{3} A solitary voice, in the strict sense of the word, was raised by the
Rev. Canon Selwyn at the last meeting of Convocation (March, 1856). The
motion was not suited to the _mollia tempora fandi_, perhaps. But,
whatever the cause, there can be no doubt of the fitness of the hands
into which the motion fell, or that the day is far from being distant
when the question will force itself on the notice of Convocation, in all
probability, in another shape.
{4} “Essays, Moral and Literary,” by Dr. Vicesimus Knox. No. XLIX.
{8a} See Psalm xxii. throughout. The difficulties attending the
_entire_ application of the psalm to Christ are by no means insuperable.
Scott unreservedly refers the whole to Christ. Adam Clarke dissents.
Psalm lxix. is for the most part a manifest adumbration of the Messiah;
and if the difficulties in the way of the entire application of the Psalm
to Christ, presented in verse 5, where he is made _apparently_ to lament
his foolishness and his guilt, could be surmounted, a great boon, it is
conceived, would be granted to all who desire to understand what they
read. The _representative_ scheme, besides being open to other
objections, has no explicit authority in the Scriptures to recommend it,
and the _double sense_ is now all but universally abandoned. Possibly,
if the text will not yield in these cases, there are principles of
interpretation involved that await future development.
{8b} Gen. xlix. 21. For, “Naphtali is a hind let loose: he giveth
goodly words,” read, “Naphtali is a spreading Pine, that putteth forth
goodly boughs.” Psa. xxix. 9. For, “The voice of the Lord maketh the
hinds to calve, and discovereth the forests,” read, “The voice of the
Lord rendeth the pines, and layeth bare the forests.” So Dr. Lee. To
surrender the Bible, body and soul, into the hands of the Massorites, as
is required by their pointing of these passages, is surely asking too
much. Let the reader peruse the _whole_ of the 29th Psalm, and determine
the fitness of the correction for himself, which he may very safely be
allowed to do. The former passage, if consistently carried out on the
principles of the translators, would run, “Naphtali is a hind let loose,
_that_ giveth goodly words,” in which the incongruousness of the metaphor
would, if possible, be still more manifest. See Stanley’s “Syria and
Palestine,” p. 355.
{10a} See Preface to Herwitz’ “Etymology and Syntax of the Hebrew
Language.”
{10b} See Kitto’s Bib. Cyc., art. Chronicles. The whole article is very
reassuring, considering the able and accomplished pen from which it
proceeds. The writer, Dr. Davidson, to whom the lovers of Biblical
philology are under the greatest obligations, deliberately asserts the
corruption of the passages in question, and advocates a reading in
conformity with the corresponding statements in 2 Samuel and Kings.
{11a} Compare, among other instances in point that might be given, 1
Kings ix. 28 with 2 Chron. viii. 18.
{11b} If _no_ purification of the text should avail us in these cases,
it would be advisable to accompany the change in the text with a note in
the margin explanatory of the corruptness of the reading that has been
superseded.
{13} The change of accent the word undergoes in the original when
repeated in the second hemistich, gives marvellous emphasis to the
exhortation—an emphasis altogether lost in the translation.
{14} The application of this principle may go some way towards
neutralizing the doubts that have been raised as to the identity of the
Isaiah of the later portion of the prophecy with the Isaiah of the
earlier portion. See chap. lxiv. 10, 11. One thing at least is evident,
namely, that the Apostle Paul, who was confessedly well read in Hebrew
literature, in his quotations from the latter portion of the prophecy,
seems to have had no notion of any other Isaiah than that to whom the
whole prophecy is ordinarily ascribed. See Rom. x. 16. In fact, these
doubts, now complacently acquiesced in as valid by the Rationalistic
School abroad and at home, were equally unknown to all the world till
about half a century ago. The general reader may content himself with
Dr. Alexander’s candid and able investigation of the question in his
recent Commentary on Isaiah.
{15} The uses of the particle ו in combination with the verb. Let the
Hebrew student consult the masterly investigation and elucidation of this
subject in the Hebrew Grammar recently published by Messrs. Mason and
Bernard, Vol. II. chapters 51–55.
{17a} This rendering is faulty as not providing for the emphatic
personal pronoun “he” in the original.
{17b} Niphal in the sense of the Hithpael conjugation. See Gen. xvi. 9.
{17c} The original will not admit of this rendering, though the sense is
not objectionable.
{17d} There is great difficulty here. The word rendered _impious_, and
inserted in brackets, signifies _rich_, mostly with an accessory notion
of violence and wrong; but the parallel clause, “He made his grave with
the wicked,” and the further expression, “He was numbered with the
transgressors,” in the last verse, seem to justify the sense here given;
and so it has been understood by some rabbins and other commentators, as
Luther, Calvin, Gesenius. See Matt. xix. 23. We confess we are not
satisfied. The common reading that represents Christ as rewarded with a
grave among the rich, _because_, forsooth, he had done no violence, &c.,
is surely inadmissible.
{18a} So, ‘A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief,’ v. 3.
{18b} _Intercedes_ in the present, because his intercession is a
_continuous_ act. This distinction of tense as contradistinguished from
the past tense in the use of the preceding verb _he bore_, expressing a
transaction _once_ and _finally_ concluded, so conspicuous in the
original, is entirely overlooked in the authorized version; so Calvin,
Vitringa, Lowth, Henderson, Jones, Barnes, &c. This concurrence in the
interpretation of the authorized version is especially to be wondered at
in the more recent of the above-named critics. Messrs. Mason and Bernard
give, less happily we think, _that he might make_, &c. Dr. Alexander,
New Jersey, favours the view adopted in the amended version. See his
admirable Commentary on Isaiah.
{19} A Hebraism lurks here. So, “Praise the Lord, O my soul, and forget
not ANY of his benefits;” and not “_all_ his benefits,” as our
translation has it. So again, “And God gave Cain a mark, lest ANY
finding him should kill him,” where the _same_ word is rightly rendered.
Ps. ciii. 2; Gen. iv. 15.
{24a} Various divisions, both of the Old and New Testaments, were in use
from the earliest period, but the present divisions into Chapters and
Verses are ascribed, the former, with some hesitation, to Stephen
Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, about the middle of the thirteenth
century; the latter to Robert Stephens, a Frenchmen, about the middle of
the sixteenth century. See art. Scripture in Kitto’s Biblical
Cyclopædia.
{24b} In an elaborate translation of the whole of this prophecy, in the
Hebrew Grammar recently published by Messrs. Mason and Bernard, the
authors conceive the opening passage, “_Who hath believed our report_,”
&c., to express the awe and wonder of the kings mentioned in the previous
chapter at the events they are supposed to witness, and accordingly they
render it, “_Who hath believed our hearing_” &c., the tidings, that is,
that have reached us, the kings aforesaid. But, with all due respect for
the translation generally, we are unable to accept this view of the
passage before us, conceiving it to be far-fetched, and opposed to the
purpose for which, in so many words, it is quoted in the New Testament.
See John xii. 37; Rom. x. 16.
{25a} In like manner Jacob, in the course of predicting the future
fortunes of his sons, exclaims parenthetically, “I have waited for thy
salvation, O Lord.” Gen. xlix. 18.
{25b} This article has since been republished in a separate form, under
the title of the “Present State of the English Bible,” by the Rev.
William Harness, A.M. It will well repay repeated perusal by all those
who are interested in this pre-eminently interesting question.
{28} Let the reader advert for a moment, in connexion with the argument
for the evidences of Christianity, to the ASSUMPTIONS ordinarily and
persistently made by Christ in relation to his person and mission, and
then conceive of the _frightful arrogance_ involved in these assumptions,
supposing them to be unfounded; coupling this thought at the same time
with that perfect sobriety of mind and even tenor of a uniformly staid
and well-balanced deportment by which he was pre-eminently characterized.
_We_ do not find these assumptions in the slightest degree startling or
incredible, because they comport in our minds with the WHOLE character of
Christ as developed in the gospel. Where the evidence of Messiahship
failed among his own countrymen, if there were any failure of _evidence_,
we may advert for the solution, among other considerations, to their
blind disregard to the perfect compatibility and harmony of these
assumptions with the other features of Messiah as exhibited by Christ.
Here are a few of the expressions alluded to, all taken from the earlier
chapters of St. John’s Gospel:—
“For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the
Son quickeneth whom he will.” “That all men should honour the Son, even
as they honour the Father.” “The bread of God is he which came down from
heaven, and giveth life unto the world.” “And this is the will of Him
that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him,
may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.” “I
am the light of the world; he that followeth me shall not walk in
darkness, but shall have the light of life.” “I and my Father are one.”
“Jesus saith unto her, I am the resurrection and the life: he that
believeth on me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever
liveth and believeth in me shall never die.”—How Christ should have
preferred SUCH claims without legitimate authority, and ample power to
substantiate them, is a question to which we cannot divine an answer.
{30} Some striking illustrations of this position are to be found in the
Appendix to Mr. Stanley’s recent volume on Sinai and Palestine. This
Appendix consists of a vocabulary of topographical words in Hebrew and
English. Great care has been taken in giving the precise English for the
corresponding Hebrew term. Referring to the previous part of his work,
he says, “I have often had occasion to refer to the richness and
precision of the local vocabulary of the Hebrew language. In the
authorized version this is unfortunately lost; not so much by the
incorrect rendering of any particular word, as by the promiscuous use of
the same English word for different Hebrew words, or of different English
words for the same Hebrew word.” And again: “The geographical passages
of the Bible seem to shine with new light as these words acquire their
proper force. How keenly, for example, are we led to notice the early
tendency to personify and treat as living creatures the great objects of
nature, when we find that the ‘springs’ are the ‘eyes,’ the bright,
glistening, life-giving eyes of the thirsty East; that the mountains have
not merely summits and sides, but ‘heads,’ ‘shoulders,’ ‘ears,’ ‘ribs,’
‘loins,’ &c.” This whole Appendix is deeply interesting to the Hebrew
student. He must feel at the same time how much the mere English student
of Scripture suffers in the absence of the same knowledge.
{31} “They who have access to the Scriptures in the original are . . .
endowed with ten talents, compared with which the power of reading them
in our authorized version is but one. The right improvement of the one
talent will ensure to its possessor the end of his faith, even the
salvation of his soul; but this does not render guiltless those who have
greater talents if, from supineness and indolence, they neglect to use
the enlarged means with which they are gifted for attaining to the
knowledge of the truth.”—“Introduction to the Greek Testament, with
Grammatical and Exegetical Notes, by William Webster, M.A., and William
Francis Wilkinson, M.A.,” p. xvi. The above work has special claims upon
that numerous class who, with little time for elaborate research, are
glad to obtain the _results_ of a thorough critical investigation of the
language and teaching of the New Testament.
{34} The following is from Lewes’s “Life of Goethe,” just published.
The words in double inverted commas are those of Goethe himself: ‘“I had
a large collection of weapons, and among them a very handsome dagger.
This I placed by my bedside every night, and before extinguishing my
candle I made various attempts to pierce the sharp point a couple of
inches into my breast; but not being able to do it I laughed myself out
of the notion,” &c. He played with suicidal thoughts, because he was
restless, _and suicide was a fashionable speculation of the day_,’ &c. .
. . In October, 1772 the report reaches him that his Wetzlau friend,
Goué, has shot himself. “Write to me at once about Goué,” he says to
Kestner, “_I honour such an act_, _and pity mankind_,” &c.—Vol. I. p.
197. There is more to this abominable purpose in the sequel. Such was
Goethe, a man sprung from the people, not the offspring of an effete
noblesse, and at a time of life when the very thought of self-destruction
is most alien to all the instincts of nature,—‘a canker in youth,’—and
with no taint of constitutional melancholy in his system. Goethe’s
genius was a sea of glass, capable of reflecting the rays cast upon it
from without with unusual brilliancy; but, unlike our Shakspeare, devoid
of independent power of originating _new_ thought. Thus he _reflected_
all his days the prevailing fashion of his time, and thus he but
_re-enacts_ the sentimentalism of the hour in his suicidal lucubrations.
{35} The policy of Pericles may be considered in relation to the causes
that aggrandize a people. His notion seems to have been that to awaken
great deeds in a nation you must supply it with great and noble thoughts.
Hence his magnificent public buildings, his lavish cultivation of the
arts, and even the attention he paid to the amusements of the people, to
make them subservient to refinement and purity of taste. But æsthetics
alone do not make a great people.—See Thuc. II., 38, 39.
{37a} Luke xii. 51.
{37b} Sinai and Palestine, p. 369.