Directory_and_Chronicle_1850 — Page 231

202

Term for Elohim and Theos.

APRIL,

the God whom he worshiped?" What we now want, is a translation of the sacred Scriptures. Of paraphrases we have enough for present use.

Two or three of the principal objections urged against shángtí and t'ien tiit may be of use here also to notice. It is said to be too limited a term, both in meaning and application to translate the ori- ginal terms in the Bible for God. One writer goes into a minute in- vestigation of the lexicographical meaning of ti sháng ± and t'ien, to ascertain whether divine attributes may be found revealed by either alone, or by any combination of them. Such is not the question at issue. We wish the Chinese application of tí with one of these terms as a prefix. This is the true use. And every Chinese scholar can not but know, that if there be a term in the Chinese lan- guage used by way of eminence for Deity it is this, and only this term. And if, as I think has been shown, that a term to be analogous to ☺sog must be the distinguishing term for Deity, this must be the term, "mal- gré all objections." Change the form of the objection a little, and it will apply with overwhelming force to shin. It is too unlimited in mean- ing and application to be used for God. So unlimited, indeed, that in 256 instances selected and quoted in the "Imperial Thesaurus” ex- pressly to illustrate the meaning of skin, not one of them necessarily means a divine being.

But are the words composing the term proposed to be used really so limited and defective in meaning? Is it not quite as comprehensive as roc? This, it is supposed means “the Ordainer," and Sháng tí "the Supreme Ruler," or Tientí, "The Heavenly Ruler." The two ideas surely are not so very far removed from each other. We are not seeking after a term which will itself express the attributes and cha- racter of God, for such a term has never existed in any language. Those attributes and that character must be learned, as we have learn- ed them, not from the words God and ✪sog, but from God's book and works.

The limited application of shángti or t'ientí has been felt to be a more serious objection to its adoption. Shall we conclude that be- cause the Chinese have never sunk so low in polytheism as the Greeks had, therefore the Chinese term for Deity xaï sğoxЯv is too limited to translate the Greek term? This is the true position of the case. Can we yield our judgment to such a conclusion, and lament over the Chi- nese for being in theory so nearly monotheistical as they seem to be. Still on account of an unclassical use of dɛos in some instances in the sacred Scriptures, and the unbending character of the Chinese lan- guage, there is no doubt a real difficulty as to how desi should be trans-