IT would have been strange if, after all the learning and diligent labors of Biblical students for the last 200 years, no advance had been made in philological studies. Strange, too, would it have been, if the science of textual criticism had not progressed since the authorized version was made. Much, that was then unknown, has been since elucidated. The meaning of words, but seldom met with in the Hebrew Scriptures, has been in many cases cleared up by a comparison with other languages of the Semitic group. Greek phrases have been illustrated from classical authors. The grammar of the different languages has also been attended to, and much light thrown on that department of study, so needful for an accurate acquaintance with the meaning that the Spirit of God intended should be conveyed. The texts, too, of both the Old and New Testaments have been subjected to a rigorous examination. Since that day MSS., then unknown, have been brought to light, and the readings they present of the New Testament have in many instances been given to the world. ΑΒCDFaILNPQRTYZΓΔθΛΞא and a few others, fragments of the Gospels; ABCDEFaIא of the Acts and Catholic Epistles; ΑΒCDGFaHIא of the Epistles of Paul; ABCs of the Revelation have been published, and the readings of others collated. When the authorized version appeared, the Codex Vaticanus (B) was known, but not collated; the Codex Alexandrinus (A) had not been published; Codex Bone (D of the Gospel and Acts) was known, but its peculiar readings had not been accurately determined; the Codex Sinaiticus (א) was still hidden in the convent-library of Mount Sinai, and the Nitrian MSS. had not given forth their treasures to the world. Now materials have been amassed for revising the texts of both the Hebrew and the Greek Scriptures.
If we speak of the, Hebrew Scriptures, the labors of Kennicott and De Rossi must be mentioned. If we speak of the Greek Scriptures, Walton, Mill, Bentley, Bengel, Wetstein, must not be forgotten. But these laborers, while searching out and recording readings, did not publish a revised text, being contented for the most part with stating the readings of MSS. worthy of attention; and what Wetstein and others attempted in regard to the New Testament, that Boothroyd did for the Old, by publishing an edition of the Hebrew Scriptures, with the important readings, ascertained by Kennicott and De Rossi, noted at the bottom of the page.
In 1775-7, a new era dawned on textual criticism. Griesbach then first published a critical text of the New Testament. Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, have since followed his example; whilst Hamilton, in 1821, published his Codex Criticus of the Hebrew Bible, the first attempt to form a critical text of the Old Testament.
By the labors of these and other scholars, what, it is pertinent to ask, has been accomplished? Have they demonstrated the perfection of the text from which the authorized version was made? Does the authorized version, when critically examined, faithfully represent the meaning of the originals?
At this point the subject divides itself into an inquiry regarding the Hebrew Scriptures, and the translation made from them; and another and separate question—the condition of the text of the Greek Testament, and the translation made from it. Throughout this article we shall confine ourselves to an examination, brief though it must be, of the Old Testament, as presented by the authorized version; and the first question that meets us is this, What is the condition of the common Hebrew text? By what standard shall we try it? How shall we determine its accuracy?
As for the Hebrew, so for the Greek, there are three sources to which we can turn to help us to an understanding of what the text originally was, viz., MSS., versions, and quotations from early Christian writers. A more formidable difficulty, however, presents itself at the outset, when we come to inquire about the Hebrew text, than when we examine into the accuracy of the common Greek text. The Hebrew MSS., though by no means few in number, are nearly all of one recension, exhibiting for the most part the readings approved of by the Masoretic scribes. Their age, too, when compared with the antiquity of some MSS. of the New Testament, is comparatively modern. The Hebrno-Samaritan Pentateuch, i.e., the Pentateuch in Samaritan characters, preserved by the small and decreasing sect of the Samaritans, which we might have expected would have been of the greatest use as a concurrent witness of what Moses wrote, often differs from the Hebrew so much, that its readings would require support ere being accepted in preference to that text handed down by the Jews. In one place it has substituted Gerizim for Ebal (Deut. 27:4), to favor the Samaritan worship. In others, its accuracy is open to grave suspicion.
Of ancient versions, the LXX, the Chaldee Targums, the Syriac, the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, as much as are extant, and the Vulgate, where it exhibits the text of Jerome's Latin version, are of great value, and often support readings differing from those of the common Hebrew text. Some of these have the support of MSS. authority. Others may reflect a text, very ancient, but no longer extant in Hebrew; but without MSS. authority such readings we could scarcely venture to incorporate with the generally accredited text. For he would be, a bold critic who would amend the Hebrew by the readings supposed to have been adopted by the translators of the LXX, and other versions, however ancient, though the variations found in the different translations deserve to be noted. Lowth and Houbigant have attempted this, but it must be evident that conjecture of what ancient translators had before them is slender ground on which to meddle authoritatively with the Hebrew or Chaldee.
Of quotations from the early Christian writers, those are of value which men, as Jerome and Origen, conversant with the Hebrew, have preserved, who tell us often what the text was in their day. The works of Jewish writers should also be consulted.
By the common Hebrew text is to be understood that published by Van Der Hooght at Amsterdam, in 1705, in two volumes, 8vo. This was the text Kennicott used, and is the one generally reprinted, and answers in Hebrew to the textus receptus of the Greek Testament.
A few various readings are here subjoined. If the reader desires to be further informed on this subject, he should consult Davidson's Revision of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament.
Gen. 49:10, Shiloh, H,;r3. Sonie MSS. read Sheloh, ri5V supported by the Hebreo-Samaritan (hereafter in this article quoted. as Sam.), LXX., Syriac, the Targums of Onkelos and Jerusalem, and the Greek translations of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and many Jewish authorities. Jerome, with the Vulgate, translates “qui mittendus est,” as if deriving the word from rr'•t') to send. For the common reading, many MSS. can be adduced, and the Grmco-Venet. version. If the Hebrew text be followed, the word must be taken as an appellation of the one predicted. If the other reading be preferred (and it does seem best accredited, the word Sheloh must be translated “whose it is,” i.e., to whom the government belongs, and be regarded as equivalent to i5 71;i: of Ezek. 21:27, translated “whose it is.” “The scepter shall not depart ... until He comes, whose it is.”
Deut. 33:2, “A fiery law” n1 tt;ki two words as commonly printed, but to be read as one:rum according to the Masora. Many MSS. with Sam. agree in this. Accepting this correction, the word, which means “Springs,” must be regarded as a proper name. Sinai, Seir, Paran having been mentioned, the sacred writer speaks of two others, Meribah Kadesh, here translated “with ten thousand of saints,” and Ashdoth (as the two words joined together form) translated “a fiery law.” The verse would then mean, as Fuerst has translated it, “Jehovah came from Sinai, and appeared to them from Seir; He appeared in brightness from Paran, He came forth to them out of Meribah Kadesh, having Ashdoth at his right hand, i.e., on the south.” Ashdoth is the name of a place near the Dead Sea, in the south of the territory of Reuben (Josh. 13:20), Meribah Kadesh being in the wilderness of Zin (Num. 20). The LXX. leaves Kadesh untranslated κάδης, and renders the last clause, “at his right hand angels with him.” The Vulgate has probably here been the original of the English version.
2 Sam. 8:12-13 Syria, cis. Many MSS. supported by LXX. and Syriac, read “Edon,” are as in 1 Chron. 18, which seems correct, the valley of Salt being in Edoin (2 Kings 14:7.) The interchange of the letters (r) and (d) makes the difference.
Judg. 18:30, “Manasseh:” so many MSS. Others have the letter n enlarged; the common text has it suspended above the line, thus Manasseh. Some, followed by the Vulgate, omit n: so Jerome with some Jewish writers. Omitting the n, the word in Hebrew becomes Moses, who was the father of Gershom the Levite. Jewish tradition tells us the name was altered, that the shame of having an idolatrous priest in the genealogy should not rest on the house of the lawgiver. Probably Moses is the true reading. The LXX. reads Manasseh, but, being originally a Jewish translation, its authority here would be scarcely entitled to much weight. It shows, however, how early this alteration must have been made.
Josh. 21:36-37. These verses are omitted by the Masora. Very many MSS. with many printed editions, have them, and all the versions. The common text omits them. Without them the list of cities is incomplete.
Neh. 7:68 is an example of the converse. Whilst the common text retains the verse, very many MSS., the LXX. (Vatican text) and Syriac, omit it.
Again in 2 Sam. 14:21, the Masoretic text punctuates “thou hast done,” referring to Joab, whilst all the versions, and some MSS., agree with the English translation, which adheres to the written text or ch'thib 2,1, “I have done.” In 12:24, for “he called,” some MSS., with the Syriac, Targum, and approved of by the Masora, read “she called,” speaking of Bathsheba.
When and how some of the variations in the Hebrew arose, it would now be impossible to say. The origin of others, if their date be unknown, can however be easily traced. Similarity in the form of letters, as in examples already quoted, is one source of alterations; similarity in the sound of words is another, e.g., the substitution of k.i'; for i5, or vice versa.
1 Sam. 2:16. Here the authorized version following the common text, which reads i5 to him for t45 nay, has to supply the negative to make sense. Many MSS., with LXX., Syriac, Vulgate, and one of the Targums have the negative in the place of the pronoun and preposition. Isa. 49:5, the text of the authorized version gives one reading “be not gathered,” the margin has the other “gathered to him” The Vulgate here supports the authorized version. Some MSS. with LXX., Targum, and Aquila read as the margin without the negative. In 9:3, we meet with another example “not increased” (so Symachus and Vulgate); but the margin with several MSS. the Targum and Syriac read, “to it increased.” In these instances probably the best attested reading is that which differs from the common text, and the authorized version which follows it. In 63:9, the authorized version differs from the common text, and follows that supported by many MSS., the Talmud, and Jewish writers, “He was afflicted,” lit. “to him there was affliction.” But the LXX., Syriac, and Vulgate agree in the substitution of the negative for the pronoun and preposition, though they differ as to the translation of the clause. If we follow the text here which many prefer, we must translate somewhat as follows: “In all their afflictions he was not an adversary;” or, “in all their straits he was not straitened.”
A comparison of the variations of the Hebrew with those of the Greek, will show that in the latter the alterations are often more important, and affect more materially the sense and form of a passage, than is generally the case in the former. This is easily accounted for by the reverence amounting almost, if not quite, to superstition with which the Jews regarded the originals. Though blinded to the full meaning of the word, they took great care of it. They would not alter, as a rule, a letter of the text, even if that letter was enlarged, reversed, or misplaced. They handed down the text as they found it, after they had settled in an early age of the Christian era what they believed it to be; but noted in the margin what they conceived should be read. Such corrections are termed ICH,,71P. “read,” and the text ell'thib, Tro “written.” Again, if a word had been accidentally dropped out of the text, they did not insert it. Its vowels would be found without the consonants to which they belonged, and a note would tell the reader that such a word should be read; see, for an example of this, Judg. 20:13. Yet, with all the care bestowed on the text, we cannot say it is faultless, or that readings have not crept into it, which were not in the originals as they came from the inspired writers. On the other hand, we should not be hasty in altering it, but we might have the important differences noted in the margin of the English Bible, as is already done in the case of some of the examples given above.
Turning from the text to the authorized version, let us see whether the translation at all times faithfully represents the meaning of the originals, in those places where the readings of the Hebrew are not open to doubt. We shall arrange the examples now to be quoted under different heads -
1. Passages, the translation of which depends on the meaning of one or more difficult or uncommon words.
Gen. 36:24, “mules,” neap rather “hotsprings,” so Vulgate. See Fuerst's Lexicon. The LXX leaves the word untranslated ἰαμείν. It occurs somewhere else.
Num. 14:34, “My breach of promise,” nitvr, “alienation” or withdrawal from anything; hence, metaphorically, “enmity.” Occurs elsewhere in Job 32:10. LXX, “the anger of my wrath,” θυμὸν τῆς ὀργῆς μου. Vulgate, ultionem steam, “my vengeance.”
Deut. 32:42, Judg. 5:2, “Revenges,” “avenging.” The noun 1711r13 occurs nowhere else. What can it mean? The context in Judges helps us to an understanding of it. A victory has been secured by the leaders and people of Israel. God is to be praised, the leaders having led, and the people having willingly offered themselves. This meaning is confirmed by the construction of the two clauses in Judg. 5:2, and by the meaning of the root r when compared with the Arabic, which has the sense of projecting, standing forth prominently. Hence, leadership suits the context in both places, “from the head of the princes of the enemy,” —(Deuteronomy)— “when the princes led in Israel, when the people willingly offered themselves.” In this sense the LXX translates in Deuteronomy, and Theodotion in Judges.
Judg. 5:7, 11, “The inhabitants of the villages ceased,” and “towards the inhabitants of his villages.” To make sense, the authorized version in both places supplies inhabitants of What, then, is the meaning of the word 151:1.p, which is met with nowhere else? The root riy: bears the sense of cleaving, dividing, hence judging, and thus the idea of a ruler, which suits the context, is arrived at. “As for a ruler they ceased in Israel.” “The righteous acts of His ruler.” The Vulgate has translated the word by fortes, the LXX in verse 7 by δυνατού. A kindred word is met with in Hab. 3:14, and nowhere else. There the authorized version introduces the idea, of “villages.” But ruler, or chief, will suit the context. The LXX has translated it by δυναστῶν. The Syriac, the Targums, and Jarchi, in the main agree with the idea of ruler; and the Vulgate translates it bellator.
V. 11, “They that are delivered from the noise of archers.” Here again, to make sense, the authorized version supplies a great deal. In Hebrew we have only two words. All turns on the meaning to be assigned to the participle, Piel, of sdfsd1-t. Pro. 30:27 here comes to our assistance, “The locusts have no king, yet go they forth all of them by bands;” margin, “are gathered together,” ro. Hence the idea of an orderly procession, which suits the context in Judges, so we may translate “more than (i.e. louder than) the noise of men marching in procession.”
13:18, “a secret,” rather “wonderful,” so margin. He does not conceal His name. See Isa. 9:6, “His name shall be called Wonderful.” He, therefore, who appeared to Manoah was Jehovah Jesus.
Job 17:6, “And aforetime I was as a tabret,” In the previous clause Job speaks of himself as a byword. It is best to take this clause as describing something similar. The meaning then would be, “I am one whose face is spit upon,” i. e., an object of abomination before them. The word occurs elsewhere only as a proper name. Here the versions vary in their translations, the LXX expressing it by γέλως, the Vulgate by exemplum.
Psa. 7:13, “He ordaineth His arrows against the persecutors,” txp`,,-. Better “He maketh his arrows burning ones,” i.e., to consume His enemies. See Fuerst's Lexicon.
Psa. 56:2, “O Thou most high,” oil?. So the Chaldee and Aquila. But it is best to take the word here as an adverb, “haughtily,” “insolently.” See Rosenmtiller's Scholia, and Fuerst's Lexicon.
Psa. 68:6, “With chains,” ni-Vn, rather “into prosperity.” It occurs nowhere else.
Psa. 77:2, “My sore ran and ceased not.” What is the meaninub of ‘?’ translated “sore?” A better translation has been proposed, “my hand at night was stretched out, and ceases not,” i.e., he continued in prayer.
Isa. 19:10. The meaning here turns chiefly on two words -1?.in and `TR. A better translation is given by Henderson, “and her foundations e. nobles, pillars of the state) shall be broken, and all workers of hire e. laborers) are grieved in mind.” See also Fuerst on asdfasdf1
Isa. 30:7, “Their strength is to sit still,” rsfgh,414.5 ary,. Various have been the renderings of this difficult clause. Some join the pronoun cr.t. to the first word, others connect it with the following. Fuerst translates, “their violent pressing after aid ceases.” Lowth and Henderson apply the clause to Egypt, “I have called her Rahab, the inactive,” i. e., the one who sits still. Lee and Gesenius also apply it to Egypt, “Insolent in their habitations.” Rosenmiiller, Ferocia, nunc desidia; LXX, ὅτι ματαία ἡ παράκλησις ὑμῶν αὕτη; Vulgate, Superbia tantum est, quiesce. All these different translations are so many confessions of the difficulty of the passage. But none of them supports the authorized version, which, though it expresses what is true of God's people, does not express the truth in this place.
Isa. 30:32, “grounded staff,” ri77vo rrv; rather “rod of appointment,” i. e., appointed for punishment, Gesenius,.Fuerst, Henderson, Ezek. 1:24, “Voice of speech,” m`gy?7 “sound of a multitude,” Fuerst, “tumult,” Henderson, “falling rain,” Rosentnfiller. It occurs also in Jer. 11:16, translated “tumult.” The versions generally appear to have read rezprr “speech,” except the Vulgate which translates “sonus multitudinis,” which might be followed.
Dan. 7:9, “Were cast down.” 1,12:1 better, “were placed,” so LXX, Vulgate.
Hos. 6:3, “As the latter and former rain unto the earth.” y better, “as the latter rain which fructifies the earth.” Here m), must be taken as future Hiphil of r governing “earth,” and not the noun, which is elsewhere translated “former rain.” See Lee and Fuerst.
Hab. 1:9, “Their faces shall sup up as the east wind.” map only met with here, according to Lee, means “desire.” “The desire (Lee), direction (Fuerst), of their faces is eastward.” Coming on the land of Canaan, their aim is to move eastward with their spoil.
2. Passages in which the translation might be improved.
Gen. 4:8, “And Cain talked with Abel his brother.” Rather, “and Cain said to Abel his brother.” There is an evident hiatus in the sense in the Hebrew which the authorized version does not show. The Sam, with most of the versions, supplies “let us go into the field,” but without MSS. authority, except in the Samaritan codices. Gen. 41:40, “According unto thy word shall all my people be ruled.” This is too free. The original is as follows— “And on thy mouth shall all my people kiss.” Compare Psa. 2:12. Martin translates, “Et tout mon peuple te baisera.” Samuel, when he anointed Saul, kissed him (1St Samuel 10:1). Num. 12:11-13, “Alas, my lord, I beseech Thee //¿lay not.... Let her not ?; be as one dead..... Heal her now 21 0 God, I beseech Thee, t4).” The urgency of Aaron with Moses, and the importunity of Moses with God, are beautifully expressed by the repetition in each case of the particle of entreaty rc, “Alas, my lord, I beseech Thee Let her not, I beseech Thee O, God, I beseech Thee, heal her, I beseech Thee.” Martin gives expression to the particle in each case, “Helas, monseigneur, je te prie..... Jeremiah to prie qu 'elle 0,.Dieu Fort! je te prie, gueris-la je t' en prie.” Num. 16:13, “except thou,",p rather “that thou.” Noldius “quod,” LXX ὅτι; but the Vulgate agrees with the authorized version. Dathan and Abiram, in reality, bring two charges against Moses, that he designed to lead the people into the wilderness to their destruction, and that he aimed at making himself a prince over them. The English translation conveys the idea of an alternative; the Hebrew of an additional ground of complaint, because Moses had sent for them.
The historical books will furnish a few examples: Josh. 24:2, 3, 14, 15, “the flood,” -1N7 lit. “the river,” i. e., Euphrates; so also Isa. 59:19. But in Jer. 46:7, 8, “the flood” is -114! lit. “the river,” i. e., the Nile. Judg. 2:21, “Will not drive out any,” Hebrew “a man” which is more forcible. V. 13. Another translation of this verse is as follows— “Then descended part of the people among the nobles: the Lord descended for me among the mighty.” The difference of translation here turns on iri+ whether it be from the root 111, to descend, or rr to rule. The LXX connected it with the former, which yields a sense in perfect accordance with the details of the battle; for Barak descended from the mountain to the valley (iv. 14, v. 15), and the Lord went before him. The verb must be regarded as the Aramaic form of the perfect. XIII. 12, Manoah's question, as given by the authorized version (“How shall we order the child? and how shall we do to him?”) fails to convey what he really did say. “What shall be the manner (condition) of the child, and his work?” See Vulgate. A curious mistake we meet with in Ruth 3:15, 16— “And she went into the city. And when she came to her mother-in-law she said.” It should be, “And he went into the city. And she went to her mother-in-law, and she said.” So LXX and Martin. Probably the Vulgate here led the English translators astray, which translates “ingressa est civitatem et venit.” Often, as the reader must have remarked, it might have been followed with advantage; here its lead should be discarded. 2 Sam. 23:4. “As a morning without clouds; as the tender grass springing out of the earth by clear shining after rain.” If the order of the original is attended to, we get a good sense: “As a morning without clouds for brightness; as the young grass of the earth (nourished) by rain.” See Vulgate.
From the poetical books we select the following: -Psa. 16:3: “To the saints that are in the earth, and the nobles (i.e. excellent), in them is all my delight.” In 55:22, a little alteration would improve the passage so often quoted; “Cast thy lot,” that which God has appointed thee. In 68:4, if we read, “Cast up for him,” or “level for him,” i.e., prepare his way alb, we shall better understand what the Psalmist wrote. Compare Isa. 40:3, 4. Again, in 74:18, the Lord is reminded that the enemy has reproached Him— “hath reproached Jehovah.” So LXX. and Vulgate. Another correction should be made in 24, “Thou shalt guide me with Thy counsel, and after the glory thou wilt receive rue.” Compare Zech. 2:8, for the same phrase correctly translated. This is a most important difference, and shows that the saints who will use this psalm will understand their position as sharers in the blessings on earth when the Lord reigns. Their calling is earthly, ours is heavenly. We shall be received by the Lord before the glory (1 Thess. 4), they after it has appeared. Such a verse in the Psalms shows that the hopes they express of future blessing are for others of God's saints than those who share in the heavenly calling.
Turning to the prophets, a more exact rendering helps us to understand Isa. 6:13, “Which being cut down have still the trunk,” for “whose substance is in them when they cast their leaves.” The prophet speaks of violent dealing with the nation, and compares it to a tree roughly used; the English version, on the contrary, speaks of an annual operation of nature. A little attention to Isa. 53:11, shows that the prophet speaks of two things, “He shall make righteous the many, and (not “for”) He shall bear their iniquities.” So Vulgate. At times we believe the authorized version has failed to convey the sense of the original, because the translators had not seized the great outlines of prophecy. Psa. 73:24, has been already noticed as an instance of this. Ezek. 37:26, 27 affords another. Two things are spoken of here, God's sanctuary and God's tabernacle. His sanctuary will be among them asdfsafd. His tabernacle over them m75r. See Rev. 7:15, in Greek— “will tabernacle over them.” In the following chapter we read, ver. 8, “which have been always laid waste,” -rpr,1 rather “continually.” They were once fruitful, but since God's judgment has been poured out on Israel their fertility has departed. Martin translates more correctly “continuellement.” Another instance of want of accuracy is found in Dan. 7:18, 22, 25, 27. The Chaldee has two words translated always in the authorized version by one. “Most High” t4'v which occurs only in verse 25, “He shall speak great words against the Most High.” Else. where, in verses 18, 22, 25, 27, it is not God of whom the prophet writes, but the high places, p5t The saints of the high places shall take the kingdom (ver. 18), and judgment be given to them (ver. 22). He shall wear out the saints of the high places, the heavenly saints; the heavenly saints who are subsequently martyred (ver. 25); but the people of the saints of the high places shall have the kingdom under heaven, i.e., shall share in the earthly kingdom (ver. 27). This clears up the passage greatly. The translation of Hag. 2:9 should be noticed. God owns but one house as His. It has been twice destroyed, it will be again; but in His eyes the house, however often rebuilt, is ever the same. So the Hebrew should be here translated, “the latter glory of this house,” not “the glory of this latter house. In Zech. 10:4, the prophet is speaking of those who shall proceed out of Judah in a future day. “From him shall proceed a corner or chief (So. Judg. 20:2; 1 Sam. 14:38; Isa. 19:13) from him every ruler;” for tab, elsewhere translated taskmaster, oppressor, is here used in a good sense. In Zech. 11:10, for “all the people,” read “all the peoples.” The covenant made with all the peoples—God's promise to Abraham, that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed—was apparently broken when the Lord was rejected and died. It is this the prophet is occupied with- the effects of his rejection and death to others beside Israel. Afterward the other staff which shadowed the brotherhood between Judah and Israel was broken. The Staff called Beauty concerned all the nations. Similarly, in chap. 12:3, 4, “all the people” should be “all the peoples,” i.e., the nations arrayed against Judah and against God. One more passage remains to be noticed, chap. 14:3, instead of “Then shall the Lord go forth,” we should read, “And the Lord shall go forth,” with LXX, Vulgate, and Martin, who has “car.” The text does not fix the time, but the order of the events.
3. Passages in which words have been added, materially affecting the sense.
Ex. 34:33, affords a notable instance of this, which makes the sacred writer to have written just the opposite of what he did write, and necessitates the omission of the conjunction “and.” “And till Moses had done speaking with them he put a veil on his face.” Moses wrote, “And Moses finished speaking with them, and he put a veil on his face.” So LXX and Vulgate. Affrighted at Moses, whose face was resplendent with divine glory, the children of Israel feared to approach him; but they had all to draw near, to behold the glory, and to learn what he had to communicate. That finished, he covered his face with a veil, till he entered again the presence of God; afterward he came out and again spoke to the people with his face unveiled, but veiled it when he had done speaking to them. Thus the passage is in harmony with 2 Cor. 3, which gives the real reason of the veiling of Moses' face, “that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished.” They could not “steadfastly behold his face for the glory of his countenance,” and they could not, because the veil hid it, see the transient character of the glory with which it was illuminated. To be brief, one more passage is referred to—Hos. 6:3, “Then shall we know if we follow on to know the Lord.” The Hebrew expresses no condition, “And we shall know, we shall follow on to know the Lord.” So LXX. Martin renders it, “Car nous connaitrons L'Eternel, et nous continnerons le connaitre.”
4. Passages where, through a want of accuracy in the tenses, the sense is obscured.
This is oftenest the case in the prophetical portions of Scripture. Thus, in the prophetical Psa. 67:6, the Hebrew states, “the earth has yielded her increase.” The authorized translation translates “Then, shall the earth yield her increase.” A reference to Lev. 26:42, shows that God promises in the latter days to remember the land. Hence, when that takes place, the remnant, observing the returning fertility of the soil, will know their time of blessing approaches, so add, “God, our God, shall bless us.” Again, in Psa. 97:6, the verbs are in the perfect: “The heavens have declared His righteousness, and all the peoples have seen His glory.” The manifestation of the Lord having taken place, all idolaters shall be confounded.
5. Passages in which the definite article has been improperly omitted.
Judg. 2:11; 3:7; 8:33; 10:6, 10, should be rendered “the Baalim” —not one, but many male gods; and “the Asheroth,” translated “the groves,” but rather, the female divinities, in 3:7, and “the Ashtaroth,” in 10:6. The article, when expressed, brings out the enormity of their guilt—they forsook the one God to serve the many, the true God for the false ones. 1 Sam. 31:13; 22:6, a tree” should be “the tamarisk,” a well-known one. Dan. 9:27; 11:39, “the many.” Judg. 15:19, “the hollow place.” It remained after Samson had drank at it.
6. Passages in which a proper name has been translated.
Judg. 15:19, for “the jaw,” we should read, as the margin, “Lehi.” The spring was not in the jawbone, but in Lehi, so named from the instrument Samson used. So in 23:25, it should be as the margin has it in “Mahaneh Dan,” a place so named because of what happened, as recounted in 18:12. In 20:43, we read the children of Israel trod down the Benjamites “from Menuchah,” not as in authorized version “with ease.” See LXX and Martin. Zeph. 1:10, “an howling from the second rTprr rather “Mishneh,” a part of Jerusalem. See 2 Kings 22:14 Chron. 34:22, in the margin. In Ezek. 27:19, “going to and fro” should be “from Uzal,” a district of Arabia (so LXX and Aquila); but in verse 11, “Gammadim” should be translated “garrisons.” See Fuerst.
7. Passages where the punctuation should be amended.
Deut. 1:32, 33, these verses form part of the speech: “And in this matter ye are not trusting the Lord your God, who goes before you in the way,” &c. The speech ends with verse 33. In Psa. 56:4, there should be a question, “I will not fear. What can flesh do to me?” So Martin; but in 101:2, we should probably read without the note of interrogation, “I will behave myself wisely in a perfect way, when Thou wilt come to me.” So Vulgate, Lee, and Rosenmiiller. Again, in Jer. 38:15, the last clause we should read without a question, “and if I counsel thee, thou wilt not hearken to me,” so Vulgate and Martin; but LXX in both these places agrees with the authorized version.
From the instances brought forward, want of space alone necessitating a selection, it will be seen that our English version is decidedly in need of amendment. How that may best be accomplished is not the subject before us; but if we dwell for a time on its defects, we must not shut our eyes to its excellencies. It has been pronounced, and with truth, as a whole, the best of modern versions. For it we have much cause to thank God. Compared with the Douay version, made for Roman Catholics in England, how great is the difference, how immense its superiority; but if it can be improved by being made a more faithful translation of the originals, shall we refuse to see its deficiencies? Surely the translators, were they now alive, would desire nothing else than that their defects should be amended, and the word of the living God, which they sought to convey to the English reader, be as accurately rendered as possible. But if a revision be undertaken, it should be of a text based on MS. authority. It must be of the Hebrew and Chaldee, read with points; and it must proceed on the understanding that it will as faithfully as possible—the idioms of the languages being duly considered—translate the text, remembering that the business of a translator is to convey the meaning of what the author wrote, and not what he thinks he should have written. The tenses of verbs, and the numbers of nouns, should be carefully attended to. In this our translators have failed, forgetting at times that the work of a translator is to translate the text—the business of the teacher to expound it. These two offices should be kept distinct. Were this work carried out efficiently, many passages might undergo a slight change, familiar words and phrases might disappear, portions of the prophetical parts might be greatly altered, and the poetical writings emerge from the pen of the translator in places almost wholly recast. How differently, for instance, the song of Deborah would read, if translated from the Hebrew afresh, with all the light we now possess regarding the meaning of the terms the prophetess employed. But if with these changes we felt sure we had approached more closely to the meaning of the Spirit of God, we should gain and not lose. In the meantime passages may well be examined, and suggested improvements canvassed.