صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

Valafridus Strabo informs us, chapter xxv. de. Reb. Eccles. and is in fact the Vulgata Hodierna.

δε

Now not only in the Verfio Itala, but also in the Vulgata Hodierna the reading is aures autem perfecifti mihi: whence it follows that the ancient reading of the lxx, agreed with the Hebrew, as it now ftands. Aquila reads ωτια δε έσκαψας μοι Theodotion ωτια κατηρτίσω μοι, & Hieronymus, aures fodifii mihi. Alfo in the Catena Corderiana on the words ωτα δε κατηρτίσω μοι, we read, αλλ ἐπακούν με απήτησας μόνον, Στα γαρ την υπακοήν λέγει. See Expos. Græ. Patr. in Pfalm. by Balthafar Corderius, Tom. 1. Ed. Antverp. pag. 735. To the fame purpose Theo

dorus Heracleota. So that it is moft evident that the genuine reading is that now preferved in the Hebrew; and probably the Apostle, as Hammond obferves, read σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μου "merely in order to fit it more perfectly to the incarnation of Chrift." And accordingly the Greek fcholiaft alfo remarks, το δὲ ὠτία κατηρτίσω μοι, ὁ μακαριος Παύλος εις το σώμα μεταβαλων ειρηκεν, εκ αγνίων το εβραικον αλλα προς τον οικειον σκοπον τέτω χρησαμενος. See Exp. Gr. Pat. a Cord. Antverp. p. 749. And afterwards, as Hammond remarks, the copiers of the Septuagint thought fit to accord it to the Apoftolic ftyle, and so put inftead of ωτια. The fame thing happened in σωμα the Latin Vulgate, which, as we have fhewn, originally read aures ; but in the Roman Pfalter, the cor

ruptions of which had given rife to the second Ed. of St. Jerom, and in the Complut. Ed. in the 16th century, we find the reading to be corpus autem &c. In the fame manner likewife in the ancient Syriac copies we read NTN; but in more modern copies, as in Cod. vii. Bibl. Reg. the reading is ㄅㄨˋ 75 adapted to the reading of St. Paul.

The book of Pfalms, we may obferve, abounds more in various readings than any other part of the facred code; nor need we wonder at this; for as it confists of odes or fongs which were fung upon different occafions, we muft fuppofe that there were very many copies difperfed among the Jewish bards: but according as copies are multiplied, fo will be the number of various readings; nor, adds Bishop Hare, did the obscurity of the book itself contribute a little to encrease the number of errors, as it afforded greater room to the rashness and ignorance of transcribers. Of the historical books there were not fo many copies, as they were records confulted only on particular occasions. And though the law was read every fabbath day in the fynagogue, yet the copies were only in the hands of the Priest, the people listening: befides we know the religious attention that was paid to preferving the text of the law pure and incorrupt, which arofe from

a divine ordinance that did not extend to other books of the Jewish canon.

We are to obferve that the Hebrew poetry natu→ rally refolves itself into fhort lines, which in general are nearly of the fame length; and that this length is for the most part to be determined by the fense. The most manifeft indication of Hebrew poetry is in the acroftick or alphabetical Psalms, whofe ftructure is this; the Pfalm consists of twenty-two lines or systems of lines, according to the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet; and the feveral lines or stanzas begin with each letter in order, as it ftands in the alphabet. This was certainly intended, as Le Clerc obferves, for the affiftance of the memory; and was chiefly used in subjects of common use, as maxims of morality, between the detached fentences of which there fubfifted little or no connection. Of this structure there are seven Pfalms, the xxv. xxxiv. xxxvii. cxi. cxii. cxix, and cxlv. From thefe Pfalms it appears that Hebrew poetry did not consist in rhyme, or fimilar and correfpondent founds at the end of the verses, as Le Clerc thought. And as the true pronunciation of Hebrew is loft, and the due quantity and accent of fyllables therefore unknown, it is impoffible to ascertain in what the harmony or cadence, the metre or rythm did actually confift. Accordingly every attempt to reduce this poetry to any regular mea

fure, like that of the Greeks and Romans, has utterly failed. Nevertheless, an attention to Hebrew poetry fo far as to distinguish it from profe, by a regular arrangement of fentences, has been found of great ufe not only in making an approach towards the harmony of poetical numbers, but likewife in discovering the corruptions of the text, as well as the connection between the different members. It is obfervable that the verfes are divided into parts which have a certain relation or correspondence to each other, which Bishop Lowth calls Parallelifm; of which, he obferves, there are three forts, Synonymous, Antithetic, and Synthetic; and that their different fpecies of Parallelifin are perpetually mixed with each other, which gives a variety and beauty to the compofition. Synonymous parallels are those which express the same sentiment in different but equivalent terms, as in Pfalm. xxi. 1. 2. There are alfo Parallel Triplets, when three lines correspond together, and form a kind of stanza, of which however only two are commonly Synonymous, as Pfalm cxii. IO. There are likewife Parallels of four lines, two diftichs being so connected together by the fenfe and conftruction, as to make one ftanza, as in Pfalm xxxvii. These Quaternions are fometimes correfpondent in the alternate lines, as in Pfalm ciii. 11. The fecond fort of Parallels are the Antithetic, when two lines correfpond with each other by an oppofition of terms and fentiments, as in Pfalm xx.

C

7. 8. xxx. 6. The third fort of Parallelifm is the Synthetic or Constructive, which consists only in the fimilar form of Construction, as in Pfalm cxlviii. 7.

The fudden change of perfon in these poems often furprises us, and appears, at first, to destroy the connexion of the parts; but we should remember that in the finging of many of them, different parts were affigned to different fingers; and that finging refponfively was practifed by the Jews is manifest from Exod. xv. 21. and 1 Sam. xviii. 7. In Pfalm lxi. the five first verses appear to have been fung by King David, the vi. and vii. by the people, and again the viii. by the king himfelf. But this hypothefis will not only contribute to elucidate the connection of the Pfalm, but will alfo add much to our conception of the grandeur and folemnity of the performance. Thus in Pfalm xxiv. where the subject is the removal of the ark to Mount Sion, the two first verses were probably fung by the leader of the proceffion; the third by the perfons who compofed the proceffion; the iv. and v. again by the leader, and the vi. by the others. By this time they are arrived at the doors of the temple, and the leader of the proceffion fings that fine verfe, "Lift 66 up your heads Oh ye gates, &c." Then the Priest from within fings, "Who is the King of Glory?” To which the leader of the proceffion anfwers in that wonderfully fublime verfe, "The Lord, ftrong

« السابقةمتابعة »