Psalm 45 celebrates the marriage of the coming King Messiah. The KJV and ASV render verse 6a: “ Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.” The RSV (in spite of its footnote readings) reads: “ Your divine throne endures for ever and ever.” This translation attributes divinity to the throne, and not deity to the One who rules thereon. We are not left in doubt as to the meaning of Scrip ture, for the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews iri 1:8 adduces this passage as
“ virgin” of the text to “young woman.” If you will consult the RSV footnote, you will find “ virgin.” Now, we submit that if “virgin” is an erroneous transla tion for ‘almah in the text, it would be just as much an error in the footnote. Why, then, was it placed in the foot note? Are the footnotes to be reckoned less reliable? The truth of the matter is that com pulsion for this footnote from more than one source was upon the translators. First of all, the Septuagint, which is highly favored in the RSV, does trans late the word as parthenos (“ virgin” ). (And correctly adds the definite article, “ the,” which is in the Hebrew text, for a definite virgin is referred to.) Sec ondly, the revisers themselves had trans lated in the NT Committee the passage in Matthew 1 :23 as “ virgin.” And this, too, in spite of the change from the 1946 edition of the NT of the RSV, to the 1952 edition of the RSV, with the lat ter’s absurd footnote on Matthew 1:16. Thirdly, it is well known that the root thought in ‘almah is of one who has reached the age of physical maturity. L. Koehler (editor of Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, which is still in proc ess of publication) gives the meaning of the word (Part XII, p.709, col.2) as “marriageable girl.” This is unquestion ably correct. The able expositor of Isaiah, Franz Delitzsch, declared (Vol.I, pp.206,207): “ ‘almah (from ‘alam, to be strong, full of sap and vigor, arrived at the age of puberty . . . ) is the mature woman who is near marriage.” The word will be found seven times in the OT—Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Isaiah 7:14; Psalm 68:26; Proverbs 30:19; and Song of Solomon 1:3; 6:8. Not one of these cases demands the force of “young woman” or “married woman.” In the Genesis passage it is definitely ruled out, because in verse 16 of that chapter, Re- bekah is spoken of as one whom no man had known in the sense of marriage. It is ruled out in the other cases, and in the passages in the Song of Solomon it would be unseemly, to say the least, for the statements to be true of married women. But this is not the end of the matter. Fourthly, it is not true that if “vir gin” were meant in Isaiah 7:14, the word used would be bethulah. We grant that this word is used interchangeably with ‘almah in Genesis 24:16,43. But has Joel 1:8 been considered? The word bethulah is used there, and the RSV translates: “ Lament like a virgin girded with sackcloth for the bridegroom of her youth.” We should like to point out that the KJV and the ASV are correct in translating ba'al “husband” instead of the RSV “ bridegroom,” which would de mand the word hathan (see Psa.l9:5). But our main contention is that the word bethulah is used in Joel 1:8, not only of a married woman, but of one whose husband has already died. Fifthly, the force of the languages related to the Hebrew is in favor of the renderings of the KJV and the ASV. Finally, where would be the sign (miracle) if a mar ried woman were to conceive a child?
both passive and reflexive. However, in this verb the reflexive (“ bless them selves” ) is expressed by another stem. What is the difference? The RSV con veys the idea (see Smith-Goodspeed translation) that all the families of the earth will invoke blessings on one an other, using Abraham as a formula of blessing. The passage actually states that God will make Abraham a bless ing to all the nations through the com ing Messiah. No doubt can be enter tained on this matter, once the com mentary of Galatians 3:8-14 is given its rightful force. In the RSV the divine element is by-passed, while it is attested in the Galatians passage. In the important Messianic passage of Genesis 49:10, both the KJV and ASV (the latter has marginal readings) read: “ until Shiloh come.” The RSV gives: “ until he comes to whom it belongs.” By a comparison of the footnote it will be seen that the reading of the Syriac ver sion is favored. This is another instance where the traditional interpretation is set aside without sufficient warrant. In Numbers 24:17 in the prophecy of Balaam concerning the coming Star out of Jacob and Sceptre out of Israel, the KJV and ASV use but ,one pronoun, “ him,” whereas the RSV inserts another, “ it,” as though there were a change of personal pronoun. The reader of the pas sage will not realize that there is no reason for a change, since no additional pronoun is introduced into the Hebrew text. The shift from the masculine to the neuter does serve to becloud the Messianic force of the passage. Second Samuel 23:1-7 contains one of the most beautiful passages on the coming Re deemer to be found in the OT. The por tion is admittedly difficult, but a com parison of the KJV and ASV with the RSV will reveal that the last named generalizes the text, as though to make it of universal force. Psalm 2 has entered so largely into the revelation we have in the NT, that it is useless to contend for its Messianic character. Verse 7 addresses the Mes siah as the Son of God, while verse 12 exhorts men everywhere to “ Kiss the Son,” which is the translation of both the KJV and the ASV. The RSV amazes us with its: “kiss his feet.” Is the He brew susceptible of such radically differ ent translations? When we consider the reason for the RSV, we find that the word for “ rejoice” (v .ll) is placed after the word bar (three words away) which means “son,” thus arriving at the gro tesque translation, “his feet.” No won der the footnote adds: “ Cn: The Hebrew of lib and 12a is uncertain.” Now, did the translators have reason to be puz zled by the little Aramaic word for “ son,” namely bar? It occurs in this sense only three other times in all the OT (apart from the Aramaic portions in Ezra and Daniel), and all of them are in Prov erbs 31:2, where the RSV, consistently with the meaning of the word and incon sistently with the translation in Psalm 2:12, renders the word “ son” thrice. Is this avoidance of the Messianic force to be considered accidental? We shall see.
one that clearly defines the deity of the Messiah. Smith-Goodspeed translates the passage in Psalm 45: “ Thy throne, 0 God, is forever and ever,” so our in sistence in this case cannot be laid to some fundamentalist aberration. In Psalm 72 the tenses are so changed from the future to that of a devout wish (the Hebrew jussive, which is permis sible in the proper context), that the result is a skillful removal of the por tion from the realm of predictive proph ecy. In Psalm 110 a comparison of verse one with verse 5 shows both persons are God. The RSV avoids this by (1) capi talizing the first “ LORD” and not the second (Adhoni); and (2) by needlessly inserting the copula “ is” in verse 5. How this passage is to be understood is plainly set forth in more than one place in the NT. It is one of the most fre quently quoted passages of the OT. No tice the splendid footnote on it in the Scofield Reference Bible. Probably the most publicized passage in the RSV is Isaiah 7:14, and with reason. Whether the claim that the new version has rectified an old error is borne out or not, we shall leave with the reader after the evidence is pre sented. Again, both KJV and ASV trans late: “ a virgin shall conceive.” The RSV reads: “ a young woman shall conceive.” One of the translators insists that an error has been corrected by changing
F E B R U A R Y ,
1 9 5 3
Page Nine
Made with FlippingBook Online document