times, (78) infer that she was “ an Egyptian princess ; ” while others identify the lady with
“ Pharaoh’s daughterjf” for “ King Solomon loved many strange women. ... . Moahites,
Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians,. and Hittites,” and what not! (79) I t need hardly he
mentioned that, the dynasty out of which the sage king selected additions to his hareem
being yet unfound in hieroglyphics, the monuments of Egypt throw no light upon this
otherwise very probable amalgamation. (80)
The “ Canticle of Canticles of which of Solomon, that is to say, one of the Canticles of
Solomon,” as Lanci literally interprets its epigraph, (81) has suffered much at the hands of
the forty-seven. They, and others, lost sight of the simple fact (to be exemplified in its
place), that?in the ancient Hebrew Text, divisions into chapters, verses, words, or by punctuations,
are absolutely unknown ; while, paralleled to this day in Arabic calligraphy, no
notes of admiration, interrogation, &c., mark inflections of the sense. The context alone
can indicate a query; .so that a “ crooked little thing Which asks a question,” added to
fidelity of construction and acquaintance with Levant usages of the present hour, rescues
our pretty Shulamite brunette from all Ethiopian hallucinations [supra, p. 483]. t
“ I am brown (Italicè “ fosca,” dark, tanned) but pretty,” says the girl coquettishly;
then [deprecatingly to her swain], “ Do not mind that I am browned, because the sun has
tanned me ; [which she explains by adding] the male-children of my mother [i. e. my stepbrothers
; who, in the East, control their maiden sisters after the father’s death] having
become free to dispose of me, placed me watcher of vines: [ “ don’t you see?” understood]
my own vine, have I not watched it ? ” (82)
One improvement heralds another : it is so in machinery : it is equally true in biblical
hermeneutics, the moment a man’s mind soars above the supernatural grade of ratiocination.
From the simple proposition that they who expound ^he Scriptures should understand
them, we hold that no one is competent to impugn these deductions who is unacquainted,
not merely with the original Hebrew and Greek languages, but with the noble
achievements of Continental exegesis. Hear a living Church of England dignitary :
“ Those who advocate the free use of philology in the interpretation of the Scriptures,
find their fiercest and most uncompromising opponents in the ranks of those who are slaves
to the Puritanical Bibliolatry., so common in this country. According tò this school, every
word in the canonical books of the Old and New Testament (in king James’s version) proceeds
from a divine and miraculous inspiration. . . . By those who believe in the plenary
and verbal inspiration of the (English) Scriptures, science in general and philological science
in particular, are viewed with distrust, if not with abhorrence ; and the more so,, if
this bibliolatry is combined with a certain amount of ecclesiolatry.,i (83)
It is a pity, certainly ; for if some expounders possessed the intelligence they would
deplore their want of education : but we continue.
I . — Habakkuk ii. 11.
“ For the stone shall cry out of the wall, and the "beam out of the timber shall answer it.”
That a stone should cry out from a wall is an idea consonant with Oriental hyperbole ;
but that a beam should answer out of timber seems to be an unpoetical and far-fetched conception,
as it presupposes the proximity of a “ timber-yard” to the wall aforesaid. It furthermore
is not in unison with the context ; wherein the prophet, who “ surpasses all which
Hebrew poesy can offer in this department,” (84) declaims against Chaldeean flagitiousness.
The propriety of his metaphor resiles to view through Lanci’s rendering and notes of interrogation.
(78) The Friend o f Moses; New York, 1852; p. 408, note.
(79) 1 Kings iii. 1; xi. 1.
(80) R o s e l l i n i ì on O so r ch o b of Manetho’s XXIst dynasty.
(81) La Sagra Scrittura ; ch. v. g 4. C a h e n : xiv. 3,4, has not seized the poet’s meaning.
(82) Lanci: Paralipomeni; ii. p. 45.
(83) P h i l e l e u t h e r u s A n g u c a n u s : A Vindication o f Protestant Principles; London, 1847; pp. 43, 44; — Gli®*
d o n : Olia JEgyptiaea; 1849; p. 93.
(84) De Wette: ii. p# 466.
“ Peradventure, shall the statue of stone [an Assyrian bas-relief?] from the wall cry out?
The cricket [scarabrous, or beetle] from out of the wood will it respond?” (85)
There is a verse of another prophet that Lanci restores, in which our forty-seven have
metamorphosed famines into “ young men,” and sorrows, into “ maids ” !
j . Zechariah ix. 17.
“ Corn shall make the young men cheerful, and new wine the maids.”
The “ Sons of Temperance” may not be pleased with the moral, but the Daughters will
not fail to appreciate an emendation that relieves their antique sisters from the charge of
nnfeminine indulgences.
The old Vulgate had translated — “ For, what is the goodness of God, what is his glory,
if not the corn of the elect, and the wine which fecundates the virgins ?” Vatablus and
Pagnini make “ confusion worse confounded” by reading — “ The corn which makes the
young men sing, and the new wine of the girls.” But, based upon radicals preserved in
Arabic, our teacher proposes: —
“ What is more sweet and more agreeable than corn in scarcities, and wine that fortifies
in afflictions ?” (86) -
“ Per saltum,” inasmuch as in the chaos of our memoranda of false-translations orderly
classification is inconvenient, while to our objects quite unnecessary, we open—
K . — Genesis xxiii. 9, 17, 19.
“ The cave of Machpela” -----
purchased by Abraham for Sarah’s inhumation — to remark, that the word Machpela
which, according to our authorized verity, seems a “ proper name,” is grammatically, in
Semitic tongues, “ a thing co n tra c te d -fo rso that, it is as vain for tourists in Palestine to
search for Machpela, as for biblical chorographers to define its latitude and longitude. (87)
L. — 1 Samuel xix. 13.
“ And Michal took an image, and laid it in the bed, and put a pillow of goat’s hair for his bolster, and
covered it with a cloth.”
Manifold were the sins of David, but idolatry was certainly not one of the number ;
although scandalous suspicions have been rife in regard to this image. Commentators have
likewise expounded how the image being laid in the bed, and covered up with the bed-clothes,
the messengers supposed that the invalid whom they were sent to slay (v. 11) was asleep
therein: but we are told: ■—
M .— 1 Samuel xix. 16.
“And when the messengers were come in, behold, there was an image in the bed, with a pillow of goat’s
Tiair for his bolster: ” -----
whence it is evident that the forty-seven deemed the “ image ” to be of the masculine
gender. Their notions of an Oriental bed too must have been peculiar, in England, two
hundred and fifty years ago, when a “ pillow” was made to serve for a “ bolster;” and such
a hirsute contrivance! However, having commenced rolling down hill, they reach the bottom
through a series of cascades that would excite Homeric smiles were not “ God’s word” the
sufferer: as may be seen by the subjoined restitution; after comprehending that Michal,
the astute daughter of king Saul, was a princess in whose “ trousseau ” were doubtless
many of the crown regalia: —
“ Michal took her casket full of jewels, and placed it upon the bed; whence were reflected
magnificent splendors; and she hid them with a curtain [ ? coverlid] .” . . . “ The messengers
having arrived, 0 surprise! the jewels [being] Upon the bed, from their summits was thrown
out a magnificence of splendors.” (88)
(85) Op. tit;; i. p. 283;—C a h e n , xii. p, 115, also reads differently from our version; but see bis note 11.
(86) Sag. Scrit.; ch. ii. g 1; — C a h e n , xii. p. 156, follows the Rabbis.
(87) Paralip.; i. p. 144.
(88) Sag. Scrit.; ch. vii. 4. The note, 13, of C a h e n , vii. p. 76, shows how the text puzzled him. L a n c i, op. tit.,
Proves that in no place are TieRaPMM «idols.”