« ZurückWeiter »
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, to 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 soundation.
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 phrase is intended to express the dignified and majestic form of man, representing his 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
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 inentioned in chap. ii. 7.
It is no seeble evidence of the justness of my opinion, that man, in English, the common term by which the race of mankind is expressed, bas the like signification. See the explanation of the word in my quarto dictionary. This same word is seen in Del tin hominis, the nominative homo, being contracted. Her see the precise word in humanus, the prefixed aspirate and trnation being removed. In Latin also the word signities the vo race or species.
Parkhurst, the author of a Hebrew lexicon, is, in my opinie rect in assigning this name, Adam, to its proper origin; as in a multitude of instances, his etymologies are fancitul, 2? more, his deductions from them.
The opinion here given, of the meaning of the word da seems to be countenanced by the apostle Paul, 1 Cor. xi.7,2 James jü. 9.
Under the word atonement, the editor has admitted the ce opinion, that the Hebrew word thus rendered, which is cupit as I should write it, cofer, signifies a cover. Lexicograpzesc to be agreed, that this is the signification; and they have.inc Hebrew word, deduced the English word, corer. This dern is demonstrably erroneous. Our word cover, is from iten covrir; this from the Italian coprire ; and this from the La operio. The French couvert, English corert, is only a com tion of the Latin co-opertus.
One reason assigned for this opinion, that cofer signifes ante is, that the Hebrew word bas this signification in Genesis si where it is commanded to Noah, “thou shalt pitch it (the within and without with pitch.” This, say the lexicografia was a corering of the ark with that substance. In this morn there is a mistake which is very common, in supposing the very be the word from which the noun is formed. The reverses fact. The name cofer was first formed from the general the verb; it is the name of the substance, and then contened a verb, or applied as a verb; just as we should say, in * noun, pitch, " pitch it with pitch;” or oil the cloth with a ter the field with water. The command to Noah was, to qui cu cofer; some bituminous substance, which had that name. And here let me observe that, through the Arabic, we have compte from the same verb. The original spelling was cafor, the bere m being adventitious. We may not be able to ascertain lips what circumstance these substances were named. Gums are stances often ersuded from plants, and are sometimes named it this circumstance, from the sense of a verb signifying to send os. or to issue. Sometimes substances are named from their qua te or most common and obvious quality. To ascertain facts of us kind, it would be necessary to bave a perfect acquaintance mu 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 alopements
prescribed in the Levitical law, were often made by the sprinkling of the blood of victims. This was considered as purification. 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 aliar.
In order to obtain a clear view of this subject, we must resort 10 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, to wash, 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 filth, 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 infidel. Hence the Mohammedans 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, bowever, the name coffar was given io those who would not receive the religion of Moliammed, 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 purify. 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 Latio ærum and aetas. So it is in most of the modern languages of the Teutonic family. In German, it is lost in eu, evig, eternal; in the Dutch, eeuwig; the Danish, erig, and Swedish, errig. 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. It is seen in ece, ele pal, contracied as ea, water is froin aqua. 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 radis, 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 limited 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 mien 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 beiter 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 disprore, 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 ibis from natus nascor; or that geography is from the Greek yn, the earth, and
; description. Bui an attempt to proceed further, and deter
mine what is the origin and primary sense of nascor, yn and ypaon requires a far more accurate knowledge of original languages, of the modes of expressing ideas, in early ages, and of deducing one signification or shade of meaning from another, than is possessed by learned men in general. Hence it is, that men very learned in other things, are far from being learned in etymology. The study of etymology is yet in its infancy.
ART. VII.-KAUFMAN'S TRANSLATION OF THOLUCK ON John.
A Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. By A. THOLUCK, D. D., Professor of
Theology in the University of Halle. Trunslated from the German, by Rev. A. KAUFMAN, minister of the Episcopal church, Andover, Mass. Boston. 1836.
The most inartificial way of reviewing a book, is to begin with the title page, and to go through the work, page by page, to its conclusion. In the present instance we begin, inartificially, at the beginning; and we devote our attention not so much to Dr. Tholuck as to his translator.
Opening then at the title page of Mr. Kausman's work, we notice a departure fiom the text of his author in the interpolation of the title “ St.” besore the name of the apostle John. We believe that the Protestant German divines, whether Lutheran or Calvinist, whether rationalist or evangelical, agree in the omission of such prefixes. What reason, or religion is there in speaking of St. Jobn, or St. Paul, or St. Ignatius, more than there would be in speaking of St. Luther, St. Calvin, or St. Tholuck. This exclusive application of a title which in the new testament is the common designation of all Christ's followers, may be a small thing in itself; but when it is thus foisted into the translation of a title page, it is not too small to be noticed.
On the same page we notice also the distinct annunciation of the fact, that the Rev. Mr. Kaufman is a “minister of the Episcopal church,”-a fact which may serve to explain not only the interpolated “St.” but some other things which we may find as we proceed.
Turning over the leas, we come to the “translator's preface.” And here we read as follows:
Professor Tholuck is so well known, and his writings are so universally appreciated by American scholars, that it is unnecessary to offer any apology for presenting the public with his annotations on the gospel of St. John, in an English dress. Irrespective of the fact, that these annot ons come from his able pen, nothing is perhaps more wanted in the theological domain, than a good commentary on the gospels.'
Certainly no apology is necessary for presenting Tholuck's com