ページの画像
PDF
ePub

one who touches them after they are dead.* The objection is thus removed, which has often been urged against our interpretation, that in his death Jesus was with transgressors; in the grave, with a rich man. The particle

here signifies although; comp. Job 16: 17, by, quamvis non sit injuria in manibus meis. So also in Job 10: 7. 34: 6. Jer. 2: 34. It does not refer to the second member, standing in a parenthesis, but to the first. Most interpreters who follow this exposition understand by in the sense of because, and refer it to the second member of the verse. But to this it may be objected, first, that the second member cannot be appropriate here, except it be taken, like in in the preceding verse, as a parenthesis, in which the prophet as it were anticipates himself. For this verse belongs to the description of the Messiah's sufferings, which is still continued; and the description of his reward first. commences with the following verse. Secondly, it would give a very weak sense to say: "The servant of God is buried with a rich man, because he was perfectly righteous."

He had done no unrighteous deed, etc. He had sinned neither in word nor in deed, a poetic enumeration for the purpose of expressing his entire innocence. In accordance with this passage, Peter says, ὃς ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἐποίησεν, οὐδὲ εὑρέθη δό λος ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ. 1 Pet. 2: 22.

The arguments which Martini, Rosenmüller, and Gesenius, after the example of Iken,† have brought against this interpretation of the whole verse, so far as they merit attention, we have already refuted in establishing this exposition. Arguments like the following refute themselves; viz. (a) that N or ought not to be wanting after, though they are in fact omitted in numberless instances; (b) that the expression, he was with a rich man after his death, cannot mean so much as he was interred with a rich man, notwithstanding prophetic poetry allows infinitely bolder expressions than this, and the clearness of historic prose cannot be demanded of prophecy; (c) that the grave and death are here put in opposition, and clearly distin

See many other examples in Noldii Concordant. Partic. p. 157. No. 20, and in Rosenmüller on the passage.

[blocks in formation]

Comp. on the contrary Glassius III. 3. Can. 56.

guished from each other; whereas it is the fact

rather, that the hence there is

two stand in a parallelism with each other, and no reason why we should not understand the true rendering of ning to be, after his death, in which case, the Hysteron-proteron urged particularly by Iken, disappears; (d) finally, that a prophecy so definite is contrary to the analogy of prophecies, as they do not usually have so specific a reference. This has already been sufficiently refuted, by what was brought forward in the general introduction.

Let us now direct our attention to the more recent expositions of this verse.

1. Gesenius, after the example of many others, interprets: "They gave to him his grave with the ungodly, and with a wicked one in his death," scil. they gave to him his grave. According to this interpretation, the word must mean a wicked person.* Many endeavour to show that it has this sense, by a comparison of the Arabic, stumbling. But that this word means sinning, in the sense assumed, is very doubtful. Castell indeed gives this signification, but he has not succeeded in supporting it by examples. What Rosenmüller alleges, after Martini, does not prove the point. And besides, the sense of criminality does not occur in the other derivatives of the verb. In addition to this, it is contrary to a fundamental principle with respect to the comparison of dialects, to endeavour, without an urgent necessity, to obtain in this way in a solitary passage, and for a word of so frequent occurrence, a new meaning,--one which is not connected with the others that are certain. Gesenius himself remarks against this comparison: "I have some scruple about applying this word, since it is not otherwise, in point of etymology, at all related to the Hebrew." Several interpreters, as Luther, Calvin, and finally Gesenius, would deduce the sense of ungodly from the Hebrew usage itself. Now it is certainly true, that the words in Hebrew which denote power and wealth, often have the secondary idea of haughty arrogance and violence; as vice versa the words which signify poverty and weakness, stand also for innocence. But that the word

[ocr errors]

Also

* So Rabbi Jona in Salomoh B. Melech on the passage. Calvin, as likewise Luther in a marginal gloss: A rich man, one who gives himself to the pursuit of wealth, i. e. an ungodly man." Lakemacher Obs. Phil. VIII. 5. 5.

*

, a rich man, can signify directly an ungodly man, thus setting aside entirely its principal idea, has by no means been proved, and is in itself altogether improbable. In the passage of Job, c. 27: 19, to which an appeal is made, the secondary idea of haughtiness and crime is indicated with sufficient distinctness by the connexion, and the principal idea of wealth still remains. But here, on the contrary, the principal idea would so completely disappear, that we could not at all translate, a rich ungodly man. And besides, the singular shows that the word is not to be taken as in a parallelism with the plural. But if, notwithstanding these difficulties, this interpretation is still adhered to, yet the verse would contain nothing that could militate against the Messianic exposition. We need only translate: They appointed for him among criminals his grave, and with the ungodly when he was dead.

2. Martini translates:+ "They prepared for him a sepulchre with the wicked, a sepulchral tumulus with the violent, though he had done violence to no man and had been without guile.' According to this, the in nine must be regarded as a radical, and not as a servile; and ning hillock is equivalent to tumulus. Abenezra and Oecolampadius adopted also this interpretation, and it has since received the approbation of Zuingle, Schindler, Drusius, Iken, Lowth, Kuinöl, Ammon, and many others. But the following objections lie against it. (a) That the first Kamets in is impure (as if from a verb D) and therefore it can never be changed into Sheva. The form with a suffix is inning, Deut. 32: 29, and in the construct state, ni, Micah 3: 12. (b) But even if we admit here a change of vowels, (for which however there is no sufficient reason,) after the example of three of De Rossi's manuscripts, still it is an objection to this interpretation, that the noun, which occurs also as singular, never has the sense of a sepulchral tumulus; and indeed such a meaning would have little analogy with the usual significations of the word. For nine does not mean a mound of earth, such as it was usual to throw up over a grave, but a hill, an eminence.

* Comp. on the contrary, Iken, l. c. p. 267 sq.

"Pararunt illi sepulchrum cum scelestis, tumulum sepulchralem cum violentis, quanquam ille vim nemini intulerat et a fraude

fuerat alienus."

Gesenius Lehrg. p. 594.

3. Rosenmüller translates: "He left to the ungodly his burial, and to the wicked he committed it, after he was dead." But to this exposition there are many objections. What adaptation has the phrase he left, he committed, to the phrase although he had done no unrighteous deed? which last evidently demands, that what precedes should have respect to some injury inflicted. How can it be said of a person who is already dead, that he committed, entrusted, his burial? How could the heathen, who are (according to Rosenmüller) still speaking in this verse, call themselves ? Moreover, the noun never signifies the act of interment, but always the place. Finally, the same arguments are valid against this interpretation, which we have adduced against the first one above examined.

[TO BE CONTINUED.]

ART. V. ON THE LETTER ATTRIBUTED TO PUBLIUS LENTULUS, RESPECTING THE PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF CHRIST.

By the Editor.

THERE has often been printed a letter attributed to Publius Lentulus, a supposed proconsul or procurator of Judea, directed to the Roman Senate, and professing to give a description of the character, actions, and personal appearance of our Saviour. Every few years, this letter commonly goes the round of our public journals; and as it is usually accompanied with remarks setting forth its great interest and probable antiquity, those who are not further acquainted with the subject, may easily be induced to assign to it a greater authority than the real facts in the case will warrant. It is in this way and for this reason, probably, that it has sometimes been appended to books intended for the religious instruction of the young,-not with any design to present it as having any positive authority, but merely as an interesting relic of antiquity, which might possibly, for aught that was known, be authentic. Indeed, the means of tracing its authenticity are not very accessible in this country. It stands in Calmet's Dictionary of the Bible, where it is pronounced to be spurious; but no testimony is there afforded to

enable the reader to judge for himself on this subject. Nor am I aware of any other book in the English language, which furnishes the materials for doing this. Here, as in many other cases, we are compelled to look to Germany for all the works which afford the means of investigating such points; and since these books are generally the productions of former centuries, and have become rare, they are for the most part accessible among us only in some of our more important public libraries. The principal works necessary for such an investigation are contained in the library of the Theological Seminary in Andover; and having thus the means, I have thought it would not be uninteresting, nor perhaps unprofitable, to lay before the readers of this work the results of my inquiries, in respect to the authenticity of the epistle in question.

The following translation of the epistle is from Calmet's Dictionary, article LENTULUS.

"There has a man appeared here, who is still living, named Jesus Christ, whose power is extraordinary. He has the title given to him of the Great Prophet; his disciples call him the Son of God. He raises the dead, and heals all sorts of diseases. He is a tall, well proportioned man; there is an air of serenity in his countenance, which attracts at once the love and reverence of those who see him. His hair is of the colour of new wine from the roots to his ears, and from thence to the shoulders it is curled, and falls down to the lowest part of them. Upon the forehead it parts in two, after the manner of the Nazarenes. His forehead is flat and fair, his face without any defect, and adorned with a very graceful vermilion; his air is majestic and agreeable. His nose and his mouth are very well proportioned, and his beard is thick and forked, of the colour of his hair; his eyes are grey and extremely lively; in his reproofs he is terrible, but in his exhortations and instructions amiable and courteous; there is something wonderfully charming in his face, with a mixture of gravity. He is never seen to laugh, but he has been observed to weep. He is very straight in stature; his hands are large and spreading, and his arms very beautiful. He talks little, but with great gravity, and is the handsomest man in the world."

Whatever now may be the view which we have been accustomed to entertain, respecting the personal appearance of the Saviour while he was on earth; and however much the soul,

« 前へ次へ »