« PreviousContinue »
7th. Same chap. 15.-" The tokens of the damsel's virginity." Here the word translated “ virginity” is a bythuly, the same as spoken of in the 14th verse, but in regimen or construction.
9th. 19th ver.—A virgin, Hebrew, nbına bythulas, and ought to have been translated, one of the virgins.
10th. 20th ver.-The same as in ver. 14th. And so in ver. 23, “ If a damsel,” that is, a virgin.
11. 28th ver.— A damsel,” that is a virgin.
The last example I shall adduce is from Judges xi. 27, 28.-27. “ And bewail my virginity.” 28. “ Bewailed her virginity.” In all those places the sense is confined, and must perforce mean only a virgin proper, one who neyer had knowledge of a man, &c.; and the word used is shina bythula, invariably, and not alma.
We next have to consider the word on hara, which I translate, is with child, present tense. Matthew hath it shall be with child, future. The Bible also hath it future, shall conceive. Here, then, we are again fairly at issue; and, as I will accept of no person's word in argument, I will produce. proof strong enough to establish my position.
The word hara is found in Gen. xvi. 11. 66 Behold thou art with child.”—Bible translation. The original is 797730 henach hara. That it can be no otherwise translated is apparent: it cannot be translated future, as in Matthew, wilt be with child, or as the Bible has it, in Isaiah, wilt conceive, because this conversation takes place between the angel and Agar in the wilderness, “ by the fountain in the way to Shur,” where Agar then was, having fled from her mistress, (Sarah,) who by ill usage caused her to elope ; and used her thus hardly for this reason: Agar being with child by Abraham, despised her mistress, in consequence behaved rudely to her, therefore Sarah dealt hardly with her, so that she ran away from her mistress, and was met by the angel, who in conversation with her says, 739 henach hara, be
hold, thou art with child. Gen. xvi. 4.-"And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived ; and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes." 6. “ And Abraham said unto Sarah, behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarah dealt hardly with her she fled from her face.” Then follows, 7. And the angel of the Lord found her, and asked her where she came from, and where she was going, and she tells him, “ I flee from the face of my mistress Sarah.” The angel advises or commands her to return; and during this conversation the angel makes use of the words now under consideration, mo yun hinach hara which therefore cannot mean, thou wilt conceive, or wilt be with child; for she was already with child, had long since conceived, and well knew she was so; therefore . is perforce and of necessity present tense.
The word - hara, is also to be met with, Gen. xxxviii. 25.—“ By the man whose those are am I with child." The Hebrew word is again nu hara, as in our test, and in the first person, singular number, present time, .17 18 anochee hara, I am with child. And in the 24th verse we have the same word, 777 hara, as in our text : “ Behold, she is with child,” 717 nan hena hara, present time, singular number, third person. Here again it cannot be pretended by any possibility of its being future; because Tamar was condemned to be burnt, and was brought out for that purpose,
because she was with child. The evidence of her having played the harlot was apparent; she was gone with child about three months, as the 24th verse says, “and it came to pass about three months after," that is, about three months after that Judah had been with her, and she became with child by him; so that she was three months gone with child, and it was apparent, for she did not wish to hide it. Here again, perforce and of necessity, m is present tense.
Thirdly, the word in hara is met with in Judges xiii. 5. exactly as in Gen. xvi. 11. . henach hara, where the angel addressing the wife of Manoah says, 17 » kee henach hara, “for behold thou art with child;" but this the Bible hath translated, for lo, thou shalt conceive, presuming a necessity to translate it future, as the wife of Manoah is said in the second verse to have been barren, and supposing a consequence she could not yet have conceived, but really without any necessity; for the second verse says she was no abimpo aukara velo yaldo, barren and not bringing to birth; that is, she was therefore called barren, because she brought not to the birth ; so that she was not barren that she did not conceive, but because she brought not to birth-she had no children, and was therefore called my barren. This was not the case with Hannah, the mother of Samuel, who was also barren from another cause : n sagar, shut up. 1 Saml. i. 6.--For the Lord had shut up about her womb," so that she could not conceive at all. In the case of Hannah, therefore, it was constitutional, or rather conformational; but in the case of the wife of Manoah, habitual, the effect of debility or weakness, and the fault lay not in the conformation. And consider the matter correctly, we shall find
The first is conception, called in Hebrew ym zarang. The second stage child-bearing.
This stage is from the conception till the delivery or birth, called in Hebrew pharayan, from hara, to bear. The third is the birth or delivery, called in Hebrew nb or nas lath or ladath, from 15 yalad. Of the first, Zarang, example: (Levit. xii. 2.) un pinn" nøs isha kee tazreeang, zarang “ if a woman have conceived seed.” For the last, in the same verse vayalda, “ and born a man child;" Hebrew, a male. And of the second we have an example, 1 Saml. iv. 19. “ And his daughter-in-law, Phinchas's wife, nbbon hara lalath, was with child (near) to be delivered.". This is a treble example for our purpose. It not only serves for lalath, to be delivered, but it proves hara to be that
stage immediately previous to the delivery, and also
present time; so that it cannot be conception, but must intend bearing, after conception, and before the birth.
These examples, I trust, are sufficient to show I speak not out of book. Should more be wanted, there are plenty ; at present, for brevity's sake, I shall stop with these.
Now we will return to our text in Judges xiii.-We were already informed, (ver. 2.) that the wife of Manoah was barren; 795 w5, velo yalda, she brought not to birth. The angel now addresses her, (ver. 3.) “Behold now, thou barren who dost not bring to the birth, (or to whom is no birth,) ya nabang. But thou shalt now bear, and thou shalt bring (to the birth) a son.” Whereas formerly thou wast barren, because thou couldst not continue bearing the child to the full time necessary to bring it to birth, but now thou shalt bear the full season necessary to perfect the child. “ And now beware, I pray thee, and drink not wine nor strong drink, and eat not any unclean thing," 717 729 va kee hincha hara, “ for thou art already bearing,” art now with child.
From the above we see and learn that there was no necessity to translate na hara, future tense, thou wilt conceive; and that it is in reality present, and means, dost now bear-art now with child. After what has been said, I appeal to the reader, whether I am not correct in translating no hara in our text, is with child. I think I
may say with mathematicians, Q. E. D.*
We now come to the word nepi vaykarath. This word I translate, And thou shalt call. The word is, according
* If it is fair to condemn our opposers out of their own mouths, I might here make use of an argument against them from the anonymous noapy maryo mwyn and Hebrew tract, printed by Mackintosh, London, 1818. This writer (whoever he is) translates Matthew's "will be with child” into Hebrew nan tyhar. Now whether this is correct or incorrect, is not the question.
One thing is certainly apparent: 79,7 hara would not serve his purpose,-a tacit acknowledgment this, that Matthew's translation of Isaiah's . hara is incorrect.
to the idiom of the Hebrew, feminine gender, and is of the imperative mood, second person, future tense. This is so very plain, that every schoolboy who knows any thing of the Hebrew grammar must know it. The translators of the Bible seem to have been aware of all this, except the mood: they have it, “and call,” as if the prophet was speaking to Ahaz informing him that the woman would call. But the editors of the Family Bible seem to have been aware of the mood also, for the marginal reading has it, “ And thou, O virgin, shalt call his name.” So that as far as regards this word op vykarath, the Bible translation (with the marginal reading) and myself are agreed; and I have only, as the common champion, to fight Matthew's translation, " and they shall call.”
Reader, if you will please to turn to Gen. xvii. 19. you will find, “ And thou shalt call his name Isaac." And if again you will take the trouble to turn to the corresponding text in your Hebrew copy, you will find the word ") vykaratha. The only difference is, it is masculine, being spoken to a man; but the mood, person and tense are the same--the word is the same.
But the Hebrew for " and they shall call,” is apy vykaru; so the anonymous author translates Matthew's "and they shall call.” Perhaps they apply to themselves, Mal. i. 4. 18939 “ And they shall call them the border of wickedness :** But since Isaiah does not say ai vykaru, but he says anap vykarath, I am therefore correct by translating it, “and thou shalt call.”
I must also remind my reader that the word naai vykarath is feminine; from which it appears that Isaiah was addressing a woman when he spake it; and therefore the Bible hath it, and call, meaning that the woman would call; and in the marginal reading, aware of the words being imperative as well as feminine, “ And thou, O virgin, shalt call.“
* The Italians, or Romans proper, are only intended by Malacba.