figurative interpretation. If is not used in a literal sense, how can the next clause speak of mourning for one who is dead ?1 how can it be compared to the mourning for the death of an only son, and the mourning for the death of King Josiah? The only resource left in this case is to take the word in its ordinary signification, and to look for the figure in the general statement. God is slain, as it were, by the sins of the Jews; and the remorse, which they feel for their sins, is figuratively represented as mourning for the dead. But let any one look through the whole of the Old Testament, and see whether he can find anything analogous to a figure, so strange and derogatory to the dignity of God, as this would be.-It is quite out of place, to appeal to the fact that ap, to pierce, is also used with reference to God; for it is not in its primary sense that it is so used, but with a figurative meaning to insult, and even in this sense it is not associated directly with Jehovah himself, but only with the name of God (Lev. xxiv. 11). To these negative reasons for rejecting the explanation referred to, we have now to add-(1) the positive grounds for referring the prediction to the Messiah and his death; viz., the evident identity of the person, slain and lamented here, with the good shepherd, whose faithful care was rewarded by the nation with base ingratitude (chap. xi.), who is represented in chap. xiii. 7 as being slain, and whose rejection on the part of the nation is the cause of their being visited by severe judgments, until at length the remnant is purified by affliction, turns to the Lord, and is received into favour again;-(2) the parallel clause in chap. xiii. 7, “Awake, O sword, against my shepherd," which is sufficient in itself to overthrow the figurative interpretation of; and (3), as external evidence, the testimony of the New Testament.

2. There is another remarkable proof, that the correct interpretation of the passage, as relating to a true Messiah, was not

1 Maurer, who supports the figurative explanation, thinks that he can get rid of the objections by the simple remark, that "even reviling is a severe offence, and a just cause for deep lamentation;" but he overlooks the 750

The word, the ordinary term applied to mourning for the dead (cf. with to denote the person, for whom lamentation is made, 2 Sam. xi. 26), must be taken in this sense here, especially when we consider the following 70, which undoubtedly refers to mourning for the dead.

VOL. IV.

F

unknown to the earlier Jews. In the Jerusalem Talmud (fol. xii. 1 ed. Dessov.; compare the appendix on the suffering Messiah), it is the only one mentioned: There are two opinions; one, that the mourning is for the Messiah, the other, that the mourning is for the crime." This has frequently been understood as meaning, that by some the crime was regarded as the sole object of the prophecy in this verse. And it has been found impossible to understand, how so strange an opinion could possibly have arisen. But this is not the case. Both views agreed in referring the prophecy to the Messiah. The difference, as we may see upon closer examination, and from a comparison of the corresponding passages in the Babylonian Talmud, had respect exclusively to the suffix in . Some regarded it as relating to the person of the pierced one, whilst others supposed it to be used as a neuter, (as Schultens and Dathe also do) with the meaning, "on that account," namely, on account of their sin, which had either directly, or what is more probable, indirectly occasioned the death of the Messiah. So much is certain. But we have no means of determining how these Rabbins interpreted the separate clauses of the verse, or how they got over the difficulty, which must have presented itself to their minds, in the words "they look upon me, whom they have pierced;" whether they adopted the rendering, which De Rossi, who has carefully examined the Codex, says that Symmachus has given in the Codex Barberinus, viz. oùv & ¿EKévτησav, “they look upon me (the Lord) with him, whom they (either the Jews or the enemy) have pierced;" or whether they rendered it, as many of the later Jews have done, "they look upon me (they turn to me as suppliants) because the enemy has pierced them." It is impossible to decide this, from the fact that the difference referred to there has respect, not to the meaning of the whole passage, but to the object of grief. In any case, however, the passage is of great importance, inasmuch as it proves that the earlier Jews were not strangers to the doctrine of a dying Messiah, and that, in whatever way his death might occur, they associated it with the sin of the nation. In the course of time, however, this view was found to be inconvenient; and the attempt was made to get rid of the difficulty by adopting the fiction of two Messiahs, the son of David and the son of Joseph, to the latter of whom all the passages were ap

plied, which appeared to speak of a dying Messiah (compare the appendix on the suffering Messiah). This is the case with the passage before us in the Babylonian Talmud, where the question is raised again, whether the mourning relates to the Messiah or to the sin, and the former is pronounced indisputably the correct opinion, on the ground that the lamentation must have reference to the person described as pierced immediately before. (See the appendix). Among the later Rabbins, this interpretation is adopted by Abenezra and Abarbanel; the latter of whom displays a marvellous vacillation, by giving his support elsewhere to the explanation proposed by Kimchi and Jarchi to which we shall presently refer, although he so decidedly rejects it here. Lastly, it is also found in the Jalkut Chadash (fol. 24; quoted by Gläsener de gemino Jud. Messia p. 57), "after Jonah has been pierced, that is, the Messiah Ben Joseph, David will come, that is, the Messiah Ben David."

The supporters of this interpretation had now to solve the difficult problem: how is the expression, "whom they have pierced," to be reconciled with the words "they will look upon me?" Various methods were suggested, but all equally unsuccessful. (1). They altered, without the least shame, the inconvenient into The text is quoted thus, without any further remark, in the Talmud, and also in En Israel, p. 117. And according to a remarkable passage in Rabanus Maurus contra Judaeos, p. 13 (Wagenseil's Sota, p. 68), it was to be found in his day (the 9th century) in the margin of many MSS. "Where we, according to the faith of the Holy Scriptures, read in the person of God and they shall look upon me, whom they have pierced; they (the Jews) although they dare not make any alteration in the text of the sacred volume, from their fear of the Divine command, have written outside as a marginal note, 'they shall look on him, whom they have pierced.' And thus they teach their pupils, to copy what they find in the text, but to read what they find in the margin; so that they hold, forsooth, that, in their folly, the Jews look to him, whom Gog and Magog have pierced." In the 13th century this reading had found its way into the text of several MSS., see Raim. Martini (p. 411 Leipzig), "Observe, that some of the Jews, being unable to endure such forcible testimony from the Holy Scriptures, falsify

one letter in this passage, and read, so that it may be understood as referring not to God, but to some one else." Compare, on the other hand, p. 855, where the author appeals to the ancient MSS., in all of which the reading is found. The reading is actually to be met with in 49 MSS. in Kennicott, and 13 in de Rossi; it is also contained in the original text of many of the Rabbinical writings, though it has been to some extent rejected from the published editions (compare de Rossi on this passage). We need not enter into any elaborate proof of the correctness of the reading Grammatically it is the

more difficult of the two; it is opposed to the favourite opinions of the Jews; it is found in all the ancient MSS., the testimony of which is the more complete in this case, from the fact that the translations of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion have been handed down to us in a Scholion of the Codex Barber. ; and it is found not only in the best manuscripts, but also in by far the largest number.1 It is not so easy to decide the question, whe

ther the reading is traceable to doctrinal considerations, that is, whether we have here an example of an attempt on the part of the Jews to falsify the text. Wagenseil has endeavoured to prove that we have (Hackspan de usu librr. Rabbinic. p. 295) ; and de Rossi maintains the opposite. We are constrained to decide in favour of the former. It is true that there are not wanting other examples in which the Keri has attempted to restore grammatical correctness, in cases where the first person is followed immediately by the third. But no one has ever ventured to bring these supposed emendations into the text. In this instance, in the Talmud, where we first meet with the reading, its bearing upon the interests of the Jews is far too obvious, as is also the case with Jalkut, where the reading is adopted, to render it possible to refer the passage to the Messiah Ben Joseph, "to him whom they

1 Such reasons as these have but little weight, it is true, with Ewald. His inclinations are of much greater importance. "For" he says, "read, which is found in many MSS." The reason assigned is this, "the first person makes the Old Testament speak nonsense, namely that the people would mourn for Jehovah (for no one else could be thought of), as for one dead, who would never return again (?)." Such practices as these should be left to the Jews; they should never be heard of within the limits of Christendom.

have pierced," a departure from the Talmud which clearly shows, how little external ground there was for giving up the received version. If the emendation was occasioned solely by the grammatical irregularity, how was it that it did not occur to any one to read instead of ?-De Rossi of?-De appeals to the fact, that not a single Jewish controversialist has brought forward the reading to refute the Christian interpretation, as an argument against the supposition that there has been an intentional falsification of the text. But this fact may quite as legitimately be used, as an argument on the opposite side. It bears testimony to a guilty conscience. If the reading had been obtained by righteous means, they would never have hesitated to appeal to it. They used it timidly and modestly, more for their own satisfaction than as a weapon to direct against their foes; and when they found that, after all, it did not succeed, that the forgery could not be introduced into all the MSS., and that attention was already being directed to the question, they gave up the reading altogether, and tried to find out some less objectionable way.-(2). They gave a different rendering to N, viz., "they look to me (as suppliants), because they (the heathen) have pierced him (the son of Joseph"); a rendering, the arbitrary character of which is so very obvious, that we can see no reason for examining it more minutely.—It is hardly worth while even to add, with reference to the antiquated notion of the Messiah Ben Joseph, that it is nothing but a foundling of modern Jews, which never met with general acceptance, as the remark of Kimchi, in opposition to its supposed application to the present passage, sufficiently proves, and which the more intelligent, such as Maimonides and Menasse Ben Israel, expressly or tacitly reject. It is of greater importance to lay emphasis upon a remark, which affects not merely this particular explanation, but the whole genus to which it belongs. The look directed to the pierced one, the loud lamentation for his death, is represented here as a consequence of the outpouring of the spirit of grace upon Israel, a sign of its genuine conversion, the fruits of which are described in chap. xiii. 1-6. But how could the lamentation for a leader, slain by the foe, be regarded as the result of conversion ?

(3). A still greater error was committed by those who, like

3