« ПретходнаНастави »
the words τους αρχαιους are put for υπο των αρχαίων ; and others suppose they are put for προς τους αρχαίους. . He prefers the latter interpretation.
Campbell and Doddridge translate the words, “ Ye have heard that it was said to the ancients;" and Doddridge cites Grotius and Whitby in confirmation of this rendering.
In the French bible, published by the American Bible Society, the translation is according to that of Campbell and Doddridge. “ Vous avez entendu qu'il a été dit aur anciens.”
Montanus renders the phrase by the dative, as do most other translators. Beza renders it by the ablative, in accordance with our version. Indeed his authority may have had weight with the English translators.
There are two authorities in point, which, one would think, may settle the true sense of
passages in Matihew. In Romans ix. 26, we find iliese words, “xai f05a1, EV SV FÓRW OŬ ξήθη αυτοίς.»
“ And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said to them."
In Galatians iii. 16, we find these words, "W dè ‘A Bpadu tidiga andav αι επαγγελίαι, και το σπέρματι αυτού,” « Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made," (spoken.)
In these latter passages, we see the same verb passive followed by the dative, and so rendered in our version. There are other examples in the new testament ; but these are mentioned because they occurred to me incidently, and they appear to justify the translation of Campbell and Doddridge, showing most conclusively, that our English version is erroneous. And it is somewhat singular, that such an accurate investiga!or as Rosenmueller, should have neglected to cite several passages in the new testament, confirmatory of his own opinions.
The version, as it now stands, gives the precept the appearance of being a common saying, a kind of proverbial maxim, among the ancients. This aspect would very much impair its authority; for the ancients were not law-givers. It is far more probable, that Christ referred directly to the commands of Moses, which were given to the ancients; and that his own subsequent precepts were intended to show the greater strictness and excellence of the moral law under the gospel.
P. S. On further examination, I find that to instead of by is the translation in the bishop's bible; and with this correspond the versions of Jerome, Erasınus, Castalio, Calvin, and the Geneva bible. Luther also has to; De Wette, has von, by, but sets zu, to, in the margin.
The editor of the Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, under the word Adam, has adopted the common opinion, that this name was given to our progenitor, because he was made of earth. This opinion seems to have no foundation except the resemblance between the Hebrew word for earth, and this name. A similar resemblance is seen also between this name and the Hebrew word for red, whence Josephus affirms that Adain, signifies one that is red, because he was formed out of red earth. B. 1. Ch. 1. Now I bave learned by long and laborious research, that nothing is more deceptive than such an inference. What should we say if an etymologist should deduce the word man, from the Latin mano, 10 flow, because of the identity of the radical letters ? or if one should deduce the word pine, a tree, from the verb to pine? Yet many, very many, of the etymologies of writers stand on no better foundation.
But the word Adam bas a nobler origin. It signifies form, shape, image, and probably, in the description of Adam and his creation, allusion is made to this signification. He was made in the image of God; not that God has a corporeal form, but the pbrase is intended to express the dignified and majestic forin of man, representing bis superiority to all other animated beings on earth. This was also the opinion of pagan nations, which is elegantly expressed by Ovid,
Os homini sublime dedit; coelumque tueri Jussit, et erectos ad sidera tollere vultus. Met. Lib. 1. 1. 85. Adam, in the primary sense of the word, is the name of the human race, the whole species, like the word man, in English. In this sense, the word is frequently used in the bible. Job, xiv. 1 ; Deut. iv. 32; Ps. cxviii. 6, 8, and cxliv. 4; Prov. xvi. 1.
I would not be understood as questioning the common opinion, that the image of God, mentioned in Gen. i. 27, bas reference to the moral qualities of Adam. I suppose the words to include the bodily form, and the moral and the intellectual powers of man at bis creation.
The account of the creation of Adam, Gen. i. 26, 27, is an account of the origin of the species, mankind, although one pair only was first created. And hence we understand the propriety of the use of them in the plural. “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created be them.”
This description is given before the creation of the woman, and is to be considered as the general account of the creation of the species, in correspondence with the general account of the creation of plants and animals, in the preceding verses. The particular manner of the creation, is mentioned in chap. ii. 7.
It is no feeble evidence of the justness of my opinion, that man, in English, the common term by which the race of mankind is expressed, has the like signification. See the explanation of the word in my quarto dictionary. This same word is seen in the Latin hominis, the nominative homo, being contracted. Hence we see the precise word in humanus, the prefixed aspirate and termination being removed. In Latin also the word signifies the whole race or species.
Parkhurst, the author of a Hebrew lexicon, is, in my opinion, correct in assigning this name, Adam, to its proper origin ; although in a multitude of instances, bis etymologies are fanciful, and still more, his deductions from them.
The opinion here given, of the meaning of the word Adam, seems to be countenanced by the apostle Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 7, and by James jii. 9.
Under the word atonement, the editor bas admitted the common opinion, that the Hebrew word thus rendered, which is copher, or as I should write it, cofer, signifies a cover. Lexicographers seem to be agreed, that this is the signification; and they have, from this Hebrew word, deduced the English word, cover. This deduction is demonstrably erroneous. Our word cover, is from the French covrir; this from the Italian coprire ; and this from the Latin cooperio. The French couvert, English covert, is only a contraction of the Latin co-opertus.
One reason assigned for this opinion, that cofer signifies a cover, is, that the Hebrew word has this signification in Genesis vi. 14, where it is commanded to Noah, “thou shalt pitch it (the ark.) within and without with pitch.” This, say the lexicographers, was a covering of the ark with that substance. In this opinion there is a mistake which is very common, in supposing the verb to be the word from which the noun is formed. The reverse is the fact. The name cofer was first formed from the general sense of the verb; it is the name of the substance, and then converted into a verb, or applied as a verb; just as we should say, in using the noun, pitch, “ pitch it with pitch ;" or oil the cloth with oil, water the field with water. The command to Noah was, to put on cofer; some bituminous substance, which had that name. And here let me observe that, through the Arabic, we have camphor, from the same verb. The original spelling was cafor, the letter m being adventitious. We may not be able to ascertain from what circumstance these substances were named. Gums are substances often ersuded from plants, and are sometimes named from this circumstance, from the sense of a verb signifying to send out, or to issue. Sometimes substances are named from their qualities, or most common and obvious quality. To ascertain facts of this kind, it would be necessary to have a perfect acquaintance with the language in which the word was first used.
The word cofer, atonement, is rendered in English by various verbs, as to appease, to forgive, to purge away. The atonements prescribed in the Levitical law, were often made by the sprinkling of the blood of victims. This was considered as puri fication. So also was the use of oil. See Leviticus xiv. and xvi., and Numbers viii. In all the injunctions on this subject, the essence of the ceremony consisted in purification, or cleansing. Hence it was applied to a house and to the tabernacle, the holy place and the altar.
In order to obtain a clear view of this subject, we must resort to the use of the same word, cofer, in the cognate languages.
In the Chaldee, the word signifies to turn away, to reject, to deny, to forsake, or apostatize, 10 uash, cleanse, or remove filth. In Proverbs xxx. 20, it is rendered to wipe. “She eateth and wipeth her mouth.” In Matt. xxvii. 24, it is rendered, washed.
In Syriac, it is rendered to deny, reject, wipe, or wash, and to purify. Hence in 1 Cor. iv. 13, it is used for filih, off-scouring, that which is removed from any thing by washing; as we should say, the washing.
In Arabic, this word signifies to deny, reject, or be an infdel. Hence the Mobammedans call those who reject their religion, caffars, and hence the name Caffraria, in Africa. The word signifies also a village, whether from its being remote or detached from a city, I do not know,--but christians also denominated those who did not receive the gospel, pagans, from pagus, a village. In Arabic, however, the name cuffar was given to those who would not receive the religion of Mohammed, because they denied, or rejected that religion.
The true sense then of the word cofer, is to cast away, to reject, and in religious rites, to remove filth or defilement, and hence to cleanse and purisy. In some of its uses, it may be rendered perhaps, to cast behind the back, or at least, it may convey this idea, and in this use, the sins of men may be considered as covered from the eyes of the offended person. But the primary sense is to reject. So in English, we use forgive, the negative of give, that is to give back or away. Pardon, from the French, has a like signification. But perhaps, remit, from the Latin, will better express the sense, or at least render it more obvious.
From these authorities and facts, the inference, in my view, is clear, that the atonement of the old testament consisted, not in covering, in its proper sense, or spreading over, but in cleansing, or purification. In this sense, it coincides well with holiness, in the new testament.
The effect of purification from sin, is reconciliation. The divine Being is appeased, and rendered propitious. This sense, therefore, is secondary.
In regard to the meaning of the Greek word aion, often rendered eternity, there is no difficulty, as we can trace the word to its original and true sense. The Greek aei is a contraction, the original palatal consonant being lost, as in a thousand other words. It is also lost in the Latin ævum and aetas. So it is in most of the modern languages of the Teutonic family. In German, it is lost in ew, euig, eternal; in the Dutch, eeuwig; the Danish, evig, and Swedish, ewig. The termination ig, is the same as occurs in other words, and which in English is generally contracted into y, as in holy; Saxon, halig. But in the Saxon, our parent language, we have it both contracted, and in its original form. is seen in ece, eternal, contracted as ea, water is froin
But it occurs also in eca, eternal, and in ecelice, eternal, and in ecnesse, eternity, and all these are of one family, which belongs to the verb ecan, to increase, which is the English eke. Thus we find that the verb, the radix, signifies to increase, to extend; eternity then is indefinite extension. The application of the word depends on appropriation by usage. The sense of the verb being general, it may be, and is applied to linuited periods, as in the Latin aetas, an age. So in regard to other words, the primary general sense has been restricted by usage. The Greek word ora signifies radically, time in general or season, but after men began to measure duration, it was used also for an hour. So the Latin word ager, a Meld indefinitely, has been limited by an English siatute, and now we see the word in acre.
It will easily be seen, that as the human mind cannot comprehend eternity in duration, any more than it can infinite space, no word which men can form would express the whole idea. All that men can do, in this case, is to express their ideas by a word of indefinite meaning. And what better mode can men take to convey their limited ideas of what is unlimited, than to use a word which expresses enlargement or extension ?
Eternity then is unlimited extension in duration; and that the Greek word above mentioned, is often used in that sense, is a fact which no critic can disprove, and no rational critic can deny:
The true principles of etymology are little understood; and with the books now generally used, and the course of studies now pursued, in the colleges and universities, both in Europe and America, these principles cannot be fully understood.
I close these remarks, by cautioning my fellow-citizens against placing much confidence in the etymologies of European writers, except such as refer English words to the languages, which may be considered as modern; the Greek, Latin, French, etc. The derivation of most words from these sources, is usually very obvious, and easily understood. No great research is necessary, to show, that nation is from the Latin natio, and this from natus nascor; or that geography is from the Greek yn, the earth, and yparn description. But an attempt to proceed further, and deter