(Vol. viii., pp. 387. 519. 641.)
The courteous spirit which generally distinguishes the communications of
your correspondents, renders the "N. & Q." the most agreeable magazine,
or, as you have it, "medium of inter-communication for literary men,"
&c. I was so much pleased with the general _animus_ which characterised
the strictures on my proposed translation of Ps. cxxvii. 2., that I was
almost disposed to cede to my critics, from sheer good-will towards
them. But the elder D'Israeli speaks of such a thing "as an affair of
literary conscience," which consideration prescribes my yielding in the
present instance; but I trust that our motto will always be, "May our
difference of opinion never alter our inter-communications!"
I must however, at the outset, qualify an expression I made use of,
which seems to have incurred the censure of all your four correspondents
on the subject; I mean the sentence, "The translation of the authorised
version of that sacred affirmation is unintelligible." It seems to be
perfectly intelligible to MESSRS. BUCKTON, JEBB, WALTER, and S. D. I
qualify, therefore, the assertion. I mean to say, that the translation
of the authorised version of that sacred affirmation was, and is,
considered unintelligible to many intelligent biblical critics and
expositors; amongst whom I may name Luther, Mendelsohn, Hengstenberg,
Zunz, and many others whose names will transpire in the sequel.
Having made that concession, I may now proceed with the replying to my
Querists, or rather Critics. MR. BUCKTON is entitled to my first
consideration, not only because you placed him at the head of the
department of that question, but also because of the peculiar mode in
which he treated the subject. My replies shall be _seriatim_.
1. Luther was not the first who translated ¤ken iten liydido sheinah¤
"Denn seinen Freunden gibt er _es_ schlafend." A far greater Hebraist
than Luther, who flourished about two hundred years before the great
German Reformer came into note, put the same construction on that sacred
affirmation. Rabbi Abraham Hacohen of Zante, who paraphrased the whole
Hebrew Psalter into modern metrical Hebrew verse (which, according to a
P.S., was completed in 1326), interprets the sentence in question thus:
¤ki ken yiten el teref
l'yidido ushnato meenehu lo taref¤
"For surely God shall give food
To His beloved, and his sleep shall not be withheld from him."
2. It is more than problematical whether the eminent translator,
Mendelsohn, was influenced by {108} Luther's _error_ (?), or by his
own superior knowledge of the sacred tongue.
3. I do not think that the phrase, "the proper Jewish notion of gain,"
was either called for or relevant to the subject.
4. The reign of James I. was by no means as distinguished for Hebrew
scholarship as were the immediate previous reigns. Indeed it would
appear that the knowledge of the sacred languages was at a very low ebb
in this country during the agitating period of the Reformation, so much
so that even the unaccountable Henry VIII. was forced to exclaim,
"Vehementer dolere nostratium Theologorum sortem sanctissime linguæ
scientia carentium, et linguarum doctrinam fuisse intermissam." (_Hody_,
p. 466.)
When Coverdale made his version of the Bible he was not only aided by
Tindale, but also by the celebrated Hebrew, of the Hebrews, Emanuel
Tremellius, who was then professor of the sacred tongue in the
University of Cambridge, where that English Reformer was educated; and
Coverdale translated the latter part of Ps. cxxvii. 2. as follows: "For
look, to whom it pleaseth Him, He giveth it in sleep."
When the translation was revised, during the reign of James I., the most
accomplished Anglo-Hebraist was, by some caprice of jealousy, forced to
leave this country; I mean Hugh Broughton. He communicated many
renderings to the revisers, some of which they thoughtlessly rejected,
and others, to use Broughton's own phrase, "they thrust into the
margin." A perusal of Broughton's works[6] gives one an accurate notion
of the proceedings of the revisers of the previous versions.
5. Coverdale's translation is not "ungrammatical" as far as the Hebrew
language is concerned, notwithstanding that it was rejected in the reign
of James I. ¤lechem¤, "bread," is evidently the accusative noun to the
transitive verb ¤yiten¤, "He shall give." Nor is it "false," for the
same noun, ¤lechem¤, "bread," is no doubt the antecedent to which the
word _it_ refers.
6. Mendelsohn does _not_ omit the _it_ in his Hebrew comment; and I am
therefore unwarrantably charged with supplying it "unauthorisedly." I
should like to see MR. BUCKTON's translation of that comment. If any
doubt remained upon MR. B.'s mind as to the intended meaning of the word
¤yitenhu¤ used by Mendelsohn, his German version might have removed such
a doubt, as the little word _es_, "it," indicates pretty clearly what
Mendelsohn meant by ¤yitenhu¤. So that, instead of proving Mendelsohn
"at variance with himself," he is proved most satisfactorily to have
been in perfect harmony with himself.
7. Mendelsohn does not omit the important word ¤ken¤; and if MR. B. will
refer once more to his copy of Mendelsohn (we are both using the same
edition), he will find two different interpretations proposed for the
word ¤ken¤, viz. _thus_ and _rightly_. I myself prefer the latter
rendering. The word occurs about twenty times in the Hebrew Bible, and
in the great majority of instances _rightly_ or _certainly_ is the only
correct rendering. Both Mendelsohn and Zunz omit to translate it in
their German versions, simply because the sentence is more idiomatic, in
the German language, without it than with it.
8. I perfectly agree with MR. B. "that no version has yet had so large
an amount of learning bestowed on it as the English one." But MR. B.
will candidly acknowledge that the largest amount was bestowed on it
since the revision of the authorised version closed. Lowth, Newcombe,
Horne, Horsley, Lee, &c. wrote since, and they boldly called in question
many of the renderings in the authorised version.
Let me not be mistaken; I do most sincerely consider our version
superior to _all_ others, but it is not for this reason faultless.
In reply to MR. JEBB's temperate strictures, I would most respectively
submit--
1. That considerable examination leads me to take just the reverse view
to that of Burkius, that ¤sheinah¤ cannot be looked upon as antithetical
to _surgere_, _sedere_, _dolorum_. With all my searchings I failed to
discover an analogous antithesis. I shall be truly thankful to MR. JEBB
for a case in point. Moreover, Psalms iii. and iv., to which Dr. French
and Mr. Skinner refer, prove to my mind that not sleep is the gift, but
sustenance and other blessings bestowed upon the Psalmist whilst asleep.
I cannot help observing that due reflection makes me look upon the
expression, "So He {109} giveth His beloved sleep," as an extraordinary
anticlimax.
2. MR. JEBB challenges the showing strictly analogous instances of
ellipses. He acknowledges that there are very numerous ellipses even in
the Songs of Degrees themselves, but they are of a very different
nature. I might fill the whole of this _Number_ with examples, which the
most scrupulous critic would be obliged to acknowledge as being strictly
analogous to the passage under review; but such a thing you would not
allow. Two instances, however, you will not object to; they will prove a
host for MR. JEBB's purpose, inasmuch as one has the very word ¤shena¤
elliptically, and the other the transitive verb ¤yitein¤, _minus_ an
accusative noun. Would MESSRS. BUCKTON, JEBB, WALTER, and S. D. kindly
translate, for the benefit of those who are interested in the question,
the following two passages?
¤z'ram'tam, sheinah yih'yu; baboker, kechatzir yachalof¤
_Psalm xc. 5._
¤yiten lifanav goyim um'lachim yard
yiten ke-afar charbo, kikash needaf kashto¤
_Isaiah xli. 2._
The REV. HENRY WALTER will see that some of his observations have been
anticipated and already replied to. It remains, however, for me to
assure him that I never dreamt that any one would suppose that I
considered ¤sheinah¤ anything else but a noun, minus the ¤bet¤
preposition. The reason why I translated the word "whilst he [the
beloved] is asleep," was because I thought the expression more
idiomatic.
S. D. attempts to prove nothing; I am exempt therefore from disproving
anything as far as he is concerned.
Before I take leave of this lengthy and somewhat elaborate disquisition,
let me give my explanation of the scope of the Psalm in dispute, which,
I venture to imagine, will commend itself, even to those who differ from
me, as the most natural.
This Psalm, as well as the other thirteen entitled "A Song of Degrees,"
was composed for the singing on the road by those Israelites who went up
to Jerusalem to keep the three grand festivals, to beguile their tedious
journey, and also to soothe the dejected spirits of those who felt
disheartened at having left their homes, their farms, and families
without guardians. Ps. cxxvii. is of a soothing character, composed
probably by Solomon.
In the first two verses God's watchfulness and care over His beloved are
held up to the view of the pilgrims, who are impressed with the truth
that no one, "by taking thought, can add one cubit to his stature." The
best exposition which I can give of those two verses I have learned from
our Saviour's "Sermon on the Mount" (Matt. vi. 25-33.). The third and
following verses, as well as the next Psalm, are exegetical or
illustrative. To whom do you attribute the gift of children? Is it not
admitted on all hands to be "an heritage of the Lord?" No one can
procure that blessing by personal anxiety and care: God alone can confer
the gift. Well, then, the same God who gives you the heritage of
children will also grant you all other blessings which are good for you,
provided you act the part of "His beloved," and depend upon Him without
wavering.
The above is a hasty, but I trust an intelligible, view of the scope of
the Psalm.