CHAPTER XV.

Reasons of the Failure of the modern versions of the Scriptures to exhibit clearly the Hebrew designations of the Messiah--The Masoretic Punctuation--Reference to the term Melach and the formula Melach Jehovah.

But if, in the ancient dispensations, the Messenger Jehovah, the delegated official Person, Messiah, was, in all relations, the actor, administrator, and revealer; if Moses and the prophets wrote intelligibly of Him; if they recognized and acknowledged him under all the Divine designations, why, it may naturally be asked, did not the authors of the English and other modern versions so understand, and in their translations construe and represent them? An answer to this question, in all its bearings, probably no one now would be inclined to undertake. But in certain, and perhaps the most important respects, it admits of a satisfactory answer. The translators, from the prescribed or customary and popular course of theological study and opinion, which aimed to avoid, with the arrogant assumptions and pretensions of Romanism, the gentile heresies of the whole Papal history, were led to entertain an overweening and ill-founded confidence in the modern Jews as interpreters of their own Scriptures; that is, of the Jewish authors who flourished, and whose works were published, after the establishment of Papal domination and intolerance, and of Mohammedan ravage and proscription. That school of Jewish authors was not only more modern, but widely different in respect to their theological doctrines from the Chaldee paraphrasts, especially in regard to the Messiah; and may be comprehensively described as including the Talmudists, the Masoretic doctors, and their rabbinical disciples and followers of various names. The productions of these Jewish authors were numerous and readily accessible at the period of the revival of learning in Europe, and in the sixteenth century were brought into notice and favor especially by the elder Buxtorf, in connection with his edition of the Hebrew Bible, and his lexicons, grammar, and various works relating to Masoretic and rabbinical literature. He seems to have entered with enthusiasm into the study of this school of Jewish writers; and, with respect at least to the later and best known portion of them, as the clue to their sentiments was furnished by their use of the Masoretic points, he embraced their system in that respect, and inculcated and defended the application of it to the text of the Hebrew Scriptures with earnestness, perseverance, and success. His example was followed. The use of the points facilitated the study of the language; and for that reason, as well as because they were supposed to be safe guides in respect to the reference and meaning of words, they became popular with the learned and with students. Instead of being regarded as having the effect of a translation and commentary, and thereby fastening on the text the constructions and opinions of their authors, whether erroneous or otherwise, they were regarded primarily in a grammatical point of view, and as indicating the vowels supposed to be proper to Hebrew words, in addition to the letters originally composing them.

But this system of punctuation has unavoidably the effect of a version or comment. Its office is essentially that of an exponent of the constructions and opinions of its authors, and as such it can be no further correct and reliable than their theological, exegetical, and religious doctrines, theories and sentiments were in accordance with the real meaning of the original text. It may often, and perhaps generally where no doctrine or doubtful construction is concerned, have the effect to express that real meaning, and to that extent it might be harmless, and, if not wholly useless, might be of equal value with a paraphrase to the same effect. But if the student adopts this system as a guide, he naturally relies on it as equally applicable to every portion of the sacred oracles, and, with as much confidence in one case as in another, adopts the construction which it indicates.

An attempt to reform the reigning fashion of Hebrew study in relation to this subject would probably be as hopeful a task as an attempt to disabuse the minds of theologians and religious teachers of the empirical, fanciful, and puerile system of figurative exposition which was rendered popular by Origen, and has reigned triumphant from his to the present time; being propagated from age to age by education, and by the example and influence of the learned. But, regarded in a merely historical point of view, there appears to be no room for doubt but that the Hebrew vowel points--closely and even bigotedly adhered to, as they are understood to have been, by the translators of the Scriptures into our own and other modern languages--had, extensively, a very ill effect upon the versions which they furnished. And to whatever extent this was true, it would naturally prevail, especially in relation to those passages concerning which the authors held erroneous opinions, and as to which, under the more than hereditary Jewish prejudices occasioned by the persecutions and proscriptions to which they were subjected, they aimed to counteract the tendency of the Chaldee versions, as well as "to root out," in the language of McCaul, the Christian interpretations of the Hebrew text. "The violent persecutions of the Crusaders," says that writer, "the jealousy excited by the Christian attempt upon the Holy Land, and the influence of the doctrine of the Mahometans, amongst whom they lived, produced a sensible change in Jewish opinions and interpretations, which is plainly marked in Kimchi and other writers of the day, and without a knowledge of which the phenomena of modern Judaism cannot be fully understood. Rashi, Aben-Ezra, and Kimchi endeavored to get rid of the Christian interpretations, and Maimonides to root out the Christian doctrines _which had descended from the ancient Jewish Church_." (_Introduction to Kimchi._) Yet this laborious student of those authors and of the Talmud adhered as pertinaciously as they to the Masoretic points, and apparently without over suspecting that their highest office and their necessary and principal effect was that of being the vehicle of a comment. Such is the force of education, literary discipline, example, and habit in generating fixed opinions.

But let one deemed competent to judge and to speak upon this subject be referred to:

"The Masoretic punctuation," says Bishop Lowth, "by which the pronunciation of the language is given, the forms of the several parts of speech, the construction of the words, the distribution and limits of the sentences, and the connection of the several members, _are fixed_, is in effect _an interpretation_ of the Hebrew text made by the Jews _of late ages_, probably not earlier than the eighth century, and may be considered as their translation of the Old Testament. Where the words, _unpointed_, are capable of various meanings, accordingly as they are variously pronounced and constructed, the Jews, _by their pointing_, have determined them to one _meaning and construction_, and the sense which they thus give is _their sense_ of the passage, just as the rendering of a translator into another language is _his sense_; that is, the sense in which in his opinion the original words are to be taken; and it has no other authority than what arises from its being agreeable to the rules of just interpretation. But because in the languages of Europe the vowels are essential parts of written words, a notion was too hastily taken up by the learned at the revival of letters, when the original Scriptures began to be more carefully examined, that the vowel points were necessary appendages of the Hebrew letters, and therefore _coëval with them;_ at least that they became absolutely necessary when the Hebrew was become a dead language, and must have been added by Ezra, who collected and formed the canon of the Old Testament, in regard to all the books of it in his time extant. On this supposition the points have been considered as part of the Hebrew text, and as giving the meaning of it on no less than Divine authority. Accordingly, our public translations in the modern tongues for the use of the Church among Protestants, and so likewise the modern Latin translations, are for the most part close copies of the Hebrew pointed text, and are in reality only versions at second-hand, translations of the Jews' interpretation of the Old Testament."

After conceding to this interpretation what he supposes it may justly claim, he adds that the modern translators "would have made a much better use of it, and a greater progress in the explication of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, had they consulted it without absolutely submitting to its authority; had they considered it as an assistant, not as an infallible guide." Finally he compares the effect of this course to that of the Act of the Council of Trent in pronouncing the Vulgate to be of equal authority with the original Scriptures. (_Dissertation preliminary to his Version of Isaiah._)

Now to apply these observations to the case in hand. Our translators having been educated in the Jewish sense of the Hebrew Scriptures, and having studied the original with the points under the received and general impression that they were of equal authority with the text, of course proceeded with their translations under the influence of whatever erroneous constructions and opinions the Massorites and their disciples entertained. Those errors, therefore, which were predominant in the Jewish mind when the points were added to the text, and when the causes of prejudice and hostility against the Christian doctrines were universally and most violently in operation, were perpetuated, both among Jews and Christians, by the use of those ingenious and plausible appendages; and from that day to this, translators and expositors have fallen back upon them, and upon the awful petrifactions of Talmudical and rabbinical jargon, as guides to the meaning of the words of Inspiration.

The Jewish people, after their total defection to idolatry, their exile in Babylon, and the cessation of prophetic gifts, having renounced idols and incurred the hatred and contempt of idolaters, were, from their restless state of mind, their internal divisions, feuds, and rivalships, and the exposures and vicissitudes of their external condition peculiarly exposed to cardinal and sectarian errors. They had forsaken Jehovah, and no longer received any tokens of his presence and favor. Both priests and people, a faithful remnant always excepted, had rejected him as their mediatorial prophet, priest, and king, and renounced their allegiance to him as their lawgiver and providential ruler and protector; and holding no longer the belief of a Divine mediator or of any mediation, they relapsed into that notion of the Unity which they still adhere to, and looked only for a temporal political Messiah. The fitful efforts at reformation which, under the influence of Ezra, Nehemiah, and the latest prophets, appeared after the rebuilding of their temple, gave place to extremes of formalism, hypocrisy, and impiety. Their notions of the person, offices, prerogatives, incarnation and sacerdotal work of the Anointed One, were as unscriptural and baseless as those of more modern times.

Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, (Brown's version,) about the middle of the second century, thus refers to the Rabbins of that day, (sect. 68.) Trypho, in common, no doubt, with the Jews generally, held that there was no distinction of Persons in the Godhead, and that, there was no Divine Being, or Person, but the Father only; and quoted, not the original Hebrew of Scripture texts, but the glosses and false constructions of the Rabbins, in support of his opinions. Justin replies: "If, therefore, I shall prove that this prophecy of Esaias was spoken of our Christ, and not of Hezekias, as you say, shall not I prevail upon you in this also to disbelieve your Rabbies, who assert that the translation which your seventy Elders made when they were with Ptolemy, King of Egypt, is in some places not true? for those places in the Scriptures which expressly contradict any foolish notion which they are fond of, they say are not so in the original; and those places which they can twist and twine about so as to make them suit any human affairs, they say were not spoken of this Christ of ours, but of him whom they endeavor to wrest them to speak of. So they have taught you to wrest the passage now in dispute, saying that it was spoken of Hezekias; upon which passage I will prove that they have fixed a wrong interpretation. But when we propose those Scriptures to them which I have already recited, and do expressly prove that Christ was to be exposed to sufferings, to be worshipped, and is God, they do indeed, being necessarily obliged thereto, own that they relate to Christ; but they take upon them to assert that he was not THE Christ, and say that there is one still to come, who is both to suffer, and to reign, and to be worshipped, and to be God." In sect. 71 he observes that the Rabbies "have erased out several whole periods from the Septuagint translation, in which it is expressly foretold that he who was crucified was to be God and man, and to be crucified and to die;" which erased passages he afterwards quotes.

In the course of his argument he alleges and quotes from the Old Testament to show that _the_ Christ is called God, Lord, Lord of Hosts, a King, the King of Israel, the King of Glory, Angel or Messenger, Man, Captain of the Host, &c.

The efforts to impart correct instruction and revive the ancient faith by means of the Chaldee expositions, doubtless had effect upon more or less of those who frequented the synagogues and the temple services; but to the great mass, so far as can be judged from history, or from their sentiments and condition, at the period of the advent, they were of no avail. How natural, then, that the successors of this party of Sadducean and Pharasaic infidelity, with the stimulus added by the conversion or, as they regarded it, the apostasy of many to the Christian faith, and the further stimulus of Mohammedan and pseudo-Christian intolerance and persecution, should do their utmost to conceal or extirpate from the Hebrew text all traces of the Christian doctrine!

With reference to the subject now specially in hand, it may suffice to refer to a single instance of concealment and perversion which, though of earlier origin, as appears from the Septuagint and the Vulgate, for aught that is perceived, was fastened upon the Hebrew text by the Masoretic punctuation, and was derived thence by our translators; namely, that of the formula, _Melach Jehovah_, which, by the examples formerly adduced, the connections in which it occurs, the use of the terms interchangeably, and the testimony of the Evangelists, is shown to be a clear, unequivocal, and emphatic designation of the official Person, Messiah, the Legate of the Father. But the school of Jews above referred to, of whom Kimchi may be taken as a representative, consider the person designated _Melach_ in this formula "as nothing more than one of the many angels to whom he supposes that the governance and guidance of this lower world is committed." They did not regard the term _Melach_, when employed in this formula, as a name of office, signifying Messenger, but as a personal designation, signifying Angel, an angel, one of the angels. The points accordingly are so adjusted as to require the rendering to be, _an_ angel _of_ the Lord, or _the_ angel, understood as one of _the angels of_ the Lord. To gloss over the apparent identity, in some passages, of that angel with Jehovah, and the ascription of the same acts to each separately, they represent the angel as personating, and speaking in the name of, Jehovah; and explain his calling himself the God of Beth-El as signifying no more than Jacob's calling a place El-Beth-El.

Now it is apparent that our translators have in the instance under consideration given us, not the clear and definite import of the original text, but, closely adhering to the points and following the steps of their Rabbinical guides, have given at second-hand a version of their _sense_, "a translation of their interpretation." In every instance but one (Malachi iii.) in their translation of the word _Melach_, (except when applied to men,) they employ the word _Angel_, a personal designation, not a name of office; and in most cases, if not in all, the English reader must naturally suppose that the reference was merely to one of the many created beings called angels. Accordingly, though they sometimes say, _the_ angel of the Lord, in other instances, where the original is the same, they say, _an_ angel of the Lord, implying that they did not uniformly refer to the same Person, nor in any case to any other than a created angel. The same thing is further illustrated and confirmed by their grammatical construction of the formula in accordance with the points, rendering it uniformly, the angel, or an angel _of_ the Lord, or of God. For instance, in Judges, chap. ii. 1, in the original, _Melach Jehovah_ came up from Gilgal to Bochim, is translated, "_an_ angel _of_ the Lord came up," &c. So in chap. vi. 11 of the same book, _Melach Jehovah_ is rendered, _an_ angel _of_ the Lord; and in the next verse the same formula is rendered, _the_ angel _of_ the Lord; and three times in the 20th and 21st verses, _the_ angel; and twice in the 22d verse, _an_ angel. In all these cases, and many others like them, it is demonstrable from the context that one and the same person is referred to; that the same acts are ascribed to him and to Jehovah, and that the formula by which he is designated is employed interchangeably with the names Jehovah and Elohim. Yet, looking no farther than the sentences which announce the actor or speaker as an angel, neither collating those sentences with others in the same or other chapters, nor being able, if he did, to explain or reconcile the various and discordant renderings, the reader is left in doubt and perplexity, or else concludes that a created angel is referred to.

Had the translators in this and other cases of the kind taken the unpointed Hebrew text as their guide, compared all its parallel passages, and understood the word Melach according to its original and primary meaning, and its specific and necessary import where joined with the Divine names, as in the formulas above-mentioned, to be a name of office, signifying Messenger, Legate, one delegated, sent; who can doubt but that they would have discerned in the designation an unmistakable reference to the Messiah; that they would have retained the original Hebrew formulas, or translated them intelligibly and uniformly, and left their readers in no perplexity as to their sentiments or the meaning of their version?

The word _Melach_ first occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures, Gen. xvi., where it is employed in its primary signification, and occurs four times in the formula _Melach Jehovah_, clearly designating the official Person, Jehovah, in his delegated character--the Anointed and Sent of the Father, _The Messenger Jehovah_. In the original there is uniformity, consistency, and perfect freedom from ambiguity and uncertainty in the use of this term as an official designation, here and wherever it occurs throughout the Scriptures. There is no mistaking it if regarded in its grammatical relation with the Divine names, and its connection with the context, independently of the points and of the hereditary Jewish construction; and had the translators so regarded it, and in their version employed the term _Messenger_ instead of _Angel_, it would have been as clearly understood to designate the official Person as if they had substituted or added the term _Messiah_.

Subsequently, this name of office was applied to created angels and to men employed, and because they were employed, as messengers; and it finally came to be used as a personal appellative. The first instance of this occurs Gen. xix. 1: "There came two _angels_ to Sodom," that is, two messengers; two who were _sent_ by Jehovah while he was present with Abraham in the visible form of man. And chap. xxxii. 3, 6: "Jacob _sent messengers_ before him to Esau.... And _the messengers_ returned to Jacob;" that is, he _sent_ two of his servants with a message. But in the original, the word translated angels in chap. xix., and messengers in chap. xxxii., is the same, and differs from that in chap. xvi. and all the parallel passages translated _angel_, only by being in the plural form.

This term _Melach_, as an official designation of Jehovah, including the instances in which it is coupled with the name Elohim, occurs more than twenty times in the books of Moses, and more than twice that number of times in the later Hebrew Scriptures; and considering that it is often employed interchangeably with the names Jehovah and Elohim; that the same acts, revelations, promises, covenants, and predictions, are in the same or in different passages ascribed indifferently to Jehovah, Elohim, and the Messenger Jehovah; and that in the New Testament, both in references to the Old and in original revelations and announcements, the same acts, promises, &c., are ascribed to the Logos or personal Word under that and other designations; it is manifest that, had our translators rightly apprehended the import and reference of the designation, and represented it in their version by a term as guarded, unequivocal, and distinctive as the original, their readers would be at no loss as to how or in what relations Moses wrote of Christ.

But their misguided and erroneous apprehensions and renderings of this official designation are scarcely more remarkable than the like proceedings on their part in reference to several other peculiar or official Hebrew designations of the Messiah, which occur both in Moses and the prophets; their inadequate and uncertain or erroneous versions of which are no doubt to be ascribed to their concurrence with the Jewish expositions and with the requirements of the vowel points. And without imputing any other than honest intentions, or doing any injustice to the translators, but only allowing for the effect of their theological education, and for the arbitrary and controlling influence of the guides which they thought it safe to follow, and which, from their own convictions and the ascendant notions of the times, they were in effect necessitated to adopt, it may safely be alleged that, with respect to the great Actor and Revealer, the pervading theme of Moses and the prophets, they have in numerous instances wholly failed, and in their version, as a whole, but partially succeeded, in exhibiting the designations and references of the original.

That their version, as a whole, is superior to any of the other modern versions, is generally admitted; that it exhibits the historical narratives and those doctrinal statements which do not immediately relate to the official Person, with a fidelity and an intelligibleness scarcely indeed to be avoided by able and honest men, but which such men at the present day would not be likely to excel, is justly to be acknowledged; but in regard to the personal designations, ascriptions and references alluded to, their guides subjected their intentions to an erroneous theory.

The ill consequences to the English reader, so far as the doctrines essential to his salvation are concerned, are counteracted by the record of the visible appearance of the official Person incarnate, the historical narratives of his acts, his expiatory death, his resurrection and ascension, and the doctrinal revelations and apostolic testimonies of the New Testament; and he is far too easily led to regard the Divine oracles as of little significance or importance, except in so far as they specially teach those essential doctrines. In this partial view of their import and design, the Old Testament is lightly esteemed or disregarded with respect to the far greater part of its contents, by those who most highly esteem the New, and with respect to the whole of its contents, by many. It is not recognized as a continuous record of personal Divine manifestations, visible appearances, supernatural acts, audible enunciations; a record of the creation, of the apostasy and its consequences, of the administration of providence and grace, and of visible interpositions and retributions towards individuals, families, and nations; a progressive disclosure of the attributes, prerogatives, and purposes of the Self-existent, of his acts as Lawgiver and Ruler, and of his supremacy, majesty and glory, whereby He who personally appeared and acted under the ancient dispensations, and at length became incarnate, revealed himself in his delegated relations as truly to the universe of the unfallen as to man, and as truly with reference to results yet future as to those incipient events in which were laid the foundations of his onward, universal, and never-ending system of manifestations and agencies, and in the progress of which all the wonders of mercy and justice, all the retributions of time and awards of eternity, all the paradoxes and mysteries of the past, and their relations to the future, are to be disclosed, vindicated, and rendered luminous to the apprehension of intelligent creatures. The eternal purposes which were purposed in him before the foundation of the world, and the sequel of the covenants, prescriptions, promises, comminations, symbols, and predictions which, in connection with the first of their respective series of events, were announced to the patriarchs and prophets, await the future for their ever-widening range of illustration and accomplishment. The scene is but begun. The first steps only of an endless progress, the first events only of a continuous, inseparable, and endless series, the first disclosures only of a boundless range of development by the same divine Actor and Revealer, have yet transpired. The earth as his footstool is yet to be the scene of the restitution of all things. His early footsteps on it are to be retraced in a renewed paradise, and the visible manifestations of the past to be resumed, when all that is recorded of Him in his offices and his administration, and his intercourse with the first Adam, and with the patriarchs and prophets, will be understood and heeded as of the scheme and fabric of his glory.