affectation of being distinguished by such outward marks of reverence, are evidently condemned by him as a kind of earthly ambition unbecoming the meekness and humility of his disciples, and that unmerited deference to the divine authority which they ought ever to maintain. The practice of the apostles, and indeed the whole tenor of the New Testament, supply us with this commentary on the words. Whereas the customary marks of mere civil respect, so far from being condemned in Scripture, are always used by the inspired penmen themselves, when there is a proper occasion of giving them. 13. So much for the import of the principal titles of honor which occur in the New Testament, and the difference in respect of application, between them and those commonly supposed to correspond to them amongst us. DISSERTATION VIII. OBSERVATIONS ON THE MANNER OF RENDERING SOME WORDS, TO WHICH THERE ARE NOT ANY THAT PERFECTLY CORRESPOND IN MODERN LANGUAGES. It was observed in a former Dissertation,* that there are words in the language of every people, which are not capable of being translated into that of any other people, who have not a perfect conformity with them in those customs or sentiments which have given rise to those words. The terms comprehended under this remark may be distributed into three classes. The first is, of weights, measures, and coins; the second, of rites, sects, and festivals; the third, of dress, judicatories, and offices. PART I. WEIGHTS, MEASURES, AND COINS. As to the first class, it is evident that there is nothing wherein nations, especially such as are distant from one another in time and place, more frequently differ, than in the measures and coins which law or custom has established among them. Under coins I shall here include weights; because it was chiefly by weight that money was anciently distinguished. As commonly, in every country, the people have names only for their own, it is often necessary, in the translation of ancient and foreign books, to adopt their peculiar names, and, by mentioning in the margin the equivalent in our own money, measures, and weights, to supply the reader with the proper information. This method has accordingly been often, though not always, taken by the translators of holy writ. Into the common version of the Old Testament, several oriental and other foreign names have been admitted, which are explained in the margin. Hence we have shekel, ephah, bath, homer, cor, and some others. This, however, (for what reason I know not), has not been attempt *Diss. II. Part i. sect. 5. ed in the New Testament. Instead of it, one or other of these two methods has been taken; either some name of our own, supposed to be equivalent, or at least not strictly confined by use to a precise meaning, is adopted, such as pound, penny, farthing, bushel, firkin; or (which is the only other method ever used by our translators) some general expression is employed; as, a piece of money, a piece of silver, tribute money, a measure, and the like. These are three ways, every one of which has some advantages and some disadvantages, and is in some cases the most eligible method, and not in others. One Monsieur le Cene, a French writer, who, in the end of the last century, wrote what he called a Project for a new Translation of the Bible into French, has recommended a fourth method, which is, to give in the version the exact value expressed in the money or measures of the country into whose language the version is made. The anonymous author of an Essay, in English, for a new translation, has adopted this idea; or rather, without naming Le Cene, has turned into English, and transferred to our use, all those remarks of the Frenchman which he accounted applicable to the English version. This fourth method, though much approved by some on account of its supposed perspicuity, is, in my judgment, the worst of them all; nor do I know a single instance wherein I could say that it ought to be adopted.* 2. But, before I enter on the discussion of these methods, it is proper here to premise, that as to measures, the inquiry may well be confined to those called measures of capacity. The smaller length measures have originally, in every country, been borrowed from some of the proportions which take place in the human body. Hence inch, hand-breadth, span, foot, cubit. The larger measures, pace, furlong, mile, are but multiples of the less. Now, as there is not an exact uniformity of measure in the parts of individuals, it would naturally follow, that different nations would establish for themselves standard measures, not much different from those of others, nor yet entirely the same. And this is what, in such measures, has actually happened. When any of them, therefore, is Till I read it lately in Dr. Gedde's prospectus, I did not know that Le Cene had published a version of the Scriptures. The attentive reader will perceive that the criticisms which follow in relation to him do not refer to that translation, which I never saw, but solely to his plan. If his version be conformable to his own rules, it is certainly a curiosity of its kind. But that cannot be; otherwise the learned doctor, though not profuse in its praise, would not, on some points, have spoken so favorably as he has done. Could he have said, for instance, that he is very seldom biassed by party prejudices? If Le Cene was faultless on this article, much may be said to exculpate Beza. Their parties were different, but their error was the same. See Diss. X. Part. v. sect. 13. mentioned, we know the measure nearly, but cannot know it accurately, till we are informed of what nation it is the inch, span, foot, cubit, etc. The names have by use acquired a latitude and a currency in these different applications. As to superficial measure, we know it is reckoned no otherwise than by the square of the long measure. Whereas, the cubical form, not answering so well in practice to the mensuration of solids, the standards for them have generally been fixed without any regard to measures of length or surface. It is with these alone, therefore, that we are here concerned. 3. Now, the best way of determining our choice properly, among the different methods of translating above mentioned, is by attending to the scope of the passages wherein the mention of money and measures is introduced. First, then, it sometimes happens, that accuracy, in regard to the value of these, is of importance to the sense. Secondly, it sometimes happens, that the value of the coin, or the capacity of the measure, is of no consequence to the import of the passage. Thirdly, it happens also, sometimes, that though the real value of the coin, or the capacity of the measure, does not affect the sense of the passage, the comparative value of the different articles mentioned is of some moment for the better understanding of what is said. Let us consider what methods suit best the several cases now mentioned. sense. 4. First, I observed that accuracy, in regard to the value of the measures or coins mentioned, is sometimes of importance to the When this is the case, and when we have no word exactly corresponding in import to the original term, that term ought to be retained in the version, and explained in the margin, according to the first method taken notice of. An instance, where the knowledge both of the capacity of the measure and of the value of the coin are essential to the sense, we have in that public cry, Xoîvış oírov Snvagiov, which our translators render, "a measure of wheat for a penny," Rev. 6: 6. It is evidently the intention of the writer to inform us of the rate of this necessary article, as a characteristic of the time whereof he is speaking. But our version not only gives no information on this head, but has not even the appearance of giving any, which the word chanix would have had, even to those who did not understand it. But to say a measure, without saying what measure, is to say just nothing at all. The word penny here is also exceptionable, being used indefinitely, insomuch that the amount of the declaration is, a certain quantity of wheat for a certain quantity of money. This suggests no idea of either dearth or plenty; and can be characteristical of no time, as it holds equally of every time. In this case, the original term, notwithstanding its harshness, ought to be retained in the text, and explained in the Inargin. Again, it was doubtless the intention of the sacred pen man to acquaint us at how low a price our Saviour was sold by his treacherous disciple, when he informs us, (Matt. 26: 15), that the chief priests agreed to give Judas τριάκοντα αργύρια. In like manner, when the evangelist (John 12: 5) mentioned the indignant observation of Judas, that the ointment wherewith our Lord's feet were anointed might have been sold for more than τριακοσίων δηvagiwr, it was doubtless his view to acquaint us with the value of the gift. Once more, when Philip (John 6: 7) remarked to our Lord, who had proposed to feed the multitude in the desert, diaxooiav dnvagiav äorot," two hundred pennyworth of bread," as it runs in the common version, "is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little," it was the design of the historian to supply us with a kind of criterion for computing the number of the people present. But this could be no criterion, unless we knew the value of the δηναρίου. 5. "But," say those modern correctors, "in the examples above-mentioned, when the knowledge of the value of the coin, and the capacity of the measure, is of importance to the sense, no method can be equal, in point of perspicuity, to that recommended by us, whereby both are reduced to an equivalent in the monies and measures of the country. Thus, the first passage quoted would be rendered, A measure of wheat, capable of supporting a man for one day," for thus Le Cene proposes to translate zoivie, "for sevenpence halfpenny. The second, The chief priests covenanted with Judas for three pounds fifteen shillings sterling. The third, Why was not this ointment sold for nine pounds seven shillings and sixpence? And the fourth, Six pounds five shillings would not purchase bread sufficient." The exceptions against this method are many. In the first place, it is a mere comment, and no translation. Considered as a comment, it may be good; but that must be egregiously wrong as a version, which represents an author as speaking of what he knew nothing about, nay, of what had no existence in his time. And such, surely, is the case with our sterling money, which an interpretation of this sort would represent as the current coin of Judea in the time of our Saviour. Nothing ought to be introduced by the translator from which the English reader may fairly deduce a false conclusion in regard to the manners and customs of the time. Besides, as the comparative value of their money and measures with ours is not founded on the clearest evidence, is it proper to give a questionable point the sauction, as it were, of inspiration? Add to all this, that no method can be devised which would, more effectually than this, destroy the native simplicity and energy of the expression. What is expressed in round numbers in the original, is, with an absurd minuteness, reduced to fractions in the version. Nothing can be more natural than the expression, Two hundred denarii would not |