Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

specific trust in any form of wickedness. He who relies upon his power or his cunning as a complete protection will be not so apt to say "None seeth me" as to feel indifferent whether he is seen or not.-Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it has seduced thee. The insertion of the pronoun (8) admits of a twofold explanation. It may mean thy very wisdom, upon which thou hast so long relied for guidance, has itself misled thee. But at the same time it may serve to show that wisdom and knowledge are not here to be distinguished but considered as identical. He does not say thy wisdom and knowledge they have, but it has, seduced thee. By wisdom and knowledge some understand astronomy and astrology, others political sagacity and diplomatic skill, for which it is inferred that the Babylonians were distinguished, from the places where their wise men are particularly mentioned. (See for example Jer. 50:35. 51:57.) But in these descriptions of the Babylonian empire, and the analogous accounts of Tyre (Ezek. 28:4) and Egypt (Is. 19:11), the reference seems not so much to any thing peculiar to the state in question, as to that peculiar political wisdom which is presupposed in the very existence, much more in the prosperity, of every great empire. Gesenius understands these expressions as ironical, an indirect denial that they were possessed of wisdom. But this is an unnecessary supposition, and not entirely consistent with the tone of the whole context. It was probably not merely the conceit of knowledge but its actual possession that had led the Babylonians astray. The verb means to turn aside (convert) from one course to another, and is used both in a good sense and a bad one. An example of the former may be found below in ch. 49: 5, and of the latter here, where the word means not exactly to pervert, or as Lowth translates it, to pervert the mind, but rather to misguide, seduce, or lead astray, like ne in ch. 44: 20. Thy knowledge and thy wisdom, it has 44:20. seduced thee.-The remainder of the verse describes the effect of this perversion or seduction in the same terms that had been employed above in v. 8, and which occur elsewhere only in Zeph. 2: 15, which appears to be an imitation of the place before us, and not its original as Hitzig and others. arbitrarily assume.-And thou saidst (or hast said) in thy heart. The indirect construction, so that thou hast said, contains more than is expressed, but not more than is implied, in the original.—I am and there is no other. J. D. Michaelis understands this boast to mean, I am Babylon and there is no other. But most interpreters prefer the general meaning, I am what no one else is ; there is no one like me, much less equal to me. (See above, on v. 8.) This arrogant presumption is ascribed to their wisdom and knowledge, not as its legitimate effect, but as a necessary consequence of its perversion and abuse, as well as of men's native disposition to exaggerate the force and authority of unassisted reason. (Compare ch. 5: 21, and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 78.)

[ocr errors]

V. 11. And (so) there cometh (or has come) upon thee evil; with an evident allusion to the use of in the verse preceding, so as to suggest an antithesis between natural and moral evil, sin and suffering, evil done and evil experienced. The vav at the beginning is not properly conversive, as it does not depend upon a foregoing future (Nordheimer § 219); so that the common version (therefore shall evil come) is not strictly accurate Most of the modern writers make it present; but the strict sense of the preterite is perfectly consistent with the context and the usage of the Pophet, who continually depicts occurrences still future, first as coming, tlen as come, not in fact but in vision, both as certain to occur and as hitorically represented to his own mind. The phrase come upon is explaned by Vitringa as implying descent from above or infliction by a higler power.—Of the next clause there are several distinct interpretations all of which agree in making it descriptive of the evil threatened in th one before it. From the use of the verb in Ps. 78:34 and elsewhee, Lowth and others give it here the sense of intercession (thou shalt not know how to deprecate), which seems to be also given in the Targum and a proved by Jarchi. Jerome takes as a noun meaning dawn, and understands by it the origin or source of the calamity (nescis ortum ejus), in which he is followed by Vitringa and Rosenmüller, who appear however to apply the term, not merely to the source of the evil, but to the time of is commencement, which should be like a day without a dawn, i. e. sudden and without premonition. There is something so unnatural, however, and at variance with usage, in the representation of misfortune as a diwning day, that Gesenius, Maurer, and Umbreit, who retain the same translation of the word, reverse the sense of the whole phrase by supposing it to mean not a preceding but a following dawn; in which case the el is described not as a day without a dawn before it, but as a night without a dawning after it,-a figure natural and striking in itself, and very strongly recommended by the use of in the same sense by Isaiah elsewhere. (See ch. 8: 20, and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 149.) Hitzig and Ewald still prefer, however, the hypothesis of J. D. Michaelis and others, ho identify with the Arabic, and explain it either as a noun (against which thou hast no charm) or as an infinitive (thou shalt not know how to charm or conjure it away). This construction has the advantage of creating a more perfect correspondence between this word and the similar verbal form (2) with which the next clause ends. Grotius and Clericus appear to regard as a mere poetical equivalent to day, which is highly improbable and not at all sustained by usage.-And there shal fall upon thee (a still stronger expression than the one before it, there shall come upon thee) ruin. According to the modern lexicographers, the noun itself means fall, but in its figurative application to destruction or calamity. It occurs only here and in Ezek. 7:26.-Thou shalt not be able

to avert it, or resolving the detached Hebrew clauses into one English period, which thou shalt not be able to avert. The exact meaning of the last word is atone for, expiate, and in this connexion, to avert by expiation, whether in the strict sense of atoning sacrifice or in the wider one of satisfaction and propitation. If we assume a personification of the evil, the verb may mean to appose, as in Gen. 32: 21. Prov. 16:14. In any case, the clause describes the threatened judgment as inexorable and inevitable. And there shall come upon thee suddenly a crash,—or as J. D. Michaelis renders it, a crashing fale a common metaphor for sudden ruin,-(which) thou shalt not know. This may either mean, of which thou shalt have no previous experience, or which thou shalt have no previous expectation. The former meaning is the one most readily suggested by the words. The latter may be justified by the analogy of Job 9: 5, who removeth the mountains and they know not, which can only mean that he removes them suddenly or unawares. Because th same verb in the first clause governs a following word (thou shalt not mow its dawn, or how to conjure it away), Lowth adopts Secker's hint that similar dependent word has here been lost, but does not venture to determine what it was, though he thinks it may have

.11:11 .as in Jer ,צאת ממנה been

[ocr errors]

V. 12. Stand now! It must be borne in mind that is not a particle of time but of entreaty, very often corresponding to I pray, or if you please. In this case it indicates a kind of concession to the people, if they still choose to try the virtue of their superstitious ats which he had already denounced as worthless. Some interpreters have gone too far in representing this passage as characterized by a tone of bing sarcasm.- -Stand now in thy spells (or charms). Vitringa supposes an alhsion to the customary standing posture of astrologers, conjurers, etc. Others understand the verb to mean stand fast, be firm and courageous. But the molern writers generally follow Lowth in understanding it to mean persist or persevere, which of course requires the preposition to be taken in its usual proper sense of in.-Persist now in thy spells and in the abundance of thy charm the same nouns that are joined above in v. 9. In which thou hast labourd. Gesenius in his Grammar ($121. 2) mentions this as one of the only two cases in which the Hebrew relative is governed directly by a preposition, in which instead of which in them, the usual idiomatic combination. But Hrzig and Ewald do away with this exception, by supposing the particle to be dependent on the verb at the beginning, and the relative directly on the verb that follows: persist in that which (or in that respecting which) thou hast laboured (or wearied thyself; see above, on ch. 43: 22) from thy youth. This may either mean of old, or more specifically, since the earliest period of thy national existence. The antiquity of occult arts, and above all of astrology,

in Babylon, is attested by various profane writers. Diodorus Siculus indeed derives them from Egypt, and describes the Chaldees or astrologers of Babylon as Egyptian colonists. But as this last is certainly erroneous (see above on v. 1), the other assertion can have no authority. The Babylonians are reported by the same and other writers to have carried back their own antiquity, as proved by recorded scientific observations, to an extravagant and foolish length, to which some think there is allusion here in the expression from tny youth.-Perhaps thou wilt be able to succeed, or keep thyself, the verb commonly translated profit. (See above, ch. 44: 10.) originally means if not or whether not, but in usage corresponds more nearly to perhaps than it does to the conditional compound, if so be, which is the common English Version here. This faint suggestion of a possibility is more expressive than a positive denial.-Perhaps thou wilt grow strong, or prevail, as the ancient versions render it; or resist, as Rosenmüller, Hitzig, and Ewald explain it from an Arabic analogy; or terrify (thine adversary), as Gesenius explains it from the analogy of ch. 2: 19, 21. (Compare Ps. 10: 18 and Job 13: 25.) In either case the word is a specification of the more general term succeed or profit.

V. 13. Thou art wearied in the multitude of thy counsel, not merely weary of it, but exhausted by it, and in the very act of using it. seems to be a singular noun with a plural suffix, a combination which may be supposed to have arisen either from the want of any construct plural form in this case, or from a designed assimilation with the plurals in v. 12. As

may denote either numerical multitude or aggregate abundance, it is often construed with a singular, for instance in Ps. 5: 8. 52: 9. Is. 37:24. By counsel we are not to understand the computations or conferences of the astronomers, but all the devices of the government for self-defence. The German writers have introduced an idiom of their own into the first clause wholly foreign from the usage of the Hebrew language, by making it conditional, which Noyes has copied by giving it the form of an interrogation : art thou weary etc.? The original form is that of a short independent proposition-Let now (or pray let) them stand and save thee. We may take stand either in the same sense which it has above in v. 12, or in that of appearing, coming forward, presenting themselves. The use of e, in the sense of rising, is erroneously alleged as a peculiar feature in the diction of these Later Prophecies.-The subject of the verbs is then defined. The dividers of the heavens, i. e. the astrologers, so called because they divided the heavens into houses with a view to their prognostications. Henderson's reference to the twelve signs of the Zodiac is too restricted. The chethibh or textual reading (1) is regarded by some as an old form of the plural

construct, but by others as the third person plural of the preterite, agreeing with the relative pronoun understood (who divide). Kimchi regards division as a figure for decision or determination, which is wholly unnecessary. Some read, and suppose an allusion to the derivative noun in v. 12; while others trace it to the Arabic root, and suppose the phrase to mean those who know the heavens. All admit however that the general sense is correctly given by the Septuagint (orgolóroi rov ovqarov) and the Vulgate (augures coeli). The same class of persons is then spoken of as star-gazers, an English phrase which well expresses the peculiar force of followed by the preposition. Some however give the former word its frequent sense of seers or prophets, and regard what follows as a limiting or qualifying term, the whole corresponding to the English phrase star-prophets, i. e. such as prophesy by means of the stars.-The next phrase does not mean making known the new moons, for these returned at stated intervals and needed no prognosticator to reveal them. The sense is either at the new moons, or by means of the new moons, i. e. the changes of the moons, of which the former is the simpler explanation.-Interpreters are much divided as to the way in which the remaining words of this verse are to be connected with what goes before. Aben Ezra and Vitringa make the clause dependent on the verb save: 'Let them save them from (the things) which are about to come upon thee.' The only objections to this construction are the distance of the words thus connected from each other, and the absolute sense which it puts upon by removing its object. The modern writers, with a very few exceptions, connect this participle with what follows, making known at the new moons what shall come upon thee. The may then be partitive (some of the things etc.) or indicate the subject of the revelation (of i. e. concerning what shall come etc.). To the former Vitringa objects, that the astrologers would undertake of course to reveal not only some but all things still future. But Jarchi suggests, that the new moon could afford only partial information; and J. D. Michaelis, that this limited pretension would afford the astrologers a pretext and apology for frequent failures. But the other construction is now commonly preferred, except that Ewald gives to the meaning whence, i. e. from what source or quarter these things are to come upon thee.

V. 14. Behold they are like stubble, fire has burned them (the Babylonian astrologers). The construction given by Gesenius (stubble which the fire consumes) is inconsistent with the plural suffix. Behold brings their destruction into view as something present. It is on this account more natural, as well as more exact, to give the verbs a past or present form, as Ewald does, than to translate them in the future. He not only prophesies

« EdellinenJatka »