Skip to main content

Full text of "The Hebrew New Testament of the British and foreign Bible Society: a contribution to Hebrew philology"

See other formats





February, 1897. 

rtbKUAKY, I03/. I 

Accession No. . Class No. 1 ^ W^ 













/ (^ 



Some one will ask me, why have you written this 
in English. In truth, I myself do not know. I did so 
without premeditation, driven instinctively by the gra- 
titude which I owe to the English publishers and patrons 
of my Hebrew New Testament. 

And should one ask, what is the aim of these pages, 
I answer: firstly, they will afford a glimpse into the 
work, of which the Hebrew N. T. is the fruit. Secondly, 
they show what instructive results have proceeded there- 
from for Hebrew grammar, especially syntax. 

Leipzig, May 1888. 

Fr. D. 

In a forgotten book, entitled Wissenschaft , Kunst, Juden- 
thum, I issued in the year 1838 St. Paul's hymn on love 
1 Cor. XIII, translated into Hebrew, as a specimen of a new Hebrew 
version of the New Testament. After laborious and expensive prepa- 
rations, which were aided chiefly by the Bavarian and Norwegian 
])rethren, I published in 1870 as a larger specimen of the work the 
Epistle of St. Paul to the Komans. Many years I sought for a 
publisher of the whole, who would take upon himself the expense of 
publishing and provide for its circulation. At last the British and 
Foreign Bible Society lent me its helpful hand, and having obtained 
such a powerful and generous protection, the new translation went 
through the press and forthwith enjoyed God's wonderful blessing. 
It was completed in the spring of 1877. The text, followed there, is 
substantially that of the Sinaitic codex, with the principal varia- 
tions of the Textus Eeceptus in brackets. But I soon felt, that a text 
formed by myself alone could not be exempt from individual arbitra- 
riness, and that it was more natural to base the translation on the 
Eeceptus and to supplement it mth critical remarks. After half a 
I year a second edition became necessary, which I based on these prin- 
Kciples; it bears the date of 1878. Only two years later, in 1880, 
pa third edition appeared, in a larger form. Even the copies of this 
third were quickly exhausted, and already in October of the same 
year I prepared at Berlin with my never to be forgotten friend, the 
late Rev. Palmer Davie s, a fourth electrotyped edition. The text 
had now to be definitively settled and the work demanded redoubled 
care. I revised it a third time and was successfully aided by the 

-^ 6 — 

Eev. S. E. Driver, now Pusey's successor as Professor of Hebrew at 
Oxford. Each of these editions represents, as I liope, a new degree 
of approximation to the ideal, which even in the fourth electrotyped 
edition of 1882 is still not attained. Therefore I was agreeably 
surprised, when Mr. James Watt, the successor of the late Davies, 
informed me, that the 5000 copies of the fourth edition were sold 
without any remaining. In truth, God has abundantly blessed our 
work. Far from ])riding myself, I acknowledge on the contrary the 
merits of my fellow- labourers, among whom are also not a small 
number of Jewish friends. We have cause to say, that our new 
translation has cojatributed somewhat to bring the New Testament 
nearer to the Jews as a prominent Avork of their literature. In a 
letter to D^ Eahmer at Magdeburg I declared the New Testament to be 
the highest work that the Jewish genius has produced. He remarks 
in his Lilei^aiurhlatt (1879 No 9), that this statement is relatively 
true, and D^ Immanuel Deutsch in his review there owns, that fonn 
and matter, contents and dress, are productions of the Hebrew spirit 
and of Hebrew intuition. 

In the revision of the text for the fifth edition I thought myself 
at first restricted to slight emendations in the plates, but when I was 
in Berlin and Messrs. Watt and Shaep heard that I should like to 
make some more material corrections, they proposed it to the Com- 
mittee and Eev. W™ Weight -wTote me, March 6. : „The Committee 
are much pleased to hear of the pains you are taking to make the 
fifth edition as perfect as possible, and they very cordially sanction 
any necessary outlay in the completion of the plates". 

Consequently the fifth edition is revised more than superficially. 
I pass over in silence all the corrections concerning unavoidable 
typographical faults, as disfig-urement of letters or defects as to 
vowels and signs, and I give only an account of the grammatical and 
stilistic emendations, by which, as I hope, this edition differs advan- 
tageously from the former. 
Matth. IX. 21 •^?"!P^ ^y^^ ^^ for she said within herself. 

Changed to f^sVa n^^jt 12, because n'npa ^72X is without support 

in the biblical Hebrew. I may here remark once for all, that in 

every verse of my Hebrew N. T. the accentuation has been care- 
fully considered: the ^^y^ or ns'n is everywliere the consequence 
of the regular accentuation, which requires here nnba, for it 
ought to be accentuated na^a ^^^"^^ ^^■- Other examples: 
Matth. VII. 8 for every one that asketh receiveth, and he 
that seeketh findeth, in our Hebrew text, the accents being 
added: ^"^^cp^ ^I'^Il''! ^^'.P'! ^^i'^'T^s i ''S. Hence deliberately -bs, 
not -^3 is written. Matth. XXVI. 26 'issia K^iri nt this is my 
■ body, not ^t^^, for it ought to be accentuated ii^iri nt, comp. 
Koh. I. 17. 1 Cln*. XXII. 1. Whoever is not acquainted with 
the laws of accentuology, is unable to inseii; or omit the Dagesh 
correctly. Such a one will hesitate at n^q ^i.r^!i 2 Cor. XI. 14, 
not knowing, that these two words as the first half of the verse 
must be accentuated &<bs i2pxi. 

Matth. XI. 5. on nr'^tj'^^ '^"^"^^^ D^^.55;i and the poor have the 
gospel preached to them. I have corrected '^t}^2ri^ (as in the 
translation of Luk. VII. 22), because the biblical Hebrew employs 
not the Pual but the Hithpael in this passive sense of suaYye- 
XtCsaBat, see 2 Sam. XVIII. 31. 

Matth. XI. 7 ^Th, ^^n ?^T^:l Onb ^Dbn nian as they departed 
Jesus began to say. I thought for some time to prefer '^ty^^ 
^2'ic' ^'i^!! ^nr? ^^r'^l ^^^.5- Sut the syntactic scheme of tem- 
poral coincidence like 1 Sam. IX. 11. 1 Kings XIV. 17 al. is 
here in the right place, for as soon as the messengers of John went 
away Jesus began to vindicate before the people the honour of 
the Baptist. Together with the synchronistic construction I 
retained also the ethic dative on^ as in 1 Sam. XXVI. 1 2, although 
the biblical Hebrew likes better i^ T^^f^ (in French: il s'en est 
alle). Instances of the plural of the ethic dative of the 3. pers. 
are Ps. LXVI. 7. LXXX. 7, but not Job VI. 19 (Miiller- 
Kobertson's Hebrew Syntax § 51, 3); there i^b is in my 
opinion dative of the object, refening to Q'lbns. 

Matth. XI. 18 '^^? I'S""®^ he has a devil. I have preferred ia ^d 
a devil (demon) is ,in him, for iij'^ makes tlie impression of an 
emphasis, which is foreign to the original. 

— 8 — 

Matth. XVI. 24 T^^t^'B^ ^^^ if any man will The revised 
text has ^3 ^-^n; like Lev. XXVTE. 2. It sounds more biblical. 

Matth. XVn. 5 "^^^^1 The reader will refer that to God: and he 
said like Ezek. 11. 1. But the meaning is that the heavenly 
voice said» Therefore now is written' ^r&<. At the same time 
I have remodelled the following verse. 

Matth. XVn. 6 ^^; D'^l^^^rir; n^r l^bl^D-l And when the dis- 
ciples heard it, they fell . . This construction follows the 
pattern of the Chronicler 2 Chr. XV. 8. But the stress lies 
there upon 'i??^^ , here upon iTrsaov ; I have therefore preferred 
the more classical construction si^"^! d^n'^Tsbriri ?b\2:3 "rnii. Con- 
sequently the expression of the object by nitT or nj<t rx could ])e 
dispensed with just as in the original text. ^ 

Matth. XVn. 11 in, rather nsn, which more clearly hints that it 
must be explained: Elias shall first come. Indeed "ih coitc- 
sponds better to the Greek jxev, but it is of more importance 
that by tiin the following t<n is better characterised as paiiiciple 
according to the ep^^exat of the original text. 

Matth. XVn. 20 DP)?^^^ 5^^ ]Tl. The Elzevirian text has 5ia 
xrjv amoitav up,aiv because of your unbelief. The Hebrew 
of the 4*^^ edition, taken fi'om Num. XX. 12, will be understood 
historically: because you have not believed. Therefore I have 
substituted D'ip5a&<TQ Dss-iJt *iL;i< '^35^. 

Matth. XX. 6 5i:?T? ^ntos? nn«3 about the eleventh hour. The 
expression corresponds to that used in the computation of years 
Ezek. XXX. 20. XXVI. 1. Jer. XXXIX. 2, and months Deut. I. 3; 
riDTi: or tnr\ in this case is accusative of determination, see Miiller- 
Kobertson's Hebrew Syntax § 100 comp. 44. But in statements 
of the hours the construction nnbr nnx n^uJa Jer. LII. 29. 
Est. in. 7 seemed in v. 6 as well as in v. 9 preferable. After 

1) Prof. Driver wrote me: „l fmd ver}' few instances (Josh. XXII. 24. 
Jer. IX. 11. Ps. XCn. 7) of nXtTK after S^tJ etc., indeed none at all in a 
large part of the historical books : where there is not some distinct empha- 
sis on the xauxa etc., might HN perhaps be omitted? or even sometimes 
PiKf nx altogether?" The passage remodelled above is of this latter sort. 

— 9 — 

the stvle of the Mishna must be said ni's^ij n^iirjs) nni<a, for 
there ni3)\a ^^tw^ signifies at two o'clock, ni^Jia ^^^>^^ or simply 
^ih^'z at three o'clock, Sanhedrin V. 3. Berachoth 4^; 
u:pn-V3 the whole fifth hour, w n^nrn the heginning 
of the sixth, Pesachim I. 4; n^riTssi ni^m half past eight, 
Pesachim V. 1. 

Matth. XX. 10 '^'^1'!!) they supposed. I have added d^BSS as more 
conformable to the narrative. In the speech XXIV. 44 n^a'n ,to 
imagine' needs no addition. 

Matth. XX. 34 ^J^^"^ D'^fiS^ and immediately their eyes received 
sight. That ^x'n does not express exactly the force of the Greek 

avipXstJ^av ; our revised text substitutes nis^b ^ty^^^^si ii^nti t35<nsi. 

Matth. XXL 1 D^Jn^Tn nn-b^ unto the mount of Olives. The 
Elzevirian text shows irpo? (not si?) ; I have now expressed it by 
^^N, yet without changing Mark. XI. 1. Luk. XIX. 29. where 
h^ stands still unaltered. The preposition b::x does not exclude 
the site of the village on the slope of the mountain. 

Matth. XXIV. 43 ^^"l t'^T'^'^ ^1?^ C?'? ^^^^l n^T-lnJJI but know 
this, that if . . had known. The biblicxal usage exhibits "r^ s?"! 
Job V. 27., but not Dsb "-iS^ (comp. above on Matth. XI. 7). For 
this reason I have chosen to write sJ^'^-ib ^tiix li^inn inxt-n&<i 

- T • • T 

without the inf. intensivus, for the Greek text has simple si fj6si. 

Matth. XXVn. 46 ^n^?^ ^H^^. Changed into ^^}f^ ^h^, because yJXi 
tqXi of the Receptus is here as well authenticated as iXwt sXtot 
of the same Mark. XV. 34. 

Matth. XXVn. 51 'rh'SWZ from the top. The biblical idiom knows 
only \>^W2 above and rn^SJ^V? f?'om above. Thus I have corrected. 

Mark. VII. 3 ^"'^^^ with the fist. I have removed this translation 
of the Erasmian and Elzevirian reading ttoyja^,^ because it is 

1) Erasmus in his editions has in the Greek text xyjii.^, in the Latin 
version crehro like the Vulgate (after the reading iruxva), whence Tyn- 
dale often, Luther manchmal. Westcott and Hort acknowledge tzu-^\i-^ 
as the original reading, which, owing to its obscurity, has been variously 
altered and translated. 

— 10 — 

incompatible with the Jewish rite of washing the hands. I thought 
for a moment, tliat iroY|i-(j might correspond to the rabbinical n=3 
•naSi (ChulUn 107^), which excludes the use of aqueduct-water and 
requires the application of manly strength. But at last it seemed 
to me rfore probable, that the Greek writer of the gospel had 
in mind p'nBn-^;? as far as the wrist, a phrase common in the 
statutes of hand-washing. If that expresses the true sense, tcoyjat^ 
indicates the whole hand fi'om the Angel's' end to the lower end 
of the fore-arm. 1 The text, thus translated, accords with the law, 
while the former translation rprixm was senseless and ofTensive. 

Mark. VII. 4 J^IIO'D^ and of couches. Statutes, concerning the wash- 
ing of beds (xXtvwv), are unkno^vn. I have now put this nitaai 
into round brackets, which indicate Avhat the Revised English 
Version says in the margin: „Many ancient authorities add 
and couches^'. The addition is wanting in the Vaticanus and 

Mark. Xn. 38 D^ib«-3ni^n and salutations. Here after theMakkeph 
nibjjiia (comp. niD-na Eccl. n. 6) or nibx^ (comp. the forms Job 
VI. 8. Ps. CVI. 15) in the 4*^ edition had fallen out, it is now 
inserted in conformity with Matth. XXm. 7. Luk. XI. 43. 

Mark. Xm. 12 and children shall rise up DtiiSi^'b^. I have 
now prefeiTed dniaxs conformably to the fundamental passage 
Micah Vn. 6 compare Sota IX. 15. 

Luk. X, 28 n^rtl and thou shall live. This form with Segol in 
pausa is received by Baer Prov. IV. 4. VII. 2., but most 

1) The terminus ad quern wliich is defined by p^BM ^5 of the 
Mischna Jadajim 11. 3 is already c(»ntroverted in the Gemara. Maimonides 
in Hilchoth Berachoth VI. § 4 repeats the formula without explanation. 
There are interpreters, who understand T^^i qsb n*i5:3SKn ^^1'n Bipa, 
that is, the place where the fingers are joined to the middle hand (meta- 
carpus). But after the predominant interpretation of Alfasi and others 
pnsn n5 signifies S-ntn-dS ^^sisn u^p•Q ^"^n C]^G that is, the end of 
the hand (carpus), where it is joined with the arm. A third definition 
as a comment on Mark's xuyij-t^ is given by Theophylact and Euthjinius 
u.sypt Tou aYxojvoc as far the elhorv. But in the law of the profane, 
not priestly hand-wasliing this terminns remains out of consideration. 

— 11 — 

readers would thinlv it a misprint, therefore I have written 
si^ri'i with Zere like Gen. XX. 7. 

John Vni. 53 ^^:t:?-ni5 ^nn ^^b ivhom makest thou thyself? 

I have now prefen-ed "jTo^is-nN nt;5.;ri"ri^ as more intelligible. 

The former rendering followed the construction Is. XLII. G. 

Comp. Jalkut Ezek. XXVIII. 2 where it is said to the king of 

Tyre: m^s -|^:t:) n\tJi:> nrx. 
Act. II. 15 Qi'^b n^p'ibt^ n:^TO ^3 u is the third hour of the 

day. I have preferred Di'^a as more according to Ps. XC. 4^' 

and to the usage of the Mishna e. gr. ^Kna d^itj the second 

of the month, Sanhedrin V. 3. nsTrin in&< the first day of 

the week, Taanith 27^. 

Act. IV. 17 D?:? f '"IS^.I ^IJ'nn r^-jr^'b )^:^^ ^^«^ 27 ^/?rea^ wo 
further among the people. I have transposed '|'*"»B']'i era, 
so that no one should think of the phrase s y^ti ,to break into' 
or ,to urge'. 

Act. Vn. 58 Dn^n:j:n-lni5 rj^-psn Md down their clothes. 
I have preferred the Kal siia^as as more exactly the idiom of the 
Bible and Mishna 1 Sam. XIX. 24. Ezek. XLIV. 19. Joma 
m. 4. 6 and throughout; hu'^iiJS signifies stripping off oneself, 
ntjwsn {n. actionis of the Hiphil) stripping off another. 

Act. VIII. 18 1^)3 was given, in the Greek SiSoiai. I have changed 
the participle into the 3. prefer, "jna. 

Act. IX. 38 Dtl'^b^ ^1lh to come to them. After b^£5>n the neg-a- 
five ninra seemed more significant. But the alteration is of 
questionable merit, and there was no need to depart from the 
type Judg. XVm. 9. 

Act. XIV. 2 Q''n^?7 ^>}, against the brethren. After o-^rsn 
without doubt the preposition ^35 is better and quite intelligible. 
In the postbiblical literature b? G^3 is frequent for ,to be angry 
at one', e. gr. Ahoda zara 54^. 

Act. XXI. 24 (23) "1"^? Onb ^"i^D ^m which have a vow on 
them. This tanb is the worst dativus ethicus which I had ad- 

V T 

mitted; for everywhere b after i^a denotes the person to whom 

— 12 — 

one makes the vow. The correct rendering, which indeed corre- 
sponds more closely to the Greek text, is Qn*^^?) 'n'li ^^t^ (Nimi. 
XXX. 7. Ps. LVI. 13). 

Rom. V. 1 ^ifp'n^n "^yri^ being justified. Instead of the Hophal, 
which is liot biblical, I have put ^sp'n^i after Dan. VIII. 14. 

Rom. Vn. 5 nninn ^T.'^t ^"i^^^? ^M ^^ch were stirred 
up through the law. The Nithpael is nnnecessary, i*iil5>riri 
signifies the same (Job XVII. 8). 

Rom. VIII. 20 »^tj^ T^43 1?'^^ hy reason of him who has sub- 
jected it. I have prefixed the article to the participle, which 
does not need it, when a determination follows (Ps. LVII. 3, 
Am. IX. 12. Cant. VII. 5), but, followed by Pink as well as by 
dnb Ezek. XXI. 19 the article cfin scarcely be omitted and the 
. construct state is in tliis case inadmissible; *»ri< ^rTit-Q Jor. 
XXXin. 22 is a unique anomaly (Muller- Robertson, Hebrew 
Syntax § 73). 

Rom. XI, 6 ^"^^.^ f^'T^'7'? ^'^H'v •^^?'^'^ work is no more work. 
A similar case is Act. IX. 38. The cliange m'^r^ after 1 Kings 
XV. 21 was not necessary, but it agrees better with the later 
style (see the article \nr\ in Kimchi's Lexicon) and with tlie 
aramaic type (""in^^p ppQ Trg. Gen. XVni. 11 Targ.). 

2 Cor. vn. 11 ^"^^ in this matter. I have added fi<!inn. On the 
contrary I could not decide to cliange ^in'na Matth. VIII, 16 
into i'^n'13, because the meaning of Xoftp is „only by virtue of 
a word", comp. Is. XXIX. 21. 

2 Cor. vn. 12 •l^'^P) might appear. Changed into n^atn in con- 
gruity with (pavspwBTJvai. 

2 Cor. vn. 15 t3Db rOT) ^W ITiV ^'^yty^ and his inward 
affection is more abundant toward you. I think: "ini"'!'! 
DDb si^fn i'is?tt is much better. 

V T T T •• 

2 Cor. Vni. 3 Dnb"b:? ^Tf^^"^, and beyond their power, "ini'^'! 

Drb?a says the same more plainly. 
2 Cor. Vni. 22 nn-|n D'^^I^E oftentimes. The biblical Hebrew 

says always ms^i o'^aS'B, now presented by the revised text. 

— 13 — 

Gal. I. 14 ''^'i^^ ^"^^^1?^ of the traditions of my fathers. Ha- 
ving long disliked the form ni'b3|5, I have now acknowledged it 
as alone regular, just as n^'aSD (dangers) 2 Cor. XI. 26. 

Gal. V. 1 TiJJ52nb he entangled. I have now preferred ^l^jn^, as 
reminding of t^i-a snare, although the one form is as free 
from objection as the other, comp. Deut. XII. 30 with VII. 25. 

Eph. I. 20 iS^J!< y^y^^ QT^n'l^ i'^'^^r!^ when he raised him 
from the dead and set him . . I regard now -"j^ inx ^"^r^'.^s 
^iS'^di^i Q^'n^an as better and nearer the Greek. 

Eph. I. 22 "i-t^? bbn'b:? l^i^h ^tjy; m^^l and has given him who 
is head over all things. I have inserted x^n after ^\U5< ri<i. 
The English Version (unaltered by the revisers) follows an- 
other manner of construction : and gave him to be head etc. 

Eph. m. 10 ^'^^iT} ^li^'^Mn D^ri^^ trQ:)rj the manifold (ttoXo- 
irotxiXo?) wisdom of God. The foim r^)>y^'q is analogous to 
nxbss Deut. XXX. 11, but less doubtful, as to the Hiphil, is 
the form nx'^^BSii. 

Eph. m. 17 tD^TiJlM rooted. The biblical Hebrew uses in the 
sense of taking root the Poel Is. XL. 24 and in the sense of 
being rooted the Poal Jer. XII. 2., I have therefore substituted 

• T : 

Eph. V. 33 ^"^"^^ "^rVTln let her see that she fear . . The infini- 
tive of K^i is 5<Hi Josh. XXII. 25, mostly nsii, with b once \x^h 
1 Sam. XVEII. 29., elsewhere always n5<"i'^V, but exclusively in 
reference to God. Consequently t^^'rh was inapplicable, 5<"nb 
would be too affected, \iM} is without precedent, I escaped all 
difficulty by wiiting ^"'pT}^ intn. 

Phil. II. 15 T^i^^ "^'I'^n ^"if^^ in the midst of a crooked . . 

nation, li'nn instead of ^ii (without article) was a misprint. 
Phil. n. 21 1^1i!'*^7'^ ^^^y ^^^k. I have given up the emphatic 

form Is. LVIII. 2 and reestablished the regular form of the 

pause •lizji'i'^ (jidrosu), which needs no strengthening. 
1 Thess. n. 2 ^3''33^ we had suffered. The 1. pers. sing, is "^rr^^^ 

Ps. CXIX. 71. Hence !|5">32) seemed to be preferable , perhaps 

— 14 — 

without sufficient gi'ound, because the Chirek is protected by 
sirsr Is. LVm. 3., see Bottcher, Lehrhuch der Hehr. Spra- 
che n pag. 410. 

1 Tim. VI. 20 ^^.T^n ^y^"^ ni^SSn oppositions of science 

falsely so called. I have now written wssn adj. relat. from 
TjBh inversion. The old Syriac version has here \iLs m , the 


plural of jfiwascn. 

2 Tim. I. 3 inlbbj?! "^11^12 aTco lupoYovtov. Changed into '^ninst 

of my forefathers , for irpoYovoi means ancestors in the spe- 
cial sense of kindred. 

Hebr. Vs\ 13 ^i'^l^'^ bl^n-^^S^^b. The meaning of the words irpo? 
ov TqjjLtv 6 XoYo;, Avhich I liave rendered by is'^'ini bw, is 
questionable ' ; m^ interpretation agrees with the English ver- 
sion, which runs here thus: unto the eyes of him with whom 
we have to do. d-^nnn b5i Ex. XXrV..13 is the name of him 
who has a judicial matter to do with another. I suppose that 
the author had this phrase in mind. But I have supplied it 
with the suffix in an unjustiffable manner. The QinnT are 
not oui-s, but of our countei-part. He is our d'l-iriT b»n, the 
suffix belongs to the whole notion, therefore I5"''ni'i ^53 needed 
correction. The 5*^ edition ofTers Jii^d n'l'^n^ b?5, just as in 
the Talnmd Mezia 14*: '^^'^'i o'^-in^ bsa; Kethuhoth 81^': 
nx iTi^i d'l^inn nbs3, comp. Kamma 46'\ 

Hebr. IX. 28 ^^^ 'J^'^b to hear. Eather n&tb, because nxb is only 
in nx^ub the usual form; without b we read nxb, n&^iaa, rm^-o. 

1) The Hebrew N. T. of the London Society has "iS^n siab -^\^_ ^dx. 
Tliat is literal, but suggests a false idea, as appears by eomparison ol 
1 Kings n. 14. 2 Kings IX. 5. Judg. HI. 20. The best interpretation, 
which is as much justified by the context as by the Greek use of 
language (see Cremer's WoHerhuch der neatest. Gnicitlit pag. 502), is 
Calvin's: qui nohiscum agit vel cum quo nobis est negotium, accepted by 
Joseph B. M'Caul (in liis Commentary 1871): „with whom we have to 
do". Xo-foi; in this phrase signifies a judicial relation, having two sides : 
the meaning is that God is our judge and that we are responsible to him. 
Therefore I have rendered it by a forensic phrase of classical Hebrew. 

— 15 — 

1 Petr. I. 1 3 ^^p J^^pl and hope perfectly (xeXeio)?). I am now 
informed, that the in/ini inienswus, when combined with an 
imperative, always follows it, therefore nip ^isipi, differently 
from Ps. XL, 2, see Gesenius-Kautzscli § 131, 3^, 

1 Petr. IV, 15 nsiS D3tt t^^ ^^S^V^^ ^^ ^'^t ^^^ '^one o/* 
you suffer as a murderer. The particles b« ^"2 are scarcely 
to be found together, I have written -bt^ p^ like Ex, Vm, 25. 

Revel. IX, 17 tin'^riis'^nffil "^m having breastplates. The i must 
be blotted out. 

Revel. XI, 18 ^^?p thy wrath. I have preferred ?;i3^iD according- 
to Ps. XXXVni. 2. The Chirek arises in the pause by dissi- 
milation: 7iQ:spi Ps. Cn. 11. 

I have already said that the correct use of W^i"! and na*i was 
not possible without thinking of the Hebrew text as throughout 
accented. Constant care, has been bestowed also upon 5<b^ and ion, 
that is, plena or defectiva scriptio. The orthography of the text 
has been settled in such a manner that it may present an appear- 
ance similar to the text of the 0. T., which e. g. exhibits ts^^bn, 
D'l^ar, but always d^i^ and with only one exception d^ia. Instead 
of ^liaxb only three times is written *iiaxb. The active participle 
is more often written without i than with it e, g. always i^'n, bsb, 
tr^'j, tvf^ and at least more fxequently ^a&t, n^s^, bsijt, n^i>;. some- 
times however the writing varies indifferently as 6<^"'i, 5<S'i''; D'laia, 
d-^iis; d'l^'^■^ d'^rjJ'ii^ The infinitive of Kal follows the same ortho- 
graphy: l)bi<)3 is never found, ^im: scarcely, almost always i't^. 
Double 1 in the same word as ninsina occurs sometimes, but predo-, 
minantly the writing seeks to avoid it, so that e, g. mibi:? is found 
only twice. It is a mle to write t\^'p2, tmt\ (comp. 2 Cor, VIII. 14 
ni^jin^), and to write either nibHa or n'M^a or even n"^^a, not nibi^ia. 

A serious error in the London translation was d^ribx^ (to God) 
and d"'r!■b^^a (in God), which signify ,to the heathen gods' Ex. XXII. 19 
and „among the gods" Ps. LXXXVIII. 7, instead of d^h'^fi*]?, d^h'^xa 
which is the only form allowable. It is also worthy of note, that the 
0. T. Hebrew savs ^i^sSkV, I'^shxb, n-iahxb, but sir3"i&<i, sia-^^hfi^^. 

— 16 — 

As to the form instn^ his gift Eom. V. 15. 1 Cor. YII. 7., 
I have queried till now, whether it has need of being altered into 
insrip or not. At last, I have resolved to retain iniinio. Certainly 
the analogy^ of ir^^B^ f^tJ^^P requires irift^, but along with the 
form nitn^ a more aramaic form nsri^o can be supposed, whence 
insn^, like 'r^ninri thy gifts Dan. V. 17. 

There were in the fourth edition but few misprints in punc- 
tuation, these are now corrected, viz. hS5in&< Matth. lY. 9 instead of 
nssnst; ^tj^jsb ib. XXn. 21 instead of ^dt^; ''^^^ ^'^- ^' 45 
instead of ''i:n^; 6*1^^^73*1 Act. X. 46 instead of dib^iTa*!; d^nan 
1 Cor. XV. 12 instead of Q'^rittn; ^^ansasi 1 John IV. 3 instead of 
"i^atn^an. Two oversights in the consonants are noted above, Phil. 
II. 15 and Eevel. IX. 17. 

* * 

A gi-eat difficulty is occcasioned to the translator by the notion 
of doubting and its Greek expressions. The language of the Mishna 
offers pBD and psoia (Targ. pBGp) not of doubting persons S but 
of dubious things. This adjective was applicable in rendering [jltqB^v 
Siaxpivo[i£vo? James I. 6 by pao ''V^a, that is, indubitably, yet the 
following 6 Yap Biaxpivojxsvo? requires a verb which signifies the 
action of doubting, because pQppJi would signify a man of dubious 
character, not a doubter. I have written pBD ^5>a a man who enter- 
tains doubts. In Matth. XXI. 21 if ye have faith and doubt not 
the translation f^a pBiD-T^fi<i nai^x dab n^nn-dfi< would mean: if 
nothing dubious is in it, that is, if your faith is genuine. Also 
sia^iBn &<'bl is useless, because the opinion that the biblical otira^ 
7£Ypa[X|i£vov n3iiB5< Ps. LXXXVEII. 16 signifies / am doubtful 
starts from the false supposition, that "jiB is derived from the 
particle )^. Therefore I have ventured to use here the Keflexive 
pBtndrt as an equivalent of BiaxptveoOai to doubt after the manner 

1) The only passage of the old literature, where pBG has the sense 
of personal action, is Job XXXIS^. 37 Trg. : 5<35''2 pQd^, which seems to 
signify: he excites doubts, he shakes the faith by doubts. 

-^ 17 -- 

of the later Hebrew S the same verb, which Phil. IV. 11 renders 
after the Talmudic use the Greek auxapxT]? eivat to he satisfied. 
In two passages pBG was applicable, see Mark. XI. 23. Eoin. XIV. 
23; in four others, Rom. IV. 20. James II. 4. Matth. XIV. 31. 
XXVni. 17 I have applied Hosea's csb p^n their heart is 
divided (X. 2) and in two others the translation was easy, because 
there ,7vilhout doubt' is the same as without tarrying Act. X. 20. 
XI. 12. By this it appears that it is unpracticable to translate a 
Greek word everywhere by the same Hebrew word. The one 
}(api? for example comprehends the significations of iryn (John 
I. 17), -in (Luk. I. 30) and nh-:n thanks (Rom. VI. 17). 

The equivalent of XsixoupYia in the sense of worship is n^h2> 
e. g. Luk. I. 23 (different from r^^i^?, the word for 5ouXeia); yet 
there are passages e. g. Hebr. VIII. 6 where it could not be used. 
There only n^i^^ was in place, the word that elsewhere e. g. 2 Cor. 
IX. 12 expresses the Greek Siaxovta. Also this Stotxovta cannot 
be always translated by the same word. The Hebrew name of the 
deacon is t'B^ (Phil. I. 1 and 1 Tim.) , of the deaconess n^'te^TS 
(Rom. XVI. 1), the n. actionis d^ayj is employed Act. XII. 25 and 
even VI. 4 where ir\Tit seemed not so suitable. So although the 
word d^^5> is employed for xoojao? in 1 John II. 15, in 1 John 
n. 16. 17 it seemed liable to misinterpretation. The principle, that, 
when the context and meaning is similar, uniformity ought to be 
carried through, has been from the first my standard. I fear 
however, that even in the fifth edition there still occurs some 
fluctuation in the rendering of certain words. Yet on the other 

1) E. g. ia § 2 of the first chapter of Jore Deah {Tur and Schulchcm 
aruch): ^&^11231 pSnb^D ^n^i'^n nt ini ^3) ,,in this case being uncertain I 
will ask", and in the code Mordechai where the recapitulation of 
Chullin begins: ^tt^nttJ nisbnn xn^i^) n^s ^rh 'j'^pBn&a D-^^^n „tiie 
learned men were in doubt about many things in the statutes of cattle 
slaughtering", comp. Samuel Hanagid in his "Ji^^rn x^.s^ on "P^*^ 
(the Talmudic non liquet): T^:i\i7^ -m dim ni'obr.n pSrD^r pBOn 
'13X Maimonides is wont to say i^ psnna {HUchoth Schema II. 18) 
he was doubtful. The Hebrew of the middle age says not only of 
things, but also of persons: stin pSd^ he is doubting. 


— 18 — 

side the critic must beware of rashness and pedantry. Sometimes 
where no reason for the varying expression can be discovered, the 
translator may be guided by his exegetical or stylistic feeling, which 
asserts a claim to the acknowledgement of its relative right. 

In closfiig I may refer to several passages, the translation of 

which has suggested weighty questions about Hebrew syntax. An 

oppoi-tunity is thereby afforded to make public some interesting 

l)ortions of Pi'ofessor Driver's coiTespondence, containing the results 

of his critical examination of the earlier editions. 

Matth. II. 1 n^-ibT^ini^ nnra f'^m n'^tp^riti ^i<h;!i there came 

wise men from the East to Jerusalem. The biblical Hebrew 

says sometimes nia'i^irn'^ or d'^b^'n">b , but mostly the bare 

accusative D'i^ir'i"i': without the mark of direction. „I notice — 

S. E. Driver says — that in 0. T. the names of places, especially 

well known ones, occur usuallv after verbs of motion without n 

locale; this I have observed pai*ticularly in the liistorical books". 

The observation is correct: accordingly the n locale in the later 

editions is employed only occasionally where clearness and 

rhythm seemed to demand it. 

Matth. n. 22 Di^Jl^ H^iri TTBlt To\h i^n^ * * iS^tltDp^ Bat when 

he heard . , being afraid to go thither he was warned 

in a dream. Many readers may expect rather ^y^^, but the 

construction designedly does not follow the type of Gren. 

XXVn. 34, but of 2 Chr. XV. 8. The main fact is T^^:s.^^ , the 

perfect expresses the previous circumstance. In the first edition 

after ^^"xd, 3 etc. the consecutive imperfect with strong Waw 

without preceding ^T\^\ was used too frequently, whilst in the 

earlier books of 0. T. this construction is relatively rare, comp. 

1 Sam. IV. 20 mth Gen. XXXV. 17. I have left it sometimes, 

but removed it in such i)assages as the above mentioned. See 

Driver's Use of the Tenses in Hebrew § 127.^ 

1) In one of his letters, concerning my Hebrew version of the Acts 
he says: „The instances of Waw consec. in answer to ''^nx, ^iTita, 
"JSJ"^, 3 etc. are very abundant in this book. Considering that this con- 
struction occurs (if 1 mistake not) not more than 4 times in Genesis, 

— 19 — 

Mark. IV. 33 And with many parables spake he the word unto 
them, as they were able to hear it. My Mend proposed "la^i 
and si^^l'i and similarly ^a^'; in v. 34 as idiomatically con-esponding 
to the Greek sXocXst, T^Suvavio, sXaXei. It is true, this synchro- 
nistic Imperfect is used by the old Hebrew especially to express 
that which one was wont to do (lob I. 5) or what was done con- 
tinuously (Ex. XXXin. 9. XXXIV. 34).' I have preferred 
however the perfect: 1) because "is^'; in the sense of sXaXst 
occurs only with tx preceding Josh. X. 12 or tm Hos. XII. 5; 
2) because also the perfect can be used of an action begun 
in the past and continued Ex. XXXm. 11. Euth IN. 7. Ps. . 
CXLIV. 8. 

Mark. V. 39 "^^^ li^hn^ And when he was come in, he saith. 
In the tAvo first editions I have rendered this ^^K oassiassi, in 
the fourth n^ox iisb;!!!, for in the Hebrew of the 0. T. 5<ia signifies 
to enter like d_233 in the Hebrew of the Mishna. My friend 
proposed ^^i< K^ni fi<n t^^n, which I adopted in the third edition, 
but afterwards set it aside: 1) because the Greek elosXOojv 
XsYst denotes both the actions as successive, not as simul- 
taneous ; 2) because it seemed advisable to be sparing with this 
antique scheme of temporal coincidence. I have accepted it e. g. 
Matth. XI. 7 (see above the remark on this passage). 

^once in Jiid., G tunes in 1 — 2 Sam., would not once in three chapters 

^be a sufficiently large allowance in the Acts? It seems to me that 

it is the tendency of the earher Hebrew, in the case of temporal or 

causal clauses, which Greek often places early in a sentence, either 
!«) to postpone them somewhat, or p) to prefix '^»7']l!; it is the later 
Hebrew, that is apt to introduce them at the beginning. Compare ad 
,cz) Gen. XIX. 16. XXXIV. 7. L. 17. Ex. XXX. 18. Jud. VHI. 3 with 
[2 Chron. XH. 7. XV. 8. XX. 20. XXIV. 25. XXVL 10. 19^. XXXHI. 12. 
I XXXIV. 14. Dan. X. 9. 11. 15. 19 and ad p) (d)M^3D1 2 Chr. VH. 1. 
,XXIV. 14. XX. 23b. XXIX. 29. XXX. 1 against some 14 times in 
[earher books with ''•T^l prefixed". This observation is keen; hence the 
;tUsapproval was well founded. In the later editions, as I hope, the 
[two constructions are proportionally mixed and alternating not only 
[for the sake of variation, but according to the importance of the 

several facts within the historical nan'ative. 


— 20 — 

Matth. XXIV. 27 D^iJ'i^-btD ixi^-D^ T^'^T}'' 1? so shall also the 
coming of the Son of man be. In the first edition I had left 
out this ,also' (xai) of the Greek text. It is questionable whether 
it is better to translate it or to leave it untranslated. There 
arc many cases, esi)ecially in the Gospels, where this question 
arises. On this point also we have coiTesponded. „I would liko 
to know — my friend wrote me — whether , if Hebrew writers 
of 0. T. could express fully what they wished to say without d:^ 
(aft«r "nirx or -p) , it was needful always to represent verbalh 
the xat: it seemed to be at times superfluous and make the 
sentence unidiomatic. Hebrews either felt the sense was com- 
])lete without it (with Luk. XVII. 37 , where 6<B exhibit xat o'l 
aetot and Elzev. only ol asxot. conip. Job XXXIX. 30) or 
sometimes seem to have adopted a difterent mode of expression 
(with Matth. X. 4 d xai icapaSou; aoxov comp. Gen. XXXVn. 24. 
Ex. VI. 26 s.). Would not such a comparison for instance as 
Matth. XXIV. 27 have been felt to be complete by an 0. T. 
author without the Da? The matter is worthy of attention. In 
general it nmst be siiid that the omission of the xai at times 
is allowable. The LXX add xai Deut. H. 21. VIE. 20. Is. 
LX. 13 al., where the Hebrew text runs without na; hence vice 
versa it is permitted to the Hebrew translator to omit it some- 
times where the Greek text has it." But the passage Matth. 
XXIV. 27 to which I have attiiched this remark, shows how 
difficult the decision is in some cases. It may seem inconsistent 
that I have left xat untranslated Luk. X. 39, but not likewise 
Matth. X. 4. Hebr. VII. 25. Even this little word renders the 
work of tmnslation very difficult. 

Luk. VL 1 1'^'7''t)bn ^S-Jpi:i n^sj^n l^a -in:^ • • W^ And it came 
to pass . . that he weht through the corn-fields and his dis- 
ciples plucked. The construction is like Gen. XLL 1. Jewish 
readers often declared, that ^h5!«i ought to be written. But 
Prof. S. R. Driver in our con*espondence on the Hebrew N. T. 
has rightly observed : ,,The schemes m^ ^-q^ • ' •'nil and • • '^rr^i 
i:ax r\1^ (e. g. Gen. XXII. 1) occur frequently in the Old Testa- 

— 21 — 

ment, no less than m 'i^X'^i • • ''JT'i, might they not be employed, 
especially the first, more often than is the case, for the sake of 
variety ?'' I have made use of them in such passages, where 
the perfect after '^n^'i, followed by consecutive imperfect, denotes 
a preparatory fact, ou which the following rests. But not too 
often, because this classical construction makes a strange appear- 
ance to Jewish readers. 
Luk. X. 33 tjn^a tfbn '^:inti'b" li'^r^^ But a certain Samaritan 
as he journeyed . . The first edition had rendered this T|fi< 
'lai inx "^rl-ip^r. This -x as equivalent of the Greek Ss was 
awkward: I had not yet freed myself ft'om the unidiomatic 
manner of the London version, which is sadly marred by the 
abundant use of the -j6< in place of Ss. ,,I much doubt — 
S. R. Driver wrote me — if "|i< is in place here? At least the 
earlier historical style would not have had recourse to it. Take 
all the passages in two or tliree books, given by Noldius, e. g. 
in the books of Genesis, Judges and Samuel: it is prefixed to 
single words as D2>sn -i<, piuJ2? "|5<, and it introduces a limita- 
tion upon some preceding clause. It also occurs more frequently 
in speeches than in the narrative, but hardly any — not even 
1 Sam. XXIX. 9. 2 Sam. II. 10 — seem quite parallel to its 
use here''. This is the fact. In the later editions these offensive 
"|5< are. I hope, all dropped out. 


— 22 

Besides these passages of the s\Tioptic Gospels the following- 
passages also have occasioned grammatical queries and researches, 
the result of which seems to be not unimportant. Indeed, if I 
should give all the passages and words which have been matter 
of inquiry and discussion, it would be difficult to come to an end. 
Many questions are not even yet quite satisfactorily solved. 
Matth. Vn. 21. Vm. 2. 6 etc. xupis Lord! In the later Hebrew 
of liturgical prayer and poetry often "jinx without article or 
suffix is employed as vocative e. g. Kir? "p^ist irbs? "1*^25 ^ix, but 
in the biblical Hebrew neither "p^ix nor 'jI'ik occurs in direct 
address, for 'ji'is Jer. XXII. 18 is exclamation, not address. 
Therefore I was constrained to substitute either ^'■Jii^ or ^5'^5H&< 
(not !i5:Sk which is to be found only once 1 Sam. XVI. 16). 
The later postexilic language says also without article "jHS lUJi&t 
bi^a Mylord high priest! Joma I. 3. d'^shd, d-ii^, bxnu:'' 
priests, o Levites, o Israelites! Meg ilia 3*. D''u:i*ib, B^pi^j^t 
Pharisees, o Sadducees! Jadajim IV. 7. 

Matth. XV. 9 (= Is. XXIX. 13^) T'^ Q^^T. ^^^1 ^^^ in vain 
do they worship me. The LXX read ^'nr.^ instead of ^t)t\\ 
And what follows ft'^'isabifl fi'ittJax ni^fia joins closely to the Targum 
which has fB^s y^^it w^'srQ like ordinances of teaching 
men. LXX and Targum together bear here witness to a text 
different from the masoretic. I felt obliged to render the 
Hebrew text just as it lay before these ancient authorities. A 
similar case is Hebr. X. 5. In other places w^here the Greek 

— 23 — 

version does not necessarily presuppose a different text, 
e. g. Rom. IX. 28 = Is. X. 23 and Hebr. X. 30 = Dent. 
XXXn. 35 I have retained our received Hebrew text. Of course, 
the decision could sometimes but be precarious. 

Luk. VI. 1 [n^is^n inyr^cb mm] n:am. in the following 
editions I have removed these brackets, which indicated in the 
first, that the Sinaiticus (like the Vaticanus) has only iv 
aajBpaxa) without osuxepoirptoTq). The remark of the late 
Tischendorf: tit ah additamenii ratione allenum est, ita 
cur omisetHnt in promptu est seemes to me convincing. In 
the interpretation of this Seoxepoirpwxw I agree with John 
Ligthfoot, understanding the first sabbath after the second 
Easter-day, or, as can also be said, the second sabbath after the 
day of offering the barley sheaf, which is the terminus a quo 
of the seven sabbaths (weeks) till Pentecost (Lev. XXIII. 15), 
consequently the second sabbath within n^isJn n*i'^st3 (the com- 
putation commencing from the Omer- offering). Instead naurn 
n*!?^;."! the later editions have ^ydn nnuJ2, just as Luk. XXin. 54 
!^n'l^<r^ nsu:ni afterwards is changed into S'^an nnu:m. The 
name of the Sabbath is originally feminine, wherefore liturgi- 
cally it is represented as the royal bride of Israel (comp. 
however Is. LVIII. 13). We have used it in the passages 
above mentioned as masculine confomiablv to Is. LVI. 2. 6 and 
bi^sn nn;y, the name of the Sabbath before Easter. Concerning 
the Pentecost, the expression Act. n. 1 iv x(^ oofiirXYjpouo&ai 
x/jV r^jXEpav x^? TtsvxsxooxTjc is very concise and not easily 
translatable. I believe, the translation m^miJn anb Q-'ia^n ^ixbri^i 
(ed. rV. V) shall be satisfactory. The revisers of the English 
version have blotted out the word fully of the received text. But 
fully points back to complete Lev. XXTTT. 15. 

John IV. 31 ^'^'7^'a^tl in*^ ^b^llj the disciples prayed him. The 
verb bttu: occurs sometimes construed with the accusative of 
the thing begged for, but never with the accusative of the 
person, from whom one prays something, bsuj seq. accus. 
signifies ,to ask one'; but ,to beseech one' must be expressed 

— 24 ~ 

by )-q bx^ 1 Sam. Vm. 10 or n&<^ bx^ Ps. 11. 8. This rule 
is observed in the later editions. 

John VI. 27 n^n'^^n 'l'^^^ I'^t^n ^m for him the Father, God 
hath sealed. Thus the first edition, the following more accura- 
tely and clearly: D'ln'bxn Tiatt i^nin cnn in ^^s, not mthout 
influence from the conjecture , which the reno^vned grammarian 
Moses Eeichersohn at Wilna proposed to me that the Lord, 
comparing liimself with heavenly meat, alludes to anna, which 
is the Pelestinian name of the baker as one who impresses 
certain marks upon his loaves. 

Act. vm. 26. IX. 11 tfb"] D^p arise and go. The ■: copulative 
after op ist not false (comp. 1 Sam. XXIX. 7) , but contrary 
to the usage; the second imperative after Dip follows ^vithout 
exception aauvSlxo)?. Therefore from the second edition on the 
1 is omitted. 

Act. X. 28 i^^n 'l^Dif nCi^ Dn:^1'; DP^ ye yourselves know 
how that is an unlawful thing. From the second edition I 
have "ym^ corrected to *»?, because the biblical jt^ ist mostly 
consti'ued with ^d, scarcely wath *im Ex. XI. 7. Deut. X\TII. 21. 
Eccl. vm. 12. Ezek. XX. 26., and except the last passage 
always the word after 'nttjx is a verb. 

Rom. XVI. 20 shall bruise ^?'!l'l Satan under your feet. One 
might expect c^rr;;, for St. Paul's hope recalls the promise, 
which is interwoven in the curse of the serpent, and C)i\u, at 
least the first C]ittJ, ^ sig-nifies there ,to bruise' like the targumic 
t^ and "^BTr, by which the Hebrew 6<S"n ist wont to be ti-anslated. 
Nevertheless I did not dare to employ this verb, though I would 
have used it, if the apostle had said ouvxpi'j^si xr^v xscpaXrjv 
xou ocpEo)? or only xov ocpiv. In other passages the expression. 

1) Tlie second means, as many think, attack by blow^g. Indeed 
Pilia in the Palestinian dialect of the Aramaic language signifies ,to 
blow' e. g. Bereschith rahha c. U: wXB"'"^^:: ni^ mu: T^^l „eyen m 
sultrj' heat the wind blows (upon the water)". 

i - '' - 

which I have chosen brings out intentionally certain reminis- 
censes, e. g. Matth. XV. 28 ^^5<i s^^'^ n5:> t&t reminds of 

7o -t:-"ttt 

Cant. n. 10; John XIX. 30 n'?3 (TSTlXsotat) of ah::^^ Gen. 
n. 1 and in^^'ri< ^j5S?i of Ps. XXXI. 6; 2 Cor. VH. 5 7^1^73 
n^s'^x Q-^^^n^!! m'anV^ of Dent. XXXII. 25 (suggestion of the 
Rev. G. H. Handler); 2 Thess. H. 8 i-^nab nsi^a of Is. XI. 4; 
Hebr. VTH. 2 'isSx 13513 ^lyNt of Ex. XV. 1 7 (suggestion of the 
Eev. D. Biesenthal). 

Gal. m. 16 ^^ini^l^-jTb^ ib "Tc^ i^bl he saith not: (to thee) 
and (thy) seeds. The plural ni^s^nt is employed by the Talmud 
in similar arguments e. g. Sanhedrin 37^, and the collective 5Jit 
appears similarly concentrated on shth ini&< the one seed who 
shall arise from another place (Esth. IV. 14), that is, tlie king 
Messiah, in tlie Midrasch Ruth sect. VII extr. and often. 

Gal. IV. 22 (hy the free woman) 26 (Jerusalem that is above 
is free). I have rendered IXsu&spa in both verses by n^izisn. 
But it is true, as may fiiend at Wilna has objected, that H^^sn 
denotes a woman which is set free (in Aramaic rnnrittJia, in 

• • • \ • 

Latin liberfa), and that it is unsuitable so to name Sarah. 
For that reason 'I'l^'in-na (comp. Gal. III. 28. Hebr.) might 
be deemed preferable in Gal. IV. 22 sqq. 

1 Thess. IV. 14 D^DTtJ'^n-njJ D^ 5?^©:) ^T,'^^. D^^^lbiJin i^^n^i 'JS 
ir\i< even so them also that are fallen asleep will God by 
Jesus briny with him. Prof. John J. Given (Londonderry) 
thinks tliis passage mistranslated and sadly marred through 
wrong connexion. The English version, the authorized as 
well as the revised, translates: which sleep in Jesus. But the 
Greek text says 5ia xou 'Iyjoou, which belongs to ,he will 
brings, because sleep through Jesus is an unexampled ex- 

1 Tim. n. 5 one mediator between God and men. Here and 
Hebr. Vm. 6 the employment of the rabbinical "nb^o = [isot- 
TT]? could be dispensed with by imitating the circumlocution of 
Deut. V. 5. Ex. XVEII. 19. The modem Hebrew ventures to 
say ?Sf5aa and even T^lino, but these copies of the occidental 


— 26 — 

mediator are as repudiable as tsii'^an ^"^Nt said of Goliath, who 

proceeds betw^een the Philistines and Israel to decide the war 

by single combat 1 Sam. XVn. 4. 23. As to nb^G, it is a 

noble word. The Talmud itself (jer. Megilla IV, 1^ says : 

"I'l&'nb ''^'^ b3> hin^s n-iirn (the law is given by the hand of a 


I subjoin here a list of forms, which occur in the fii-st edition, 

but have disappeared in the folloAving as grammatically incorrect or 


John XIX. 35 •^^'^^n he has home witness, changed into wrn 
(m. IV: T^rn), comp. in-^ian 1 Kings XIII. 20 and on the other 
hand in^cn^ Gen. XXXVII. 22 wliich is the pronunciation of 
the infinitive. — Acts XV. 14 (D'^nbx) nxy^^ oepojilvYj (xov 
Osov), rather n.H^'^, Prov. XXXI. 30 like '^^^v Ps. XXH. 29 — 
Acts XIX. 9 (ohT?) ^w he departed (from them), rather 
"id^i. The imperf. consec. of Kal and of Hiphil have the same 
vowels, e. g. Ex. Vin. 27. Gen. VIH. 13 — Act. XXI. 5 *irs-^3 
our knees after '^^ii's'is Dan. VI, 11 with aspirate Caph, but 
the con-esponding Hebrew fonns all have Dagesh: '^S'^a, '^s'la. 
T^sna, n'is-ja and only with grave suffix Dn-'D'na — Act. XXII. 9 
i3?a^ (at the end of the verse) they heard. The pausal form is 
always wp^ — Kom. Xm. 1 isans (last word of the verse) 
they are ordained. I have changed the Kamets into Pathach ; 
the form sisra Ez. XXVU. 19 (Kal with Dagesh a/fectuosum) 
is unconfonnable — 1 Cor. VI. 13 o^a belly. I have after- 
wards preferred fc'na (\Nith Sin after Jer. LI. 34) as warranted 
by the Syiiac w»^s — 1 Cor. XI. 28 "jha"^ let a man prove, 
better 'ina'i Ps. XI. 5 like ina'^ — 2 Cor. XI. 21 r^'S^ rrx he 
is hold, I am hold, wrong instead of tr^, tr5< Hiphil of t?:? — 
Eph. VI. 15 d'^b3J373 da^'bi'ni and having shod your feet, 
erroneously for nib^pp; the names of such organs as are double 
belong to the feminine nouns — 1 Tim. EE. 9 nisVnoa with 
hr aided hair, altered into izJxnn nie^naa after Judg. XVI. 
13. 19; niB^riTD looks like a plural of t^Vi^ knife Ezr. I. 9 — 
1 Pet. III. 22 ni''^->ni and authorities, better ri'^cr^ri fi-om 

— 27 — 

nsiia*;! with stable Dagesh, see Brief an die Romer (1870) 
pag. 94 sq. — 2 Pet. I. 4 dDip^ssria having escaped, misprint 
for DDiabaria — Apoc. XTV. 15 '^yo thy sickle from hi-q like 
*>bj:5^, ibpri from bjsia. In spite of that, though uncertain, I have 
afterwards written 't^^'Q. 
The name of Tiberias John VI. 1. 23. XXI. 1 is written rr^'nna 

T :- • 

(n^*ii"i::), because n^^sip is the Babylonian form, s^!;^i'^I? the Palesti- 
nian; the final letter is sometimes s sometimes n, but more often n 
(see Levy's Dictionaries) — The name of the town 'Ecppat|i. John 
XI 54 could be transcribed d'^'ns? like Menachoth 83^. 85 % but 
"I'l^is? according to 2 Chron. XIII. 1 9 seemed better as less exposed 
to misunderstanding — In place of "p&i-)i:Bfi< STcixpoiroi Gal. IV. 2 
I have written in the second and later editions 'j'^OB'i^iDB^, the one 
form is as unobjectionable as the other, both are used in the talmudic 
language — I have left unaltered "jinnr a^papwva 2 Cor. I. 22 
and in other passages; the form is the same as •jiis^'n'n Constr. I'ix'nn, 
■ii'itri Constr. "ji^m — The plural nip^nri oxto(Aaxa 1 Cor. I. 10 
did not need correction; nipbna signifies classes and mp'bna (from 
the same singular npbna) signifies litigations (scliisms), see Tosefta 
(ed. Zuckermandel) pag. 321 lin. 1. 

I was not susprised, when my sharp-sighted critic in Oxford after 
the perusal of the first edition imposed upon a translator higher ol)- 
ligations than he found there fulfilled. ..Hebrew as we have it in 
0. T. — thus he ^Tote me — being in certain points a more 
limited language than Greek , and only able sometimes to express 
with difficulty what Greek can do with ease and lightness, does it not 
seem to you, that to translate a phrase word for word results at 
times in a sentence, which sounds slightly heavy and unnatural? 
In a piece of historical narrative, or a speech, it seems to me that 
in such cases we should endeavour to translate tlie phrase as a 
whole, to frame a sentence idiomatically, which, though it may not 
in every detail correspond to the Greek, shall still , taken altogether, 
express accurately the whole idea which the Amter intends to 
convey. To translate S. Luke into Hebrew does not appear to me 
to be quite the same thing as to translate him into English or 
German; it is more like making an idiomatic translation of a piece 
of Plato or Thucydides. I notice you have allowed yourself the 
practice sometimes: might it be a little extended? I should of 
course not suggest it in the case of any technical or dogmatic term, 
where verbal exactness is evidently of primary consequence. But 
would it not also often secure as a collateral advantage — not 
unimportant, even in the Acts — a style more resembling that 
of 0. T. , in being at once more compressed and more antique?** 
Briefly, my friend demands more liberty from the letter, more 
compliance towards the genius of Hebrew. I acknowledge the right 
of this plus ultra, but appeal at once to the ultra posse nemo 

— 29 — 

ohligatur. Two instances may show what I mean. The sentence 
Matth. X. 10 the workman is worthy of Ms food is translated 
"h^n^ '''n bifsn r\rt. Thereto my reviser remarked: ,J do not 
criticize the exactness of the rendering, but would only ask whether 
for such a ,,spruchartiger Satz" some equivalent more in the 
pointed style of the old h'^'o might not be found Avithout the use of 
such a w^ord as r\y6 of the book of Esther? The sti-ess appears to 
lie in the general principle of human conduct appealed to by our 
Lord, rather than in the special word ot^io?." Indeed that tm as 
not classical displeases me, but I do not know how to avoid it, for 
in'^rn ui*! bsB-bsb would signify that each labourer receives his 
food, but not that he is worthy to receive it. Similarly the rendering 
of the synoptic therefore ye shall receive the greater condem- 
nation (Matth. XXIII. 14. Mark. XU. 40. Luk. XX. 47 j by isb 
5inj5n "ir-^-b? ^stz^P does not satisfy me, and revising the text of the 
fourth edition I have pondered, whether that rendering might be 
improved in any way, yet having exhausted all possibilities I saw 
myself thrown back upon the ti*anslation liitheiix) given. If I had 
the choice between a classical, but too free version, and a less classi- 
cal, but more iaithful one, I would give the preference to the 
latter, because it is much more important, to preserve the originality 
of the divine word than to level it in favour of a more genuine 
Hebrew shape. The spirit of the N. T. has created for itself its 
o\\\\ i^eculiar form of thinking and speaking, and the N. T. writers, 
especially St. Paul and St. John, liave their own style. I was 
anxious not to withhold from the Jewish readers the impression 
of these peculiarities, even wliere the fonn is stiff, monotonous cfnd 
unpleasing, for in the Holy scripture as the earthly vessel of 
]iea\'enly thoughts and directions all is as much human as divine. 
We are not permitted to make the human fonn of the K T. more 
beautiful than it is. I know, in this point my friend agrees with 
me. And I willingly gi'ant him that I may have sacrificed regula- 
rity or elegance to fidelity in several i)laces where both could be 
united. I am far from presuming that I have realized the ideal. 
A tme and satisfactory version of the N. T. is a thing of the 

— 30 

future, and onl}' am' 11 be i)roduc^, when tlio new Thorn of tlie Gospel 
has been received into its heart of hearts hj the regenerated remnant 
of Isiuel. 

A friend of mine does not cease to entreat me to translate the 
New Testament into tlie Aramaic idiom which wcis spoken in 
Palestine in the days of Christ and his apostles, that is. into the 
language of the Palestinian Talmud and the Palestinian Targiuns. 
But his desire rests on an illusion. The Hebrew remained even 
after the exile the language of Jewish literature. The Ecclesiasticus 
of Jesus Sirach was AM'itten in Hebrew, as its fragments in the 
Talnmd show. The original of the first book of Maccabees and ot 
the so called Psalter of Solomon was Hebrew. The inscriptions on 
coins, the epitaphs, the litui'gic prayers were Hebrew. The form 
of the laws Avas Hebrew, as appears from their codification in the 
Mishna. Also the book, in Avhich, as Papias says, Matthew had 
collected the sermons of the Lord, Avas written k^pcdh hioiXinzv^. 
It is true, that in that time ippatori and j^aXSaioxt were not 
accurately distinguished. Nevertheless it is quite unlikely that 
MatthoAv AATote in Ammaic; for the Aramaic dialect of Palestine — 
AA'hich in the Talmud is called '^&*iit3, and there and in the Targiims 
can be l)etter learned than from the so called EvangeUarium 
Uierosolymitanum and the fragments of a Palestinian version d 
Psalms, published by J. P. N. Land fLugduni Bat. 1875) — AAas 
the language of daily life, the A^ilgar language, in which the 
people and also the learned were wont to converse and to hold 
controversies, but i^ ^Eppoti; SidtXsxTo?, in which St. Paul was 
accosted bv the exalted Saviour Act. XXVI. 14 and in which he 
himself addressed the people of Jerusalem Act. XXI. 40. XXII. 2. 
was the holy language, the language of the temple worship, ot 
synagogical and domestic prayer, of all formulas of benediction, of 
the traditional law^; further the parables, the animal fables, the 
lament<ations for the deatl in the Talmuds and Midmshim are 

— 31 — 

mostly Hebrew: the holy language continued to be the language 
of the higher form of speech, even the popular proverbs Avere only 
partly Aramaic. Josephus, stating in the Preface of his work on 
the Jewish war, that his narrative was originally drawn up for his 
compatriots of inner Asia in the common mother -tongue, certainly 
means the Hebrew, not the Aramaic language. Knowledge of 
Hebrew was then as now universal among the educated of the 
nation. Aramaic, on the contrary, was understood only by a small 
part of the Diaspora. Even now knowledge of Hebrew is much 
the more general, whereas acquaintance with the idiom of the 
so called Talmud Jerashalmi is a prerogative of very few Jewish 
scholars. Therefore it would be a useless attempt to translate the 
New Testament into the Palestinian Sursi. The Shemitic woof of the 
New Testament Hellenism is Hebrew , not Aramaic. Our Lord and 
his apostles thought and spoke for the most part in Hebrew. And the 
XcAV Testament, as the new Thora, the completive half of God's 
revelation, must be translated into Hebrew, if we intend to make it 
a reading book for the Jews of all countries and a constituent 
part of the worship of the futui'e Israel, who shall be saved after the 
entering in of the fulness of the Gentiles. The translation into 
Aramaic would be an artificial work, not without relative advan- 
tage — for it would exhibit in the New Testament language some 
features of the vernacular dialect of Palestine — but without 
l)ractical ahn. A proof of its restricted utility is the little help, 
which the Peschito affords to the HebreAv translator.^ 

The project of a version of the N. T. in the Targumic idiom is 
in some degTee favoured by Jolm I. 1. Prof. Driver remarks 
regarding my translation of this overture to the fourth Gospel: 
..The rendering of Xoyo? has doubtless been well weighed. I wish 
that it were possible to employ the ^^i s^^a^a in some way or other. 
AYould not that term have the advantage of suggesting to the 

1) I mean help in finding the intended or equivalent shemitic 
l)hrases; for as regards tlie Palestinian form of proper names, the 
Aramaic versions of the New Testament are entirely useless: they 
transcribe slavislily the Greek forms. 

— 32 — 

Jewish reader associations analogous to, if not identical with, thoso 
suggested by Xoyo; to the Greek? fi<-i^'ia, unlike -c^ (if I mistake 
not), but like Xoy©;, would be a significant word, having a previous 
liistory to which to attach itself and which gives it its meaning." 
Nevertheless after careful deliberation I have rendered Xo'yo? by 
im, because the Word not only as mediator of the world's 
creation and conservation is called nn"i Ps. XXXIII. 6. CXLVII. 18, 
but also as mediator of salvation Ps. CVU. 20. Is. LY. 10 sq. 
For some time I thought of iritan as an equivalent of »'^'Q"c . but 
I rejected it, because the Hebrew of the Mislma and its age knows 
^^5<?2 only as denoting the word of command, by which the world 
arose e. g. Abolh V. 1. Even ^i^ia^n I did not like, for it is a post- 
biblical word, and yet it was of gi'cat importance to obviate the 
o])inion, that the Logos was an invention of Stoic and Alexandrian 
philosophy, and not, as it is really the case, rooting and already 
germinant in the 0. T. Certainly the Logos, more and more 
acknow^ledged as a divine hypostasis, which paiixikes of God's 
personality , is ordinarily called 1131 e. g. in the Midrash to Cant. 
IL 13*: nii2^ D5 -i3T?a ^^innn the Word spoke with Moses. And 
in the Palestinian Targimi the word as revealer of God and as God 
himself in his revelation bears besides the name x-i'd'^i: also the 
name j<'nsia'n or x*i3'n (see Lavy's Targumic Dictionary). But even 
these synonymous terms lead to ^3'n as the word really corre- 
sponding, especially in regard to such passages as 1 John T. 1 
^\'here only ts'^^nn ^i-n, neither ^i^ktd nor nia-n is suitable. 

Finally I cannot forbear to mention a New Testament term by 
which Jewish readers are offended, as I have heard from mauA 
sides. It is known that our Lord is wont to confirm his sentences 
by opening them with ajir^v, in the Gospel of St. Matthew thirfv 
times with ajii^v Xsyo), in the Gospel of St. John twenty fi^•e times 
with a|nr]v ajxTiv XEya) ujjitv. I have translated it in the Synoptics 
by dD^ "^ix -i^x i^j^ and in St. Jolm by csb ^bx -^sx "ica iiax. 
How many times Jewish friends have exclaimed: .That is not 
Hebrew', and insisted that instead of "j^x ought to be said nr-ax or 
d:^x or n^x3. This i^x at the head of the sentence is indeed 

— 33 — 

fc- entirely foreign as much to the biblical as to the postbiblical 
style and has not its like in the whole Jewish literature. 
However it would be inconsiderate and arbitrary to remove this 
anomaly in favour of stylistic regularity and elegance. For if every 
great man has his own style, how much more the greatest of all! 
His manner of speaking contains much hitherto unheard of, for 
instance that he calls himself the Son of Man, which is infinitely 
different from it^ma fi<inn i, by which in the vernacular language of 
that time the speaker designated himself. This l^fci also was a 
new and peculiar expression in the mouth of our Lord. Speaking the ^ 
dialect of the people he began his solemn speeches with fi<i'^^i< )'ci< 
liD^, in Hebrew dsb ^55< "y^zk yoi^^ not dib ir5< i5&< i^x, because this 
order of the words obliterates the significant alliteration, which 
St. John intends to imitate by doubling the p&t.^ I am persuaded, 
that the name 6 'Ajjltjv, which is given to Christ Eevel. IH. 14 
alludes to the oft repeated ajirjv of the incomparable master. 

Charles Dickens wrote to his son, as he was about to under- 
take a journey: „I have put a New Testament among your books, 
because it is the best book, which the world has known and will 
ever know".^ In truth, it is the best in every respect. What a full- 
ness and depth of contents this small volume encloses, its like is 
not to be found among the literatures of mankind. And every 
dispassionate inquirer must allow, that Jesus Christ, who is the 
centre of this book, has created a new era of human history. The 
root of Jesse has become the root of a new world. Even those, who 
deny His Messiahship, are not without a share in some fmits of 
his redemption. But it shall come to pass in the last days, that 

1) In Sursi the speaker says &^*'S5 &<lhri (xnr^5< i<*inh) not only 
of himself, but also of the person addressed; consequently this phrase 
is of no use to explain the self- denomination of our Lord by 6 utoc 
toy av^pwTTou Matth. VHI. 20 etc. 

2) See No IX of my Talmudic Studies in Lutherische Zeitschrift 1856 
p 422 — 424 and No H of my „Traces of the vernacular tongue in the 
Gospels" in The Hebrew Student (Chicago), Dec. 1882 p. 104—105. 

3) Translated back from the German. 


— 34 — 

they shall aclinowledge Him whom they have so long despised. 
Israel will then become confessor and interpreter and apostle of the 
Xew Testament, andj the new Thora, which is gone forth out of Zion, 
Avill then Je gloriously transfigured into the holy tongue. Jacob 
shall then take root, Israel shall blossom and bud and fill the face 
of the world with fruit. For if the casting away of them be the 
reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be but 
life from the dead! — house of Jacob, come ye and let us walk 
in the light of the Lord and his Christ ! Their light is one , light of 
the only One, the heavenly soui'ce of life, as Christ has said: This 
is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and 
Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. 


A list of essays and notices of F. D., more or less closely 
connected with the translation work. 

A. Talmudische Studien in the Lutherische Zeit- 
schrift, edited by Eudelbach and Guericke, from 
1863 by Guericke and Delitzsch, Leipzig, Dorff- 
ling & Franke. 

I. Das Holielied verunreinigt die Hande (contribution to the 

history of the 0. T. Canon) 1854 pag. 280—283. 
II. Die Discussion der Amtsfrage in Mischna und Gemara ibid, 
pag. 446—449. 

III. Mkodemos ibid. pag. 643—647. 

IV. Der Passaritus des zweiten Tempels 1855 p. 257 — 268. 

V. Ein talmudisches Seitensttick des "Weihnachtsevangeliums ibid. 

pag. 401—404. 
VI. Der Hosiannaruf ibid. pag. 653 — 656. 
Vn. Erwahnt der Talmud Ebioniten und Nazaraer? ibid, 
pag. 75 — 79. 
Vni. Sichem und Sychar ibid. pag. 240 — 244. 
IX. AMHN AMHN 1856 pag. 422—424. 
X. Bethesda 1856 pag. 622—624. 
XI. Das Deuteronomium 1860 pag. 220—222. 
Xn. Die zwiefache Genealogie des Messias ibid. pag. 460 — 465. 


— 36 — 

Xin. Eechtfertigung von Hebr. Vn, 27 ibid. pag. 593—596. 
XIV. Eechtfertigung von Hebr. YH, 5 1863 pag. 16—22. 
XV (sic) Die im N. T. bezeugte Unreinheit heidnischer Hauser 

nach jiidischem Begriff 1874 pag. 1 — 4. 
XVI (sic) Der Jesus-Name 1876 pag. 209 — 214. 
XVn (sic) Der Ezra der Ueberlieferung und der Ezra der neuesten 

Pentateuchkritik 1877 pag. 445 — 450. 
Not numbered: Die Schriftlehre von den drei Himmeln (and the 
Je^vish doctrine on seven heavens with respect to 2 Cor. 
XII. 1—4) 1873 pag. 609—613. 
Not continued: Beitrage zur hebr. Grammatik (concerning tlie 
orthography of the Hebrew N. T.j. I. Die Dagessirung der 
Tenues 1878 pag. 585—590. 

B. Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae. Erganzungen 
zu Lightfoot und Schoettgen in the same Quarterly 
Lutheran Journal. 

I. Matthaus 1876 pag. 401—406. 
n. Marcus ibid. pag. 406 — 409. 
m. Lucas ibid. pag. 593—602. 
rv. Johannes ibid. pag. 602—606. 
V. Apostelgeschichte 1877 pag. 1 — 11. 
VI. Brief an die Romer ibid. p. 11 — 17. 
Vn. Erster Brief an die Corinther ibid. pag. 209 — 215. 
Vin. Zweiter Brief an die Corinther ibid. pag. 450 — 454. 
IX. Brief an die Galater ibid. pag. 599 — 607. 
X (sic) Brief an die Epheser 1878 p. 1—9 (with a supplement 

on Pappouvt and with other additions on the Gospels). 
XI (sic) Brief an die Philipper ibid. pag. 209 — 215. 
Xn (sic) Brief an die Colosser ibid. pag. 401 — 410. 

With the year 1878 the Journal ceased to appear. Present price 
of a whole volume 3 Mark, of a single number 1 Mark. 

— 37 — 

C. Notices in ,^8aat auf Hoffnung", the Quarterly 
Journal of the Lutheran Central Society for 
preaching the Gospel to the Jews. 

Eine neue hebraische Uebersetzimg des Neuen Testaments. Aufnif. 

1864, 3 pag. 59—62. 
Das Uebersetzungswerk. 1865, 1 pag. 61 f. 
Ueber die palastinische Volkssprache welche Jesus und seine Jtinger 

geredet haben. 1874 pag. 195 — 210. With an appendix 

on the camel and the needle's eye and on Dalmanutha 

pag. 210—215. 
Ueber Matth. XV, 3 — 6 mit Bezug auf die Mischna 1875 

pag. 37—40. 
Ezechiel E^kibi, der hebraische Uebersetzer des N. T. in Kotschin 

1876 pag. 186—190.1 
Der Stand des neutestamenthchen Uebersetzungswerkes am 8. Juni 

1876. 1877 pag. 80—89. 
Der Stand desselben am 24. Mai 1877. ibid. pag. 242 — 245. 
Ueber die 1. Ausgabe und Vorbereitung einer zweiten (11. Juni 1878) 

1878 pag. 222—231. 
Ankiindigung der 2. den Text der Elzeviriana vom J. 1624 zu 

Grunde legenden Ausgabe mit Erklarung ihrer textkritischen 

Zeichen 1879 pag. 55 — 57. 
Ankiindigung der 3. Ausgabe in etwas grosserem Fonnat 1880 

pag. 62. 
Nachruf an den sel. Director George Palmer Davies 1881 pag. 201 f. 
Ueber die elektrotypirte 4. Ausgabe 1882 pag. 208. 

1) This Hebrew translation is one of the Buchanan MSS. of the 
University Library, Cambridge. The Ms. has in front the notice: 
,,This MS. was found in one of the Sjnagogues of the Black Jews of 
Cochin in India by the Eev. Claudius Buchanan in the year 1806". 



Thirteen years ago as a first specimen of the translation was 
published : 

Paulus des Apostels 

Brief an die Romer 

aus dem 

Griechischen Urtext auf Grund des Sinai-Codex in das 
Hebraische ubersetzt und aus Talmud und Midrascli 



Franz Delitzsch. 

[Mit einem Riickblick auf die Uebersetzimgsgeschichte vom orston 
bis ins neunzehnte Jahrhundert.] 

Leipzig, Dorffling & Franke 


Price: 2 Mark. 

Printed by Ackermann and Glaser. Leipzig. 



'^''''-""'»'-7. •39(402., 





■*i'fcrfdMHHHVtfta»>lff«b'**^^Vtt)Bfem-32'll.' '~r-