« AnteriorContinuar »
.15 .Isa . xliv מְאִתּי for מֵאוֹתִי We have in the next place
the books in which they are found as modern. From some chance or other, however, the places are not pointed out, which is rather strange. I will endeavour to supply this deficiency. Gen. xxiv. 48. tany, and I bow down ; xliii. 28. 977??), and they bow down; so also Exod. iv. 31, xii. 27, and xxxiv. 8. pa), and he bows down: so Gen. xxiv. 26; Num. xxii. 31, &c. And the remark of Winer is, "Non occurrit nisi fut.” Kal, 17?. (more Chald. Lex. Simonis sub voce 777). According to our rule, therefore, Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, &c. were all written by modern Hebrews (späte Hebræer), and some time after the captivity; if not, the rule of Dr. Gesenius must fall to the ground. I leave the reader to judge which case is the most probable.
, . oņis for opp, Jix. 21, which confusion of one word for another, if we except the books of Kings and Jeremiah, occurs, as we are told, neither in the genuine Isaiah, nor in any other ancient prophet. I remark : Suppose we allow this to be the fact, what then? Why the pseudo-Isaiah has indulged in a practice, in two instances, not to be met with in the first thirty-nine chapters of the prophecy; but which is found to exist in the books of Kings and Jeremiah, all of which were, in all probability, written before the captivity. But this is not all; it is also to be found in the still more ancient books, notwithstanding Dr. Gesenius's assertion to the contrary: So Lev. xv. 18, 24. ANN o N ou, “a man lie with her.” Josh. xiv. 12. pis ni 278, “if so be the Lord be with
We have then the form his instead of mp, in some of the older books at least; and our critic himself, it should seem, could find it occurring only twice in the latter part of Isaiah, which I have here shewn it does in the book of Leviticus alone.
In the next and last place, we have the Chaldaïc form man for many in Isa. Ixiii. 3, as well as some passages, in which the verb comes after its object, as in xlii. 24. xlix. 6. I answer: The first instance exhibits a Chaldee form, without doubt : and what is the consequence? Must it hence follow, that this writer flourished at or after the captivity? If so, then must the Chaldaïsms already noticed in Genesis, Exodus, &c. prove that those books were also written in those times. But this is more than Dr. Gesenius
himself will allow : he only wishes to bring down his pseudoIsaiah, the books of Job, Kings, and a few others, to those times : and, it is most unfortunate, his remarks must also be extended to other books. We have, however, this Chaldaïc form even in the genuine Isaiah, which, it is exceedingly strange, Dr. Gesenius should have overlooked. It occurs in chap. xix. 6. nino No!, and the rivers have become putrid. Here, according to Alting (Fundam. Punct. p. 377), and Dr. Winer (Lex. Sim. root 7737), we have a form compounded of both the Chaldee Aphel, and the Hebrew Hiphil. I doubt this. I should be disposed to believe, that the 17 prefixed is the article in the sense of who, which ; and that the verb has taken the Chaldaïc prefix, just as in that adduced from chap. Ixiii. 3. If so, it ought to be translated thus, taking the following verb in connection : And the rivers, which had become putrid, have failed, &c.: or more literally, And those which had become putrid (viz.) rivers, have failed, &c. Dr. Gesenius refers us here to his Grammar, p. 463, and again from this place to p. 319, where he tells us, that this form is Chaldaïc, and peculiar to the Samaritans. After all, however, (at p. 463), he thinks it would be better to suppose it formed from an adjective of the form 3 (like nois), or else, to consider the N as a mater lectionis. If we here allow this, I ask, Why may we not allow the same in the passage above cited, supposing the form baan once to have existed, just as we do that man did ? and then we shall have Chaldee in neither of these places ! Or why may we not suppose that ban is the root, and that the second alef is a mere mater lectionis ? In this case, too, we shall have no Chaldee. But, then, this would ruin Dr. Gesenius's hypothesis; and, therefore, it cannot be allowed ! I have stated my view already of the passage (xix. 6); and, in conformity therewith, I say, that the form in both cases is probably Chaldaïc; but not, that the prophet must have lived either at or after the captivity, in order to account for this.
With regard to the second and last point, namely, the occurrence of the verb after its object; if we can find examples of this sort in the book of Genesis and the genuine Isaiah, we shall perhaps do all that can reasonably be required, to shew that nothing can be deduced from this against ,וְאֶת־הַכֶּסֶף הָפוּב- תָּשִׁיבוּ .and silver double take ye . ib ,קחו
חֲזוֹן יְשַׁעְיָהוּ בֶן־אָמוֹץ אֲשֶׁר .1 .chapter of the genuine Isaiah
the fat of fed_beasts ,חֵלֶב מְרִיאִים-לא חָפָצְתִּי .11
the last six and twenty chapters of the prophecy of Isaiah. Gen. xliii. 11. niwy si Ning, now this do. ib. v. 12. nawin mo??
, . -, and the silver returned ... return ye. ib. v. 15. Appnawna an??, and double silver they took, ib. v. 21.937211 ON AP?!, and other silver have we brought down. ib. v. 27. 12177 Dm7o8, the old man of whom ye spake. These instances occur in one chapter only. Now let us turn to the first
. miņ, the vision of Isaiah the son of Amots which he saw. ib. v. 9. 1907 nay? 7 Top npop, as (it were) a little like Sodom had we been, to Gomorrah had we been likened.
. , .. I have not desired. ib. v. 19. aban Ya 2970, the good of the land ye shall eat. ib. v. 23. arba 5 siny, the orphan they judge not. It will be quite unnecessary to add any thing further on this subject. Every one who can read the Hebrew Bible at all, may collect thousands of instances of this kind. That Dr. Gesenius could have adduced such a circumstance, as characteristic of the style of the latter part of Isaiah exclusively, is with me a matter almost incredible. Nothing, surely, but an overweening desire to drive an hypothesis, could ever have induced him to risk such criticism as this : and perhaps I may say, nothing much better can be urged in defence of the other instances already noticed. How a gentleman of very considerable learning, unwearied industry, and possessing as fair a portion of liberality as men generally lay claim to, could have proposed such criticisms, I am at a loss to conceive. The only motive I will ascribe to him shall not be sought for in any supposed wish to obscure the truth; because, I have no doubt, the love of a favourite theory, together with a desire for discovery, is quite sufficient to account for it all. I will say, for myself, I trust my object has simply been, to arrive at the truth; not to controvert the statements of Dr. Gesenius. And, as the questions here discussed are of the greatest possible moment, if I have been betrayed into any mistake, I hope that either Dr. Gesenius, or some other person, will, for the sake of the best interests of society, refute all that may be amiss. According to my present views of this question, however, I am compelled to conclude, that the last six and twenty chapters of Isaiah bear no marks whatever of a date more recent than may fairly be ascribed to the lifetime of the writer of the first thirtynine: and further, that they are such in style, matter, and manner, as may have been expected to come from that writer; and, consequently, that they are worthy of all acceptation.
ON DR. GESENIUS'S INTERPRETATION OF PART OF CHAPTERS LII.
AND LIII. OF ISAIAH'S PROPHECY.
Having vindicated the latter part of Isaiah's prophecy, generally, from the aspersions cast on it; which, I am sorry to say, has required more time and labour than making them seems to have cost, let us now proceed to consider Dr. Gesenius's Comments on part of the 52d, and the whole of the 53d, chapter, with the view of ascertaining how far we ought either to reject or receive this very important part of Holy Writ, with regard to the doctrines respecting the Messiah. And here, it is not my intention to toil through all or even half of what Dr. Gesenius has written. intention is merely to ascertain what his view of this very interesting prophecy is, and to consider the reasons which he proposes in support of it.
In p. 158, &c., of the second part (Zweyter Theil) of his work, we have the following statements on chap. lii. 13liii. 12:
Jehovah's servant, thus far deformed by suffering, and being an object of consternation, shall fill the people with joy; and kings shall honour him, when that which was unexpected has happened, (and) which no one, although foretold, would believe (lii. 13-15. liii. 1). God leaves him to grow up among the people, deserted, tormented, plagued (v. 2, 3), and sent him also with sufferings which he endured, as an offering of patient suffering (v. 7); but he suffered only for the sins of the people, which Jehovah laid upon him (v. 4–6). He escaped these sufferings by death; and, being sinless, was buried with criminals : none comprehended the real object of his sufferings (v. 8, 9). As a reward for that, he shall have long life, shall see his late descendants, the spread of his doctrine shall delight him, and he shall divide the lot with the mighty (v. 10–12).
On the reasoning, it is added (i. e. respecting this matter), and on its general explanation, see the introduction, pp. 11, 12. The speaking of the prophet is here so changed for that of Jehovah, that, chap. lii. 13—15, Jehovah continues to speak as in the preceding context: in liii. 1, the prophet communicates in the name proper for his own station; ver. 249, he speaks in the name of the people; ver. 10, the prophet speaks of Jehovah in the third person ; but ver. 11, 12, he introduces himself speaking. The sudden transition from the speaking of the prophet to that of Jehovah (ver. 10, 11) is in this book frequent, and cannot appear strange : it may seem somewhat bold, that the prophet, chap. liii. 11, should count himself among the publishers of a divine mission; and then, nevertheless, ver. 2, consider himself different from a servant of God, and still speak of this man in the third person. There is, however, an instance very like this in chap. lix. where, ver. 9—13, the prophet reckons himself among the people, and, moreover, styles their sins his own. Soon after, ver. 21, he addresses the prophet in the name of Jehovah : so also chap. xlii. 24, in one and the same verse ...." Was it not Jehovah, against whom we sinned, on whose way they would not walk, nor hearken to his commandment ?" It would be very clear, if one would place in his mind, ver. 1, a small pause, which the subject certainly carries with it.
My first remark is : This is a most extraordinary way of treating any author. First, an interpretation is fixed authoritatively upon him; and then, we are told, that, however strange the transition of persons addressing or addressed may appear, still such things may be found in other parts of this writer : that is to say, similar constructions, however forced, may be put upon him in other places, and this is proof enough that such interpretations are just and good. Let us examine these cases singly. As Dr. Gesenius's version does not differ materially here from our own authorised one, I shall generally cite our English version when offering my remarks on his comment. In chap. lii. 13, we have: “ Behold, my servant," &c. Dr. Gesenius : “ Behold, my servant shall be fortunate,” &c. The servant here mentioned is, according to