that the place and fluencc
of a clergy, in a s,,cial body, should be destroyed ; nor
should I, by any means, be opposed to a f .ir revision of
the translation of the Bible by a " Special Jury" of
able men impartially summoned. But until errors be
proved, du not let us have such wholesale diatrilecs to
puzzle plain men. As to ".I. E.'s" saying that the
Bible, as at present, tends to infidelity, I know, and so
do a good many of your readers, that it has formed a
hope in life and death to thousands, infinitely superior
to myself in the qualities of intellect and disposition,
and, it will be no offence to say, equal to " J B."
1 am, Sir, your's respectfully, and obliged,
A CONSTANT READER, Al A.

London, Dec. 29, 1840.
[* The communicationb came from two. dt,rent
parties. On this subject we
.have given both ,ides
fair hearing, with which we hope they will be satitfit.d.]