« PoprzedniaDalej »
6th. - Would it not be more regular to read maya in Hiph. et abjecit?
C. iv. 8th. — The genuine reading seems to be nurinn.
c. i. 8th. — It would be more regular to read, with ten MSS.
11th . Instead of .שמר לנצח we slhould probably read ,שמרה נצח
See Jerem. iii. 5.
13th. – One old MS. reads on instead of 1977, “the mountains of Gilead;” and that reading is followed by Mercer and Lucas Brugensis. See Poole's Synopsis.
C . ii . 1st . Instead of ! ,על שור or לשור might ve venture to read ,לשיר
“ because he burned the bones of the king of Edom upon the wall ?” See 2 Kings, ill. 27. 5.000 d e 101 ciddel Stovuto gordo
2d. — Three MSS. and the Sept. read 51231, “ and with the sound of the trumpet." at vind : ravinsonini
e ra asso indebi sild on gard sortu su V 10 12
7th. — The construction of the words in the beginning of this verse has its difficulties, see Bishop Newcome; and the commentators are much divided in their interpretations of them. Instead, then, of Sy DDNV, might we read Dybyn, “ casting, or dusting, the dust of the earth upon the head of the poor;” i. e. by way of contempt? See the same phrase, 2 Sam. xvi. 13, to which the prophet may allude:
8th. - The vers. differ much in the interpretation of the present text, nor is the sense of any of them very clear; and might not a better sense be had in reading Saw. instead of D'HIVY, rendering the whole thus; “ and upon corrupted garments they recline themselves before every 'altar; and they drink the wine of their iniquity in the house of their gods?" alluding perhaps to the rites observed in the temples of their idol-deities. The preposition à seems to have been dropped before n'a, through the sameness of the letters, in this and many other places.
10th. — Would it not be better to read, with two MSS. 7:5989?
11th. — Would it not be more emphatical, and still more literal, to render 287, &c. thus; “ surely is this nothing, O children of Israel?”
· C. iii. 2d. - Fifty MSS. read Dinnwy, which is more grammatical.
6th. — The latter part of this verse does not accord very well with the former, though the sense, as the text now stands, is in itself a good one; but, if I might be allowed a conjecture, I would read 7797799. for
and , putting a sense upon the word ;ויהוה more correspondent to רעה
the preceding sentence, translate the words in this manner; “ shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid ? Shall there be a shout in the city, and shall there bé no doer of it?" ;
i 7th. – The conjunction 'y is probably written at the beginning of this verse instead of Dx, and redundant in the latter part; and, to keep up the sense of the context, should we not render it interrogatively; “ shall not the Lord Jehovah perform the word, when he revealeth his secret unto his servants, the prophets?" :
9th. - Thirty MSS. read daina, which is more regular.
12th. - The various attempts to clear up the difficulty, in the latter part of this verse, are not very satisfactory; see Bishop Newcome. Might we venture to read peonat instead of puu721; " in the corner of a bed, and in the segment, or shred, of a couch?” For which sense see Castel. Lexic. signifying, hereby, that they should be glad to take any, the least, refuge they could find.
14th. - Instead of repeating app, which is needless, and not countenanced by any version, I think we should, with one MS. supply the
.פשעי before את article
C. iv. 5th. - The word wynem does not seem at all necessary to complete the sense in this place. May it not be written, through mistake, for nown; “ and proclaim free-will offerings of shame;" i. e. shameful free-will offerings ? ” See Exod. xxxii. 25.
Oth. - It seems probable, that, instead of 113777, we should read ovann; “ I have smitten you with blasting and with mildew; your gardens are desolate, and your vineyards, and your fig-trees,” &c.
11th. – Perhaps we should read 7019), “ as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah,” both here and in the other passages where this expression is found. See Isai. xii. 19; Jerem. 1. 40. Or, rather,
and by this nieans the grammatical construction is ;כמהפך האלהים
perfectly rectified in all the places.
C. v. 3d. — We should certainly read uniformly, in both places,
7th. There can be no doubt, as Dr Durell and Bishop Newcome have observed, that, in conformity with c. vi, 12, instead of yes, we should read ux ; but would not the antithesis be much more striking,
turn judgement into iniquity, and righteousness into wickedness.?"
8th. - Thirteen MSS. read, rightly, oboss for abos
26th. - See my Dissertation on this verse.
C. vi. 10th. Grotius conjectures, very probably, that we should supply the word ny before yo; " for it is not a time to remember the name of Jehovah.”
C. vii. 4th.
Twenty-one MSS. read 2:05, which is a still better
reading ; but , for and“ ;לרב האש might we yenture to read ,לרב באש
behold the Lord Jehovah called to a great fire, and it devoured the great deep?" Should we not supply 5870' after pan77; " and it devoured the portion of Israel?" Agrum Israeliticum say Mercer and Drusius; see Poole's Synopsis.
C. viii. 3d. - Those two words, on go beyni, do not seem to give the right sense, and might not they originally be one word, 6736007; “ cast them forth;" to wit, the dead bodies just mentioned ?
4th. — The grammatical construction seems to require, that, instead
amd that make the poor of the * ;והשביתים we should read ,ולשבית of
land to cease;" which is countenanced by the Sept. and Vulg, and takes off the necessity of supposing an ellipsis, according to Bishop Newcome. . Gg2
8th. - May not 7759 be written by mistake, here and c. ix. 5, for nosa; " and her consumption shall come up as a 'flood?” See Nah. i, 8.
12th. - Instead of 1913, should we not read and; “ from north even to the south?” Bishop Newcome's transposition seems harsh and unusual.
14th. — 777971. These two words have greatly puzzled the critics and commentators. Liveleius supposes that the Sept. reads 7958, or 775, instead of 777. See Poole's Synopsis. Bishop Secker conjectures that it might be 770, “ thy heifer.” Bishops Lowth and Newcome think that 777 may signify way or worship, which sense Grotius says the Jews give it. But, as Bishop Secker has observed, “ vix puto in de cultu usurpari, sed neque de vitulo fusili.” May we then, with a very small alteration, read 777, “ and thy beloved, O Beersheba, liveth," i. e. thy beloved idol? And, unless you 782 is written by mistake for Sen'a, Bethel, the former may be mentioned by the prophet instead of the latter, because it was a city much addicted to idolatry; or because, from its distance from Dan and Bethel, it shewed the universal prevalence of idolatrous worship. See Mercer in Poole's Synopsis.
C. i. 9th. - Bishop Newcome adopts Houbigant's conjecture, which · supposes that Das 17/18 is written by mistake for 58; but I am rather inclined to think, from comparing the several passages where the