Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

did they understand the proper name of God, Jehovah. And had they placed it there as the exposition of any other name

omnipotente, et nomen meum Adonai non indicavi eis, and thereby make an apparent sense no way congruous to the intended importance of the Holy Ghost (for it cannot be imagined either that God should not be known to Abraham by the name Adonai, or that it were any thing to the present intendment, which was to encourage Moses and the Israelites by the interpretation of the name Jehovah); yet we have no reason to believe that the LXX. made any such heterogeneous translation, which we read, κai Tò όνομά μου Κύριος οὐκ ἐδήλωσα αὐτοῖς. Thus again, where God speaks unto Moses, Οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ, Κύριος, ὁ Θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ὑμῶν, ἀπέσταλκέ με πρὸς ὑμᾶς, τοῦτό μου éoτìv čvoμa alúvior, Exod. iii. 15. whosoever thinks Kúpios stands for Adonai, does injury to the translators; and whosoever readeth Adonai for Jehovah, puts a force upon the text. As also when the prophet David saith, that men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth, [Ps. lxxxiii. 18.] I confess the ancient fathers did, together with the Jews, read Adonai for Jehovah in the Hebrew text, as appeareth by those words of Epiphanius de Ponderibus. [§ 6. vol. ii. p. 163 D. ]'Adwval, ἠλιχά, καριθί, Ισμαήλ, ἰεββετά, ἀκώλο which very corruptly represent part of the first verse of the 141st Psalm,

[ocr errors]

copy of the text of Isaiah printed by Curterius with the Commentary of Procopius, and St Hierome gives an account of it in the Greek copies of his age: 'Nonum (Nomen) TETраYрáμματον, quod ἀνεκφώνητον, id est, ineabile, putaverunt, quod his literis scribitur, jod hevav hen. Quod quidam non intelligentes, propter elementorum similitudinem, quum in Græcis libris repererint, IIIIII legere consueverunt.' Epist. 136. [Ep. 25. Vol. 1. p. 131 c.] Neither did the Greeks only place this IIIIII in the margin of their translations, but when they described the Hebrew text in Greek characters, they used the same IIIIII form, and consequently did not read Adonai for Jehovah. An example of this is to be found in that excellent copy of the prophets according to the LXX., collated with the rest of the translators, in the library of the most eminent Cardinal Barberin; where at the 13th verse of the 2nd chapter of Malachi these words are written after the translation of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, out of the Hebrew text, after the manner of Origen's Hexapla, of which there is an excellent example in that MS. Ουζωθ, σηνιθ, θέσου, χεσσονθ, δεμα, εθμαςβην (1. βηκ), πιπι, βεχι, ουανακα, μηην, ωδ, φεννωθ, ελ, αμμανα, ουλακεθ, ρακων, μelonxeμ, which are a very proper expression of these following Hebrew words, according to the punctuation

וזאת שנית,and reading of that age בכי תעשו כסות דמעה את מזבח יהוה ויאנקה מאין עוד פנות אל המנחה ולקחת By which it is evident רצון מידכם

but יהוה קראתיך חושה לי האזינה קולי

plainly enough render m 'Adwvai. Notwithstanding it is very observable, that they were wont to distinguish Kúpios, in the Greek translations where it stood for Jehovah, from Kúpios where it stood for Adonai; and that was done by adding in the margin the tetragrammaton itself, mm, which by the ignorance of the Greek scribes, who understood not the Hebrew characters, was converted into four Greek letters, and so made a word of no signification, IIIIII. This is still extant in the

that Origen in his Hexapla, from whence undoubtedly that ancient scholiast took his various translations, did not read 'Adwval in that place; but kept the Hebrew characters, which they who understood them not, formed into those Greek letters πLTL. And certainly the preserving of the name Jehovah in the Greek

xxvi. 3.

of God, they had made an interpretation contrary to the manifest intention of the Spirit: for it cannot be denied but God was known to Abraham by the true importance of the title Adonai, as much as by the name of Shaddai; as much by his dominion and sovereignty, as by his power and all-sufficiency: but by any experimental and personal sense of the fulfilling of his promises, his name Jehovah was not known unto him: for 147 Gen. xiii. 15; though God spake expressly unto Abraham, All the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever, yet the Acts vii. 5. history teacheth us, and St Stephen confirmeth us, that he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on, though he promised that he would give it to him for a possession. Wherefore when God saith he was not known to Abraham by his name Jehovah, the interpretation of no other name can make good that expression : and therefore we have reason to believe the word which the first Greek translators, and after them the apostles, used, may be appropriated to that notion which the original requires; as indeed it may, being derived from a verb of the same signification with the Hebrew root', and so denoting

translations was very ancient, for it
was described in some of them with
the ancient characters, as St Hierome
testifieth: 'Et nomen Domini Tetra-
grammaton in quibusdam Græcis vo-
luminibus usque hodie antiquis ex-
pressum literis invenimus.' Ep. 106.
[Præf. in libros Samuel et Malachim.
Vol. IX. p. 454 D.] Being then we can-
not be assured that the LXX. read
for ; being they have used Kúpios
for Jehovah, when they have made
use of the general word cós for
Adonai; being in some places Adonai
cannot be read for Jehovah, without
manifest violence offered to the text:
it followeth, that it is no way probable
that Kúpios should therefore be used
for Jehovah, because it was taken for
the proper signification of Adonai.

It is acknowledged by all that

[blocks in formation]

indρxew. Now as from in the
Hebrew, so in the Greek ȧлÒ TоÛ
κύρειν Κύριος. And what the proper
signification of kúpe is, no man can
teach us better than Hesychius, in
whom we read Κύρει, ὑπάρχει,
τυγχάνει. κύρω prima longa, κυρῶ
prima brevi. Sophocl. Edip. Colon.
v. 1158;

- παρ ̓ ᾧ

Θύων ἔκυρον-
Schol. Θύων ἔκυρον, ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐκύρουν,
ταὐτὸν δὲ τῷ ἐτύγχανον. Hence was
κύροι by the Atties used for ἔστω sit ;
so I take it from the words of the
scholiast upon Sophocles; τὸ κυρῶ πε-
ρισπωμένως φησὶν ἡ συνήθεια καὶ ̓Ατ-
τικοί, ἐν δὲ εὐκτικοῖς βαρύνουσιν αὐτὸ
Αττικοὶ μετὰ ἐκτάσεως τοῦ υ, κύροι
λέγοντες, ἀντὶ τοῦ κυροίη. Not that
they used it by an apocope, taking ʼn
from κυροίη, but that κύροι was taken
in the sense of κυροίη or κυροῖτο, from
κύρω, ὑπάρχω, κύροι, εἴη or ὑπάρχοι,
as the scholiast upon those words of
Sophocles, Electr. v. 849. Δειλαία
δειλαίων κυρεῖς· Κυρεῖς, ἤγουν ὑπάρ
Xeus. Neither know I better how to

the essence or existence of God, and whatsoever else may be deduced from thence, as revealed by him to be signified thereby. Being then this title Lord thus signifieth the proper name

render κυρείς than by ὑπάρχειs in the place of Eschylus's Prometheus, ν. 330.

Ζηλῶ σ' ὁθούνεκ' ἐκτὸς αἰτίας κυρείς, Πάντων μετασχὼν καὶ τετολμηκος ἐμοί. As the Arundelian scholiast upon the Septem Thebana, [23] κυρεῖ, ὑπάρχει, and in the same tragedy, [401] ἐπ' ἀσπίδος κυρεῖν, is rendered by the more ancient scholiast, εἶναι ἐπὶ τῆς ἀσπίδος ̇ as in the Perse, [503] σεσωσμένος κυρεῖ, is by the same interpreter explained κυρεῖ καὶ ὑπάρχει σεσωσ μένος. So the same poet in his Agamemnon, ν. 1370,

Ταύτην ἐπαινεῖν πάντοθεν πληθύνομαι, Τρανῶς 'Ατρείδην εἰδέναι κυροῦνθ ̓ ὅπως. Which the scholiast renders thus: Ἐπαινοῦμαι διαφόρως ταύτην γνώμην, τὸ μαθεῖν ἐν οἵᾳ ἐστὶ καταστάσει ὁ βασιλεύς. And no other sense can be imagined of that verse in Sophocles, Cdip. Tyr. v. 362.

Φονέα σε φημὶ τἀνδρὸς οὐ ζητεῖς κυρεῖν, than by rendering it, είναι οι υπάρ χειν : and Edip. Col. v. 726.

-Καὶ γὰρ εἰ γέρων κυρώ, [αἱ. ἐγω] Τὸ τῆσδε χώρας οὐ γεγήρακε σθένος and Philoctet. v. 899.

̓Αλλ' ἐνθάδ' ἤδη τοῦδε τοῦ πάθους κυρώ or of that in Euripides's Phenissa, ν. 1067.

'Ωή, τίς ἐν πύλαισι δωμάτων κυρεῖ; This original interpretation appeareth farther in the frequent use of κυρέω for τυγχάνω, as it signifeth no more than sum: as in Sophocles, εὐθύνων κυρεῖς for εὐθύνεις, [Αj. 542.] μισῶν κυρῇς for μισῇς, [Αj. 1345.] ἐπεικάζων κυρῶ for ἐπεικάζω, [Electr. 663.] ὢν κυρεῖς for εἷς, [Electr. 1409.] ἐξειδὼς κυρῶ for ἔξοιδα, [Trach. 399.] κυρῶ λεύσσων for λεύσσω, [Trach. 406.] δρῶν κυρείς for δρᾷς, [Trach. 413.] ἠπατημένος κυρῶ for ἠπάτημαι, [d. Τyr. 594.] εἰρηκὼς κυρεῖ for εἴρηκεν, [Ed. Col. 414, 572.] εἰπὼν κυρείς for εἶπες, [Electr. 1176.] ἐκύρει ζῶσα for ἔξη: [Ed. Tyr. 985.] and in Euripides: ἔχων κυροῦ for ἔχοι, [Orest. 514.] εἰσε

βαίνουσα κυρεῖ for εἰσβαίνει, [Ion, 41.] ἠδικημένη κυρῇ for ἀδικῆται oι ἀδικηθῇ, [Medea, 265.] as the scholiast. From all which it undeniably appeareth, that the ancient signification of κύρω or κυρῶ is the same with εἰμί, or ὑπάρχω, sum, I am (which is much confirmed by that it was anciently observed to be a verb transitive, as it was used by the forementioned author: κυρῶ συζυγίας πρώτης τῶν περισπωμένων, τὸ περιτυγχάνω· ἀντὶ δὲ τοῦ ὑπάρχω κατὰ τοὺς τραγικοὺς ἀμετάβατον. So an ancient Lexicon); and therefore κύριος immediately derived from thence must be ὁ ὤν, or ὁ ὑπάρχων: and consequently the proper interpretation of descending from the root of the same signification. And well may we conceive the LXX, for this reason to have so translated it, because we find the origination delivered by them in that notion, rendering παν ὁ Ὤν, Exod. iii. 14. ἐγὼ εἰμὶ ὁ Ὤν, and again, ὁ Ὢν ἀπέσταλκέ με πρὸς ὑμᾶς. From whence, considering the name proceeding from that root, and given in relation to that sense, they made use of the word κύριος for the standing interpretation of that name, as being equivalent to o *Ω». We have no reason then to conceive either that they so translated it out of the superstition of the Jews (as some would persuade us, whom we have already refuted), or because they had no letters in the Greek language by which they could express the Hebrew name, whereas we find it often expressed even among the Gentile Greeks, but because they thought the Greek kúpios to be a proper interpretation, as being reducible to the same signification. For even they which are pretended to have read Adonai for Jehovah, as Origen, &c. do acknowledge that the heathens and the ancient heretics descending from the Jews had a name by which they did express the Hebrew Jehovah. We

of God Jehovah, being the same is certainly attributed unto 148 Christ in a notion far surpassing all other lords, which are rather to be looked upon as servants unto him: it will be worth our inquiry next, whether as it is the translation of the name Jehovah it belong to Christ; or whether though he be Lord of all other lords, as subjected under his authority, yet he be so inferior unto him whose name alone is Jehovah, as that in that propriety and eminency in which it belongs unto the supreme God it may not be attributed unto Christ.

This doubt will easily be satisfied, if we can shew the name Jehovah itself to be given unto our Saviour; it being against all reason to acknowledge the original name, and to deny the interpretation in the sense and full importance of that original. Wherefore if Christ be the Jehovah, as so called by the Spirit of God; then is he so the Lord, in the same propriety and eminency in which Jehovah is. Now whatsoever did belong

know that oracle preserved by Macrobius, Saturnal. lib. i. c. 18.

Φράζεο τὸν πάντων ὕπατον θεὸν ἔμμεν Ιαώ. And Diodorus hath taught us from whence that name first came, mentioning Moses in this manner, 1. i. c. 94. Παρὰ δὲ τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις Μωσὴν τὸν Ἰαὼ ἐπικαλούμενον θεόν. And Theodoret more expressly, Quæst. 15. in Exod. [Vol. I. p. 133.] Kaλoûσi dè avrò Σαμαρεῖται μὲν Ἰαβέ, Ἰουδαῖοι δὲ Ἰαώ. ['Aïd is read by Scholze.] Porphyrius, 1. iv. cont. Christian. [Appendix ad Scaliger. de Emendat. Temp. p. 6.] tells us, Sanchoniathon had his relations of the Jews, παρὰ Ιερομβάλου τοῦ ἱερέως θεοῦ τοῦ Ἰευώ. Eusebius [Demons. Evang. iv. 17.] (as we formerly mentioned, p. 71.) said, 'Iwoove ἐστιν Ἰαὼ σωτηρία. Hesychius, Ιωάθαμ, Ἰαὼ συντέλεια, taking iὼ in composition for the contraction of 'Iau. Aς Ιωνὰς ἑρμηνεύεται, ὑψίστου που VOUVTOS. And the LXX. Jer. xxiii. 6.

Iosedek, id יהוה צדקנו have rendered

est, Dominus justus, saith St Hierome. And as the heathens and the first Christians, so the heretics had among them the pronunciation and expression of the name . As the Valentinian was baptized ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ 'Ia. Iren. 1. i. [c. 21. § 3. p. 96.]

and the Ophiani had their several
gods, among the rest, anò μèv payei-
ας τὸν Ἰαλδαβαώθ καὶ τὸν ̓Ασταφαῖον,
καὶ τὸν Ὡραῖον· ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν ̔Εβραϊκών
γραφῶν τὸν Ἰαώ, Ιὰ παρ' ̔Εβραίοις
ovoμaçóμevov. Orig. cont. Cels. 1. vi.
[§ 32. vol. 1. p. 656 E.] So I read it,
not as it is in the edition of Hoes-
chelius, 'Iawta in one word, or 'Iawva,
as our learned countryman Nicolaus
Fullerus hath endeavoured in vain to
rectify it; but law lá, that is, the
Ophiani took the name 'Iaw from the
Jews, among whom it signifies the
same who is called Iah. For that it
ought so to be read, appeareth by the
former words of Origen: Οἴονται τὸν
διελθόντα τὸν Ἰαλδαβαώθ καὶ φθάσαντα
ἐπὶ τὸν Ιὰ [Ἰαὼ] δεῖν λέγειν, Σὺ δὲ
κρυπτομένων μυστηρίων υἱοῦ καὶ πατρὸς
ἄρχων νυκτοφαὴς δεύτερε Ιαώ. [bid.
§ 31. p. 655 B.] In the printed copy
indeed it is ladeiv, and in the Latin
Iadin, but without sense: whereas
dividing the words, the sense is mani-
fest, and the reason of the former
emendation apparent. Being then
there were so many among the Greeks,
which did in all ages express the He-
brew name, it can be no way probable
that the LXX. should avoid it as in-
expressible in their language.

14.

to the Messias, that may and must be attributed unto Jesus, as being the true and only Christ. But the Jews themselves acknowledge that Jehovah shall be known clearly in the days of the Messias, and not only so, but that it is the name which properly belongeth to him'. And if they cannot but confess so much who only read the prophecies, as the eunuch did, without an interpreter; how can we be ignorant of so plain and necessary a truth, whose eyes have seen the full completion, and read the infallible interpretation of them? If they could see Jehovah the Lord of hosts to be the name of the Messias, Tsai, viii. 13, who was to them for a stone of stumbling and rock of offence, how can we possibly be ignorant of it, who are taught by St Paul, that in Christ this prophecy was fulfilled, As it is writ- Rom. ix. 33. ten, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumbling-stone, and rock of offence; and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. It was no other than Jehovah who spake those words, I will have mercy Hos. i. 7. upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the Lord (Jehovah) their God, and will not save them by bow nor sword2. Where not only he who is described as the original and principal cause, that is, the Father who gave his Son, but also he who is the immediate efficient of our salvation, and that in opposition to all other means or instrumental causes, is called Jehovah; who can be no other than our Jesus, because there is Acts iv. 12. no other name under heaven given unto men whereby we must be saved. As in another place he speaketh, I will strengthen them Zech. x. 12. in the Lord (Jehovah), and they shall walk up and down in his name, saith the Lord (Jehovah); where he which strengtheneth is one, and he by whom he strengtheneth is another, clearly distinguished from him by the personal pronoun, and yet each of them is Jehovah, and Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. Deut. vi. 4. Whatsoever objections may be framed against us, we know

1 As Midrash Tillim on Psal. xxi. Echa Rabbathi, Lam. i. 16.

2Where it is farther observable that

במימרא the Chaldee paraphrase hath

" for by the word of Jehovah, for Jehovah.

3 Two adversaries we have to the exposition of this place, the Jew and the Socinian; only with this difference, that we find the less opposition from the Jew, from whom, indeed, we have so ample a concession as will destroy

the other's contradiction. First, So-
cinus answers, the name belongeth
not to Christ, but unto Israel; and
that it so appears by a parallel place
in the same prophet, Jer. xxxiii. 15,
16. Socin. refut. Jac. Wieki, cap. 6.
[Vol. 11. p. 601. col. 2.] Catech. Ra-
cov. de Pers. Christi, c. I. Crellius de
Deo et Attrib. 1. i. c. 11. To this we
first oppose the constant interpreta-
tion of the Jews, who attribute the
name Jehovah to the Messias from this

« FöregåendeFortsätt »