« AnteriorContinuar »
fact, however, is so; and it is so obvious, and, at the same time, so strongly marked in the record, that it will not fail to strike every Greek reader, the moment the evidence is pointed out, with as much surprize as it did the author when he was first led to perceive it, that it should so long have escaped observation. Nor is it less surprizing that the Amanuensis of the Apocalypse should, as hinted in the Fourth Dissertation (p. 201 above), have also given a definition of the sense in which còs (Theos] is used by him, and, consequently, by the other writers of the New Testament, when employed to represent the Hebrew word Elohim (commonly rendered “God” in the English Bible); and that this also should have escaped the notice of the learned.
We have seen in the last Dissertation) that, in the New Testament, the word ocos (Theos) represents the Hebrew attributive noun Elohim : it is that by which the Evangelists and Apostles translate Elohim, when quoting the Prophets. And we have also seen that this Hebrew term means The OMNIPOTENT, or ALL-POWERFUL. Let it be also kept in recollection, that the word Kúpos [Kyrios), when applied to the Supreme, in the New Testament, often represents the Hebrew word 1757 [Jehovah]: thus in Mat. iii. 3, Mark i. 3, Luke iii. 4, John i. 23, Prepare ye
Jehovah] יהוה אלהים present the Hebrew words
The oldy Kupiou the way of Jehovah” (Isai. xl. 3, 777 777); in Mat. iv. 7, Luke iv. 12, " Thou shalt not tempt Κύριον τον Θεόν σου, C. V. THE LORD thy God (Deut. vi. 14, dyb Tivons); and so in many other places : it follows, then, that, whatever be the sense that attaches to the name Jehovah in the Old Testament, the word Kúpios, when representing that name, must be understood in the same sense in the New.
These things being premised, let us attend to the words employed by the Apostle in Rev. i. 8, Κύριος ο Θεός, ο ών, και ο ήν, και ο ερχόμενος, και παντοκράτωρ. The words Κύριος ο Θεός here re
[ Elohim). The meaning of Elohim we have seen, as indicated by its Radix. The meaning of the word TT (JEHOVAH] may be ascertained by its etymology. It is compounded of the past, the present, and the future time of the Hebrew verb of existence in Havah]; viz. the present participle in, followed by the perfect tensen,
and preceded by:[yod), the sign of the future, forming together the word 797 (JEHOVAH); which, therefore, expresses attributes that belong only to HIM who is “ without beginning of days or end of years,"—present, past, and future existence. But this is precisely what is affirmed by the three terms which follow Κύριος ο Θεός, in the passage
before us, namely, ó wv, zal å flv, xai o épzóuevos; THE BEing, and The He Was, and The ComING ONE. The common version gives the sense of the Greek pretty correctly, “which is, and which was, and which is to come ;” but the facts connected with the present enquiry demand that the translation should be given as literally as possible, however uncouth it may sound to the English ear. In fact the words here employed by John present a translation into Greek, of the three parts of the Hebrew verb, which enter into the composition of the word m [Jehovah), as above. But Kúpos (Kyrios] here stands for JEHOVAH: Why then are these terms added !-To inform the reader of the fact,- to place it beyond the possibility of contradiction. John writing in Greek, and using the Greek term Kúpoos, for the Hebrew term MT, instantly gives, in Greek, a definition of the sense in which the former is to be taken, when representing that name which belongs only to THE SUPREME. These words then—ő 6v, xai o vv, xal ó épzóuevos are no part of those spoken by HIM who says, in the first clause of the verse, 'Εγώ είμι το Α και το Ω, I am the Alpha and the Omega-words which John informs us were spoken by Kύριος ο Θεός [that is, by Jehovah Elohim]; but are explanatory terms, added by the writer (writing, however, under Divine guidance), defining, as already said, the
sense in which the term Kúpios [Kyrios), which he had just applied to Him who calls himself the Alpha and the Omega, is to be understood when employed as a name of the Deity. Having thus defined Kúgros, he instantly defines also ó Ocès [the Theos, commonly translated God), adding ó Tavtoxpátwp, that is, “ THE OMNIPOTENT;" which, as has been shown, is the meaning of the word Elohim, when applied to the Supreme in the Hebrew Scriptures. In proof of this observe farther, that John's first three defining terms (6 cerró homo èpxóuevos) are joined together by the copulative xai, introduced before and also after the middle term ; but having finished his definition of Kúpros [Kyrios), between which and the attributive noun Ogos [Theos] there is no conjunction (nor could there be, as they represent the words Jehovah Elohim, which are not joined by any copula), so neither does he employ one to introduce his definition, ó Tavtoxpátwp.-Nor.is it possible to assign any other reason for the absence of the conjunction xal before the last term; for had the terms employed in these two definitions been merely additional epithets, as they are made to appear in all the translations, the last, as well as the preceding, would have been joined by the conjunction.
It is known that, so far back as the time of Philo and Josephus, and perhaps earlier, it was
customary with the Jews, when reading the scriptures, never to pronounce the name JEHOVAH, but to substitute for it the word Adonai ; and hence many have inferred that, in the Septuagint, Kúpros, by which these interpreters often translate Adonai, is put for Jehovah for the same reason. But we have no evidence that, at the time the Septuagint translation was made, this Jewish superstition prevailed, and a much better reason may be assigned for their adopting Kúpos as the translation of JEHOVAH. This name, like every other among the Jews antiently, was an Attributive, or rather a compound of Attributives, all of which had reference to existence; and its sense must have been originally well understood among them: of course they could not be ignorant of its radix; and, however compounded, they must have known, that it had its origin from the substantive verb; and, with this knowlege, they would, in translating, endeavour to adopt some term expressive of the original
The Greek verb xúpw to be, to exist, expresses precisely the sense of 1717. (Havah), the Hebrew radix of ty; and I am therefore in. clined to think with the learned Bishop Pearson [On the Creed, p. 147. note. Fol. 1741), and some other critics, indeed I have no doubt of the fact), that the authors of the Septuagint version considered Küpros as standing in a similar