The Journal of Theological Studies 16
(July 1915) 449-82.
Public Domain.
THE TABERNACLE CHAPTERS.
A.
H. Finn
IN the book of Exodus there are two
groups of chapters dealing with
the
construction of the Tabernacle:--
Group
Group II. Cc. xxxv-xl. The carrying out of the
Instructions.
From
certain peculiarities in these chapters, and in the LXX version of
them,
three inferences have been drawn:--
(A) that the Greek translators of
Group II were not the same as the
translators
of Group I;
(B) that the translators of Group II
worked from a Hebrew text
differing
from the Massoretic;
(C) that cc. xxx, xxxi, and xxxv-xl
were later additions to the original
text
of Exodus.
These conclusions have been put
forward with a good deal of con-
fidence, and have been accepted by Biblical
students of note. Yet
they
will bear further examination.
(A) DIFFERENT
TRANSLATORS.
The inference that the translators
of Group II were not the same as
the
translators of Group I is based solely on the fact that in some cases
the
translation of certain Hebrew technical terms in Group II differs
from
that in Group I (see Dr Swete's ‘Introduction to the
Old Testa-
ment in Greek’, p. 236 ; Dr Driver's ‘Exodus’,
Cambridge Bible,
p.
378; and Dr McNeile's ’Exodus’,
Dr McNeile
in his Commentary on Exodus, p. 226, gives a list of
seventeen
of these variations, and this list is also referred to by Dr Driver.
The instances cited are not very happily
selected: several are not
technical
terms at all but quite ordinary words; at least two depend on
what
is the true reading of the Greek text; in one instance, the only
difference
is that between the genitive and dative of the same word;
and
in another the same verb is used, but compounded with a different
preposition.
It would be instructive to examine
the whole list in detail, but it will
not
be necessary here, because even if all the instances were indisputable,
the
inference would not be justified. For that inference really depends
449
450 THE JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
on
an assumption that, as a rule, the LXX translators were fairly con-
sistent in their rendering of Hebrew words. This
is not the case.
(i) In both Groups of chapters, the translators
have varied their
renderings in the same
context.1
A few instances from a list five
times the length of Dr McNeile's will
shew this.
e]xo<menai,
and sunexo<menai;
in the next verse by
sumbolh<n; and in the tenth verse
by sumbolh<n
and sunaptou<shj.
(b) In xxvi 36, the ‘Screen’ is e]pi<spastron; in 37
katapeta<smati.
(c) In xxvii 10, ‘hooks’ are kri<koi; in 17 kefali<dej.
(d) In xxviii 37, the ‘mitre’
is mi<tra; in 39 ki<darij.
Group II. (a) In xxxviii 27,2 ‘sockets’
are kefali<dej;
in 31 ba<seij.
(b) In xxxix 34, the ‘covering’ is difqe<raj in one clause,
and kalu<mmata in the second.
(c) In xl 36, ‘journeyings’
is a]parti<%; in 38 a]nazugai?j.
This tendency to vary renderings is not peculiar
to these chapters, or
to
Exodus.3
In Lev. xxv 39-44, ‘servant’ appears as oi]ke<tou, pai?j, and dou?lon; in
v.
55 oi]ke<tai pai?dej; in some other places qera<pwn is found.
In Num. xxii 23-28, ‘smote’ is rendered by e]pa<tace, masti<cai,
e@tupte,
and pe<paikaj.
In Num. xxxv 2-5, ‘suburbs’ is rendered by proa<steia,
a]fori<smata,
sugkurou?nta,
and o!mora.
Since then the Greek translators frequently vary
their translation of
a
Hebrew word, whether technical or ordinary, in the same passage
and
even in the same verse, the fact that some of the technical terms in
Group
I are differently translated in Group II is absolutely without
significance.
Nor is this all.
(ii) In
several of the instances adduced as variations, the whole of
the evidence has not
been considered.
Again, a few instances will shew
what is meant.
(a) xxii 3 has pneu?ma
qei?on where the parallel xxxv 31 is said to have
pneu?ma alone.
In the latter passage qei?on is omitted only by the
first hand of B; all
the
other authorities have it. In the large
1 This has also been noted by Mr H. St John Thackeray : see 2nd Ed. (1914) of
Dr
Swete's ‘Introduction’ p. 236 note 2.
2 The references to chapter and
verse are according to the Hebrew numbering
throughout.
3 See Dr Swete's
‘Introduction’ pp. 328, 329.
451 NOTES AND STUDIES
of
the LXX pneu?ma
qei?on is placed in the text, and the omission of qei?on
only
recorded in a note. It is nothing but a scribal error.
Similarly, xxxviii 6 has xrusou?j where the parallel xxv 18 is said to
have
xrusotoreuta<.
But xrusotoreuta< is scarcely found
except in B*; Ba, A, F and other
authorities
have xrusa?
toreuta<, and in vv, 31, 36 toreuth< is the transla-
tion of the word (‘of beaten work’) which
immediately follows ‘gold’
in
xxv 18. That is to say B* and a couple of cursives have combined
two
words which most of the authorities keep separate, and the alleged
difference
turns upon a very dubious reading.
(b) xxxi 4 has e]rga<zesqai where xxxv 32 has poiei?n.
But xxxi 6 has poih<sousi,
and xxxv 10 has e]rgaze<sqw.
Both passages shew the
two renderings of the same verb, which
rather
suggests that the translators were the same.
(c) xxv 17 has i[lasth<rion e]pi<qema;
xxxvii 6 has i[lasth<rion alone.
Each
of the five verses which follow xxv 17 also has i[lasth<rion alone.
Were
these verses due to a different translator from that of v. 17? If
not,
why must xxxvii 6 be due to a different translator?
In this connexion e]pi<qema
does not appear again anywhere. It may
be
due to a variant rendering which has crept from the margin into the
text,
but there is another explanation possible.
In some cases, the translators seem to have
begun with one rendering
which
they have immediately abandoned for another. Thus, where
casting
(of metals) is first mentioned in xxv 12 e]la<seij
is used, but does
not
recur again, xwneu<seij
taking its place at xxvi 37. So too at the first
mention
(xxv 7 and the parallel xxxv 9) the Breastplate is podh<rh;
at
xxviii
4 peristh<qion;
and afterwards (xxviii 15, xxix 5, xxxix 8) logei?on.
It
is therefore possible that when the Mercy-seat is first mentioned the
translators
thought it advisable to define i[lasth<rion more closely as
a
'covering', and afterwards dropped the explanatory word.
(d) xxviii 11 has glu<mma;
xxxix 6 has e]kko<lamma.
The word is part of the phrase (in Hebrew two
words) which in RV.
is
rendered ‘the engravings of a signet’. The phrase occurs three
times
in xxviii, and three times in xxxix: the verb alone is found three
times
in xxviii, and its participle once in xxxix. No two of the Greek
renderings
agree exactly.
Verb. Phrase.
xxxix
9 glu<yeij xxviii 11 glu<mma
sfragi?- xxxix 6
e]kko<lamma
sfra-
doj gi?doj
11 diaglu<yeij 21 glufai>
sfragi<-
14 e]ggelumme<na ei]j
dwn sfragi?daj
36
e]ktupw<seij 36 e]ktu<pwma sfra- 30 e]ktetupwme<na
gi?doj sfragi?doj
452 THE JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
In xxxix 6 the participle is doubly translated, geglumme<nouj kai> e]kkeko-
lamme<nouj,
immediately followed by e]kko<lamma sfragi?doj as above.
When it is noticed that in six out of the seven
cases referring to jewels
some
form of glu<fw
is used, and e]ktupo<w in the three referring
to the
Gold
Plate, can it be doubted that this is a deliberate variation to suit
the
different working of the different materials? The jewels are
‘engraved’;
the gold is ‘stamped in high relief’. But if so, the
recurrence
of this distinction would again point to the identity of
the
translators.
At any rate, is it quite fair to single out the
one case where a difference
between
the Groups can be made out, and to ignore the marked resem-
blances, and the variations in the same Group?
(e) xxviii 22 has a[lusidwto<n; xxxix 15 has e]mploki<ou.
No mention is made of the fact that for the same
phrase xxviii 14 has
e@rgon
plokh?j, which differs from the rendering in v. 22, and
is akin to
that
of xxxix 15. Moreover, the whole verses should be compared:--
xxviii 22 kai>
poih<seij e]pi>
to> logei?on krwssou>j
sumpeplegme<nouj
e@rgon a[lusidwto>n e]k xrusi<ou kaqarou?.
xxix 15 kai>
e]poi<hsan e]pi> to> logei?on
krwssou>j sumpeplegme<nouj
e@rgon e]mploki<ou e]k xrusi<ou kaqarou?.
The
verses are identical all but one word: ought that to pass unnoticed?
To all these may be added a remarkable instance
not included in
Dr
McNeile's list.
(f) A somewhat peculiar phrase of three Hebrew
words in xxxix 6 is
rendered
sumpeporphme<nouj kai> perisesialwme<nouj xrusi<&
Seven
verses further on (v. 13) the very same phrase is rendered
perikekuklwme<na xrusi<& kai> sundedeme<na xrusi<&
In
XXViii 20 (parallel to xxxix 13) the first of the
three Hebrew words
does
not occur, yet the Greek runs
perikekalumme<na xrusi<&: sundedeme<na e]n xrusi<&
Here
the points to be noticed are
(I) in the one passage (xxxix 6-13) two quite
different renderings of
the
same phrase are found;
(2) the parallel passages from the two Groups
(xxviii 20 = xxxix 13)
have
much in common, especially if perikekalumme<na
(which does not
express
the meaning of the missing Hebrew word) is but a corruption
of
perikekuklwme<na.1
The instances marked (d), (e), (f) are all taken
from the one pair of
1 perikekuklwme<na
is actually found in one or two MSS. Others read perikeklwsme<na,
and
there seems to have been some uncertainty about the word.
NOTES AND STUDIES 453
passages
(xxviii - xxxix) about the making of the priestly vestments.
They
should go far to shew that
(1) difference of translation does not mean
difference of translators;
(2) there are reasons for thinking that the
translators were the same
throughout.
(iii) There is evidence that the translators of
Group II were acquainted
with
the translation of Group I.
(a) The consistent translation of the three colours by u[a<kinqoj,
porfu<ra,
and ko<kkinoj; of 'Mercy-seat' by i[lasth<rion: of ‘hangings’ by
i[sti<a: and of ‘bars’ by moxloi<, all tend to shew the use of a common
vocabulary
where differences might easily occur.
(b) It is not very likely that two sets of
translators working inde-
pendently would reproduce the phrase &@an
e@xon ku<kl& tou? peristomi<ou
(xxviii
32, xxxix 23) word for word, or the phrase pa?j
o[ paraporeuo<menoj
ei]j
th>n e]pi<skeyin (xxx 14, xxxviii 26)
with only the omission of ei]j in the
latter
passage.
(c) For ‘onyx stones’ xxv 7 has li<qouj
sardi<ou, and the same appears
in
the parallel xxxv 9: but in xxviii 9 they appear as li<qouj smara<gdou,
and
this variation is reproduced in the parallel xxxix 6; and in xxviii 20,
xxxix
13. the same word is rendered bhru<llion.
How could this be possible unless the
translators of xxxv 9, xxxix 6, 13
had
the renderings of xxv 7, xxviii 9, 20 before them?
(d) xxv 3-6 is a list of materials to be
offered, which is repeated in
xxxv
5-9.
c. xxv c.xxxv
kai>
au!th e]sti> h[ a]parxh> h{n lh<yesqe (this clause is not in
the Hebrew
par’
au]tw?n
here)
xrusi<on
kai> a]rgu<rion kai> xalko>n xrusi<on
a]rgu<rion xalko>n
kai>
u[a<kinqon kai> porfu<ran kai> u[a<kinqon
porfu<ran ko<kkinon
ko<kkinon diplou?n diplou?n
dianenhsme<non
kai>
bu<sson keklwsme<nhn kai>
kai> bu<sson keklwsme<nhn kai>
tri<xaj ai]gei<aj
tri<xaj ai]ei<aj
kai>
de<rmata kriw?n h]ruqrodanwme<na kai> de<rmata kriw?n
h]ruqrodanwme<na
kai>
de<rmata u[aki<nqina kai> cu<la
kai> de<rmata
u[aki<nqina kai> cu<la
a@shpta a@shpta
kai>
li<qouj sardi<ou kai>
li<qouj ei]j kai> li<qouj sardi<ou kai> li<qouj
th>n glufh>n ei]j th>n glufh>n
ei]j
th>n e]pwmi<da kai> to>n podh<rh ei]j th>n e]pwmi<da kai>
to>n podh<rh.
The only differences are that in the second
passage there are a few
omissions
of kai<, and the insertion of
the one word dianenhsme<non,
clearly
a variant rendering for the preceding erroneous diplou?n.
Otherwise the two are identical: both have the
notable h]ruqrodanw-
454 THE JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
me<na and a@shpta; both include keklwsme<nhn,
which is not in the
Hebrew;
both have the same four misrenderings (diplou?n; de<rmata
u[aki<nqina; ei]j th>n
glufh<n; podh<rh).
Can it reasonably be doubted that whoever wrote
the latter passage
had
the other before him?
(e) Another pair of passages is found in xxviii
16-20, xxxix 9-13, the
‘Breastplate’
and its jewels.
c. xxviii c.
xxxix
Poih<seij au]to> tetra<gwnon: e@stai tetra<gwnon diplou?n e]poi<hsan to>
diplou?n, logei?on
spiqamh?j to> mh?koj au]tou?, kai> spi- spiqamh?j to> mh?koj, kai> spiqamh?j
qamh?j
to> eu#roj. to>
eu#roj diplou?n:
Kai>
kaqufanei?j e]n au]t&? u!fasma kai> sunufa<nqh e]n au]t&? u!fasma \
kata<liqon tetra<stixon: kata<liqon tetra<stixon:
sti<xoj
li<qwn e@stai, sa<rdion,
topa<- sti<xoj li<qwn,
sa<rdion kai>
o[
sti<xoj o[ ei$j o[ sti<xoj o[ ei$j
Kai>
o[ sti<xoj o[ deu<teroj, kai> o[ sti<xoj o[ deu<teroj,
a@nqrac, kai> sa<pfeiroj,
kai> i@aspij. a@nqrac, kai> sa<pfeiroj, kai>
i@aspij:
Kai> o[ sti<xoj o[ deu<teroj, kai> o[ sti<xoj o[ deu<teroj,
a@nqrac,
kai> sa<pfeiroj, kai> i@aspij. a@nqrac, kai> sa<pfeiroj,
kai>
i@aspij:
Kai> o[ sti<xoj o[ tri<toj, kai> o[ sti<xoj o[ tri<toj,
ligu<rion, a]xa<thj,
a]me<qustoj. ligu<rion kai> a]xa<thj kai>
a]me<qustoj:
kai>
o[ sti<xoj o[ te<tartoj, kai> o[ sti<xoj o[ te<tartoj,
xruso<liqoj, kai> bhru<llion, kai> o]nu<- xruso<liqoj kai> bhru<llion kai>
xion, o]nu<xion
perikekalumme<na xrusi<&: sundede- perikekuklwme<na xrusi<&, kai>
me<na e]n xrusi<& sundedeme<na xrusi<&
e@stwsan
kata> sti<xon au]tw?n. . . . . . .
Surely independent translators would never have
hit on translations so
nearly
alike. For instance, both have u!fasma
kata<liqon, though the cor-
responding
Hebrew is missing from the second passage; and in the same
verse
(xxviii 17 = xxxix 10) both seem to have transferred li<qwn
from the
first
clause to the second. Yet in this very verse Dr McNeile
finds one
of
his differences because one has kaqufanei?j, and the other sunufa<nqh!
Is it conceivable that, if the translations were
altogether independent,
no
one of the twelve jewels should be differently translated? Further:
(iv) There are indications that the translators
were the same throughout.
The
evidence just considered might possibly be consistent with
Group
II being due to translators who had the translation of Group I
before
them, and yet were not the same as the former translators. But
it
is not at all likely that two sets of people would exhibit the same
peculiarities
and follow the same methods.
NOTES AND STUDIES 455
(a) In both Groups there is a tendency to make
the same kind of
careless
mistakes.
In. xxvii 18 the translators have mistaken the
Hebrew word which
means
‘cubit’ for a similar word meaning ‘hundred’; in xxxviii 9, 11
(a
different part of the parallel passage) the same mistake is made in
places
where the earlier chapter has the correct rendering.
Similar confusions of words that are somewhat
alike are found in
xxix
5 ('Breastplate' put for ‘Band of Ephod’); in xxvi 34 (the ‘Veil’
instead
of the 'Mercy-seat'); and in xxvi 36 (‘board’ instead of
‘clasp’).
In the same way in Group II xxxv 21, 22 have 'brought'
instead
of 'came'; xxxv 22 has ‘seals’ instead of ‘brooches’; and in
xxxviii
18 ‘the height in the breadth’ has been turned into ‘the height
and
the breadth', which (as the length has been already specified) would
give
three dimensions to the Screen, making it 5 cubits in thickness!
(b) Certain of the technical terms seem to have
been little or not at
all
understood by the translators, who betray their perplexity by some-
times
leaving them untranslated and sometimes giving
inconsistent
renderings.
In both Groups the same set of words has been
misunderstood,
e.g.
‘board’, ‘clasp’, ‘grating’ (of the Altar); ‘woven band’ (of the
Ephod);
‘finely wrought’ (garments); ‘lace’. In both Groups skhnh<
is
used sometimes of the Tabernacle and sometimes of the Tent
where
the two words occur together, the translators have been puzzled
to
know what to put for the Tent, and in each case have adopted
a
different rendering (xxvi 7 ske<phn;
xxxv 11 pararu<mata;
xl 19
au]lai<aj;
in xxvi 11 the Tent, standing alone, is
translated de<rreij).
The substitution of ‘mingled’ for ‘salted’ in
xxx 35, and of ‘fasted’
for
‘served (as a host)’ in xxxviii 8, both seem to be attempts to read
an
easier word for a more difficult one.
In both Groups the translators are puzzled by
the same words, and use
the
same methods to avoid difficulties.
(c) In both Groups there is a tendency to soften
down expressions
that
might suggest a human conception of the Deity. ‘Dwell among
you'
in xxv 8 becomes 'be seen among you', and in xxix 45, 46, 'be
called
upon among you', while in xl 35 the same verb is translated
‘overshadowed'.
Possibly a hint of the same tendency is found in the
curious
inversion in xl 35 by which the phrase ‘the Glory of the LORD
filled
the Tabernacle [the Dwelling]' is turned into ‘the Tent was filled
with
the Glory of the LORD', as though to avoid personifying the Glory.
In xxix 46, ‘I am the LORD their God' is changed
into ‘and to be
their
God'; in xxxvi 1, 'to whom the LORD gave wisdom' becomes
to
whom was given wisdom'. In both cases the personal Name is
avoided.
456
THE JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
(d) In both Groups there is a tendency to omit
or paraphrase
perplexing
passages, and occasionally to insert explanatory words or
phrases.
(e) The deliberate and frequent use of different
Greek words to
represent
the same Hebrew has already been shewn to run through
both
Groups, and the opposite tendency to use the same Greek for
different
Hebrew words is also found in both (e. g. e]sxa<ra represents
three
Hebrew words in the two verses xxvii 4, 5 ; and a]fai<rema stands
for
three different words in xxxv 21, 22, 29). Had one Group been
fairly
consistent in its renderings while the other varied them, there
might
have been reason to suspect a difference of translators. As it
is,
the same inconsistency is found in both, and in much the same
degree.
In short, the translation exhibits the same
characteristics throughout.
To sum up.
In support of the assertion that the translators
of Group II were not
the
same as the translators of Group I only a comparatively few instances
of
varied renderings are brought forward, and several of these are
decidedly
doubtful.
On the contrary, a considerable amount of
evidence (yet not nearly
all
that might be brought) has been adduced to shew that--
(i) differences of
rendering in one and the same passage abound,
and
therefore difference of rendering does not shew
difference of
translators;
(ii) in a considerable proportion of the
instances of difference alleged,
the
whole evidence has not been considered;
(iii) there is abundant reason for believing
that the translators of
Group
II were acquainted with and made use of the translation of
Group
I;
(iv) there is fair reason for believing that the
translators were the
same
throughout.
It is surprising that scholars of deservedly
high repute (such as those
mentioned
on p. 449) should put forward as probable the assertion that
the
translators were different, without a hint of the weight or evidence
against
it. Can it be that they have reproduced a statement from some
less
reliable source without themselves verifying the facts?
Why should this question be of any importance?
What does it
matter
whether the translators were the same or not?
If the translators were different, it would be
probable that cc. xxxv-xl
were
not in the text used by the original translators, and were therefore
a
later addition to the book. If the translators were the same, it would
NOTES AND STUDIES 457
be
evidence that as far back as 250 B. C. the book of Exodus was
substantially
complete as we now have it.
(B) DIFFERENCE OF TEXT.
The second inference is that the translators of
Group II had before
them
a Hebrew text differing from the present Massoretic
text.
It is strange that those who put this forward,
together with the assertion
that
the translators were not the same as those who translated Group I,
do
not perceive that the two contentions are not altogether consistent.
In
order to prove that the translators were different, it has to be assumed
that
they had the same technical terms to translate, and translated them
differently.
But if the translators of Group II had before them a text
different
from that which we now possess, how can we be sure that they
had
the same words to translate? It is scarcely admissible to argue as
if
these translators had the identical terms before them, and in the next
breath
to assert that their text was different.
However, it is to be noted that where difference
of text is spoken of,
something
more than mere difference is intended. That might only
mean
that the text from which the Greek translation was made differed
from
the present Hebrew in having been altered from it: whereas what
it
is sought to establish is that the Hebrew
has been modified by subse-
quent additions and alterations.
‘It is permissible', says Dr Swete
(‘Introduction' p. 236), 'to suppose
that
the Hebrew text before the original translators did not contain this
section,
and that it was supplied afterwards from a longer Hebrew
recension of the book in which the last six
chapters had not yet reached
their
final form.'
In other words, the allegation is that the LXX
text differed from the
Massoretic in being nearer to the true original.
The main (if not the sole) argument for this
conclusion is drawn from
the
fact that in the section xxxvi-xxxix the order of the contents in the