Asher continued on the sea shore, in ships? Asher sat at the shore and abode in his breaches. of the sea, and abode at his creeks. 18. Zebulun and Naphtali _were_ 18. For Zebulun, the people a people _that_ jeoparded their scorned their lives, and _rushed_ lives unto the death in the high upon death, and Naphtali, in the places of the field. high places of the plain. 19. The kings came _and_ fought, 19. The kings came, they fought, . . . they took no gain of money. . . . they took no spoil of silver. 22. Then were the horsehoofs 22. Then did the horses’ hoofs broken by the means of the smite _the ground_ from the pransings, the pransings of their haste, the haste of their riders mighty ones. . . . We here pause, before proceeding to our second extract, to notice one very damaging source of mistranslation as applicable to the Old Testament. We allude to what may be called the use of the Prophetical or Theological scheme in dealing with the Prophecies. For instance, in the 2nd verse of 53rd chap, of Isaiah, as below, the words “_for he shall grow up_” ought to be rendered “_and_” or “_so_” (resuming the argument of the previous chapter) “_he grew up_” in the PAST tense; and so on through the chapter. The Prophets, it is well known, in the vividness of their prophetic vision, contemplated the future events that passed under their ken as _actually past_; {14} and as this is a prominent characteristic of their mode of delivering prophetic truth, it ought not to be lost sight of in a translation. The explanation of the _fact_ that what they spoke of as actually past was still future, belongs to what is called “exegesis,” and stands out as an Order of Rhetoric significant of, and sacred to, their prophetic function; but by no means should such an element enter into a translation, which, if it does not present a faithful reflex of the original, is simply a misnomer. Not that there is any inviolable uniformity in the practice of the translators in the use of this scheme. Far from it; as is evident from the translation that follows. And this serves to render a subject, necessarily obscure from its very nature, immeasurably more so. The truth is, we have here forced upon us the fact, that the translators were not fully acquainted with a principle of the language—now well understood—that lies at the basis of the whole structure. {15} They saw its force—they could not help doing so—in the Narrative portions, but were not cognizant of it as a Fundamental principle of the language, applicable alike to all subjects, and not variable and flexible at the pleasure of the interpreter.