« PreviousContinue »
may be confidered either as a כארי The word :כארו
tini and Voisin, it is universally allowed to be of a very suspicious nature. The reading therefore must be either as or
: a noun, with the caph of fimilitude prefixed, fignifying like a lion ; or as a participle denoting action, the final - being omitted by Apocope. The former opinion must be rejected for the following reasons: ist. The construction will be thus rendered extremely unnatural, and contrary to the rules of grammar : for it must run thus, with the following ellipses, “ they have furrounded me, like a lion, in my
hands and feet;” or “O my hands and feet;” or “ as to my hands and feet;” or “even my hands and feet;" which are all forins of construction without example. 2dly. There is no interpretation of the verb
to כארי which is confiitent with the fuppofing יקף
be a noun: for this verb fignifies either to clip off the hair round, or to compass any thing about, to enclose.
The first signification is manifestly inapplicable; and to enclofe or to compass about is not the action of one lion. But further, to encompass or to enclose the arms and legs like a lion, is absurd. Taylor, in his concordance, translates, “ They have crushed like a lion :” to which Archbishop Secker well objects, that though 979777 fignifies to surround, yet it never fignifies to surround so close as to crush. Bate against Kennicott, p. 194. translates,
They have coiled (or surrounded) me, as a lion,
(tanquam leonem) by the hands and feet," quoting Job. xix. 6. and Pf. xxv. 15. “He shall bring my feet out of the net." But Archbishop Secker alks “ Why are hands mentioned, as well as feet? And both joined with mention of a lion ? But, 3dly. In fact there is no verb whatever which in this place could make tolerable sense with a considered as noun, because lions do not particularly attack the hands and feet, but the whole body.
The fignification of and as a noun being excluded, the reading will either be a considered as a participle, by the apocope of mem, or the verb -1793: the difference of these readings cannot affect the import of the passage, since the meaning will be the same, whether we say," they encompass me, piercing my hands and feet," or they encompass me, they pierce my hand and feet.” Now Archbishop Secker has shewn, that if u in either of these words be epenthetic, the second radical of the verb must be quiescent; and therefore that the verb cannot be 77 fodit, as has been generally supposed, and by the lxx translators also, as well as others : but must necessarily be the verb 53. But there is no such verb in Hebrew or Chaldee; nor does it fignify fodit in the other oriental tongues. The epenthesis therefore of N must be relinquished ; and Michaelis has shewn that it is a mere fiction of the Grammarians. The word
-which in Sy ,כאן therefore muft come from כארו
riac signifies pudefecit ; accordingly we find that Aquila renders it no xurav, they have put to shame; and therefore, as Dathe observes, he must have considered N as radical. Dathe also prefers this reading as being the more difficult, according to the rule of the critics, who consider the easier reading as less probable: for the not common verb 73 might give occasion, partly to the reading "713, the letter vau in 9795 being a little effaced, or not sufficiently prolonged; partly to the other reading 975, in which the scribe, conjecturing the reading from the pronunciation, omitted the letter N. But the insertion of the letter N cannot be so easily accounted for: hence Dathe adopts the interpretation of fædarunt or cruentarunt ; so that it appears that all the different interpretations of the verb 783 are exactly adapted to express the bodily injuries which we know Jeremiah suffered from his persecutors.
This interpretation of the word 7793 is also more agreeable to the secondary application of this Psalm to the Crucifixion of Christ, than the generally received translation of woužav they pierced; for there are very great authorities for our concluding that the feet of the sufferer were not nailed to the cross, . as is generally imagined.
Pathe says that in crucifixion, the hands only, not the feet were nailed to the cross; that the feet were only bound to it by ropes. And Le Clerc says, “ Hæc proprio sensu in Chriftum quadrant, cujus
manus clavis pertufæ funt, et pedes (nam perforatos non omnino constat) fune, quo arctius adftricti erant cruci, vulnerati, ita ut partim cutis esset detracta.” But in Lipfius de Cruce we find, that in some cases both hands and feet were nailed: However it seems highly probable, that Christ was crucified in the former manner ; for in John xx. 25. Thomas fpeaks only of the holes which had been made in his side and in his hands." Except I shall fee,” says he, had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and feet."
in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his fide, I will not believe.” And in compliance with his desire, Christ at verse 27. says to Thomas, “ Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands, and thrust it into my side, and be not faithless, but believing.” On which Mr. Le Clerc remarks, “ Christ does not add into my feet, because the feet were not nailed, but tied to the cross, contrary to the opinion of modern painters and ftatuaries.” And in Luke xxiv. 39, though he shews his hands and his feet to his disciples, as exhibiting marks of his crucifixion, yet it is not said, that there were holes in his feet; and they might certainly discover fufficient evidence that his body was that individual body which had been on the cross, though no perforations had been made in them. “ Behold,” says Christ,“ my feet, handle me, and fee me, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he
hands and my
In further confirmation of this we may obferve, that though the Evangelists quote the prophecy of the division of his garments, as being fulfilled at the crucifixion : yet they do not quote the prophecy of the piercing of his hands and feet, which was more striking, and to which the lxx version agučav, which we know they used, must have immediately led them. Indeed in such a case, when they looked into the 22d Psalm for a proof of the completion of that prophecy in Christ's crucifixion, it can scarcely be conceived, how they could have omitted that very remarkable and obtrusive circumstance of the piercing of his hands and feet, had it really happened.
As to what has been said on the manner of crucifixion, by the generality of writers since the time of Christ, little regard is to be paid to it, because they appear to have been influenced by this
very passage in question, which described prophetically the Crucifixion of Christ; and from which the perforation of the feet as well as of the hands appeared to be a necessary concomitant, according to the received translation of the original. Archbishop Secker, indeed, says that there is one, and only one evidence before Christ's time, that the feet as well as the hands were nailed; which is the following passage of Plautus :