Q.-Will you kindly say whether, in your opinion, there is any good reason-critical, exegetical, or other, for preferring the following rendering of Isa. 53:12 to that of the Authorized Version: " I will give him the great for his portion, and he shall divide the strong for a spoil "?
C. J. C.
A.-This rendering was substantially so given in our first printed English Bible (Coverdale, 1335), as well as previously in the early Wycliffite Manu scripts of the fourteenth century. But these versions were made from the Latin Vulgate, which (as well as the Greek Septuagint) was itself but a translation; so that these English editions were translations of a translation, and not made from the original Hebrew of the Old Testament.
Tyndale had, however, set the way in taking the original languages of the Scriptures as the text from which an English translation of the word of God should be given; and had issued in 1525 his (first printed) version of the New Testament translated from the Greek. He also began an English version of the Old Testament from the Hebrew, but did not live to do much more than the Pentateuch. It was not until the appearance of the Geneva Bible (of 1560 and later) that a direct version from the original tongue of the Old Testament was given in English, and this is how the verse is there rendered:-" Therefore will I give him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoyle with the strong "; followed by the Bishops' revised (1568), " Therefore wil I give him among ye great ones his part, and he shall divide the spoyle with the mightie."
The distinguished Hebrew scholars (amongst others) appointed in 1607 to give us our excellent King James' Version were therefore acquainted with these two renderings of the verse, and had to face the consideration of their respective faithfulness to the original. And, as we see, they were led to accept the sense as given in the ancient Syriac Version, and adopted by Pagninus, Leo Judah, Castalio, the Geneva, Bishops' and Diodati's (Italian), as the more correct rendering of the Hebrew. Our Revisers of 1884 also have confirmed this conclusion, in which also J.N.D. and W.K. apparently concur, with many others.
All hangs upon the view that is taken of the two Hebrew particles (beth) and (eth) (translated " with " in both clauses of the sentence of our Authorized Version). In support of the rendering submitted by the querist the first particle is assumed by some to he used here pleonastically, rather than as (usually) a preposition. But this treatment of the second letter of the alphabet as a connective with its object of the Hebrew original of the verb " divide " finds no corroboration or countenance from any part of the Old Testament, and would appear therefore to be a philological impropriety.
Also as to the second (eth), Prov. 16:19 (his) and verses 9 (his) and 12 (" with the transgressors ") of our chapter all go to confirm the rendering " with " in the clause we are considering. Hence the majority of the best Hebrew scholars, so far as I know, are in accord with our Authorized and Revised Versions.
How then are we to understand the words? The prophet by the Spirit of God describes in metaphorical language the future triumphs of the earth—despised and suffering Servant of Jehovah (compare chap. 63:1). What are the " great " ones of the earth in the presence of Him to whom Jehovah will divide a portion? He is heir of all things and above all. But if He be thus singled out from all others by Jehovah Himself (" to him will I divide "), yet will He deign to divide the spoil with the strong. He loves to share with others what He has rescued from the power of the enemy. Such is His grace as the reigning Son of man (compare Isa. 11:14; Jeremiah 51:20-23; Zech. 10:3-12).