« AnteriorContinuar »
“ Who hath pronounced (them) blind, except my servant ? (Isaiah), or hath pronounced (them) dumb, like my messenger (whom) I send (has done) ? Who hath called (them) blind, like him who has been perfected (for this work), nay, pronounced (them) blind, like Jehovah's servant ? ”* _“Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not,” &c. which last is explanatory.
Now, if we turn back to the sixth chapter, we shall be able to make all plain. At verse 10, the prophet is sent to pronounce their heart heavy, and their eyes closed ; which perhaps will be allowed to be equivalent to making them blind and deaf, as mentioned in chap. xlii. In the seventh verse, the prophet's iniquity is taken away, in order, as it should seem, to qualify him for this office: for this reason in chap. xlii. he is termed bain, completed, perfected. In this view, then ??y, my servant, ppo, my messenger, bon, perfected person, 1179? 727, Jehovah's servant, will all apply easily and naturally to the prophet Isaiah; and the passage will be a perfect parallel to that noticed in the sixth chapter of the same prophecy. I only ask : Is it not then highly probable, that the same person is author of both these predictions ? I leave the reply to others. I think, I may now say, that the criticisms of neither Mr. Rosenmüller nor Dr. Gesenius are here well founded : and this must suffice on this point.
of which I have given a literal ,מִי עָנֵר כִּי אִם־עַבְדִּי The original is
Gesenius here agrees with Rosenmüller, but without assigning any
His words are: “ Wer ist taub, wenn's mein Knecht nicht ist ?) wer verdient diesen namen, wenn ihn Israël nicht verdient ? mein Bote, den ich gesandt.) Es fällt auf, dass Israël hier ein Bote genannt wird, den Gott gesandt habe;" (Zweyter Theil, p. 66.): i. e. Who is deaf, when my servant is not? Who deserves this name, when Israel deserves it not ? &c. This last is the comment. The first, however, which is the translation, is erroneous.
, a version. I may here remark, that by ' cannot signify when (wenn); and that no passage can be found in the Hebrew Bible justifying such an interpretation. The true signification of DŅ is surely, certainly, or the like;' and when combined with for, since, &c. must mean, for surely, or since surely, truly, &c. which will suit every passage in which this combination is found. It is remarkable enough that Noldius has, in his Concordance of the Particles, given this passage in two different places, with two different translations. In the first he makes DŅ equal to quam; in the second, to sicut (pp. 379, 80.): and in his Annotationes et Vindiciæ (n. 1355, ed. 1734), he has said just as much as to leave the question in a more doubtful state than he found it. One thing is quite certain, no effort has yet given a tolerable explanation of this passage, on the supposition of 799 being a noun; and I
See my Hebrew Grammar, p. 376.
Our next criticism is grounded on the occurrence of the word », put for countries generally: chap. xlii. 4. &c. But this word occurs also in the first part of this prophet, which Dr. Gesenius had omitted to notice; e. g. chap. xi. 11. ON , the islands of the sea ;xxiv. 14. DT 89, in the islands of the sea.
And in the singular number in chap. xx. 6. xxiii. 2,5. The occurrence of this word, therefore, will prove exactly the reverse of what Dr. Gesenius would have
it to prove.
,צְדֶק Our animadversions will now be on the words
} wwr, nyari?, occurring in the sense of whole, deliverance, victory, &c., and sometimes in parallels of the same construction. The places cited, are chapters xli. 2, 10. xlii. 6, 21 (?). xlv. 8, 13. li. 5. lviii. 2. lxii. 1, 2. also 1778 tsedākā, in the same sense, chap. xlv. 8, 24. xlvi. 13.
shall maintain that no effort ever will. If, however, we take gay and von as verbs in pihēl, all becomes clear, regular, and easy. Dr. Gesenius proceeds : “ My messenger whom I sent. Com.: It appears, that Israel is here named a messenger, whom God has sent.” This, too, is the opinion of Mr. Rosenmüller; but it is quite groundless and unnecessary.
It will be replied, perhaps, that we have no objective or complementary words here, supposing 777 and win to be transitive verbs. I answer: This is by no means unusual in the Hebrew, and its dialects, especially in verbs of this sort and form.' Besides, as the particles on y and the ? following can be interpreted according to their usual and obvious signification, on no other view; we need not be alarmed at the ellipsis, which in such cases is so frequently to be met with. The various attempts of the commentators and translators to make out this passage, may be seen in Rosenmüller's scholia in loco.
-which is trans ,حتی ضرب برجله ومات .7
.in his Chrest
· See my Hebrew Grammar, p. 335, with the references, Ludolf's Eth. Gram. p. 32, note I. This circumstance has proved a fertile source of mistake to many, and among these to the learned M. de Sacy, for we have,
. , lated at page 5, (edit. 2), “qu'ayant heurté du pied contre quelque chose, il se tua. When the passage is literally: “Until he struck with his feet and died;" vulgarly, he kicked and died.
Thou shalt be called the city of " ,עִיר הַצְדֶק קִרְיָה גְאָמָנָה
Zion shall be redeemed " ,צִיּוֹן בְּמִשְׁפָּט תִּפָּדֶה וְשָׁבְיָה בִּצְדָקָה
xlviii. 18, &c. One sense in which it occurs, is said to be very rare in any other book, as in Jer. xxxiii. 16. Dan. ix. 24. Ps. cxxxii. 9, 16. Let us put all this to the trial. My remark is: It is very true we have such combinations in these places, which may generally be rendered as Dr. Gesenius has said they may; and our question is: Have we no such passages, either in the first thirty-nine chapters of Isaiah, or elsewhere? We are told in the next page (16) of Dr. Gesenius's work, that wapp right, &c. also occurs exclusively in this last part of Isaiah, in a religious
We may as well here take in this word also, because we can conveniently dispose of them all together. In the first place then, we have in Isaiah, i. 26. 7????
7, “ righteousness, the faithful city. And in the next verse,
1 . , “ with judgment, and her converts with righteousness.” The first of these passages is thus rendered by Dr. Gesenius himself: " Dann wirst du heisen : Stadt der Gerechtigkeit, treue Stadt :" then shalt thou be called city of righteousness, true city. I object, however, to the rendering of nang by true, as being too vague: faithful or unbending would be much better. 278 tsédek, in this case preceding, will also have the sense of sound, right, whole, or the like. In the next passage, 77773 tsédaka, is in the same parallel with uppm mishpat. The first evidently signifies religious truth, right, righteousness, or the like: must not then pain mishpat here have a similar signification ? and one which our author contends is peculiar to the last six and twenty chapters of this book only? But how does Dr. Gesenius himself translate it? “ Zion wird durch Recht gerettet werden, und seine bekehrten Bürger durch Gerechtigkeit:” Zion shall be redeemed through right (justice), and her converted inhabitants through righteousness.
We have then, here, one of the disputed words at least, used in the sense adopted by the psuedo-Isaiah; and a little examination will convince us that the second is used so too. In chap. xvi. 5. we have 77in connection with Ton piety, non truth, and
porn judgment, or right; and with prin in v. 7, 16. ix. 6. xxvi. 9, 10. xxiii. 5. and in xxxij. 16, 17, it is said to produce peace, quietness, and confidence for ever.
כִּי שָׁכַחַתָּ אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׁעֵךְ וְצוּר מָעֶזִךְ לֹא זָכַרְתְּ : 10
It will be replied, perhaps, that notwithstanding all this, we have neither ymyēshah, nor Apa? yeshūah, salvation, deliverance, &c. in any one of these places. It is very true we have not; yet, if quietness, confidence, and everlasting peace, and the like, are found, which manifestly signify the same thing, I cannot see why we should complain because the very same words are not used. Good writers generally love variety, as we have seen in the examples adduced from our own poets. No violence has been done to their style by adopting different words ; nor can there be in the case of our prophet. But these words, yun and pawe, do occur in the first part of our prophet, and in the same sense which they have in the second;
. : “ Because thou hast forgotten the God of thy salvation, and hast not been mindful of the rock of thy strength. Here we have izpopo in the same parallel with the rock of thy strength, which must signify the means of thy deliverance, victory, &c. just as it does in the passages pointed out by Dr. Gesenius; and so he translates it: “ Denn du vergassest Gott, deinen Retter, an den Fels, deine Zufiucht, dachtest du nicht.” Since thou hast forgotten God, thy Saviour, for the rock of thy refuge thou hast not cared. Here Dr. Gesenius gives an abstract noun the signification of a concrete one, and that such too, as to leave no doubt as to what sense he ascribes to it. Let us now take an instance or two of the use of hiparos yeshūah.
. . 1, “We have a strong city: salvation will (God) appoint (for) walls and bulwarks.” Here paris signifies something like strength or victory; and this Dr. Gesenius will have it, it signifies in the last six and twenty chapters of this prophet. The place is thus translated by him : “ Eine feste Stadt haben wir: (Gottes) Beystand ist uns Mauer und Graben.” We have a firm city: (God's) assistance is our wall and ditch. paws is here rendered by assistance, and now by is, which is much too free. The sense, however, of ? is preserved, which is all I now contend for. Chap. xlix. 8. should be compared with this, which will put an end to every doubt which can exist on the subject. There we have : npow? oir 7797y, in the day of salvation I have helped thee; or, in the day of deliverance or victory I have assisted thee. So Dr.
עִיר עָוּ־לָנוּ יְשׁוּעָה יָשִׁית חומות In chap
Gesenius: “Zur Zeit des Heils (will ich) dir helfen." In the time of HEALTH, &c. will I help thee. See also chap. xii. 2, 3. xxvi. 18. xxxiii. 2, 6, &c. which must be more than enough to satisfy the most sceptical on this question.
We are told in the next place, that the verb nos, to sprout, &c. is used to signify the origin of some new occurrence in the world, as in chapp. xlii. 9. xliji. 19. lviii. 8. My reply is: I see nothing new or extraordinary in the use of this word in any of these places. The word generally signifies to shoot, or spring up, and is applied to events just as it is to herbs or shrubs. See Job. v. 6. Ps. lxxxv. 12. cxxxii. 16. 2 Sam. xxiii. 5. These passages are perhaps sufficient to shew, that the usage of the word in question is not peculiar to Isaiah ; and, that in most of them, it must have been so used long before his times. But this is not all: in the passages pointed out by Dr. Gesenius, the blessings of true religion are clearly intimated, which could come to pass under no other circumstances than those of the promise made to Abraham, and afterwards renewed to the royal house of David. I repeat it: No times of prosperity, no blessings either temporal or spiritual, are offered on any other grounds throughout the text of both Testaments.
Now, it may be asked, have we no intimations bearing directly on this point in the earlier part of our prophet ? The answer is: We have one at least, of a most decisive
. 2. ! ? 7iza, “ In that day shall the branch (germ or stem) of Jehovah be beautiful and glorious,” &c. This I say intimates, quite as clearly as any passage adduced from the last six and twenty chapters of this book can, the origin of some new event in the world; and the very event, too, I will contend, intimated in the passages adduced by Dr. Gesenius. Here, then, we have both the true and the pseudo-Isaiah using the same terms when predicting the same event; not in a servile imitation, which might, indeed, have raised some suspicion of a forgery; but in such a manner as to assure the reader, that the coincidence is natural, and must have been undesigned. In this place we have the noun, which has also been used by Jeremiah, in conjunction with the verb, when speaking of the same event; but in the latter part of Isaiah we have only the verb, while the
בְּיוֹם הַהוּא יִהְיֶה צְמַח יְהוָה לִצְבִי .2