« ÎnapoiContinuați »
can be more manifest than that, in those days, the ideas of his apostles themselves were far inferior to what we entertain.
To do justice therefore to our idiom, to preserve at once consistency, perspicuity, and propriety, it is necessary that the word KUOLOS, in an address to heaven, be rendered Lord, or O Lord; when the Supreme Being is not addressed, but spoken of, The Lord; in addressing a king, or eminent magistrate, My Lord; and in other ordinary cases, Sir. Sometimes from a servant to his master, or from one immediate subordination to a person on whom he depends, it may be more emphatical to say Master Let it, however, be observed, that in translating the Scripture, Kupios prefixed to a proper name cannot be rendered either sir or master, immediately followed by the name, on account of the particular idea which that mode of expression conveys to us. Let it also be observed, that what I have said of kyrios, as applied to Jesus Christ, regards purely its application in the Gospels. It is plain, that after Christ's ascension into heaven, and exaltation to the right hand of the Father, he is viewed in a very different light. Addresses to him are conveyed only by prayer, and ought to be clothed in its language. When we speak of him, it ought to be, not as of a lord, one possessed of great power and eminence, but as of The Lord of the creation, the heir of all things, to whom all authority in heaven and upon the earth, and all judgment, are committed by the Father. That expression of Thomas, therefore, ó Kuptoç μov kαι å Оɛoç μov, cannot be otherwise rendered than it has been rendered by our translators, My Lord, and my God, John xx. 28. It is manifest from the exclamation, that Thomas viewed his Master now since his resurrection, though not yet ascended, in a light in which he had never viewed him before. For these reasons I think, that in general no alteration would be proper in the way of rendering the word kupios as applied to Jesus either in the Acts or in the Epistles. The case is different in the Gospels.
15. It is proper to take notice, before I conclude this article, that the word kuptoç is in the Septuagint also employed in translating the Hebrew word m Jehovah, the incommunicable name of God. Though this is a proper name, and not an appellative, the Seventy, probably from the superstitious opinion which had arisen among the Jews, (for it was evidently not from the beginning,) that it was dangerous to pronounce that word, and consequently to adopt it in another language, have thought fit to render it always Kupios, an appellative which, as we have seen, is of very extensive application. Nay, in reading the Hebrew Scriptures in the synagogue service, their doctors to this day always read adon, or adoni, Lord, or my Lord, where they find Jehovah. The writers of the New Testament, who wrote in Greek, have so far conformed to the usage of their countrymen, that they have never introduced this name in their writings. In quoting
from the Old Testament, they have adopted the method of the Seventy, whose words they frequently use. The generality of Christian translators have in this imitated their practice. Our own, in particular, have only in four places of the Old Testament used the name Jehovah: in all other places, which are almost innumerable, they render it the Lord. But, for distinction's sake, when this word corresponds to Jehovah, it is printed in capitals.
I once thought, that in translating the New Testament the word Jehovah might properly be replaced, wherever, in a quotation from the Old, that name was used in the Hebrew. On more mature reflection I now think differently. It seemed good to infinite Wisdom, in the old dispensation, when a peculiar nation was chosen, and contradistinguished to all others, so far to condescend to the weakness of his creatures as to distinguish himself as their God by an appropriate name, which might discriminate him, with them, from the gods of the nations; the general names God and Lord being applied to them all. But in the gospel dispensation, wherein all such distinctions were to be abolished, it was proper that there should remain nothing which might appear to represent God as a national or local deity. A proper name is not necessary where there are no more than one of a kind. We are not sensible of the want of a proper name for the sun, the moon, or the earth. It is not suitable in the interpreter of the New Testament, to show a greater nicety of distinction than the sacred penmen have warranted. It belongs rather to the annotator than to the translator to mark such differences. In translating the Old Testament, the distinction, in my judgment, ought to be sacredly preserved, for the very same reason that no distinction ought to be made in the New. The translator ought faithfully to represent his original, as far as the language which he writes is capable of doing it. So much for the import of the word Kupios, and the different senses that it bears according to the application.
I PURPOSE now to make a few observations on the word διδασκάλος, and some other titles of respect current in Judea in the days of our Saviour. After the Babylonish captivity, when Jerusalem and the temple were rebuilt, and the people restored to their ancient possessions, care was taken, under the conduct of Ezra, and those who succeeded him in the administration of affairs, to prevent their relapsing into idolatry, which had brought such accumulated calamities on their country. It was justly considered
as one of the best expedients for answering this end, as we learn partly from Scripture and partly from Jewish writers, to promote amongst all ranks the knowledge of God and of his law, and to excite the whole people, throughout the land, to join regularly in the public worship of the only true God. For their accommodation, synagogues came in process of time to be erected in every city and village where a sufficient number of people could be found to make a congregation. Every synagogue had its stated governors and president, that the public service might be decently conducted, and that the people might be instructed in the sacred writings, both the law and the prophets. The synagogues were fitted for answering, among them, the like purposes with parish-churches amongst us Christians. But this was not all: That the synagogues might be provided with knowing pastors and wise rulers, it was necessary that there should also be public seminaries or schools, wherein those who are destined to teach others were to be taught themselves. And so great was their veneration for these schools or colleges, that they accounted them, says Buxtorf,* more sacred than even synagogues, and next, in this respect, to the temple. They maintained, that a synagogue might lawfully be converted into a school, but not a school into a synagogue. The former was ascending, the latter descending. Both were devoted to the service of God; but the synagogue, say they, is for the spiritual nourishment of the sheep, the school for that of the shepherds.
2. Now their schools were properly what we should call divinity colleges; for in them they were instructed in the sacred language, the ancient Hebrew, not then the language of the country-in the law and the traditions, the writings of the prophets, the holy ceremonies, the statutes, customs, and procedure of their judicatories; in a word, in whatever concerned the civil constitution and religion of their country. I make this distinction, of civil and religious, more in conformity to modern and Christian notions, than in reference to ancient and Jewish. In that polity, these were so interwoven, or rather blended, as to be inseparable. Their law was their religion, and their religion was their law; insomuch that with them there was a perfect coincidence in the professions of lawyer and divine. But as to their mode of education, that they had some kind of schools long before the time above-mentioned, even from the beginning of their establishment in the land of Canaan under Joshua, or at least from the time of Samuel, can hardly be made a question. A certain progress in letters had been made, very early, by this people, and regularly transmitted from one generation to another. But this seems evidently to have been without such fixed seminaries as were erected and endowed afterwards; else it is impossible there should be so little notice of them in so long a * Synag. Jud. cap. x.
tract of time, of which, as far as religion is concerned, we have a history pretty particular. All that appears before the captivity on this subject is, that numbers of young men were wont, for the sake of instruction, to attend the most eminent prophets, and were therefore called the sons, that is the disciples, of the prophets; and that in this manner were constituted a sort of ambulatory schools, for communicating the knowledge of letters, and of the law. In these were probably taught the elements of the Hebrew music and versification. We are informed also, 2 Chron. xvii. 7-9, that Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, sent priests, Levites, and others, to teach in all the cities of Judah. But this appears to have been merely a temporary measure adopted by that pious monarch for the instruction of the people in his own time, and not an establishment which secured a succession and continuance. Now, this is quite different from the erection that obtained afterwards in their cities, of a sort of permanent academies for the education of the youth destined for the upper stations in society.
3. Further, to give the greater lustre to those seminaries, they were commonly men of note, in respect of their station and quality, as well as distinguished for their learning, who were appointed to preside and teach in them. These were mostly priests and Levites, but not entirely; for eminent persons from other tribes, were also admitted to share in this honour. No sooner did erudition become an object of national attention in Judeano sooner were endowments made for advancing and promoting it-than the emulation of literary men was excited to attain the honours peculiar to the profession, by having the direction, or a principal part in the teaching, in some noted school. Even a certificate from the persons qualified, of being equal to the charge, was not a little prized. Though at first sight it may appear but a small circumstance, it will be admitted by the judicious to be a considerable evidence that, in our Saviour's time, learning was in general and high esteem among the Jews, to find that those titles which related to the business of teaching, were with so much solicitude courted, and with so much ostentation displayed by persons of distinction. Of this kind, the honorary titles, father, rabbi, doctor or teacher, guide or conductor, the name scribe, often indeed a name of office, lawyer, doctor of law, may justly be accounted. I do not, however, mean to affirm, that all these titles are of different import. Some of them, as will soon appear, are justly held synonymous.
4. Some of these had come into use but a little before our Saviour's time. This was the case, in particular, of that most celebrated title rabbi or rab, and rabban, as, for some time, these seem to have been distinguished by some difference of signification. In the Old Testament, we find the term rab, in composition with some other word, employed as a name of office and
dignity, but not till the people became acquainted with the Chaldeans, concerning whom only it is used. The word, both in Hebrew and in Chaldee, signifies sometimes great, sometimes many, and when used substantively, denotes one who is at the head of any business, of whatever kind it be. Thus ann an rab hachebel, (Jonah i. 6,) is in the Septuagint TWO; rab tebachim, (Jerem. xxxix. 11,) aoxiayaigos, chief cook-the word will bear this version, but it does not suit the context in the passage where it is found ;-and on rab serisim, (Dan. i. 3,) aρxievvouxos: the first rendered, in the English version, ship-master, the second, captain of the guard, and the third, master of the eunuchs. It is used in the plural also for chief men in general, superintendants, or those at the head of affairs. Thus, rabbe hammelech, (Jer. xxxix. 13,) are the chief men employed by the king over the different departments of the state. It is rendered the princes of the king in the common translation. The original term suits entirely the import of the Latin word princeps, but not of the English word prince, at least in its most common acceptation; for it is not the king's sons, or any order of nobles, who are so denominated. The word, among the Chaldeans, appears evidently to have been equivalent to the term shar, among the Hebrews. Accordingly, he who is styled by Daniel, in the passage above quoted, 7, is four times in the same chapter called on shar haserisim, Dan. i. 7—9, 18. And this use of the name rab seems to have continued long in Syria as well as in Chaldea. Thus, in the Syriac New Testament, it is found in the same manner united with the common appellation of any sort of officer, in order to denote the principal person in that office. Thus, rab-cohana, (Matt. xxvi. 51,) is the high-priest, rab-machsa, (Luke xix. 2,) is chief of the publicans, and rab-raghotha, (1 Pet. v. 4,) is chief shepherd. Rab, construed in this manner, is equivalent to the Greek apx, as used in composition. The preceding titles are accordingly thus expressed in the Greek, αρχιερευς, αρχιτελώνης, and αρχιποιμην.
Again, the word rab is sometimes found in that version combined, not with the title of any sort of officer, but with a term denoting the office or charge itself; in which case it always means the person who is principally entrusted with the business. Thus, rab-beth (Matt. xx. 8.) is the steward, EπITρоTоç, he who is over the household; and rab-canoshetha, (Mark v. 35,) is the ruler of the synagogue, apxiovvaywyos. It is not unlikely, though I do not find any example of it in Scripture, that the term has at first been similarly compounded with some word signifying a school, or perhaps with the name of the art or science taught, in order to denote the overseer of such a seminary, or the teacher of such an art. This hypothesis is at least favoured by analogy. As use however is variable, it appears, from what has actually happened, extremely probable, that when all other applications of the