Selected quad for the lemma: water_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A56634
|
A commentary upon the third book of Moses, called Leviticus by ... Symon Lord Bishop of Ely.
|
Patrick, Simon, 1626-1707.
|
1698
(1698)
|
Wing P776; ESTC R13611
|
367,228
|
602
|
and would neither eat them nor offer them to their Gods nor would they of Pessinuntium in Galatia quod prorsus Mosaicum est which they learnt in all likelyhood from Moses as Huetius thinks Demonstr Evang. Propos IV. cap. 11. n. 1. But in many other Nations this Food was highly valued and Athenaeus I observe gives the very same reason of its Name that Varro doth Lib. IX Deipnos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From whence it is that Aristophanes calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mystical Swine in his Acharnan because as the Scholiast there explains it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They were offered in the Mysteries of Ceres And Julian himself in his Oration upon the Mother of the Gods Orat. V. confesses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It was deservedly believed to be a grateful Sacrifice to the Terrestrial Gods p. 332. Edit Patav. Ver. 8. Verse 8 Of their flesh shall ye not eat and their carcase shall ye not touch Some think the latter part of this Precept signifies no more but that they should not meddle with their Carcase to prepare it for Meat as the word touch seems to be used III Gen. 3. though they did not eat it But others take it more largely that they should not so much as open them to take out the Fat and apply it to any use In this the Jews are so scrupulous that they say they may not touch them though alive with one of their Fingers for fear of the Leprosie It being a Proverbial saying among them which we read in the Treatise Kidduschin That ten measures of Leprosie descending into the World Swine took to themselves nine of them and the rest of the World one If we may believe Herodotus Lib. II. cap. 47. the Egyptians lookt upon Swine as so unclean that if any one touched one of them by chance as he passed by he was bound to wash himself with his Garments in the River Certain it is that not only they but the Arabians and some other neighbouring Nations did abstain from Swines flesh as Bochartus and others have observed See his Hierozoicon P.I. L. II. cap. 57. p. 702. and Petr. Castellanus L. II. de Esu Carnium cap. 4. which they learnt I doubt not at first from the Jews and afterwards found other reasons for it This abhorrency of Swine is propagated into far distant Countries among the Mahometans particularly into Mindanao one of the Philippine Islands where if any one have but touched one of these Creatures he is not permitted to come into any Bodies House for many days after So Dampier relates in a late Voyage round the World chap. 12. p. 343. where he says The Sultan's Brother having a pair of Shoes made him by one of their Ships Crew which they seldom wear there fell into a great Passion when he was told the Thred wherewith the Shoes were sewed was pointed with Hogs bristles and would not wear them Ver. 9. Verse 9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters Though some of the Heathens abstained perpetually from all Fish and others only for some time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when they were under strict Obligations of Purity as Julian tells us in the fore-mentioned Oration V. But God left his People at greater liberty forbidding to them only some kinds of Fish by abstinence from which they were sufficiently distinguished from those Nations which ate all indifferently and accounted Fish the greatest delicacy Whatsoever hath fins and scales If both these Marks did not concur in a Fish they were not to eat it But their Doctors say as we learn from R. Levi Barcelonita Praecept CL. that if but one Scale was found on a Fish it was accounted lawful and they needed not to observe whether it had Fins or no for all that have Scales they say have Fins though on the contrary all that have Fins have not Scales They observe also secondly that it was lawful to eat young Fish before their Scales appeared if they were of that kind which have Scales when they are grown And thirdly all Fishes that have Scales when they are in the Sea but cast them when they are taken out are lawful In the Waters in the Seas and in the Rivers By Waters in this place as distinguished from Seas and Rivers are meant Lakes and Ponds And so Moses expresses all the places where Fish is found Ver. 10. Verse 10 And all that have not fins nor scales c. shall be an abomination to you There was an ancient Law among the Romans made by Numa That no Fish which wanted Scales should be used in those Feasts which they made in honour of their Gods So Pliny tells us Lib. XXXII Nat. Hist cap. 2. where he quotes an ancient Writer for it Ver. 11. Verse 11 They shall be even an abomination unto you The next words explain what he means by abomination that they should not eat their Flesh nor touch their Carcases Ver. 12. Verse 12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters that shall be an abomination unto you He repeats it again that they might take notice that this alone was a sufficient Mark of difference And therefore he doth not give any instance of particular Fishes that might be eaten or not eaten as he did of Beasts He uses also the word abomination concerning prohibited Fishes which he doth not of such Beasts whom he only calls unclean because there was greater danger of their transgressing in this matter Fishes being a more usual Food among the Eastern People than Flesh Insomuch that among the later Greeks the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies all manner of Victuals came to be used peculiarly for Fish See Bochartus in his Hierozoic P. I. Lib. I. cap. 6. where he observes also the greatest Luxury was committed in this sort of Food which any one may see that reads Athenaeus Ver. 13. Verse 13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls they shall not be eaten Here are no Notes given as in the two foregoing sorts of Creatures to distinguish clean Birds from unclean And therefore the Hebrew Doctors say all Birds are lawful to be eaten but these XXIV mentioned in this Chapter which they were to have in abhorrence Yet they adventure to give four Marks of a clean Bird the principal of which are If it do not fasten its Talons i. e. be not rapacious and have one Claw longer than the rest See R. Levi Barcelonita Praecept CLXI They shall be an abomination This is repeated to make them more careful in this matter The Eagle He names in the first place the King of Birds as Pindar calls the Eagle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose Flesh is very hard and whose Nature is very rapacious and therefore both upon a Natural and Moral Account some Authors fancy it was forbidden to be eaten See Vossius Lib. III. de Orig. Progr Idol cap. 77. But I think Origen hath given a better
Account of it in the place I named above that Moses by his admirable Wisdom understood what Creatures were lookt upon as Prophetical by the Egyptians and other Nations and these he prohibited to the Jews Among which he expresly names the Eagle and the Hawk Lib. IV. contra Celsum p. 225. For Diadorus Siculus saith Lib. I. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The People of Thebes worship the Eagle looking upon it as a Royal Bird and worthy of Jupiter And Julian in his Oration upon the Mother of the Gods Orat V. saith That in the time of their strictest Purifications they were permitted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Spanhemius truly reads in the late Edition of Julian's Works to eat Birds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except a few which had been commonly held Sacred Which is a plain acknowledgment of the sacredness of some Birds among the Gentles The Ossifrage All Authors in a manner agree that the Hebrew word Peres signifies a kind of Eagle but what kind is not so certain Boobartus thinks it is rightly tranflated by Junius as it is by us the Ossifrage for the Hebrew word Paras in III Micab 3. is used for breaking of bones See Hierozoie P. II. Lib. II. c. 5. The Ospray This is also of the same Species and signifies that sort which the Greeks call Haliaetus the Sea-Eagle But Bochartus in the same Book cap. 6. thinks the Hebrew word Oznija rather signifies that which they call Melaniaetus the black Eagle Which though it be the least yet is the strongest of all other and therefore called Valeria by the Romans and was so noted for many other qualities besides its great strength that it makes it probable Moses did not here omit it Ver. 14. Verse 14 And the Vulture and the Kite after his kind No wonder Interpreters differ in their Translation of the two Hebrew words Daa and Aja the former of which we translate a Vulture the latter a Kite which others translate quite contrary taking Daa or Raa as it is called in Deuteronomy for a Kite because there is no way to find the signification of them unless it be by the roots from whence they may be thought to be derived Which makes Bochart think the first word ought to be translated a Kite called Daa from its very swift flight Most of the ancient and later Interpreters also are of his mind As for the second word in this Verse Aja some take it for a Vulture but Bochart from several observations judges it to be a kind of Hawk or Falcon. See in the same Book cap. 8. After this word there follows in Deuteronomy XIV 13. the name of a Bird which is here omitted called Daja which he takes for the black Vulture as the Reader may find in the next Chapter cap. 9. After his kind Though there be some little difference in shape yet these Birds all belong to one Species See v. 22. Ver. 15. Verse 15 Every Raven after his kind No Body doubts that the Hebrew word Oreb which signifies blackness is rightly translated a Raven of which the Arabian Writers mention four kinds And some think under this name is comprehended not only Crows and Daws and Choughs but Starlings and Pies also See Bochartus cap. 10. p. 202. Ver. 16. Verse 16 And the Owl The Hebrew word Bath-jaana it appears by many places in the Prophets signifies a Bird which inhabits the Wildernesses and desolate Places See XIII Isa 21. XXXIV 13. L Jer. 39 c. By which the ancient Interpreters of Scripture almost unanimously understand the Ostrich though a very learned Man of our own Nation Nic. Fuller in his Miscellanies Lib. VI. cap. 7. indeavours by a probable Argument to support our Translation But it hath been the constant perswasion of the Jews that God did not permit them to eat the Flesh of an Ostrich which is no where forbidden if not in this word And therefore Bochartus maintains against our Fuller and labours to prove that Bath-jaana signifies the fentale Ostrich P. II. Hierozoiv Lib. II. cap. 14. where he shows the word Bath i. e. daughter is prefixed to the name of many Birds without any respect to their Age and doth not signifie their young ones but only the females And the night Hawk In the next Chapter to that now named the same Bochart proves that the Hebrew word Thacmas which we here translate the Night-Hawk signifies the male Ostrich For there is no general name for this Bird in the Hebrew Language to comprehend both Sexes as there is for an Eagle and a Raven and therefore Moses mentions both Male and Female distinctly that none might think by forbidding one of them only he allowed the other And the Cuckow The LXX St. Hierom and some later Interpreters translate the Hebrew word Sachaph by the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Sea-gull Which the same great Man before-mentioned thinks most probable c. 18. And the Hawk after his kind There is the greatest consent in the Translation of the Hebrew word New which all agree signifies an Hawk from its strength and swiftness in flight which made it Sacred to Apollo For Eustathius observes upon Iliad X. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Hawk flies as the Sun moves very swiftly And every one knows there are very various kinds of these birds Callimachus mentions Six Aristotle X. and Pliny Sixteen sorts See Bochart in the same Book cap. 19. Ver. 17. Verse 17 And the little Owl Interpreters generally agree that Chos signifies a kind of Owl following the LXX who translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet Bochart hath collected a great many ingenious Arguments to prove that it signifies that Bird which the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Bittern See there cap. 20. And the Cormorant Though the same learned Person doth not approve of this Translation yet he acknowledges the Hebrew word Salach signifies some Sea-bird which sits upon Rocks and strikes at fishes with great force and draws them out of the Waters And so the Talmudists in the Treatise called Cholut expound it and the Gloss upon it there says it signifies the Crow of the Waters that is a Cormorant And the great Owl There are various Translations of the Hebrew word Jansaph which St. Hierom takes for a Stork and others for a Bustard But Bochart acknowledges the Syriac and Chaldee Translation to be the most probable which is the same with ours Ver. 18. Verse 18 And the Swan In this Translation we follow St. Hierom but Jonathan takes it for a kind of Owl which he calls Otja Whereby he means no doubt that Bird which Aristotle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he saith is like an Owl having Tufts of Feathers about its ears from whence it hath the name of Oâ—â— L. VIII cap. 12. And so the Chaldee the Syriac and the Samaritan here translate the Hebrew word Thinsemeth which a great many Modern Interpreters follow who take this for that which the Latins