THE OLD TESTAMENT.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 21 February 1925, Page 13

THE OLD TESTAMENT.

DR. MOFFATT'S TRANSL ATION Professor James Moffatt, of Glasgow, first came into note as the author of “The Historical -New Testament.” a book remarkable for its maturity of scholarship and wide range of reading in so young a man as he then was. That book gave him a front-rank place among Biblical scholars, and since then he has sent forth an almost continuous stream of books varied in character but uniform in quality. Boldly daring, Dr. Moffatt set himself to give use a new translation or the .sew Testament, a hard task in itself, and to which a Inch standard of judgment would inevitably be applied, tor we have before us the incomparable rendering of the 1611 edition, familiarly known as the Authorised Version, and the 1881 version, the rich fruit of modern English scholarship. Dr. Moffatt’s translation was based, upon the recently discovei'ed fact, that what used to lie called New Testament Greek was just the G reek of-com men speech and’ writing of the first century, the Koine. To give this in English, which would be what we call ordinary speech, and yet with something of the eacedence and dignity of the older translations, was a peculiarly difficult task, and the place which" Dr. Moffatt’s translation has taken is the evidence of his success. THE TEXT. To have done so great a service would have satisfied the ambition of most men, and we were amazed to hear that Dr. Moffatt had in hand the harder task of a, fresh translation of the Old Testament, thus giving us a single-handed modern translation of the whole Bible (writes a reviewer in the Sydney Morning Herald). How stupendous a task it is one may not at first realise, for it is much more than the mere'translation. On every page intricate questions of textual criticism have first to be decided, and where the next is manifestly corrupt a choice has to be made between several suggested emendations, so that you have to fix your Hebrew text before beginning to translate, and in not a few instances to make a scholarly guess at what the text ought to be but is not. Of the New Testament there are several ancient MSS. going as far back as. 350 A.D., but of the. Old Testament the earliest known Hebrew copy is as late as 1000 A.D., and later copies are more or less perfect copies of that, so that for an accurate text there are not the same opportunities of comparison as for the New Testament. That fact ought to bo kept in mind in any criticism of change in text involving renderings different from those familiar in the Authorised Version. In a few instances Dr. Moffatt has left gaps where li efound it impossible to make a satisfactory guess at the text. Tl\ ANSPOSIITQNS.

Some leaders may be inclined to resent the transposition of passages from the order they are used to in the Authorised and Revised Versions, but in most of these the transposition seems justified, though in some instance it would be intereting to have Dr. Moffatt’s reasons for the change. It is a daring stroke, but Dr. Moffatt has never been lacking in that quality. We are met with this at the very start. \Ye are all familiar with the impressive opening words of the Bible: ‘‘ln the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” but in this new translation Genesis 2,4, is put as the open.ng and renedered: ‘‘ This is the story of how the universe was formed,” and then goes on, ‘‘When God began to form the universe the world was void and vacant, darkness lay over the abyss.” Another instance on a. larger scale is the story of flood (chapters 6, 7, and ST where the famiLiar order is broken up with freedom, so that a verse, and even half a verse of one chapter, may now be found in another chapter. That sounds very confusing, but in reality it is quite otherwise. There are jn these chapters two distinct accounts of the flood, which the final editors of the Book of Genesis, Which, in its present form, is by no means the oldest book in the Bible, have pieced together. Dr. Moffatt has skilfully disentangled these two stories, and by doing so makes clear to the English reader that there are two ac-* counts with some differences in detail, thus clearing up confusion in the minds of careful English readers. For example. in chapter 6, verse 7 (taking Moffatt’s translation) we read: ‘‘And vou shall take into the barge two living creatures, of every kind to keep them alive along with you, one is to he a male and one a female. Two of every kind, bird, beast, and reptile,” whereas in chapter 7i, verse 2, we read. “Take seven pairs, male and female, of n-ery clean animal, and one pair, male and female, of the unclean animals, and seven pairs, male and female, ot the birds of the air.” The first and earlier story knows nothing of the ‘distinction between clean and unclean animals, and. therefore, has only two of each kind. The distinction between these stories is made clearer in that the second (for reasons referred to bp low) is printed in italics. One more instance of transportation may be found in the closing chapters of the Brink Tudges, where we have two differing accounts of how wives were obtained for the Beniamites, and where Dr. Moffatt has transposed many of the verses, and by the use of italics makes clear that there were orignallv two accounts' of that primitive and ingeniaus way of getting out of difficulty. It will be evident that Dr. MoffattVwork is much more than mere translation, and that it is a real help to intelligent ••ending of these ancient tales. It may be asked what justification he has for upsetting the order of our English Bible, following, as it does, the order the Hebrew massoretic text. The answer to that question is partly one of “Higher,” and partly one of “Lower” (textual) criticism, which ’•ould not he supplied in a volume which is professedly a translation, but it is really something more. Whether tli'''”' transpositions from the order in the 'created Hebrew text, however justiLable in themselves, ought to he made In a “translation” is a matter on

-v.; b difl'e'-ence o { opinion is inevif aide. Many will hold that they be'oiinr to a “ooiumentnry” rather than to r> “translation.” Thus Dr. Moffatt’s translation may come to he used with great profit as a commentary on our "pcognised English version hv those acquainted with Hebrew. TRANSLATION.

As to the translation itself, the work-is from the hand of one of the foremost Biblical scholars of our day, who is also a widely-read student of English literature, one, too, who has the happy knack of hitting upon felicitatous words and phrases to express the meaning of the Hebrew original. The Song of Deborah (Judges V.) is a test, of textual criticism and of translation. There is not likely to be perfect unanimity j#s to the textual emendations, but no one can question the fine stirring rendering of that ancient war song, a difficult piece of work worthily done and a great improvement upon the Authorised version. As an example of the historical narrative, one may take the story of Nabal'and Abigail (1. Samuel XaV".),

which reveals the skill of the translator in catching up the. spirit of al vividly-told story. On the other hand, not a few will demur to Dr. Moffatt’s rendering of the Hebrew name of God, generally rendered “Lord,” and occasionally “Jehovah.” The latter is not a Hebrew word at all,- but a combination of the Hebrew consonant of the original name with the vowels of the Hebrew word for Lord, and if the Hebrew name were to b e .nsed jt would he Yaliweh, not Jehovah. Dr. Moffatt has for once chosen a compromise, and renders the name “The Eternal.” I think this is a mistake, and wish that Dr. Moffatt had taken his courage in haiid and used the name “Yahweli.” Lt would have made clear that the Hebrews had for God a name of their own, expressive of their idea. of God, apart from the general Semitic term “Elohim” or “El.” It would have done something to familiarise the English reader with this fact. This’distinction of names has another and literary significance. Particularly in the earlier books of our Bible several earlier narratives have been fused together into the existing form. Two of these, and the main two. can be distinguished in that the one makes use of the term “Elohim” for the Deity, end the other uses “Yahweh” (Jehovah). They are known among Biblical scholars as “E” and “J”. Dr.

Moffatt makes the distinction clear by printing extracts from the former in square brackets, and from the latter in italics. I doubt whether this attempt to distinguish sources in what is professedlv a translation will be welcome to the ordinary reader, yet it cannot be denied that it may be helpful to more intelligent study if Dr. Moffatt’s verdict can be accepted in every case which is doubtful. In some of the early books it is unquestionably enlightening, but Biblical students will remember the attempt of predecessors of Dr. Moffatt to carry out this process with thoroughness in what was humorously called “The Rainbow Bible.” There would I think, he agreement with Dr. Moffatt in the main passages, block passages, but it is a moot- question whether the attempt should ha made in a work of this nature.

It is not possible to discuss here details of translation which is not a mere revision of earlier 'work as in our Revised version but a fresh translation in modern English, which it must be said is_ extraordinary successful and often vivid It is a great task, for which every lover of the Word of God ought to he sincerely grateful. The present volume covers about half of the Old Testament and we shall’ Wait 'with eager expectation for the concluding volume.