Deuteronomy 33:3

Verse 3 Yea, he loved the people - This is the inference which Moses makes from those glorious appearances, that God truly loved the people; and that all his saints, קדשיו kedoshaiv, the people whom he had consecrated to himself, were under his especial benediction; and that in order to make them a holy nation, God had displayed his glory on Mount Sinai, where they had fallen prostrate at his feet with the humblest adoration, sincerely promising the most affectionate obedience; and that God had there commanded them a law which was to be the possession and inheritance of the children of Jacob, Deu 33:4. And to crown the whole, he had not only blessed them as their lawgiver, but had also vouchsafed to be their king, Deu 33:5. Dr. Kennicott proposes to translate the whole five verses thus: - Verse 1 And this is the blessing wherewith Moses, the man of God, blessed the children of Israel before his death - And he said Deu 33:2. Jehovah came from Sinai, And he arose upon them from Seir; He shone forth from Mount Paran, And he came from Meribah-kadesh: From his right hand a fire shone forth upon them. Deu 33:3. Truly, he loved the people, And he blessed all his saints For they fell down at his feet, And they received of his words. Deu 33:4. He commanded us a law, The inheritance of the congregation of Jacob. Deu 33:5. And he became king in Jeshurun; When the heads of the people were assembled, Together with the tribes of Israel. We have already seen that Dr. Kennicott reads מריבה קדש Meribah-Kadesh, the name of a place, instead of מרבבת קדש meribeboth kodesh, which, by a most unnatural and forced construction, our version renders ten thousands of saints, a translation which no circumstance of the history justifies. Instead of a fiery law, אש דת esh dath, he reads, following the Samaritan version, אש אור esh ur, a fire shining out upon them. In vindication of this change in the original, it may be observed, 1. That, though דת dath signifies a law, yet it is a Chaldee term, and appears nowhere in any part of the sacred writings previously to the Babylonish captivity: תורה torah being the term constantly used to express the Law, at all times prior to the corruption of the Hebrew, by the Chaldee. 2. That the word itself is obscure in its present situation, as the Hebrew Bibles write it and esh in one word אשדת eshdath, which has no meaning; and which, in order to give it one, the Massorah directs should be read separate, though written connected. 3. That the word is not acknowledged by the two most ancient versions, the Septuagint and Syriac. 4. That in the parallel place, Hab 3:3, Hab 3:4, a word is used which expresses the rays of light, קרנים karnayim, horns, that is, splendours, rays, or effulgence of light. 5. That on all these accounts, together with the almost impossibility of giving a rational meaning to the text as it now stands, the translation contended for should be adopted. Instead of All his saints are in his hand, Dr. Kennicott reads, He blessed all his saints - changing בידך beyadecha, into ברך barach, he blessed, which word, all who understand the Hebrew letters will see, might be easily mistaken for the other; the ד daleth and the ר resh being, not only in MSS., but also in printed books, often so much alike, that analogy alone can determine which is the true letter; and except in the insertion of the י yod, which might have been easily mistaken for the apex at the top of the ב beth very frequent in MSS., both words have the nearest resemblance. To this may be added, that the Syriac authorizes this rendering. Instead of לרגלך leraglecha, and מדברתיך middabberotheycha, Thy feet, and Thy words, Dr. Kennicott reads the pronouns in the third person singular, לרגליו leraglaiv and מדברותיו middabberothaiv, His feet, His words, in which he is supported both by the Septuagint and Vulgate. He also changes ישא yissa, He shall receive, into ישאו yisseu, They shall receive. He contends also that משה Mosheh, Moses, in the fourth verse, was written by mistake for the following word מורשה morashah, inheritance; and when the scribe found he had inserted a wrong word, he added the proper one, and did not erase the first. The word Moses, he thinks, should therefore be left out of the text, as it is improbable that he should here introduce his own name; and that if the word be allowed to be legitimate, then the word king must apply to him, and not to God, which would be most absurd. See Kennicott's first Dissertation, p. 422, etc.

Adam Clarke, 1831 · public domain