« PrécédentContinuer »
“they are a first-fruit to the OMNIPOTENT, (xal) even the Lamb,” v. 4. The Lamb is here THE OMNIPOTENT ONE, (C. V. GOD), and so wherever such combinations occur as ó Oros xal to apriov; the sense being, as above,--him who is THE OMNIPOTENT (or God), and who is the LAMB.—To examine minutely all the passages in which these terms occur, and have been ren: dered in such a manner as to exhibit two persons, where but one was in the mind of the Writer, would occupy much time, for the context affected by this mistake is, in some instances, extensive. To prosecute the enquiry farther is however not necessary, for, in one word, if the identity of the terms employed by John be kept in recollection it will be found that, in no single passage, do they indicate more than one person, But before dropping the subject we ought, at least, to attend to one most important passage to which but little justice has been rendered by the majority of translators, perhaps full justice by none. » Ch. xxi. 22. Και ναόν ουκ είδον εν αυτή ο γάρ Κύριος ο Θεός και παντοκράτωρ ναός αυτής ΕΣΤΙ, και το αρνίον.
23. Και η πόλις ου χρείαν έχει του ηλίου ουδε της σελήνης, ίνα φαίνωσιν εν αυτή η γαρ δόξα του Θεού εφώτισεν αυτήν, και ο λύχνος αυτής το αρνίον.
In the Common Version the 22d verse is ten
dered,-—" And I saw no temple therein : for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it:"--and so also, with trifling variations, in Tindale's translation, Cranmer's, the Bishops bible, the versions of Doddridge, Wynne, Worsley, Newcome, the Unitarian version commonly attributed to Belsham, the anonymous translation of 1729, the Catholic version of CN., and the translation of 1812 by the author of the Christian Code. Nothing can 'mark more strongly the force of prepossession than such a version. The translators seem to have seen that the Lamb as well as the Theos is declared to be the Temple (or, more correctly, the Sanctuary); but, notwithstanding, fully persuaded, in opposition to John's words, that these two terms indicate two individuals, they have, as if John knew not what he was saying, converted his singular verb “IS” [EXTI] into the plural “ ARE!” Such a bold departure from the original, and the error which it tends to foster and
propagate, cannot be too much lamented. I am happy however to be able to state that several translators have here given the substantive verb in the singular ; as the Doway version,
for the Lord God Almighty is the temple thereof, and the Lamb;" Webster's translation of Simon's French, "Was the temple thereof, with the Lamb; -Cooke's translation, “Is the temple of it, and
the Lamb :"_Wakefield's, “Is its temple, and the Lamb:” but, with still more precision, as to the identity required by the original (for the substitute for the temple IS [EXTI] but ONE), Haweis renders the passage thus," for the Lord God Almighty is the temple thereof, Even the Lamb ;” and Scarlet thus," for the Lord God Almighty EVEN the Lamb is its temple.” Either of these two gives, as to identity, the true sense of the Greek text, in which the expressions Ocòs (God) and rò diquiov (the Lamb) are each a nominative to the verb singular 'EXTI, and therefore both indicate the same individual.
· Another circumstance may be noted, in passing, respecting the expression employed by John in this verse, Κύριος ο Θεός και παντοκράτωρ, commonly rendered, “the Lord God Almighty.” We have seen that the first two of these Nouns represent the Hebrew Nouns Jehovah Elohim. Here all the three are employed as a name of the Creator (for the last term is not in this place a definition of Oeds, or we should have had along with-it the definition also of Kópios), and as the first two represent Hebrew terms, it seems not unreasonable to conclude, that so must the last; and that this is the fact will appear evident on turning to the Old Testament, to discover by what epithet the name Jehovah is most cominonly followed, when, in addition to Elohim, a third
term is employed. It will instantly occur to the reader that the word niay, sabaoth, “ hosts,"
armies,” is often joined to Jehovah and to Jehovah Elohim ; and if he take the trouble to examine the Septuagint he will find that the Hebrew term sabaoth, when translated (for in that version it is often retained untranslated, and expressed in Greek characters) is commonly rendered Tavtoupátwp. Thus the words - bent 0133 Jehovah Elohi sabaoth, Amos iii. 13.; iv. 13.; v. 14, 15, 16, 27, &c. usually translated “the LORD, the God of hosts,” are, in the Septuagint, rendered, Kúpsos ó Ocòs ó Tavtoxpármps--the precise words used by John in the passage before us: and, therefore, if it be desirable that a uniformity of diction should, where the expression is identical, pervade the translations of the Old and the New Testament, the words of John in this place, and those of the Prophet Amos, ought to be rendered in the same manner ; for there can be no doubt that John is here expressing, in a Greek translation, this Old Testament name of the Creator ; and so also in Rev. xv. 3. ; xvi. 7., and xix. 6., -the only places in which tarτοκράτωρ is found along with Kύριος (JEHOVAH), excepting Ch. 1.8., iv. 8., and xi. 17., where, as has been seen, it is introduced in definitions. It appears also in Ch. xvi. 14., and xix. 15., along with the Noun Ods; and in both of these, the double term seems obviously to mean what John, had he
been writing in Hebrew, would have expressed by Elohi sabaoth, “GOD OF HOSTS," for, in both, the context has relation to armed hosts. This term, except in one otber place, is found only in the Apocalypse, a book evidently cast in a Hebrew mould. The other passage in which it occurs, in the Greek Scriptures, is 2 Cor. vi. 18, where it is joined to Kúpios; and where, I doubt not, the expression, in any Hebrew translation of the epistle, ought to be Jehovah sabaoth: indeed Paul seems to have bad the Apocalypse full in his mind when he wrote this passage, as may be seen by comparing the context with Rev. xxi. 3., and xviji. 4.
The 23d verse of Ch. xxi. is thus rendered in the common version: “And the city had no need “of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it ; for " the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb (is) "the light thereof;"-the word “is,” in the last clause, being a supplement, and so printed. All the versions introduce either “is,” or “was,” in the last clause, some marking the substantive verb as a supplement, but others omitting to do so. The great majority of them, like the common version, read, “glory of God;" but Tindale, Coverdale, Cranmer, and the Catholic version of C. N., in closer harmony with the scope of the passage, “the brightness of God," and Scarlet, “ the splendour of God ," and ó núxvos is by some rendered “the light,” and by others, more