« AnteriorContinua »
the blessing may be extended to their brethren of the ten tribes, and ultimately to the whole world. This order of things the subsequent prophecy seems to point out.' P. 3:
Now we shall observe upon this comment, that the salvation alluded to refers only to the house of Judah, that it takes place when the ten tribes are in the desolate state represented by the term Lo-suhamah; and, consequently, there is no time to which it can be so properly referred as to the signal deliverance of Judah from the invasion of the all-powerful arms of Sennacherib. The idea of a farther deliverance of Judah, independently of that of the ten tribes, is altogether conjectural; and the introduction of Antichrist, and the converts of the ten tribes of Judah, and the incarnate God to destroy their enemies, seems to have no foundation whatsoever in the text; for whenever the day of the restoration of the Jews may arrive, it is said that both the children of Judah shall be collected, and the children of Israel shall be united, and they shall appoint themselves one head, and come up from the earth. Let us not be wise above what is written, nor admit specious conjectures in our comments, beyond what we would allow in the received text.
In the eleventh chapter, twelfth verse, a proof is discovered of the Trinity not entirely unknown to some commentators, but long rejected by our public translation as well as by the great body of interpreters. The term in our common version rendered
the saints' is by our author transmuted into the holy ones; on which we meet with the following note :
• The word may signify either the constancy of Judah’s fidelity to the “Holy Ones;” or the firmness of the support, which he shall receive from them. “ The Holy Ones,” the Holy Trinity. By the use of this plural word the prophecy clearly points to the conversion of the Jewish people to the Christian faith. P. 40. .
We shall simply observe, that the term the holy ones' is improper, for the original wants the article the. The LXX read the same words nearly as we have them, but in one place conjoin what with us occurs separately. The difficulty seems to be in the punctuation; and the question is, whether we should use my, ngom, a people, or Sy, ngim, with. The text has only Oy, ngm, and we are not bound to the Masore. tic punctuation. Referring our readers to the Septuagint and to Michaëlis's translation, we beg leave to suggest the following, in which we have derived assistance from both; Ephraïm hath compassed me about with treachery, and the house of Israël and Judah with deceit. Still the people of God shall have dominion, and a holy nation be established.'. If it should be asserted that the stop must be placed at Israël, then the following must be predicted of Judahr, who will have dominion, and be established a holy nation. It seems however worthy of inquiry, whether the prophet did not here foresee the glory of Messiah's kingdom; and though both branches of the chosen people should be rejected, still in the divine counsels remained a remedy for their revolt, by the ingraft of the wild olive and the call of the Gentiles ?
In the notes at the end the writer dilates with much self-satisfaction, and sometimes produces matter worthy of notice independently of criticism; yet there seems to be no reason for the introduction of several of these notes on a translation of Hosea any more than on many of the antecedent prophets; and a reader who engages in a perusal of one of Hosea ought to be previously instructed on such subjects. We mention this particularly in the present times, when paper is so expensive a commodity; and a translator should endeavour to compress his ideas into as small a compass as possible, instead of swelling them out, as in the instance before us, to a length far beyond what the case requires. Surely a long note upon the meaning of the word prophet was unnecessary; yet to several the explanation of the term graven images may be useful, and, as not generally understood, properly inserted.
The graven image was not a thing wrought in metal by the tool of the workman we should now call an engraver; nor was the molten image, an image made of metal, or any other substance melted, and shaped in a mould. In fact, the graven image and the molten image are the same thing, under different names. The images of the ancient idolaters were first cut out of wood, by the carpenter, as is yery evident from the prophet Isaiah. This figure of wood was pverlaid with plates either of gold or silver, or, sometimes perhaps, of an inferior metal; and in this finished state it was called a graven image (i.e. a carved image), in reference to the inner solid figure of wood, and a molten (i. e. an overlaid, or covered) image, in reference to the outer metalline case or covering. Ad sometimes both epithets are applied to it at once. “I will cut off the graven and molten image." Again, “ What profiteth the graven and molten image?” The English word “ molten” conveys a notion of melting or fusion. But this is not the case with the Hebrew word for which it is given. The Hebrew 70) fignifies, generally, to overspread, or cover all over, in whatever manner, according to the dif. ferent subject, the overspreading or covering be effected; whether by pouring forth a substance in fusion, or by spreading a cloth over or before, or by hammering on metalline plates. It is on account of this metalline case that we find a founder employed to make a graven image ; and that we read in Isaiah of a workman that “ melteth a graven image:” and in another place we find the question,' “ Who hath molten a graven image!” In these two passages the words should be " overlayeth,” and “ overlaid.” P. 134. 3
In the version itself we may point out some places where it is superior to that established by authority.---Cháp: I. 6. In
• But for this valuable piece of information we are indebted solely to the sacred writings. If we except the traces of their language, there do not appear to have remained in Greece any vestiges of its original inhabitants, within the reach of any authentic history. Even their principal names had become extinct. No Grecian writer has ever mentioned them with any certainty. Strabo has given the names of several of them, such as Dryapes, Caucones, Leleges, Aönes, Tembices, Hyantes, with some others : yet these are presented to us in a very questionable manner : “ They seem not,” says Dr. Stillingfleet, “ to have been that ancient people, but rather some latter castlings of the Carians, who, as Thucydides tells us, did very often make inroads upon the quarters of Greece.” Thus much is well authenticated, that there were nations called Leleges, Caucones, and Pelasgi in Asia Minor; and they are said by Homer to have assisted the Trojans against the Grecians,
Kos Asayas, xat KauxwYES, 6.01 TE Tlenaryo.. • But the more general, as well as the most ancient name, under which they are supposed to have passed, is that of Pelasgi. The Pelasgi were certainly very numerous, and formed colonies in all parts of Greece ; and they are said by Strabo to have derived their very appellation from the circumstance of their being a wandering people*. The same writer has likewise informed us, that they were the most ancient race of men who established any dynasty in Hellas t. Pelasgia was one name for Peloponnesus I.'
If this statement be correct, the first inconsistency that strikes us is, that the most ancient inhabitants of Hellas, the aborigines of the country, according to Herodotus, Dionysius, and Strabo, were not barbarians in the sense attached to this term in modern times, and meant to be so attached by our author. Of these aborigines, as enumerated by the above historians, the Pelasgi were by far the most considerable. But it is generally admitted by chronologists, and even assented to by Mr. Allwood himself, that the Pelasgi were descendents of Peleg. Peleg, however, was of the race of Shem; and consequently the aborigines of Greece were not of the family of Japhet, who is said, in Genesis X. 5, to have peopled the isles of the Gentiles. We are disposed to allow as much authority to the sacred scriptures as Mr. Allwood ; and, could we by any means discern that they tell us in this passage that the country of Hellas was first inhabited by this progeny, we would instantly give it our fullest assent: we do not contend that it was not; but we maintain, from the very brief and general assertion-By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in
( * Tedaryor oice Toy Thayny. Stráb. Geograph. lib. ix.'
their lands, every one after his tongue, after their families in their nations -no legitimate and historical inference can be drawn, that 'the isles of the Gentiles' imply the regions of Greece and Europe ; that these were the territories allotted them;' and that for this valuable piece of information we are indebted solely to the sacred writings. The aborigines of Greece, as far as we are able to trace them, were Pelasgians, and, if we admit the general etymology to be correct, descendents of Shem, and not of Javan. If, in reality, the account of Strabo be erroneous, or the Pelasgians were not descendents of Peleg; if the assertion of Mr. Allwood be true, that the verse in question identifies, and was meant to do so, the aborigines of Greece and the south of Europe, as of the family of Javan, we have then, according to the words of the sacred historian himself, a right to expect some memorial of their patriarchal names, since we are expressly told, that they divided their lands every one after his tongue, after 'their families in their nations. Now the sons of Japhet, by whom these lands were thus divided after their tongues, families, and nations,' were
Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim *.! Have we then, either in Greece or on the Grecian coasts, any provincial appellations corresponding to such names? And if we have, will not our author, who often travels to immeasurable distances for his etymologies, greedily seise upon them to verify his opinion? It is a curious fact, that, within the very tract of country now alluded to, we have every name here specified, and almost with out the change of a letter; for it furnishes us with (lanetos), Iapetus, (Icoves) Jaones, Elis, Tarsus, Rhodes, Chithim, and Dodona : and this indeed is the principal proof with prior chronologists of the descent of the sons of Javan into Eu. rope. But what says Mr. Allwood ? I cannot grant,' observes he, any credit to the suppositions that the name of Elis in Peloponnesus was derived from Elisha; that the name: of Japhet is preserved in Iapetus; or that of Javán in lönia, Jaones, or lones ;' nor is he disposed to take any advantage of the succeeding resemblances, although he believes it possible that the descendents of Javan may have respectively settled in: such of the above regions, whose names correspond with their own. As for the rest, Elis, Iapetus, lönes, we must take an: immense journey backward through all Egypt, to Babylonia and the plains of Shinar, for their etymologies, and must at last derive them from the race, neither of Shem nor Japhet, but of Ham, the other son of Noah; because, forsootlı, the hypothesis we are following is that of Mr. Bryant, and this gentleman has traced the Helladians to an Ammonian origin, as descendents of
# Gen. x. 4.
Chus the son of Ham. We believe, for the most part, that Mr. Bryant is correct; but we still see no reason for rejecting etymologies so nearly at hand, and engaging in so vast a journey to procure them from another quarter : we see no reason, admitting the sons of Javan to have first peopled the regions of Greece, why their own names might not have been derived from the same radicals of the primitive language of man which are employed by Mr. Bryant to elucidate the names, traditions, and abodes of the posterity of Ham or Cush ; and, consequently, why they might not have given appellations to the different regions in which they settled, resolvable into those primitive clements, with far more facility than the latter are supposed to have done in a future migration.
Our author indeed seems to be involved in a labyrinth, intricate as that of Crete, and embarrassed amid the sources of Grecian population. Japhet must contribute towards it; for the sacred writings, he asserts, expressly tell us so. Shem must contribute in his turn; for the Pelasgians, the most powerful dynasty in these regions, were descended, we are informed, from Peleg, whowasof the direct race of that patriarch : and Ham must contribute more largely than either of the rest, because the system adopted is completely that of Mr. Bryant; and this gentleman has attended his posterity, the Cushites or Cuseans, through all their migrations from Babylonia, in different directions, till they extended to these regions, and took possession of them by right of conquest. So that while the descendents of Shem were sufficient for the population of Morocco, Mesopotamia, and China ; those of Ham for that of Babylonia, Æthiopia, and Arabia ; and those of Japhet for that of all Europe, excepting Greece itself; it is necessary (for the present system at least) that all the sons of Noah should unite in furnishing a population for this diminutive mole-hill, and that Peleg, whose very name signifies dispersion, from 250, to sever, or divide and in whose time (we are expressly told by the sacred scriptures) the earth was so divided, whence he acquired his name—that this patriarch, or his sons, should be the very point of union, to connect again, as it were into one family, the different branches of the posterity of Noah. It is indeed with extreme difficulty that our author introduces the descendents of Peleg into Greece in any way; and as he could not possibly relinquish the Ammonians, or posterity of Ham, for this purpose, since his whole system is founded upon such a supposition, he had far better have given up the former altogether, have conceived that there might have been another Pleg, Peleg, or Pelach, among the Ammonian race, the progenitor of the Pelasgi, and not have attempted to unite the hypothesis of Mr. Bryant with that of Grotius and Stillingfleet.
This however he has attempted, and the Pelasgi of Etruria are to be credited as the descendents of Peleg, in whose days