« AnteriorContinuar »
" the present, and the future, as is known to all." The book entitled niya mayu, folio 31, speaking of God the Creator says,
as he is the first “ without beginning, and last without end, so his
name testifies three existences, or differences of “ his existence, the present 1717, the preterite , " and the future 7777'!, which are the letters of “ his name 7777."
The differences which have existed among critics, respecting the meaning of the word JeHOVAH, demonstrate, that the use of this Hebrew word, in books written in Greek, would not have answered the end gained, by John's having employed a Greek term and having defined the sense in which he uses that term. The two languages having different alphabets presented also an impediment to the introduction of Hebrew letters in the Greek text, the extent of which has been actually'exemplified in the fate of such copies of the Septuagint as made the attempt ; the word 1777 which is read from right to left having, as already noticed, been converted by transcribers into the unmeaning word ZITTI (Pipi) read from left to right.
It is easy to see a reason why Kúpros and' • Osòs were employed, in the New Testament writings, for the words 1717and oubs of the Hebrew Scriptures. The latter had been translated into Greek; and, in the Septuagint version,
which was in the hands of all the Jews scattered throughout the Roman, but especially throughout Egypt and all parts of the Greek, Empire, Kúpsos had, as already noticed, been adopted as the translation for Jehovah, and Oeds for Elohim. There was therefore a great convenience in employing the same terms in the New, that appeared in the version of the Old, Testament in common use, and which was about to become general, in the hands of the Christian Church. But the Greek terms, so employed, not expressing, or by length of time having ceased to express fully, the sense of the Hebrew words for which they had become substitutes, it was necessary (for we cannot possibly conceive its being done without a reason) that their true meaning—the genuine sense in which they are used by the Apostles and Evangelists—should be accurately defined. This, we have just seen, has actually been done in the Apocalypse,-the first written (as I believe, and think I have proved, in the Second Dissertation) of all the Greek scriptures.
But whatever reasons might exist for the Greek version of “ Jehovah” and “ Elohim, " accompanied, as has been shown, with proper definitions of their sense, no tenable argument can be advanced for adopting, in translations into other languages, expressions or names which do not convey the sense of these terms.
It is self-evident that, in translating from the Hebrew, its precise sense should be transferred into the version; and as it is equally evident that, had the Apostles written in Hebrew, instead of Greek, the same Hebrew attributive nouns or names which are applied to the Creator, in the Old, would have been retained in the New Testament; it follows that, in translating the Greek Scriptures, that sense should be given, in the version, which belongs to the Hebrew word of which any Greek term is a known representative, that the translation of the whole Record (for to us the Old and New Testaments are an entire record) may present that uniformity of diction which would have pervaded the whole in the original, had both parts been written in the same language.
We have seen already from the composition of the word Elohim, and from John's definition of its representative é Oeds [the Theos], that both of these, when applied to the Deity, should be rendered in a close English version by the Omnipotent--the All-Powerful—the All-Mighty, or some equivalent expression. When Oeds occurs without the article, then the abstract-Omnipotence-employed as an appellation-may be adopted with advantage ; for in the New Testament the article is used with as mucb precision as the Hebrew prefix J is in the Old : and,
as, in the Old Testament, care should be taken to distinguish between the Creator and the Creatures to which the term Elohim is applied ; so, in the New, equal attention should be exerted to ascertain when the term Theos is applied to others than to Jehovah; for it frequently represents Ruling Powers, inferior to the Great Supreme,—though always relatively Supreme-Supreme as to the place or class with which the term is found associated : exhibiting, in this respect, as in every other, the precise characteristics of the attributive noun Elohim.
But how should Kúpos be rendered in English, when it represents the word Jehovah? To employ such a periphrasis as John has given in his definition, “ The Being, and The HE WAS, “and THE COMING ONE,” (which is a literal translation of the Greek) would not only be inconvenient, but, by suspending, too long, the current of the address or narrative, as the case might be, would often take from its energy. Inconvenient as this might be, if our language did not furnish a term, or terms, fitted to convey the entire meaning of the word in a more condensed form, it would be better that we should submit to it, than adopt one that would change the sense. But, happily, we have a term in our language, which, by use, has been made to embrace, pretty fully, the sense of John's defini
tion,-I mean the word ETERNAL. The Professors of Geneva have, in their French version, employed l'Eternel for the word JEHOVAH in the Old Testament, probably from the com-position of this term in the original. How much is it to be regretted, that the same term
has not yet been adopted for Kyrios (Kúpros], in the New. Should Translators hesitate still to
adopt “The Eternal,” at all events the word Lord should be rejected as not expressing at all the sense of the Original : the word “ JehoVAH” had better—its sense being defined—be transferred into the version for the Hebrew name 717, and also for Kópos, wherever the latter occurs as the representative of that term. Bat where Kúpos represents Adonai, there lord, or master, or some similar title, should occupy its place in the translation.
Having before shown that the substitution of the word God for the Hebrew word Elohim, in a version, tends often to obscure the sense, and to take from the energy of the translation, I need not occupy much of the reader's time in showing what, a priori, must be manifest,--that the same consequences flow from the substitution of that word for Obs. No proposition, which carries its reason in the original enunciation, should ever be translated in such phrase, as to require a mental process, however short, to ren