Page images

ly treated with contempt? And is not this likely to be their character and condition till their conversion shall take place? The SNERTIOTOV of the LXX may signify - not gratified in their hope.'

The Syriac version appears at first sight to be different from these; but I believe upon examination it will be found to be equivalent: wo ab? And for which the Latin translation gives “ populum fedum et conculcatum;" but in the Hebrew language 7 as a verb, renders to be drunk;' as a noun, both in the Hebrew and in the Chaldee dialect, an inebriating drink;' and the same sense is given to the Syriac noun li20 both by Schindler and the younger Buxtorf. The judgment of these learned lexicographers is confirmed by the actual use of the word in the Syriac version of Isaiah xxix, 9, where it is put to render the Hebrew 750 in the sense of intoxicating drink. Hence it seems reasonable to suppose that the verb ipo may signify, in Syriac as in Hebrew, ' to be drunk, and the participle aphel isabdrunken. Indeed Schindler makes • foedum esse' a secondary sense. I suspect that he is right; and that the filthiness, unsightliness, or vileness expressed by the word, is that sort of unseemliness which disgraces the figure and actions of a drunken man. If I am right in this inference, the Syriac should be rendered “ populum temulentum et concul- . catum ;" “ a people drunk, and trodden under foot.” The drunkenness is that drunkenness of intellect which makes them blind to the prophecies relating to the Messiah and to themselves, and keeps them to this hour in expectation of another Messiah, than him whom they crucified. " they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink. For Jehovah hath poured upon them the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed their eyes ; their prophets, their rulers, and their seers, hath he covered.” Isaiah xxix, 9, 10. The Syriac, so rendered, gives a sense perfectly equivalent to that of the other antient versions, though under an image borrowed, as it should seem, from other parts of the prophetic writings. But I have a suspicion that this interpreter somehow or other connected or confounded the word p in this place with the root oop, or typ, to vomit,' and so brought it to the sense of • drunken.' Compare Syr. Is. xxviii, 10 and 13.

_" whose land the rivers have spoiled ;” or “ despise,” margin. To this effect the passage is rendered by all interpreters, except Coverdale, the learned Julius Bate, and Bishop Lowth. Coverdale's interpretation deserves to be mentioned only for its singularity, for it is impossible to trace it to any principle; “ whose londe is devyded from us with ryvers of water.” Julius Bate and Bishop Lowth give the verb 1895, by all others rendered spoiled,' a sense directly opposite to that of spoiling. The former in his Critica Hebræa, under the word 895, says,

by the context (viz. in this place] it may be overflow, or inrich, or fatten, or," &c.; and Bishop Lowth renders it by the word nourish.?

It is certain the root X12 occurs nowhere in the Bible but in this one passage; and it passed with all interpreters before Schultens, Coverdale alone excepted, and some one perhaps, or more, of the unknown interpreters whom Coverdale followed, for an unusual form of the root 123, to spoil. But Schultens thought the change of 1120 into NS would be an anomaly, to which nothing similar is to be found in the whole compass of the Hebrew language. He would refer the word therefore to the root 71), rather than to 12. 1773 signifies 'to 'slight, to despise, to insult.' And he thinks that, to say of a river that it despises or insults a country, is a noble metaphor for overflowing and destroying. And he attempts to confirm this exposition by the senses of

[ocr errors]

the verb Nr in the Arabic language. Upon the whole, therefore, Schultens agrees with others in the sense of the passage; only he imagines that the verb N? expresses, by a metaphor, what all interpreters before him thought it expressed literally.

Bishop Lowth, assenting as it should seem to Schultens's objection to the usual exposition of this word, gives it the contrary sense of nourishing ; upon the suggestion, as he tells us, of a learned friend, who reminded him that the noun 1 in Syriac, and and in Chaldee, signifies a breast, dug, or teat. This sense of nourishing, the learned Bishop says, would perfectly well suit with the Nile; “ for to the inundation of the Nile Egypt owed every thing ; the fertility of the soil, and the very soil itself. Besides, the overflowing of the Nile came on by gentle degrees, covering, not laying waste the coung try.” All this is most unquestionably true. But the mention of it here only shews, that this conjectural interpretation of nourishing, an interpretation not transferred directly to the Hebrew verb from the actual sense of a corresponding word in any of the dialects, but derived indirectly, by critical theory, from the sense of a noun of the same letters in the Syriac; that this conjectural interpretation is

[ocr errors]

put upon the word upon the ground of assumptions, which the learned prelate himself considered as doubtful; 1st, that the word rivers' in this

passage is to be understood literally of some natural rivers ; 2dly, that Egypt is the country described in this second verse. Whence indeed it would follow that the Nile in its various branches must be the rivers, and that this clause must be so interpreted as to describe the effects of the inundation of the Nile

upon the land of Egypt. But in the same degree that these assumptions are doubtful, the supposed discordance of the received interpretation, and the supposed agreement of this new interpretation, with the subject matter of the prophecy, will be likewise doubtful. Deny these assumptions, and nothing will be found in the context, to which Julius Bates appeals, and on which Bishop Lowth in effect relies, in favour of this interpretation.

Schultens's objection to the common rendering appears to me, I confess, more subtle than solid. When he says that IND for 1913 « would be an ano- . maly of which the like is not to be found in the whole compass of the Hebrew language,” I conceive he means that an instance is not to be found, among the verbs that double the second radical, of a change

« PreviousContinue »