sense in which the term Kúpos [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 Kugos, he instantly defines also òç [the Theos, commonly translated God], adding ὁ παντοκράτωρ, 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 ( ὧν ὁ ἦν—ὁ ἐρχόμενος) are joined together by the copulative xai, introduced before and also after the middle term; but having finished his definition of Kúpos [Kyrios], between which and the attributive noun Oeds [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, ὁ παντοκράτωρ.-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, Kúpios, 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 Kúpios 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 sense. The Greek verb xúpw to be, to exist, expresses precisely the sense of [Havah], the Hebrew radix of ; and I am therefore inclined 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 Kúpos as standing in a similar

relation to xúpw, as m to mn.

66

That is, they did not employ Κύριος as Lord," when translating, but as a term expressive of existence or being, like the Hebrew term itself.

Though Kupios be used both for JEHOVAH and Adonai, in the Septuagint, a difference is sometimes made, as in Gen. xv. 2, 8. where [Adonai Jehovah] is rendered déσroтα xógie, and in other places. It is also deserving of notice that the Greek scribes were wont to distinguish the one word from the other, by writing on the margin the Hebrew word, when that was the one intended. From this circumstance

the unmeaning word П

had its origin, which is only a defective copy of the Hebrew word , read as Greek from left to right. According to Jerome this was common in the copies of his age (Ep. 136); and in some of the antient copies the word JEHOVAH was preserved in the Greek translations in its own Hebrew character (Ep. 130). It is curious enough that Origen's Hexapla underwent a similar metamorphosis, from the ignorance of transcribers. One of his columns exhibited the Hebrew words in Greek characters, of which some fragments have come down to us as quotations. In one of these the word JEHOVAH, in Malachi ii. 13, has been converted into II. We meet with the same change in the text of Isaiah printed by Curterius with

the commentary of Procopius.-The method adopted by John precluded the possibility of such errors as arose from writing the word JEHOVAH on the margin. Like the Authors of the Septuagint he expresses this Hebrew name by the Greek word Kyrios; but, to prevent the possibility of being misunderstood, he instantly adds, as already noticed, a periphrasis of the word JEHOVAH, as a definition of the Greek term.

That the true reason has been assigned for the introduction of ὁ ὤν, καὶ ὁ ἦν, καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, • TaνTоxpάTwp, will appear still more evident, if we observe what a strange tautology would be produced, in this verse, were these words to be taken in any other sense than as a definition of Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς. As already frequently noticed, Kúgios represents JEHOVAH; and, as we have seen, the words ὁ ὤν, καὶ ὁ ἦν, καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, also represent JEHOVAH: Osos means, the Omnipotent, and & Tavтоxpάrwp also signifies the Omnipotent: the verse therefore would truly read, if translated according to the real meaning of the different terms employed in it," I am the A and the Q, saith Jehovah the Omnipotent, Jehovah the Omnipotent:"-or, putting it back into Hebrew, "saith Jehovah Elohim, Jehovah Elohim." In the common method of translation this is not apparent, Kúpos being translated by the word

Lord, which does not convey the sense of the term JEHOVAH, and Osòs by the word God, which is not a true translation of Elohim. Had John written the Revelation in Hebrew, in place of the words which he employs, he would simply have said, "saith Jehovah Elohim," Dnbx mm 728, because his meaning could not possibly have been misunderstood; but employing Greek words to represent the Hebrew expression, he adds, and only as a definition,-the words that follow; for the Amanuensis of the Apocalypse never employs superfluous phraseology, which this would be, if taken in any other view.

But," it may be asked, "If these terms are only a definition of the sense in which Kyrios is to be understood, and are, at the same time, a periphrasis for the word JEHOVAH, why should John have used either the periphrasis or the Greek word Kúpios, when he might at once have adopted the word JEHOVAH ?"-The answer is obvious. By such a procedure we should indeed have thus had, in the New Testament, the Hebrew term employed in the Old, to designate the Great Creator of Heaven and earth, but we should have been left in some uncertainty as to its real meaning; for though there has been less disagreement among the learned, as to the composition and meaning of this word, than respecting the term Elohim, yet there have been dif