(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

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

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? 



< 

I 



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 



VI 



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 



71 

76 
81 

84 

86 
92 



95 



97 

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.'* 

B 



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 

b2 



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. 



I 



PART I.— The Text. 



i 



§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 

C 



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. 

t 

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 : •* 



9} 



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. 

D 



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. 



J 



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 ■ 



44 



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- 



I 



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 — 



1 



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, 



99 



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.) 



a 



fu 
vi: 

K 



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. 

a 



mm 



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 



j 



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 



r 



i 



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 

H 



i 



Y 



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. 



i 

d 



\ - 

\ 



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. 



1 



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 



'1 



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 

I 



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 

K 



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 

k2 



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 



1 



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 

L 



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 


> • 


82 




xxiv. 11 


. 124 




i. 1-3 . 


• 


70 


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 • 


4 




xx. 22, &C. , 


, 44 




ill. 15 • 


50 


1,51 


Dent 


ii 10-12 


. 97 




iv. 8 . 


39 


,40 




ii.ll . 


• 44 




vi. 1-8 


> . 


82 




ii. 20-23 


. 97 




vi. 9-22 


• . 


82 




ill. 9 . 


. 97 




xi. 27-32 


• 


102 




X. 6-9 . 


. 44 




xii. 1, &c. . 


» . 


102 




. xvi. 7. , 


. 65 




xiL 3 . 


. 


79 




xvi. 10 


. 124 




XT. 2 . 


1 • 


96 




... * 

XV11L 1 


. 127 




XT. 13 


k . 


21 




xvui. 15 


. 80 




xviii. 18 


» . 


79 




xix, 18 . 


^ 124 




xxii. 18 


• • 


79 




xx. 19 


. 26 




xxvi. 4 


• 


79 




xxvii 15-26 


. 100 


/ 


xxviii. 10-22 


! 


82 




xxxiii. 2 


. 25 




xxviii. 14 . 


• 


79 




xxxiii. 12 , 


. 124 




xxxvi. 31 


• 


97 




xxxiii. 23 . 


. 8,9 




xliv. 5 


• • 


100 




xxxiv. 10-12 


{ . 97 




xlviii 20 


• 


80 


Joshua 


ii 1, &c. 


. 100 




xlix. 10 


1 . 


56 




xxiv. 19 


. 22 




xlix. 24-26 , 


. 25 


»,26 


Judges 


v. 


. 91 




xlix. 26 


28 


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 • 


97 




ill. 18 . 


. 25 




tL3 . 


l • 


107 




vii 3, 4 


• 18 




ix. 12 . 


i • 


97 




xvi. 14, &c. 


. 44 




x. 24, 29 


» • 


103 




xvii. 50 , 


. 31 




xi. 1-3 


» • 


103 




xviii 9 


. 44 




xi. 2 . 


1 • 


99 




xviii. 9-11, ] 


17-19 19 




xii 8 . 


• 


65 


2 Samuel. 


ii. 10 . 


. 31 




xii. 35 


98 


,99 




v. 8 . 


. 31 




xii. 36 


• 


124 




x. 18 . 


. 20 




xii. 40 


* • 


21 




xii 31 


. 22 




xv. 14-17 . 


. 119, 


120 




xx. 19 


. 31 




xxxiii 20 , 


1 • 


28 




xxiv. 1 


. 122 




. xxxiv. 7 


• 


123 




xxiv. 23 


. 125 




xxxiv. 19 


• 


31 


1 Kings . 


ix. 18 . 


. 24 


Leviticus , 


, iv. 13, 22, 2? 


r 


124 




xxii. 28 


. 128 




xviii. 18 


. 


21 


2 Kings . 


vi 5 . 


. 98 



i 



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 

dL 



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 


6 


• 


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 



i 



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 


am 

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 



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 



M 



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 



57 



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.