Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

the word for "spirit" has sometimes the meaning of wind; and "wind of God," would mean a great wind, according to the idiom we are now illustrating. Such appears to have been the understanding of Josephus. Again; the translators have said that the "terror of God" was upon the cities; while the more rational idea is, that a great terror was upon the cities. The terror was inspired, not so much by God, as by the sons of Jacob. xxxv. 5.

"Thou

61. (b.) The Hebrew verb is often repeated for the sake of emphasis. Examples :-" Thou mayest freely eat," is literally to eat, thou mayest eat. The translation doubtless gives the true idea. shalt surely die," is literally, to die, thou shalt die. Ye shall not surely die, is a similar example. "Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation." To become, shall become, is literal. "He will needs be a judge." To judge, he will judge. In describing the blessing of Abraham, the translators have, very singularly, preserved, or nearly so, the Hebrew idiom. "In blessing I will bless thee; and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven." A true rendering would be; I will greatly bless thee, and I will greatly multiply thy seed, &c. ii. 16, 17; iii. 4; xviii. 18; xix. 9; xxii. 17.

Other examples of the same idiom may be found in the following passages that need not be quoted. xxvi. 13, 28; xxx. 16; xxxi. 15; xxxvii. 8; xl. 15; xliii. 3,7; xliv. 5; xv. 28.

[ocr errors]

62. (c.) The Hebrews used the word son to express various relations. Examples:-" Noah was six hundred years old;" literally, Noah was son of six hundred years. "Abraham was seventy years old;" son of seventy years. Eight days old;" son of eight days. "A calf," son of the herd. "People of the East," sons of the East. There is generally no difficulty in translating or understanding such instances, as the sense is sufficiently obvious. vii. 6; xvii. 1, 12; xviii. 7; xxix. 1.

2. Hebrew Modes and Tenses.

63. The Hebrews had but two Tenses to their verbs, the Past and the Future, in place of the six tenses that belong to our language. This can be regarded only as a defect; and it sometimes embarrasses the translator. Of course the connection and circumstances of the passage are the only resort to determine the true rendering. A few examples will illustrate this peculiarity and its difficulties. Gen. i. 14-19 seems to be an account of the first production of the sun, moon and stars; but as there could be no day and night without a sun, we conclude that that luminary must have existed on the first day; and we are led to ask, whether the translation may not be made to harmonize with this view. We think it may, in the following manner :-Verse 16th should be put in brackets and read thus:-[And God had made two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night - he had made the stars also.] All before and after this, may be read as it now is. We are thus taught, that, before the fourth day, God had made the sun, moon and stars; and that, on the fourth day, he set them in the firmament of heaven, to give light upon the earth. The same change may be made in ii. 19. And out of the ground God had formed every beast of the field. Then the passage may proceed as it does in the common version; or, more of it, perhaps all to verse 24, may be thrown into the past in the same manner. This would, at least, obviate some difficulties that men see in this, and other similar passages, and save them the necessity of seeking other modes of interpretation, less obvious and rational. In xii. 1, the rendering is correct. Now the Lord had said unto Abraham, Get thee out of thy country, &c. The circumstances alluded to, had taken place on a former occasion; though, aside from these circumstances, it would have been equally correct to have used the

expression," the Lord said unto Abraham." The dif ference is this: One translation makes God to have spoken to Abraham in Ur of the Chaldees, and to regard that as the country of Abraham, from which he was to depart. The other makes the command to be given in Haran; and the latter to be the country referred to, in the expression, "thy country." There is in Hebrew no difference in the form of the verb for says, said, has said, had said. These modifications must be learned from the sense and circumstances of the passage.

64. The modes, too, of verbs, are but imperfectly represented in the Hebrew language. One peculiarity only need be noticed. To some of the modes it is customary to ascribe what is called a "causative " sense. For example; -I will cause it to rain upon the earth, vii. 4; more literally, I will rain upon the earth. The same tense in the same form, is so rendered in xix. 24. The Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah. God made a wind to pass over the earth. viii. 1. God passed a wind over the earth. We suspect that such instances of translating are generally suggested by the supposed necessity of making the ancients express themselves after our modes, rather than their own. On the same principle the translators might have rendered some other passages differently from what they have done, and thereby removed difficulties that are important. "I will remember my covenant." ix. 15. I will cause to remember my covenant, or, I will cause my cov enant to be remembered, would be equally sustained by this usage. "I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant." ix. 16. I will cause to look upon it, and remember, or, I will cause it (the bow) to be looked upon and my covenant to be remembered, may express the true meaning of the passage. Again; would it not be better to say, that God caused Abimelech and his wife to be healed,

[ocr errors]

rather than to say that God healed them. So in the next verse, God caused to be "closed," some natural cause being immediate, as in the other instance. Did God take away Laban's cattle and give them to Jacob? xxxi. 9, or was it done by a device of Jacob himself? and, if the last, which we know to be the fact, then it was only in a very qualified sense, that God even caused it to be done. The Lord slew Er and Onan, sons of Judah. xxxviii. 7, 10. He caused it to be done, would suit our ideas better.*

65. But in reference to all these examples, it must not be forgotten, as before intimated, that the ancients had not our ideas, and must not be expected to express themselves in the same way. They had not learned the existence of intermediate causes between God and the operations of the world, as the moderns have done; and the latter, we suspect, have something to unlearn before they find the true philosophy. There is a more intimate connection between God and his works, than most of our modern philosophers and theologians have allowed us to believe; and if this be so, the ancient usage may, after all, be more strictly accurate than the modern.

3. Hebrew Vowels and Consonants.

66. It is generally conceded that the Hebrew language had originally no vowels, and that what are used as vowels, at the present day, in most printed

*If the Hebrew scholar should meet me with the reply, that, in the passage last quoted the form of the verb is not Hephil, to which the causative sense is generally attached; and that hence the causative form of translating is not required here, as in the other instances; we would say in return, that it is not claimed that Hephil always has this sense, and that whenever this sense is ascribed to it, the nature of the passage is urged in defence of this construction. We urge the same consideration in favor of giving the causative sense to other forms besides Hephil; and if the argument is good in the one case, we see no reason why it should not be allowed in the other.

editions, (though some are without them,) are an invention since the language ceased to be spoken. That this opinion is correct, scarcely admits of doubt. The language consisted at first, and as long as it was a living language, of consonants alone, the vowel sounds, without which words cannot be pronounced, in any language, being supplied by custom and controlled by popular usage. At first view, this would seem to involve an impossibility; but a little thought will convince any one, that the English language is but little better off. We have vowels, to be sure, but the sounds we are to give to them, are far from uniform; and what sound is required in each individual case, must be determined with us, as with the Hebrews, by popular usage; and this being so, there is no great difference between popular usage with the vowels, and popular usage without them.

67. It is obvious, however, that when a language ceases to be spoken, popular usage ceases to be available; and the pronunciation must be guided by certain marks placed upon the words of the language in the books where it is used. The Hebrew has such marks; and this is the purpose for which they were invented. They serve to indicate the vowel sounds, accents, &c. They came into use by degrees, and the system was completed several centuries after the Christian era. That they are not a perfect guide to a right pronunciation, but only a help, will readily appear; for though each mark is designed to have but one sound, what that one sound is, must be learned from Jewish Rabbis or Hebrew scholars, who are not perfectly agreed. Hence after all, popular usage determines the pronunciation, and that varies in different countries. In some Hebrew Bibles these marks are omitted, and usage only is relied upon; and in those editions where they are employed, if they affect the sense of a passage, as they sometimes do, they are to be regarded as of no more authority, than the opinion of their inventors.

« FöregåendeFortsätt »