Isaiah 64:5
Thou meetest him that rejoiceth and worketh righteousness "Thou meetest with joy those who work righteousness" - The Syriac reads poga attah shesh baashi , as above.
In those is continuance, and we shall be saved "Because of our deeds, for we have been rebellious" - bahem olam venivvashea . I am fully persuaded that these words as they stand in the present Hebrew text are utterly unintelligible; there is no doubt of the meaning of each word separately; but put together they make no sense at all. I conclude, therefore, that the copy has suffered by mistakes of transcribers in this place. The corruption is of long standing, for the ancient interpreters were as much at a loss for the meaning as the moderns, and give nothing satisfactory. The Septuagint render these words by , therefore we have erred: they seem to have read aleyhem niphsha , without helping the sense. In this difficulty what remains but to have recourse to conjecture? Archbishop Secker was dissatisfied with the present reading: he proposed hebet aleynu venivvashea ; "look upon us, and we shall, or that we may, be saved:" which gives a very good sense, but seems to have no sufficient foundation. Besides, the word venivvashea , which is attended with great difficulties, seems to be corrupted as well as the two preceding; and the true reading of it is, I think, given by the Septuagint, veniphsha , , we have erred, (so they render the verb pasha , Isaiah 46:8, and Ezekiel 23:12), parallel to vannecheta , ̔ , we have sinned. For bahem olam , which means nothing, I would propose hammaaleleynu , "because of our deeds;" which I presume was first altered to bemaaleleyhem , an easy and common mistake of the third person plural of the pronoun for the first, (see note on Isaiah 33:2), and then with some farther alteration to behem olam . The aleyhem , which the Septuagint probably found in their copy, seems to be a remnant of bemaaleleyhem .
This, it may be said, is imposing your sense upon the prophet. It may be so; for perhaps these may not be the very words of the prophet: but however it is better than to impose upon him what makes no sense at all; as they generally do, who pretend to render such corrupted passages. For instance, our own translators:" in those is continuance, and we shall be saved:" in those in whom, or what? There is no antecedent to the relative. "In the ways of God," say some: "with our fathers," says Vitringa, joining it in construction with the verb, katsaphta , "thou hast been angry with them, our fathers;" and putting vannecheta , "for we have sinned," in a parenthesis. But there has not been any mention of our fathers: and the whole sentence, thus disposed, is utterly discordant from the Hebrew idiom and construction. In those is continuance; olam means a destined but hidden and unknown portion of time; but cannot mean continuation of time, or continuance, as it is here rendered. Such forced interpretations are equally conjectural with the boldest critical emendation; and generally have this farther disadvantage, that they are altogether unworthy of the sacred writers. - L.
Coverdale renders the passage thus: -
\ri720 But lo, thou art angrie, for we offende, and have been ever in synne; and there is not one whole.
This is, I am afraid, making a sense.
After all that this very learned prelate has done to reduce these words to sense and meaning, I am afraid we are still far from the prophet' s mind. Probably bahem , in them, refers to deracheycha , thy ways, above. olam may be rendered of old, or during the whole of the Jewish economy; and venivvashea , "and shall we be saved?" Thus: - Thou art wroth, for we have sinned in them (thy ways) of old; and can we be saved? For we are all as an unclean thing, etc.