« PoprzedniaDalej »
a joint but a single testimony, inasmuch as the Arabic is known to be little more than a version of the * LXX, and consequently can lend no farther support, than as verifying the reading of the LXX, at the time when this version was made : and that it does not even authenticate the reading of the LXX at an early day, may be collected from the Prolegom. of Walton, and Kennicot's State of the Hebr. text, as referred to in the note below. 5. The Chaldee paraphrase of Jonathan is remarkable (as Bishop Lowth states in his Prelim. Dissert.) “ for a wordy allegorical explanation," so that an exactness of translation is not here to be expected. And, lastly, the apparent differences of the versions, may be explained by, and fairly reconciled to, the present reading of the Hebrew text.
These several points will be best explained, by beginning with the last. The state of the Hebrew text, as it stands in all our present bibles, at least in such of them as I have consulted, viz. Walton's Polyglot, Michaelis, Houbigant, Kennicot, Doederlein, &c. and scarcely undergoing any variation however minute, from the prodigious variety of copies examined by Kennicot and De Rossi, is as
, . Now these words, as they stand, manifestly admit
* See Bishop Lowth's Preliminary Dissert. to his Translation of Isaiah-and Walton's Polyglot Prolegom. 15.-- also Kennicot's State of the Hebr. Text. vol. ii. pp. 453, 454,
.אם תשים אשם נפשו יראה זרע יאריך ימים ,follows
of a two-fold translation, according as the word own is considered to be of the second person masculine, or the third person feminine,-viz. when Thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, or when his soul shall make an offering for sin: and though, with Ludovicus de Dieu, our present translation of the Bible has followed the former in the text, yet has it with Cocceius, Montanus, Junius and Tremellius, Castellio, and almost every other learned expositor of the Bible, retained the latter, inserting it in the margin, as may be seen in
of our common Bibles. It deserves also to be remarked, that in the old editions of our English Bible, (see Matthewe's, Cranmer's or the Great Bible, and Taverner's; see also the Bibles in the time of Elizabeth, viz. the Geneva and Bishop's Bibles ; see all in short that preceded James's translation,) this latter reading is the only one that is given: and it should be observed, (see Newcome's Historic. View, p. 105) that one of the rules prescribed to the translators employed in the last named version, which is the one now in use, was," that where a Hebrew or Greek word admitted of two proper senses, one should be expressed in the context, and the other in the margin.” Thus it appears, that Dr. Priestley must have glanced his eye, most cursorily indeed, upon our English translation, when he charges it so peremptorily with the abrupt change of
Again, this very translation, which, beside the older expositors above referred to, has the support of Vitringa and Bishop Lowth, and is perfectly consistent with the most accurate and grammatical rendering of the passage in question, agrees sufficiently with the ancient versions. In sense there is no difference, and whatever variation there is in the expression, may be satisfactorily accounted for from a farther examination of the original. Thus in the Vulgate it is rendered, When he shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see, &c.--and in the Syriac, the penalty of sin is laid upon his soul, (i. e, in other words, his soul is made an offering for sin) that he might see, &c. Now the first is a literal translation of the Hebrew, if only instead of Diwn be read op, * which we may readily suppose some copies of the Hebrew to have done, without introducing the smallest uncertainty into the text. The second will also be found a literal version, if for
, , shall be made. Now it appears from Kennicot's various readings, that one MS. supports this reading. But there is a remark on this head made by Houbigant, (and which has been overlooked both by Bishop Lowth, and the commentator on
,which may be taken passively ,תשס be read תשים
* Docderlein translates as if the word were S'w, ubi vitam suam, ut piaculum, interposuerit ; and adds, that the book Sohar (Parascha ?w') particularly warns us that it is so to be read, not Diwn.
Isaiah who has succeeded him, *) that seems to deserve considerable notice. The word, he
says, should be own, in the passive voice: for that, as Morinus observes, the Jews, before the vowel points were introduced, were used to mark the passive by the letter · interposed ; and that here, this Chaldaism had been allowed to remain by the transcriber-see Houbigant in locum.
Again, with respect to the LXX version of this passage, (for as to the Arabic, it need not be taken into account, for the reasons before stated,) the difference between it and the last mentioned translation is not so great, as on the first view might appear. It is true, the reading of the LXX, as given in our Polyglot, is ecv dute, if ye offer: but it is remarked by Bishop Lowth, that some copies of the LXX read Swtan, shall be offered; which agrees exactly with the Syriac. Indeed, as Mr. Dodson very properly observes, dwrai may be considered the true reading of the LXX, not only on the authority of Clemens R. and Justin, who read it so; but also from the custom, which prevails in Greek MSS. of writing e instead of an This practice is noticed by Walton, in his edition of Clem. R. (p. 142) on the words προτρεσετε ημας επ' αυτω, and is well known to all, who are conversant in Greek MSS as obtaining not only at the termination of words, as in the instance taken from Clemens, but in all parts of the word indifferently. This reading is likewise approved by Capellus. * Thus far then, (and this it is to be noted is the most important clause in the passage,) the disagreement between the LXX and the other ancient versions is done
* Mr. Dodson was here intended, as being the only per. son, who (at the date of the first publication of this work) had given to the public a version of Isaiah later than that of Bishop Lowth. But the observation equally applies to Bishop Stock, who has given the latest translation of the Prophet, and who has in like manner overlooked this remark: for whilst he renders the word in a passive sense, If his life shall BE MADE a trespass-offering, he assigns for it a wrong reason; deriving the passive signification from a supposed reflective import of the verb--should be made, or (he says) should render ITSELF, forgetting, that if this latter sense belonged to the verb, it would have been given in the form Hithpahel, which clearly is not that of the verb 'wn. -Dathe's translation of the passage is decisive for the passive signification of the verb: Quodsi vita ejus ut sacrificium pro peccatis oblata fuerit.
That it differs both from them, and the Hebrew text, in some other parts of the sentence, must be allowed; but that from an extensive collation of the several MSS. (which has now happily been
* 66 Aliquando diversitas citationis a LXX posita est in diversa lectione variantium Codd. Græcorum twLXX ut Esa. liii. 10, editio Sixtina twv LXX habet, bar dwtt mapa agroas, si dederitis pro peccato, quæ corrupta est lectio. At Justinus cum quibusdam codicibus habet, savdwrai, si datus fuerit, quæ genuina est lectio respondens Hebræo.” Critica Sacra, Ludod. Capel. pp. 529, 530.