Images de page

clined to believe, with Bengel and Michaelis, that what may at first sight appear the smoother reading, is more to be suspected as the corruption, than that wbich may seem more uncouth; for it is easy, in almost every such case, to see an inducement operating to produce the former, when no satisfactory reason can be assigned for any change of the text to produce the latter. Very particular attention should therefore be paid to the various readings in the Apocalypse ; and here I shall notice one connected with the subject before us.

In this chapter (the 5th), after the Lamb takes the book, the animals and elders fall down before the Lamb, and sing a new song; and an innumerable company of angels around the throne, and the animals and the elders (and consequently around the sitting one) are then heard saying, “Worthy is the Lamb that was

sacrificed to receive power,” &c.—blessing, and honor and power be TO THE ONE SITTING UPON “THE THRONE,”-xal åpviw,-C. V. “ and “UNTO THE LAMB,”

”-a mode of expression which, as hitherto understood, refers to two persons,—the sitting one, and the Lamb; and in the Common Version this is marked, as strongly as possible, by introducing the preposition unto.

In the Alexandrian MS., one of those which have preserved the true reading in the 7th verse, this passage appears without the conjunction

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

και : it reads thus, το καθημένω επί του θρόνου το αρνίω, áprio, to the one sitting on the throne, the

Lamb,"making the sitting one and the Lamb one person. Two of the Sclavonian Codices collated by Dobrowski also reject the xal; and, did all the MSS. read thus, it would be impossible for the most fastidious opposers of the Apocalyptic Greek to evade the inference. But though there may be instances in which, from internal evidence, the reading of a solitary manuscript might be justified against an host of Codices reading differently, it would be rash to conclude, on the authority of those that reject the xal in this instance, that the reading is spurious; since, in all the other places where the same words occur, the Alexandrian exhibits the xal, like the generality of manuscripts and early versions; and though it be possible that, in all the passages, the xai has been interpolated, to mark the diversity conceived to be taught in the early part of the 7th chapter-and certain, that, could this interpolation be proved, it would tend very much to shorten the present enquiry—yet it seems by no means probable that in all the passages, in so many codices as have been collated, such numerous interpolations could have been effected, without any escaping, except two or three, and these only in one of the passages. It seems then more reasonable to conclude that, in



this instance, the Alexandrian MS. presents a corrupt reading; and that, possibly, we owe the corruption to some individual who, knowing the Hebrew idiom, imagined that the presence of the xad might induce a belief of two persons being spoken of, when, he knew, from the context, that but one could be in the mind of the writer. And if we owe the error (for both readings cannot be right) to any idea of this kind operating on the mind of a transcriber, it is possible that his intended remedy involved an impropriety, not quite obvious at first view, but which a little consideration may render evident; for it strikes me that by placing “ the Kathêmeso nos" in immediate concord with “ the Lamb," the latter would be represented as sitting, which is a posture altogether inconsistent with the propriety of the symbol,-a point strictly attended to by the writer throughout the whole of this prophecy. And this naturally leads me to offer a few observations respecting the language employed when Jesus Christ, in reference to the throne, is spoken of in the character of The LAMB; for in this character he is never said to sit; no, nor to stand, on the throne, in the proper acceptation of these terms; thongh, from the words αρνίον εστηκός ως έσφαγμένον, which in the Common Version are rendered “ stood a Lamb, " as it had been slain," it has, without enquiry,' been assumed, that this expression has relation to posture, that the Lamb is here said to stand on the throne. This, along with the circumstances that have already been noticed, has tended to prop the false idea, that the Kathēmenos and the Lamb must, necessarily, mean different individuals, as the Lamb is represented as standing, while the other term indicates one who does not stand, but is seated on the throne. I mean not bere to assume that both of these termsThe Kathēmenos, and The Lambrefer to the same individual : all that I have now in view is to show, that the passage before us furnishes no proof of their diversity, and that, if these terms indicate different individuals, the proof must be found elsewhere. The term fornxòg, rendered stood,is the neuter Participle Preter of the verb fotojes, I stand, place, set, make to stand, i. e. establish, ratify, confirm, &c. The Greek having Participles for all its numerous tenses, few only of them can be directly rendered in English, which has properly only two, and hence the difficulty which critics often experience in translating them perspicuously. The case before us presents a striking instance of this, for the Participle here has no relation whatever to animal posture, and the sense cannot be given in English without a circumlocution or an expansion of the term. To obtain the precise meaning of the expression, the context must be strictly attended to. The Lamb spoken of is one slain or sacrificed, and this Participle must have relation to this slaying, being connected therewith by the Particle ws, denoting the manner in which something was effected—this something refers to the Lamb as either the agent or instrument, and the participle értnxòs to the thing effected and so continuing,--and the words that follow inform us, how ?--Ws to Payuévov (another Neuter Participle Preter, and therefore not capable of being accurately rendered in one word, but strictly meaning) as one having been sacrificed. The relation of the different terms being established, it becomes evident that cornxòs expresses what had been effected, in some way or other, by the Lamb having been thus sacrificed : he served to ratify, or establish and perpetuate, that which required a sacrifice for confirmation, namely a covenant. In this view the verb lotou answers precisely to the Hebrew verb dyp (Kum), when applied to confirmation or ratification by a sacrifice ; and accordingly is the one employed in the Septuagint for this Hebrew verb, as in Gen. vi. 18. and ix. 11., στήσω την διαθήκην μου, I will establish my covenant ; Gen. ix. 9. éyo dvíotnes, I establish, &c.; Exod vi. 4., črtnou, I have established my covenant. We have then, in this passage, nothing about “a lamb standing,"—in reference to pos

[ocr errors]
« PrécédentContinuer »