Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

tors also were native Jews. (2.) The Targum, or Chaldee Paraphrase, of Onkelos on the Pentateuch, and that of Jonathan on the Prophets, made by Jews from the Hebrew original, into the language then vernacular at Jerusalem, about the era of the Incarnation. (3.) The Syriac Version, made about the end of the first century, from the Hebrew into the cognate dialect of Syria. (4.) The Greek Versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, the first of whom was a Jew, and the two latter Ebionites or Jew ish Christians, in the second century. Of these translations only some fragments remain. (5.) The Vulgate Latin Version, first made from the Greek of the Septuagint in the first century, and revised in the fourth by Jerome from the Hebrew. (6.) Beside the Samaritan Pentateuch, there is the Samaritan Version of it, which is a translation of very high antiquity, into the ChaldæoSamaritan or Aramæan dialect.

3. There is Evident Reason in favour of a proposed correction, when the literal sense plainly requires it. In general, the style of the historical books of the Old Testament is extremely clear and simple: when therefore, in those books, the sense of a passage is extraordinarily defective and obscure, there is reason to suspect an error. The same rule is not so applicable the prophetical books: though these, also, are evidently intended always to carry a distinct, intelligible, literal sense.

4. As the Spiritual Sense is injured by the omission of a word, so is it also by an unnecessary addition : wherefore a New-Church critic will exercise his best judgment on the spiritual sense of a passage, and, unless this appears to be improved by any proposed addition, omission, or other alteration, will not receive it.

These preliminaries being settled, we proceed to our examples.

The first that we shall offer, is Gen. ii. 24; where we read, “ Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.Whether there are any Jewish copies which read this clause differently, we are not aware; but the Samaritan copy has, “and they TWO shall be one flesh.It is the same in the Septuagint, Syriac, and Vulgate Versions. The literal sense, though not absolutely requiring it, is certainly improved by it. And every one finds something more full and satisfactory in reading the amended clause; which arises from its affording an unbroken channel for the conveyance of the divine influx, and containing the spiritual

[ocr errors]

sense uninterrupted and complete. And doubtless the word "two,” though it has long since vanished from the received Hebrew text, was anciently read in it: for the Lord says, Have ye not read,-For this cause sball a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife.: and they TWAIN shall be one flesh?" (Matt. xix. 4, 5.] Now neither the Samaritan copy nor the Septuagint version was ever then read by the Jews of Judæa, but the Hebrew text, which was translated extemporaneously by the Scribes to the people : thus we here have the testimony of the Lord bimself to the true reading of the Hebrew text at that time; which proves the omission of the word for two or twain, in the present copies, to be an error. This then is an instance of mistake which appears to us to be completely indubitable. It is code, likewise, which affords a palpable proof of the assertion of E. S., that “ the internal sense is of such content, that a single expression, however small, cannot be omitted, without an interruption of the series ;"—for surely every one must feel an interruption of some kind, though he might not be able to say of what, who reads this text with the omission. And as, though the common copies have here dropt a word, the Samaritan text and the ancient versions, which have so providentially come down to us, afford the means of restoring it, the example corroborates the other assertion of E. S., that " by the divine providence of the Lord it hath been effected, that the Word hath been preserved, as to every iota and apex, from the time in which it was written.” It shews, indeed, that we are not to look for this perfection in any individual copy; but the hand of Providence becomes visible indeed, when by the multiplication of the channels through wbich the Divine Word is conveyed to us, provision is made for the correction of mistakes, which, if we were left dependent on one source alone, might have been made perpetual.

The next example that we will propose is in Gen. iv. 8. The English translation there reads, “ And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.” Here otur translators have glossed over an evident omission, by giving to the Hebrew verb amar (2x) a signification entirely unusual. It answers precisely to the English verb say, and requires to be followed with a statement of the words said; in which use it occurs nearly 4000 times in the Hebrew Bible; whereas not one

66

instance can be adduced in which it expresses an indefinite conversation. Hence the Latin versions which adhere closely to the letter, render it by the properly corresponding verb dico: thus Schmidius gives the passage " Dixit quidem Kajinus ad Habel fratrem suum;" and Arias Montanus, still more closely, « Et dixit Cain ad Habel fratrem suum :" and these are precisely the words in which the passage is rendered by E. S. in the Latin Arcana, though the English translation gives those of the common Evglish Bible.* The plain translation of the verse in English is, And Cain said to Abel his brother :-and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and stew bim.”-Cain said to Abel his brother! What did he

say

? The received text does not inform us. There is an evident chasm.' Accordingly, this is one of the twenty-eight places in which the Masorites, as noticed in our last, (p. 229,) direct a void space to be left, to indicate that the sense is elliptical or defective, and requires something to be supplied in the thoughts to complete it; though the more modern Rabbins, since they have found that the ancient versions supply the deficiency in this instance, fearing that their acknowledging a vacuum would give countenance to the belief that the Jewish copies are really imperfect, have thought proper to deny this to be one of the places which the Masorites intended : for the Masorítes, though they bare directed so many places to be left blank by the copyists, to suggest that something is to be there supplied by the mind, do not allow that any words are absent, but affirm, that, whatever may be the apparent deficiency, it was left so by the inspired writers themselves. But this deficiency, which exists in all the Manuscripts and printed editions, is supplied in the Samaritan Text and Version, in the Septuagint, Syriac, and Latin Volgate Versions, in the Chaldee Targum of Onkelos, in the Greek translation of Aquila, and in the passage as quoted in the works of Philo; all which supply the words, “Let us go out into the field." What is not a little remarkable, the addition is also contained in another Chaldee Paraphrase of the Pentateuch, called that of the Pseudo-Jonathan, because it has been falsely ascribed to the Jonathan who paraphrased the Prophets : and the work of the Pseudo-Jonatban was not composed before the seventh or eighth century: hence his inserting it proves, that the Jews were not

* This is corrected in the new edition now about to be published. No, IV.VOL. I.

RR

then unanimous, as they have become since, in rejecting it. Thus there is a chain of evidence, in favour of this addition to the common text, which extends over a period of at least a thousand years, The Septuagint version proves that, nearly three bundred years before the Christian era, it was believed, at least by many, to be a part of the Hebrew text; and the Samaritan version, which is believed to be still more ancient, proves it, when that was made, to have been, as at present, part of the Samaritan text. The Targun of Onkelos, the Syriac Version, that of Aquila, and the Vulgate, prove that it was believed, both by Jews and Christians, to belong to the sacred text at the commencement of the Christian era, and from thence down to the end of the fourth century. And the Targum of the Pseudo-Jonathan evinces, that, at least, some of the Jews received it as authentic in the seventh or eighth century. Surely this external testimony, independently of the internal evidence, carries more weight in its favour, than its rejection since, in conformity with the decisions of some of the later Masorites, bears against it; and we may safely conclude that the verse ought to read thus: “ And Cain said unto Abel bis brother, Let us go out into the field: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.” But when, to this weight of testimony, is added the evident reason in its favour, arising from the want of such a clause to complete the literal sense, which, without it, is really destitute of any sense at all, bow can any doubt remain ?

What, however, is the suffrage which the spiritual sense yields respecting it? It is remarkable how slight the explanation is which E. S. gives of the defective passage : it would appear as if, the omitted words not being present in his thought to receive bis wonted illumination, he passed as rapidly as possible to the latter part of the verse, which, being complete, brought again the full light to his mind. He gives the verse, with the general explanation, thus: “ And Cain said to Abel his brother: And it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. By Cain's saying to Abel, is signified, a space of time: By Cain is signitied, as was said, faith separate from love: By Abel is signified charity, which is the brother of faith, on which account he is here twice called his brother: A field signifies whatever has respect to doctrine : Cain's rising up against Abel his brother, and slaying him, signifies, that faith, in its separate state, extinguished charity." [A. C. n. 366.] The author takes up again, and luminously explains, the latter parts of this general statement, but says not another word in elucidation of “ Cain said to Abel.” And how very general, so as not even to be satisfactory, is the explanation which he does give of these words, when he states them to mean " a space of time !" But if we interpose the words which Cain said to Abel, “Let us go out into the field,” we shall find the series flow on in order, describing the general state treated of, from the beginning, through the intermediates, to the conclusion. The conclusion is beautifully summed up, by our Author, thus : “ Hence then it follows of consequence, what must be the signification of Cain's rising up against his brother Abel, and slaying bim, when they were in the field; viz. that when both faith and charity originated in the doctrine of faith, then faith separate from love could not but think lightly of charity, and thereby extinguish it,” &c. [n. 369.] Now saying or speaking by one party to another, means, in the spiritual sense, as E. S. often shews, influx and communication; Cain's saying to Abel, expresses therefore the influence exercised by faith without love upon charity : Let us go out into the field, denotes removal from an internal state to an external one, till at length both faith and charity are resolved into mere matters of doctrine: and when charity no longer exists as a principle of love, but instead of charity in its essence there remains nothing but doctrine about charity, it is soon extinguished entirely, and nothing is left but faith alone. The common text informs us, that both Cain and Abel were in the field,-that both charity and faith were considered as originating in the doctrine of faith ; but it does not teach us how this state was prodaced: the addition supplies the deficiency, and we learn from it, that charity fell into this external state by the influence upon it of faith without love. Thus it is, we conceive, very evident, that the omitted words are as necessary to the spiritual sense as to the literal. It may

also be here remarked in confirmation, what in itself is very extraordinary,--that the very brief explanation of the mutilated passage given by the Author, applies better to the clause as complete than as defective.

By Cain's say. ing to Abel, is signified a space of time;" by which he means, that in progress of time the Adamic Church declined into the state signified by Cain and Abel being in the field; or, in

He says,

« ForrigeFortsæt »