« IndietroContinua »
הדר not חדד of this conjecture it miay be observed that the word is
ing for the difference, to suppose that was by mistake written for 7, to which it bears a very close resemblance? In confirmation
may in Sam. Ar. and 200 Hebrew MSS. Many similar instances might easily be collected, as Num. ii. 14. Seyyy for Spyyn. Compare with Num. i. 14. vii. 42. x. 20. One of the sons of Gomer is called nonny Gen.x. 3. and na't i Chron. i. 6. In Ezra ii. 25. Kirjath-jearim, a well known city, is called D'iy nip Kirjath-arim; but in the parallel passage Nehem. vii. 29. and I believe in every other passage where it occurs, it is spelt
o'ty mp Kirjath-jearim. And in many, both of Kennicott's and De Rossi's MSŠ, the read ing is Diny romp, in Ezra ii. 25. In || Chron. xxi. 2. we find in
', “ Israel ;” when it is well known that Jehoshaphat was king of Judah, and there was no king of Israel of that name. Accordingly more than 30 MSS. and all the ancient versions read ,J717 for
Jehoshaphat king of * ,יהושפט מלך ישראל the Hebrew text
The 3d head consists of interpolations, which are fewer in number than the errors under either of the former heads, and which seem to have principally arisen from the transcriber having inadvertently copied the same passage twice. || Kings viii. 16.
ובשות חמש ליורם בן אחאב מלך ישראל ויהושפט מלך יהודה מלך יהוים בן יהושפט מלך יהודה.
Literally thus: “ Now in the fifth year of Jehoratn, the son of Ahab, king of Israel, [and Jehoshaphat king of Judah,] Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, began to reign.” For proofs of the contradiction between this passage as it stands, and other parts of the sacred history, I refer to Kennicott's Remarks, p. 139. and his Dissertatio Generalis, p. 44. The difficulty will be easily removed by supposing that the transcriber, after having written
מלך יהורם בן accidentally omitted the words בן אחאב מלך ישראל -then discover : יהושפט מלך יהודה : and wrole the following words
: ': ing his mistake, he wrote the sentence anew, including the three words which he had omitted, without erasing his interpolation. The words are omitted in two MSS. and the Hexaplar Lyriace. Many similar instances of interpolation occur in the collated MSS. I will mention but one example more of interpolation, distinguishing the supposed interpolation by inclosing it within brackets : ||| .
( “Let them take, I pray thee, five of the horses which remain, which
ויקחו נא חמשה מן הסוסים הנשארים אשר נשארו .13 .Kings vii וון בה הנם ככל ההמון ישראל אשר [נשארן בה הנם ככל המון ישראל אשר] תמו ונשלחה ונראה.
"p. 23-4. ? Kenn. Rem. p. 144. Doederleen Biblia Hebraica in loc. 3 Kennp. .
are left therein ; behold they are as all the multitude of Israel which are [left therein; behold they are as all the multitude of Israel which are] consumed; and let us stand and see.” The transcriber having copied as far as the 2d wx, (which is marked with an asterisk,) on reverting to the original, seems to have cast his eye by mistake on the first 10X (marked with a dagger) and wrote the intervening words twice over. This repetition is omitted in ó, Syr. and 36. MSS.' It may be said that these alleged errors of the Hebrew text are of little importance. They are selected, not from their importance, but from the clear and strong bearing which they have on the question at issue, the integrity of the present Hebrew text. It would be easy to adduce passages in which the supposed corruption is of more importance. Indeed it was my intention to have done so, but as it would have led me into more detail, and as I fear I have already sufficiently tried the patience of your readers, I will rest my case here, and will ask in conclusion, whether any person who carefully examines the present Hebrew text of the passages which have been quoted, who considers the evidence bearing on the subject which arises from the ancient versions and the collated Hebrew MSS.; who recollects the innumerable errors which are universally allowed to have arisen from the mistakes of transcribers in all other cases; and who takes into the account the very great antiquity of the Hebrew records, and consequently the numberless times which they must have been transcribed, as well as the close resemblance which many of the Hebrew letters bear to each other ;-[ will ask whether any person who gives to these considerations their just weight, can agree with Mr. B., that “ as to the ability to maintain and prove the absolute integrity of the Hebrew text-it requires no great ability to prove that it is now as perfect as it was in the days of Moses ;
:»2 and that “ there is not a surer mark of a man's ignorance of the original, than when he speaks against the absolute integrity of the text."} Let it be remembered that if in any one of the instances adduced, (and numberless other passages might have been easily brought forward, the slightest error of the Hebrew text shall be admitted, its absolute integrity can no longer be supported. I am far from holding that the corruptions of the Hebrew text have extended so far as to affect our faith or practice, nor can I by any means ap, prove of that passion for conjectural emendation which has actuated some critics. But I caunot conceive that any person is competent to give to the world an improved version of the sacred writings, who holds that “the Hebrew text is now as perfect as it was in the days of Moses." + March, 1818.
1 Kennicutt's Remarks, p. 138. 2 Class. Journ. xiv. 237. 3 Ib. xix. 238.
We refer our correspondent to Mr. Bellamy's Ophion, p. 121. 8vo. pr. 3s. 6d.; also to his articles in our Nos. xvi, and xviii.-ED.
ON THE ORIGIN OF THE TERM MIDDLE,
AS APPLIED TO THE GREEK VERB, And the Errors of Kuster, Wolle, Fischer, und H. Ste
No. II.-[Continued from No. XXX. p. 304.] That some of the ancient critics really understood the Middle Verb in certain phrases to denote action mixed with passion, is apparent from the fact, to which scholars have not paid sufficient attention, that the Greeks invented a term to express this its peculiar force, * αντιπεπονθότα.
“ Qui a tonsore tondetur, revera quidem ab eo aliquid patitur, sed tamen ipse simul actionem negotio huic admiscet, dum tonsori illi, a se arcessito, sponte se tondendum præbet, unde Græci hoc sensu semper adbibent verbum medium xeipsoba, vel in Aor. 1. relpeolau. Contra, mortui, oves, pelles etc. sensu mere passivo dicuntur xelpeolas, quoniam in hoc negotio nec voluntatem ullam habent, nec facultatem, vel adjuvandi, vel prohibendi tonsuram. Hoc ipsum erudite nos docet Philo J. de Caino : "Noneg yåp sò κείρεσθαι διττόν, το μεν ως αντιπεπονθός, κατά αντέρεισιν, το δε ως υπεϊκον, καθ' υπόπτωσιν. Πρόβατον μεν γαρ, ή δέρμα, ή το λεγόμενον κώδιον, ουδέν ενεργούν εξ αυτού, πάσχον δε μόνον υφ' ετέρου, κείρεται, ο δ' άνθρωπος συνδρών, και σχηματίζων, και επιτήδειον παρέχων εαυτόν, ανακιρνας τω πάσχειν το ποιεϊν. .” • Ut enim tonderi duplex est, unum ut passioni non cedens, sensu resistendi, alterum, ut cedens, sensu se submittendi. Nam ovis, aut pellis, aut quod dicitur xcolov, (vellus ovinum,) omnis actionis expers, et passioni tantum obnoxium, tondetur : at homo (tondetur,) alterius actionem adjuvans, et ad certum habitum se componens, et tonsioni se accommodans, admiscens sc. actioni passionem.' Sic ergo xelpaola est Facere se tonderi, vel Se tondenduin præbere, uti dobodales, Se lavandum præbere, xgioariai, Se unguendum præbere.” Kuster. de V. M. i. 1. p. 116. “ Diog. L. Zenone 64. (de Categorematis): 'Αντιπεπονθότα δε έστιν, εν τοις υπτίοις * ανύπτια όντα. 'Ενεργήματα δε έστιν, οίον, Κείρεται εμπεριέχει γαρ εαυτόν ο καιρόμενος. • Ego pro &YTITETOVÁóta reposui AÚTOTETOVÚóta, parva, ut vides, mutatione literarum. Neque enim vel ap. Th. Gazam, vel ap. Apollon., doctissimos Grammaticos, invenire potui genus hoe verborum, quæ éYTITSTOVÁÓTa vocarentur; et exemplum ipsum a Laertio allatum ostendebat, pro αντιπεπονθότα leg. αυτοπεπονθότα. Qui enim tondetur, quo quidem Laert. usus est exemplo, non dicitur dutináo xelv, sed * autopáoxelv. Huc accedit etiam, quod ei descriptio Laertii congruit. Kelgou as enim quamvis desinat, ut verba supina, tamen supinum non est : quia effectum quendam etiam ostendit, in quo et ipsemet continetur. Hanc enim habent vim sibi propriam verba, quæ ÆÚTOWETOVOÓTa vocantur, ut adjunctam cum passione, ut ita loquar, actionem habeant.' Aldob. Loquitur V. D. tanquam si sic Laertii verba vel legisset, vel correxisset, Αυτοπεπονθότα δέ έστιν εν τοις υπτίοις, ανύπτια όντα, οίον, Κείρεται έμπεριέχει γαρ εαυτόν ο καιρόμενος. 'Αντιπεπονθότα habent ceteri editi, , omnesque manu exarati. Codd. Aldobrandinus tamen qÚTOTETTON Obte de suo ausus est reponere. Revocanda omnino vetus lectio.
Voces asterisco notatæ in H. Steph. Thes. Gr. L. desiderantur. 2 It is strange that Kuster, who, in his tract on the Middle Verb, quotes the
passage of Philo, should not have admitted that Philo's ideas upon the Middle Verb were precisely his own, that is, as denoting action mixed with passion, ο δ' άνθρωπος (κείρεται) συνδρών και σχηματίζων, και επιτήδειον παρέχων davrdv, åvakıpvds TẬ TÁO XELV TÒ Troleîv, and that, as this opinion was probably not peculiar to Philo, but taken from some grammarian either of his own, or of a former age, the true principle of the Middle Verb in certain phrases was sufficiently known to some of the best ancient grammarians. I am strongly inclined to think, that to this very passage in Philo, Kuster was indebted for what has been improperly called his discovery about the true import of the Middle Verb in certain phrases, and that from the perusal of this passage in Philo, he was led to investigate the whole subject, and to apply to many other verbs that principle, which Philo applies to explain
the reciprocal force of relpasla.. This opinion derives great probability from the note of Kuster upon the Clouds of Aristophanes, v. 127., where the passage in Philo was quoted by Kuster, four years before the first appearance of the tract on the Middle Verb. His words are these :“ Aiddičomai, i. e. ipse me docendum alteri præbebo. Verba enim media plerumque passionem significant cum actione conjunctam, veluti dovoojai, lavabor, i. e. me ipsum lavabo, vel, me luvandum aliis præbebo : Kelpouas, me ipse tondeo, vel, tondendum me alteri præbeo ; et similia : solent enim Græci de hominibus, qui vel a se ipsi, vel ab aliis volentes quid patiuntur, lo quentes adhibere verba media, que ideo etiain αντιπεπονθότα, vel αυτοπεπονDóra vocant. Egregius est hanc in rem locus ap. Philon. de Caino (Lib. de Cherubim, t. i. 153. Mang. t. ii. 42. Pfeiffer.), ubi de v. Kelpeo bat agens, in significatione ejus sic distinguit, ut dicat, oves, pelles, et alia inanimata, sive actione carentia, sensu passivo dici kelpeolar:' at hominem, qui sponte se tondendum præbeat, et sic actionem aliquam passioni admisceat, sepsų medio relpeolau. Dotep ydp, inquit, k. Tin."
Similiter ap. Philo J. (l. c.) et ap. Orig. c. Cels. (315. Ed. Cant.) 'Επειδή το πείθεσθαι ωσπερεί των καλουμένων αντιπεπονθότων, έστιν ανάλογον τω κείρεσθαι άνθρωπον, ενεργούντα το παρέχειν εαυτόν τα κείροντι. Ita interpungendus h. 1. quem non cepit Interpres. Mire autem ad Laert. nostrum facit, ap. quem ex Orig. leg. 'Eu tapéxel yap čautòy ó xeipólsvos.”. Menag. "Imo illud, tunapézsu éxUTÒV, sic absolute usurpari nequit. Scribe, 'Eμπαρέχει γαρ εαυτόν τα κείρονται και Xespóuevos, Tonsori præbet se tondendum. Vide Nostrum in ’ExTagéxw. Sed vel sic lectus locus iste non sanus est, quod Menag. fugisse miramur ; quis enim sensus voci švegyhuata inest ? ’AUTOπεπονθότα δε έστιν εν τοις υπτίοις ανύπτια όντα. 'Ενεργήματα δέ έστιν, οίον, Κείρεται: έμπαρέχει γαρ εαυτόν τα κείρονται και χειρόμενος. Νam primum évésynua, de verbis dictum, nihil aliud sonare potest, quam Activum verbum : • Gramm. ενεργητικα vocant ρήματα, inquit Noster, quæ Lat. Activa verba, unde autoevepyntixòv, Verbum, quod passivam vocem et activam significationem habet, ut páxquas. Deinde quomodo fit, ut inter exempla tőv évepynuátw, Activorum verborum proprie sic dictorum, Diog. L. ponat illud reipetab, Tondendum se præbet, quod verbum ad ea, quæ &UTITSTOV6674 dicuntur, Adjunctam cum passione actionem habentia, proculdubio pertinet ? Lege igitur, ut partim tacite legisse videtur Aldob., *Αντιπεπονθότα δε έστιν εν τοις υπτίοις ανύπτια όντα, οίον, Κείρεται: έμπαρέχει γαρ εαυτόν τα κείροντι ο χειρόμενος. 'Ενεργήματα δε έστινperiit explicatio vocis évepriuata." Nou. Thes. Gr. L. No. iv. p. 614-5.
I know not whether Ign. Ross. in his Notes on Diog. L. has touched upon this passage. The editors of the New Greek Thesaurus might have added, that the truth of the reading åYTITETOVDóra, is placed beyond all doubt by the words of Philo, xat' ártépelowy.
It cannot, then, be denied, that Philo, and Origen, and Eustathius, and some of the ancient grammarians, were not unacquainted with the peculiar import of the Middle Verb, as denoting in certain phrases, action mired with passion.
Now those grammarians who had viewed the subject in this light, may perhaps have been disposed to trace the origin of the term middle, not to “position;" that is, to the exterior form of the verb, as if the Middle Voice occupied the middle space be tween the active and the passive in the formation of its tenses, having some tenses similar to the active, and some to the passive, (see the words of Wolle, which I shall soon produce,) nor to the notion that the Middle Verb has sometimes an active, and some times a passive signification, bụt to the circumstance of its denoting