Images de page

beget and propagate the idea that the sitting one,” mentioned in the 1st verse, must be a different person from the individual who is afterwards described, in v. 8., as having taken the book,--and, further un, as opening its seals: and this idea, once entertained, would, (if erroneous,—which we shall soon ascertain,) tend to lead to corruptions of the text. In fact, in v. 7. of this chapter we have a striking instance of this:-some early scholiast, unable to comprehend how or in what sense the Lamb could be said to come and take the right hand of the one sitting on the throne ; and observing that, in the following verse, the Lamb is said to have taken the book ; and having taken up the idea, that the book mentioned in the 1st verse, was. In the right hand of the one Sitting on the throne ; wrote on his margin, or interlined in v. 7., the words to Bußríoy, the book ;" thus making

το βιβλίον, the Lamb take the book out of the right hand of the one sitting upon the throne ; and thus—if a supplement was necessary and he had used a proper one-making it impossible that The Lamb" and “ The Kathēmenos . (or sitting one)” could be the same individual. But no supplement was wanted, nor could any one be introduced that would not change the Writer's meaning, which is simply this,--that the one called “ The Lamb" is the same of whom it had been predicted, that he should come and occupy the right hand--that is--the power of Jehovah; that he had come accordingly, and taken to him this power. This is a mode of speech quite common to the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures, and especially in reference to the Messiah, as, for example, in Psalm cx. 1., “JEHOVAH said unto ADONAI, Sit thou on my right hand (i. e. occupy the power of Jehovah) until I make thine enemies thy footstool.This is said of him who, by the oath of Jehovah, is constituted a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek, v. 4.; and is by our Lord himself applied to "the Messiah" in Luke xx. 41, 42.: How say they that the Messiah is David's son? since David himself saith, JEHOVAH said unto my

ture of the Greek Prepositions was Dr. James Moor, Greek Professor in the University of Glasgow, in an Essay published so recently as the year 1766 : but it applies forcibly to the ancient Commentators, who, by their erroneous interpretations, tacitly charged the writer with barbarisms; and it certainly applies, with some force, to those versions of the Apocalypse which have appeared since the publication of Moor's Essay, of which there are nine, perhaps more. This . Essay has been reprinted in that useful work The Classical Journal: Vol. iii, 23.

Lord,' Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.'In this 7th verse of the 5th chapter of the Apocalypse we have a striking instance of the injury done to the sacred text by the ignorance of transcribers; but happily the Alexandrian and many of the best

[ocr errors]

MSS. have escaped corruption in this place: and,—now that it is shown, that the Writer made no improper application of the Preposition én! with the Accusative την δεξιάν ; that he speaks of a book which has for ITS SUBJECT, the right hand, or the power of the Kathēmenos, and not of a book in his right hand, as must have been supposed by the person who first presumed to alter the text,—there cannot, I would hope, be much danger of this corruption being entailed on the divine record (though Junius, Walton, Mill, Wetstein, Griesbach and other good critics have retained it); and the idea of two persons being found in this passage must be abandoned, as being altogether contrary to truth. In concluding this part of my argument I beg, once more, to remind the reader, that the Preposition never means, when governing an Accusative, position in situ, but always tendency on its object, in some way or other; and often takes, as in the case we have been considering, precisely the sense of the English preposition “on,” when applied to a book on any particular subject, as a book on Algebra, on Power, on the Apocalypse.'

[ocr errors]

* An extract from Professor Moor's Essay, alluded to in a preceding note, may in this place prove acceptable to some of my readers.--"With respect to motion and rest; some prepositions express only the one of these; and then they

govern only one case. Others express both; and then they govern two cases ; one, when they express motion, the other, when they express rest. By motion, in this inquiry into the signification of the Greek prepositions, I always mean progressive motion; or, in common language, motion towards. When a Greek preposition expresses only motion, the one case which it governs is always the accusative ; or case of the active verb; by a very proper and natural analogy in language ; as all external action implies motion towards that we act upon. If my hand strike the table, it must move towards the table. When a preposition expresses only rest, or situation, the one case which it governs is never the accusative, but always one of the other two oblique cases, the genitive or dative. When the same preposition expresses both motion and rest, it governs two cases; when motion, always the accusative, as before ; when rest or situation, always one of the other two; not interchangeably, but invariably; the one or the other of the two. Thus the Greek éti, which answers precisely to the English preposition upon, expresses both motion and rest. We say equally, the ball is FALLING UPON the ground; or, is LYING UPON the ground; in Greek, ý opaipa nintel ÉTÈ THN yv; and, s σφαίρα κείται επί της ΓΗΣ; the difference of case governed, expressing distinctly the difference of acceptation meant; even suppose the verbs were not expressed. For, énè Thy yov, by itself, would show that motion upon, that is, progressive motion pointing upon, was meant; and, énè rñts yñs, rest upon, or, situation upon; but not interchangeably, éri yî; if only rest, or situation, was meant, and nothing further. For, when, besides the two cases appropriated to express motion or rest in general, a Greek preposition governs a third case, it then expresses some one particular, and remarkable mode of the general signification. Thus, éri, with the third case, the dative, expresses close upon ; either in place or in

I have no doubt that some of the difficulties which oppose the right understanding of this book, are to be ascribed to the temerity with which early transcribers and critics presumed to alter the text, to make it speak, according to their ideas, better Greek. Where the manuscripts present various readings I am much in


time ; that is, next-behind, or next-after; for example: ém éuoi, when meant of place, signifies next-behind me ; when meant of time, next-after me. So, 'YIIO, answering precisely to the English preposition under, with the accusative expresses motion under; that is, motion tending under, or coming under; with the genitive, rest, or situation, under. The ball is running under the table ; i, opałpa kvlivδεται υπό την τράπεξαν. The ball is lying under the table, ünÒ mīs tpare îs. 'YIIO likewise governs the dative, and then it expresses such particular modes of under, as we would express by saying, protected under, subject under, directed under ; as, útò vaq, under the protection of the temple ; ÚTÒ Baoilei, subject under the king...... To give one instance more. EIS and JIPOX both signify to; but,

; with this difference: els signifies motion to, and that only: therefore governs only the accusative ; apòs, on the contrary, never signifies motion to; but expresses any other kind of relation to; being of the most general and extensive meaning of all the Greek prepositions, and answering to the English expressions, relating to, with relation to, with respect to ; and it governs the accusative, in this its principal and primary signification ; but it governs also the dative, and then it signifies those particular relations to, which we express in English by the words close to, or at; or, by the words united. to, joined to, added to."

« PrécédentContinuer »