Sidor som bilder

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, kai to όνομά μου Κύριος ουκ εδήλωσα αυτούς. . Thus again, where God speaks unto Moses, Ούτως έρείς τους υιούς Ισραήλ, Κύριος, ο θεός των πατέρων υμών,απέσταλκέ με προς υμάς, τούτό μου εστίν όνομα αιώνιον, Εxod. iii. 15. whosoever thinks Kúplos stands for Adonai, does injury to the translators; and whosoever readeth Adonai forJehovah, 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 con. fess the ancient fathers did, together with the Jews, read Adonai for Jehovah in the Hebrew text, as appeareth by those words of Epiphanius de Pon. deribus. (8 6. vol. ii. p. 163 D.]'Adwval, ήλιχά, καριθί, Ισμαήλ, ιεββετά, ακώλ: which very corruptly represent part of the first verse of the 141st Psalm,

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) Tetpaypáruatov, quod dvekouvrtov, id est, ineffabile, putaverunt, quod his literis scribitur, jodhe o vav , he 7. Quod quidam non intelligentes, propter elementorum similitudinem, quum in Græcis libris repererint, III III legere consueverunt.' Epist. 136. [Ep. 25. Vol. I. p. 131 c.] Neither did the Greeks only place this II III in the margin of their translations, but when they described the Hebrew text in Greek characters, they used the same III III for 777', 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 Theodo. tion, out of the Hebrew text, after the manner of Origen's Hexapla, of which there is an excellent example in that MS. Outwb, onuie, θεσoυ, χεσσoυθ, δε μα, εθμαξβην (1. βηκ), πιπι, βεχι, ουανακα, μηην, ω, φεννωθ, ελ, αμμωνα, ουλακεθ, ρακων, MELÔNXEH, which are a very proper expression of these following Hebrew words, according to the punctuation

, ?

but יהוה קראתיך חושה לי האזינה קולי

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

plainly enough render jy 'Adwval. Notwithstanding it is very observable, that they were wont to distinguish Kúplos, in the Greek translations where it stood for Jehovah, from Kúplos where it stood for Adonai; and that was done by adding in the margin the tetragrammaton itself, 177.7°, which by the ignorance of the Greek scribes, who understood not the Hebrew characters, was con. verted into four Greek letters, and 80 made a word of no signification, II IIII. 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

And certainly the preserving of the name Jehovah in the Greek

πιπι. .

[ocr errors]

of God, they had made an interpretation contrary to the mani-
fest 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
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

Acts vii. 5.


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.
[Pref. in libros Samuel et Malachim.
Vol. ix. p. 454 d.) Being then we can.
not be assured that the LXX. read 378
for 1997e; being they have used Kúpios
for Jehovah, when they have made
use of the general word oeós 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 Kúpos should therefore be used
for Jehovah, because it was taken for
the proper signification of Adonai.
1 It is acknowledged by all that

own interpretation proves no less, 70778
1700X TVR Exod. iii. 14. And though
some contend that futurition is essen-
tial to the name, yet all agree the
root signifieth nothing but essence
or existence, that is, to civai, or

υπάρχειν. Now as om 7777 in the
Hebrew 771774, so in the Greek átÒ TOÙ
κύρειν Kύριος. And what the proper
signification of kúpelv is, no man can
teach us better than Hesychius, in
whom read Κύρει, υπάρχει,
τυγχάνει. κύρω prima longa, κυρώ
prima brevi. Sophocl. Edip. Colon.
v. 1158;

παρ' ο
Θύων εκυρον-
Schol. θύων εκυρον, αντί του έκύρουν,
ταυτόν δε τω ετύγχανον. Hence was
κύροι by the Attics used for έστω sit;
so I take it from the words of the
scholiast upon Sophocles; TÒ KUPô TTE-
ρισπωμένως φησίν ή συνήθεια και 'Ατ-
τικοί, εν δε ευκτικοίς βαρύνουσιν αυτό
'Αττικοί μετά εκτάσεως του υ, κύροι
λέγοντες, αντί του κυρoίη. Not that
they used it by an apocope, taking n
from κυρoίη, but that κύροι was taken
in the sense of kupoln or kupoîto, from
κύρω, υπάρχω, κύροι, είη or υπάρχοι,
as the scholiast upon those words of
Sophocles, Electr. v. 849. Aellala
δειλαίων κυρείς: Κυρείς, ήγουν υπάρ-
xels. Neither know I better how to

and God's ,היה or הוה is from יהוה

the essence or existence of God, and whatsoever else


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 υπάρχεις in the place of Æschylus's Prometheus, V. 330.

Ζηλω σ' οθούνεκ' εκτός αιτίας κυρείς,

Πάντων μετασχών και τετολμηκος εμοί. As the Arundelian scholiast upon the Septem Thebana, [23] κυρεϊ, υπάρχει, and in the same tragedy, [401] επ' ασπίδος κυρεϊν, is rendered by the more ancient scholiast, είναι επί της ασπίδος: as in the Perse, [503] σεσωσμένος κυρεϊ, is by the same interpreter explained κυρεί και υπάρχει σεσωσ. μένος. So the same poet in his Agamemnon, ν. 1370,

Ταύτην επαινείν πάντοθεν πληθύνομαι,

Τρανώς Ατρείδην ειδέναι κυρoύνθ' όπως. Which the scholiast renders thus : 'Επαινουμαι διαφόρως ταύτην γνώμην, το μαθείν εν οία εστί καταστάσει ο βασιλεύς. And no other sense can be imagined of that verse in Sophocles, Edip. Tyr. ν. 362.

Φονέα σε φημι τανδρος ου ζητείς κυρεϊν, than by rendering it, είναι or υπάρχειν : and Edip. Col. v. 726.

-Και γαρ ει γέρων κυρώ, (al. εγω) Το τήσδε χώρας ου γεγήρακε σθένος: and Philoctet. v. 899.

'Αλλ' ενθάδ' ήδη τούδε του πάθους κυρώ or of that in Euripides's Phunissa, V. 1067.

Ώή, τις έν πύλαισι δωμάτων κυρει; This original interpretation appeareth farther in the frequent use of κυρέω for τυγχάνω, as it signifeth no more than sum: as in Sophocles, eúdúvwv κυρεϊς for ευθύνεις, [Αj. 542.] μισών κυρης for μισής, [Αj. 1345.] επεικάζων κυρώ for επεικάζω, [Electr. 663.] ών κυρεϊς for είς, [Electr. 1409.] εξειδώς κυρώ for εξοιδα, [Trach. 399.] κυρώ λεύσσων for λεύσσω, [Trach. 406.] δρών κυρεϊς for δρας, [Trach. 413.] ήπατημένος κυρώ for ήπάτημαι, [Ed. Tyr. 594.] είρηκώς κυρεϊ for είρηκεν, [Ed. Col. 414, 572.] ειπών κυρεϊς for είπες, [Electr. 1176.] έκύρει ζώσα for έζη: [Ed. Tyr. 985.] and in Euripides: έχων κυρού for έχοι, [Orest. 514.] είσ

βαίνουσα κυρεϊ for εισβαίνει, [Ion, 41.) ήδικημένη κυρή for αδικήται or άδικηθή, (Medea, 265.] as the scholiast. From all which it undeniably appeareth, that the ancient signification of kúpw or κυρώ is the same with είμι, or υπάρχω, 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: κυρώ συζυγίας πρώτης των περισπωμένων, το περιτυγχάνω" αντί δε του υπάρχω κατά τους τραγικούς αμετάβατον. So an ancient Lexicon); and therefore kúplos immediately derived from thence must be ó wv, or ο υπάρχων : and consequently the proper interpretation of 1717 descending from the root oin 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 7978 Nv, Exod. iii. 14. εγώ είμι ο "Ών, and again, ο "Ων απεσταλκέ με προς υμάς. 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 *Ών. 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 143 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 τον πάντων ύπατον θεόν έμμεν Ιαώ. And Diodorus hath taught us from whence that name first came, mentioning Moses in this manner, 1. i. c. 94. Παρά δε τους Ιουδαίοις Μωσής τον Ιαν επικαλούμενον θεόν. And Theodoret more expressly, Quæst. 15. in Exod. [Vol. I. p. 133.] Kalouoi aitd Σαμαρείται μεν Ιαβέ, Ιουδαίοι δε Ίαώ. ['Aïá 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, παρά Ιερομβάλου του ιερέως θεού του Ιευώ. Εusebius [Demons. Evang. iv, 17.) (as we formerly mentioned, p. 71.) said, 'I wrote έστιν Ιαώ σωτηρία. Ηesychius, Ιωάθαμ, Ιαώ συντέλεια, taking ιώ in com. position for the contraction of 'Ia. Ας Ιωνάς ερμηνεύεται, υψίστου πο. VOUNTOS. And the LXX, Jer. xxiii. 6. have rendered 1378 77.7• 'I woedék, id 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 717. As the Valentinian was baptized εν τω ονόματι του 'Iaí, Iren. 1. i. (c. 21. & 3. p. 96.)

and the Ophiani had their several
gods, among the rest, and pièv uayel-
ας τον Ιαλδαβαώθ και τον 'Ασταφαίον,
και τον Ωραίον" από δε των 'Εβραϊκών
γραφων τον Ιαώ, Ια παρ 'Εβραίοις
óvoua cóuevov. Orig. cont. Cels, l. 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'lawia,
as our learned countryman Nicolaus
Fullerus hath endeavoured in vain to
rectify it; but iaw , that is, the
Ophiani took the name 'law from the
Jews, among whom it signifies the
same who is called lah. For that it
ought so to be read, appeareth by the
former words of Origen: Οίονται τον
διελθόντα τον Ιαλδαβαώθ και φθάσαντα
επί τον 'Ια [Παω] δείν λέγειν, Συ δε
κρυπτομένων μυστηρίων υιού και πατρός
άρχων νυκτοφαής δεύτερε Ιαώ. [Ibid.
& 31. p. 655 B.] In the printed copy
indeed it is iadeiv, 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. sbould avoid it as in-
expressible in their language.


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, Isai. vii. 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 1103. 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 sword. Wbere 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.

"Whereitis farther observable that the Chaldee paraphrase hath *772722 og for 717'3 by the word of Jelioval, 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 80 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 Jehoval to the Messias from this

« FöregåendeFortsätt »