Lesley.] ^"i [Jan. 15, 



omnipotens of the Vulgate. The "power" of the first was not the 

 "power" of the second. What was destructive ability before Christ 

 became constructive ability after Christ. The terrible had been presented 

 as the beneficent. IJavTOKparcop was to be feared, for what strength 

 could resist his blows, what coat of mail turn the point of his arrow ? 

 Omnipotens was to be confided in ; for the universe was his handiwork ; 

 and he was able to do for his creatures more and better than they could 

 ask or think. In his name there was no hint of violence ; it meant abso- 

 lute and infinite ability of action as against any conceivable hindrance. 



On the contrary uparos meant destructive, or at least violent force ; as 

 we see from /cpadaecv, Kpadaivscv to brandish weapons ; Kpa^eiv to scream ; 

 Kpazaioq resistless ; uparepoq valiant, cruel, violent ; Kpareiv to rule, sub- 

 due, seize ; allied to our words crush and crash. In view of this Greek 

 habit of language we have a right to say that, when the LXX selected 

 TtavTOKparwp as their synonyme for the Hebrew divine name ShDI, they 

 must have conceived of him as an all-destroyer ; at least as one who had 

 exhibited his power in a violent manner ; if they did not actually regard 

 him as the divine spirit of evil ; which is hardly to be supposed ; although, 

 I have been led by my study of the contexts to believe that this concep- 

 tion lay behind that of which they were avowedly conscious. For they 

 wrote in Egypt, and this was the recognized character of the almighty 

 Set. The Greeks of the Delta identified Set with the typhonic spirit of 

 the universe. 



The LXX translators being exiles and descendants of exiles from Judaea, 

 must have been perfectly acquainted with the etymological force of the 

 word, and to an extent somewhat, perhaps much, greater than we can be ; 

 for it is not likely that the whole Hebrew language of their day, much 

 less of Salomonic and Mosaic days, was represented in our codex of their 

 sacred books. How many words and phrases are lost we do not know, 

 but the draf hyofisva tell a story of loss. But our reasoning must be 

 based upon the language as preserved in those books, and it happens to be 

 very rich in words for power. Some of them are pure metaphors, such as 

 finger (y32fK), hand (T), right hand (JO'), arm (JHT), horn {pp), shoulder 

 (C2DW), thunder (EDjn), a firman ("W), chariot (|Vn). Some of them rep- 

 resented purely passive power, strength to endure or resist assaults (like 

 that of a bone) or wealth, or high position (Otyi ^P^-) Many of them 

 represented the delegated power of a magistrate, or ruler, or hereditary 

 prince (ttW, 7T\V, |VtK ntin, nj?J, "fityD.) Several of them meant heroic 

 power, strength of body, stalwartness (mi3J, [DTI: niD) and especially as 

 put forth in acts of strength (?#; JTJ\ Pin ; compare rVTJ7 strength of Jehovah, 

 /K'TJ? God's power, 'TJJ my strength). The word "very" P^O) is used as a 

 noun, with the meaning power (11ND, his power). The word "god" (7X,TN) 

 is used in the same sense pJO; and Tn~D). But the abstract idea of strength 

 was expressed by *OT (Ecc. 9 : 16), translated with nice exactness by the 

 LXX into iayo$, which of itself shows that they did not confound it with 

 Kparos, 



