« PreviousContinue »
and 28,7. Let the first message be compared with this second in 1 Chron. xxii. 8-13: which the Syr. version (at ver. 8) tells us, was delivered by a prophet, and the Arab. says, by the prophet Gad. This 2d message was after David's many wars, when he had shed much blood; and it was this second message, that, out of all David's sons, appointed Solomon to be his successor. At the time of the 1st message Solomon was not born ; it being delivered soon after David became king at Jerusalem: but Solomon was born, at the time of this ad message. For though our translation very wrongly says (1 Chron. xxii. 9)a son shall be born to thee, and his name shall be Solomon;' yet the Heb. text expressly speaks of him as then born—' Behold, a son (7393 natus est) is born to thee: and therefore the words following must be rendered, “Solomon is his name, and I will give peace in his days: he shall build an house for my name,' &c.
“ From David's address to God, after receiving the message by Nathan, 'tis plain that David understood the son promised to be the the Messiah; in whom his house was to be established for ever. But the words, which seem most expressive of this, are in this verse now rendered very unintelligibly,' and is this the manner of man? Whereas the words ON nun nan literally signify,
and this is (or must be) the law of the man, or of the Adam," i. e. this promise must relate to the law, or ordinance, made by God to Adam, concerning the seed of the woman; the man, or the second Adam: as the Messiah is expressly called by St. Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 45–47. This meaning will be yet more evident from the parallel place, 1 Chron. xvii. 17, where the words of David are now miserably rendered thus : “And thou hast regarded me, according to the estate of a man of high degree.'
, and thou hast regarded me, according to the Adam that is future, or the man that is from above,' (for the word ayoon very remarkably signifies hereafter as to time, and from abore as to place); and thus St. Paul, including both senses, The second man is the Lord from heaven :' and, Adam is the figure of him that was to come, or the future. Rom. v. 14”,-Kennicott's (Posthumous) Remarks on the 0. T. p. 108-115. .
,literally signify. וראיתני כתור האוס המעלה Whereas the words
SUCCESSOR OF DAVID; EVERLASTING KING; JEHOVAH.
2 Sam. xxiii. 1-7. Dr. KENNICOTT's translation.
Now these are the last words of David.
The oracle of David, the son of Jesse;
The spirit of Jehovah speaketh by me;
The Just One ruleth
men! He ruleth by the fear of God
As the light of the morning, ariseth Jehovah;
Verily thus is my house with God;
But the sons of Belial shall not flourish;
As a thorn rooted up, shall be all of them:
And the Man, who shall reprove them,
The evidence in favour of this amended version is to me sufficiently satisfactory to authorise its admittance.* It plainly bears the characters of a grand and definite prediction, suiting the character and circumstances of the dying prophet,
KNEW that God had sworn to him with an oath, of the fruit of his body to place upon his throne” a GREAT SUCCESSOR, whose throne should be established for ever. This future Personage is here described, in accordance with the other prophetic scriptures and the language of the New Testament, as a gracious and beneficent Sovereign, the Holy and Just One,f the Hope and the Salvation of the saints, the persecuted and crucified man, the Sun of righteousness, yea, JEHOVAH himself.
* See Note [A] at the end of this Section.
Note [A] p. 193.
It is to be regretted that Dr. Kennicott's “Critical Appendix," for which he reserved the “ Notes which might be necessary in support of the alterations here proposed," was never published. Perhaps, however, the following extracts will go a considerable way towards supplying the defect, after premising two or three remarks.
The manuscript to which Dr. K. attributes so high an authority, is his No. 1. It is in the Bodleian library, numbered Laud. A. 172 and 162, two volumes in folio, on vellum, and in the Spanish kind of character. Its marks of high antiquity are numerous and decisive. Its text was certainly formed before the Masoretic revision, from which (as exhibited in Vanderhooght's Bible) it differs no fewer than fourteen thousand times, of which instances a very great multitude agree with the ancient versions, and, in the Pentateuch, with the Samaritan copy. Dr. K. moderately estimated its date to be in the middle or early part of the tenth century.
V. 1. I do not perceive the reason of rendering nudi D'DI composer of the psalms : its literal meaning is delightful in the psalms. V. 3. Jehovah is added on the authority of several early printed editions, Kennicott's MS. 253, written A. D. 1495, and de Rossi's 579, which is about a ce ry older. V. 4. See
in their בשבת
the extracts below. V. 5.15 so'z verily thus, is the reading of Kennicott's 252, a MS. which he assigns to the close of the thirteenth century; and it is strongly confirmed by the Targum. Join the latter clause of v. 5. with the first word of v. 6. thus, Booba in pris retracting the 1 so that, as a noun of multitude, or by ellipsis of va, the word may be construed with the plural verb. This the evident sense requires, and it is confirmed by the Targum, Lxx. Syr. and Ar. V. 7. Accost would be more exact than either touch or reprove. abode ; or with quietness , Syr. and Ar. q. d. they shall lie in utter helplessness before the irresistible vengeance. Dr. K's. with ignominy is a clearer sense; but I do not perceive how it is elicited from the word : it seems to have been suggested by the Lxx. whose text, however, is here extremely perplexed and probably corrupt.-We now adduce the elucidations from Dr. Kennicott's General Preliminary Dissertation, prefixed to his magnificent Hebrew Bible; and from his posthumous Remarks before mentioned.
6 Variantem habet hic codex"&c. 66 This MS. has a various reading, hitherto found in no other, and of so much importance as to require a brief explanation, though it cannot yet be fully treated. No part whatever of the 0. T. is introduced with a greater majesty of language, or more excites the expectation of some splendid and glorious sense, than the LAST WORDS OF DAVID, 2 Sam. xxiii. 1-7; but this expectation is completely disappointed, and very many of the terms and expressions are involved in the thickest obscurity, so that the principal subject, the hinge on which the whole must turn, cannot be made out. But, on this highly important reading, I am happy to refer to the sentiments of a distinguished critic, M. Michaelis, whom none will suspect of a prepossession which might possibly be imputed to me. I first communicated this reading to the learned world in 1753; and the Gættingen Review of New Books, No. ix. p. 26, 27, had the following observations on the obscurity of the passage, and the value of the emendation. Inconsiderable as these researches may appear to some, their utility in vindicating the sacred history from the cavils of objectors may appear from the following instance of a new and valuable reading in a very difficult passage. That the