THE
CHINESE REPOSITORY.
VOL. XIX.-September, 1850.—No. 9.
ART. I. Defense of an Essay on the proper rendering of the words Elohim and tog into the Chinese language. By W. J. BOONE. (Continued from page 444.)
In the next step of our argument we find Dr. Legge differing from those who agree with him in advocating the use of Shangti. He con- tends that Shángtí should be used to render Elohim and Gɛog in all cases, whereas Sir George Staunton and the American Missionary contend for its use "only when the true God is intended to be signi- fied," and respectively propose shin and shin-ming as the rendering of these words in all other cases. These views were expressed above in
propositions c and d.
Dr. L. contends for the use of Shángtí in all cases as follows: "I return now from this long digression to the point I was urging, the em- ployment namely of Shángtí in every case, to render Elohim and soç. It was observed that the sacred writers had no option of their own. Similarly, I observe, we have no option of our own. Our simple duty is to follow their example, and to give the name that we use for God, the Supreme, to false gods, in every case where the same thing is done in the Bible. And indeed we could not otherwise be faithful transla- tors: we could not convey to Chinese readers' the mind of the Spirit.' Granted that it may at first seem strange to them to see the name of 'the Supreme Ruler' so widely given; this is one thing to be taught them that the people of whom the Scriptures tell us were so foolish as to do so."
page 40.
Though I differ so entirely from Dr. Legge with respect to all the points on which his argument in favor of Shángt! is founded, and in the conclusion at which he has arrived, that Shangti should be used to render Elohim and Asog; yet I must declare my full concurrence in
VOL XIX NO. IX.
59