Directory_and_Chronicle_1850 — Page 611

THE

CHINESE REPOSITORY.

VOL. XIX.-NOVEMBER, 1850.-No. 11.

ART. I. Defense of an Essay on the proper rendering of the words Elohim and Oɛ05 into the Chinese language. By W. J. BOONE. (Continued from page 478.)

HAVING shown the reasons which forbid us to regard the Chinese Tien as the true God, and also why we can not use the phrase Shángti to render the words Elohim and Grog : Ist, because it is a mere title, and we want an absolute name; 2d, because it is the distinctive title of a false god; and 3d, because it is a compound term, and wo want a simple uncompounded term to express the monotheism of the Bible; I now pass on to the consideration of the last proposition that I proposed to discuss, which reads as follows:-

(e.) “Admitting that under the above-mentioned circumstances the generic name of the Chinese gods should be used, if such name can be found, deny that shin is this generic name, and affirm on the contrary that the Chinese have neither a name for any being who is truly and properly God, nor any generic name of their gods; and since the words Elohim and Oɛog must be rendered by a generic term, we have no resource but that of transferring the original word.”

After making ample trial of Shángti, Tien-tí, and lastly Ti, this is the ground taken by Dr. Medhurst and those who act with him, in their letter of 30th Jan. 1850. They admit that Elohim and so are generic terms; they maintain that we need a generic term to render these words, and propose to make one for the Chinese, as they have no generic term for god in their language.

The ground taken by Dr. Legge is in every point the opposite of that maintained by Dr. Medhurst and his friends, and also of that maintained in my Essay; and I think it will aid the reader in getting a

VOL. XIX. NO. XI.

72