Greek and Arabic versions are nothing to the original text itself." I perfectly agree with him in this assertion, but I am convinced, that the Editor must be better acquainted than myself with the prevailing and continued practice among Christian theologians, to have recourse to the versions, especially to the Septuagint, when a dispute arises in the interpretation of any text of the Old Testament, and to give preference to the authority of the Septuagint, even over that of Jerome's, which the Editor quotes in opposition to the Arabic and Greek versions. As to the original text, the Editor first observes, that "as to the particle n eth, which the best Hebrew grammars define a particle marking the accusative case governed by active verbs, or an emphatic particle denoting the very thing itself." I therefore think it proper to quote Parkhurst's opinion on the particle ns eth, from his Hebrew Lexicon, that my readers may judge whether or not the above rule, laid down by the Editor, is founded upon good authority. Parkhurst (p. 48): "The Lexicons say, that when joined with a verb, it (eth) denotes the accusative case, if the verb be active; see Gen. i. 1, and al freq., but the nominative, if the verb be passive or neuter. Gen. xxvii. 45; Deut. xx. 8; Josh. vii. 15, &c., al freq. But, in truth, it is the sign of no particular case, that distinction being unknown in Hebrew. See Josh. xxii. 17; Ezek. xxxv. 10; Numb. x. 2; 1 Sam. xvii. 34; 2 Sam. xv. 23; Neh. ix. 19, 34; 2 Kings vi. 5." Parkhurst gives also the second meaning of this particle—“ 2, with, to, towards, Exod. i. 1, Deut. vii. 8," which the Editor also partially admits. The fact is, this particle denotes an accusative case as well as other cases, and also stands for the English prepositions, " with," "for," ""for," " towards," &c., and, therefore, the verse in question, as it is found in our Hebrew copies of the Old Testament, should indisputably be thus read, in consistence with its context, 31: "And they shall look towards me for (or on account of) him whom they have pierced," or They shall look upon me with him whom they have pierced."* The Editor quotes, to my great surprise, (mm p. 546,) some verses in which the particle n requires an accusative case, and, consequently, no preposition "for," "to," or "with," can be properly placed. But I beg to ask the Editor, how he can turn the following verses to his purpose, wherein no accusa אלי on me, was also → Newcome reads, "And they shall look on him whom they pierced." His note on this translation is as follows: "On him.] Thirty-six MSS. and two ed. read : three other MSS. read so originally; six perhaps read so; six read so now; and eleven have in the margin, as Keri. And yet may be traced in the ancient versions and Chald. " noted as a various lection by R. Saadias, who lived 'Citant Talmud et year 900. See Kenn. diss. gen. § 43. R. Saadias Haggaion. Poc. Append. in Mal.' Secker. Dr. Owen shews that Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Tertullian, and Barnabas, favour the reading of vs Inquiry-Sept. Version, Sect. iv." about the Greek and Arabic versions are nothing to the original text itself." I perfectly agree with him in this assertion, but I am convinced, that the Editor must be better acquainted than myself with the prevailing and continued practice among Christian theologians, to have recourse to the versions, especially to the Septuagint, when a dispute arises in the interpretation of any text of the Old Testament, and to give preference to the authority of the Septuagint, even over that of Jerome's, which the Editor quotes in opposition to the Arabic and Greek versions. As to the original text, the Editor first observes, that "as to the particle n eth, which the best Hebrew grammars define a particle marking the accusative case governed by active verbs, or an emphatic particle denoting the very thing itself." I therefore think it proper to quote Parkhurst's opinion on the particle ns eth, from his Hebrew Lexicon, that my readers may judge whether or not the above rule, laid down by the Editor, is founded upon good authority. Parkhurst (p. 48): "The Lexicons say, that when joined with a verb, it (eth) denotes the accusative case, if the verb be active; see Gen. i. 1, and al freq., but the nominative, if the verb be passive or neuter. Gen. xxvii. 45; Deut. xx. 8; Josh. vii. 15, &c., al freq. But, in truth, it is the sign of no particular case, that distinction being unknown in Hebrew. See Josh. xxii. 17; Ezek. xxxv. 10; Numb. x. 2; 1 Sam. xvii. 34; 2 Sam. xv. 23; Neh. ix. 19, 34; 2 Kings vi. 5." Parkhurst gives also the second meaning of this particle-" 2, with, to, towards, Exod. i. 1, Deut. vii. 8," which the Editor also partially admits. The fact is, this particle denotes an accusative case as well as other cases, and also stands for the English prepositions, " with," "for," " towards," &c., and, therefore, the verse in question, as it is found in our Hebrew copies of the Old Testament, should indisputably be thus read, in consistence with its context, 31: "And they shall look towards me for (or on account of) him whom they have pierced," or They shall look upon me with him whom they have pierced.”* The Editor quotes, to my great surprise, (in p. 546,) some verses in which the particle ns requires an accusative case, and, consequently, no preposition for," ," "to," or "with," can be properly placed. But I beg to ask the Editor, how he can turn the following verses to his purpose, wherein no accusa œ on me, was also Newcome reads, "And they shall look on him whom they pierced." His note on this translation is as follows: "On him.] Thirty-six MSS. and two ed. read : three other MSS. read so originally; six perhaps read so; six read so now; and eleven have in the margin, as Keri. And yet may be traced in the ancient versions and Chald. ' noted as a various lection by R. Saadias, who lived " Citant Talmud et year 900. See Kenn. diss. gen. § 43. R. Saadias Haggaion. Poc. Append. in Mal.' Secker. Dr. Owen shews that Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Tertullian, and Barnabas, favour the reading of 1 Inquiry-Sept. Version, Sect. iv." about the seemingly representing the Spirit of God as a cooperator with himself. He might, in that case, on the same ground, endeavour to establish the personality and the deity of Righteousness, another attribute of the Deity, as being represented with God as an agent in Isaiah lix. [16,] “Therefore his arm brought salvation unto him, and his Righteousness, it sustained him." And he might also attempt to prove the personality and deity of the breath of God, which is, in like manner, represented as a cooperator with the Spirit of God. Job xxxiii. 4: "The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of him hath given life." Is this the best of the proofs of the Trinity with which the Editor closes his testimonies? If such be his proofs, I am at a loss to guess what his illustrations will be. The second passage, quoted by the Editor, is what I have just examined in pp. 645-648. The third is, 2 Cor. xiii. 14, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. Amen." Here the apostle prays, that the guidance of Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the constant operation of the holy influence of God, may be with Christians, since, without the guidance of Jesus, no one can be thoroughly impressed with the love of the Deity under the Christian dispensation, nor can that love of God sent his Spirit." The second is, "The Lord Jehovah and his Spirit hath sent me." |