« ÎnapoiContinuă »
to this compellation from a monarch neither tributary nor dependent, denoted him who received it to be superior to human. But no useful citizen was so low as not to be entitled to this mark of respect from a common beggar. And, as its value in every instance depended solely on the dignity of the giver, it might be either the most honourable title that could be conferred, or the most insignificant. The use of the title rabbi, didascalos, or doctor, was in this respect totally different. As it was understood to express, not relation, but certain permanent qualifications in the person who received it, they did not consider it as a matter of courtesy, but as a matter of right. It was not relative but absolute. The same person did not (as was the case of kyrios) consider himself as obliged to give it to one, and entitled to receive it from another. Whoever had this literary degree conferred on him, was entitled to receive the honourable compellation equally from all persons, superiors, inferiors, and equals. And we need not doubt, that this vain-glorious race would brand with the ignominious character of rusticity all who withheld it.
10. Hence we may discover the reason why our Lord, when warning his disciples (Matt. xxiii. 7, &c.) against imitating the ostentation and presumption of the Scribes and Pharisees, in affecting to be denominated rabbi, father, guide, or conductor, does not once mention kyrios, though of all titles of respect the most common. It is manifest, that his view was not to prohibit them from giving or receiving the common marks of civility, but to check them from arrogating what might seem to imply a superiority in wisdom and understanding over others, and a title to dictate to their fellows-a species of arrogance which appeared but too plainly in the Scribes and learned men of those days. As to the title kyrios, he knew well that from their worldly situation and circumstances, (which in this matter were the only rule,) they could expect from none but those in the lowest ranks, who would as readily give it to an artisan or a peasant, and that therefore there could be no danger of vanity from this quarter. But the case was different with titles expressive not of fleeting relations, but of those important qualifications which denote a fitness for being the lights and conductors of the human race. The title father, in the spiritual or metaphoric sense, the most respectful of all, he prohibits his disciples from either assuming or giving, choosing that it should be appropriated to God; and, at the same time, claims the title of guide and spiritual instructor to himself.
11. Nor let it be imagined that the title Sidaokaλol, bestowed on the first ministers of the religion of Christ, stands in opposition to the admonitions here given. The word, it must be owned, is equivocal, but is every-where easily distinguished by the connexion for when it is applied to such as are literally employed in teaching, it must not be understood as a complimental title
answering to the Chaldaic word rabbi, but as a name of office corresponding to the Hebrew word 1 melammed, teacher, preceptor. Besides, when applied even to the apostles, it is to be understood in a subordinate sense. They are in like manner called shepherds, but still in subordination to him who is the chief shepherd, as well as the chief teacher in his church. Christ is called the only foundation; " for other foundation," says Paul, "can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ," 1 Cor. iii. 11. Yet the same apostle does not hesitate to represent the church as "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets,' Eph. ii. 20: nor does he consider his styling himself the father of those in whose conversion he had been instrumental, as either incompatible with, or derogatory from, the honour of him who alone is our Father, and who is in heaven. When his meaning is so evident, no mistake can arise from the word. "It is the spirit that quickeneth," said our Lord, "the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life," John vi. 63. Now the spirit of the precept is transgressed, when his ministers claim an undue superiority over their Lord's heritage, arrogating to themselves a dominion over the faith of his disciples; and when, in consequence of an undue attachment to worldly honours, or to the power that is understood to accompany these, men become solicitous of being distinguished from their equals, either by external marks of homage, or by an implicit deference and submission in point of judgment. With this character Diotrephes seems to have been charged, whom the apostle John (3 Ep. 9) denominates porρwTEUWV, one who loves pre-eminence; a character which, not many ages after, became too general in the church.
12. It was not, therefore, so much the titles, as that sort of authority which was understood among the Jews to be conveyed under them, that was our Saviour's object in those admonitions. Indeed a fondness for title, a solicitude about precedency, or an 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 unremitted 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 honour 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.
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.
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 attempted 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
* Diss. II. Part i, sect. 5.
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 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, &c. 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
Till I read it lately in Dr. Geddes'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 favourably 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.
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.
4. First, I observed that accuracy, in regard to the value of the measures or coins mentioned, is sometimes of importance to the sense. 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, Xovi σirov Envaρiov, which our translators render, a measure of wheat for a penny," Rev. vi. 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 chracteristical 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 margin. Again, it was doubtless the intention of the sacred penman to acquaint us at how low a price our Saviour was sold by his treacherous disciple, when he informs us, (Matt. xxvi. 15,) that the chief priests agreed to give Judas τριακοντα αργύρια. In like manner, when the evangelist (John xii. 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 δηναρίων, it was doubtless his view to acquaint us with the value of the gift. Once more, when Philip (John vi. 7) remarked to our Lord, who had proposed to feed the multitude in the desert, διακοσίων δηναρίων άρτοι, "" 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