But foon her triumph ceas'd-the mid-day beam "The humbled olive faw the rose distress'd, ART. XIII. Marfh's Translation of Michaelis. WE have referved to this place a few fupplemental obferva tions, which by their diffufenefs, would too much have interrupted our general view of this work. Michaelis, like many other modern Hebraifts, frequently indulges himself in fuggesting innovations, ingenious, indeed, and fpecious, but too often ill-founded. His commentator, Mr. Marsh, stands forward in general as an able defender of the ancient translators and commentators against attacks of this nature. But there are exceptions. In our first article on this fubject, we gave an inftance, in which Michaelis appeared to us rightly to defend the ancient tranflator, while Mr. Marth took the oppofite fide. This was in the ufe of the word Teftamentum.On this we fhall fubjoin a few observations, and then proceed to mention a cafe in which the commentator feems too haftily to oppofe Michaelis, when he offers an ingenious, and in fome degree, a novel remark, to justify an expreffion found in St. Luke's Gofpel. As a further proof, that Jerom altered Teftamentum to Pactum, merely for the fake of precision, and not because he conceived Teftamentum in the fenfe of a covenant or ordinance, to be an error of the Italic tranflator, we may obferve, that an example of its retention by Jerom, occurs in the New Testament, which was wholly tranflated anew by himself, and not merely in the Pfalms, which he only corrected. In Acts vi. 8. St. Stephen says "God gave to the Jews adv #EFITCans," which the Italic tranflator, whom the Latin tranflator of Irenæus Irenæus always quotes, renders thus: "Poftea exient et feryient mihi in ifto loco, et dedit ei Teftamentum circumcifionis, et fic generavit Ifaac," Adv. Hares. 3. 12. p. 230 of Grabe's edit. Now in Jerom's Vulgate it is altered thus;" Poft hæc exibunt et fervient mihi in loco ifto, et dedit illi Teftamentum circumcifionis, et fic genuit Ifaac." Here we find feveral words changed, more or lefs, which make no alteration in the fenfe, nor any improvement, and nevertheless Teftamentum is retained by Jerom. But here it cannot poffibly mean a will. Can we then, in this cafe, think it credible that he would have retained Teftamentum, if he had conceived its ufe to denote a Covenant (Pactum) was a mere error in the Italic tranflator, and that the word was never employed in this fenfe in its popular ufe among the Romans? If this cannot be fuppofed, it is evident that when he did adopt Pactum it was only on account of precifion, in order to avoid the ambiguity arifing from the double sense of dianan and Testamentum, and not from any impropriety in that word. The manner in which the Italic tranflator has rendered the 1ft verfe of Ifaiah xxx. proves likewife that he could not have been mifled (as Mr. Marth conceives) by the double fenfe of xnxn, to make Teftamentum mean a Covenant; because, in the prefent example he has voluntarily employed Teftamentum to exprefs onxny, which never means a will, and has no other sense than Pactum, a Covenant. Aɩyri mugios, &ñoinσατε συνθήκες ο δια το πνεύματος μου. This the Italic tranflator renders" Dicit Dominus, Feciftis Teftamenta non per fpiritum meum." Thus, at least, the tranflator of Irenæus quotes the words from the old Italic translation (4. 34. p. 326.).Now Jerom, in the tranflation which he gives of the Septuagint, does indeed here change Teftamentum into Pacium, but makes no remark of its being an error; he only notices, that the Septuagint by unas have rather given the implied fenfe of the Hebrew, than a ftrict tranflation of it, for it ineans, he fays, literally, ordiremini telam, and so he renders the phrase in his Vulgate. The remark of Michaelis on St. Luke, which we think Mr, -Marsh has too haftily oppofed, is drawn from that Profeffor's deep knowledge of Oriental learning. This is here happily applied to vindicate the Evangelift; though in too many cafes the modern torrent of Orientalifm feems to threaten the fubverfion of all fixed opinions in fcriptural literature. It must, however, be allowed that Michaelis has obfcured the propriety of his own remark, partly by an incoherency and confufion in reafoning, and partly by the accident of an erroneous reference to a paffage in Affeinani's Bibliotheca Orientalis, whereby he has not appeared to do juftice to the folid foundation of his own cause. In In ch. iv. 5. it is, that Michaelis enters on the fubject of fhowing that various paffages in the New Teftament may be explained and juftified by a knowledge of the Oriental languages; and that by this mode of enquiry it will be found that expreffions which are both harsh and of dubious meaning in the Greek text are often mere Hebraifms, Syriafms, or Chaldaifms, &c. which the Greek authors have too literally tranfplanted into their provincial Greek, and thus rendered it obfcure to Greek readers. Among many others he notices the following pallage in St. Luke, Και ήμερα την παρασκευη, και σαβ Baтoy EmSQWOXE. (xxiii. 54.) All the interpreters are sensible here, that the time in queftion was Friday before funfet, at which the fabbath commenced, but they have been a little at a lofs why St. Luke fhould here ufe was to denote the approach of night, when its general fenfe in Greek is to fignify the approach or dawn of day-light in the morning. Hence fome of them afk, "Cur de vefpera ufurpatur Qox?-De die quæ a Luce five exortu folis incipit propriè dicitur, de die civile quam Hebræi a vefperâ inchoabant, impropriè." Pali Synops. Different folutions have been attempted, and indeed, one of them the right, but then it remained, in fome degree, doubtful. This uncertainty has been now removed by Michaelis, who fhows that it is a phrafe as customary among the Syrians to use the Syriac verb, expreffive of wax, to mean the approach of night, the commencement of the Syrian day, as among the Greeks to fignify the approach of day-light.Nevertheless, it must be allowed, that Michaelis's ftatement of the subject in queftion, and alfo his proofs from Syriac authors, in confirmation of their ufe of this Syriasm, are involved in fo much inaccuracy, incoherence, and confufion, that he does not even at last feem to have fufficiently proved the currency of fuch a phrafe, although, in fact, he has done it. Accordingly Mr. Marth judges, after a furvey of the whole," that the conclufion of our author may be established, though by premifes different from his own." p. 408.This, however, is an erroneous judgement; for the conclufion and Syriafm in queftion have, in reality, been fully establifhed by Michaelis himself, although he has, indeed, been unfortunate in his manner of doing it. What a strange state ment Michaelis begins with the following incoherent and erroneous ftatement: The following Syriafm is ftill more ftriking-Oa σαββάτων της επιφωσκεση εις μιαν σαββάτων (Matth. xxviii. 1.) which Ifhould have confidered as a mistake of the Greek tranflator, if the fame exprefion had not been ufed by St, Luke ; Και ήμερα την παρατ MEN, MA GABRATOV ETQwσx (Luke xxiii. 54.)-the whole paffage is a ment has Michaelis here below made of the fubject; for his first quotation from St. Matthew is totally foreign from the question, because wax is there ufed in its proper fenfe to mean the approach of day-light, and what is ftill more strange, he is inclined to confider this as a mistake of the Greek tranflator! It is then only the fecond quotation from St. Luke which is any thing to the purpose, because there wox means the approach of night for, as Mr. Marth himself rightly obferves, The only difficulty is to find a paffage where *TIPO is applied to the evening." It is common when applied to the morning. But Mr. Marth has broken his annotations on this fubject into fo many different paragraphs and feparate notes, that it is almoft as difficult to clear a way through them, as through the incoherency of Michaelis himself. The Syriac proofs likewife, which Michaelis produces, to fuftain the fact of the Syriafm in queftion, are as exceptionable as the above mentioned statement itfelf: for when he proceeds to adduce quotations from Syriac authors, in proof that the Syriac verb anfwering to wow is ufed by them to mean the approach of night, (at which time the Syrian day commenced} feveral of thefe are in reality nothing to the purpose: because in fact they relate to the approach of morning, and therefore only prove that the Syriac word could be ufed in the Greek fenfe. For example, his first-proof taken from his own Syriac Chreftomathy refers to the light of the morning, therefore is of no ufe; the quotation is "In the night of the fecond day of the week, which introduced with light the morning of the great faft." This quotation, feems to have been taken from Abulpharagius in Affemani, whofe Latin words are "nocte feria fecundæ ineuntis Jejunii quadragefimalis." Tom. III. part II 3. or elfe from Bar-hebræus nocte feriæ fecundæ lucefcentis in mane Jejunii magni."Tom. 11.257. In either cafe it refers to the light of morning.-His third proof (being the fecond faid by him to be taken from Affemani) is liable to the very fame objection. The quotation is, according to Mr. Marth's tranflation" In the night that lighted in [introduced with light the third day of the week." Tom. III. part II. 3. But the only words in that place, which relate to the third day are tranflated by Affemani nocte in feriam tertiam abeunte: now the night very usual Syriafm, and, confidered as fuch, is attended with no dif ficulty for the Syriac verb, which answers to Two is applied to pight," (or rather to the commencement of night, just as in Greck, is to the commencement of day.) P. 137. 4 being here faid to be departing, proves that this phrafe refers again to the light of morning, and therefore is also foreign from the point to be proved.-There remains then only Michaelis's Jecond proof, (which is the first faid by him to be taken from Affemani) the words are as follow: "on Saturday at the eleventh hour (i. e, at five in the afternoon) or literally, when the first day of the week fhone in." Tom. I. p. 212. Now this decidedly tends to the purpofe in question; for the time here Specified being at five in the afternoon, the Syriac verb meaning inlucefcere can refer only to the beginning of the civil day at fun-fet, when the Syrian first day of the week commenced; therefore the Syriac verb for inlucefcere must here mean the beginning of the night, not the fubfequent light of the morning. This then, and this alone, out of all Michaelis's quotations, is a demonftrative proof of the Syrian practice to employ inlucefcere, like St. Luke's EPOKE, to fignify the approach of night; and there can be little doubt, but it was hence that St. Luke, a Syrian, tranfplanted this Syriafm into Greek by his use of pwoxt in a fimilar cafe, when referring to the approach of night, the time when the Jewish fabbath commenced. Now to this decifive proof, what does Mr. Marsh object? First, that the Syriac verb employed in the quotation from p. 212, is different from the verb employed in Michaelis's first quotation from his own Chreftomathy.* But this objection does not affect the queftion; which is not whether the Syrians employed only one of their verbs fignifying inlucefcere, to denote the approach of night, but whether they did employ any of them in this fenfe, either one or more. However there is ftill a better anfwer to this objection. For Mr. Marsh objects again, that it is a falfe quotation by Michaelis, and that no fuch words are to be found in Tom. I. page 212t. Now it is indeed true, that at page 212, there are no other words to be found than thefe "Illucefcente dominica hora noctis tertia," and alfo that the Syriac verb ufed there is in fact different from that quoted in Michaelis's first proof; both of them however equally fignify illucefcere. But it is evident alfo that there is an error in the number of the page; for instead of 212 we should read 213, where we find the very words *« In Affemani Tom. I. p. 212, whence our author quotes the paffage, no mention is made of Saturday afternoon at five o'clock, but on the contrary, of tertiá horâ noƐtus.” + This quotation as given by Michaelis differs from the text of the original in Affemani in refpect to the very word for which the quotation is made, for the Syriac verb before mentioned is not used in that paffage." p. 40.5. quoted |