Images de page

" Lead me to the ROCK that is higher than I,Ps. Ixi. 2. In many passages this terın is employed to designate the Creator; and in all of them, except two, the Translators have endeavoured to give the sense of the word. In Isai. xliv. 8. they have rendered it God,"_" Is there a God besides

. me? yea, there is no God.” But this is not only inaccurate and tame, but obscures the sense. Jehovah had been encouraging his people against fear, and the words here spoken furnish the reason why they should confide in him. They ought to be rendered thus : Is there one powerful above me? Yea, there is no Rock (or strong hold), none have I known.The other passage is in Hab. i. 12. where they translate the word by, “O mighty God.—But on the margin they have given the right word, “ Rock,” in both of

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

these passages.

Another term, moby [Elioun], The Supreme, is frequently employed to designate Jehovah; and wherever it occurs, the Translators have adopted some appropriate English word to express the sense; as in 2 Sam. xxii. 14, “ The Most High uttered his voice;” and in Psal. i. 14, Pay thy vows to The Most High.” This term was common with the worshippers of the true God, even among the inhabitants of Canaan, in the days of Abraham, as we see in Gen. xiv. 20. Blessed be goobay S8” [El Elioun), which should be

[ocr errors]


We learn from Philo-Biblius that the same epithet prevailed among the Phænicians. Speaking of their gods, he says, xatà Toutous rivetat τις 'EΛIOYN καλούμενος, among them there is a certain one called ELIOUN.”—It is exceedingly probable, that this epithet was carried along with all the patriarchal families so far back as the time of their first separation from the parent stock after the flood, when sent to colonise the different portions allotted to them. The Greeks, who, no doubt, obtained it from the Phænicians, express it in their own language by VICTOs, which is a literal translation of 7by, and is sometimes employed in the New Testament to express the same Hebrew word ; as in Luke i. 32, 35, 76. That this term was common among the Greeks is plain, from the exclamation of the damsel possessed of a spirit of divination at Philippi: “ These men are the servants of the most high

God,Toll RoŨ TOŰ ÜVIOTOU, Acts xvi. 17: and, indeed, we find it was the most usual epithet upon their votive tablets; and, what is at least remarkable, most commonly in the singular number, as may be seen on those brought from Athens by Lord Elgin, now deposited in the British Museum.-Judging by Rammohun Roy's Translation of the Abridgment of the Vedant, THE



SUPREME” is one of the most common epithets employed in the ancient “boly books” of the Brahmins. The end he had in translating the “ Resolution of all the Vedsinto the Hindostanee and Bengalee languages, he states to have been, to convince his own countrymen “that the unity " of God, and absurdity of idolatry, are evident“ly pointed out by their own scriptures.” In this work God is designated in different places by the following epithets : The Omnipresentthe All-powerfulthe Almightythe Creatorthe Eternal being;” but the most common is the Supreme Being,” which is employed perhaps ten times for once that any of the others occur.

The term 'qu [Shaddai], The All-sufficient, compounded of w (i. e. WVN) who," and 17,sufficiency,or “ sufficient,according as it is used in the abstract, or in the concrete sense, is often applied as a title to him whose bountiful goodness sustains the universe. It has been generally translated “The Almighty.Our Translators have never rendered it “ God.'

07[Ram], " the High"-1039 [Venisha], lofty one,Isai. lvii. 15; na byna na [Goboah megnel Goboah), Higher than the Highest,or rather, as on their 'margin, “ High above the High,Eccl. v. 8; 517 [Gadol), Great;" x713 [Nora), Reverend,or “ Terrible;" KMTP (Kadosh), the Holy One;" W7 [Kadsho), His


66 and

] קדוש

Holiness;"1182 [Gono), His Excellency,or His Highness," sometimes translated His Majesty;" 2212 [Tubo], His Goodness;" and other attributive nouns, frequently employed as titles of power and dignity, to designate him who is the greatest and the best of beings, have never been rendered Godby our Translators. They have frequently, it is true, translated the three last as adjectives, in some passages in which they are employed as appellatives, and so far they have failed in giving the precise sense; but still they have made it manifest, that they did not, in translating these and other Hebrew epithets that might be mentioned, conceive themselves at liberty to substitute the sense of another radix for the one in the text before them; which makes it the more surprising that they should have done otherwise with the words which it is proposed now to examine.

§ 2. Of the Attributives or Epithets [ET], -1)

in [Eloah), and Duik [Elohim), commonly rendered Godin the English translations of the Hebrew. Scriptures.

These attributive nouns, which are all the same in their radical sense, have, in the Septuagint version, been generally, though not invariably,

rendered by Oeds [Theos], or ó beds, by which, in particular, they commonly translate bythx [Elohim].

The inspired penmen of the New Testament, when quoting the Hebrew Scriptures, translate Elohim by Osòs [Theos), also by : bebs: 'as in Rom. iii. 18. There is no fear Geoũ (Hebrew outby, Ps. xxxvi. 1.) before their eyes;” and in Heb. i. 9. God, thy God,ó Geòs, leós cou (Hebrew Dux Topbx, Psal. xl. 7).

Throughout the Old Testament, the words

Elohim], and] אלהים Eloah], and] אלוה ,[El] אל

[ocr errors]

throughout the New, the word beds [Theos), are, in all the English versions, with less propriety than is at first apparent, uniformly translated God;" and this without any regard being paid to the presence or absence of the emphatic 17 [He] in the one, or of the Article in the other. The word “ God,” though now used with us as a proper name, in the language of our forefathers meant good. Is this the real sense of Elohim? If not, the word God is not a translation of, but a substitute for, the Hebrew term.—Let us briefly examine this point.

Some etymologists contend that it or gribu (Eloah], (for these are the same word); and also oyib [Elohim), and consequently in [Elohi], which differ only in form, being used only when in regimine; are derivatives : others, that they

« PrécédentContinuer »