« السابقةمتابعة »
νον φέρoυσι τούνομα: deleto versu ultitno, seu potius ad eundem locum, ac de quo venit, detruso. Etenim mox legitur: 64, 5.
ΟΙΔ. ή γάρ τινες ναίoυσι τούσδε τους τόπους και
ΞΕ, και κάρτα τούδε του θεού γ' επώνυμοι. Verum Edipus dicere non potuit τουσδε τους τόπους. Εtenim όδε sunt δεικτικώς usque usurpata, At cecus, quo digitum intendere debuerit, nesciebat. Μox κάρτα γε hic nequeunt dici, semper fere cipwvixãs usurpata. Postremo tautologum sonant τούδε του θεού επώνυμοι post ου φέρουσι ούνομα. Οuid plura ! Lege
ΟΙΔ. ή γάρ τινες ναίoυσι τους εγγύς τόπους;
ΞΕ. τη παιδί του κρατος θεού γ' επώνυμοι. 1 Ubi intelliguntur Athenienses επώνυμοι 'Αθηνάς, que fuit παις του
κρατός θεού. Historia de Minerve ortu est notissima ex Calimacheo μάτηρ δ' ούτις έτικτε θεάν, Αλλα Διός κορυφά. Mei κρατός servant particulas et κάρτα et πάντες, necnon παιδί latet in τούδε. 70, 1, 2. Locus difficillimus ita se habet in Mss. plerisque:
ΟΙΔ. άρ' άν τις αυτο πομπός εξ υμών μόλοι και
ΞΕ. ως προς τί λέξων ή καταρτύσων μόλοι ;
ΟΙΔ. ως άν προσαρκών μικρά κερδάνη μέγα.
ΟΙΔ. αρ' άν τις αυτό πομπός εκ ξένων μόλοι;
ΞΕ. ως προς τί λέξεων και
« μη καταργίσων μόλη, δς άν, προσαρκών σμικρά, κερδάνη μέγα. Exstat in Phen. 76. verbum καταργείν simile τα καταργίζειν. Redde “ne tardus veniat is, qui, leve quid subsidium ipse prabens, magnum aliquid lucrabitur.'
75, 6. έπεισερ ει Γενναίος ως ιδόντι πλην του δαίμονος. Νon bene dicitur Grece γενναίος ως ιδόντι. Debuit esse γενναίος εισιδείν. Mox nequeo intelligere πλην του δαίμονος. Scripsit fortasse poeta Γενναίος εισιδείν: τηοχ αδημονείς latest in τoυδαιμονος.
Nempe colloquio prolixiore defessus (Edipus ducebat' singultus. De verbo komuoveīs alibi depravato vide inea ad Troad. 654. et Musgrav. ad Eurip. Fragm. Incert. 81. Verum locus est mutilus.
79, 80. οίδε γαρ κρινούσί γε "Η χρή σε μίμνειν ή πορεύεσθαι πάλιν. Sic Mss. plerique. Elmsl. ad Med. 480. legebat of de yap xpovoow eŮ : quam conjecturam nunc repudiat, neque vulgatam improbat. Atqui vulgata est improba. Dici nequit ojo. Non enim homines adsunt δακτυλόδεικτοι. Istud γαρ e δε venit. Fuit οι δε scriptum pro ούτοι δέ. At γαρ omisso, versus defcit. Opportune igitur Laur. Β. οι δε κρινούσιν σοί γε. ubί σοί γε ve
niunt e Ρar. F. οίδε γας κρινούσι σοι (sic). Scripsit Sophocles οι δε γης κρινούσ' ένα, "Η χρή σε μίμνειν. Junge γής ίνα ubi ter
84, 5. Ιta distichon misere corrumpitur, "Ω πότνιαι δεινώπες ευτέ
νυν έδρας Πρώτων εφ' υμών τήσδε γης έκαμψ' εγώ.-At Grece dici nequit κάμπτειν έδρας. Legi debet εί τα νύν έδραις Πρώτων εφ' υμών ταϊσδε γυϊ' έκαμψ' εγώ. Dicitur γυία et γόνυ κάμπτειν: hoc de quovis homine, illud de homine, quem curvα senecta premit.
91. Élmsleius omittit lectionem variam veramque in Flor. 2. τον ταλαιπώρου βίον. De syntaxi vid. Valck. ad Phen. 1518.
92. Κέρδη μεν οικήσαντα Μss. plerique; at Ρar. F. oικήσοντα. Νeque κέρδος οικίζειν neque κέρδος οικείν est locutio proba. Sententiae tenor postulat εκτίσοντα. Similiter τροφεία εκτίνειν vel απότινειν sepe usurpatur. Vid. Valck. ad Phen. 44.
93. "Ατην δε τοις πέμψασιν, οί μ' απήλασαν. At tautologum 80nant oί μ' απήλασαν post τοϊς πέμψάσιν, i. e. αποπέμψασιν. Αt scripsit Sophocles τοϊς πέμψασιν άμ' απήλασεν, i. e. & έμε απήλα
Respicitur ad rem, quam commemorat Schol. ad Ed. C. 1970. οι περί 'Ετεοκλέα και Πολυνείκην δι' έθους έχοντες τω πατρί Οιδίποδι πέμπειν εξ εκάστου ιερείου μοίραν τον ώμον, έκλαθόμενοι ποτε, είτε κατά ραστώνην είτε εξ ότουούν, ίσχιον αυτώ έπεμψαν και δε μικροψύχως και τελέως αγεννώς (f. αγέλως risui non deditus) όμως (f. ωμούς) γούν αράς έθετο κατ' αυτών, δόξας κατολιγωρείσθαι : propter quas diras patrem filii expulerunt, uti patet e Phen. 67. 106, 7. "Ιτ' ώ γλυκείαι παίδες αρχαίου Σκότου
*IT', ώ μεγίστης Παλλάδος καλούμεναι. Ita distichon vulgatur Sophocle iudignum. Nusquam alibi Furie appellantur nomine γλυκείαι, neque Pallas μεγίστη per se dicitur. Ιη γλυκείαι παίδες video latere vocern γλαυκωπίδος. Sed nihil ultra. Meliores Codices sunt expectandi.
111. - πορεύονται γαρ οίδε δή τινες Χρόνω παλαιοί. Αt nusquam alibi Tives indefinite dictum cum olde on jungitur. Lege oid ideix τινές χρόνο παλαίοι. Sic ιδείν νεανίας in Aristoph. Lys. 121. Plura de phrasi illa dixi in Cl. Jl. No. xix. p. 37.
BIBLICAL CRITICISM On the mistranslated Passages of Scripture: Joel ii. 23.
-Job xix. 26.- Deut. xxiii. 1.
Objectors have stated that there is no positive declaration in the Old Testament concerning the resurrection, or a future state. But when it is recollected that the most learned among this class were not critically acquainted with the Hebrew lauguage, but have presumed to confirm their opinions from modern translations, and those too, so tortured by sophistry as to make truth bear some resemblance to falsehood, we need not be alarmed at their ingenious arguments: particularly as men of this description, who call themselves philosophers, because they deny the Scriptures, are for the most part those, whose pretensions to morality would have disgraced the pagans of India, or the vain philosophers of Greece. Deism, which embraces a denial of the moral precepts of the Bible, must necessarily make men bad subjects, because they have nothing to stimulate them to act faithfully but what is in agreement with their sensual appetites and interests; men in whom there can be placed no confidence, because they have no conscience; bad husbands, unnatural parents, and false friends; for as they believe that at death all things with them are no more, they are always in the habit of acting from the impulse of the noment, which is always in conformity with the gratification of their unlawful pleasures. In order to meet and silence the objections of these sceptics, I shall endeavour to prove that the doctrine of a future state of things is clearly held forth in the books of the Old Testament.
Among the great number of passages on this subject, from the beginning to the end of the Bible, I shall select one, which, as it stands in the translation, is conclusive, but when truly rendered, is far more expressive and beautiful:- it is in Job xix. 26, which is thus rendered in the Bible translation, and though, after my skin, worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God. "Here is a positive declaration, that from the most remote time the doctrine of a future state was acknowledged. But this passage, as well as many others, has been passed over in silence by the Sadducean writers of former ages, and also by those of more modern times. The subject of the resurrection is as clearly asserted in the Hebrew, as it is in the English translation, or as it can be in any thing I can say on the subject; but the manner, or order of that resurrection, or in other words, the nature of that body which is to rise again, is certainly more clearly and more energetically described, more consistently with the principles of true philosophy. and right reason in the original, than in any translation I have hitherto seen, all which appear to be very incorrect.
These words, as they at present stand in the translation, give us to understand that the very same skin and flesh, which was then parched on his bones, the very material skin composed of the elements of this world, should cover his body in the eternal world, which is plainly contradicted by the Apostle, who, describing the resurrection, says: How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?—thou sowest not that body that shall be there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body, Howbeit, that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural, and afterwards that which is spiritual. The Apostle's meaning is too plain to be mistaken: there is a natural body, vịz. a fleshly, or material body, subject to change, and suited to all the purposes of this life: and there is a spiritual body, or a substantial body, not subject to change, not subject to, or composed of, the perishable elements of this world. But it is not my intention to enter into a metaphysical disquisition concerning the rising of the dead, or rather the continuation of life, and with what body they shall come; but to give a true translation of this important passage, instead of a comment, or, which is the same, without crowding in words which are not to be found in the original, as is the case in the English translation, and in all I have met with.
Job was here speaking in confidence concerning the coming of the Redeemer, and the certainty of the resurrection; he describes his coming at a remote period, viz. nonx? Veuharoun, or latter day, o'pinay by, he shall stand upon the earth: but being sensible that before that period he should not be an inhabitant of this world, he says, and though, after my skin, worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God. Thus it is rendered in the English, and in all the European Bibles: but the words though, worms, and body, which render the passage inconsistent with the meaning of the writer, are not in the original. There are three words in this verse in the translation which confound the true sense, viz. though, worm, body: the conjunction though does not refer to that which our translators have made it, viz. the worm; for it is not in the original, and it ought not to be in the translation. And if it were in the origi
ומבשרי אחזה ,But the most serious error is in the last clause
val as a conjunction, we could not adopt the subjunctive form of the verb, because we have no such mood in Hebrew. But admitting even this was the case, it would then be altogether inapplicable, unless Man, Rimmah, or nysin, Thoulagnath, the worm, had occurred in the verse. Job was informing his friends of the dissolution of his mortal frame, and 1973, Nikkepou, which means, to enclose, surround, or shut in, is a familiar expression; it refers to those who should perform his funeral rite, by enclosing, or shutting in his material body; therefore be says, and after they have enclosed this my skin. From the end of the 19th verse to the end of the 25th is read parenthetically: he there says, all my inward friends abhorred me; but which should be rendered, all my men, my privy counsellors loathed me: and it is to all these bis relatives and friends that he refers, where he says, after they have enclosed my skin. It should be remembered that Job was the king of Idumea.
, 07738, yet in my flesh shall I see God, which rendering contradicts Scripture, as it is said flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. This error has been made by rendering the
mem, prefixed to va beshaari, by in, which has no such meaning; it is here a preposition distributive, truly rendered by from, out of, noting a state of separation, see 1 Kings xvii. 12. 'W Minnegnurai, from my youth; Ezek. vii. 26. D'apia, from the ancients. This last clause is a declaration of his belief in the resurrection, 'wapi Vumibbshari, will then read truly, yet out of my flesh, and the whole verse will read, and after they have enclosed this my skin, yet out of my flesh shall I see God. This is also consistent with every other part of Scripture where a future state is spoken of, absent from the body, present with the Lord.
It is also recorded at a very early period in the book of Genesis, that Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him: and in Isaiah it is said, Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead. Ch. xxvi, 19. From all which it is evident that the doctrine of a future state is clearly held forth in the books of the Old Testament: but were we to enter into a description of the sacrifices under the Mosaic dispensation, and their application consistently with the whole tenor of Scripture, it would afford, in addition to the above, conclusive. proof that the doctrine of a future state is to be found in the Old Testament.