« PrécédentContinuer »
tion which these, and such like, definitions, and explanations, were intended to communicate.
It may be remarked respecting these definitions and explanations, that, generally, their existence being once known, they are easily discovered, being commonly put in the Nominative case, and so glaring that this
circumstance led to the idea that the book is written in barbarous Greek; but let the Greek reader, wherever he finds these “ barbarisms," pass them and proceed till he comes to words in proper construction with those which preceded them. He will then find that he has got the writer's entire serise; the intervening terms being merely parenthetical: and when these supposed intruders are not followed by words in construction with those that went before, they are to be considered as in some way explanatory of some of the preceding terms that were found in proper construction.
§ 2. Of the junction of Attributive Nouns with
Symbolical terms,--and particularly with sò åpvíov, The LAMB.
The second particular which has contributed, not a little, to perplex translators, and, consequently, to obscure their versions, is the frequent employment of Hieroglyphical or Symbolical epithets in the Apocalypse, not as Attributive Nouns, but in some other way: as, for example, tò &pvíov, The LAMB. The first place in which this Noun occurs in the Apocalypse is in ch. v. 6., " and I saw in the midst of the throne and of the
four animals and in the midst of the Elders, dip“víov, A LAMB,” &c. Here, conformably to the rules of the language, this Noun appears without the Article, being its first introduction.. In the case of any particular lamb, the recurrence of the same lamb would require the article, and it would of necessity be subjected to the rules that apply generally to common Nouns; but when, on the recurrence of this very term, we find that it is not used in its proper but in some other sense, though we may expect to find it preceded by the Article, to intimate that the Lamb intended is the same that had been mentioned before, we must first enquire in what sense the term is employed before we can decide how far it is to be considered, in other respects, under the dominion of the rules that apply to Nouns used in their common and proper acceptation, or to Attributives personified. Now it so happens that throughout the Apocalypse the Noun apvíow (excepting in one instance ch. xiii. 11. presenting no difficulty) is never employed as a common Noun, or even as an Attributive, in the common acceptation of these terms. It is always employed as a Proper Name, and that in a manner too which puts it out of the common rules; at least I know of no similar examples, nor do I know where they could be found, unless some work could be pointed out composed on the same principles as the Apocalypse. The singu, larity arises from the blended use of common and of Hieroglyphical language, and preserving the proprieties of each throughout. In Rev. v, 6. a Hieroglyphical or Symbolical Lamb is seen in the midst of a symbolical throne (or seat) and of four symbolical animals; and whenever mention is afterwards made of this Lamb, it is, according to rule, invariably preceded by the Article,' to show that this and no other lamb is alluded to; and is at the same time used as a Proper Name, as already noticed, but with this peculiarity, that it is a Hieroglyphical Proper Name. Now it is easy to conceive that, were the whole language of the Vision Hieroglyphical, this circumstance would produce no, alteration whatever in the construction of the sentences, however much it might affect the sense or the interpretation : but the case is otherwise ; for, in the same sentences, common Attributive Nouns,
The common Greek Text presents an exception in ch. xiv. 1., but the best Mss. and the ancient versions read rò , åpviov--the Lamb; and Griesbach and other critics here admil the Article into the text.
and having their usual application, are found blended with, or united to, Hieroglyphical terms; and if we fetter the terms of two distinct languages by the same rules that would govern them if they both belonged to one, it is not only possible, but absolutely certain, that - we shall sometimes not only miss the sense, but entirely pervert it.
This Hieroglyphical Proper Name is often preceded by Attributive Nouns, and joined to them by the common Copulative xal; and, always having the Article, as well as the Attributives, translators have generally rendered the passages in which these combinations are found, in such a manner as to make the Attributives represent one individual and the proper name another; precisely as they would have been called to do had the latter been also an Attributive. Thus the words, η Σωτηρία τω Θεώ ημών τώ καθημένω επί TOŨ Opovou rai To áprio (vii. 10) are rendered in the authorised version, “ Salvation to our God “which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb," making the Theos, who sits on the throne, one person, and the LAMB another person ; and yet the intention of the writer (as will be proved hereafter) is quite different: his meaning, when properly understood, is this : “ The salvation be to “ THE MIGHTY ONE of us (or, to our God] (who • is) the one sitting upon the throne, and (who is)
“ The LAMB." The mistake originates, not from the presence of the Article before aquio, (for by no rule of the language could it be excluded) but, from the Translator's treating this Noun as an Attributive, the Conjunction xal being present, which (were this Noun an Attributive) would have referred it to some other person than the Theos. Once taking up the idea that two persons were spoken of, there was no difficulty in making this appear certain in the translation, by inserting the preposition “unto” (unto the Lamb), which was no more required, though the Noun be in the dative case, than before the second dative τω καθημένω ; and, had they done the same with this dative, they would have given the mere English reader three persons, for the translation would then have been,
Salvation unto our God, unto the one sitting upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.
From what attention I have been able to give to this subject it appears to me evident, that when the Hieroglyphical Proper Name is applied to the individual indicated by the Attributive Noun or Nouns going beforeor, vice versa, when these Attributives are applied to the person to whom “ The LAMB” is immediately after applied as a Proper (Hieroglyphical) Name, then “ the Lamb” has the article, for the same reason that this name would have it, were no