tations only as are not now favoured by use. The reason is obvious; because it is only in such cases that they suggest a false meaning. The latter ought to be avoided in every case wherein they do not clearly suggest the meaning. I admit that there are certain cases in which even an obsolete word may clearly suggest the meaning: For, first, the sense of an unusual or unknown word may be so ascertained by the words in connexion, as to leave no doubt concerning its meaning; secondly, the frequent occurrence of some words in the common translation, and in the English liturgy, must hinder us from considering them, though not in common use, as unintelligible to persons acquainted with those books. The danger, therefore, from using words now obsolete, but frequently occurring in the English translation, is not near so great as the danger arising from employing words not obsolete in an obsolete meaning, or a meaning which they formerly had, but have not at present; for these rarely fail to mislead. Further, a distinction ought to be made in obsolete words, between those which, in Scripture, occur frequently, and whose meaning is generally known, and those which occur but rarely, and may, therefore, be more readily misunderstood. The use of old words, when generally understood, has, in such a book as the Bible, some advantages over newer terms, however apposite. A version of holy writ ought no doubt, above all things, to be simple and perspicuous; but still it ought to appear, as it really is, the exhibition of a work of a remote age and distant country. When, therefore, the terms of a former version are, by reason of their frequent occurrence there, universally understood, though no longer current with us either in conversation or in writing, I should account them preferable to familiar terms. Their antiquity renders them venerable. It adds even an air of credibility to the narrative, when we consider it as relating to the actions, customs, and opinions of a people very ancient, and, in all the respects now mentioned, very different from us. There may, therefore, be an excess in the familiarity of the style, though, whilst we are just to the original, there can be no excess in simplicity and perspicuity. It is for this reason that I have retained sometimes, as emphatical, the interjections lo and behold! which, though antiquated, are well understood: also, that the obsolete word host is, in preference to army, employed in such phrases as the host of heaven, the Lord of hosts; and that the terms tribulation, damsel, publican, and a few others, are considered as of more dignity than trouble, girl, toll-gatherer; and therefore worthy to be retained. For the like reason, the term of salutation hail, though now totally disused except in poetry, has generally, in the sacred writings, a much better effect than any modern form which we could put in its place. To these we may add words which (though not properly obsolete) are hardly ever used, except when the subject, in some way or other, con cerns religion. Of this kind are the words sin, godly, righteous, and some others, with their derivatives. Such terms, as they are neither obscure nor ambiguous, are entitled to be preferred to more familiar words. And if the plea for consecrated words extended no further, I should cheerfully subscribe to it. I cannot agree with Dr. Heylin, who declares explicitly* against the last-mentioned term, though, by his own explanation, it in many cases conveys more exactly the sense of the original than the word just, which he prefers to it. The practice of translators into other languages, where they are confined by the genius of their language, is of no weight with us. The French have two words, pouvoir and puissance; the English word power answers to both. But, because we must make one term serve for both theirs, will they, in complaisance to us, think they are obliged to confine themselves to one? And as to those over-delicate ears, to which, he says, cant and fanaticism have tarnished and debased the words righteous and righteousness; were this consideration to influence us in the choice of words, we should find that this would not be the only sacrifice it would be necessary to make. It is. but too much the character of the age to nauseate whatever, in the intercourse of society, has any thing of a religious or moral appearance: a disposition which will never be satisfied, till every thing serious and devout be banished, not from the precincts of conversation only, but from the language. But to return: When words totally unsupported by present use occur in Scripture but rarely, they are accompanied with a degree of obscurity which renders them unfit for a book intended for the instruction of all men, the meanest not excepted. Of this class are the words leasing, for lies; ravin, for prey; bruit, for rumour; marvel, for wonder; worth, for be; wot and wist, for know and knew; to bewray, for to expose; to eschew, for to avoid; to skill, for to be knowing in, or dexterous at; to wax, for to become; to lease, for to lose; and to lack, for to need or be wanting. Terms such as some of these, like old vessels, are, I may say, so buried in rust, as to render it difficult to discover their use. When words become not entirely obsolete, but fall into low or ludicrous use, it is then also proper to lay them aside. Thus folk, for people; trow, for think; seethe, for boil; sod and sodden, for boiled; score, for twenty; twain, for two; clean and sore, when used adverbially, for entirely and very much; all to, albeit, and howbeit, may easily be given up. To these we may add the words that differ so little from those which have still a currency, that it would appear like affectation to prefer them to terms equally proper and more obvious. Of this kind are mo, for more; strait and straitly, for strict and strictly; aliant, for alien; dureth, for endureth; camp, for encamp; minish, for diminish; an hungered, for hungry; garner, for granary; trump, for trumpet; sith, for since; fet, for fetched; ensample, for example; Theol. Lect. vol. i. p. 7. mids, for midst. I shall only add, that when old words are of low origin, harsh sound, or difficult pronunciation, or when they appear too much like learned words, familiar terms, if equally apposite, are more eligible. For this reason, the nouns backslidings, shamefacedness, jeopardy, and concupiscence, may well be dispensed with. Upon the whole, there is still some danger in retaining words which are become obsolete, though they continue to be intelligible. Words hardly sooner contract the appearance of antiquity, by being abandoned by good use, than they are picked up as lawful prize by writers in burlesque, who, by means of them, often add much poignancy to their writings. This prostitution, when frequent, produces an association in the minds of readers the reverse of that which originally accompanied them. Hence it is, that though nothing is better suited to the seriousness and importance of the subject of holy writ than solemnity of style; nothing is at the same time more hazardous, as no species of diction borders on the ludicrous oftener than the solemn. Let it suffice, therefore, if, without venturing far from the style of conversation in quest of a more dignified elocution, we can unite gravity with simplicity and purity, which commonly secure perspicuity. With these qualities, there can be no material defect in the expression. The sprightly, the animated, the nervous, would not, in such a work, be beauties, but blemishes. They would look too much like meretricious ornaments, when compared with the artless, the free, yet unassuming manner of the sacred writers. 8. But if it be of consequence to avoid antiquated words, it is not less so to avoid antiquated phrases, and an antiquated construction. No writing in our language, as far as I know, is less chargeable with idiomatical phrases, vulgarisms, or any peculiarities of expression, than the common translation of the Bible; and to this it is in a great measure imputable, that the diction remains still so perspicuous, and that it is universally accounted superior to that of any other English book of the same period. But, though remarkably pure in respect of style, we cannot suppose that no idiomatical phrases should have escaped the translators, especially when we consider the frequency of such phrases in the writings of their contemporaries. Yet, in all the four Gospels, I recollect only two or three which come under that denomination. These are, The goodman of the house, They laughed him to scorn, and They cast the same in his teeth; expressions for which the interpreters had not the apology that may be pleaded in defence of some idioms in the Old Testament history, that they are literal translations from the original. That the English construction has undergone several alterations since the establishment of the Protestant religion in England, it would be easy to * Matt. xx. 11, οικοδεσπότου : ix. 24, κατεγέλων αυτού : xxvii. 44, Το αυτο ωνείδιζον αυτώ. 1 evince. Some verbs often then used impersonally, and some reciprocally, are hardly ever so used at present. It pitieth them,* would never be said now. It repented him† may possibly be found in modern language, but never he repented himself. There is a difference also in the use of the prepositions. In § was & then sometimes used for upon, and unto instead of for. Of was frequently used before the cause or the instrument, where we now invariably use by:¶ of was also employed in certain cases, where present use requires off or from.** Like differences might be observed in the pronouns. One thing is certain, that the old usages in construction oftener occasioned ambiguity than the present, which is an additional reason for preferring the latter. 9. Finally, in regard to what may be called technical, or, in Simon's phrase, consecrated terms, our translators, though not entirely free from such, have been comparatively sparing of them. In this they have acted judiciously. A technical style is a learned style. That of the Scriptures, especially of the historical part, is the reverse; it is plain and familiar. If we except a few terms, such as angel, apostle, baptism, heresy, mystery, which, after the example of other western churches, the English have adopted from the Vulgate; and for adopting some of which, as has been observed, good reasons might be offered; the instances are but few wherein the common name has been rejected, in preference to a learned and peculiar term. Nay, some learned terms, which have been admitted into the liturgy, at least into the rubric, the interpreters have not thought proper to introduce into the Scriptures: Thus the words, the nativity, for Christ's birth, advent, for his coming, epiphany, for his manifestation to the Magians by the star, do very well in the titles of the several divisions in the Book of Common Prayer, being there a sort of proper names for denoting the whole circumstantiated event, or rather the times destined for the celebration of the festivals, and are convenient, as they save circumlocution; but would by no means suit the simple and familiar phraseology of the sacred historians, who never affect uncommon, and especially learned words. Thus, in the titles of the books of Moses, the Greek names of the Septuagint, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, are not unfitly preserved in modern translations, and are become the proper names of the books. But where the Greek word genesis, which signifies generation, occurs in that ancient version of the book so named, it would have been very improper to transfer it into a modern translation, and to say, for example, "This is the genesis of the heavens and the earth," Gen. ii. 4. In like manner, exodus, which signifies departure, answers very well as a proper name of the second book, which begins with an account of the depar * Psal. cii. 14. Common Prayer. John xv. 7. + Gen. vi. 6. Matt. i. 18. Matt. xxvii. 3. ** Matt. vii. 16. ture of the Israelites out of Egypt; but it would be downright pedantry to introduce the term exodus, exody, or exod, (for in all these shapes some have affected to usher it into the language,) into the body of the history. I remember but one passage in the New Testament, in which our translators have preferred a scholastic to the vulgar name, where both signified the same thing; so that there was no plea from necessity. The expression alluded to is, "To whom he showed himself alive after his passion," Acts i. 3. Passion, in ordinary speech, means solely a fit of anger, or any violent commotion of the mind. It is only in theological or learned use that it means the sufferings of Christ. The evangelist wrote to the people in their own dialect. Besides, as he wrote for the conviction of infidels, as well as for the instruction of believers, it is not natural to suppose that he would use words or phrases in a particular acceptation, which could be known only to the latter. His expression, μeтa тo Tadev avrov, which is literally, after his sufferings, is plain and unambiguous, and might have been said of any man who had undergone the like fate. Such is constantly the way of the sacred writers; nor is any thing in language more repugnant to their manner than the use of what is called consecrated words. I admit at the same time, that post passionem suam, in the Vulgate, is unexceptionable, because it suits the common acceptation of the word passio in the Latin language. Just so, the expression accipiens calicem, in the Vulgate, Matt. xxvi. 27, is natural and proper. Calix is a common name for cup, and is so used in several places of that version: whereas, taking the chalice, as the Rhemish translators render it, presents us with a technical term not strictly proper, inasmuch as it suggests the previous consecration of the vessel to a special purpose by certain ceremonies, an idea not suggested by either the Greek Tornotov or the Latin calix. I do not mean, however, to controvert the propriety of adopting an unfamiliar word, when necessary for expressing what is of an unfamiliar, or perhaps singular nature. Thus, to denote the change produced on our Saviour's body, when on the mount with the three disciples, Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, a more apposite word than transfigured could not have been found. The English word transformed, which comes nearest, and is more familiar than the other, would have expressed too much. 10. To conclude, the reasons which appear sufficient to justify a change of the words and expressions of even the most respectable predecessors in the business of translating are, when there is ground to think that the meaning of the author can be either more exactly or more perspicuously rendered; and when his manner, that is, when the essential qualities of his style, not the sound or the etymology of his words, can be more adequately represented. For to one or other of these, all the above cases will be found reducible. |