Full text of "On a Fresh Revision of the English Old Testament"

See other formats

Google

This is a digital copy of a book lhal w;ls preserved for general ions on library shelves before il was carefully scanned by Google as pari of a project

to make the world's books discoverable online.

Il has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one thai was never subject

to copy right or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often dillicull lo discover.

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the

publisher lo a library and linally lo you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud lo partner with libraries lo digili/e public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order lo keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial panics, including placing Icchnical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:

+ Make n on -commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request thai you use these files for
personal, non -commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort lo Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each lile is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use. remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other

countries. Whether a book is slill in copyright varies from country lo country, and we can'l offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through I lie lull lexl of 1 1 us book on I lie web
al |_-.:. :.-.-:: / / books . qooqle . com/|

.«**-v w «.

UZh'

ON A

FRESH REVISION

OF THE

ENGLISH OLD TESTAMENT.

FRESH REVISION

ENGLISH OLD TESTAMENT.

SAMUEL DAVIDSON, D.D.,

WILLIAMS AND NOEGATE,

14, HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON;

AND 20, SOOTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH.

1873.

fc.

lo -19 J?

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.

The following essay was written at the request of a
valued friend more than three years ago. Immediately
after its composition was suggested, the author tried
to perform his task with as much expedition and in as
moderate bounds as seemed to harmonise with the
general purpose in which it originated. But circum-
stances have interfered to retard, if not entirely to
prevent the execution of the scheme of which it was
to form a part. The author therefore ventures to
send it forth independently, regretting its isolated
publication, but hoping that it may prove itself a small
contribution to the cause of free thought in relation to
the best mode of bringing the contents of the Bible
before English-speaking people. He has tried to
write for intelligent laymen more than for scholars or

Introductory Remarks.

professed theologians, and believes that nothing will
be found in it which the former cannot readily under-
stand. He has also studied compression, only touch-
ing upon tho main points of the subject, because all
that he originally aimed at was a general essay, not a
learned or exhaustive treatise.

CONTENTS.

PAGE

General observations on the English version, and its need
of a revision, which has been retarded by writers
who make unnecessary changes in the phraseology
of the received translation, and by those who give
incorrect renderings . . . .1

PAET I.— Text.

§ 1. A correct text the first consideration . 10

§ 2. The text should not be altered to remove statements

thought to be objectionable, or contradictions . 19
§ 3. All Masoretic remarks on the text must be attended to 23
§ 4. The divisions of verses and words, as well as the

vowel points, must sometimes be altered . 25

§ 5. Specimens of text-emendation . . .28

§ 6. Charge against the Jews of corrupting the text in

order to repel Christian arguments, unfounded . 35
§ 7. The New Testament Greek should not be taken to

correct the Hebrew text . . .36

§ 8. Occasional difficulty of choosing between different

readings . . . . .37

§ 9. Jealousy of proposed alterations in the text . 44

PAET II. — Tbanslation.

§ 1. Bules for translation, with examples

§ 2. Prominent instances of mistranslation in the received

version ....

§ 3. Examples involving great difficulty

46
47

53
66

Contents.

§4. A translator should be able to decide where the great
masters of Hebrew disagree. Examples of such
diversity .....

§ 5. The New Testament not a hermeneutical rule for
the Old . .

§ 6. The division into chapters and verses must be rectified

§ 7. Distribution of passages among different speakers .

§ 8. The poetical books should be printed in parallel lines,
and the strophes noted ' .

§ 9. The prophetical books ought to be in parallel mem-
bers .....

§ 10. The mode of printing additions, omissions, and
glosses posterior to the authors or compilers of
books, considered

§ 11. The received version not to be altered for the re
moval of offences against morality, or of contra
dictions ....

§ 12. General arrangement of the books ; the chronolo
gical, the Hebrew, the Greek order

§ 13. Translation of the name Jehovah

§ 14. The Apocrypha should form part of a revised Bible
Examples of text emendation and corrected trans
lation in it

§ 15. A doctrinal bias sometimes seen in the English
version ....

§ 16. What a margin should and should not have

§ 17. Words in italics

§ 18. Chapter-headings

§ 19. Page-headings

§ 20. Parallel passages

§ 21. Chronological dates

§ 22. Expository notes

§ 23. Concluding observations

PAGE

76
81

86
92

104
106

107

118
121
123
130
135
136
139
142
143

ON A FRESH REVISION

OF THE

ENGLISH OLD TESTAMENT.

OUR English version of the Bible deserves much of
the praise it has received. Its merits are con-
spicuous. Fitted to be a national possession, it has
moulded our tongue to an extent scarcely realised. Its
pure and homely idioms are a part of the language
which cannot die. It has enriched the mother tongue
with Hebrew and German turns of expression. But
it is not a new translation taken directly from the ori-
ginals : it is drawn from other versions and comments.
Probably the translators could not have made a good,
independent work from the Hebrew, after the death of
their two greatest scholars Lively and Reynolds, whose
loss must have been felt as the version proceeded,
especially since Broughton the best Hebraist of the day
had been excluded.* At any rate their commission

* The statement on the title page, " newly translated out of the
original tongues/' must be taken in a qualified sense. Former transla-
tions and comments, nearly twenty in number, were the real sources ;
not the original texts. Instead of the latter being the fountain, they
furnished mere corrections of former versions. The translators' own
words imply this : " Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought
from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor
yet to make of a bad one a good one, but to make a good one better, or
of many good ones one principal good one, not justly to be excepted
against: that hath been our endeavour, that our mark.'*

General Observations.

included no more than a revision based on the Bishops'
Bible. King James and his primate fettered the com-
pany's free action in the matter ; the former by his rules,
the latter by his alleged alteration of the translation in
fourteen places " to make it speak prelatical language."
Yet the praises of friends are sometimes extravagant.
To call it " unique and unapproached" is an exaggera-
tion. Comparing German with English we hold it to
be scarcely equal to Luther's ; and it is decidedly in-
ferior to De Wette's. Bunsen's Bibelwerk has a better
version. A translation like a Dictionary cannot be
complete at once. It can only be brought near per-
fection by successive revisions — the work of maturer
judgments, more exact scholarship, and superior
taste. These revisions should not be separated by
centuries, else the extensive changes demanded by long
periods will do violence to the feelings or prejudices of
the people ; and erroneous renderings be converted into
inspired statements. Eevisions at moderate intervals
of fifty years> will keep alive the idea of man's limited
acquaintance with the original Scriptures in all the
fulness of their meaning, and prevent superstitious at-
tachment to the letter. Whatever checks bibliolatry is
good and profitable.

If the received version be taken as the basis of a new
one, and its language retained as far as accuracy allows,
there is little fear that the fine Saxon character which
makes it preeminently a version for the people will be
lost. Another translation should not be for the scholar

General Observations.

merely, but for the general reader. Whatever changes
be made in the existing one for the purpose of bringing
it as near the original as the idioms of the languages
permit, a Latinised and pedantic diction must be care-
fully avoided. So should the diluted language of para-
phrase. And though it be desirable to adopt the words
formerly used by Tyndale, Coverdale, the Bishops'
Bible, and the Genevan version where they are suffi-
ciently expressive of the original sense, the old transla-
tors will be of little use in giving that sense, where
King James's have failed. It is therefore inexpedient to
limit the choice of correcting words to the vocabulary of
the present version along with that of preceding ones.
In many instances faithfulness to the original could not
be attained by following that principle. Where modern
and idiomatic diction expresses the true sense equally
well, antique or ecclesiastical English may be dispensed
with; but the use of ecclesiastical terms imbedded in
modern theology should not be lightly discarded.

Considerable aversion to a new translation, of the
Bible exists in the public mind, which need not be won-
dered at. Two things alone are sufficient to create and
nurse the feeling ; unnecessary innovations of language
presented in new and generally inferior versions, and
incorrect representations of the original sense. Re-
visers have either adopted less felicitous words, or have
given new meanings, which the Hebrew does not justify.
By injudicious transformations of language, andincorrect
renderings of the original, the proposed translation,long

General Observations.

advocated by scholars, has been materially retarded..
The bad taste and incompetence of cobblers must
necessarily strengthen the people's attachment to their
familiar Bible, with its hallowed associations. If the
attachment be thought superstitious, its conservative
influence is often salutary ; for the alteration of a word
or phrase may be injurious or displeasing, as the sub-
stitution of expanse for firmament (Genes, i. 6.), and
of " blew into his nose the life-breath/ 5 for " breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life," (Genes, ii. 7.)
suffices to shew.

It is easy to exemplify unnecessary innovations
clothed in inferior language. Ecclesiastes xii. 3-5, ap-
pears thus in a new version ; " When the keepers of
the house shall quake, and the men of power writhe,
and the grinding-maids shall stop because they have
greatly diminished, and the women who look out of
the windows shall be shrouded in darkness ; and the
doors shall be closed in the street : when the noise of
the mill shall grow faint, and the swallow shall rise to

shriek, and all the singing birds shall retire

for man goeth to his eternal home, and the mourners
walk about the street. "*

Here we miss the beautiful phrase,

"And all the daughters of music shall be brought low,"
getting instead,

"And all the singing birds shall" retire," which is

* Cohelcth, by Christian D. Ginsburg, page 493.

General Observations.

erroneous, because songs, to which the old man's feeble

voice, chirping like a little bird's, cannot reach, are

meant.

" The swallow shall rise to shriek "

is worse than " He shall rise up at the voice of the
bird," and inaccurate besides.

The want of taste in departing from the expressive
sentence, "Man goeth to his long home, and the
mourners go about the streets/' is obvious.

Another example is presented in,

'•'For a torch is the command, and instruction is
light, and a way of life is instructive admonitions"
(Proverbs vi. 23) ;* which is inferior to the language
of our version ;

" For the commandment is a lamp ; and the law is
light ; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life."

Further, there is a change for the worse in the lan-
guage of,

Ci And he shall arbitrate among many people,

And give decision to many distant nations,

So that they shall beat their swords into coulters

And their spears into pruning-knives ;

Nation shall not raise a sword against nation,

Neither shall they learn war any more."

(Micah iv. 3) ;f

the English version having,

* A Commentary on the Book of Proverbs by M. Stuart, page 202.
f The book of the Twelve Minor Prophets, translated by E. Hen-
derson, D.D., p. 243.

General Observations.

"And he shall jndge among many people,
And rebuke strong nations afar off;
And they shall beat their swords into plowshares.
And their spears into priming-hooks,'' &c.
Or take the following :
" Thy dead men shall live j with my dead body shall
they arise.
Awake and jubilate, ye inmates of the dost.
For thy dew is like the dew on herbs,
And earth shall cast out the dead/ 5 (lsa.xxvi. 19.)*
which is inferior in diction to,

" Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead
body shall they arise.
Awake and sing ye that dwell in dust :
For thy dew is as tho dew of herbs,
And the earth shall cast out the dead."
Both translations are incorrect, but the Received one
is preferable. The words mean,

" May thy dead live, my corpses arise,
Awake and sing ye inhabitants of tho dust,
For thy dew is the dew of life,
And the earth shall bring forth tho shades."
Again, the language of our version is changed for
the worse by the following :

" Thou art now gracious, O Lord, to thy land ;

Thou hast turned back the captivity of Jacob.
* Daniel the Prophet ; nine lectures by H. B. Posey, D-D. p. 510.

General Observations.

Thou hast forgiven thy people's iniquity,

Thou hast covered all their sin. Selah.

Thou hast gathered in all thy indignation,

Thou hast drawn back from the fierceness of thy

wrath.
Turn back to us, O God of our salvation,
And annul thy quarrel with us." (Ps. lxxxv. 1-4.)*

Here the changes in the English version are gener-
ally for the worse ; and the Hebrew in one or two
places is rendered incorrectly. "Annul thy quarrel
with us w is not good English.

Those who make new translations generally adopt
Latinised or other words which are inferior to the
Saxon and felicitous ones of our version. Sing becomes
jubilate; cause to cease becomes annul; and judge
gives place to arbitrate.

Again, when scholars of good repute, or those at
least who employ the apparatus of learning, fail so to
set forth the true sense of the original, a version
worthy of the age may seem to be distant. Nothing
is more disheartening to all who desire a new and
correct translation, than to find the meaning of the
current English one altered for the worse. Thus Eccle-
siastes xii. 13, has been rendered; "Fear God and
keep his commandments, for this every man should
do"-\ which is no better than, " this is the whole duty

* The Psalms translated by William Kay, D.D., pp. 278, 279.
f Coheleth by Ginsburg.

8 General Observations.

of man/' but rather worse. The original means, " this
is the whole man;" all his existence lies in this.
Again; one* renders Hosea iv. 16-19, thus : 2. " Since
Israel hath gone astray like a straying heifer, now the
Eternal pastures them, like a lamb in the wide waste :
associated with idols is Ephraim; leave thou him
alone. 3. Their drink is soured: greedily they go
sinning ; eagerly love shame the shields of the land.
When the storm has folded it in its wing, then will
they be ashamed for their sacrifices." This is no im-
provement on the authorised version, and still more
unintelligible. Others render Psalm xvi. 2,

" I say of Jehovah, Thou art my Lord,
My goods are nothing in comparison of thee,"t
which flattens the sense sorely. But we need not
enlarge. The mistakes even of good translators are
neither few nor small. How then can those of incom-
petent men be tolerated ? Yet menders of the received
version are often insensible to the unwarrantable nature
of alterations. Thus we have seen the rendering of our
translation in Deuteronomy xxxiii. 23, pronounced
1 unintelligible :'

" O Naphtali, satisfied with favour and full with the
blessing of the Lord ;
Possess thou the west and the south,"

though De Wette has it so. But what is substituted ?

The following :

* Isaac Leeser. f The Psalms by Four Friends.

General Observations. 9

" Naphtali, replete with favours, and full of the
blessings of Jehovah ;
Possess thou the sea and Darom ;"*

which is strangely incorrect in the last word ; while
favours and blessings are erroneously plural.

Though the aversion to a new translation has been
fostered by such injudicious or unsuccessful attempts,
it would be wrong to say that the thing is undesirable.
We believe it to be even necessary. Notwithstanding
the clamour of ignorance, and the more rational state-
ments of partial intelligence, the thing ought to be
undertaken. " Eeasons for holding fast the authorised
English version," and, " Vindications of the autho-
rised version," weigh nothing, because persons who
adhere to the old and the established just because they
are old and established, are behind the age, obstruct-
ing whatever is new lest their opinions should have to
be changed. The conservatism of united ignorance
and timidity must be resisted as the enemy of enlight-
enment.

* Kitto's Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature, article Naphtali.

PART I.— The Text.

§1.

The first consideration of a translator is the text.
Can he take any one edition of the original as correct ?
Here a translator of the Old Testament, occupies a less
favourable position than one of the New, because the
latter may select a text ready to his hand, that of Tes-
chendorf for example, and put it into English with the
full conviction that it comes as near as possible to the
words of the authors themselves. But no parallel is
found among the editions of the Old Testament. That
of Theile, the most accurate on the whole, is insufficient.
It is unfortunate that we should have but one recension
of the Hebrew text, the Masoretic, which cannot claim
universal correctness. Conjecture, though by no means
a safe or certain remedy, has to be resorted to for its
emendation. But we allow that it should be a rare
resource, since it is liable to abuse ; and that it is better
to abide by the traditional text of the Jews, endeavour-
ing to elicit an appropriate sense from it by all legiti-
mate means, than fly to conjecture without pressing
necessity. Cappellus went to an extreme in correcting
the text very often, by the aid of versions. So did his
followers Kennicott and Lowth. Houbigant exceeded

The Text 11

Cappellus in rashness. This desire to correct by the
aid of the Seventy and other ancient translators, led to
a reaction. Eichhorn and Gesenius took the safer course
of upholding the general integrity of the Masoretic
text, in which they were confirmed by the result of
the numerous MS. collations made by Kennicott and
De Eossi. In the light of the few and comparatively
unimportant variations which these collations brought
forth, it was natural to conclude that critics were con-
fined to the Masoretic text. The judgment of Gesenius
on this point cannot be followed absolutely, though its
cautiousness may be admitted. That there are symptoms
of another reaction, of a desire to return pretty nearly
to the position of Cappellus, cannot be denied. Not
indeed by the same instruments exactly, nor with the
same uncritical bluntness. Conjecture is again em-
ployed extensively, in addition to the oldest versions.
Transgressing the moderate bounds usually observed
by Ewald, Hitzig has proceeded to alter the text in
many cases unnecessarily; while Thenius innovates
by the aid of the LXX to an extent which few can
accept. Bolder than he in another way, and pos-
sessing more ingenuity, Geiger propounds a theory
which throws great uncertainty over the present text.
We are asked in his Urschrift to assume processes
through which the Old Testament writings passed,
under the hands of the Zadukim or aristocracy, and of
the Perushim or national party; the former having
developed the Biblical precepts in accordance with the

12 Part L

necessities of the time ; the latter, though more cautious
ill their deviations., having introduced new modifica-
tions into the Scriptures to deprive the opinions of the
Zadukiin of solid support when the authority of the
latter waned. Between the two parties, we are invited
to believe that the words of the Bible were freely
altered whenever new ideas or institutions seemed to
require a change ; though the later Halachah scrupu-
lously adhered to the letter, from which it tried to
deduce its own ideas by artificial interpretation. The
arbitrary mode in which the Zadukim and Nivdalim
or Ferushim, i.e. the Sadducees and Pharisees, are
supposed to have dealt with the text, is assumed. It
is easy to imagine that the Zadukim expressed their
views not only in contemporary works, but also in the
older writings which they modified, altered, and sup-
plemented in that sense ; while new changes were
subsequently introduced to deprive Zadukite senti-
ments of support, after the power of the party declined.
Bat how shall all this be made probable ? How can
the numerous fluctuations in the Hebrew text be
traced in the old translations, without a subjectivity
in textual criticism, which needs great restraint ?

That Geiger's researches should have influenced
several scholars, is matter of regret. Doubtless they
have important bearings; but it is time enough to con-
sider the bearings when the researches themselves
appear less visionary-
Other critics of the present day are led away by

mmmmmmmmmmmm^^9t^^mm^mm^m^^^^^^wia.^M^ m. j

The Text. 13

speculations tending to the same result, so that the
text is subjected to a process of alteration in a goodly
number of passages, to bring it nearer an assumed ori-
ginality. Such theorising cannot be commended. It
is not possible to discover when or how the text re-
ceived its settled form ; or at what period the final
changes were made in it, if they were designedly made
at all ; for the alleged official copy prepared by Ezra,
whom De Lagarde strangely identifies with the Elohist
or one of his disciples, and the subsequent renovation
of the text in the age of Hadrian, with the alterations
made in the interval, rest on no foundation.

It must be admitted that the temptation to change is
strong where the Hebrew is difficult or obscure ; where
ancient versions give another sense than that of the
Hebrew ; or where some obvious inconsistency appears.
But nothing is easier than to make mistakes here ; nor
can any field be more tempting to the sanguine and
sagacious scholar. Of what use is it to assume, that
the text suffered corruption at a certain time, either in
the interval between Ezra and Rabbins, in the time of
Hadrian, or at a subsequent date, if the means of re-
storing it do not exist ? Why should conjecture be
applied in cases of doubtful necessity ? Should not cor-
rectness be presumed, unless corruption be apparent ?
Did the text proceed from the original writers in a state
exact to the eye of modern criticism ? Did the redactors
through whose hands the books or their materials
finally passed, overlook nothing distasteful to scholar-

14 Part I.

ship ? It is both unreasonable and unphilosophical to
expect from past ages methods of composition like
ours; the lucid arrangement and well-ordered sen-
tences which bespeak a different atmosphere of thought.
Orientals accustomed to think themselves the privileged
people of God may not have used modes of speech ac-
ceptable to westerns.

Still it is undeniable that corrupt passages exist.
There are even intentional alterations, though more are
due to the mistakes of transcribers. Human fallibility
and undue meddling account for most errors of the
Masoretic text, apart from the imputation of unworthy
motives. The Greek translators in Egypt dealt with
the original differently from the Palestinian or Baby-
lonian Jews ; though they have preserved good read-
ings because they had a recension of the original
different from that of the Palestinians. The conserva-
tive spirit of the latter, clinging to their old Scriptures
with a reverence almost superstitious, prevented exten-
sive tampering with the text. The Pentateuch is in
a better condition than the other books, because the
latter were regarded as canonical later than the former,
and were never valued so highly in ecclesiastical use.
Being all the more read in private, the present state of
their text shows the interest taken in them.

The corruption in the present text cannot be re-
moved by the aid of MSS., not even by those of
the Firkowitz collection in the Imperial Library at
St. Petersburg, of which so little is yet known; for

The Text 15

though many MSS. in it are older than those of Ken-
nicott and De Rossi, their variations are scarcely im-
portant or extensive enough to restore the original.
According to Chwolson there are dates in rolls reaching
up to a.d. 639, 764, 781, 789, 798, 805 ; one even
to 489 a.d. ; but who can tell whether they be genuine ?
Copies found among Karaite Jews might be expected
to differ from Masoretic ones ; but until they be well
collated it is idle to speculate on the matter. What-
ever be their value they will not restore the text
to its original state. Corruptions still appear, some
palpable enough, as in the cases where a writer
seeing he had made a mistake did not venture to erase
but to correct, allowing the correction to remain beside
the mistake. In the removal of errors the Septuagint
and other ancient versions, such as the Peshito, are the
chief instruments; and as the Greek translation is
older than the work of the Masora, it may be thought
better than the latter. But though tho Masoretic text,
or that on which it is based, be comparatively late, and
the MSS. representing it have a remarkable unifor-
mity, it is not much younger than the Greek version.
Its history and state shew that as long as the text of the
Old Testament was subject to scholarly treatment, it
suffered but few changes where they were not in-
tentional. The consonant -text of the Masora, allowing
for mistakes of transcription, is probably the copy of
a codex that reaches up near the time of the LXX,
and is likely to be better than that which private

16 Part I.

■ ■ ' ■ ii i > ii . ■ ii ii ■»

hands possessed, since it was the material of official
MSS. If the Masora and the LXX be looked upon as
two codices, the former, though younger than the
latter, represents a better tradition. Besides, the free
rendering of the Greek and the subsequent corruption
of its text, render the restoration of the source whence
it was taken, very difficult. When therefore the
Masoretic text and LXX differ, there must be strong in-
ternal grounds for preferring the latter to the former.
Even when the Peshito agrees with the Greek, internal
considerations must determine whether the Masora or
the two versions be right ; for we cannot assent to Merx's
position that when these versions agree in opposition
to the Masora they are necessarily correct. Still less
can we approve of his other principle that the LXX
are probably right when disagreeing with the Masora
and Peshito. The Masoretic text may be presumed
correct where internal grounds offer no difficulty in its
way ; and where it agrees with one of the versions,
especially the LXX, strong reasons are necessary for
thinking it corrupt.

In using the Greek version for emending the Hebrew,
there is room for subjectivity, and therefore critics
differ widely in applying it. But if we cannot approve
of the extensive alterations which Thenius makes in the
originals of some historical books in the Bible by the
aid of the LXX ; nor even, without considerable excep-
tions, of the more moderate procedure of Wellhausen
with respect to the text of Samuel; if Merx be too

The Text 17

adventurous in correcting the original of Job ; their
contributions are still valuable. Geiger, Bottcher,
Olshausen, Hitzig, and Ewald have also employed the
LXX with advantage in the same department. The
Samaritan Pentateuch itself, suggests more original
readings than Gesenius allowed. At other times, we
are deserted in our search for help, by all external
sources, MSS., versions, parallels, having nothing
but critical conjecture to rectify corruption. Here a
scholar will be successful in proportion to his sagacity
or acuteness. If he be gifted with the critical faculty
of Ewald or Hupfeld, of Olshausen or Hitzig, he may
make happy guesses at restoring the text, in the
absence of proper materials. But the tendency to
indulge in assumptions must be carefully watched, since
it will lead to arbitrary measures, unless regulated by
judgment and taste. Better not to change than do it
injudiciously.

Textual, being distinct from the higher, criticism,
no attempt should be made to rectify the original
authors. It is sufficient to ascertain the words they
wrote ; or the state of the text as it proceeded from
the last redactors. The mistakes of transcribers, or
those made in the course of transmitting the docu-
ments, are the only ones with which textual criticism
is concerned. It may be sometimes impossible to
tell, whether a mistake in the text be owing to the
original writers, to redactors, or transcribers, in which
case the higher and lower criticism converge; but

18 Part I.

in most instances the separation is easily made. Thus
it is stated that Samuel encouraged the house of
Israel to put away from among them the strange gods
and Ashtaroth ; which they did accordingly (1 Sam. vii.
3, 4). Here the Biblical writer confounds Ashera and
Astarte. The latter, however, was a chaste and
austere goddess, identical with the Babylonian Mylitta.
Astarte was a feminine deity, whose masculine form
appears on the Moabite stone and in the Himyaritic in-
scriptions, corresponding to Baal ; whereas Ashera was a
sensual, impure goddess, who had many worshippers
in Ephraim, in the eighth century before Christ. Even
in the kingdom of Judah she was adored in the temple
of Jehovah, till Josiah's reforms.

So in Ezra iv. 6-24 where the compiler or chronist
has inserted a passage incorrectly, it ought not to be
disturbed, though its position be misleading. In con-
sequence of the word then (verse 24), which can only
refer to what immediately precedes, the redactor makes
the narrative say what is incorrect, by transferring to
the building of the temple what relates merely to the
rebuilding of the city. The interpolated words belong
to Nehemiah's time, not to Ezra's. As the passage
now stands, Artaxerxes virtually precedes Darius Hys-
taspis. A translator has nothing to do with the rectifi-
cation of such a mistake, especially as it is impossible
to say where the Chaldee fragment in question should
be placed. It is more than an " historical anticipation."
The beginning of the 24th verse shews an error on

mjmmmmmmmmm*B*mmmmmmmmmmmm*mmmm*m

The Text 19

the part of the compiler when he resumes the inter-
rupted history.

We may also see occasional insertions in the Hebrew
text of later origin than the Septuagint, such as
1 Samuel xviii, 9-11, 17-19, and 21 6. If these be
omitted, as they are in the Vatican copy of the LXX,
all reads well. A modern translator should hardly
take the liberty of following the LXX here ; because
the Hebrew is probably not much later, and embodies
a popular tradition. Dathe puts it in smaller type than
the context ; and other translators, who take the same
view of the words, might follow his example.

§ 2.

It is unwarrantable to alter the text for the purpose
of removing contradictions and offences. Thus the
books of Chronicles have been changed, especially
where numbers are given, to make them agree with
corresponding statements in the books of Samuel and
Kings. Excessive numbers have been reduced. Here
Eeinke is the chief offender. Assuming that the letters
of the alphabet were used as numerals, he gets rid of
many discrepancies by supposing copyists to have con-
founded letters similar in shape. It is improbable,
however, that the Chronist took letters of the alphabet
to express numbers. The earliest use of them for that
purpose, as far as we know, is on some Maccabean
coins about 140 B.C. which may carry the origin of the
custom farther back, but not to the date of the Chron-

c 2

20 Part 1.

iclcs. Had the last line of King Mesha's inscription
not been shattered, there might have been a date in it,
as the two letters fW " year," seem to present them-
selves ; but it is very unlikely that the full text would
have shown the use of letters for numerals in the ninth
century B.C. Though there is no proof however of the
Chronist himself using the letters of the alphabet as
numerals, transcribers may have done so at a later date.
It is therefore possible to account for some of the con-
tradictions in numbers between the historical books,
by such an assumption. Only let the. application be
restricted. A presumption should be used sparingly ;
much more so than Beinke, Keil, Kennicott, and others
have done. We object to the gratuitous notion about
the text of Chronicles being much more corrupt than
that of other historical books. Why should it ? Were
the Jews less anxious about it than other scriptures ?
Beinke's attempted reconciliation of 2 Samuel x. 18,
and 1 Chron. xix. 18, must be rejected, because there
is every reason to believe that the varying numbers
stood at first as they are now, " the men of seven
hundred chariots, and forty thousand horsemen"
(2 Samuel) ; " seven thousand men who fought in
chariots, and forty thousand footmen." (1 Chronicles.)
In like manner, the texts of Ezra and Nehemiah, as far
as they run parallel, have been arbitrarily adapted.
JReinke's method cannot be approved, though Thenius
often adopts it. Intentional exaggerations do occur in
the Chronicles; as is evident from the 120,000 men of

The Text. 21

Ahaz's army said to have been slain in one day; and the
200,000 captives, women and children, carried away by
the Israelites (2 Chron. xxviii. 6-8). Nor are the books
of Samuel and Kings free from the like phenomena.

It is unnecessary for apologists to manipulate
numbers in the Bible text to make them agree, because
many are traditional,mythical,or artificially constructed.
Thus when the Elohist makes the duration of the abode
in Egypt 480 years (Exodus xii. 40), and the Jehovist
400 years (Genesis xv. 13) ; both drew from tradition-
It is not safe to rely upon numbers as historical ; neither
upon the 430 in Egypt ; nor the forty years in the
wilderness which gave rise to the forty stations there ;
nor the two millions of people that are presumed to
have left the land of bondage. Why should these be
regarded as literally correct, in documents impregnated
with the legendary and marvellous elements attaching
to the early records of all peoples ?

The words of Leviticus xviii. 18, " in her lifetime"
have been supposed to be a later interpolation, because
the verse as it stands, allowing marriage with a second
sister after the death of the first is apparently inconsist-
ent with the absolute prohibition of marriage with a
brother's wife in Leviticus (xviii. 16; xx. 21) ; a pro-
hibition involving by analogy marriage with a sister-in-
law. But the analogy does not hold ; it should be mar-
riage with a wife's brother's wife. Hence consistency
in the Levitical marriage laws does not require this
treatment of the text in xviii. 18, especially as the Mosaic

22 Part I.

law did not recognise the equality of the two sexes, but
on the contrary assumed the woman's inferiority.

In consequence of the words addressed to the people
by Joshua, recorded in the book of Joshua xxiv. 19,
" Ye cannot serve the Lord, &c." which are supposed
contrary to previous exhortations, Kennicott alters the
verb into another,* and brings out the meaning, " Ye
shall not cease to serve the Lord, &c." An imaginary
contradiction should not cause a change of text.

Still more reprehensible is it to alter the text with
the object of clearing it from the dubious morality or
wrong conduct attributed to saints. Thus the cruelty
of David in the case of the captured Ammonites has
been softened down by changing a letter of the verb
in 1. Chron. xx. 3, rendered "he cut," to make
another verb "he put,"f and translating "he put
them to saws and harrows of iron." This read-
ing agrees with that in 2 Sam. xii. 31, but it is
wrong. The text does not bear the translation
" he put them to," &c, but might mean, " he put them
between," or " among." The original reading is that
of the Chronist, after which the word in 2 Sam. xii. 31
should be altered. So the Chaldee has it. Thenius and
Bertheau agree. The change of text should not be in
the Chronicles, and David's cruelty to his prisoners re-
mains. The company of pastors and professors at
Geneva who made the French version of the Bible
published in 1805, adopted a wrong rendering in this

* sfrSVl into Jtbsn. t Can instead of 1W^

The Text 23

instance, without note or comment too.* Instead of
tampering with the text to excuse David it is better to
say with Matthew Poole, that the king " exercised this
cruelty whilst his heart was hardened and impenitent ;
and when he was bereaved of that free and good Spirit
of God, which would have taught him more mercy and
moderation."

§ 3.

Conservative of the text as the Jews have been,
they felt the desirableness or necessity of emending it.
The Vri and cftib of the Masoretes, the greater part
of which originated in attempts to rectify by a com-
parison of various copies the errors which gradually
crept into the text, shew that the latter is not perfect.
As these Wri and c'tib are both ancient and important,
a translator must attend to them. Whether they con-
sist of words read differently from what they are written,
of entire words omitted or inserted, they deserve
special observation. They cannot be always followed.
Sagacity, assisted by versions, parallels, and the con-
text, must determine the adoption or rejection of
Masoretic remarks.

In Psalm xvi. 10, the Wri or marginal reading, " thy
holy one,"t is wrong ; and the textual reading, " thy

* " Les employa an travail des scies, des herses, de fer, et des haches."
This scarcely corresponds with the declaration in the preface, " faite sans
prevention pour des opinions particnligres."

f t[ TOP? . " Textualis lectio, quam Masoretae ad marg. male mntarnnt

in sing, quicquid contra disputet eruditus criticus Kennicott." — Venema.

24 Part I.

holy ones,"* right. So in 1 Kings ix. 18, the k'ri is
inferior to the textual reading c Tamar/ which is re"
quired by the context ; though ' Tadm©^ is favoured
by the Chronicle-writer and the ancient versions.
Solomon built Tamar in the wilderness of Judah. In
Psalm x. 1 0, the Wri is wrong in separating one word
into two. " The unfortunate"^ is right. But in Psalm
c. 3, the Wri is right, " his we are ;"% the c?tib " and
not we,"§ being unsuitable. In 2 Kings xx. 4, the
Wri is right, || " before Isaiah was gone out into the
middle court" instead of the textual, " into the middle
city/'IT which is unintelligible. In Ezekiel xlii. 16, the
marginal Masoretic reading is right, " five hundred"**
instead of the c'tib "five ells"f^ Wherever the Jc'ris
or marginal readings affect the sense, a translator
should indicate in the margin, whether he follows them
or the text. The c'tib is much ofbener right than the
Vri recommended by the Masoretes.

Nor should another part of the Masora, the so-called
Tikkun Sopherim, be neglected, because it embodies
ancient corrections of the text; whether conjectural
or the result of MS. collations, it is difficult to decide.
We cannot follow Wedell and Geiger in adopting these
" corrections" in every instance. Sometimes they are
preferable, not always. Thus in Habakkuk i. 12, the
displaced reading, f€ thou shall not die," is better. J J

At the same time, there are cases where neither the

*TTPD t^*?>n jVrj §hV| |psn

f T?n ** /TINE ft n ^ Xt n ^

The Text. 25

received text nor that of the scribes is right ; as in the
incorrect reading of 1 Sam. iii. 13, " made themselves
vile." According to the true text, which the Seventy
indicate, the translation should be, " they brought God
into contempt."*

The contents of the Masora should not be neg-
lected in selecting a text for translation, because it
embodies traditional corrections and conjectures. One
thing it teaches, that we need not abide by the division
into words which the Masoretes have furnished. The
Uri has three examples in which the first word has a
letter belonging to the next ; two in which the second
has a letter belonging to the first ; eight examples of a
single word being separated into two ; and fifteen in
which two words are written in one.

§ 4.

The division of verses needs to be corrected more
frequently than that of the words ; while the accents
must also be forsaken in a variety of instances. Thus
the two words in Deuteron. xxxiii. 2, rendered a fiery
law or a fire of law, should be one, making a plural
noun, outpourings. f

In Genesis xlix. 24-26, the twenty -fourth verse should
be divided, and another begin with —

* D^Tl^M D^Vppp. The reading displaced by the present one was,

*»b for mmb after D^bbpD. The English version of the Masoretic

text is incorrect ; neither can that given by Gcsenius, " drew a curse
upon themselves," be accepted.

s tnvrttfw.

26 Part I

" From the hands of the mighty one of Jacob,
From the Shepherd, from the Eock of Israel,

&c. &c.
Come blessings of the heaven above,"

&e. &c*

In Jeremiah ii. 23, the verse is wrongly divided*
The last clause belongs to the following one, which
reads thus : —

24. " A swift young camel traversing her ways,
A wild ass used to the wilderness,
That in her desire snuffeth up the wind.
Her lust — who will turn it away ?
All that seek her do not weary themselves ;
In her month they shall find her."
In Psalm lxxxvii. 1, three words are now connected
with the inscription, which should be part of the verse.
" His foundation in the holy mountains, Jehovah
loveth;
The gates of Zion, more than all the dwellings
of Jacob."
In Deuteronomy xx. 19, the punctuation is wrong,
for it gives the sense " men are trees," which is ab-
surd. The interrogative not the article is prefixed to
the noun menrf so that the translation is, " are men
trees of the field that thou assailest them ?" In Pro-
verbs xx. 18, the verb is pointed as an imperative,

• nftt£ ^?« n s p.

•• t : • * V V V T

by ft matt nrna. t nnwn.

The Text. 27

€<

make war," which is unsuitable as a command. By
altering the points so as to express the infinitive, we
obtain the appropriate meaning, " war is conducted,"
" one conducts war."* In Job xxx. 22, the word ren-
dered my substance should be pointed as a noun sig-
nifying the roaring of a tempest.f The verse will then
be, —

" Thou liftest me up into the wind and carriest me
away,
Thou causest me to dissolve in the crash of the
storm."

In Daniel v. 21, the punctuation of the verb ren-
dered was made like, is incorrect both in the cftib and
the Wri. It is passive; J not active, as pointed by the
Masoretes. The Chaldee in the book of Daniel shews
less careful punctuation than that of the other Scrip-
tures.

But the vowels appended by the Masoretes need not
be hastily disturbed; for they indicate a traditional
interpretation claiming antiquity. It is the part of a
wise critic to have good reason in all cases where he
forsakes them. Thus the passive form translated to
appear^ in Psalm xlii. 2, should not be changed into an
active by altering the vowels ; as is done in some MSS.
editions and versions; "when shall I see|| the face of
God?" Analogy, and the fundamental principle of

* nbv. + n-wfi. t ^ri. § n*oH

II roriH.

Mosaiam enunciated in Exodus xxxiii. 20, equally
forbid the innovation.

55.

A few examples may be given where the text ia
corrupt, and must be emended by conjecture.

It requires violence to elicit any tolerable sense from
the original words of Psalm cxli. 5-7.

Zechariah vi. 11-13 is of the same character. But
all places are not so hopelessly disordered as these.

It is time that 'Manasseh,' in Judges xviii. 30,
were removed, and the original name ' Moaea' restored.
The latter indeed ia not obliterated in Hebrew, for the
letter by which the two words are distinguished is sus-
pended; but as the motive that prompted a change is
admitted by Jews themselves, there is no reason for
putting ' Manasseh' into the text, in any shape. Un-
fortunately the English veraion ignores the true reading
and gives the false one. The narrative in Judges xviii.
shews, that the priests of the silver image of Jehovah
at Dan traced their descent to Moses. Jonathan was
his grandson, who, with his priestly descendants that
officiated there till the Assyrian captivity, believed that
their worship was in conformity with the law of their
ancestor; while the more advanced spirits in Israel
equally believed that Moses had expressly forbidden
imnges. So different was the conception of the great
lawgiver in different parts of Judea.

In Genesis xlix. 26 the word translated " my proge-

The Text. 29

nitors" in the English version, should be slightly altered
into mountains and joined to the next meaning eter-
nity,* whence arises the sense —

€t The blessings of thy father exceed the blessings
of the everlasting mountains,
The attractiveness of the old perpetual hills."

On the other hand, when Isaiah has,

" Glorify ye the Lord in the fires,
The name of the Lord God of Israel in the isles
of the sea," (xxiv. 15),

it is unnecessary to change the word fires to one mean-
ing islands^ though Michaelis, Hitzig, and Knobel,
recommend it. It denotes the lands of the East.

In 2 Kings xv. 18 the text requires alteration so as
to express the meaning ; " He did not depart from all
the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat who made
Israel to sin. In his days came Pul the king of Assy-
ria," &c.J

In 2 Kings xiii. 4-6 a later interpolation has been
assumed, without sufficient reason. All the difficulties
inherent in the verses are removed by putting in a
parenthesis from " And the Lord hearkened unto him,
till, " and there remained the grove also in Samaria
(verse 6). The parenthesis intimates that though
Jehoahaz's supplication was not answered in his own
lifetime, it took effect under his next successor but
one, i.e. Jeroboam.

* nnn. t d^ks. t Via hd rwa : b\rw>.

„.-• « • • t ♦ T t • ' •• t : •*

30 Part I.

—

In Daniel i. 21, the words "in the palace of the
king"* seem to be wanting. The present text does
not yield a good sense.

In Isaiah 1. 11, where the English has, "that com-
pass yourselves about with sparks," the change of a
single word brings out the true meaning, " that make
your arrows to burn."f

In Bzekiel xxxviii. 14, where the authorised version
reads, " In that day when my people of Israel dwelleth
safely, shalt thou not know it ?" we alter, with the
Septuagint, the last word into " thou shalt be moved,"
which being closely connected with the following
begins another verse, " thou shalt be moved and come
from thy place," &c. &c.J

In Ezekiel xlv. 5 the last two words of the verse
are rendered, "for twenty chambers." We should
read with the LXX, " cities to dwell in."§ The present
Hebrew is unintelligible.

Job xxi. 16, should be corrected in part by the LXX.
With that version the negative in the first clause should
be omitted ; and a single letter should be changed in
the second, || so that the meaning comes out :

" Lo their prosperity is in their own hand :
The conduct of the wicked is far from Him.

In like manner the first negative in Job xxxi. 31,
should be left out with the LXX :

* "nbErr -wofe.. t ^wa.

j mni ■ron." § rdaSh anv;

T T T " V V T *T

h v omitted, and >3E change into ^D.

Tlie Text. 31

" If the men of my tent said,
Oh that we persecuted him insatiably !"

In Lamentations i. 21 the English version has :

thou wilt bring the day that thou hast called, and
they shall be like unto me" Supplying the word
time which the LXX reads, we have, "thou bring-
est the day, thou callest the time, that they be
like me."* N

In Exodus xxxiv. 19 a peculiar word occurs which
is converted into a denominative verb in the Niphal
form, meaning to be born as a male.f The verb is an
imaginary one; and the term in question should be
corrected so as to mean, the male.% The mistake is
an old one;

Ezekiel xL, 30 is spurious. It is wanting in the
Septuagint and some Hebrew MSS.

2 Sam. xx. 19 is corrupt, but may be restored by
the help of the LXX. Ewald and Thenius have each
tried to emend it.

1 Samuel xvii. 50 is a later insertion, which does
not agree with the context and is absent from the
Septuagint.

2 Samuel v. 8 (last part) is a gloss. So is 2
Samuel ii. 10a.

Ezekiel xl. 44 reads in our version : "And without
the inner gate were the chambers of the singers in the
inner court which was at the side of the north gate ;

* nV after n^DT). t "H3T3 t 12*71.

t t't - : * * T t -

32 Part I:

and their prospect was towards the south ;" &c. The
text is corrupt. Altered after the Septuagint, it will
read thus : " and without the inner gate were two
chambers ; in the inner court, one at the side of the
north gate, and its look toward the south gate," &c*
The last verse of Ezra (x. 44) is manifestly corrupt.
It may be corrected perhaps by the aid of 3 Esdras,
so as to read, te and some of them put away wives and

children."t

In Proverbs xix. 7, the third member of the verse ;

" pursuing words but they are a nonentity," appears
to be corrupt, since it is difficult to extract a good
sense from it in the connexion. The Septuagint favours
the idea that a fourth member of the verse, corres-
ponding to the third is wanting.

The books which best exemplify the necessity of a
purer text are Jeremiah, Proverbs, Samuel, and Ezekiel,
where the Greek is often a guide to the authentic words.
The text of Jeremiah has suffered most, having under-
gone different recensions before the Septuagint version
was made; that of the Proverbs is next in degree.
Nor have the Masoretes been more successful in securing
the thorough purity of Samuel, Ezekiel, and' Micah.
In regard to Proverbs, a comparison of the Hebrew
and Greek shews a large number of variations, chiefly

* wasn "isna dtib* nfottfb va^an nvtib mmw

• • i • i • •••• -

t D^aan O^Bfa D^BHSI CHE 8^1 See 3 Esdras ix. 36.

T I • • «

The Text. 33

in the shape of additions to the former. Thus at
vi. 8 the LXX have three verses,* not translated but
written at first in Greek. The additionf to vi. 11 is
rendered from Hebrew ; as is also that to viii, 21. J At
ix. 12 § there are seven supernumerary lines from a
Hebrew original; and at ix. 18 || eight lines of the
same character. At x. 4 the Greek has a superfluous
verse, taken from a Hebrew original ;1f but xi. 4, and

* *H icopevBrjTt icpbg r^v phXiaeav cat fidBt &c Ipydng iirrl, ri^v
t* ipyaeiav &q trtpvfiv nouXraiy ijq rovg itSvovq fiaoiXelg gal idiut-
rai icpbc vyUiav *poo<pkpovTat. ttoBhvj 8k ion naoi gal iTlSotoc.
caiircp oioa ry p*>fiy doBtvriG, rfjv ootyiav riprjoaoa vporjxOrj,

f idv 8k &OKVOQ yg 9 tfttt Stffirtp nrjyij 6 dfiffrdt *ov 9 4 8k iv8tut
Stomp Kcucbg Spoptvg &7ravropo\fi(T€i.

J lav ayayydXu) vfiiv rd ku9* fjfiipav ytv6fitva 9 pvripovtve** rd
l£ aiutvoQ apiOfArjffai.
* § Be iptlStrat iwi -tyivHaiv ovtoq voifiavu dvi/iovg f
6 8* aiiroQ 8ua%trai opvta irtroptva.
curkXiict ydp b8ovg rov iavrov afnrtXwvoc,
tovq 8k AZovag rov l8iov ytiapyiov ircirXdvijrai.
Stairoptvtrai 8k Si dvvSpov iprjpov
Kai yijv dtariTayfi'svrjv iv 8iipu>8un 9
ffvvayu 8k \ipoiv dxapiriav.
| d\Xd aTroirTjtirjffov, /x>) iyxpovlarjQ iv rf rbntp avrriQ 9
fATjtik intoTtiaiiQ rb trbv bpfia npbg avrrjv
o%tu>q ydp biafirjay %bu>p dXKbrpiov,
Kai vtrtpfirjoy iroTapbv aWbrpiov.
airb 8k %8aroQ dWorpiov airbtrxov,
Kai dtrb *nyrJQ aXKorpiaq pi) xiyQ,
'iva TroXbv Zfjoyc \pbvov,
irpoertQy 8i <roc irq Ctotjff.
f vibe 7rtirai8tVjikv6Q oofbq itrrat,
Ttp 8k afpovi 8iat:6vip gp^ffcraif.

34 Part I.

xi. 11 cb, are both absent from the version. At xxii. 9
there is an additional proverb consisting of two lines ;
which does not appear to have formed part of the
original Hebrew text.* At xxii. 14 the translators
have an additional verse consisting of three members,
and original.t At xxv. 10 they have several lines
of the same sort.]: These and other examples prove
that the translator used a non-Masoretic copy of inferior
value.

But the Greek supplies several corrections of the
text. At vi. 11a it shews that a word has dropped
out, meaning wicked ;§ which is easily explained by
its resemblance to another beside it. At xi. 16 it
furnishes two lines necessary to the proper sense :

A gracious woman obtaineth honour,
[But a seat of shame is she that hateth duty ;
The idle shall want substance,] f|
But the diligent attain to wealth.

In like manner, xxv. 20 should be corrected by the

* Ni/cjjv /cat Tifirjv irepnroiilTai 6 dwpa didovf,

rrjv psvroi \pv\^v aQatptirai r&v KtKTtipkvw.
f tiolv odoi Kaicai Ivwiciov avtipbg,

Kai oi/K ay an a rov curoffrpeipai air* avr&v

airotrrptyttv Sk Bti and 6dov OKoXiag Kai koktjq.
J aXXd ecrai <roi \<n\ Savdrtp.

\apiQ Kai <pi\ia iXtvdtpot,

&S rrjptjffov (Tiavrqi \va pij iirovti(5t<TTO£ ykvy t

aXXa (pvXa^ov rdg bdovg (rov tvovvaXXdKTU>£.
§ tf K2.
|| Sp6voQ Si trifiiag yvvri purovaa ti'ucaia.

ifXovtqv duvtipoi Meeig yivovrai.

The Text. 35

additional lines in the Greek version,* from which
the first four Hebrew wordsf are rightly absent.

As vinegar on a wound,
So is he that sings songs to a sick heart ;
As a moth in a garment and a worm in wood,
So the sorrow of a man injures the heart.

§ 6.

Happily it is now generally admitted that the asser-
tions of the fathers, especially of Justin Martyr,
Qrigen, and Tertullian, respecting alterations made
by the Jews both in the original Hebrew and in the
Septuagint for the purpose of subverting the truth of
Christianity, are futile. The passages adduced in prpof
of those statements, fail to support them. Ignorance
assisted the desire to find such arguments against a
people to whom we owe the preservation of the Old
Testament Scriptures ; and it is matter of surprise to
find respectable scholars like Dr. Henry Owen repeat-
ing them. That the Jews should have corrected and
modelled the Septuagint after their Hebrew copies,
or corrupted the latter in their own favour, will not
be believed, without better evidence than what has
been furnished. For who can think with Justin or
Owen, that the text of Jeremiah xi. 19 carries evident
" marks of wilful corruption," because the Jews would

* ibairtp a^C ^v \parltp Kai aKunXtf^ £t/\y,
oIutujq \virt) Avtipbg fiXairrtt Kap filar.

* t't : vv v-i - ^

D 2

»■ ■■ ^ i »^ — w w^i inwii^iii i iiu im* m^^m

36 Part J.

" hinder us from referring the word Dami to Christ ;"
or that the latter changed virgin,* in Isaiah vii. 14, of
the Greek version, into a young woman ?f The early
fathers seem not to have perceived that the evange-
lists and apostles adapted the Old Testament to their
purpose by giving it another than the original sense,

the ideas they wished to express. They exempted
the New Testament writers, though Jews, from the
charge of freely handling the text, that it might fall
upon the unconverted brethren from whom Christians
learnt the method.

§7.

The New Testament Greek should not be taken to
correct the Hebrew of the Old, though the temptation
is great to use it for that purpose, especially where it
departs widely from the latter. Thus in Amos ix.
11, 12, we read,

" In that day will I raise up the fallen tabernacle of

David,
And close up its breaches} and raise up its ruins,
And build it as in the days of old,
That they may inherit the remnant of Edom
And of all the heathen upon whom my name is

caDed,
Saith the Lord that doeth this/'

whereas the 12th verse, in Acts xv. 17, runs,

\ •

The Text. 37

" That the residue of men might seek after the Lord,
And all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called,
Saith the Lord who doeth all these things/'

agreeing in substance with the Septuagint, whence it is
taken. Possibly the Greek translators read the Hebrew
differently in their day ; but it is more likely that they
adapted it ; while the writer of the Acts naturally fol-
lowed a version suited to his purpose. In any case it
is wrong to assume, that the Jews corrupted the origi-
nal; and that we should now restore it with the help
of the Greek. There is good reason for abiding by the
Hebrew as it is ; none whatever for Dr. Randolph's
assertion, that the Jews altered it in order to darken
a plain prophecy of the calling of the Gentiles.

Kennicott, believing with many others that the 53rd
chapter of Isaiah describes the sufferings of Messiah,
tries to bring the ninth verse into harmony with the
New Testament account of Christ's death, by a bold
conjecture. Assuming that two words have changed
places, he restores them so as to bring out the sense,

« And he was taken up with wicked men in his death ;
And with a rich man was his sepulchre."

" The wicked men" were the two thieves ; " the
rich man/' Joseph of Arimathea. Such transposition
destroys the right meaning.

§ 8 -
A translator's task in emending the text is' some-

38 Part I.

times made, very difficult by the choice of readings to
which he is confined. Thus we may imagine him
wavering between the readings in Psalm xxii. 16,
" they pierced my hands and my feet." The Maso-
retic text and punctuation allow of but one sense,
" like a lion my hands and my feet," but this is
thought unsuitable to the preceding context, "the
assembly of the wicked have enclosed me." By
another punctuation the participle of a verb is brought
forth, "piercmg my hands and my feet/'* In that
case the participle is an irregular one with a very
unusual plural-ending; while a meaning is assigned to
the verb itself which must be borrowed from a cognate
root. As two MSS. read caaru, a verb in the per-
fect^ it may be identified with a cognate verb, they
pierced.% But that sense is objectionable, and there-
fore some render they bind or fetter; a meaning phi-
lologically defensible, according to Gesenius. Scarcely
so, for the Arabic verb which he compares does not

* t "HMB According to Brans, one of these MSS. (Kenn. 39) had
at first the textual *nN3> So that its authority tells the other way.
R. Jacob ben Chayyim is cited as saying in his edition of the great
Masora, that he found 11 fcO in some very accurate MSS. ; but the
statement is suspicious, and may have been made to please his employer
Bomberg ; or perhaps it is a Christian interpolation. The value of the
remark, such as it is, is neutralised by the appended statement that
Chayyim found no trace of "PSD either in MSS. of the Masora, or
in the various readings of the Easterns and Westerns.

The Text. 39

mean to fetter or bind in the acceptation required ;
but to fold curownd, referring to a turban. The trans-
lators were probably influenced by the Septuagint,
which renders they pierced; in connexion with the
supposed applicability of the clause to Christ's cruci-
fixion. One thing is certain, that Jewish and Christian
polemics have met over the word. In consequence
of the accumulated anomalies lexical and gramma*
tical arising out of a departure from the Masoretic
punctuation, it is safer to abide by it and take the
sense, "they surround my hands and my feet as a
lion (would)/' i.e. with the strength and fierceness of
a lion. If the word in question be a verb, great diffi-
culty attaches to the rendering pierce ; if it be trans-
lated bind, the sense wants authority. An abandon-
ment of the Masoretic punctuation instead of lessening
the difficulty increases it. Olshausen's conjecture that
the three words, " like a lion my hands and my feet/'*
were taken by mistake from the margin into the text,
is too bold to be followed. In any case the English
version pierced must be abandoned.

Another place which is fitted to make a translator
hesitate in his choice of readings is Genesis iv. 8,
which our version improperly renders, "And Cain
talked with Abel his brother." The verb employedf
cannot well be taken in an absolute sense like dibber ; J
and Gesenius himself seems to allow this by saying,

* ^m v-p *nSD. t 1BH. t "OFT.

40 Part I.

" in a few doubtful examples and only in the later He-
brew, amar seems to be put absolutely for dibber" It
is philologically right to take the verb transitively,
supplying it; Cain said it to Abel his brother, i.e.
Cain told him what God had just said to him in
verse 7. But in the circumstances, we should hardly
expect Cain to tell his brother Abel a reproof he had
received. The LXX, the Samaritan, Aquila, the
Syriac, Vulgate, and Jonathan, supply the words,
" Let us go into the field ;" but they are not in On-
kelos. If they be rejected, and we are inclined to
this because of the unsuitable verb* supplied ; one is
tempted to look with favour upon Boettcher's conjec-
ture that the Hebrew verb stands by mistake for
another,f meaning €€ Cain watched, kept his eye upon
his brother Abel ;" looking for a favourable opportu-
nity to murder him.

The purport of these remarks is to shew, that the
ordinary Masoretic text cannot be implicitly adopted,
but that it is necessary to correct it throughout, not
extensively perhaps, and above all not hastily. Con-
jepture must be applied to its restoration. Since the
year 1611 our knowledge of its condition has been
enlarged; the means of its rectification multiplied.
To translate the old text, therefore, as it appears in
Van der Hooght, or Van der Hooght corrected by
Hahn, Rosenmiiller, Theile, and others, is insufficient

* i»tt?*5. f "tfjn. Comp. 1 Samuel xx. 11.

The Text. 41

at the present day. The Masoretic text must be
abandoned at times, for more probable readings which
it has failed to preserve. Its absolute integrity is a
fiction. If a new English version do not represent a
purer original than that which King James's trans-
lators possessed, the critical labours of nearly three
hundred years with all their value are ignored. And
although the collations of Kennicott and De Rossi dis-
appointed expectation, they did not stop the progress
of a historic, more important than a mere textual,
criticism, whose achievements concern the translator
as much as the expositor. If the former can make a
proper use of established results, increasing £hem
with his own contributions, he will satisfy the reason-
able requirements of readers ; but if he shrink through
fear of unpopularity or the imputation of neology, he
forfeits the esteem of all competent judges. As the
original needs revision, it should have it. A revised
version based upon an unrevised text, is like a piece
of new cloth on an old garment. When Dr. Geddes
began his translation of the Bible at the close of the
last century, he rendered " corrected texts of the ori-
ginals," furnishing various readings, so that he set
about his work in a scholarly style ; and though he
did not effect all that he might, his labours should not
be despised. They had to be conducted amid a storm
of reproach and persecution, which ecclesiastics are
prone to raise against such as wound their prejudices.
It is easy in the present day to correct the text more

42 Part I.

successfully ; because he followed the principles of
Kennicott, attaching too much importance to the LXX
and Samaritan Pentateuch ; bat the process is still
surrounded with difficulties of its own. Liberal critics
will probably do best, because they are commonly
conservative of the text. The orthodox are more in-
clined to innovate with the object of bringing ont a
harmony of Scripture consistent with their notions of
inspiration. If they " believe the sixty-six books of
the Old and New Testaments to be verbally the word
of God, as absolutely as were the ten commandments
written by the finger of God on the two tables of
stone," they will be disposed to get rid of contradic-
tions by changing the texts which have them. Those
who hold no such irrational belief, not being wedded
to a theory of verbal or plenary inspiration, have little
temptation to tamper with words adverse to narrow
notions, beoanse they know that the books were origi-
nally written by men of different culture, who had
higher or lower conceptions of God and the eternal
distinctions between right and wrong, instead of
being transmitted from heaven through human organs
who wrote them down as received. They know the
value belonging to platitudes abont " the unity and
consistency of the Bible;" "the wonderful way in
which its many treatises form one book ;" " the utter-
ance," it contains, " of one mind," &c. &c. They too
indeed must correct what a miracle alone could have
preserved incorrupt for ages j but they will do so with-

The Text. 43

out fear of altering u the words of the Holy Ghost/'
or of inserting supposed u words of the Holy Ghost"
on their own responsibility. How the adherents of
plenary inspiration can presume to change the text by
conjecture it is hard to say, unless they forget for the
moment that they are dealing with heaven-inspired
words, and possibly making them worse.

But it is easy to blame transcribers. When the
Chronicle writer, for example, misunderstands the text
of the books of Samuel and Kings which he used,* or
embellishes their accounts according to his levitical
partialities ;f these apologists assume corruption. In
like manner, the texts of Ezra and Nehemiah are mani-
pulated into agreement, without regard to the fact
that the compiler of Chronicles, to whom we owe the
books in question, repeated documents, with little
concern about their contradictions in names and
numbers.

Should any hesitate to alter the text, thinking that
a translator must take it as it stands, they ought to
recollect Kennicott's statement about King James's
translators who did not always render what they found
in the Hebrew, but what they thought should be there.
The laborious collator of MSS. specifies twenty places
where the translators appear to have believed the text
corrupt ; though we will not say he is right in that
opinion.

* Compare 2 Chron. yiii. 18 with 1 Kings ix. 27.

t Compare 1 Chron. xv. 1—15 with 2 Samuel vi. 1 —13.

^Pi

•■■=""% .. ->«-r ■

Parti.

The text rendered by a translator should always be
given where it deviates from the usual Masoretic one,
with brief notes embodying the English representative
of the latter, either in the margin, or at the end of
each separate book.

§ 9.

A translator should be jealous of proposed transposi-
tions, especially where they serve an apologetic purpose.

Thus Kennicott recommends that Deuter. x. 6 — 9
should be placed after Deuter. ii. 11, because Aaron
is said to die at Moserah; whereas, according to
Numbers xx. 22, &c. he died on mount Hor. The
latter is the Elohistic account, with which the Deutero-
nomist's must not be connected by violence. Separate
documents do not always coincide ; and the proposed
transposition is arbitrary .•

Equally objectionable is Bishop Horsley's displace-
ment of the last ten verses in 1 Samuel xvi. which
narrate Saul's madness, with David's introduction to
the court on that occasion. He recommends their in-
sertion after 1 Samuel xviii. 9. Whatever disorder or
inconsistency appears in the present text, belonged to
it at first ; the compiler of the books was not careful to
harmonise his sources.

Bash transpositions, without an apologetic object,
are often made. Thus Graetz inserts Ecclesiastes v. 7
after vii. 10; making vii. 11, 12, follow v. 7.

Some transpositions may be made with safety. Thus

The Text. 45

Bzekiel xlvi. 16 — 18 should be put between xlv. 8 and 9,
where it probably stood at first. Amos v. 7 is evidently
out of place. It should precede the tenth verse imme-
diately.

Bzekiel xlvi. 19 — 24 would be more appropriate
after xlii. 14 ; though a translator would scarcely be
justified in arranging it so, unless he assumed the office
of critic.

It has been said that the Masoretic text is the only
basis on which a company of revisers or translators can
agree ; and therefore it is expedient, if not necessary,
to abide by it. This argument proves more than those
who employ it desire. Companies are seldom unani-
mous in their decisions : a majority determine what is
done. So would it be in restoring the text by conjec-
ture. In the absence of unanimity a majority would
fix the proper readings. If a company is not unanimous
in translating many passages of the Masoretic text ;
the want of unanimity in rectifying its corruptions can-
not be reasonably urged against emendation. It is now
too late to uphold that text as the only basis of a new
version. Such as want the least possible change in
our received translation, may advance plausible objec-
tions against the procurement of a better text ; but it
is scarcely worth while to revise the English, without
correcting the Hebrew. The fear of disagreement need
not disturb the public. Why should not separate books
be assigned to competent men, to do all that text and
version require; after which the whole might pass
through the hands of three final revisers ?

PART IL— Translation.

The advantages of a good translation are too obvious
to require enumeration. A sound interpretation can-
not be conducted apart from it, for right exegesis
presupposes and includes a proper rendering of the
original. A single word incorrectly translated may
vitiate the meaning of a whole passage ; much more
an ^translated sentence. Isolated terms supply
zealous theologians with strong arguments, and there-
fore they should be accurate. Thus Hengstenberg
adduces the erroneous vocative-rendering "0 God"
in Psalm xlv. 7 as a proof that Messiah is the subject;
and insists on the version u in all the ewrth" (verse 17),
because it suits the Messianic interpretation, though it
is an incorrect rendering ("in all the land"). "The
upright love thee," in Solomon's Song (i. 4), has been
cited as a key to the nature of the allegory assumed ;
the proper translation being, "justly do they love
thee." The very idea of a covenant of works into
which God entered with Adam has been supported by
a phrase in the books of Job and Hosea erroneously
rendered "as Adam" (Job xxxi. 33, Hosea vi. 7).
The true version, " like men," annihilates the assump-

Translation. 47

tion. And the whole force of an argument about
marriage has been nullified by an incorrect rendering
of the phrase " a wife to her sister" in Levit. xviii. 18,
so that polygamy is prohibited instead of marriage with
a wife's sister during the former's life — a rendering
(" one wife to another/') contrary to Hebrew usage,
and undeserving a place in the margin of the English
Bible. Punctuation alone may injure the sense, as in
Isaiah xL 3, " The voice of one crying in the wilder-
ness, prepare ye," &c; where "in the wilderness-"
should be connected with the words that follow, " in
the wilderness prepare ye the way of Jehovah," &c.

§i.

It is usual to lay down rules for translators,
which may be useful in securing harmonious action,
where several are engaged in the same work. Various
precepts were addressed to King James's transla-
tors; some good, others not. But. they were not all
followed. Archbishop Newcome, who was anxious
to see a revised version of the Bible, produced other
rules, which are generally judicious ; and the excel-
lent remarks of Principal Campbell, may serve as a
supplement to the principles which the Archbishop
recommended. But the most judicious rules are of
little use in practice* A translator fully alive to his
duty must be left to his own method. If he keeps in
view the thing wanted, a faithful version for popular
use, expressing the meaning of the original in clear,

48 Part II

idiomatic, Saxon English, adapted to the apprehension
of the people, not too literal and stiff, nor too para-
phrastic and loose, but having an intermediate charac-
ter, he will make the best version possible. And as
King James's scholars took the Bishops' Bible for their
basis, a new version must be a thorough revision or
improvement of theirs.

The following rules are the only ones which it is
desirable to mention. They are the same in substance
as Newcomers: —

(a.) The language, sense, and punctuation of the
received version should be retained, unless a sufficient
reason exists for abandoning them.

This rule is violated in Lowth's version of Isaiah
xliv. 25,

€€ I am he, who frustrateth the prognostics of the
impostors ;
And maketh the diviners mad :
Who reverseth the devices of the sages,
And infatuateth their knowledge."

The Bishop's custom of substituting Latin for Saxon
words in his translation of Isaiah is directly opposed to
the rule ; and Blayney's version of Jeremiah has the
same fault.

(6.) A translation should express ev^ry word in the
original by a literal rendering where the English idiom
admits ; and when purity, perspicuity, and dignity of
expression, can be preserved. This is not followed in
Psalm cvii. 27, " and are at their wit's end," which

Translation. 49

should be given literally, " and all their wisdom waa
exhausted." Dignity is also violated by the too familiar
phrase "hold the tongue" applied to God (Habak. i. 18).

(c.) Simple and Saxon words should be preferred to
Latinised ones ; the tastes of educated men and critics
being of less moment than the production of a popular
translation. This is violated by Henderson's " that
fabricate images," instead of the received version,
" makers of idols" (Isaiah xlv. 16).

(d.) Paraphrase is required where euphemisms occur.
The Hebrews employed plain words to denote acts and
peculiarities for which modern ideas of propriety de-
mand general expressions. Hence words and phrases
not offensive to delicacy must be substituted for such
as cannot be uttered before a promiscuous audience.

(e.) The same original word and its derivatives, as
also the same phrase, should be respectively translated
by the same corresponding English word or phrase.
Thus in Isaiah xxxvii. 8, 4, " This is a day of trouble
and of rebuke, and of blasphemy, Ac. &c. It may be the
Lord thy God will hear the words of Kabshakeh, whom
the King of Assyria his master hath sent to reproach the
living God, and wUl reprove the words, &c." As the
words in italics correspond in Hebrew; of rebuke should
be, of reproof,

(/.) The collocation of terms should never be harsh,
or unsuited to an English ear. This rule is often
transgressed, especially by foreigners writing English.
Thus Leeser renders —

50 Part II.

" We all like sheep went astray;
Every one to his own way did we turn ;
And the Lord let befall him the guilt of us
all/' (Isaiah liii. 6.)

The English version itself violates it not unfre-
quently, as in Psalm Ivii. 6, " They have digged a pit
before me, into the midst whereof they are fallen them-
selves ;" where a slight alteration would improve the
rhythm,

u They have digged a pit before me ;
Are fallen into the midst of it themselves." ,

(g.) Metaphors in general should be retained. The
substitution or unnecessary introduction of new ones,
ought to be avoided. Thus, in Isaiah xliv. 8, where
our version has, " Is there a God beside me ? Tea,
there is no God; 1 know not any;" Henderson's,
which retains the metaphor, is superior, "There is
indeed no rock ; I know of none." More elegantly,
" Tea, there is no rock ; I know not any."

The exceptions include cases where good taste or
delicacy is offended, as,

" The sounding of thy bowels and of thy mercies"

(Isaiah lxiii. 15),

which should be, " thine inward yearnings &c."

(h.) The one sense of each passage should be given,
irrespective of the opinions held by church or sect.
Thus Genesis iii. 15 ought now to be rendered, "it
shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise its heel,

Translation. 51

because his heel favours the erroneous interpretation of
the seed being Christ, instead of mankind generally.
The authorised rendering of the pronouns is that of
the Bishops' Bible, and probably exhibits no doctrinal
bias, since the modern distinction between he and it
did not belong to the English language at that time ;
but there is little doubt of the view entertained by the
translators, viz. that seed meant one person. The
Genevan Bible has, " He shall break thine head, and
thou shalt bruise his heel/' while the Bishops' has
the chapter-heading, " The seed Jesus is promised — a
Saviour."

Lowth's version of Isaiah ix. 6, u Father of the ever-
lasting age," for ( ' everlasting father," seems a viola-
tion of the rule, arising from a desire to keep two per-
sons in the Trinity distinct.

form, unless in cases of exigence. Nothing is gained
by substituting 'Azaryahu for Azariah, Yechochanan
for Johanan, and Bemalyahu for Bemaliah, as Leeser
has them.

(k.) Symbolical names of countries andpersons should
be generally translated. If allowed to remain as they
are in Hebrew, they become proper names, and may
also be misunderstood by the uninitiated. Thus when
Egypt is meant by ' Bahab/ the latter noun should be
usually rendered € sea-monster,' as in Isaiah li. 9.

'" Art thou not it that hast cut off the sea-monster,
Hast wounded the dragon ?"

£2

-a*^

mmm

52 Part II.

So also in Psalm lxxxix. 10. Even in Psalmlxxxvii. 4
it might be so translated. Egypt was originally styled
Rahab for her ss insolence/' as Isaiah explains the
word; a signification which was afterwards dropped,
and a mythological idea attached. When rebellious
monsters were subdued, it was thought that they were
fixed on the sky as constellations, to warn the impious
of punishment.

The word is differently applied in the two leading
divisions of Isaiah's book ; as is natural for distinct
authors, Isaiah and the deutero-Isaiah.

The symbolic name Immanuel should be translated
God-with-us, in Isaiah vii. 14, viii. 8.

(Z.) When possible, it is best to imitate a parono-
masia of the original. Numerous examples occur in
the book of Isaiah, which are carefully reproduced in
Gesenius's version.

But it is often difficult to imitate the assonance of
the original without sacrificing the exact sense of par-
ticular expressions. If so, the cost of reproducing it
in English is too dear. Thus at Isaiah v. 7 :—

" And he looked for justice and behold bloodshed ;
For righteousness and behold a cry of oppression,"

the sacrifice of sense to sound implied in

" And he looked for reason, but behold treason ;
For right, but behold fright/ 9

cannot be justified.

(m.) The punctuation of the Eeceived version is

Translation. 63

generally good, and should not be lightly forsaken. It
may be changed for the worse on apologetic and other
grounds. Thus a semicolon stands correctly at the
end of Esther ii. 5, so that the relative who, with which
the next verse begins, refers to Mordecai. Those who
think the pronoun relates to Kish, must remove the
semicolon. That the punctuation ought not to be dis-
turbed is certain; though a bishop of the Anglican
Church has asserted that " the rules of grammatical
propriety" point out not Mordecai but Kish as being
the person who was taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar.
The rules of language require Mordecai for antecedent
to the pronoun who.

§2.

The following are presented as mistranslations ;
some of them important in their bearing upon current
theological opinions, since they either foster false views,
or obscure the true. No version that retains them, can
claim to be faithful.

For I know that my redeemer liveth,

And that he shall stand at the latter day upon the

earth :
And though after my skin worms destroy this body,
Yet in my flesh shall I see God :
Whom I shall see for myself,
And mine eyes shall behold, and not another ;
Though my reins be consumed with me."

(Job xix. 25-27.)

fu
vi:

54 Part II.

Thousands of pious readers have meditated on these
words as a bright evidence of Job's faith in the re-
surrection of the body and in Christ the Redeemer.
Believing that the patriarch anticipated a future
Saviour, and rejoiced in the thought of seeing him,
they have applied the language as a balm to the weary
spirit in days of trouble or the near prospect of death.
It is an unpleasant duty to dissipate the illusion by
giving the right sense of the passage, which has no re-
lation to the doctrine of a bodily resurrection ; though
it be a part of " the Order for the burial of the dead"
prescribed by the Church of England. The interests
of truth alone could justify a removal of the words
from the place they occupy in the thoughts of many.
Here is a literal rendering.

" But I know, my vindicator lives,

And the last, he will arise over the dust;

Tea after my skin, when this [body] is destroyed,

Even without my flesh shall I see God ;

Yea I shall see him for myself;

Mine eyes shall behold him, none other [shall do

so] ;
My reins pine away within me."
This passage expresses a hope of immortality. In
it the spirit of Job pierces beyond Sheol into the
future j confidently looking for a vision of God to
vindicate his righteousness. While putting such lan-
guage into the speaker's mouth, the poet was not

Translation. *55

aware of the extent of meaning to which a calm
thinker might carry out his words. His habitual ideas
of a future state were those of his age and nation, as
we infer from the fact that other passages present the
ordinary views of Sheol ; and that the precious gem
here presented is not seen in the book elsewhere. It
was a momentary outburst and triumph of faith on the
part of the inspired poet; not a settled or serious
belief. The more the passage is considered will the
conviction grow that it is corrupt. But it is hard to
restore it to the original form.

"Know therefore and understand, that from the
going forth of the commandment to restore and to
build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the prince shall be
seven weeks and three score and two weeks ; the street
shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous
times. And after three score and two weeks shall
Messiah be cut off, but not for himself, &c."

(Daniel ix. 25, 26.)

The following is a literal translation of this place
from the Hebrew : —

"Know therefore and understand, from the going
forth of the word to build Jerusalem again, till an
anointed one, a prince, shall be seven weeks ; and for
three score and two weeks will it be rebuilt with
streets and ditches, yet in distressful times. But after
the three score and two weeks shall an anointed one
be cut off, and have no successor, &c."

The Messiah cannot be intended, either in the 25th

56 Part II

or 26th verse, because the Hebrew word wants the
article. Cyrus is meant by the anointed prince : the
anointed one who should meet with a violent death and
have no heir, is Seleucus IV. Philopator, son and suc-
cessor of Antiochus the Great, who was cut off by
Heliodorus. The passage refers to the time between
the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans and
the tyranny of Antiochus Epiphanes. The first week
of years reaches from Jerusalem's overthrow, till
Cyrus ; the sixty-two weeks, from Cyrus to Antiochus ;
the last week (verse 27), embraces the period of the
latter's cruelties. It is therefore preposterous to take
the paragraph as distinctively Messianic, or a prophecy
of Jesus Christ.*

" The sceptre shall not depart from Judah,
Nor the staff of power from between his feet,
Till he come to Shiloh,
And to him the obedience of the peoples be."

(Genesis xlix. 10.)

Such is a correct version of what our English Bible
presents, as :

"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a
lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come;
and unto him shall the gathering of the people be."

Shiloh is the name of a place repeatedly occurring

* The Old Testament never applies rpfi?E to the great Deliverer

whom the prophets expected, bat to Jewish . and sometimes to heathen
kings.

Translation. 57

in the Old Testament] not a name of Messiah. Al-
though, therefore, many Christians suppose Christ to
be intended, so that the term Shiloh has become
associated with him in popular hymns and pulpit
phraseology, the idea must be discarded. But we
disturb it with reluctance, conscious that the change
may wound the feelings of some pious Christians.

ts Kiss the Son lest he be angry and ye perish from
the way,
When his wrath is kindled but a little."

(Psalm ii. 12.)

According to this rendering, the Son may be Messiah
or Christ, as many suppose : " Do homage to" or
"worship, the Messiah." But the Messiah is not
necessarily meant, for Son may denote the King or
Lord's anointed, whom a revolted people are exhorted
to obey. The Hebrew word, however, is not Son. The
right translation seems to be,

" Worship purely, lest he be angry and ye perish
from the way,
For his wrath is soon kindled."

Another passage which our English version fails to
give correctly is vii. 14-16 of Isaiah :

" Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
And shall call his name Lnmanuel.
Butter and honey shall he eat
That he may know to refuse the evil and choose
the good.

58 Part II

For before the child shall know

To refuse the evil and choose the good,

The land that thou abhorrest

Shall be forsaken of both her kings/'

On the ground of its quotation by St. Matthew, this
passage is commonly believed to be Messianic ; and the
belief has probably influenced the rendering virgin ;
though the definite article might have been prefixed,
pointing to a particular virgin, It should be trans-
lated literally as follows :

" Behold the maiden will conceive and bear a son,
And they call his name God-with-us.
Cream and honey shall he eat,
When he shall know to refuse the evil and choose

the good.
For before the boy knows to refuse the evil and

choose the good,
The land before whose two kings thou shudderest,
Shall be a desert."

Whatever interpretation be adopted, the Messianic, in
which the young Messiah and his mother are spoken
of, or the prophetess and her symbolical son Imma-
nuel ; the Hebrew word rendered maiden determines
nothing as to the nature of her so designated, for a
virgin proper is not its primary meaning.

" And he made his grave with the wicked,
And with the rich in his death,

Translation. 59

Because he had done no violence,

Neither was any deceit in his mouth." (Isa. liii. 9.)

A more correct rendering would be,

« And they appointed his grave with the wicked,
And with the ungodly his sepulchre ;
Though he had done no violence,
And no deceit was in his mouth. 1 '

PaJey remarks, that the application of the prophecy
in which these words occur, to the evangelic history,
is plain and appropriate. Adopting Bishop Lowth's
version,

" And his grave was appointed with the wicked,
But with the rich man was his tomb,"

he evidently supposes that Joseph of Arimathea
is the rich man indicated; an idea removed by the
correct rendering. The translation of the second
line, in Matthew's Bible might have been still more
serviceable, "and his crucifying with the thieves;"
though it is farther from the original. The prophecy
may be interpreted of idealised Israel.

" And I will shake all nations,
And the desire of all nations shall come :
And I will fill this house with glory,
Saith the Lord of hosts/' (Haggai ii. 7.)

Probably the translators understood " the desire of
all nations" of Messiah, as many since have done,
though a person is not meant. We render,

60 Part II.

" And I will shake all nations,
And the choice of all nations shall come ;
And I will fill this house with glory,
Saith Jehovah of hosts."

The " choice of all nations" are the selectest or best.

" Behold I will send my messenger,
And he shall prepare the way before me :
And the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come

to his temple,
Even the messenger of the covenant whom ye de-
light in :
Behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts/ 1

(Malachi iii. 1.)

This version is misleading. The translators seem to
have confounded the messenger of the covenant with
Jehovah coming suddenly to his temple, who again is
identified with the Messiah. Their rendering at least
sanctions that interpretation. The proper sense of
the words is,

" Behold, I will send my messenger,
And he shall prepare the way before me.
And Jehovah whom ye seek will suddenly come to

his temple,
(And the messenger of the covenant ye long for) ;
Behold he shall come, saith Jehovah of hosts."

The messenger of the covenant and the Lord are
distinct. The one is Elijah ; the other, Jehovah. The
former is sent ; the latter comes immediately after, to

L L

Translation. 6 1

his temple. Elijah is not the forerunner of Messiah,
but of Jehovah who is about to come for great and
terrible judgment. Malachi does not mention the
Messiah, any more than the other prophets of the
same epoch* Had he done so, he would have made
him appear after Jehovah, agreeably to the representa-
tion of preceding prophets. The portrait of Elijah
descending from heaven and acting as a purifier of the
faithful though erring Israelites, to prepare for the
terrible day of Jehovah, is fantastic, unlike the simple
hopes of former seers. Here we have an instance of
alternate parallelism, so that the sense is best seen by
connecting the fourth line with the second j and the
third with the fifth.

" Behold I will send my messenger,

And he shall prepare the way before me,

(Even the messenger of the covenant ye long for) ;

And Jehovah whom ye seek will suddenly come
to his temple,

Behold he shall come, saith Jehovah of hosts."*
Bishop Jebb gives a few examples of the same kind
of parallelisms.

" And the Lord said unto me,

Cast it unto the potter,

A goodly price that I was prized at of them;

And I took the thirty pieces of silver,

* We are strongly inclined to adopt the conjecture of Hitzig, who reads
JTnan TJWbp "messenger of pt^rm J cation, ,, for HnSlM TTNbcf
" messenger of the covenant."

62 Part II.

.t.i.ii . i n , ■ i i —

And cast them to the potter in the house of the
Lord." (Zechariah xi. 13.)
Here we should read,

" And Jehovah said unto me,
Cast it into the treasury,

The splendid price at which I was valued by them ;
So I took the thirty pieces of silver,
And cast them into the treasury in the house of
Jehovah."

A potter has no connexion with the temple. By
changing the last vowel of the word so rendered, we
get the treasury,*, which is unquestionably correct.
The word potter, however, has got into the passage as
cited by St. Matthew; and not only so, but field along
with it. This is peculiar adaptation, containing a
departure both from the Septuagint and the Hebrew.

€€ Oh that one would hear me !

Behold my desire is that the Almighty would

answer me,
And that mine adversary had written a book."

(Job xxxi. 35.)
The last line of this verse has almost passed into a
household saying, though it is an incorrect representa-
tion of the Hebrew which means,
" Oh that I had one who heard me !

Behold my mark : let the Almighty answer me !
And that I had the indictment of my adversary.

Translation. 63

The book of Job contains the idea of the mediation
or intercession of angels, as in v. 1, where the saints
should be the holy ones, because angels are meant. In
the following passage the same idea is also obscured
by our version.

€€ If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter,
One among a thousand,
To shew unto man his uprightness :
Then he is gracious unto him and saith,
Deliver him from going down to the pit :
I have found a ransom." (xxxiii. 23, 24).

A more correct version is,

" If there be for him an angel, an intercessor,
One of the thousaud,
To shew man what is right ;
Then he is gracious to him and saith,
Deliver him from going down to the pit,
I have found a ransom ;
Then his flesh becomes fresher than in youth," &c.

Here the poet conceives of one among the many
angels of life who being favourable to man points out
to him the right line of conduct ; and God permits
the angel to redeem him by accepting it as a ransom,
and the fallen one's prayer of repentance. This inter-
cessory, atoning power attributed to. angels is one of
the grounds for assigning a comparatively recent date
to the book of Job, and still more to the discourses of

w^m^m^^wmmmmmtsmmmmmmmmmBgm^^Bmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

64 Part II.

Elihu, when the conceptions of the Hebrews about
superhuman beings began to be perceptibly influenced
by the beliefs of other nations.

As in Job v. 1, the saints should be holy ones t for
distinction's sake ; so in the 89th Psalm (5-7) the same
change is required, since the angels are meant; by
whom as his heavenly attendants or council, God is
said to be surrounded*

" And the heavens praise thy wonders, Jehovah ;
Thy faithfulness also in the assembly of holy ones.
For who among the clouds can compare with

Jehovah f
Who is like to Jehovah among the sons of the

mighty ?
God is greatly to be feared in the council of his

holy ones,
And to be reverenced above all about Him."

In Eliphaz's description of man, weak, erring, mortal,
our version has,

"Doth not their excellency which is in them go
away?
They die even without wisdom," (Job iv. 21)

which spoils the pertinency of the original—

" Is not the tent-cord torn from them ?
They die,— without wisdom/'

In the description of the crocodile we find these

Translation. 65

words of the received version, which are hardly in-
telligible,

" When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid :
By reason of breakings they purify themselves."

(Job xii. 25.)
The translation ought to be,

•" Before his rising up heroes are afraid,
They miss their way from fear."

In Deuteronomy xvi. 7 the English reads,

" And thou shalt roast and eat it (the paschal lamb)
in the place which the Lord thy God shall choose,"
in agreement with the statement in Exodus xii. 8*
Here an English reader finds nothing to arrest
attention. Not so the Hebrew scholar, who observes
that the verb in Deuteronomy rendered roast means
nothing else than to boil. As it can only signify to
cook in a liquid, its proper translation brings out a
contradiction between Deuteronomy xvi. 7 and Exodus
xii. 8. This need excite no surprise ; since the passage
in Exodus is Elohistic, while the book of Deuteronomy
proceeds from a later author. The Chronicle-writer,
who is by no means exact, follows the Deuteronomist
in the use of the word ; but by adding to it " with
fire/' as in Exodus, he produces an awkward com-
bination.

te Let them curse it that curse the day,
Who are ready to raise up their mourning."

(Job iii. 8.)

■^V^'^T^**^*^^*^.'**^

66 Part II.

Instead of this we should have,

(t May the day-cursers execrate it,
They who are able to raise up Leviathan."

The day-cursers were supposed to make days un-
lucky by their enchantments. It was also the popular
belief that they possessed the power to call forth the
great dragon against the sun and moon, so as to pro-
duce darkness.

Psalm lxxxiv. 5-7 should be thus rendered :

" Blessed are the men whose strength is in thee,
In whose heart are the pilgrim-ways ;
Passing through the vale of tears they make it a

spring,
Yea, an early rain covers it with blessings.
They go from strength to strength,
Bo that they can appear before God in Zion."

The word translated ' pilgrim-ways' need not, with
Hupfeld, be thought corrupt.

Many passages, however, tax the knowledge of
a translator to the utmost, presenting so great diffi-
culty, either in separate words or their combina-
tion or both, that it is impossible to extract more
than a probable sense. In such cases, it is neces-
sary to study the construction and context, with an
anxious desire to bring out the author's meaning;
before having recourse to conjectural alteration of the
text. The most minute acquaintance with the Hebrew
language, grammatically and lexically, will often fail

mmjm—mnm^mmmmmmc**^^~^* ■ ■ ■ i u i .

■^•^

Translation. 67

to bring forth the sense with certainty. Here a trans-
lator should resist the love of novelty, the temptation
to seek for a remote meaning, and undue comparison
of cognate languages. If he indulge his ingenuity, or
delight in philological niceties, he will probably miss
the true sense. Sound judgment may be more than
an equivalent for acuteness.

Illustrative passages need not be given. They are
too numerous to escape the notice of scholars, who
settle them more or less hastily according to the
measure of their self-confidence. And it is painful to
witness the desire of one man to differ from another
in his renderings, especially where the difficulties are
considerable. Has not such desire influenced Ewald
with respect to Gesenius ? Has it not led Hitzig to
adopt a different interpretation from Ewald's f Has it
not made Hupfeld's opposition to Hengsjbenberg more
frequent ? A feeling of independence in each of these
scholars may have helped to produce other opinions
than those of his rivals.

The first four verses of the sixteenth psalm stand
thus in the received version 2

a Preserve me, Godj for in thee do I put my

trust.
my soul thou hast said unto the Lord, Thou art

my Lord ;
My goodness extendeth not to thee;
But to the saints that are in the earth,

And to the excellent, in whom is all my delight.

* 2

G8 Part II.

Their sorrows shall be multiplied that hasten after

another god :
Their drink offerings of blood will I not offer,
Nor take up their names into my lips/'

This is neither a literal nor correct translation.
To give the true one, however, is exceedingly difficult.
The rendering will always be conjectural. We prefer
the following version ; but some others are almost
equally probable :

1 " Preserve me, God, for I trust in thee ;

2 I say to Jehovah, Thou art my Lord,
My prosperity is not above thee.

3 As for the saints who are in the land,

And the nobles in whom I have all my delight,

4 Their sorrows are multiplied ; they take another

(god) in exchange, &c."

Here the third verse is connected with the following.
Yet it may also belong to the preceding one. The
sense of the third line, " my prosperity, &c." is
obscure.

Another perplexing passage in Job xxxvi. 80-33,
the authorised English version has in this form :

" Behold he spreadeth his light upon it.
And covereth the bottom of the sea.
For by them jndgeth he the people ;
He giveth meat in abundance.

With clouds he covereth the light ;

Translation. 69

And comraandeth it not to shine by the cloud that

cometh betwixt ;
The noise thereof sheweth concerning it,
The cattle also concerning the vapour/'

The sense is not easily seen through 'these words;
which cannot be said to reflect the original. But it is
easier to perceive the erroneousness of the English,
than to give the true rendering.

30 " Behold he spreadeth his light over himself,

And covereth himself with the depths of the sea;

31 For by them he judgeth the peoples,
Giveth food also in abundance.

32 His hands he covereth with light,

And commandeth it against the adversary.

33 His thunder giveth notice of him,
Making wrath rage against iniquity "

The last verse which is obscure is rendered very
differently by Hirzel, Ewald, and Schlottmann.

A third example of dark passages is in Isaiah viii.
19, 20 :

" And when they shall say unto you,
Seek unto them that have familiar spirits,
And unto' wizards that peep and that mutter :
Should not a people seek unto their God,
For the living to the dead ?
To the law and to the testimony :
If they speak not according to this word,
It is because there is no light in them."

g^jvz v a*'» j r.y: , Jt ' ,:i.'grak ^». *o'*-»ett».

70 Part II.

We render the verses as follows :

" And when they shall say unto you,

'Inquire of the ghost-seers and of the wizards

That chirp and that mutter f

(Do not people apply to their gods,

To the dead instead of the living ?)
' To the doctrine and to the oracle P

Do not they speak so,

For whom there is no dawn ?"

The first words of Genesis read in the Beceived
version, " In the beginning God created the heaven
and the earth ; and the earth was without form and
void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the
waters. And God said, Let there be light i and
there was light/' Great authorities adopt another
rendering : " In the beginning, when God created the
heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form
and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep,
and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the
waters, God said, Light be, and light was." The
Hebrew admits of either sense ; which is the true ?
Are we to follow most of the Rabbins, with Ewald and
Schrader in the latter, or the Septuagint in the former,
view ? The common translation is more natural, and
better suited to the Elohist's manner. No reason exists
for attributing to the writer a theoretical view of primi-
tive matter which would prevent his speaking of its re-
formation.

Translation. 71

The sixty- eighth psalm will at once occur to the mind
as one of peculiar difficulty, where a translator almost
despairs of reaching the true sense in several verses ;
even after Boettcher's eighty pages of critical elucida-
tion. The book of Job, especially the speeches of Elihu,
Ecclesiastes, Zechariah, contain similar passages; while
Jeremiah and Proverbs, where the text has often to be
rectified, require peculiar knowledge and sagacity.

§4.

From all that has been said the difficulties attaching
to a new version will appear formidable. To rectify the
text itself is not easy ; to reach the true sense is a
process not seldom uncertain. There are indeed excel-
lent helps. We have the valuable versions of De Wette,
Bunsen, and Zunz. The lexicons of Gesenius are still
the best. The critical works of Ewald, Hitzig, Hup-
feld, Gesenius, Tuch, and others, with the light they
throw on the Hebrew documents, are available. But
a translator of the original should be able to decide
where the great masters of Hebrew disagree. He has
to correct the lexicons, to avoid the errors even of ex-
cellent versions, and to choose the sense of a word or
passage which an accomplished Hebraist may possibly
reject. He must carefully shun the weaknesses of the
best scholars themselves. It is not enough to know
what the x greatest critics think about a phrase ; he must
be able to weigh their opinions in his own balance.

72 Part II.

Thus Ewald asserts that the words of Psalm Ixxiii. 4
cannot mean, " they have no torments till their death/*
and Hitzig assents. Hence the former adopts an old
conjecture of Bate's, and divides a word into two.*
Hupfeld objects, but his reasons are not sufficient, be-
cause the sense " till their death" requires a different
context, t It is best to separate the word as Bate pro-
posed, since the ordinary rendering of the present text
"at their death," contains the incongruity of beginning
to describe the prosperity of the wicked with their mode
of dying, and then passing to their strong health.

" For they have no pains ;
And their body is lusty and fat.

Again, Hupfeld translates Psalm iv. 3, " Know that
Jehovah hath chosen for himself a favoured one," which
cannot be justified because the verb does not mean to
choose or set apart ; the idea of wonder always attaches
to it A better version would be, " Jehovah acts won-
derfully towards his pious one," which is preferable to

* 1*Ejb the last word of one line ; UF\ the first of the next.

t That the preposition b sometimes means until cannot well be
denied ; and Drechaler's reasoning against Gesenins on Isaiah vii. 15,
is invalid. If the preposition does not mean go in that passage, though
It is all but certain that it does, it has the sense unit! in Daniel ix. 24 ;
which Ewald himself allows. Indeed even in Isaiah vii. 1G he renders
bis gegea, equivalent to wann future, i. e. " till about the time when
?io knows, &c."—8ee Lehrbnch der Hebr. Sprachc, § 217, 2 d.

, \

Translation. 73

Ewald's, " Jehovah has distinguished the one that is
faithful to him."

Still farther, Hupfeld's version of Psalm lxxiii. 24
coincides with the English,

Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel,
And afterward receive me to glory ;"

while both he and Olshausen object to the true ren-
dering,

" Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel,
And afterwards conduct me to honour."

This is analogous to Zechariah ii. 12, where similar
words occur. The objections of Olshausen are of no
weight, and should not have influenced Hupfeld.
The idea of future blessedness was absent from the
mind of the psalmist, who merely expresses his con-
fident expectation of the divine favour.

In Psalm lxxiii. 25 Delitzsch renders,

" Whom have I in the heavens ?
And if thou art mine, the earth does not please
me,"

which distorts and weakens the sense,

"Whom have I in heaven ?
And on earth I have pleasure in nothing besides
thee."

When Ewald translates Job xxxvi. 7,

74 Part II.

" He withdraweth not his eyes from the righteous.
And kings who are worthy of the throne he oauseth
to rule for ever, highly exalted/ 1

Schlottmann and Hirzel properly object to a rendering
which can hardly be justified linguistically. The true
sense is,

" He withdraweth not his eyes from the righteous ;
Xea with kings on the throne he makes them to
sit for ever and be exalted."

The verb rendered stand in Daniel xii. 13 of our
received version is said by Gesenius to mean here,
u rise from the dead/ 1 a signification which Hitzig
rightly rejects. The passage in which the verb occurs
is important, though somewhat obscure. Hitzig him-
self misinterprets it. It may be rendered thus :

e ' But go thy way till the end,
That thou mayest rest and wait for thy lot at the
end of the days/'

The angel comforts Daniel with the assurance that
he may calmly pursue his course till the end, resting
in peace, and waiting for his allotted part at the final
judgment. His death and rising are implied prepara-
tory to the everlasting blessedness consequent on the
general judgment.

And how is the very difficult passage in Malachi ii.
15 to be rendered ? Is a translator justified in pre-
senting its meaning, with Ewald,

^*m^vm^—^^^*B^^mB—*mm^^^m^^^^^mmm—m*^^m^mm^i^^mi^mm—*^m^^

Translation. 75

" And has not One created them,
And does not the whole spirit belong to him ?
And what seeketh the One f
A godly seed.

Take heed therefore to your spirit,
And be not faithless to the wife of thy youth,"

As God is here declared to be the one Creator of
man and woman, the man should not act capriciously
towards the woman. The entire spirit belongs to God
even after death, so that the least portion of it is ac-
countable to him. This one God requires a godly seed,
children to honour him ; but the object of marriage is
destroyed by divorce.
Ingenious as this version is, we must reject it for another,

" But did not one do it ?
And yet he had a remnant of understanding,
And what willed the one ?
He sought a godly seed.
Take heed therefore to your spirit,
And be not faithless to the wife of thy youth."

The people excuse themselves by quoting Abraham's
example. He is the one according to Ezekiel xxxiii. 24,
Isaiah li. 2. But the prophet reminds objectors, that
Abraham's case was different from theirs. He did not
put away the wife of his youth, Sarah, but the strange
woman Hagar, because he had regard to the divinely
promised seed. The word spirit in the passage refers
to the spirit of man in the last part of the verse ; it is

^ gBH^gg^™igWMW>WWH> JULL.**9**-mm-mm*—~mm+*mm+f+

76 Pari II.

therefore better to take it in the same sense, in the
first part. The true meaning is given by Hitzig, De
Wette, and Kamphausen. Zunz's version is singularly
unfortunate*

Examples of this kind warn perfunctory translators,
enforce extreme caution, and prove the necessity of a
thorough acquaintance, not only with the original
Hebrew, but its select interpreters.

§ 5.

It is acknowledged by scholars that the New
Testament does not furnish an infallible hermeneutical
standard. The sense it attaches to passages in the
Old is not necessarily correct. The Christian writers
usually followed the Septuagint; or adapted the words
of the Jewish Scriptures to a purpose other than the
original one.

Gesenius rightly says that it was a customary prin-
ciple of interpretation in the New Testament period,
to expound and apply the Old Testament prophetically,
without regard to its local sense. The injurious effects
of such exegesis continue till the present day. Double
senses, symbolical and typical explanations, are con-
sidered sacred. Messianic passages in the Old Testa-
ment multiply j and the Psalms themselves are sup-
posed to foreshadow Christ because the writers are
types of him ; whereas these lyric odes are indefinite
by their very nature, containing no prophecies of his
person. The prophetic character of the Psalms reaches

Translation. 77

no farther than ideal hopes and longings for a theo-
cratic kingdom. The only sense is the historical or
grammatical one, all besides being assumptions or
accommodations. Nor is» this statement invalidated
by the suppositions so freely entertained about the
Holy Spirit intending another meaning under the
conscious or unconscious ideas of the writers, as if the
instruments used were partially passive under him ;
since it is impossible to separate the author's own con-
ceptionsfrom the spiritual purity and elevation per-
taining to their essence. The individual agency attri-
buted to the Spirit implies both a psychological and
theological incongruity arising from excessive personi-
fication.

We must not translate the 7th verse of the 45th
psalm, " Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,"
with the Septuagint and author of the epistle to the
Hebrews, but,

" Thy God's throne is for ever and ever."

The king whose nuptials are celebrated in the poem,
sits on a throne given and supported by God. The
Septuagint version is incorrect, because Elohim never
means a single king, ruler or person, not even in
1 Sam. xxviii. 13, where the signification is ghost or
spirit; the English he in Saul's question proving
nothing. Besides, Messiah's divinity is unknown to
Old Testament Judaism.

In like manner, the 4th verse of the 104th psalm

78 Part II.

must not be rendered as it is in the LXX and the
epistle to the Hebrews,

" Who maketh his angels, winds,
And his ministers a flame of fire,"
implying that they have so little independent will as
to yield np the very form of their existence and de-
generate into matter; hut the Hebrew text means,
" Who maketh the winds his messengers.

And the flaming fire his minister."
An example of the same kind is supplied by Isaiah
liii. 8, which means,

" By oppression and punishment he was snatched
away,
And which of his contemporaries considered ;"
whereas the Greek version, followed in Acts vhi, 32,
33, incorrectly translates,

" In his humiliation his judgment was taken away.
And hiB contemporaries — who shall describe
them?"
Another example is in the eighth Psalm,
" For thou madest him a little lower than God,
And erownedst him with glory and honour" (ver. 5),
where the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, follow-
ing the Septuagint, renders, " a little lower than the
angels." As the Hebrew word,* never means angels,
not even in Psalm lxxxii. 6, the Greek is incorrect.

Translation. 79

In interpreting the Old Testament, our English trans-
lators were often influenced by the authority of the
New.

In Acts ii. 27,

" Neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see
corruption/'

the word corruption is an incorrect rendering of the
Hebrew, which means nothing but pit or grave.* The
Greek term in Acts, borrowed from the Septuagint,
gives a wrong sense ; though it serves to support
St. Peter's argument about the exemption of Christ's
body from decay. It is necessary to guard against
the error of supposing that two Hebrew nouns exist,
bearing somewhat different significations. Winer's
Simonis and Fiirst give two, arbitrarily distinguished^
Another example of New Testament exegesis occurs
in the epistle to the Galatians iii. 8, Acts iii. 25,
from Genesis xii. 3, xviii. 18, xxii. 18, xxvi. 4, xxviii. 14.
" In thee (' ' in thy seed") shall all nations be blessed."
The Hebrew should be rendered, " By thee (" by thy
seed") shall all the nations bless themselves," i.e. they

* JinttJ from TVNS through the verb Jintt?.

t /1P1B7 from the root Jinttf, in the sense of corruption, putri-
dity is an imaginary noun. It is possible that TltlW with the mean-
ing destruction may be derived from the verb finttf, since the LXX
often translate it by $ia<pOopa ; bnt it is impossible to shew that the
noun so derived conld have the sense of putrefaction. Two noons from
different roots onght not to be assumed. The word is erroneously
derived from nnttf by Prof. Lee, who also gives the meaning the
corruption of the grave, without authority.

80 Part II

shall invoke for themselves the happy lot of Abraham
' and his posterity Israel. The Jehovist asserts, that
Abraham should become proverbially prosperous; and
that the nation sprung from him should also become a
proverbially happy one. The use of the verb with the
accompanying preposition in Jeremiah iv. 2, Isaiah
Ixv. 16, Psalm lxxii. 17, Genesis xlviii. 20, shews
this to be the true sense ; and the passive rendering of
the LXX cannot be maintained, though the New Tes-
tament writers adopt it for the sake of a Messianic
argument. The five places in Genesis where the verb
occurs in the Niphal or Hithpahel, with the context
in question, both conjugations being in this case
equivalont, are incorrectly translated in the Received
version, tinder New Testament guidance.

In conformity with this principle, it is not necessary
to explain the prophet promised in Deuteronomy xviii.
15 of the Messiah, though the word is applied so in
the Acts of the Apostles. The Old Testament does
not describe the Jewish Messiah as a prophet ; neither
does the passage in Deuteronomy refer to him. Its
true meaning has been disputed ; but after much
thought we are now convinced that the word is not
collective, either here or in Daniel is. 24. If this be so,
Geseniua, who does not speak confidently in his The-
saurus, should be corrected, and Knobel'fl reasoning
disallowed. In Dan. ix. 24 Jeremiah is meant; in the
Deuteronomic passage a prophet like Moses, a second
Moses, who should revive the nation.

Translation. 81

§ 6,

The present division into chapters and verses, which
differs in some places from the Hebrew one, ought to bo
abandoned, since it is so often misleading. The defects
attaching to it are apparent. Instead of always help-
ing the reader to apprehend the sense, it sometimes
obscures it. The absence of these chapters, and a
continuous succession of text, would be a desirable
arrangement. Paragraphs corresponding to chapters
should be marked by blank spaces in the text equal to
two lines ; and these might have a number in the mar-
gin opposite to each ; perhaps also, a very short indi-
cation of the topics with which they are occupied.
Their subordinate or minor sections should be denoted
by a space where they occur, equal to two or three
words. Verses might be neglected.

In making these divisions and subdivisions, the his-
torical books present fewer difficulties than the poetical
and prophetic ones. The latter have individual pro-
phecies; or minor poems, parts of a collection, to
guide us. Strophes occupy the place of sections. The
language of different speakers also corresponds to the
latter; and might perhaps be noted in the margin.

Though the proposed plan makes modern concor-
dances useless, others would soon appear. Lexicons
and grammars could also be adapted. The reader
would be assisted in getting a comprehensive view of
a book with its consecutive topics, undisturbed by
large breaks and numbers in the text.

82 Part II.

Genesis vi. 9-22 should form a paragraph or chap-
ter, being separated from vi. 1-8 and Elohistic.

In like manner, Genesis xxviii. 10-22 should be a
distinct chapter ; for it is not Elohistic like the first
nine verses.

Genesis i. 1— ii. 4 a, ending with the title, " This is the
history of the heavens and of the earth when they were
created," should be the first chapter ; the second com-*
mences with " At the time," &c.

Num. xiv. 11-25 should form a distinct chapter. It is
Jehovistic, the preceding verses being mainly Elohistic.

1 Chron. ix. 1-34 should terminate the chapter;
ix. 35— x. relating to Saul form the next one.

2 Chron. xxii. 1-9 relating to Ahaziah should be dis-
tinct ; leaving xxii. 10 — xxiii. which refers to Athaliah,
to form the next chapter.

Nehemiah xii. 27 should begin a new chapter con-
sisting of xii. 27' — xiii.

Isaiah xvii. 1-11 should be a chapter or paragraph by
itself, referring, as it does, to the invasion of Judah by
the confederate Syrians and Israelites in the time of
Ahaz; while xvii. 12 — xviii. is a continuous prophecy,
relating to the time of Sennacherib and Hezekiah.

In like manner Isaiah Hi. 13 — liii. is one prophecy.

Isaiah xxx. — xxxii. form a continuous prophecy or
chapter. So does Isaiah xxxiii.

Ezekiel xii. 1-20 should form one chapter; and xii.
21 — xiv. 11 another. The latter relates to one topic,
to prophets and their utterances. Ezekiel warns against
the despising of prophecy, and reproves false prophets.

Translation. 83

Ezekiel xxxv. contains a prophecy of the desola-
tion of Seir; and xxxvi. 1-15 another of the reoccu-
pation of the land of Israel by the returning people
of God.

In Daniel, the first verse of the sixth chapter belongs
to what precedes, and is properly put with it in the
English version.

In Jeremiah, chapters xxx. — xxxiii. contain the same
fundamental idea and belong closely together. They
express a prophetic hope of the restoration of the
Israelite state. As the first two chapters (xxx. xxxi)
contain one oracle, they should not be divided, xxxii.
and xxxiii. having each their own inscriptions need not
be disturbed.

The first two verses of Jeremiah, chap. iv. belong
to the preceding; and therefore iv. 3-31, which is a
prophecy of Judah's chastisement, should be a chapter.

Amos vii. 1 — viii. 3 ought to be one chapter.

It is obvious that Ecclesiastes xii. 9-14 is the epi-
logue of the book and ought to be a distinct section;
The treatise begins and ends with the same assertion,
" Vanity of vanities, all is vanity ;" for the writer does
not attain to the belief of a state of future rewards and
punishments or of individual immortality. Had he
done so, he would have risen above the creed of biblical
Judaism, of which the dogma in question formed no
part ; though it appears in the book of Wisdom, where
it is the offspring of Alexandrian Judaism moulded by
Platonic philosophy. He can inculcate nothing higher

a 2

84 Part II.

" ■■'I' ' » ■ ■ 1 - » ■ ■ I ■ II

than the cheerful enjoyment of life, regulated by the
fear of God as a righteous moral governor.

We regret that the " Annotated Paragraph Bible"
published by the Religious Tract Society has done so
little in this department, so that the reader cannot rely
on it. Thus it makes Isaiah xxxiii. — xxxv. one large
chapter ; whereas xxxiv. &c. should be separated from
xxxiii. as belonging to a different subject, time, and

writer.

§ 7.

When different speakers are introduced, as in the
Song of Solomon and elsewhere, it is desirable to
mark what they say. It may be thought indeed that the
specifying of such divisions borders on interpretation
or commentary ; but a rigid separation between trans-
lation and commentary, cannot be carried out. There
is great difficulty in distinguishing the speakers in
the Song of Solomon. To divide the poem rightly,
and assign their parts to the respective actors in the
drama, requires much judgment.

Solomon is the speaker in iv. 1-7; the shepherd-
bridegroom in iv. 8-16 a; the Shulamite in iv. 16 b.

Some divide the 20th Psalm between the people
(1-5), the priest (6-8j, and the people again (9) ; but
this interchange of speakers is doubtful. The two
divisions of the Psalm express the poet's prayers for
success, addressed to and for the king.

Job xxvii. 13-23, should not be assigned to Zophar,
as Kennicott thought. It belongs to Job himself, who

Translation. 85

makes various concessions, confessing that he had
spoken too precipitately, and retracting or modifying
what he had said.

It has also been assumed by Michaelis and Knapp,
but wrongly, that Psalm cix. 6-19 is a speech in the
mouth of the Psalmist's adversary. This does not fol-
low from change of number.

The importance of attending to a difference of speakers
appears by the fact that Amos is erroneously said to
have uttered a prophecy which was not fulfilled, re-
specting Jeroboam's death, contrary to the historical
account in 2 Kings xiv. 29 ; but this arises from misap-
prehending the speaker (Amaziah) in Amos vii. 11
who perverted the prophet's words.

Here belongs the difficult question whether certain
Psalms should be distributed among choirs of singers.
While some believe in the existence of such antiphonal
hymns, whose strophes were sung alternately either
by priest and people, or by different choirs, others
deny the arrangement. The most plausible example is
the second part of the 24th Psalm (7-10), which has
been divided, according to the view of Bwald, into the
utterances of two choirs, one without the old gates of
Jebus, the other within. This separation is doubtful.
The Psalm, though dramatic in tone, is rather an expres-
sion of the author's ideas in the animated form of ques-
tion and answer.

Neither should we apportion the 20th Psalm to the
people and the priest singing alternately in the temple,

86 Part II.

though Bwald assigns verses 1-5 to the congregation ;
6-8 to the priest; and 9 to the congregation. The
poet speaks throughout in the name of the people.
In like manner the 21st Psalm does not present a
proper antiphonal character intended for liturgical use.
If there be no clear example of choir-psalms in the
whole collection, the antiphonal form of a few being
inerely the writers' method of giving dramatic effect
to their thoughts not a designed division; the parts
of singers with specific names should not be marked.

§ 8.

The poetical books should be printed in parallel
lines, and the strophes carefully noted, because such
distinctions are an important aid to the right sense.
The value of the authorised translation is lessened by
its neglect of these necessary distinctions. According
to the method recommended, the third Psalm will stand
thus : —

" Jehovah, how many are my oppressors !

Many rise up against me.

Many say to my soul,

* There is no help for him in God/

Yet thou, Jehovah, art a shield about me,
My glory and the lifter up of my head !
I cried to Jehovah with my voice,
And he heard me from his holy hill.

I laid me down and slept ;

I awaked, for Jehovah sustains me.

Translation. 87

— — — — — mm~*m~ — — — — . -.i n ,. i i — ^^-^— — ^mm ■— — —

I am not afraid of ten thousands of people,
That have encamped against me round about.

Arise Jehovah, help me, my God !

For thou hast smitten the cheek-bone of all mine

enemies,
Thou hast broken in pieces the teeth of the

ungodly !
Jehovah's is the victory !
Thy blessing be upon thy people !"

The Psalm consists of four strophes ; and the parallel
lines are unmistakeable.

The 110th Psalm may be arranged in four strophes :

" Jehovah saith to my Lord :
* Sit thou on my right hand
Until I make thine enemies thy footstool/
The sceptre of thy power Jehovah stretches out of

Zion:
Eule in the midst of thine enemies !

Thy people are a free-will offering in thy day of
might :
In holy array, from the womb of the morning-
dawn,
Thy youthful warriors are to thee as the dew.

Jehovah hath sworn and will not repent :
* ' Thou art a priest for ever,
After the order of Melchizedek.'

The Lord at thy right hand

Dasheth in pieces kings in the day of his wrath.

Part II.
He judgeth among the heathen, he ia sated with

He smiteth heada in sunder in a wide country.
He shall drink of the brook in the way.
Therefore will he lift up the head."

Though the book of Proverbs usually presents its
Bayings in parallel members, it can hardly be said to
have strophes. Being a collection of sentiments and
propositions belonging to different times, and having
paased through various hands, the work contains great
diversity of contents and arrangement. Thus in the
Bection xxii. 17 — xxiv. 22, which seems to be an ex-
tract from a larger and independent document, The
words of the wise, we have first an introduction (xxii.
17-21) j ten short admonitions (xxii. 22 — xxiii. 11);
with ten other exhortations introduced by xxiii. 12,
and reaching to xxiv. 2. A minor division concludes
the section, viz. xxiv. 3-22, which may be translated
and arranged :

3 ' ' By wisdom is a house builded,

And by understanding it is established ;

4 Tea by knowledge are the chambers filled
With all precious and goodly treasure.

5 A wise man is strong :

A man of wisdom gaineth strength.

6 For by guidance shalt thou carry on war,
And victory by a multitude of counsellors.

Translation. 89

7 Wisdom is too high for the fool ;

In the gate he openeth not his mouth,

8 He that deviseth to do evil
Shall be called a mischief-maker.

9 The purpose of folly is sin;

And the scoffer is an abomination to men.

10 Wert thou sluggish in. the day of adversity,
Thy strength is faint.

11 Deliver those who are dragged to death,

Who are tottering to the slaughter — would that
thou withheldest them !

12 If thou sayest, s Behold, we know them not/
How ? He that weigheth the hearts, will he not

observe,
He that formed thy soul, doth he not know,
And render to every man according to his

work?

13 Eat honey, my son, for it is good,

And the honeycomb which is sweet to thy taste ;

14 So learn wisdom for thy soul !

If thou findest it, there is a future,
And thy hope shall not be cut off.

15 Plot not as a transgressor against the pasture of

the righteous ;
Spoil not his resting-place \

16 For the righteous falleth and riseth seven times ;
And the wicked shall stumble into mischief.

90 Part II.

17 Rejoice not at the fall of thine enemy,

And let not thy heart be glad when he stumble th,

18 Lest Jehovah seeing it be displeased,
And he turn away his anger from him.

19 Fret not thyself on account of evil doers,
Neither envy the wicked;

20 For the evil man has no future;

The lamp of the wicked shall be put out.

21 My son, fear Jehovah and the King,
And associate not with the quarrelsome ;

.22 For their calamity riseth up suddenly,

And the ruin inflicted by both of them — who
knoweth."

Of the twenty verses composing this subdivision, four-
teen belong together, two and two ; three (7, 8, 9)
stand disconnected; and three are united (10-12).
The translation given shews the relation of the verses.
Another book which has the poetical accents, i.e.
Job, artificially constructed as it is, shews strophes in
the order of the speeches which it is not difficult to
observe. In the first speech of Bildad (chapter viii.)
there are three subdivisions of this kind (2-7), (8-19),
(20-22). Here is the second.

€f For inquire now of the former race,
And attend to the examination of their fathers ;— ■
Since we are of yesterday and without knowledge,
Yea our days on the earth are a shadow — ■
Will not they instruct thee, speak to thee,

Translation. 91

And utte* words out of their heart ?

Doth the paper-reed shoot up without mire f

Doth the bulrush grow without water ?

It is still in its greenness, is not yet cut down,

Yet it withereth before every herb.

So is the path of all that forget God,

So the hope of the ungodly perisheth.

He whose expectation is cut off,

And his trust is a spider's web.

He leaneth upon his house, yet it doth not stand ;

He holdeth fast by it, yet it doth not endure.

He is full of sap before the sun,

And his branches shoot forth over, his garden ;

His roots are entwined about the hill;

He looketh to the house of stones.

If he be destroyed from his place,

It denieth him : ' I saw thee not/

So this is the joy of his course,

And others spring up from the dust."

The 45th Psalm, which is a marriage-poem respect-
ing Solomon's union with the daughter of a Tyrim
king, has three strophes, each exceeding its prede-
cessor in length. The first or introductory one, touches
on the king's beauty (verses 1, 2); the second de-
scribes his prominent excellencies, might in war and
justice (3-7) ; the third speaks of the interior of the'
harem, the queen and her attendants ; concluding with
best wishes for the king's prosperity (8-17).

The song of Deborah, in Judges v., consists of six
strophes, viz. 4-8 ; 9-13 ; 14-18 ; 19-23 ; 24-27 ; 28-31.

92 Part IT.

The division into strophes is sometimes uncertain.
Where the connexion of ideas is loose, and the sequence
indefinite, strophes are scarcely distinguishable. In
such cases, the separation depends on the taste and
judgment of the translator ; and therefore critics will
differ in their distribution of a poem. Thus the 102nd
Psalm .exhibits no proper strophes. It has three lead*
ing divisions, viz. 1-11, 12-22, 23-28; the minor
ones are obscure. The 22nd Psalm also presents
little ground for a definite apportionment, and there is
great diversity of opinion about its strophes. Koester
makes six, of five verses each, leaving the 12th verse
out of account. De Wette also divides it into strophes
of five verses each; except from verses 17-22, which
he makes two strophes of three verses each. Heng-
stenberg finds three strophes of ten verses each, with
a verse inserted between the first and second (verse 12)
as a bridge from the one to the other. Hupfeld
hesitates to propose any definite number of strophes.
Ewald again makes three, viz. 2-12, 13-22, 23-32,
which is the best division; though Hupfeld considers
the triplicity to stand on tottering feet*

§9.

Although the prophetic Scriptures have the nature
of poetry, being written in a more elevated style than
prose, and suggested by another inspiration, some do
not print them in parallel lines. Ewald marks the
divisions of the sentences and clauses in the manner of
music-bars; and De Wette makes all like prose. Bishop

Translation. 93

mjmm*4m*m

Lowth follows an opposite method ; as Gesenius also
does in his version of Isaiah. The rhythm of Hebrew
poetry is traceable in prophecy as well as in poetry
proper; and although the prophetic style occupies an
intermediate place between poetry and prose, it is
nearer the former than the latter. Ewald is even of
opinion that the strophes of the one appear in the
other, though less distinctly. The objections made to
the printing of the prophetical books in lines are in-
adequate. Thus De Wette's authority, adduced by
Alexander, on Isaiah, is hardly available, because the
German Professor prints the poetical books also as
prose, merely to economise space. When he speaks of
the arrangement of distichs in lines, as important only
to those acquainted with Hebrew rhythm, the remark
applies to the poetical as well as the prophetic books.
Believing that the form of a translation contributes to
the understanding of the original, we should recom-
mend lines or half- verses. Thus Isaiah lx. 1 should
be printed,

"Arise, shine, for thy light is come ;
And the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee :'*

words converted into an epanodos, or introverted
parallelism, by Bishop Jebb ;

" Arise ; for the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee ;
Shine, for thy light is come."

But this transposition attributes an artificial arrange*
ment to the prophet, which he did not intend.

94 Part II

^ «■ ■ ■ — i -■ ■ ■■■■■■«■■ « — ■ ■■ ■ -— .— -...-■■,...■ . i ■ ■ ■■■■■■

The following should be arranged,

€t And it shall come to pass in that day there shall
not be light — cold nor ice,
But there shall be one day (known to Jehovah

is it) ;
Not a day, and not a night ;
And at even-time it shall be light/' ^

(Zechariah xiv. 6, 7.)

That is, the alternation of summer and winter, light
and darkness, shall cease, and eternal sunshine com-
mence. The Masoretic text of the sixth verse fur-
nishes an uncertain sense. Gesenius renders the last
two words, " the stars grow pale ;" better, tf cold and
ice. 77

It is not necessary to inquire what books or parts of
books are poetical, and therefore to be exhibited in the
poetic form. Hebrew poetry cannot be measured by
a western standard. Haggai is prosaic in tone and
spirit; but the book admits of a metrical division. The
greater part of Zechariah may be arranged in the same
manner. The prose narratives of the prophets are
easily separated from the poetical pieces. Even por-
tions of the book of Bcclesiastes, which is substantially
prose, might perhaps be distributed in parallel lines,
as Desvoeux thought; though Koester's arrangement
of the whole in strophes, consisting of so many
members, introduces an artificiality of which the
author himself did not dream.

Translation. 95

§ 10.

It is known that some portions of the Hebrew books
were inserted after the books themselves were com-
posed or compiled. Though it is impossible to ascer*
tain when and by whom they were added, the fact that
they were added, is pretty clear. In the process of
selecting the present documents from a larger national
literature and giving them definite places in the author
rised collection, some changes were all but unavoidable.
The gradual formation of the canon by persons of note
such as Ezra, Nehemiah, the members of the great
Synagogue and others, gave rise to alterations. Pro-
cesses of redaction however imperfect, involved the
same thing. The changes were incidental not syste-
matic. Made on no plan they did not appear at one
time, but were partial and occasional.

Among later additions are the greater part of Jere*
miah xxv. 11 6-14 a; the clause in whieh Sheshak is,
xxv. 26 ; xxvii. 1, 7, 16-22. The words, " in the fourth
year in the fifth month" xxviii. 1 ; and xxxiii. 14-26*
xxxix. 1, 2, 4-13, are all posterior to Jeremiah and
unauthentic. So are chapters 50, 51, proceeding from
one hand. The 52nd chapter is an extract which another
appended.

Isaiah, Proverbs, and some of the historical books
present similar though fewer insertions. These pas*
sages are occasionally manifest, as the second part of
iJL vii. 8, « And within three score and five year,
shall Ephraim be broken that it be not a people ;" thfr

96 Part II.

words, " by the king of Assyria" in vii. 20 ; as also
u and thou shalt go even to Babylon" in Micah iv. 10.
In other places they are less obvious, as in Genesis xv.
2, where hit dcmmesek is a gloss upon ben meshek, in-
correctly pointed.*

Should a translator indicate this kind of additions by
a different type, as Bwald does f The expedient has its
advantages. As it trenches, however, on the higher
criticism it must be left to the historical critics, who
have proved that the Bible is a collection of works writ-
ten at different times, under particular circumstances,
by men of like passions with ourselves — a collection
which has passed through the hands of redactors. The
expedient of a different type might be recommended
were the line between corruptions of the text and
glosses or interpolations a definite one ; if the authen-
tic text could be separated in all instances from the
disfigurements attached to it from the earliest period;
and if the respective times when glosses, changes, cor-
ruptions originated, could be ascertained. But this is
impossible.

In speaking of unauthentic additions and glosses,
we must mention their arbitrary assumption in various
instances in order to maintain views which cannot
be fairly adopted. Thus it is generally supposed,
alter Prideaux, that Ezra added what appeared neces-
sary for illustrating, connecting, or completing the
edition of the Scriptures ascribed to him. Statements

* The two words should be pointed njTOflDI K^FI, he is cu&bewrer.
Compare Aqoila's vibe tov ttotI^ovtoq.

Translation. 97

apparently subsequent to the context in which they
stand are also attributed to others. The assumption
has been a convenient one for those who uphold the
Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, since it enables
them to dispose of troublesome places with ease. But
it is a hazardous course to break in upon the settled
text with unauthorised notions, and to 'disturb that
which resists arbitrary treatment. Of this sort are
Deuteronomy ii. 10-12, 20-23, iii. 9, xxxiv. 10-12,
(genuine Deuteronomistic passages) ; Genesis xxxvi.
31, &c. ; Daniel i. 1, &c. The reader should be on his
guard against assumptions originating in apologetic
motives. Glosses of the nature indicated do not belong
to Ezra, or some of the prpphets, or to the men of the
great Synagogue ; but are constituent parts of the
narratives as they came from the hands of the authors
or compilers.

§11.

♦

As the Hebrew text should not be altered for the
purpose of removing offences against morality or con-
tradictions, neither should the English translation.
The latter ought not to be disturbed with the view of
silencing objectors, unless it be plainly contrary to the
original.

Thus some affirm the proper rendering of Exodus
iv. 21 to be, "I will permit his heart to be so hard-
ened that he will not let the people go;" and of
Exod. ix, 12, " Yet the Lord suffered the heart of

98 Part II.

• — i i ■ ■

Pharaoh to be so hardened that he hearkened not to
them." In both instances, the authorised version is
correct.

Is it worth while to change the English word bor-
rowed in Exodus iii. 22, xii. 85, for the sake of obviat-
ing the objection that God's commanding of the
Israelites to borrow from the Egyptians what they
never intended to restore, favours theft ? We believe
not; though some attach great importance to the
alteration. The account of the request addressed to
Pharaoh that he would allow the Israelites a three days'
journey into the wilderness to keep a religious feast
there, proceeds from the Jehovist. Both the king
and the Egyptians supposed that the brief absence
from Goshen asked and granted, was temporary. The
Israelites knew that the object was different. Pharaoh
and his people were under a false impression about
it; Moses and Aaron were not. Hence the ashing of
vessels and jewels was really borrowing. Had we
nothing but the older Elohistic narrative, in which
Moses asks for the total freedom of the Israelites, the
case would be simple ; but the representation given in
the Jehovistic account attributes to them reserve and
deceit. Nothing is gained by changing the word
borrow in our version. As the Jehovistic account in-
volves the idea, the term expressing it need not be
displaced ; especially as the verb means to borrow as well
as to ask, which is proved by 2 Kings vi. 5, and by the
Hiphil lend in 1 Sam. i. 28 ; though Reinke and Heng-

Translation. 99

stenberg strive to explain the latter of bestowing as
a gift, not lending. The Hiphil lend confirms the Kal-
sense borrowed, as is seen in 1 Samuel i. 28, where
both occur; and therefore borrow, which the English
version has in Exodus iii. 22 ; xi. 2 ; xii. 35, is cor-
rect, whatever be asserted to the contrary. De Wette
rightly renders it entleJmen. In the Targum of Onke-
los the word has the same sense, as it has also in the
Syriac version. The context shews the nature of the
asking. The Israelites requested permission to go
into the wilderness for three days to keep a sacred
feast, not to depart from Egypt for ever. Probably
the Jehovist did not look upon the act as a theft. He
may have considered it a piece of justice, as we con-
clude from his introducing a theophany, and so refer-
ring it to Jehovah's direction.

According to 1 Samuel ii. 25, Elfs feeble reproaches
of his worthless sons only served to lull them into
security, because the Lord would slay them. As this is
thought objectionable from a Christian point of view,
the Hebrew conjunction has been rendered therefore or
though, and a meaning obtained which is declared to
be "in unison with the whole tenor of the sacred
writings," viz. Notwithstanding, they hearkened not
to the voice of their father. Therefore the Lord would
slay them. This innovation implies ignorance of He-
brew pragmatism, and the received version is correct.

Another example of the same kind is in Numbers
xii. 3, where the English has, " Now the man Moses

h 2

> j

«MM»

100 Part II.

was very meek above all the men which were upon the
face of the earth." Here some assert that there is a
mistranslation, and render, "Now the man Moses was
depressed or afflicted more than any man, &c.," because
of the great burden he had to sustain in governing
the Israelites. The proposed change is wrong. Meek
is a fair representative of the Hebrew word ; " one
who bears injuries with patience, mildness, and humi-
lity." The language in question belongs to the Jeho-
vistic document, for the Elohist never uses the phrase
"the man Moses;" and the advocates of Mosaic
authorship must resort to some other expedient than
the alteration of the English version.

Still farther, the imprecations in Deuteronomy xxvii.
15-26, are sometimes removed by rendering the text,
" cursed they," or "cursed are they," instead of" cursed
be they." Though the word be has nothing answer-
able to it in the Hebrew, it is not the less correct. In
like manner, Kennicott alters the sense of Genesis
xliv. 5, into, " Is it not that in which my Lord drink-
eth ? therefore he would certainly discover concerning
it ;" to exclude the idea of Joseph practising divina-
tion with a cup.

Some Jews, followed by Adam Clarke, convert Bahab
the harlot into an hostess or innkeeper (Joshua ii. 1,
&c.) because it is thought unbecoming for a prince of
Judah to have an harlot for wife.

Apologetic changes must be rejected, especially
when they are made to reconcile the Bible with mo-

Translation. 101

dern science, as in the Mosaic history of the fourth
day's work. For the translation " Let it be, that the
lights in the firmament of heaven for dividing between
the day and the night, be for signs and for seasons
and for days and for years," is incorrect, though sanc-
tioned by Eosenmiiller. The words speak of the crea-
tion of the heavenly bodies, not of their determination
to certain uses merely; and light is said to hate
existed as an independent production prior to the sun,
moon, and stars. (Genesis i. 14, &c.)

In like manner Dathe's translation of Genesis i. 2,
€t but afterwards the earth, &c." is approved by Dr.
Pye Smith and others, that they may insert any geolo-
gical period required between the original act of crea-
tion and the supposed state of the earth described in
the second verse. But the connexion forbids the
interposition of any such period; the phrase heavens
and earth of the first verse being all but equivalent to
the earth of the second; while both verses describe the
creative act belonging to the first day, whose result
was the watery mass which our world originally pre-
sented.*

* We need scarcely remark, that the expedient suggested by Chal-
mers is equally erroneous, viz. the dividing of Genesis i. 2, into two
halves, so that the first day's work begins with, " And the Spirit of
God moved upon the face of the waters." In this manner the com-
mencing verse, with the first half of the second, forms an introductory
sentence. If geology require such exposition, it must be rejected.
But it does not ; and the reconcilers of Scripture and science labour in
vain.

mtmmmmmmmmmmm

102 Part II.

It is also an alteration for the worse to change firma-
ment into ewpcmse in Genesis i. 6, for the purpose of
doing away the idea of solidity. The Hebrews cer-
tainly believed that the sky was a firm, hard, ex-
tended vault; and the etymology of the word em-
ployed by the Elohist agrees with that opinion, for
the original verb involves the idea of beating out,
ox expanding by beating, something solid* Fwma~
ment is an excellent equivalent to the noun ; expanse
requires the adjective solid ; " a solid expanse." The
sentiments of the sacred writers about the phenomena
of nature were those of the age they lived in ; and it is
impossible to reconcile them with the scientific views
of modern times.

Of the same kind are the renderings prompted by a
desire to connect twofold narratives or descriptions
into a continuous account. Thus Genesis xii. 1, is
translated, " Now the Lord had said unto Abraham,
&c. ;" whereas it should be, " Now the Lord said unto
Abraham ;" for the Elohistic account of the pa-
triarch's departure from his native land is succeeded or
interrupted by the Jehovistic in xii. 1-4 a; and the
two xi. 27-32, xii. 4 b. 5 :: xii. 1-4 a do not harmonise.
The English version implies that the same writer
resumes at xii. 1, &c. what he had touched upon be-
fore, narrating it in detail. The traces of two writers
cannot be effaced by an artificial rendering. The Jeho-
vist expressly attributes Abraham's departure from
Mesopotamia to a divine call unknown to the Elohist.

\ -

Translation. 103

But our version is right in the rendering, " And the
Lord said," at Exodus xi. 1, though the three verses
(xi. 1-3) form an awkward insertion and interrupt the
context. The Jehovist was not concerned about the
incongruity of making Moses announce the last plague
to Pharaoh later than Exodus x. 24-29 implies. Here
his sources were different ; or he departed from them
without scruple.

It is also a safe rule to be watchful against all depar-
tures from the authorised version that tend to bring
out certain doctrines which the text does not clearly
present. Theologians often extract proofs of their
favourite dogmas from passages occasionally perverted
for the purpose. Thus we have seen the Deutero-Isaiah
made to furnish a strong proof of the Messiah being
the sanctifier of the Gentiles, or in other words of
Jesus becoming the great High Priest of the whole
world, by the use of the term sprinkle in Isaiah lii. 15 ;
whereas the Hebrew verb so rendered has a different
meaning : " He (Israel) will cause many nations to leap
for joy." We have also seen the writer of the seventy-
third psalm changed into a believer in man's immor-
tality by a false rendering of the twentieth verse : "As
a dream when one awaketh, Lord, in the awakening
thou shalt despise their image." The received version
is correct in referring the second awakening here
mentioned to Jehovah, who is said, in metaphorical
language, to awake or rise up, to judge his creatures ;
not to the general resurrection. The doctrine of

- - • .

104 Part II

immortality proper is not in Hebraism, where there is
merely the conception of Sheol or the underworld, in
which the shades are located, not devoid of feeling,
but having no more than a joyless, gloomy existence,
continuing their former life-relations, like the ghosts of
the Greeks. Even in Judaism, the book of Ecclesiastes
has the old cheerless state, in the spirit's return to
God ; while Isaiah xxvi. 19, and Ezekiel xxxvii. pre-
sent foreshadows of the resurrection, and the book of
Daniel states it plainly yet only in reference to the
Jews, so that xii. 2 becomes a typical passage for the
first resurrection spoken of in the Eevelation ; just as the
wish of the prophet in Isaiah lxvi. 24, about torments
inflicted on apostate Israel after death, leaves Gentiles
out of account. The privilege of personal immortality
was confined to the chosen people. Gentiles had no
part in the book of life. Such was Jewish particularism.

§ 12.

A version, rightly executed, should present the
Hebrew arrangement of books, according to its three
divisions. This is preferable to the Septuagint one,
which the English follows.* The advantages of the
Hebrew over the Greek order are considerable, not the
least of them being that it is nearer the chronological

* Ordinary editions of the Septuagint agree with the arrangement of
the English Bible ; but the Vatican MS., and the editions that follow
it, put the minor before the greater prophets ; some of them too in
another succession.

Translation. 105

succession, and suggests a more correct idea of the
nature of some parts in the collection. The book of
Daniel, for example, being among the Hagiographa and
separated from the prophets, shews that its origin was ,
subsequent to theirs — that it appeared after Malachi,
at a time when the spirit of prophecy was supposed to
be extinct. The position of Job in the same division
favours a more recent date than that suggested by its
standing at the head of the poetical books. But a
chronological order, which might be given with toler-
able exactness, would be best, as forming a secure
basis for interpretation.* Such change, however,
would be considered too violent, though most beneficial
to expositors. It would disturb many obstinate pre-
judices, because not the ignorant alone, but conserva-
tive scholars, pertinaciously resist the breaking up of
old opinions. A return to the Jewish arrangement
might be less distasteful. We fear, however, that even
it could not be followed without opposition ; and if the
fear be well founded, it is, perhaps, unwise to abandon
the present arrangement, embodied as it is in Lutheran,
Eomanist, and Protestant versions. Ecclesiastics and
the public are so sensitive to changes touching the
Bible, that their anger need not be roused for the sake

* A Bampton lecturer and Regius Professor of Divinity, has recently
(1869) asserted that Jonah's was the earliest written prophecy, and the
Chronicles the latest work in the Canon : erroneous statements both,
Bhewing the desirableness of chronological arrangement, even for intel-
ligent readers.

106 Part II.

of secondary improvements. It would be specially
irritating to the many who ignore the results of
historic criticism to have the book of Daniel separated
from the three greater prophets ; or Ecclesiastes parted
from Proverbs ; as though the first had not an equal
claim to the gift of prophecy ; or the second were not
a Solomonic production. An English version intended
to supersede the present, may best follow the current
arrangement. As political, social, and ecclesiastical
improvements in Great Britain are brought about
through concessions to conservatism or culpable com-
promises ; changes in Biblical matters follow the same
rule. England slumbers over a Bible, which her
bishops fear to interpret by the broad light of reason
and science. They look at it in the mirror of past
creeds ; as if the opinions of men derived from ancient
books were of equal value with the spirit of the writers,
or dogma could supply life.,

§ 13.

How should the four Hebrew letters expressing the
incommunicable name be rendered ?

The English version employs the equivalent Lord in
capital letters. In a very few places, it has Jehovah.
We should not employ Lord because it belongs to
earthly rulers or masters; audit is desirable to represent
the divine name to the ear as well as to the eye. There
are also circumstances in which Lord is awkward ; as
at the beginning of the 110th Psalm, "The Lord said

Tramlation. 107

unto my Lord." Some render it " the Eternal," as is
done in the French Geneva Bible of 1588 ; in Mendels-
sohn's and most Jewish translations ; and in Bunsen's
Bibelwerk ;* but this, besides its want of justification
by Exodus vi. 3, is an inadequate version. In any case
Jehovah gives an inaccurate pronunciation because it
has the vowels of another word. Yahweh is as near
the true pronunciation as we can get j and those who
aim at accuracy will perhaps adopt it. But it is
scarcely worth while to disturb the name Jehovah so
familiar to English ears. Perhaps it is also preferable
to any translation; to the Eternal or the Existing*
Hence we would recommend the use of Jehovah in
a new version, iAstead of Lord, reserving the latter for
the Hebrew Adonai .

§ 14.

No- English version of the Bible should be issued
without the Apocrypha. The edition of 1611 had it;
and though it is now rare to see that version with the
portion in question, except in copies printed above
forty years ago, the resolution to dispense with it, and
to discard it from the copies printed at the expense of
the British and Foreign Bible Society, was an un-
worthy concession to the prejudices of Scottish Pres-
byterians and their sympathisers in England. All
early English Bibles, even the Genevan, contained the

* HjrP is from 71)71* the imperfect of rW or niH = the Ex-

V • * "I ' TT T T

isting ; though it may also be the imperfect of Hiphil = the Creating.

108 Part II.

— - - - - - - - , — ■- , ■■■■■ i_mi— ^^m^^^^^^^^«^lM^^»^^^^^M« ^m ^m ^^ j _■ ■ i

Apocrypha. It is in Luther's ; and the Lutheran, as
well as the Roman Catholic Church maintains its uti-
lity, though in different degrees. Remembering that
the Greek-speaking Jews had the apocryphal writings
in their Bible ; that the early fathers of the Christian
Church used them not very differently from those in
the* Palestinian Jewish canon ; and that a rank inferior
to the latter was not generally given them till the
fourth century, we hold that they are worthy of a
place next to the canonical collection. They are pro-
perly deutero-canonical ; and as the Church of England
. repeats Jerome's stateinent about their being read by
the church "for example of life and instruction of
manners/' they deserve perusal. But it is not our
purpose to shew their specific value ; though the temp-
tation to do so is strong in the face of Eichhorn's unfa-
vourable judgment. The argument once adduced
against them as if they were not the word of God
while the canonical Scriptures are, rests on a ground-
less assumption. If a theory of inspiration be applied
to their disparagement, its reasonableness should first
be shewn. In the present case, it is impossible to
.prove that the canonical Scriptures are termed by any
of the sacred writers the word of God, or are truly
described by that phrase. They contain the word of
God in measures and degrees consistent with the cul-
tures of different times and the mental susceptibilities
of inspired authors ; but the same may be said of the
Apocrypha. The people should have an opportunity of

Translation. 109

reading the books in question because they are profit-
able, some specially so, as Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus.

The text of these writings is in an unsettled state ;
though various works of Volkmar, Hilgenfeld, and
Fritzsche have done much to correct it. The critical
edition published by the last-named scholar may per-
haps serve the purpose of a translator, without satisfy-
ing all the expectations of scholars. The authorized
version is also inferior in execution to that of the
canonical books, and needs thorough revision, which
will be greatly facilitated by the versions of Dereser
and De Wette, with the critical commentaries of
Fritzsche and Grimm.

A few examples of text-emendation and revised ren-
derings may be given.

Second Esdras, as it is called in the Received ver-
sion, requires special attention. The text of it needs
much emendation, and should be largely supplemented.
The various versions now available, in addition to the
Latin, will facilitate such revision. Gildemeisfcer's
expected editioawiU doubtless satisfy the requirements
of scholars. Four chapters may be separated from the
work itself, viz. i. ii. ; xv. xvi. because they are of later
and probably Christian origin, having been added as a
sort of correction.

Between chapter vii. 35 and 36 a considerable por-
tion has fallen out of the Latin, and therefore does not
appear in our Received version. The gap is owing to
the fact that the Paris MS., whence all editions of the

110 Part II

Latin have been taken, wants two leaves at the place.
But the Amiens MS. is perfect, whence the whole, abont
eighty verses, has been restored by Mr. Bensly. This
is a welcome discovery by a Cambridge scholar.

In vii. 33, we read,

" And the most High shall appear upon the seat of
judgment, and misery shall pass away, and the long-
suffering shall have an end ; but judgment shall remain,
truth shall stand, and faith shall wax strong, and the
work shall follow, and the reward shall be shewed, and
the good deeds shall be of force, and wicked deeds
shall bear no rule."

Here ' compassions' should replace ' misery / and
instead of 'shall bear no rule/ 'shall not sloej' ought
to appear. The translation is also inexact in the case
of other words.

In xii. 32, 33, our version has,

" This is the anointed which the Highest hath kept
for them and for their wickedness unto the end ; ho
shall reprove them, and shall upbraid them with their
cruolty. For he shall set them before him alive in
judgment, and shall rebuke them, and correct them."

The correct rendering is as follows ;

" This is the anointed whom the most High hath
reserved unto the end for them ; and according to their
own wickednesses he shall reprove them, and shall
upbraid them to the face with their contempts, for he
shall set them forth alive to judgment, and it shall be
that when he rebukes, he will then destroy them."

Translation. Ill

In xiii. 37 we have,

" And this my Son shall rebuke the wicked inven-
tions of those nations, which for their wicked life are
fallen into the tempest."

The translation ought to be,

u But he himself, my Son, shall rebuke the nations
that have come, for their impieties ; the nations, which
resemble a tempest, &c"

In vi. 51, &c. as it appears in the Syriac, we have
these words ;

" But regarding death, this is the word ; when the
determination of the sentence shall have gone forth
from the most High respecting man that he must die,
when the spirit is separated from the body to be sent
back to Him who gave it, he first adores the glory of
God j and if he belong to the despisers or to such as
have not kept the ways of the most High, or to those
who have hated the God-fearing ; those souls do not
enter into the secret places, but are from this time forth
in punishment, and groan, and are saddened in seven
ways, &c*

In i. 36, where the English version has, " They have
seen no prophets yet they shall call their sins to re-
membrance and acknowledge them," we should read,
" They have not seen the prophets and yet will call
their ancient virtues to remembrance."*

It is also manifest that "diligence" is a wrong

* The true reading is antiquitabwm eorum as Hilgenfeld has it, not
vniqwtatv/m eorum which is an error of transcription.

112 Part II.

translation in iii. 19, though it is a literal rendering.
The Latin word has the unusual signification in this
place of precepts and should be so in the English : " that
thou mightest give the law unto the seed of Jacob,
and precepts unto the generation of Israel."

The entire book is of great interest in regard to the
Messianic ideas prevalent in the first century of the
Christian era among the Jews ; though it is sometimes
difficult to separate Christian interpolations and correc-
tions from the authentic work, as at vi. 17 — vii. 45,
which passage Hilgenfeld thinks spurious, though on
doubtful grounds. But it is certain that a Christian
hand has substituted Jesus for unctus in the Latin
text of vii. 28 ; since the Syriac, Ethiopic and Arabic
have ' the Messiah/

The remarks which will be made hereafter respect-
ing chapter-headings in the received version apply
equally to the Apocryphal books. There is a notable
error in one prefixed to 2 Esdras vii. viz. " 33 Christ
shall sit in judgment." The verse in question speaks
of the most High as the judge ; the author of the book
expressly denying, in other places, that the Messiah
will preside at the final judgment of mankind, (vi. 6,
xii. 32, &c.) Judaism presents no trace of the opinion
that the Messiah will be, supreme judge of all men ; it
is a Christian sentiment.

The received version presents Ecclesiasticus xxi. 25
thus:

" The lips of talkers will be telling such things as

Translation. 113

pertain not unto them : but the words of such as have
understanding are weighed in the balance. " The Eng-
lish translator evidently followed the Complutensian
Polyglot reading, with which one MS. agrees.* But
the received text has, " the lips of strangers will be
grieved with them, &c."f The Greek translator, how-
ever, mistook the Hebrew original, and produced an
erroneous rendering. He should have had Greek words
signifying,

t€ The lips of the proud are loaded with cursing, &c."t

In iv. 23 we have this language,

"And refrain not to speak when there is occasion to
do good ;
And hide not thy wisdom in her beauty,"

which is an incorrect version of the Greek, It ought to be,

" Refrain not thy speech in the time of help,
And conceal not thy wisdom for honour ?*

In xxi. 27, we read,

"When the ungodly curseth Satan, he curseth his
own soul,"

which should be,

"When the ungodly curseth his adversary, he
curseth his own soul/'

* XtlXtj wokvkakwv rd ovk avrwv hrjyrjatrat.

f XeiXtj dWorplwv Iv tovtoiq ftapvv9rjatrai.

J XeiXij v7T€pf]<pdvu>v apq. PapvvBrjffeTai. For 0^*Tt, the translator

read D*"ff . and for nbwa. n^HS

114 Part II.

The author of the book makes no mention of Satan
elsewhere.

In the Wisdom of Solomon, xii. 20, the English
Bible has, " For if thou didst punish the enemies of
thy children, and the condemned to death with such
deliberation, giving them time and place whereby they
might be delivered from their malice." Here two
words are omitted, " and entreaty," xal &ij<»wc, after
" deliberation." It ia true they are wanting in the
ComplutenBian, Vulgate, and several MSS., and that
there is another various reading ;* bnt it is apparent that
their omission arose out of the difficulty they create, for
how can " entreaty " or " supplication " fee predicated
of God ? The divine condescension is so represented.
The omitted words should be restored to the text, as
there is every reason for supposing them authentic.
In vi. 23 we read,

" Neither will I go with consuming envy ;
For such a man shall have no fellowship with
wisdom."
The version ought to be,
" Neither will I walk with lean envy ;

For it has no fellowship with wisdom."
In Judith ii. 2 it is said of Nebuchadnezzar, that he
" concluded the afflicting of the whole earth ont of his
own mouth." Here the Greek translator probably
made a mistake, for as the text now stands it is not
possible to educe a tolerable meaning : "He completed

Translation. 115

out of his mouth all the wickedness of the earth."*
Perhaps, according to Fritzsche's conjecture, "he
revealed all the wickedness, &c."

In x. 8, instead of "they worshipped God," it
should be "she worshipped God." Our translators
erred in following the text of the Complutensian and
Aldine editions.

The translation of xii. 7, " Washed herself in a
fountain of water by the camp," is inexact, arising from
the felt difficulty of a literal version, which would be,
" washed in the camp at the fountain of water "f
But it is better to abide by the latter and suppose
that the. spring might be both inside and outside the
camp.

Italics are sometimes used to indicate words supplied
from MSS. or some old printed text. Thus, in Eccle-
siasticus iii. 22,

"But what is commanded thee, think thereupon
with reverence;
For it is not needful for thee to see with thine eyes
the things that are in secret."

Here with reverence is the rendering of a Greek
wordj which is in the Complutensian text and some
MSS.; while to see with thine eyes§ is also in the
Complutensian and old Latin* The genuine text is,

* avviriXifft rraaav n)y Kaxiav rijfc yrjQ Ik tov aroparoc avrov.
f iv Ty fraptfiPoXij kirl rfc wqyijc tov vdaroe.
% oo'utiQ. The old Latin has " semper."
4 pKtTTuv 6$Qa\po7c.

i 2

116 Part II.

-■■■--■ ..!■■

" The things which are commanded thee, those think
upon,
For thou hast no need for concealed things."

The following is a more correct rendering of a beau-
tiful passage concerning the death of righteous youth,
in Wisdom iv. 7, &c. :

" But if the righteous die sooner than usual, he shall
be in rest.
For honourable age is not length of time.
Nor is it measured by number of years,
But wisdom is the gray hair unto men,
And an unspotted life is number of years.
Whereas he pleased God, he was loved by Him,
And because he lived among sinners, he was trans-
lated.
He was hurried away, lest wickedness should

change his undemanding,
Or deceit beguile his soul.
For the envious sorcery of naughtiness darkens

beautiful things,
And the giddiness of lust perverts the innocent

mind.
Soon perfected he fulfilled a long time,
For his soul was pleasing to the Lord ;
Therefore it hasted away from the midst of wicked-
ness."

The Alexandrian Jew from whom the work pro-
ceeded believed in the immortality of the soul, sup-
posing [that to have constituted the divine image .in

Translation. 117

which man was created. After the death of the bodj*,
the soul, according to him, continues to enjoy a blessed
life. He had a better and higher view of original
humanity than either the Elohist or Jehovist as they
express their ideas in the two accounts of primeval
man.

It is with the deutero-canonical as with the canonical
writings. Difficulties occur that perplex the mind and
preclude a positive decision. If the masters of criti-
cism disagree, timid disciples may well hesitate. Of
such passages we have an example in Judith xii. 1,
where we read,

" Then he commanded to bring her in where his
plate was set ; and bade that they should prepare for
her of his own meats, and that she should drink of
his own wine."

The words "to prepare for her of his own meats " are
obscure.* Fritzsche explains the original " to spread the
couch for her that she might eat of his own meats, &c."
denying that the verb can be applied to anything else
than the preparing of a couch or bolster, f But De
Wette renders (€ to prepare a meat of his own meats,
&c." like our received version; while Baduell and
Dereser translate, "to cover a table with his own
meats." Considering the nature of the succeeding con-
text, we must decide in favour of De Wette's opinion ;
though such use of the verb is without example in

* KaraarpuKTai avry &irb t&v dyj/oirotrifiaTiav,
t KaraarpuKTai Kkivf)v.

118 Part II.

Grock. The translator need not be excused for indif-
ferent Greek constructions on certain occasions. As
it is added in the verse " to drink of his own wine,"*
we naturally expect an expression of the idea of eat-
ing, or a preparation for the act in connexion with
meats ; and Fritzsche's ellipsis " that she might eat"
along with that of "couch" is almost as harsh as
Wahl's to which he objecta bo strongly.

§ 15.
It would be hazardous to assert that the authors of
the Received version kept clear of dogmatic preposses-
sions. Some of their leanings may be discerned amid
their general impartiality. In Jeremiah xvii. 9, we
find, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and
desperately wicked : who can know it ?" which savours
of the view afterwards expressed in the Westminster
Confession of Faith ; " from original corruption we are
utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all
good, and wholly inclined to all evil." The words in
question do not stand so strongly in any preceding
English translation. Even the Genevan has, " The
heart is deceitful and wicked above all things."
Ooverdale reads, " among all things living man hath
the most deceitful and unsearchable heart j" the Great
Bible, " among all things man hath the most deceitful
aud stubborn heart f which is repeated in the Bishops'.
The " desperately wicked" is an advance, whose source

Translation. 119

seems to be the French version of 1588, a revision of
Olivetan's by the pastors of Geneva, who adapted it to
Calvinistic doctrines in various places. Well might
the Jesuit Croton* criticise it sharply. We know that
Keynolds was a Puritan; and when we find his name
among the company of revisers who had charge of
Jeremiah and other books, the Calvinistic bias of the
man peeps out perhaps in this borrowing from the
Prench.f One thing is certain, the translation is inac-
curate. It should be "the heart is deceitful above
every thing, and corrupt/ 9 or morally diseased. Gese-
nius is not happy in explaining the word malignant ;
nor is Ewald's graemlich, exact. De Wette's verderbt
is the best.

And did not the future tenses in the rendering of
Exodus xv. 14-17, originate in a desire to make the
ode suit the time when it is said to have been sung by
Moses and the people ?

u The people shall hear, and be afraid : sorrow shall
take hold of the inhabitants of Palestina. Then the
dukes of Edom shall be amazed ; the mighty men of
Moab, trembling shall take hold upon them ; all the
inhabitants of Canaan shall melt away. Fear and dread
shall fall upon them ; by the greatness of thine arm
they shall be as still as a stone ; till thy people pass
over, OLord, till the people pass over, which thou hast
purchased. Thou shalt bring them in, and plant them

* Geneve plagiare, p. 1925, etc.

f Le coenr est cauteleux et desesperement malin par dessus toutes
choses.

120 Part II.

in the mountain of thine inheritance, in the place, O
Lord, which thou hast made for thee to dwell in, in the
Sanctuary, O Lord, which thy hands have established."
Here the translators, following the Bishops' version,
use futures, though they have the past tense in the
thirteenth verse. The whole passage • (verses 13-17)
should receive an uniform rendering, either with the
verbs as preterites, or as poetical presents. The
Genevan Bible is erroneously consistent in making all
futures.

" The peoples heard, they trembled,
Pain took hold of the inhabitants of Palestina,
Then were the princes of Bdom amazed ;
Moab's nobles — trembling seized them ;
All the inhabitants of Canaan melted away,
Terror and anguish fell upon them,
By the gf eatnsss of thine arm they were still as a

stone :
Till thy people passed over, Jehovah,
Till the people passed over whom thou hast pur-
chased,
Thou broughtest and plantedst them on the moun-
tain of thine inheritance,
A place thou madest for thy dwelling, Jehovah,
The sanctuary, Lord, which thy hands have
set up."

The language implies that the passage across the
Jordan had taken place, that Jerusalem was occupied
by the Israelites, and Solomon's temple built. The

Translation. 121

verbs refer to things done ; and the poem, Jehovistic
in its present form, is much later than Moses.

§ 16.

The margin of a version should contain notices of
all departures from the received text which affect the
sense, and renderings that approach the textual in
probability. Where the k'ris are adopted, or other
readings derived from versions or conjecture, the margin
should mention the thing. It is sufficient to state the
simple fact of leaving the established text, without
giving particulars which belong to a critical commen-
tary. Thus at Isaiah xix. 18, where the true meaning
is, "one of them shall be called city of safety/ 9 the
margin must indicate the adoption of another reading
than the textual ; as also that city of the sun is a dif-
ferent but less probable rendering.*

As it is often difficult to decide between two senses
of a word or passage, the translator puts into the text
the one he prefers ; yet his grounds of preference may
be slight, and therefore he indicates in the margin the
next probable version. Feeling that the balance in
favour of the textual rendering is small, he is bound to
state another which is agreeable to the original and has

* The authority of the Masora for the reading with Be is weakened
by Geiger's remarks, Urschrift,p. 79 note; but we cannot approve of
his assumption, though favoured by the LXX, that D*inn arose
from p*T!Jn when the latter appellation ofr Heliopolis with its temple
became offensive to the Jews out of Egypt.

122 Part II.

various considerations in its favour. It is usually unde-
sirable to note more than one rendering ; though a
passage may present great difficulties, and be variously
understood by good critics.

Thus in Solomon's Song vi. 13, " What will ye see
in the Shulamite ?

As it were the company of two armies" (English
version), we put in the text,

u Like the dance of the angel-choirs,"

and in the margin,

" Like the dance of Mahanaim,^

without mentioning " like the dance of double rows/*
though it be in the version superintended by Zunz.

In Ecclesiastes v. 6, where the correct meaning is,
" Neither say thou before the messenger [of God] that
it was an error ;" i.e. before the priest, we should not
put in the margin " before the angel," though it is tha
rendering of the authorised version and of Jewish
authorities.

In Job iii. 19, the translation, " The small and
great are the same" should be in the text ; and " The
small and great are there " in the margin. Schlottmann
is wrong in thinking the personal pronoun a copula in
all passages like the present, and so refusing it the
meaning " the same."

Some marginal notes are objectionable. Such is
that appended in the Received version to 2 Samuel
xxiv. 1, viz. Satan as the being who moved David ;
because it contradicts the right meaning which makes

Translation. 1£3

Jehovah David's prompter in the matter. Satan
appears in 1 Chron. xxi. 1 ; and it is unwarrantable to
remove a contradiction by doing violence to the
original. Ewald's assertion that the word Satan must
be inserted in the text of 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, because it is
in the Chronicles, cannot be approved, though Well-
hausen inclines to the same view.

Equally objectionable is the marginal remark at
2 Chron. xxi. 12, saying of a prophecy sent by Elijah
to King Jehoram, " which was writ before his death."
Should it be granted that the prophet might have been
alive when Jehoram was reigning — a supposition very
doubtful — it is still clear that the epistle given by the
Chronicle-writer (xxi. 12-15) did not proceed from
Elijah. Bertheau himself is obliged to admit this.
The note in question seems to have proceeded from
Dr. Blayney. It is not in the 1611 edition.

§17.

The translators made use of italics to distinguish
such English words as have no corresponding ones in
tne original, shewing in this respect a conscientious
accuracy worthy of all praise. Far from wishing to
conceal from the people the insertions deemed neces-
sary to make the sense intelligible and complete, they
marked them by a different type.

We cannot but admit that these italicised words were
generally inserted judiciously, for there are abundant
examples of their suitableness ; as in Exodus xxxiv. 7,
" that will by no means clear the guilty ;" Deutero-

124 Part II.

nomy xix. 13, "thou shalt put away the guilt of inno-
cent blood ; w xxxiii. 12, "And the Lord shall cover him
all the day long;" Lamentations iv. 9, "stricken
through for want of the fruits of the earth."

Italics have multiplied since the time of the trans-
lators. Printers have used them arbitrarily. Not
content with those of the 1611 edition, they have
gradually swelled the list, so far disfiguring uniformity
and beauty in the printing. Thus in Exodus xii.
36; Leviticus iv. 13, 22, 27, xxiv. 11; Deuteronomy
xvi. 10; Isaiah ix. 16; Psalm lxxxix. 19; there are
italics which did not appear originally.

That they occur needlessly or injudiciously in a great
number of instances in our ordinary English Bibles is
obvious to the most cursory reader. *Why should such
words as cmd, I, am, curt, is, even, this, that, &c. &c.
be italicised ? The Hebrew may include or suggest
them. And why should the sense be burdened with so
many clumsy and curious insertions as these, in
Job xix. 25-27, " For I know that my Redeemer liveth,
and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth.
And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet
in my flesh shall I see God. Whom I shall see for
myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another ;
though my reins be consumed within me " ? The sense
is obscured by such paraphrase, as it is also in Psalm
Ixxxiv. 5-7,

" Blessed is the man whose strength is in thee ; in
whose heart are the ways of them, Who passing through

Translation. 125

the valley of Baca make it a well ; the rain also filleth
the pools. They go from strength to strength, every
one of them in Zion appeareth before God." The
words of them who are not italicised in the edition
of 1611, bnt were properly marked so afterwards.

Of the same kind is Psalm xlix. 11, « Their inward
thought is, that their houses shall continue for ever,
and their dwelling-places to all generations ; they call
their lands after their own names."

Still more objectionable, because departing from the
true sense, are such supplements as, " But I will re-
member the years of the right hand of the most High,"
in Psalm lxxvii. 10; " yet shall ye be as the wings of
a dove covered with silver," Psalm lxviii. 13 ; "Uis of
the Lord's mercies that we are not consumed,"
Lamentations iii. 22; "unto God that performeth all
things for me," Psalm lvii. 2 ; " where I heard a lan-
guage that I understood not," Psalm lxxxi. 5. And
in Psalm cxxvii. 2, the italic supplement for, at the
beginning of the last clause, disturbs the sense,

" So he gives it to his beloved in sleep."

Though it (bread) and in are both absent from the
original, they need not be italicised. So in Isaiah
lxiv. 6, thing is improperly supplied, the original being,

" We are become as the unclean one, all of us,"

meaning, We have become impure like the heathen.

In 2 Samuel xxiv. 23, the translators did their best
to make sense of a corrupt text by inserting as before

126 Fart II.

" a king," but this carries it farther from the original,
which should be restored thus, " all this will the ser-
vant of my lord the king give the king." Araunah is
still the speaker.

It is doubtful whether the device be desirable.
Perhaps italicised words might be dispensed with. A
good translator cannot literally adhere to the terms of
the original, but must employ those sufficient to bring
oat the sense, though all may not have Hebrew equi-
valents. Little words must be inserted, and phrases
expanded according to their inherent meaning. A
judicious translator, familiar with the original, will not
abase the privilege he enjoys of employing a word
necessary or desirable for expressing the true sense.
He will not trespass on the province of the commen-
tator farther than is fairly allowable, or rashly diverge
into paraphrase. In the exercise of his functions,
English terms having no Hebrew equivalents will
appear, because one language requires flexibility during
its transfusion into another. Accordingly he will often
render the Hebrew word usually translated see, " look
with satisfaction/' dispensing with the italicised my or
his desire appended by the translators. He will not
have an italicised generation in the second command-
ment, but put either " it " or " descendants " without
a mark. Ho will not write,

" flod judgeth the righteous,

And God is angry with t)ie wicked every day**

(Psalm vii. II),

Translation. 127

but,

" God is a righteous judge,
And a God who is angry every day."

It is important that a translator should not have and
in Deuteronomy xviii. 1, "The priests, the Levites,
and all the tribes of Israel," not only because it is
unauthorised but because it tends to maintain the
distinctipu between the priests and Levites which is
observed in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, though
not in Deuteronomy. As the last book almost oblite-
rates the distinction, the original should be strictly
followed in the present case.

Not so important as this example, yet desirable in
our opinion, is the omission of always in Job xxxii. 9,
as soon as the context is rectified in our version;
though both Dathe and De Wette supply the adverb.

€€ But it is the spirit in man,
The inspiration of the Almighty, that giveth him

understanding.
Aged men are not wise,
Neither do seniors understand right ;"

i.e. they are not necessarily wise. It is the inspiration
of the Almighty which makes them so.

At the same time a translator will not hesitate to
use language whose literal equivalent does not appear
in Hebrew. Thus in Jeremiah xxiii. 6, " The Lord is
our righteousness" must be put, though the substan-
tive verb is wanting. And in Psalm lxxxiv. 7,

128 Part IL

" They go from strength to strength
And so they appear before God in Zion,"
is the proper rendering. Similarly i( moreover" as
well as " the words" will be inserted in 1 Kings xxii.
28, "And he spake moreover the words, Hearken *0
people, every one of you," though unrepresented in
the Hebrew, because they furnish a hint of the true
meaning. The last clause of the twenty-eighth verse
was no part of the original narrative, but came from
the compiler or redactor of the Books of Kings, who
identified the later Micah, whose prophecies begin with
" Hear all ye people," (the same words which occur in
the present passage), with the elder one. In conse-
quence of such identification the narrative in Kings
appends to the close of the elder Micah's prophetic
doings, €€ And he said, &c. &c." i.e. he also delivered
the well-known discourse beginning " Hearken O
people, every one of you," implying that the prophetic
words contained in our book of Micah were also his.

The expedient of italicised words in the English
version is occasionally associated with a doctrinal bias
which it is difficult to avoid. Translators will shew
the complexion of their belief at times, almost neces-
sarily. Thus at Psalm xlv. 3, the insertion of most
before mighty implies a Messianic interpretation and
the divinity of Christ. ' hero/ or € O mighty one/
should not be supplemented, especially as the Psalm
does not refer to the Messiah of the Jews much less to
Christ.

Translation. 129

~^~

Here the Genevan version is more blameable than
that of 1611, because it does not italicise most.

The pronoun this, inserted in Psalm li. 4, owes its
appearance in the text to the belief of David's author-
ship, and of his expressed repentance after adultery.
It is an unfortunate addition, which should not stand
in a Psalm really later than David. In the original
edition of 1611 it is not italicised, as in our present
Bibles.

In 1832 a sub-committee of three Dissenters issued
a short report complaining that " an extensive alter-
ation has been introduced into the text of our
Authorized Version by changing into italics innumer-
able words and phrases, which are nCt thus expressed
in the original editions of King James's Bible, printed
in 1611."

Soon after, Dr. Turton published an answer, virtually
admitting the fact but excusing it on the ground of
its harmlessness or even of its utility. If, however,
the principle of italic supplements be rejected, all
ground of complaint is at once removed. The plausible
pretext for carrying out a principle consistently will
not be needed when the principle itself is disallowed.
The Committee were right in asserting that many
unauthorised innovations had been made, but failed
to shew that " the alterations greatly deteriorated our
vernacular version ;" for the majority did not. The
exaggeration of the statement, that " those who have
made these alterations have unnecessarily exposed the

ISO Part II

sacred text to the scoffs of infidels, and thrown such
stumbling-blocks in the way of the unlearned as are
greatly calculated to perplex their minds, and un-
settle their confidence in the text of Scripture/' was
easily pointed out. On the ground assumed by both
parties Turton had the best of the argument, though
neither went to the foundation of the matter. In
developing an acknowledged principle, the insertion of
italics should be entrusted to some competent autho-
rity; not left to privileged printers at the great Uni-
versities. The Dissenting Committee did not urge
this ; had they done so, Dr. Turton could not have
met it.

There is often great difficulty in determining what
are the best words to be supplied when the Hebrew
fails to express them. Thus in choosing between the
present and future tenses of the verb to be, a verb
which must be often used, there may be considerable
doubt. Here the best critics often differ. For example,
Ewald supplies are in Isaiah liv. 13, "And all thy
children are disciples of Jehovah;" while Gresenius
has shall be. The one makes the clause contain a
declaration ; the other a promise, which is better. A
translator must follow his own judgment, without
undue attachment to any authority.

§ 18.

Among the accompaniments of a version which have
to be considered are chapter-headings, page-headings,

Translation. 131

parallel references, and chronological dates. A few
remarks on each are necessary.

As to chapter-headings like those in the Eeceived
version, most readers finding them useful, would be
unwilling to part with them. Custom has sanctioned
their presence; they are old companions whose loss
would be felt. But in the face of all advantages, they
should be removed because they are a commentary ;
and commentary is not a translator's department.
Could they be kept apart from interpretation, we might
allow of their insertion in a version, and their useful-
ness to the general reader ; but how can they, except
in the hands of one familiar with the original, able not
only to render it rightly into English, but to explain it
if necessary according to the true principles of her-
meneutics, and yet so thoroughly fair as to forego all
but a necessary and brief summary, untinged with
favourite views ? A scholar of this description is not
easily found. Clergymen of all sects are too wedded
to theoretical views or theologies to be trustworthy in
the matter. The professors in Universities and scholars
of repute unfettered by long creeds, are the persons
likely to make the headings described. If such sum-
maries cannot be had, let them be dispensed with; for
in the prophetic and poetical books especially, they will
contain false statemeuts regarding the contents of
chapters — misinterpretations that perpetuate anti-
quated opinions. But we have already recommended
the discontinuance of such chapters as our present

132 Part II

ones, which are so marked as to disturb the continuity
of the text ; advising the arrangement of paragraphs
instead, with the numbering of them in the margin,
and a very brief indication of the contents ; so that it
is unnecessary to point out the injury done by ordinary
chapter-headings.

The chapter-headings in the Authorised version seem
to have proceeded from the translators of the books.
They reflect the views of the person to whom the por-
tion was entrusted for revision ; and cannot be assigned
individually to their respective authors. They differ
from those in the Bishops' Bible in being more ex-
tended. We need scarcely say, that they often give
erroneous representations of the contents, shewing
that the writers were far from having just views of
the sense. Prophecy, they identified with prediction.
Poetry was frequently flattened into the prosaic state-
ment of doctrine; the Jewish Messiah, with all the
ideal hopes and fanciful imaginations that gathered
round his person and reign in the descriptions of
Hebrew seers, was converted into Jesus Christ and his
spiritual dominion; the glorious future of Judaism,
which inspired prophets pourtrayed in imaginary out-
lines, became the prospective Christian Church, either
by an allegorising process, or by adopting a double
sense which hermeneutical science rejects. It would be
unreasonable to expect a reflection of the historico-
grammatical mode of interpretation in men who lived
at the beginning of the seventeenth century ; but it is

Translation. 133

time to discard their erroneous statements from the
place they have long occupied. No revision will suffice
to make such headings conformable to the require-
ments of scholars : they must be changed altogether ;
or better still, be cleared away, leaving a blank space
which every one may fill up as he pleases. The nature
of the chapter-headings is best seen by comparison.
Thus Isaiah chapter 50, has this prefix, " 1 Christ
sheweth that the dereliction of the Jews is not to be
imputed to him, by his ability to save, 5 by his
obedience in that work, 7 and by his confidence in that
assistance. 10 An exhortation to trust in God and not
in ourselves." The Bishops' Bible has, "1 The
Jews are reproved and also called;" the Genevan
version, " 1 The Jews forsaken for a time. 2 Yet the
power of God is not diminished. 5 Christ's obedience
and victory." Of these, the heading in the Bishops'
Bible is the better, because the shorter; that in our
Authorised version the inferior one. Before Job xix.
it is stated that Job " believeth the resurrection," which
the writer of the book did not ; Bcclesiastes vi. has, " 3
the vanity of children, 6 and old age without riches,"
statements not justified by the texts ; and to Isaiah lxiii.
1, 2, are assigned the explanations, " Christ sheweth
who he is, and what his victory over his enemies,"
which are preposterous. Prefixed to Psalm xvi. is,
" 5 He sheweth the hope of his calling, of the resur-
rection, and life everlasting." In Matthew's Bible the
chapter-headings are simple ; and sometimes there arc

134 Part II.

none at all. Job xix. there has, " Job reciteth his
miseries and grievous pains. He prophesieth of the
general resurrection ;" and Malachi i., " A complaint
against Israel and her priests." The chapter-headings of
the Douay version (1609) are not usually long or minute.
That of Job xix. for example, is, " Job lamenteth of
his friends' cruelty, 6 affirmeth that his so great
affliction is not for his sins, 15 and comforteth himself
with his undoubted belief of the resurrection."

The original chapter-headings of King James's ver-
sion have been altered. Not all, or even the majority, but
some certainly. It has been said that the first changes
were made in the Cambridge edition of 1 638 ; but we
have not observed any in its chapter-headings. If, as
has been alleged, various scholars at Cambridge revised
the 1611 edition by the king's command; their efforts
seem to have been directed solely to the production of
a correct reprint. In the Oxford edition of 1680 the
chapter-headings are the same as those of 1611 ; and
in the edition of 1682 (Oxford) we have found but a
very few small variations ; for example, in Psalm cxlix,
instead of " 5 and for that power which he hath given
to the Church to rule the consciences of men/' it has
" and for his benefits." The edition published under
the direction of Bishop Lloyd at Oxford, 1701, under-
went a change in this particular. As far as is known,
the next person who introduced alterations was Dr.
Paris, who revised the Bible for the Pitt press in 1762.
Dr. Blayney, who did the same for the Bible printed

Translation. 135

at the Clarendon press in 1769, probably made other
changes. Whether the work stopped then is doubtful,
for the Eoyal printers seem io have meddled with all
but the text and the original margin pretty freely at
times. One alteration of Dr. Paris' s is commonly quoted.
" That power which he hath given to the Church to
rule the consciences of men " (Psalm cxlix. 5), he cur-
tailed by stopping at " Church." Blayney altered it
into " that power which he hath given to his saints."
The best chapter-headings we have seen are in De
Wette's translation, which are short and contain little
commentary. Thus to Isaiah 50 is prefixed, " Israel's
own guilt ; the justified servant of God ;" to Bzekiel,
chapters vi. and vii., "Israel's punishment;" to
Psalm cxlix. " Hope of victory." Were all headings
like these, censure would be unnecessary.

§ 19.

Page-headings are more desirable than chapter-
headings, and also more easily made. Yet they require
judgment and taste, not to mention a right apprehen-
sion of the general sense. The Authorised version has
been greatly changed in this respect, because of the
different sizes of Bibles and the different distribution
of chapters in the pages. In the original edition they
are often incorrect. Thus the paginal heading over
Job v. and the beginning of vi. runs, " The divers
ends of godly and wicked." In Matthew's Bible the
page-headings consist for the most part of a single

136 Part II.

word. The Bishops' Bible has scarcely any of these ;
sometimes a word or two. Those in the Great Bible,
i.e. Crumwell's, are also few and brief. The Genevan
version is no better than that of 1611 in this particular.
Thus to Proverbs xix. 1-18, the heading is, " Death
and life in the tongue ;" above the rest of that chapter,
with xx. 1-13, appears, "None is clean." The Douay
has some paginal headings, which are commonly brief
and unobjectionable. In an octavo edition of the
English Bible, printed at Oxford for the British and
Foreign Bible Society (1854), the heading to a page
containing Psalms lii., liii., liv., is " the corruption of
a natural man," which is comprehensive, doctrinal,
and incorrect. How can three very different psalms be
grouped under such a statement ?

If a short and well-selected heading be prefixed to
chapters or divisions, paginal headings may well be
dispensed with. If there be no chapter-headings, the
pages should have something above them indicative of
the contents beneath.

§20.

Parallel references in the margin should be discarded
as prejudicial rather than useful; and Horsley's wish
that no Bibles were printed without them, cannot
be approved. Our translators put a few, not always
well-selected, which gradually multiplied under the
hands of the King's printers and others ; not to the

Translation. 137

advantage but the perplexity of the reader. From a
mistaken idea that this is the best method of interpret-
ing Scripture, i.e. by itself, the references to parallel
passages treat the Old and New Testaments together,
so that Christian and Jewish, historical and prophetic,
poetical and prose writings, separated by centuries
La each other and representing the ideas of men
variously inspired, unite in bringing out similar state-
ments or doctrines. Had the Old and New Testaments
dropped down as they are from heaven, this process
might be reasonable; but critics of the present day
are alive to the great doctrine of development, while
those who speak of " the wonderful way in which the
many treatises of the Bible form one book/' as well as
of "its unity and consistency," have an imperfect
apprehension of the varied contents, lumping them
together under a general appellation €t the word of
God/' The great diversity, amounting in many re-
spects to contrariety, forbids an indiscriminate gather-
ing of parallel passages. Matthew's Bible has a few
references ; in the Bishops' there are also few, not iden-
tical with those put by King James's translators : the
Douay version has a very few.

We have observed no changes or additions in the
marginal references belonging to the Cambridge edition
of 1638. In the Oxford folio of 1680, the references are
also the same as in King James's. Even in the Oxford
edition of 1682, there are scarcely any, except a few
apparent corrections, as in Isaiah liii. 12 (last clause),

138

Part II.

where Luke xxiii. 8 of the 1611 edition is Luke xxiii.
34. In the Oxford edition of 1701 (Bishop Lloyd's)
these parallel references are for the first time consider-
ably augmented. The Cambridge edition of 1762 has
a farther increase. Blayney's edition of 1769 has a
larger number. Its references at Genesis xlix.10, " until
Shiloh come/' are, Isaiah xi. 1, lxii. 11. Bzekiel xxi. 27.
Daniel ix. 25. Matth. xxi. 9. Luke i. 32, 33 ; of which
only Luke and Bzekiel are given in the 1762 edition
of Cambridge. At Daniel ix. 24, " anoint the most
holy/' Blayney's has Psalm xlv. 7. Luke i. 35. John
i. 41. Hebrews ix. 11 ; but two of these (Psalm xlv. 7
and John i. 4) are not in the 1762 edition. Since
Blayney's time, there has been a great increase in this
respect, and some Bibles are crowded with references
to excess. Naturally enough, many are useless, trifling,
misleading.

To shew the progressive increase of parallels from
the edition of 1611, the following scale has been given
by the Editor of Calmet's Dictionary of the Bible.

0. T. Apocry. N. T. Total.

First edition, 1611 . 6588
Hayes's edition,1677 . 14699
Scattergood's, 1678 . 20357
Tenison and Lloyd's,

1699 . 24352

Blayney's, 1769 . 43318
Bp. Wilson's, 1785 . 45190

885

1527

9000

1409

9857

25895

1417

11371

33145

1419

13717

39488

1772

19893

64983

1772

19993

66955

Translation. 139

Should any take the trouble of counting the parallels
in subsequent editions, they would doubtless discover
a proportionate increase.

§21.

The version of 1611 appeared without chronological
dates. But these were afterwards affixed agreeably
to TTssher's system ; by whom, it is now impossible to
ascertain. They are not in the Cambridge Bible of
1638, but appear first in the Oxford edition of 1680,
though not uniformly; for in Bcclesiastes, Proverbs,
and Psalms, there are none. At the beginning of
Daniel stand 3397, 3398, &c. Job has at the com-
mencement, 2400. The Cambridge edition of 1762
(Dr. Paris's) has also dates ; so has Dr. Blayney^s
(1769). Probably the King's printers first affixed
these numbers ; or some one at either of the two great
Universities directed the printers in appending them.
All marginal Bibles have now Blayney's dates ; which
are much fuller than preceding ones. Most scholars
will agree in the opinion that they should be omitted.
It is impossible to settle the age of the world with
any approach to probability. It is certainly much older
than six thousand years. It is equally impossible to
determine the period of man's creation. The chrono-
logy of the first chapter in Genesis, who can tell ?
Neither can the events narrated in the Old Testament
be assigned to their proper years. The books indeed
can be dated with a near approach to correctness ; but

140 Part II.

they must frequently be resolved into parts in order
to be properly dated, because many of them are com-
posed of pieces written in different ages, and then put
together. The redactor and the writers may have
been separated by a wide interval, as is evident from
the first Elohist of the Pentateuch compared with the
redactor who preceded the Deuteronomist. Biblical
criticism as well as natural science shew the unsound-
ness of Ussher's system. How erroneous our Bibles
are in their appended dates, is manifest to the most
superficial reader. The book of Job, for example, is
dated circa 1520 B.C. ; and in a note at the beginning,
Moses is mentioned as its probable author. The com-
mencement of Daniel is assigned to circa 607 B.C. The
year 1000 B.C. runs through the book of Proverbs till
the 25th chapter, when it^ is changed for 700 B.C.
Ecclesiastes has circa 997 B.C. put to it, under the
impression that it was written by Solomon. Thus
the reader is misled. . The 51st Psalm has circa
1034, shewing that it was attributed to David himself;
though the last two verses, if they be not a subsequent
addition, prove that it was composed after the city and
temple were overthrown. Nothing can be bolder than
the chronological settlement of all the Psalms; yet
the feat has been accomplished in modern days in a
Tract Society publication called "the Bible Hand-
book/' the author of which apportions every Psalm to
its particular time. This Icarian flight of the Society's
interpreter leaves the great critics of Germany, the

Translation. 141

Hupfelds, Ewalds, and Hitzigs, far behind. Better
discard all chronological dates than have them incor-
rect. As it is very difficult to fix them properly they
should not appear in a translation.

Blayne/s edition of 1769 forms the basis of all since
published by the Universities, or by the Royal printers
for the Bible Society. We are far from blaming that
estimable scholar for what he did to the Authorised
version. He corrected many errors, improved the
punctuation, and made considerable alterations in the
chapter-headings, sometimes for the better. In cor-
recting and adding to the marginal references, he did
more harm than good : in translating Hebrew names
he may have benefited the reader. His marginal dates
cannot be followed. In his own letter, published in
the Gentleman's Magazine for November 1769, he
says, that he took for his basis, besides the 1611 edi-
tion, that of 1701, and two Cambridge editions of a
late date. In the mean time, we suppose that the
Queen's printers correct and add in the marginal
departments whenever they think fit, as well as in
chapter and page headings. This is wrong. None
but good scholars could be justified in meddling with
such matters. The knowledge of Blayney himself did
not save him from serious blunders in parallel refe-
rences and chronological dates. It was erroneous
enough to annex to the phrase in Daniel ix. 24, "anoint
the most holy/' Luke i. 35 Hebrews ix. 11, as in
the edition of 1762 ; but it was still worse in Blayney

142 Part II.

to increase these references by the addition of Psalm
xlv. 7, and John i. 41. All assume " the most holy" to
be Christ, which it is not, but " the most holy place/ 5
i.e. the altar. There is little doubt that King James's
translators took it in the personal sense ; and were
induced by the Bishops' Bible to omit one after holy,
which is in the Genevan version. The references in
Blayney's edition at Genesis xlix. 10, "till Shiloh
come/' are equally misleading, because all proceed on
the assumption that Shiloh is Messiah, not a place. The
parallels constitute a system of interpretation disal-
lowed by scholars.

§ 22.

The Royal translators were rightly enjoined to omit
expository notes, though the Bishops' Bible has a
considerable number of them in the margin ; and the
Genevan version is studded with what the title page' is
pleased to call, " most profitable annotations upon all
the hard places and other things of great importance/'
The custom of appending notes was an early one.
Tyndale himself has some, chiefly controversial. Mat-
thew's Bible has also a few in the margin. The pro-
cess soon extended, as the Genevan Bible attests. The
Douay has also many marginal notes ; some of them

•

controversial as might be expected. Nor were the
Bomish translators contented with the marginal space ;
they subjoined annotations to various chapters, of con-
siderable length, and probably important in their eyes.

Translation.

143

Had James's translators given notes, theirs would have
been equally erroneous with their predecessors', which
contain many curiosities of interpretation. Thus at
the Song of Solomon i. 2, the Bishops' Bible has,
" Christ's mercy is set forth by preaching — The
maidens, that is, they that are pure -in heart." The
Genevan version gives this annotation to v. 1, " The
garden signifieth the kingdom, of Christ where he pre-
pareth the banquet for his elect." Translators should
not meddle with interpretation.

§23.

In regard to chapter- and page-headings, parallel
references, and chronological dates, we have already
expressed the opinion that the safest course is to
dispense with them. In his versions of the Penta-
teuch and Jonah, Tyndale had none ; and the example
would have been perfect without his notes. But we
are indisposed to find fault with one whose merits
as a translator are preeminent. All such appendages,
however, are comments; not "the pure word of God"
which many desire. The only thing sufficient to satisfy
every reasonable demand is a true representation of the
original, unencumbered with doubtful additions; an
honestly- translated English Bible, without note or com-
ment. And how is it to be got ? Only by machinery
which the civil power can set in motion. It cannot be
done thoroughly by the Church of England in its pre-
sent condition. Were that Church indeed practically

144 Part II.

national ; its bosom wide enough to embrace earnest
men of different opinions on theological points, as it
should be ; the work might well be entrusted to its
hands ; but while the fetters of ancient creeds con-
fine its freedom, and bishops are chosen for other
reasons than an enlarged knowledge of the Bible, it
cannot accomplish a proper revision of the English
version with success. One of the many Churches in
the land — the largest sect of a number— can hardly
furnish a sufficient body of independent scholars, able
and willing to produce a national version. Neither
can the work be done by the minor sects ; by an arbi-
trary consociation of persons belonging to them and
the Established Church ; or by a selected body all but
exclusively orthodox. A work intended to be national
must represent the nation, i. e. be done by men chosen
from the nation at large : one originating with a Con-
vocation represents neither the Church of England nor
the people generally.* Where the ecclesiastical ele-
ment asserts itself, the theological soon prevails, to the
probable detriment of the scholarly. The State alone
can produce and guarantee a version truly national.
As for clerical machinery, it will probably grind out
one tending to stereotype beliefs on which criticism
has inflicted a deadly wound. It will make the fewest

* " Nothing is more certain than that Convocation does not truly
represent the tolerant, amicable, sober-minded, hard-working Church of
England. It does the greatest injustice to the true feelings and the
actual practice of that community." — From th-e Times of Saturday, June
17th, 1871.

Translation. 145

encroachments possible on King James's version, from
a conservatism which resists changes in harmony with
the advanced state of Biblical knowledge lest they
injure time-honoured creeds or favourite dogmas.
The work should be done outside ecclesiastical bodies,
by men who feel their responsibility all the more
strongly that they are servants of the . State rather
than of a Church or Convocation; who will not have
to consult the thing called *' public religious feeling"
for the extent of revision allowable, but will respond
to the scholar's vocation alone.

We have spoken all along of a revised version as
tantamount to a new one. No man who intends to
supersede King James's, will do so otherwise than by
working upon it. He will make a new translation by
subjecting that of 1611 to thorough revision. A cor-
rected, improved, revised, and new version are prac-
tically, synonymous; if not, they represent imaginary,
distinctions. Of what use is revision, if it be not
improvement ? If it does not contain a correction of
all that is erroneous, it amounts to nothing. A laud-
able feeling may prompt as little alteration as possible
in the Authorised version ; it may suggest a minvm/wm
of change; but if revision without improvement,
amendment without innovation be meant, no right
result will follow. The work must be done properly,
or not at all. No pretended dread of consequences
should interfere with its execution. A false conserva-
tism may ruin all by bringing forth the old version

146 Part II.

with its features so little disturbed as almost to hide
the new shadings. Those who are acquainted with
the present state of Old Testament criticism know
that minimised must end in extensive alteration. The
changes demanded in text and translation are so im-
portant, that there is more reason to fear the outcoming
of an under- than of an over-corrected version, leaving
untouched things that ought to be removed, through
fear of losing public favour or offending prejudice.
There is more likelihood of this issue from a body
consisting mainly of ecclesiastics who have subscribed
doctrinal creeds, or attach importance to dogmas far
exceeding in length and character the expression of
the divine will proceeding from Christ himself.

The work of a translator, however profitable, is but
preparatory to that of the interpreter. The instru-
ments of the one, his grammar and lexicon, are infe-
rior to the necessary qualifications of the other.
Placed on a higher platform, the expositor sets about
his task in a spirit reverent but searching, serious but
impartial, impregnated with a love of truth that
shrinks from no consequences in its pursuit and attain-
ment; honest yet free in the treatment of ancient
writings that exemplify the idiosyncrasies of men
whom the Spirit of God actuated. A nation may
have an excellent translation of the Bible without
the proper understanding of its contents. It may
subject itself to the despotism of a book, instead of
using it as an aid to rational godliness ; or be

Translation. 147

fettered with, faiths which human progress has left
behind.

That a correct version does not necessarily bring
about sound interpretation, which is after all the ques-
tion of the day, may be illustrated by an example. In
Numbers iv. 3, 23, 30, the age and time of the Levites'
service is fixed from 30 to 50. In Numbers viii. 24, it
is from 25 to 50. Here is a palpable contradiction,
shewing either a different writer or one unconcerned
about inconsistency. In any case, the literal correct-
ness of both records is inadmissible. Still farther,
according to 1 Ohron. xxiii. 24-28, David extended
the period of the Levites' service by making it com-
mence at 20 years of age. Thus there are three varia-
tions. How are they explained by commentators who
advocate the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch?
The method of exposition adopted in the so-called
Speaker's Commentary is, that the directions given in
Numbers iv. are temporary and refer to the transport
of the tabernacle during the journeyings in the wilder-
ness, while those of Numbers viii. are permanent,
determining the ordinary and regular obligations
of the Levites with respect to the service. But
the same expositor asserts, and rightly so, thai Num-
bers i. 1, to x. 10, contain preparations for the break
up of the encampment at Sinai, and for marching
on Canaan. Hence according to him, about the
same time and at the same place two contradictory
enactments respecting the Levites' service were given ;

l 2

148 * Part II.

both too directly prefaced by, 4t And the Lord spake
unto Moses/' Le. Jehovah directly revealed certain
regulations about the time of the Levites* service in
the wilderness, and very soon after revealed as directly
a revision of those regulations. Two successive con-
ditions of the Israelites necessitated two varying
revelations ; as if Jehovah had not foreseen all cir-
cumstances at first and prescribed accordingly. But
is it not still more strange, that David should have
extended the period of service when the number of
the Levites proved insufficient? The regulations of
Numbers viii. are after all not permanent, though the
commentator says they are, and though they are intro-
duced by, " And the Lord spake unto Moses." David
alters what Jehovah directly prescribed as a permanent
regulation. How curious do such shifts appear. The
plainest language is forced to agree with unity of
authorship when a contradiction appears ; while direct
revelations of Jehovah as the orthodox explain them,
are said to be altered by man. A cause condemns
itself by such irreverence. An infallible book cannot
contain contradictions, and therefore it is interpreted
so as to make fallible man change divine regulations
whose permanence is asserted. When the Bible is
rightly estimated as a collection of documents written
by individuals variously enlightened; as an oriental
book with symbolic and linguistic features character-
istic of the Semitic race in Palestine in the centuries
prior to Christianity; irrational exposition is dissipated.

Translation. 149

Meantime such, exposition lias its hold upon the many,
feeding the delusive idea of religion which consists in
the belief of books, or rather in the belief that certain
books contain the unalterable mind of Jehovah towards
his creatures. Even able divines, like Dorner, speak
of ' ' the thoughts of God concerning man's salvation
as communicated in Scripture forming an organic
whole," and of " the truths of holy Scripture which are
necessary to salvation" as if they were familiar with
these select doctrines, or supposed that the most
inspired Biblical authors themselves held views essen-
tially one. It is time that more correct ideas pre-
vailed.

The right interpretation of Scripture is the great
subject that should be brought home, with all direct-
ness of purpose, to the general understanding. Theo-
logians must not be allowed to offend against common
sense when they expound the Bible, though they
interpret other books according to the obvious mean-
ing of language. The want of the age is not a revision
of the English version, but a proper commentary on
the Bible exemplifying the relative independence of
faith on Scripture ; shewing the difference between the
word of God and the Scriptures, not merely in regard
to form but subject-matter; making it evident that
the Bible is divine because it is human, and cannot be
exempt from the weakness, imperfection, and inaccuracy
that cleave to man in every stage of his spiritual deve-
lopment on earth. Such commentary will admit diver-

150 Part II.

sities of gifts among the sacred writers, will affirm with
Luther that one canonical book is more trustworthy than
another, that an apostolio argument may be too weak
to hold, and that things contrary to reason can scarcely
be accepted as facts, however invested with an extra-
ordinary character. The persistency with which
traditional views are asserted in the face of the clearest
evidence to the contrary, is a discouraging sign. Thus,
though it has been well established that the Pentateuch
was put together much later than Moses from docu-
ments Elohistic and Jehovistic, as well as oral narra-
tives — though it has been conclusively shewn that the
book of Isaiah contains a collection of prophecies of
different dates and authors — though it has been suffi-
ciently proved that the book of Daniel is of Maccabean
origin and in part legendary — though the prophecies
passing under the name of Zechariah must be assigned
to times separated by long intervals, and mythical
elements plainly enter into the history of the Old
Testament, men continue to repeat what they learnt
from their fathers, ignoring settled critical results, or
probably denouncing them as rationalistic. Contrary
to the first principles of interpretation, they assign two
senses to the words of Scripture, and justify maledic-
tory psalms with the morality of barbarous times and
men, under the plea of inspiration ; as if the passionate
but exclusive patriotism of a people could be converted
into an immediate revelation from heaven, or different
tests existed for judging virtue in Jews and heathens,

Translation. 151

Christians and theists ! In short, the Hebrew Scrip-
tures are christianised by the forcible intrusion of
attributes characteristic of Jesus Christ and his king-
dom into the ideal portraiture of the Jewish Messiah
and his times, which prophets localising him in
Jerusalem as an earthly sovereign, depicted; by an
adaptation of passages to the Christian economy which
had no proper relation to it in the mind of the writers*
The root of such distorted exegesis is an indisposition
or incapacity for the higher criticism, and a consequent
contempt for it. Bather than accept the true method
of dealing with Scripture, traditionalists follow irra-
tional statements merely because they lie in the
textual letter. The apologetic ground on which they
stand promises little towards impartiality, for prior
notions force interpretation into a crucible of belief
consecrated by the dust of time. It is hard to make
head against quiet dogmatism or stolid ignorance,
especially when it belongs to episcopal and cleric
functionaries, to professors in Universities or pulpit
instructors. The commentary we have sketched may
seem far distant, because the people are indisposed to
call for it; while ecclesiastics, rarely sympathising in
the desires of critics, initiate nothing likely to endanger
their creed. But it will come at a happier time, when
the pioneers who toiled and suffered in clearing the
way rest from their labours. It will come, and justice
will be done to the memory of those who taught that
though the Bible rightly understood and applied can

152 Part II.

no longer told the nigh place to which it was elevated
by our ancestors, it is still a source and instrument of
spiritual life, not infallible, but having a value and
glory of its own as containing the thoughts of in-
spired prophets and poets in communion with the Omni-
scient — a revelation of the divine mind, conditioned
by the times, circumstances, and idiosyncrasies of the
writers.

To conclude : our opinion respecting the position a
good translator should asBume will be easily appre-
hended. If he can preserve the attitude of the scholar
who seeks truth for its own sake, distinctive theologies
will scarcely occur to his mind. Rising above the
jarrings and jealousies of divines, his peace of mind
will not be unsettled, so that he can smile at the airs
of the orthodox, considering their assumption of exclu-
sive privileges as a barrier of self-righteousness against
the free spirit of Protestantism. Honesty will serve
him as well as attachment to ecclesiastical dogmas.
He may not aim at bringing to the ears of all who
speak our language " the truest accents of men who
wrote and spoke as they were moved by the Holy
Ghost j" for neither apostle nor evangelist has attri-
buted such inspiration to all the writers of the Bible;
but he will try to set forth in clear English the sense
of documents that present different stages of Hebrew
culture. He may not effect much positive good towards
the true explanation of records now subjected to the
fruitful tests of a higher criticism ; but be may be a

Translation. 153

useful pioneer, lessening the belief in a plenary in-
spiration commonly identified with infallibility. He
will give an impulse to the application of right prin-
ciples in the investigation of ancient documents, and
discountenance bibliolatry. Humble as is the trans-
lator's office, free from the great questions relating to
the divine authority, fallibleness, and diversities of
Scripture; though his decisions do not perceptibly affect
the spiritual life, which has little to do with belief in
books ; criticism itself with its keen insight into the
genesis of the sacred records and possession of a nobler
sphere than word-explanation, cannot dispense with its
aid. An honest translator indeed will incur censure, be*
cause he may disturb the crust of superstition which the
multitude identify with religion. But the epithets
employed by orthodoxy will fall upon him harmlessly,
though he be even called a follower of the German
rationalists. Disguise it however as they may, dignified
Churchmen with llir creeds, andDissentdngprSrs
with their Declarations of faith all the more intole?
rant in practice because verbally indefinite, must con*
suit the distinguished rationalistic scholars, whose
grammars, lexicons, versions and commentaries, are
guides to interpretation. Traditionalists may decry
the Egyptians while despoiling them ; the spoils them-
selves must be had. Whoever sets himself to depre-
ciate all erudite men whom his interest is concerned in
lessening, who higgles about words, and disputes the
accuracy of established results, betrays ignorance or

154 Part II.

prejudice. The more prudent course is to borrow the
treasure and avoid describing its source; but that
does not justify a consciousness of self-satisfaction
which finds expression in pointing to "the morbid
subjectivity and capricious mania of German unbelief ?
language unseemly in a scholar but characteristic of
the theologian. Freedom from error is the prerogative
of no party. Neither is it essential to piety, whose
seat being directly in the emotions* allows intellectual
doubts and negations to exist beside it. Religion is
no mere work of the intellect or the will, but an
awakened consciousness of God in the heart ; a vital
communion with Him; life realised in the Incompre-
hensible. It does not even lie in an intellectualism
which receives doctrines supernaturally revealed, but
in a sense of the Absolute in whom we have our deter-
minate immortality, finding and feeling the Supreme
when the conception of the highest essence is restrained
within the limits of a personality capable of being
humanly apprehended. The best are conscious by daily
experience of liableness to mistake ; and this feeling
becomes an admonition to search out the way which
leads to a state of greater perfection. When Bishop
Butler asserts that the whole of morality and religion
consists merely in action, heretical opinions may be
allowed to pass into harmless errors which the mantle
of charity should cover — the errors of men who pursue

* Die Religion im Gef uhl ihre Quelle hat und nicht im Verstande.
De Wette.

Translation. 155

knowledge through the glimmering twilight of the
present unto an eternal day, and exemplify a living
faith by noble aspirations after the Perfect Truth,
the Infinite Immanence actuating and encompassing
all.

157

INDEX I.

PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE.

Old Testament.

BOOK.

PAGE

book.

PAGE

Leviticus .

xviii. 18

. 47

Genesis

. 1. 1 — li. 4 i

> •

xxiv. 11

. 124

i. 1-3 .

•

Numbers .

i. 1— x. 10

. 147

i.2 .

•

101

iv. 3, 23, 30

. 147

i. 6 .

. 4,

102

viii. 24

. 147

i. 14, &c.

» •

101

xiv. 11-25 ,

. 82

u. 7 .

t •

xx. 22, &C. ,

, 44

ill. 15 •

1,51

Dent

ii 10-12

. 97

iv. 8 .

,40

ii.ll .

• 44

vi. 1-8

> .

ii. 20-23

. 97

vi. 9-22

• .

ill. 9 .

. 97

xi. 27-32

•

102

X. 6-9 .

. 44

xii. 1, &c. .

» .

102

. xvi. 7. ,

. 65

xiL 3 .

xvi. 10

. 124

XT. 2 .

1 •

... *

XV11L 1

. 127

XT. 13

k .

xvui. 15

. 80

xviii. 18

» .

xix, 18 .

^ 124

xxii. 18

• •

xx. 19

. 26

xxvi. 4

•

xxvii 15-26

. 100

xxviii. 10-22

xxxiii. 2

. 25

xxviii. 14 .

•

xxxiii. 12 ,

. 124

xxxvi. 31

•

xxxiii. 23 .

. 8,9

xliv. 5

• •

100

xxxiv. 10-12

{ . 97

xlviii 20

•

Joshua

ii 1, &c.

. 100

xlix. 10

1 .

xxiv. 19

. 22

xlix. 24-26 ,

. 25

»,26

Judges

. 91

xlix. 26

1,29

xviii. 30

. 28

xlix. 10

. 138, 142

1 Samuel.

i. 28 .

98,99

Exodus

. iii. 22 .

. 98

1,99

U.25 .

. 99

iv. 21 .

1 •

ill. 18 .

. 25

tL3 .

l •

107

vii 3, 4

• 18

ix. 12 .

i •

xvi. 14, &c.

. 44

x. 24, 29

» •

103

xvii. 50 ,

. 31

xi. 1-3

» •

103

xviii 9

. 44

xi. 2 .

1 •

xviii. 9-11, ]

17-19 19

xii 8 .

•

2 Samuel.

ii. 10 .

. 31

xii. 35

,99

v. 8 .

. 31

xii. 36

•

124

x. 18 .

. 20

xii. 40

* •

xii 31

. 22

xv. 14-17 .

. 119,

120

xx. 19

. 31

xxxiii 20 ,

1 •

xxiv. 1

. 122

. xxxiv. 7

•

123

xxiv. 23

. 125

xxxiv. 19

•

1 Kings .

ix. 18 .

. 24

Leviticus ,

, iv. 13, 22, 2?

124

xxii. 28

. 128

xviii. 18

2 Kings .

vi 5 .

. 98

Index I.

a Kings . *iii. 4-6

xxlii. 24-28
. xxii. 1-9
zzi. 12-15

Neheminb lii, 27
Esther . ii. S .
Job . . iii. 8 .

six. 25-27
xxi. 16
xxrii. 13-23

xlv. 7 . 7
xlv. 17
xlix.ll
11.4 .
lii. — Uv.
lrii. 2.

lxviii. 13
lxxii. 17

lxxiii. 20
hxffi. 25
lzxrii. 10
lxzxi. 5

]xxxit.6-7 6
lixxiT.7

IXXXT. 1-t .

1xxxviL4
lxxxix. 5-7 .

lxxxix. 19 .

c.3

i?.3 .

Tii. 11

fiii.5 .

cxli.5-7

Passages of Scripture.

159

BOOK.

PAGE '

BOOK.

PAOB

Proverbs . xix. 7 .

. 32

TafMfth

. lii. 13, liii.

. 82

. xx. 1-13

. 136

liii. 8 . .

. 78

xx. 18 .

26, 27

lui. 6 .

. 50

xxii. 9

. 34

liii. 9

58,59

xxii. 14

. 34

liii. 9 .

. 37

xxii. 17 — 1
xxiv. 22 \

88, 89, 90

•

liii. 12
lx. 1 .

137, 138
. 93

xxv. 10

. 34

lxii. 11

. 138

xxv. 20

. 35

lxiii. 15

. 50

Eccles. . v. 6 .

. 122

lxiv. 6

. 125

v. 7 .

. 144

lxv. 16

, 80

yi. 3, &c ,

. 133

. lxvi. 24

. 104

vii. 10

. 144

Jeremiah

ii. 23, 24 .

. 26

vii. 11, 12 .

. 144

iv. 1, 2

. 83

xii. 3-5

. 4,5

iv. 2 .

. 80

xii. 9-14

. 83

iv. 3-31

. 83

xii. 13

. . 7

xi. 19

. 35

Song of Sol. i. 2 .

. 143

xvii. 9 .

118, 119

i.4 .

. 46

xxiii. 6

. 127

iv. 1-16

. 84

xxv, 11-14

. 95

vi. 13 .

. 122

xxv. 6

. 95

Isaiah . . v. 7

. 52

xxvii. 1, 7, 16-22 95

VU. 8 .

. 95

xxviii. 1

. 95

vii. 20.

. 95

xxx. — xxxiii

. . 83

Tii 14 .

. 36, 52

xxxiiL 14-26

. 95

Yii. 15 .

. . 72

xxxix. 1, 2,

4-13 95

vii. 14-16 .

. 57

1., Ii., lii.

. 95

T11L 8 .

. 52

Lament.

i. 21 .

. 31

viii. 19, 20

. 69, 70

iv. 9 .

. 124

ix. 6 .

. 51

iii.22.

. 125

ix. 16 .

. 124

Ezekiel

vi.,vii.

. 135

xi. 1 •

. 188

xii. 1-20

. 82

xvii. 1-11

. 82

xii. 21, xiv. ]

11 . 82

xvii. 12 ; xviii. . 82

xxi. 27

. 138

xix. 18

. 121

XXXV.

. 83

xxiv. 15

. 29

xxxvi. 1-15

. 83

xxvi. 19

•

xxxvii.

. 104

xx vi. 19

. 104

xxx viii. 14

. 30

xxx.-xxxii.-

xxxiii 82

xl. 30 .

. 31

xxxiii.-xxxv. . 84

xl. 44

31,32

xxxvii. 3, 4

. 49

xlii. 14

. 45

xl. 3 .

. 47

xlii. 16

. 24

xliv. 25

. 48

xlv. 5 .

. 30

xliv. 8

. 50

xlv. 8, 9

. 45

Xlv. 16

. 49

xlvi. 16-18

. 45

111.

. 30

xlvi 19-24

. 45

1. . .

133, 135

Daniel

i. 1 .

. 97

li.9 .

. 57

i. 21 .

. 30

lii. 15.

. 103

v. 21

. 27

160

Index I.

BOOK.

PAGE

BOOK.

PAGE

Daniel

. vi. 1 .

. 83

2 Eadras

vii. 35, 36

. 109, 110

ix. 24

• 72, 80

xii. 32, 33

. 110

ix. 25, 26

. 55

xii. 32, &C.

. 112

ix. 24, 26

. 138, 141

xiii. 37

. Ill

xii. 13

. 74

Judith

ii. 2 .

. 114

Hosea

. iv. 16-19

. 8

•

x, 8 .

. 115

vi. 7 .

. 46

X1L 1 .

117,118

Amos

v. 7 .

. 45

xn. 7 .

. 115

Til. 1 ; yiii.

3 . 83

Wisdom

iv. 7 •

, 116,117

viii. 11

. 85

vi23

. 114

ix. 11,12 ,

. 36

xii. 20

. 114

Micah

ir. 8 .

. 5

Ecclufl.

iii. 22

. 115

iv. 10 .

. 95

iv. 23

. 113

Habakkuk i. 13 .

. 49

xx. 1, 27 .

. 113

Haggai

li. 7 .

. 59

xxi. 25

. 112

Zechariah

vi. 11-13

. . 28

xi. 13

61,62

New Testament.

xiT. 6, 7

. 94

Matthew

xxi. 9

. 138

Malachi

. ii. 15 .

... .
Ul. 1 .

. 74, 75
60, 61

Luke

i. 32,33
i. 35 .

. 138
. 138

Apoobtfha.

John

xxiii 8, 34
i. 41 .

. 138
. 138, 142

2Esdras

i. 86 .

. Ill

Acts

ii. 27 .

. 79

•

i., ii., xy M xi

rl . 109

ill. 25

. 79

ill. 19 .

. 112

viii. 32, 33 .

. 78

vi. 6 .

. 112

xv. 17

36,37

vi. 17 ; vii. 4

\5 . 112

Galatians

m. 8 .

. 79

vi. 51

. Ill

Hebrews .

i. 8 .

. 77

vii. 33

. 110

ix. 11

138, 141

•

• vii. 33

. 112

•

161

INDEX II.

NAMES AND SUBJECTS.

PAGE

Adaptation of Old Testament
Texts by New Testament
writers . . 36, 62

Additions, later, to the Text,

how printed . .95

Aldine Septuagint . .115

Alexander, Dr. . . 93

Alterations in the chapter-
headings of different Bibles

134, seq.
Angels, intercession of 63, seq.
if in Ps. xxxix. 5-7 . 64
Annotated Paragraph Bible . 84
Antiochus Epiphanes . 56

Apocrypha, general remarks

upon . . . 107

Apocrypha, should belong to

an English version . .107

Apocrypha, the Text of . 109
Apologetic changes in trans-
lation . . 100, seq.
Aqnila, Greek translator . 40
Arrangement of the Old Tes-
tament Books, the Hebrew
and Septuagint . 104, seq.
Arrangement of the English

105, seq.
Ashera and Astarte con-
founded by the Biblical
writer . . .18

Authorized version made from
other versions . l,seq.

Baduell . . .117
Bate, Mr. . . .72
Bensly, Mr. . . .110
Bertheau, Prof. 22, 123
Bible Authorized, chapter-
headings in .132, seq.

PAGE

133

134

137, 139

138, 139
. 137
. 138

138, seq.
. 139
. 140

Bible, the Bishops', chapter-
headings in
Bible, Matthew's, chapter-
headings in
Bible, Douay, chapter-head-
ings in
Bibles with the Authorized
Version —
Cambridge (1638)
v (1762)

Oxford (1682) .
// (1701) .
v (1769) .
» (1680) .
Bible Handbook
Bible not the word of God . 149
Bishops' Bible . 2, 51, 119

Blayney,Dr.

48, 123, 134, seq. 138, 141
Books in which the Hebrew

Text is most corrupt . 32

Bottcher, Dr.,referred to 1 7, 40, 71
Broughton, Hugh, the He-
braist . . .1
Butler, Bp. . . . 154
Bunsen's Bibelwerk . 2, 71

Campbell, Principal, his ob-
servations on translating . 47

Cappellus . . 10, seq.

Canon, formation of . .95

Causes of a new translation
being retarded . . 3

Chapter-headings discussed

131, seq.

Chapters, division of 81, seq.

Chaldee in Daniel, the vowels

of .

. 27

162

Index II.

PAGE

Charges against Jews of al-
tering the Text . . 35

Choir-psalms . . 85, seq.

Chronology in Bibles 139, seq.

Chwolson, Prof., his account
of the dates in the uncol-
lated MSS. at St Peters-
burg . .15

Chronicle-writer did not use
letters as numerals . . 20

Chronicle-writer, his use of
preceding books . . 43

Chronicles, the text not more
corrupt than that of other
historical books . . 20

Chronicles, intentional exag-
gerations in . 20, seq.

Clarke, Adam . . 100

Collations, those of Eennicott
and De Rossi . . 41

Commentary on the Bible,
need of . . 149

Commentary, the Speaker's . 147

Complutensian Polyglott .113

Confession of Faith, the
Westminster . .118

Conjecture to be resorted to 10, 28

Connection between Gen. i. 1,
and i. 2 . . 101

Contradictions not to be ob-
viated by alterations 97, seq.

Constellations, origin of . 52

Convocation, the Times on . 144

Corrected translations of pas-
sages mistranslated in the
Received version . 53, seq.

Corruption, the Hebrew word
so rendered in Ps. xvi. 10 . 79

Corruptions of the text, .
charged upon the Jews by
the Fathers . . 35

Corruptions of the text, the
charge repeated by modern
scholars . . .35

Coverdale's version . .119

Croton the Jesuit . .119

Ctib, passages where it is
right or wrong . 23, seq.

PAGE

Daniel, Book of, Maccabean 150
Dates in margin . .139

Dathe . . 19, 101, 127

David's conduct to the cap-
tured Ammonites . 22, seq.
Day careers . . .66

Delagarde . . .13

Delitzsch, Prof. . . 73

Dereser, Dr. . . 109, 118

De Rossi . . .11

Deborah, song of . .91

Desvoeux on Ecclesiastes . 94
Deutero-canonical Books . 108
Deutero-Isaiah . .103

Difficulties in the Apocrypha

117, seq.
Difficult passages to translate
on account of various read-
ings . . .38
Difficult passages, others diffi-
cult in words or construc-
tion . . 66, seq.
Dignity of expression to be

preserved . . 48, seq.

Divisions of chapters and

verses . .81

Dissenters' complaint about

Italics .129, seq.

Doctrines deduced from wrong

renderings . . . 103

Dogmatic bias in the Trans-
lators exemplified 118, seq.
Dogmatic bias in italicised

words . . . 128

Dorner,Prof. . . 149

Ecclesiasticus, passages in,

corrected . • 112, seq.

Ecclesiastical terms . - 3

Ecclesiastics . • 131, 151

Eichhorn . . 11, 108

Elegance of expression . 50
Elihu, his discourses in Job

63, seq.
Elohim does not mean angels 78
Elohist, his length of the so-
journ in Egypt . 21, 65
Elohistic portions 21, 82, 102

Names and Subjects.

163

PAGE

Esdras (2nd) State of its text

109, seq.
v Passages in, cor-
rected and retranslated 110, seq.
Euphemisms, how to be

treated in translating . 49
Ewald, Prof, 1 1 ,1 7, 67, 69, seq.,
85, 92, 96, 108, 119, 123, 130, 140
Expository notes in Bibles

142, seq.

Firkowitz, his collection of
MSS. in St. Peter8bnrgh 1 4, seq.

Four friends, their translation
of the Psalms . „ 8

French Bible of 1805, its ver-
sion of 1 Chron. xx. 3 22, seq.

Fritzsche, Prof. 109, 115, 11 7, seq.

Fuerst, Dr. . . * 79

Geddes, Dr. . . .41

Geiger, Babbi, his Urschrift

11, seq., 17, 24, 121
Geneva, the professors and
pastors at, their version of
the Bible . . 22,23, 119

Genevan version . 51, 108
Geneva Bible . 118, seq.

Gentleman's Magazine . 141

Geology and Genesis. 101, seq.
Gesenius, 11, 17, 38, 52, 67, 71,
74, 76, 93, seq., 119, 130
Gildemeister, Prof. . .109

Ginsburg, Dr., his version of

Ecclesiastes . . 4, 7

Glosses, supposed ones . 97

Great Bible, the . .119

Greek of New Testament not
to be taken for correcting
the Hebrew text . . 36

Grimm, Prof. . . 109

Harmony of expression . 49
Hayes's edition . .138

Headings of chapters . 131

Heavens and earth in Gen. i. 1,

equivalent to earth in i. 2 . 101
Hebrew names for God, how

to be rendered . 106, seq.

PAGE

Helps for translators . .71

Henderson, Dr., his version

of Micah iv. 3 . .5

Henderson, Dr., his version

of Isaiah xlv. 16 . .49

Hengstenberg, Dr. . 67, 92, 98
Hilgenf eld, Prof . . 109,110
Hirzel, Dr. . . 69, 74

Hitzig, Prof. 11, 17, 29, 67, 71, seq.,

76, 140
Hupfeld, Prof. 17, 67, 71, seq.,

92, 140

Immanuel, translation of . 52
Immortality, what the author

of Ecclesiastes thought of it 83
Immortality, what the author

of Wisdom thought of it . 117
Immortality, not a dogma of

Biblical Judaism, 54, seq., 73,

95, 103, seq.
Immortality in the book of

Wisdom . . .83

Insertions in the Biblical text

unknown to the LXX. . 19
Inspiration, plenary, its advo-
cates' conduct with regard

to the text . . .42

Intercession of angels in Job

v. 1 . . 63, seq.

Isaiah, book of . • 150

Italics, in the Received Ver-
sion . .123, seq.

it multiplied since 1611 124

y complained about 129, seq.

» in the Apocryphal

books . 115, seq.

u improper italicised

words . . 124

* should be dispensed

with . . 126

James I., King of England,
Eennicotts statement about
his translators . . 43

Jealousies of rival scholars . 67
Jebb, Bp. . . 61,93

Jehovah, derivation of the
name . . . 107

Index II.

Jehoviit, his length of the
sojonrn in Egjpt . SI,

Job, book of, comparatively
late date .

Jonathan the Targumist

Justin Martyr

Kay, Dr., his version of

Fa. lxxxv. 1
Kamphansen, Prof. .
Kenoicott, 10, acq., 90, 37, 43, t
1
* his alteration of
Joe. xxiv. 1 9, improper
Keil, Dr.
KiHo's Cvclop. of Biblical

Lit. .

Knapp
Knobel

Koester . . 92,

K'ri, passages where it is right

or wrong . . 23, at

Lagarde de, Prof., bis view of

the Hebrew text
Latin old version . . 1

Latinized diction . . 3

Lee, Prof. Samuel .
Leeser, Isaac, his version of

Hoe. i

16-19

Leeser, Isaac, his version of

Is. liii. 6 49, si

Leeser, Isaac, his version of

Light, its creation before the

Lively, one of King James's

translators .
Lloyd, Bp. . . . 1

Local sense uerraj doable

sense of prophecy . 76, si

■ ■■.-.ill's version of Isaiah ix. G

a liii. 9 59,

Lather's German translation .

. I'cabonn coins, the use of
letters for numbers on them

19, seq.

Margin of a version, what it
should have . 121, se

Marginal notes, some objec-
tionable ones 122, seq., I-

Marginal references . . 1:

Marriage with a deceased
wife's Bister . 21, se

Masoretic Text, the . 10, se
* comparative

value of, in relation to the
LXX. and PeebitO . IS, Be

Masoretic Text, should be
rectified by a com puny, even
when opinions differ

Matthew's Bible

Merx, Prof. . . 16, se

Mesha, king, his inscription .

Messenger of the Covenant in

Messiah n

n Ps. ii. 12

Dan. i
Ps. Jtlv. 7

.26

18, 20

Messiah's divinity, n

Old Testament . n, i

Metaphors to be retained

Micbaelis . . 29,

Mistaken exegesis of Old
Testament by New Testa-
ment writers . 79. si

Mistranslated passages

Moabite atone

Morality, offences against . 97

Mosaic authorship of the Pen-
tateuch . . . ISO

MSS. Jewish, at St. Peters-
burgh . 14, seq.

Mygtitta . . .18

Napbtali, article on in Kitto's
Cyck>paidis, . 8, seq.

Newcome, Archb. his roles
for translating . . 47

Numbers, as expressed by let-
ters of the alphabet . 19

Numbers, not to be literally
taken .21

Numbers, reduced in the text
of Chronicles, to agree with
parallels in other books . 1 9

Names and Subjects.

165

PAGE

Offences against good taste

and delicacy to be avoided 50
Olivetan's French version . 119
Olshausen, Dr. Justus 17, 73

Onkelos, his Targnm . 40, 99

Origen . . .35

Owen, Dr. Henry . . 85

Page headings in different

Bibles . . 135, seq.

Paley, his argument founded

on Is. liii. 9 . .59

Paragraph Bible of Religions

Tract Society . . 84

Paragraphs . . .81

Parallelism, introverted . 93
Parallel lines . . 86, seq.

Parallel references discussed

136, seq.
it in Mat-

thew's Bible 137
tr in the Donay 137

Parallels, number of, in dif-
ferent editions . .138
Paranomasia . . .52
// reproduced in
Gesenius's version of Isaiah 52
Paris, Dr. . . 134, seq.
Passage incorrectly inserted 18
Passages newly translated 53, seq,
// in which the greatest
Hebrew scholars differ 67, seq.
Peshito version . 16, 40, 99
Peter, St., his argument in

Acts ii. 27 . . 79

Poetical books, how to be

printed . . 86, seq.

Poole, Matthew . . 23

Prideaux, Dr. . . 96

Printers, alterations made by 141
Proper names, how to be spelt 51
Pronouns . . 50, 53

Prophet, meaning of in Deut.

xviii. 15 ; Dan. ix. 24 . 80
Prophecies should be printed

in parallels . 92, seq.

Proverbs, book of .88

tr passages in,

whose text should be cor-
rected by the LXX. 34, seq.

PAGE

Punctuation, English, affect-
ing the sense . 47,53

Pusey, Dr., his version of
Daniel .... 6

Quotations in the New Testa-
ment from the Old Testa-
ment do not necessarily
represent the correct text
or meaning of the Hebrew

36, seq., 79

Bahab, translation and ex-
planation of . 51, seq.

Bahab, the rendering ' hos-
tess ' for « harlot ' . 100

Received version not to be
altered in order to remove
offences • . 70, 97

// nor to be

forced into harmony with
modern science, as in
Gen. i. . .101, seq.

References, marginal, undesir-
able . .136, seq.

Reinke, Dr., his manipulation
of large numbers . 19, seq., 98

Rendolph, Dr. . . 37

Renderings made in order to
fuse various passages into a
connected narrative . 102

Religion consists in the emo-
tions . . . 154

Resurrection, doctrine of

103, seq.

Revision of English Transla-
tion should be done outside
Churches and Convocation 14^

Revisers should be appointed
by the State . . 145

Reynolds, one of King
James's translators . 119

Rules for translating 47, seq.

Rule (a), its violation by
Lowth . . .48

Rule (b), its violation in Ps.
cvii. 27 . . .49

Rule (c), its violation by
Henderson . . 49

Rule (d) . . 49

Index II.

Rule M,
Rule {/}, ha violation by
■ violation

seq.

Bnle U),

Bole [$), Its violation in Is.

xliy. 8 . . .60

Kale ig), exceptions to it .GO

v (A), example of 50, seq.

* (hi, violation of by
T-owth . .51

Kale (iii violation of by

Leeser .SI

Bnle (it), examples of SI, aeq,

* (I), example of . 52
m (m), example of 62, aeq.

Samaritan Pentateuch, 17, 40, 42
Satan . . 122, seq.

Saxon English 2, 7, seq., 48,.aeq.
Scattergood's edition . 138

Schlottmann, Prof. 69, 74, 122
Scholars, the beat, sometimes

in error . . 73, acq.

Schroder, Prof. . . 70

Sections . . 81, seq.

Seleucns IV., Philopater, the

anointed one in Daniel is..

26 . . .66

Senses, double, injnrions . 76
Septnagiut, incorrect in Pa.

xlv.7 . .77

Septuagint version ■ 10, 15, 16
r applied to

restore the text . 30-32

Septaagint vers'on nsnally
followed by New Testa-
ment writers . 76
Septuagint text in ProTerbs
wmpared with the He-
brow . . 33-35
liesiiak . . .95
Sliikh . 66, seq., 142
Smith, Dr. Pye . . 101
Sojoim in Egypt, length of 21

Son, :

12,

Messiah
S|'«!iker'a Commentary
S | ' caters, distinguished

Strophes . 86, aeq., 91, seq.

Stuart, Moses, Prof., his ver-
sion of Prov. vi. 23 .5
Suspended letter, example of 29
Symbolical names 51, seq.
Synagogue, men of the Great

95,97

Tenison and Lloyd's edition 138
Tertollian . . .35

Text, examples of corrupt

passages in . 28, seq.

Text of Chronicles . 20, seq.
of Samuel and Kings . 21
of the Apocryphal books lot)
Thenins, Dr. . . 16, 20, 22

Tikkun Sopberim . . 24

Teschendorf's Greek Testa-
ment . . .10
Translation, a satisfactory

one, how to be got 143, seq.
Translators, incompetent 4, seq.
a King James's . 1
Transpositions of text, pro-
posed ones suspicions . 44
Transpositions of text, exam-
ples of right and wrong, 44, seq.
Tnch, Prof. . . .71

Turton, Bishop . 129, seq-

Tyndall . . 3, 143

Type, change of, to indicate

glosses . . .96

Type, use of smaller . 19

Unauthentic additions to the
text . . .95

Hasher's Chronology . 139

Van der Hooght's edition of
the Masoretic text . 40

Various readings, peculiar
ones . . 38-40

Venema on the Pnalma . 23

Verbal inspiration theory,
bias of . .43

Verses, division of, needs cor-

Verses, division of, examples
' Version, Authorised

seq.

Names and Subjects.

167

PAGE

Version, Authorised, passages

in it improperly changed, 97,seq.
Virgin, the word so rendered

in Is. vii. 14

. 58

Volkmar, Prof.

. 109

Vowel points.

sometimes

wrong

26, seq.

Vulgate version

40, 114

Wedell, his opinion of the
Tikkun Sopnerim . 24

Wellhansen (Privat Docent)

16, 123

De Wette's German transla-
tion . . 1, 71, 76

PAGE

DeWette, 92, seq., 99, 109,117,
seq., 127, 135, 154
Wilson, Bishop, his edition 138
Winer's Simonis . . 79

Wisdom, book of, written by

an Alexandrian Jew 83, 117
Words, single, materially
affect the meaning of pas-
sages . .46

Zaddukim, the . 11, seq.

Zechariah, book of 28, 94, 150
Znnz, Dr.. the version super-
intended by him 71, 76, 122

THE END.

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "On a Fresh Revision of the English Old Testament"

See other formats