a theologico-political treatise [part ii]-第8部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！





expect　after　the　defeats　and　persecutions　it　has　gone　through）；　and　has　only



retained　certain　fragments　of　its　language　and　of　a　few　books。　（88）　Nearly



all　the　names　of　fruits；　birds；　and　fishes；　and　many　other　words　have



perished　in　the　wear　and　tear　of　time。　（89）　Further；　the　meaning　of　many



nouns　and　verbs　which　occur　in　the　Bible　are　either　utterly　lost；　or　are



subjects　of　dispute。　（90）　And　not　only　are　these　gone；　but　we　are　lacking　in



a　knowledge　of　Hebrew　phraseology。　（91）　The　devouring　tooth　of　time　has



destroyed　turns　of　expression　peculiar　to　the　Hebrews；　so　that　we　know　them



no　more。







（92）　Therefore　we　cannot　investigate　as　we　would　all　the　meanings　of　a



sentence　by　the　uses　of　the　language；　and　there　are　many　phrases　of　which



the　meaning　is　most　obscure　or　altogether　inexplicable；　though　the　component



words　are　perfectly　plain。







（93）　To　this　impossibility　of　tracing　the　history　of　the　Hebrew　language



must　be　added　its　particular　nature　and　composition：　these　give　rise　to　so



many　ambiguities　that　it　is　impossible　to　find　a　method　which　would



enable　us　to　gain　a　certain　knowledge　of　all　the　statements　in　Scripture；



＇Endnote　7＇。　（94）　In　addition　to　the　sources　of　ambiguities　common　to　all



languages；　there　are　many　peculiar　to　Hebrew。　（95）　These；　I　think；　it　worth



while　to　mention。







（96）　Firstly；　an　ambiguity　often　arises　in　the　Bible　from　our　mistaking　one



letter　for　another　similar　one。　（97）　The　Hebrews　divide　the　letters　of　the



alphabet　into　five　classes；　according　to　the　five　organs　of　the　month



employed　in　pronouncing　them；　namely；　the　lips；　the　tongue；　the　teeth；　the



palate；　and　the　throat。　（98）　For　instance；　Alpha；　Ghet；　Hgain；　He；　are



called　gutturals；　and　are　barely　distinguishable；　by　any　sign　that　we　know；



one　from　the　other。　（99）　El；　which　signifies　to；　is　often　taken　for　hgal；



which　signifies　above；　and　vice　versa。　（100）　Hence　sentences　are　often



rendered　rather　ambiguous　or　meaningless。







（101）　A　second　difficulty　arises　from　the　multiplied　meaning　of　conjunctions



and　adverbs。　（102）　For　instance；　vau　serves　promiscuously　for　a　particle　of



union　or　of　separation；　meaning；　and；　but；　because；　however；　then：　ki；　has



seven　or　eight　meanings；　namely；　wherefore；　although；　if；　when；　inasmuch　as；



because；　a　burning；　&c。；　and　so　on　with　almost　all　particles。







（103）　The　third　very　fertile　source　of　doubt　is　the　fact　that　Hebrew　verbs



in　the　indicative　mood　lack　the　present；　the　past　imperfect；　the　pluperfect；



the　future　perfect；　and　other　tenses　most　frequently　employed　in　other



languages；　in　the　imperative　and　infinitive　moods　they　are　wanting　in　all



except　the　present；　and　a　subjunctive　mood　does　not　exist。　（104）　Now；



although　all　these　defects　in　moods　and　tenses　may　be　supplied　by　certain



fundamental　rules　of　the　language　with　ease　and　even　elegance；　the　ancient



writers　evidently　neglected　such　rules　altogether；　and　employed



indifferently　future　for　present　and　past；　and　vice　versa　past　for　future；



and　also　indicative　for　imperative　and　subjunctive；　with　the　result　of



considerable　confusion。







（105）　Besides　these　sources　of　ambiguity　there　are　two　others；　one　very



important。　（106）　Firstly；　there　are　in　Hebrew　no　vowels；　secondly；　the



sentences　are　not　separated　by　any　marks　elucidating　the　meaning　or



separating　the　clauses。　（107）　Though　the　want　of　these　two　has　generally



been　supplied　by　points　and　accents；　such　substitutes　cannot　be　accepted　by



us；　inasmuch　as　they　were　invented　and　designed　by　men　of　an　after　age　whose



authority　should　carry　no　weight。　（108）　The　ancients　wrote　without　points



（that　is；　without　vowels　and　accents）；　as　is　abundantly　testified；　their



descendants　added　what　was　lacking；　according　to　their　own　ideas　of



Scriptural　interpretation；　wherefore　the　existing　accents　and　points　are



simply　current　interpretations；　and　are　no　more　authoritative　than　any　other



commentaries。







（109）　Those　who　are　ignorant　of　this　fact　cannot　justify　the　author　of　the



Epistle　to　the　Hebrews　for　interpreting　（chap。　xi；21）　Genesis　（xlvii：31）



very　differently　from　the　version　given　in　our　Hebrew　text　as　at　present



pointed；　as　though　the　Apostle　had　been　obliged　to　learn　the　meaning　of



Scripture　from　those　who　added　the　points。　（110）　In　my　opinion　the　latter



are　clearly　wrong。　（111）　In　order　that　everyone　may　judge　for　himself；　and



also　see　how　the　discrepancy　arose　simply　from　the　want　of　vowels；　I　will



give　both　interpretations。　（112）Those　who　pointed　our　version　read；　〃And



Israel　bent　himself　over；　or　（changing　Hqain　into　Aleph；　a　similar　letter）



towards；　the　head　of　the　bed。〃　（113）　The　author　of　the　Epistle　reads；　〃And



Israel　bent　himself　over　the　head　of　his　staff；〃　substituting　mate　for　mita；



from　which　it　only　differs　in　respect　of　vowels。　（114）　Now　as　in　this



narrative　it　is　Jacob's　age　only　that　is　in　question；　and　not　his　illness；



which　is　not　touched　on　till　the　next　chapter；　it　seems　more　likely　that　the



historian　intended　to　say　that　Jacob　bent　over　the　head　of　his　staff　（a



thing　commonly　used　by　men　of　advanced　age　for　their　support）　than　that　he



bowed　himself　at　the　head　of　his　bed；　especially　as　for　the　former　reading



no　substitution　of　letters　is　required。　（115）　In　this　example　I　have　desired



not　only　to　reconcile　the　passage　in　the　Epistle　with　the　passage　in



Genesis；　but　also　and　chiefly　to　illustrate　how　little　trust　should　be



placed　in　the　points　and　accents　which　are　found　in　our　present　Bible；　and



so　to　prove　that　he　who　would　be　without　bias　in　interpreting　Scripture



should　hesitate　about　accepting　them；　and　inquire　afresh　for　himself。　（116）



Such　being　the　nature　and　structure　of　the　Hebrew　language；　one　may　easily



understand　that　many　difficulties　are　likely　to　arise；　and　that　no　possible



method　could　solve　all　of　them。　（117）　It　is　useless　to　hope　for　a　way　out　of



our　difficulties　in　the　comparison　of　various　parallel　passages　（we　have



shown　that　the　only　method　of　discovering　the　true　sense　of　a　passage　out　of



many　alternative　ones　is　to　see　what　are　the　usages　of　the　language）；　for



this　comparison　of　parallel　passages　can　only　accidentally　throw　light　on　a



difficult　point；　seeing　that　the　prophets　never　wrote　with　the　express



object　of　explaining　their　own　phrases　or　those　of　other　people；　and　also



because　we　cannot　infer　the　meaning　of　one　prophet　or　apostle　by　the　meaning



of　another；　unless　on　a　purely　practical　question；　not　when　the　matter　is



speculative；　or　if　a　miracle；　or　history　is　being　narrated。　（118）　I　might



illustrate　my　point　with　instances；　for　there　are　many　inexplicable　phrases



in　Scripture；　but　I　would　rather　pass　on　to　consider　the　difficulties　and



imperfections　of　the　method　under　discussion。







（119）　A　further　difficulty　attends　the　method；　from　the　fact　that　it



requires　the　history　of　all　that　has　happened　to　every　book　in　the　Bible；



such　a　history　we　are　often　quite　unable　to　furnish。　（120）　Of　the　authors；



or　（if　the　expression　be　preferred）；　the　writers　of　many　of　the　books；　we



are　either　in　complete　ignorance；　or　at　any　rate　in　doubt；　as　I　will　point



out　at　length。　（121）　Further；　we　do　not　know　either　the　occasions　or　the



epochs　when　these　books　of　unknown　authorship　were　written；　we　cannot　say



into　what　hands　they　fell；　nor　how　the　numerous　varying　versions



originated；　nor；　lastly；　whether　there　were　not　other　versions；　now　lost。



（122）　I　have　briefly　shown　that　such　knowledge　is　necessary；　but　I　passed



over　certain　considerations　which　I　will　now　draw　attention　to。







（123）　If　we　read　a　book　which　contains　incredible　or　impossible　narratives；



or　is　written　in　a　very　obscure　style；　and　if　we　know　nothing　of　its　author；



nor　of　the　time　or　occasion　of　its　being　written；　we　shall　vainly　endeavour



to　gain　any　certain　knowledge　of　its　true　meaning。　（124）　For　being　in



ignorance　on　these　points　we　cannot　possibly　know　the　aim　or　intended　aim　of



the　author；　if　we　are　fully　informed；　we　so　order　our　thoughts　as　not　to　be



in　any　way　prejudiced　either　in　ascribing　to　the　author　or　him　for　whom　the



author　wrote　either　more　or　less　than　his　meaning；　and　we　only　take　into



consideration　what　the　author　may　have　had　in　his　mind；　or　what　the　time　and



occasion　demanded。　（125）　I　think　this　must　be　tolerably　evident　to　all。







（126）　It　often　happens　that　in　different　books　we　read　histories　in



themselves　similar；　but　which　we　judge　very　differently；　according　to　the



opinions　we　have　formed　of　the　authors。　（127）　I　remember　once　to　have　read



in　some　book　that　a　man　named　Orlando　Furioso　used　to　drive　a　kind　of　winged



monster　through　the　air；　fly　over　any　countries　he　liked；　kill　unaided　vast



numbers　of　men　and　giants；　and　such　like　fancies；　which　from　the　point　of



view　of　reason　are　obviously　absurd。　（128）　A　very　similar　story　I　read　in



Ovid　of　Perseus；　and　also　in　the　books　of　Judges　and　Kings　of　Samson；　who



alone　and　unarmed　killed　thousands　of　men；　and　of　Elijah；　who　flew　through



the　air；　said　at　last　went　up　to　heaven　in　a　chariot　of　fire；　with　horses　of



fire。　（129）　All　these　stories　are　obviously　alike；　but　we　judge　them　very



differently。　（130）　The　first　only　sought　to　amuse；　the　second　had　a



political　object；　the　third　a　religious　object。（131）　We　gather　this　simply



from　the　opinions　we　had　previously　formed　of　the　authors。　（132）　Thus　it



is　evidently　necessary　to　know　something　of　the　authors　of　writings　which



are　obscure　or　unintel