« ÎnapoiContinuați »
way constantly used in the translation of books where mention is made of foreign coins or measures. What is more common than to find mention made in such works of Dutch guilders, French livres, or Portuguese moidores? I acknowledge at the same time, the inconveniency of loading a version of Scripture with strange and uncouth names. But still this is preferable to expressions, which, how smooth soever they be, do in any respect misrepresent the author, and mislead the reader. Our ears are accustomed to the foreign names which are found in the common version of the Old Testament, such as shekel, bath, ephah; though, where the same coins and measures are evidently spoken of in the New, our translators have not liked to introduce them, and have sometimes, less properly, employed modern names which do not correspond in meaning.
10. We have, besides, in the New Testament, the names of some Greek and Roman coins and measures not mentioned in the Old. Now, where the words are the same, or in common use coincident with those used by the Seventy in translating the Hebrew names above-mentioned, I have thought it better to retain the Hebrew words to which our ears are familiarized by the translation of the Old, than to adopt new terms for expressing the same things. We ought not surely to make an apparent difference by means of the language, where we have reason to believe that the things meant were the same. When the word, therefore, in the New Testament, is the name of either measure or coin peculiar to Greeks or Romans, it ought to be retained; but when it is merely the term by which a Hebrew word, occurring in the Old Testament, has sometimes been rendered by the Seventy, the Hebrew name to which the common version of the Old Testament has accustomed us ought to be preferred. For this reason, I have, in such cases, employed them in the version of the Gospels. Apyvotov I have rendered shekel, when used for money, This was the standard coin of the Jews; and when the Hebrew word for silver occurs in a plural signification, as must be the case when joined with a numeral adjective, it is evidently this that is meant. It is commonly in the Septuagint rendered apyvpia, and in one place in the common translation silverlings, Isa. vii. 23. In Hebrew, o cheseph and pw shekel are often used indiscriminately; and both are sometimes rendered by the same Greek word. Though talent is not a word of Hebrew extraction, the Greek raλavrov is so constantly employed by the Seventy in rendering the Hebrew checher, and is so perfectly familiar to us as the name of an ancient coin of the highest value, that there can be no doubt of the propriety of retaining it. As to the word pound in Greek uva, and in Hebrew maneh, as the sense of the only passage wherein it occurs in the Gospel could hardly, in any degree, be said to depend on the value of the coin mentioned, I have also thought proper to retain the
name which had been employed by the English translators. Though pound is the name of a particular denomination of our own money, we all know that it admits also an indefinite application to that of other nations. This is so well understood, that, where there is any risk of mistaking, we distinguish our own by the addition of sterling. The Greek word and the English are also analogous in this respect, that they are names both of money and of weight. Both also admit some latitude in the application to the moneys and weights of different countries, whose standards do not entirely coincide.
In regard to some other words, though penny is often used indefinitely, the common meaning differs so much from that of Envaptov in Scripture, and the plural pence is so rarely used with that latitude, that I thought it better to retain the Latin word. I have reserved the word penny as a more proper translation of aoσapiov, between which and a penny sterling the difference in value is inconsiderable. This naturally determined me to rende Koopavτns farthing; for кodpavτns (that is, quadrans) is originally a Latin word as well as dnvaptov. They correspond in etymology as well as in value.* By this I have avoided a double impropriety into which our translators have fallen. First, by rendering Envaplov a penny, and aooapiov a farthing, they make us consider the latter as a fourth part of the former, whereas it was but one-tenth. Again, by rendering aocaptov and Kodpavτns by the same word, they represent those names as synonymous which belong to coins of very different value. In translating AETTOV I have retained the word mite, which is become proverbial for the lowest denomination of money. Disquisitions on little points, more curious than useful, I always endeavour to avoid.
11. As to measures, wherever the knowledge of the capacity was of no use for throwing light on the passage, I have judged it always sufficient to employ some general term, as measure, barrel, &c. Of this kind is the parable of the unjust steward. The degree of his villany is sufficiently discovered by the numbers. But where it is the express view of the writer to communicate some notion of the size and capacity, as in the account given of the water-pots at the marriage in Čana, or wherever such knowledge is of importance to the sense, those general words ought not to be used. Such are the reasons for the manner which I have adopted, in this work, in regard to money and measures, There is no rule that can be followed which is not attended with some inconveniences. Whether the plan here laid down be attended with the fewest, the judicious and candid reader will judge.
* Farthing, from the Saxon feorthling; that is, the fourth part,
RITES, FESTIVALS, AND SECTS.
THE second class of words to which it is not always possible to find in another language equivalent terms, is the names of rites, festivals, and sects, religious, political, or philosophical. Of all words, the names of sects come the nearest to the condition of proper names, and are almost always considered as not admitting a translation into the language of those who are unacquainted with the sect. This holds equally of modern as of ancient sects. There are no words in other languages answering to the English terms whig and tory, or to the names of the Italian and German parties called guelph and ghibelin. It is exactly the same with philosophical sects, as magian, stoic, peripatetic, epicurean; and with the religious sects among the Jews, pharisee, sadducee, essene, karaite, rabbinist. Yet even this rule is not without exception. When the sect has been denominated from some common epithet or appellative thought to be particularly applicable to the party, the translation of the epithet or appellative serves in other languages as a name to the sect. Thus those who are called by the Greeks τεσσαρεσκαιδεκατιται, from their celebrating Easter on the fourteenth day of the month, were by the Romans called quarto-decimani, which is a translation of the word into Latin. In like manner our quakers are called in French trembleurs. Yet in this their authors are not uniform, they sometimes adopt the English word. In regard to the sects mentioned in the New Testament, I do not know that there has been any difference among translators: the ancient names seem to be adopted by all.
2. As to rites and festivals, which, being nearly related, may be considered together, the case is somewhat different. The original word, when expressive of the principal action in the rite, or in the celebration of the festival, is sometimes translated and sometimes retained. In these it is proper to follow the usage of the language, even though the distinctions made may originally have been capricious. In several modern languages we have, in what regards Jewish and Christian rites, generally followed the usage of the old Latin version, though the authors of that version have not been entirely uniform in their method. Some words they have transferred from the original into their language, others they have translated. But it would not always be easy to find their reason for making this difference. Thus the word repro they have translated circumcisio, which exactly corresponds in etymology; but the word Banrioua they have retained, changing only the letters from Greek to Roman. Yet the latter was just as susceptible of a literal version into Latin as the former. Im
mersio, tinctio, answers as exactly in the one case as circumcisio in the other. And if it be said of those words, that they do not rest on classical authority, the same is true also of this. Etymology, and the usage of ecclesiastic authors, are all that can be pleaded.
Now, the use with respect to the names adopted in the Vulgate has commonly been imitated, or rather implicitly followed, through the western parts of Europe. We have deserted the Greek names where the Latins have deserted them, and have adopted them where the Latins have adopted them. Hence we say circumcision and not peritomy; and we do not say immersion, but baptism. Yet, when the language furnishes us with materials for a version so exact and analogical, such a version conveys the sense more perspicuously than a foreign name. For this reason I should think the word immersion (which, though of Latin origin, is an English noun, regularly formed from the verb to immerse) a better English name than baptism, were we now at liberty to make a choice. But we are not. The latter term has been introduced, and has obtained the universal suffrage; and though to us not so expressive of the action, yet, as it conveys nothing false or unsuitable to the primitive idea, it has acquired a right by prescription, and is consequently entitled to the preference.
3. I said, that in the names of rites or sacred ceremonies we have commonly followed the Vulgate. In some instances, however, we have not. The great Jewish ceremony, in commemoration of their deliverance from Egypt, is called in the New Testament Taoxa, the sacred penmen having adopted the term that had been used by the Seventy, which is not a Greek word, but the Hebrew, or rather the Chaldaic name in Greek letters. The Vulgate has retained pascha, transferring it into the Latin character. The words in Greek and Latin have no meaning but as the name of this rite. In English the word has not been transferred, but translated possover, answering in our language to the import of the original Hebrew. Ekпνownуia, scenopegia, in the Gospel of John, is retained by the Vulgate, and with us translated "the feast of tabernacles," John vii. 2. It would have been still, nearer the original Hebrew, and more conformable to the Jewish practice, to have called it the feast of booths. But the other appellation has obtained the preference. The Latins have retained the Greek name azyma, which we render properly enough "unleavened bread." But the words jubilee, sabbath, purim, and some others, run through most languages.
4. There is a conveniency in translating, rather than transplanting the original term, if the word chosen be apposite, as it more clearly conveys the import than an exotic word that has no original meaning or etymology in the language. This appears never in a stronger light than when the reason of the name
happens to be assigned by the sacred author. I shall give, for instance, that Hebrew appellative, which I but just now observed that both the Seventy and the Vulgate have retained in their versions, and which the English interpreters have translated. The word is pascha, passover. In the explanation which the people are commanded to give of this service to their children, when these shall inquire concerning it, the reason of the name is assigned: "Ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the Lord's PASSOVER, Who PASSED OVER the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when he smote the Egyptians," Exodus xii. 27. Now, this reason appears as clearly in the English version, which is literal, as in the original Hebrew: but it is lost in the version of the Seventy, who render it thus: Ερειτε. Θυσια το ΠΑΣΧΑ τουτο Κυριῳ, ὡσ ΕΣΚΕΠΕΣΕ τους οικους των υίων Ισραηλ εν Αιγυπτῳ, ἡνικα επαταξε τους Αιγυπτιους. Here, as the words πασχα and εσкεжασε have no affinity, it is impossible to discover the reason of the name. The authors of the Vulgate, who from the word phase, in the Old Testament, more closely after the Hebrew, (though they call it pascha in the New,) have thought proper, in turning that passage, to drop the name they had adopted, and translate the word transitus, that the allusion might not be lost: Dicetis, victima TRANSITUs Domini est, quando TRANSIVIT super domos filiorum Israel in Ægypto, percutiens Ægyptios."
This manner is sometimes necessary for giving a just notion of the sense; but it is still better when the usual name, in the language of the version, as happens in the English, preserves the analogy, and renders the change unnecessary. In proper names, it is generally impossible to preserve the allusion in a version. In such cases, the natural resource is the margin. The occasion is not so frequent in appellatives, but it occurs sometimes. It is said by Adam, of the woman, soon after her formation, "She shall be called WOMAN, because she was formed out of MAN,” Gen. ii. 23. Here the affinity of the names, woman and man, is preserved, without doing violence to the language. But in some versions the affinity disappears altogether, and in others is effected by assigning a name, which, if it may be used at all, cannot with propriety be given to the sex in general. It is lost in the Septuagint: Αύτη κληθήσεται ΓΥΝΗ, ότι εκ του ΑΝΔΡΟΣ aurns Anpon. Not the shadow of a reason appears in what is here assigned as the reason. The sounds yvvn and avopos have no affinity. The same may be said of mulier and via in Castalio's Latin. "Hæc vocabitur MULIER, quia sumpta de VIRO est." Other Latin interpreters have, for the sake of that resemblance in the words on which the meaning of the expression depends, chosen to sacrifice a little of their latinity. The Vulgate, and Leo de Juda, have "Hæc vocabitur VIRAGO, quia sumpta de VIRO est." Junius, Le Clerc, and Houbigant, use the word vira, upon the authority of Festus. Neither of the words is good in this ap