ePub 版

which is, in more respects than one, incorrect, and defective in truth of representation. It restricts offerings to Jehovah to animals, and it fails in conveying to the English reader the import of the direction given to Moses for the use of the Israelites in their religious rites. The passage may properly be rendered, “ If

any man of you bring an offering to Jehovah of the beasts; “ from the herd and from the flock shall ye bring your offer“ ings.” The precept prescribes the kind of living creatures wbich were to be used as offerings to God, excluding wild animals and human beings; and limiting the offerer to the use of tame gregarious animals; the species of which are particularly discribed in the subsequent verses of the chapter. Mr. Boothroyd's Note, to this purport, is deserving of attention.

'Ch. i. 2. Adnan jo n'b. “ It has been well observed, by Houbigant and others, that the second part of this verse is wrongly pointed. The Athnach, as it is called, should be placed after onani, and not after b;" Houbigant's version is : Si quis vestrûm hostiam Domino de pecoribus oblaturus est, de bobus eam et de ovibus. offeretis. “ Genus tangitur in nonon pecorum a plebe sponte offerendorum, ut postea, ypan et 497, species assignetur : Si tu offeres holocaustum de pecudibus, offeres de bovibus et ovibus ... ubi observandum, non sacrificia ut fiant imperari, ut rectè observat Theodoretus. Nam conditionem habent præcepta quæ hic sunt: Si tu offeres." Bp. Secker proposes to correct the English version accordingly.' Lev. ii. 13. gorabe na obs. The Ar. of Saad: thus paraphrases:

Thou shalt not withdraw from thine oblation salt, because it is the “ covenant of thy God." Salt is known to have been used in ratifying covenants, as we learn from Homer, as well as from present existing customs among the Arabs. Michaelis is not satisfied with this rendering, but proposes to read and as Jer. ii. 22. and would render, pure salt, or salt-petre. So also Dathe.“ Are we then to acquiesce in the common interpretation? I think not; for here the question is not whether salt was used in convenants, but why salt offered with every oblation, should be called the salt of the covenant of God?

After a careful examination of the difficulty, I think it is to be resolved thus. The word my here does not signify Covenant, but ,

It is found in this signification three times in one chapter of 2 Sam. xiii. 5, 7, 10.-It is here visibly in construction, governed by tho, and governing qorake: The literal version then will be sal edulii Dei tui, the salt of the

food, or portion, of thy God, see chap. iii, 11. where that part of the sacrifice which was burnt on the altar is called the food or aliment, son of a sweet-savoured .burnt-offering to the Lord.'. Gedd. This is the best explanation, I conceive, that has yet been offered ; and so natural as to be perfectly satisfactory.

*Lev. v. 11, Dwn. This reading is not conformable to the idiom of the Hebrew. The Sam, is clearly consonant to the place, and is preferable to the text. Houbigant says, “ Lege cum Sam : Codice,

ברה food

, from

789, fundet. Sic Græci Interpretes mixtes ; Sic Syrus 70s, fundet. Nam de solidis usurpatur, non de liquidis. Erat mendum proclive, tum propter literas yet w, quæ ejusdem sunt organi, tum propter tous cum tw 7 similitudinem, in Codicibus præsertim Germanicis, in quibus per literæ p solet decurtari.”

* Num. iii. 4. "779729 DS. Every critic must agree with Morinus in considering these words unnecessary. Kennicott has accounted for such blunders as these by the known practice of the scribes who when they committed an error, rather than injure the beauty of the copy, suffered it to remain."

We cannot consider my was as unnecessary words in this passage, which verbally accords with the narrative in Lév. x. 2. There is not sufficient authority for their rejection.

? Num. xxiii, 10. “1. Dean Pilkington, in his visitation sermon, has endeavoured to prove that this term here and Deut. viii

. 16. and Prov. xxiii, 17. means the future state. Such a sense will give importance and interest to the request of Balaam. The great German critic Michaelis has adopted this same thought and produced strong reasons in support of it.' » See Syntag. Comment. Part I. p. 107

The reading of the Septuagint should have been given in this note. In that version the corresponding phrase to do is to Otsguace uov, 'my seed,' or posterity, which we are disposed to consider as the meaning of the Hebrew term in the passage before

noong is " posterityin Psalm cix. 13. Dan. xi. 4. &e. This sense well suits the circumstances of Balaam at the time of his uttering this passionate exclamation, and gives force and beauty to it: 'Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my

posterity be like bis.' Let mc depart from life like the venerable patriarch Jacob, and let my posterity, like his, numerous and happy, be under the perpetual safeguard of the Almighty.

Num. xxvi, 59. "708. Michaelis, Geddes, and others, consider One as a proper name, the mother of Jochebed. Those who follow the present Hebrew punctuation are obliged to supply something; as our English translators have done : “ the daughter of Levi, whom her mother bare to Levi in Egypt.” Others supply his wife. Against the natural and easy solution of Michaelis I can see only one objection; namely, that it makes Jochebed the immediate daughter of Levi, and consequently the aunt of her husband Amram. But if she were born toward the end of Levi's life, she might be as young as, or even younger than Amram; and might be at the same time his aunt and his wife. We have seen aunts and uncles several years younger than their nephews and nieces.",

Mr. Boothroyd's objection may very easily be removed. From Exod. ii, 1. compared with ch. vi, 20. it appears that Amram married his aunt Jochebed, she being the sister of his father Kohath, and the daughter of his grandfather Levi.


.הררכי נפשי ען

Deut. viii, 4. " gobow. The common opinion that the raiment and shoes of the Israelites wore not, is certainly absurd. The Rabbins, however, understand this passage as denoting a phenomenon of the most miraculous nature : they say, angels were tailors to this people, and made their clothes of silk, and tissue of divers colours ; and this they prove from Ezek. xvi, 10. &c. taking the prophet's words literally. They say, also, that the clothes did not wear by use, but remained perpetually new; only they, grew with the growth, and strengthened with the strength of the wearer; so that those made for children fitted them when grown up to maturity. The meaning of this passage, to which we may add Nehem. ix, 21. may be, like that of any other passage, taken too literally; as may also Isa. xlviii, 21. where the prophet says, the Israelites did not suffer thirst in the desert ; which is literally false, but relatively true, as their thirst was speedily satisfied.” Judges, v. 21.

. The versions, ancient and modern, of this clause have no connexion with the context. Dathe ; “ Calcabas, O Deborah, robustos." Green: “O my soul, thou hast trodden down their strength !" Houbigant by a slight alteration reads, WDS 797), provoluit cadavera fortium ! That the line should be applied to the torrent Kishon is to me evident; and without any alterations of the text, how noble is the image, when the torrent is considered as a person and addressed in this sudden manner. - Thou treadest on the bodies of the mighty.”

There is we believe no example in which the action of treading is applied by personification to a torrent. The gramma. tical construction of the passage too is decidedly unfavourable to this interpretation. 776 is the second person feminine of the future tense, and cannot be construed with bra, which is a masculine noun, as its nominative.

Mr. Boothroyd has, in his Preface, given brief notices of the printed Hebrew text, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the various versions ; accompanied with concise and very general remarks on the utility of Hebrew Manuscripts as a source of emendation. It would have enhanced the value of his work, and better aided the purpose of the Editor, if he had furnished a catalogue of the Heb. MSS. quoted as authorities. He might have retained so much of the original plan, as would have brought the work to a closer resemblance to Griesbach's Greek Testament, by the adoption of a similar arrangement of Manuscript Authorities. Though the value of a reading does not depend on the character of the particular manuscript in which it is found, yet, without a descriptive catalogue of the MSS. from which the various readings are selected, the student is very inperfectly furnished for estimating their value. He can find but little satisfaction in references which enable him not to weigh, bat merely to number the authorities for a reading. From the statement that a particular lection is supported by four, or ten, Vol. VII. N. S.


or forty MSS. he simply learns the fact that the reading exists in manuscripts—but remains totally unacquainted with the age, country, writer, and character, of the manuscripts quoted; nor is he able in consequence of the omission of such a catalogue, to form any opinion on the affinity of manuscripts, or to reduce them to a classification. A catalogue of Hebrew manuscripts arranged and numbered after the manner of Griesbach's catalogue of Greek MSS. with a similar notation in the margin, would have conferred advantages on Mr. Boothroyd's work, which we should have been glad to notice. The bulk of the volumes would, it is true, have been increased by such a method of marshalling the various readings ; but not we think in any inconvenient measure, and the completeness of the work would have been an ample advantage for any additional cost. Mr. Boothroyd however, we would not forget, is fully entitled to all the benefit which he may clain in favour of the omissions from our imperfect acquaintance with Hebrew manuscripts. Much remains to be done before the criticism of the Hebrew Bible can be placed on an equality with the criticisin of the Greek Testament.

The Second Volume of this work, which commences with the Book of Job, contains copious selections from the writings of the most eminent and approved critics on the devotional and prophetical parts of Scripture. Mr. Boothroyd has evidently spared neither expense por labour to furnish the student with interesting extracts, which are calculated to assist him as well in interpreting, as in obtaining a critical acquaintance with the original text. A good philological note is frequently of more importance towards the elucidation of a difficult passage than a long theological comment, which is often little better than a detail of contrary opinions. There is evidently some hazard of adopting fanciful and conjectural corrections in so extensive an undertaking as this, which is principally compiled from preceding authors of almost every description. Against this danger the sobriety of the Editor's judgement has been a powerful protection; and as his avowed object was the solid instruction of the purchasers of his book, he has, in a commendable manner, accomplished his purpose. The Book of Job, the Psalms, the Book of Proverbs, Isaiah, and some other portions of this volume, are printed in lines according to the arrangement proposed by Bishop Lowth, and sanctioned by Newcome and other Biblical critics, in accommodation to the supposed rules of Hebrew verse. Every distribution of this kind is arbitrary; since it must be among the most hopeless objects to attempt the recovery of the Hebrew metres, all knowledge of them having long since perished. To many Hebrew students however the arrangement adopted by Mr. Boothroyd will be acceptable. We shall select a few of the notes from this volume in addition to the extracts which we have already copied.

,משבר ים ,יִם ישים

.يتعاطيون diantur »

[ocr errors]

and not from ירא This verb ought to be derived from * יראה .26

6 ( ראה

Job xli. 17.“ nun (1812 var. lec. M. MSS.) Here the & has been omitted, which is doubtless a radical letter. The latter line has been variously understood. Good has hit on the true reading by a different arrangement of the letters. He makes nown two words

, “At the tumult of the sea they are confounded.”—23. !.

Good derives Jiver from us to breathe, smell, snuff,' and renders

He maketh the main to boil as a cauldron :

He snuffeth up the tide as a perfume.' In both these instances, as in several others, the Editor should have attributed the emendations to Reiske, from whom Mr. Good has taken them without acknowledgement; as he has other Arabic criticisms from that Author. We subjoin Reiske's Notes. “Di 7300 ex tempestate maris, huc illuc trepidi gra“

.D'D Pro sus paning olfacit mare, attrahit spiritu retrorsum retracto in nares mare, ut homo pyxidem unguentariam. Per nares attrahit aquam, ut homo odorem.

“ ' 1789 as is usual." ,

We are rather surprised that so good a Hebrew scholar as Mr. Boothroyd, should adopt this etymological conjecture of Reiske. now in the text has a masculine nominative, and is therefore

. to the root xn but only as it is feminine, and importing to fear, or be afraid, which is unsuitable to the passage; it never can be rendered “ to terrify," or " dismay."

• Psalm cxxi. 1. Dr. Lowth supposes that the two first verses of this Psalm are spoken by the King, in his approaching as a suppliant to the ark, preparatively to some warlike expedition, and that the remainder of the Psalm is the High priest's answer delivered from the Tabernacle. Have we any proof that in signifies the ark, or heaven, or above? I prefer our marginal version, and think there is an allusion to the Idols which were worshipped on the hills. The 2d Com. in this view is an answer to the first : “ Shall I lift mine eyes to the hills? Cometh mine help from thenee! My help is from Jehovah, who made the, &c.",

The allusion is probably of a different kind.' As the first signals of approaching relief to besieged cities, and the advance of important messengers, are frequently announced from surrounding eminences, the eyes of persons in expectation of deliverance or intelligence, would be directed towards them.. “How “ beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth

good tidings,” contains a similar reference.

• Isaiah i. 5. “ND 130in. Lowth follows Houbigant, who supposes that the prophet addresses, not the Israelites, but those who afflicted

.ראה clearly from the root may certainly be assigned יראה

« 上一頁繼續 »