« السابقةمتابعة »
ceive (desolate) you; that is, be the cause of your desolation: the verb is in the Hiphil conjugation, but the translators have rendered it as if it had been in the conjugation Kal; so that the causative power of the verb is not noticed in the authorised version. It is little short of blasphemy to say, as the clause is translated, Thou hast greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem. Psa. lxxxix. 22. The enemy shall not exact on him, that is, shall not desolate him by making contributions.
So that whether we take the words xum xum hashee hisheetha, to desolation thou hast desolated, under NV shaah, i. e. to waste, desolate; or nashah, i. e. to exact, deprive; or under NW nasha, to exact, seize, it is of no consequence, as under all these words the meaning and application are the same, and consistent with the narrative. This proves that these words are of the same origin, and that T nashah, and NW nasha, to exact, or seize, are under their parent root NW shaah, to waste, to desolate: although the Lexicon writers, copying after one another, have erroneously divided the word into three roots. All these calamities, signified by these words, are the common result of an invading army, which desolates, seizes, exacts, deprives.
Hence, as it is not possible that God can either deceive or tempt man, it will appear that objectors, who endeavour to calumniate the Scriptures, and by so doing to destroy all social order, have been altogether mistaken concerning the variation of words according to idiom. The true translation is confirmed by the obvious meaning of the word in other parts of Scripture in the authorised version.
The word laamor, is in the authorised version rendered saying; but the prefix 5 lamed, which means for, has been omitted by the translators; which will then read for saying: and the clause will read, for saying, Peace shall be among you.
This is certainly a very important question, for God, consistently with his truth, could not promise peace to Jerusalem, and then violate his solemn word, any more than he could deceive the people. And if, as above observed, deistical writers had attended to the original Hebrew, there would have been no necessity for them to have made this inquiry.
The original Hebrew informs us that the desolation here spoken of was brought about by the people, not by any failure in the execution of the promise of God. At this period the nation had fallen into idolatry, and the prophet was commissioned to inform them that on this account they had forfeited the VOL. XXIX. Cl. Jl. NO. LVIII.
protection which God in his providence had given them, when they observed the commands, statutes, and judgments, as recorded in the sacred volume. And, therefore, the people who had embraced idolatry said, that they should have peace, notwithstanding all that the prophet had declared; and the true translation of one word, which has been omitted in the translation, will remove the objection. The verse truly reads, Then I said, Ah, Lord God, surely to desolation thou hast desolated this people, even to Jerusalem, for saying, Peace shall be among
Such are the objections which the enemies of divine revelation advance against the Scripture, to invalidate its truths. But the reader will have reason to conclude in the course of our investigation, that the genuineness and authenticity of Scripture cannot be questioned the Scripture requires to be honestly represented in order to carry that conviction to the impartial reader, which will effectually silence the calumnies of the infidel.
I shall now beg the attention of the reader while I examine another passage in the authorised version, of a very different description, which, whenever it is read, must necessarily cause a blush on the cheek of modesty. I am sorry to say that in Jerom's translation, passages are found, where no such meaning can possibly be understood in the inspired writings. This feeling is universal; and it is the best proof that such passages in the authorised version as are not sanctioned by the true translation of the Hebrew, which cause a painful feeling in the mind of the hearer, particularly in divine worship; it is the best proof that such passages cannot constitute a part of the Word of God, and that these errors have been made by the translator Jerom.
But some have asked, "How is it that translation has been given after translation in all Christian nations, and yet that the present translation abounds with errors? what! have none of the Rabbies, or the Christian commentators, found out these contradictions?" Such persons may now see that some of our commentators have found out incongruities in the authorised version before my time, and this, I hope, will be a sufficient answer to those, who may in future ask such a question.
The passage is in Deut. xxiii. 2. He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.
How Jerom, the author of the Latin Vulgate, could make such a sense, so opposed to the literal meaning of the He
brew, is only to be accounted for on his not translating from the Hebrew text. I shall confirm the true translation by other passages, where the words are truly translated in the authorised version, which will (I should suppose) be acceptable to your readers. This is one of those numerous passages which require iminediate correction. There is no necessity to enlarge on the authorised version of this verse; I shall proceed to show that in the original Hebrew nothing of this nature is signified, and consequently that the sacred writer had no such understanding; it has, through the errors of the translators, been foisted into all the European translations.
I find that in no other part of Scripture are the words
, dakah-shaphkah, translated to convey an obscene sense; of which the reader will be convinced by referring to other parts of Scripture, where they are truly rendered in the authorised version: this will prove, so as to admit of no contradiction, that they have been misunderstood and misapplied. I have often said that this is that kind of proof which we must necessarily have recourse to, if we wish to have the true meaning of the sacred writer; it silences all the speculative opinions of commentators, however sanctioned by hoary-headed error, by grammars and lexicons, or by any authorities, however learned and respectable: it is appealing to that authority which cannot be controverted.
The word dakah means, to be afflicted. See Prov. xxvi. 28. afflicted—Psa. xxxviii. 8. broken-li. 17. a broken spirit-xliv. 19. oppressed-lxxiv. 21. O let not the oppressed return ashamed.
dakah, is only so This word means
П shaphkah, like the above word translated in this verse in all the Scripture. an act of separation, see Ezek. xxvi. 8.-xxi. 22.-xvii. 17.Jer. vi. 6.—Dan. xi. 15.—2 Sam. xx. 15.; and when it is connected with kerouth, which means to cut, and applied to man, as in this passage, it means to cut off, to be mutilated; literally a man who had lost a limb.
Yet, it appears very inconsistent with the general tenor of Scripture, with divine order, as well as with reason, that because a person had lost a member of his body he should not be permitted to enter in to the congregation to worship God! for this is the plain meaning in the authorised version, viz. shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord. With the true translation of one word, according to idiom, the obvious meaning of the sacred writer, and the proof from Scripture, the halt, the
maimed, and the blind, always entered into the congregation of the Lord, see John ix., we shall find that this passage will be perfectly correct, to which no objection can possibly be made in future.
The reader will remember that no one having any defect in his person was to officiate in the office of the priesthood, and therefore the word & yaabo, which is rendered enter, viz. shall not enter into the congregation, has here a different mode of expression, viz. to officiate, as in other parts of Scripture in the authorised version; for those who officiated, necessarily entered into the congregation of the Lord.
The verse truly reads: The wounded, afflicted, cut, or mutilated, shall not officiate in the congregation of Jehovah.
N. B. I should be much gratified if any of your learned correspondents would favor me with the true translation of such passages as the following, which do not appear to be conformable to the Hebrew text. Acts ii. 23.-1 Pet. ii. 8.-Ezek. xiv. 9.ix. 2.—xx. 25, 26.—xxiii. 3, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20.Jud. ix. 13.-2 Sam. xii. 11.-Isa. vi, 10.-iii, 17-2 Kings xx. 9.-Psa. lxxviii. 13.-lxviii. 13, 14.-Cant. vii. 1, 2, 3.viii. S.-Ezek. i. and x. The descriptions of the cherubim differ widely from each other, the face of an or in the first chapter being omitted in the tenth chapter, and the face of a cherub instead thereof; and yet the prophet says in the last verse of the tenth chapter, And the likeness of their faces was the same faces which I saw by the river Chebar, described in the first chapter, viz. The word of the Lord came expressly unto Ezekiel the priest, the son of Busi, in the land of the Chaldeans, by the river Chebar.
A GRAMMAR of the THREE PRINCIPAL ORIENTAL LANGUAGES, Hindoostanee, Persian, and Arabic, ON A PLAN ENTIRELY NEW, and perfectly easy; to which is added a set of Persian Dialogues, composed for the author by MIRZA MUHAMED SALIH, of Shiraz, accompanied with an English Translation: by WILLIAM PRICE, ESQ., Assistant Secretary to the Rt. Hon. Sir GORE OUSELEY, Bart., Ambassador Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the Court of Persia. London. 1823. xiii. and 236 pages in 4to.
THE author of this Grammar was chosen on account of his previous knowlege of the Persian language, to be attached to Sir Gore Ouseley's Embassy to Persia in 1810, which embassy was accompanied by Mirza Abou 'lhassan, afterwards named Abou 'lhassen Khan, Persian Ambassador to the court of England, and through which embassy he availed himself of the opportunity to learn of Abou 'lhassen Khan the correct Persian pronunciation, and to accustom himself to the use of the language as spoken in Persia. During the residence of the Ambassador at Shiraz, Mr. Price formed an acquaintance with a Persian of that town called Mirza Sâlih, who had the reputation of being a man of letters, and who attached himself to the British legation. Mr. Price persuaded Mirza Sâlih to compose, in his language, that is to say, in the dialect of Shiraz, which is considered as the purest in Persia, a collection of dialogues. These dialogues, written in the style of conversation, and tran slated literally into English by Mr. Price, are 10 in number, and occupy 84 pages of this volume; they are presented also to the reader in the Persian character, accompanied with an English translation, and also in Roman characters with a French translation. Mr. Price has rendered an essential service to persons studying the Persian language by the publication of these dialogues. But we feel compelled to limit ourselves to this single eulogy. We will only add, that the author of these dialogues, Mirza Sálih, afterwards came to London to learn English, and after returning to Persia in 1819, he lately per