« PrécédentContinuer »
ferences, as a few examples respecting 7, [JAH,] and 1757 [JEHOVAH,] will show.
Some hold it to be a simple root, as Kimchi, Buxtorf, Pagninus, Hales, &c.; others, as Cocceius, Vitringa, Robertson (James) deduce it from 1784 to be lovely, fair, admirable; the British Critic (1802) adopts the same derivation, and would render this word," All-glorious” or “ All" adorable ;" Hutchinson, Parkhurst, Bates and some others derive 7" from the verb 777 to be, by dropping the first ,7; and Geddes, with some lexicographers, considers it as a mere abbreviation of 1717. Dr. Hales, less happy in his inquiries into the meaning of this term than into that of Elohim, takes the leading idea of 7 Jah to be sameness, or immutability,—an idea which is indeed included in the term, but which does not fully express its meaning.
The great majority of critics and lexicogra-,
which ,היה or under ,הוה under יהוה phers place
has the same sense, all agreeing that these roots express existence ; but they differ as to the formation of the word. Some content themselves with referring to the root, without entering into its composition; others, as Bates and some of the Hutchinson school, form the word from 71.7, with a formative . [yod] prefixed, and consider it as meaning “ he that is;" Hutchinson himself makes it a compound of it and in the participle Be
noni of the root 1797, as does also The British Critic; Parkhurst thinks that “Mr. Hutchinson “ is right in making this divine name a compound " of IT the Essence, and the participle 7 existing,
subsisting ;" Geddes and some others consider
of (יהיה) as merely the third person future יהוה
the verb mint with the middle · [yod] changed to a ) [vau] to give the verb the semblance of a
Hales, who considers ng as the immediate descendant of it, takes the leading idea of the word Jehovah to be '“oneness or unity, a sense as foreign from it as trinity is from the word Elohim.
Though the great majority of these and other philologists are agreed in opinion, that “ Exist“ ence," or Being,” is the prominent idea expressed in the word JEHOVAH, only some of them contend that “ futuration [as Bp. Pearson expresses himself] is essential to the name.” The Jewish writers, both antient and modern (I believe none of them write otherwise), maintain that this word includes not only the past and the present, but also the future. Thus Aben Ezra on Isai. xlii. 8, “ I am JEHOVAH, that “ is my name," says: “ this is the proper name “ of God, signifying Essence, i. e. existing from
i Eternity to Eternity." Rabbi Bechi on Exod. folio 65. Col. 4. says, “ in the name JEHOVAH " are comprehended three times, the preterite,
“the present, and the future, as is known to all." The book entitled nisa pya, 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 79T " and the future Ty?!!!, which are the letters of “ his name 717."
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 on which is read from right to left having, as already noticed, been converted by transcribers into the unmeaning word MITH (Pipi) read from left to right.
It is easy to see a reason why Kúpos and Ocàs were employed, in the New Testament writings, for the words out and one 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, Kúpos had, as already noticed, been adopted as the translation for JEHOVAH, and eos forElohim. 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 He: brew, 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 represen: tative, 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 Tes. tament the article is used with as much precision as the Hebrew prefix , is in the Old : and,