when he says, "The sacred law speaks of incest in this manner." See above, page 118.
The Puritan's quotation from the Targum of Jonathan (p. 15, 3d par.) is, like the preceding, incorrect and faulty.
The Hebrew word עֶרְוָה is not used by the Jewish writer where he places it, nor in any other part of the comment; but the Chaldaic form, which in the Latin translation is rendered by the term turpitudo. The translation is: "Vir qui duxerit uxorem fratris sui in vita sui, abominatio est : (מְרַחְקָא) turpitudinem (עִרְוְיהָא) fratris sui retexit; absque prole erunt." The comment on Jonathan's meaning is entirely wrong. He contends that this Jewish writer believed that a brother's nakedness could not be uncovered after his death, and that therefore it necessarily followed, that the offence here spoken of could have no reference to marriage. If the Puritan had examined Jonathan's comment on Levit. 18:16, he would have better understood his mind. Here is the Latin translation: "Turpitudinem uxoris fratris tui non revelabis vivente fratre tuo, aut post mortem ejus si habeat filios: nuditas fratris tui est." From this
