son of Joseph, to the latter of whom all the passages were applied, 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 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 Judæos, 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, whether 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 trne, 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 ready instead of " ?-De Rossi 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 tons,-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

Kimchi, Jarchi, and Menasse Ben Israel (Hulsius theol. Jud. p. 513), interpreted "the pierced one," as meaning every one who had been slain in the war with Gog and Magog: "they will all lament for the death of one, as if the whole army had been slain." Some of them adopt the false readings, and others give to the inadmissible rendering "because." Kimchi, for example, explains it as equivalent to . The last reason adduced, for rejecting the previous interpretation, tells with considerable force against this one also. The supporters of it are unable to defend their assumption, that there is a change of subject in 7, of which there is not the slightest indication in the text, and which is therefore unnatural, or to account for the absence of the suffix. This interpretation is to be especially accounted for, from the fear of conceding too much to the Christians, by referring the passage to the Messiah Ben Joseph; a fear, for which there was all the more foundation, since it could not but be clearly perceived, that it was useless to attempt to prove the reality of the fictitious Messiah Ben Joseph, and that, if the attempt was made and failed, so long as the passage was admitted to be generally Messianic, it would be impossible to evade the conclusion that it must refer to the Messiah Ben David. The extent, to which this fear prevailed, is evident from the fact that, in a Polish edition of Jarchi, the passage in which he speaks of the explanation, which refers the passage to the Messiah Ben Joseph, as handed down by tradition and confirmed by the Talmud, has been omitted; compare Steph. le Moyne on Jeremiah xxiii. 6.

2. AMONG THE CHRISTIANS.

In the Christian Church, as we should naturally expect, the reference to Christ has been generally maintained from time immemorial. It is superfluous therefore to mention the names of those who have supported it. Even J. D. Michaelis declares himself in its favour, although he adopts the ungrammatical rendering, "they will look upon me, and upon him, whom they have pierced." We shall notice only the exceptions,—namely,

those who reject the Messianic interpretation. But we shall be very brief, as the refutation will be found in what has already been written.

(1). Calvin (in his commentary on the passage and on John xix. 37), followed to a certain extent in the footsteps of the translators of the Septuagint and Chaldee versions, though without in any way depending upon them. "Piercing," he says, "is used here for continued irritation, and is as much as to say, that the Jews with their obstinacy were equipped, as it were, for war, that they might fight against God and pierce him with their malice, or with the weapons of their rebellion. The

meaning is this: when the Jews have provoked God in many ways with perfect impunity, they will at length become penitent, for they will begin to be alarmed by the judgment of God, although before this not one of them had thought of giving an account of his life." At the same time we must not overlook the essential difference between Calvin and both the Jewish and rationalistic expositors, who have adopted the same explanation. According to Calvin the prophecy is to be understood in the first place figuratively, and referred to God; but under the superintending providence of God it came to pass, that it was literally fulfilled in Christ, who is associated with God by unity of nature, that is to say, the history of Christ formed a visible symbolum of the substance of the prophecy. That he regarded the prophecy as connected with the fulfilment in Christ in a much more intimate manner, than in the so-called mystical sense" of Grotius, which, as Reuss has shown (opusc. 1. p. 74 sqq.), is something purely imaginary, is obvious from all the rest of the exposition, in which he seems to lose sight of the figurative meaning altogether. By the earliest expositors this view of Calvin's was universally opposed. Lampe complains very bitterly, that Calvin's private opinion should be charged upon the Reformed Church, and that a reproach should thus be cast upon it. With the exception of an unknown writer mentioned in Martini (de tribus Elohim c. 112), and Smalcius the Socinian, it did not receive support from any one but Grotius. From him it has been copied by several of the modern commentators, including Rosenmüller, Eichhorn, Theiner, and Maurer. (2). The reference to a Messiah Ben Joseph has so far found