Nor can it be said of those there specified, that more familiar terms could not have been found equally expressive. For, though this may be true of some of them, it is not true of them all. Calling is equivalent to vocation, comfort to consolation, destruction to perdition, forgiveness to remission, defilement to pollution, almighty to omnipotent, enlightened to illuminated, watchful to vigilant, delightful to delectable, unchangeable to immutable, heavenly to celestial, and earthly to terrestrial. Nay, the first six in the marginal list might have been not badly supplied by the more homely terms, writer, scholar, comparison, letter, unbeliever, womb. Yet I would not be understood, by this remark, as intending to throw any blame upon the translators for the choice they have sometimes made of words, which, though not obscure, were not the most familiar that it was possible to find. There are several reasons, to be given immediately, which may justly determine the translator, on some occasions, to desert the common rule of adopting always the most obvious words. At the same time there are certain excesses in this way, whereof I have also given examples, into which a judicious interpreter will never be in danger of falling. The reasons which ought, on the other hand, to determine a translator not to confine himself to the words which are current in the familiar tattle of the lower ranks in society, are as follows: 7. First, in all compositions not in the form of dialogue, even the simplest, there is some superiority in the style to the language of conversation among the common people; and even the common people themselves understand many words, which, far from having any currency among them, never enter into their ordinary talk. This is particularly the case with those of them who have had any sort of education, were it but the lowest. One ought, therefore, to consider accurately the degree of the uncommonness of the term, before it be rejected; as it may not be easy to supply its place with one more familiar, and equally apposite. Unnecessary circumlocutions are cumbersome, and ought always to be avoided. They are unfriendly alike to simplicity and to energy, and sometimes even to propriety and perspicuity. 8. Secondly, there are cases wherein some things may be done, nay, ought to be done by a translator, for the sake of variety. I acknowledge that this is a subordinate consideration, and that variety is never to be purchased at the expense of either perspicuity or simplicity. But even the sacred historians, though eminently simple and perspicuous, do not always confine themselves to the same words in expressing the same thoughts. Not that there appears in their manner any aim at varying the ex Third, of verbs and participles: Laud, distil, remit, adjure, implead, estimate, ascend, descend, frustrate, disannul, reverse, meditate, premeditate, predestinate, consort, amerce, transferred, transfigured, illuminated, consecrated, translated, incensed, mollified. pression; but it is well known, that, without such an aim, the same subject, even in conversation, is hardly ever twice spoken of precisely in the same words. To a certain degree, this is a consequence of that quality I have had occasion oftener than once to observe in them, a freedom from all solicitude about their language. Whereas an unvarying recourse to the same words for expressing the same thoughts, would in fact require one to be solicitous about uniformity, and uncommonly attentive to it. But in the use of the terms of principal consequence, in which the association between the words and the ideas is much stronger, they are pretty uniform in recurring to the same words, though they are not so in matters of little moment. Yet in these the variety is no greater than is perfectly natural in men whose thoughts are engrossed by their subject, and who never search about in quest of words. Now it is only in consequence of some attention to language in a translator, that he is capable of doing justice to this inattention, if I may so denominate it, of his author. 9. Thirdly, it was remarked before,* that_though there is a sameness of idiom in the writers of the New Testament, particularly the evangelists, there is a diversity in their styles. Hence it arises, that different terms are sometimes employed by the different historians in relating the same fact. But as this circumstance has not much engaged the attention of interpreters, it often happens, that, in the translations of the Gospels, (for this is not peculiar to any one translation,) there appears in the version a greater coincidence in the style of the evangelists than is found in the original. There are cases, I own, in which it is unavoidable. It often happens that two or more words in the language of the author are synonymous, and may therefore be used indiscriminately for expressing the same thing, when it is impossible to find more than one in the language of the translator which can be used with propriety. When our Lord fed the five thousand men in the desert, the order he gave to the people immediately before was, as expressed by Matthew, (xiv. 19,) ανακλιθήναι επι τους χόρτους ; as expressed by Mark, (vi. 39,) ανακλιναι επι τῳ χλωρῳ χορτῳ ; as expressed by Luke, (ix. 14,) KATAKλIVATE AUTOVÇ; and as expressed by John, (vi. 10,) ποιησατε αναπεσειν. Here every one of the evangelists conveys the same order in a different phrase, all of them, however, both naturally and simply. This variety it would be impossible to imitate in English, without recurring to unnatural and affected expressions. The three last evangelists use different verbs to express the posture, namely, avaкλivw, Karakλivw, and αναπιπτω. And even in the first the expression is, I may say, equally varied, as one of the two who use that verb employs the passive voice, the other the active. Now, in the common translation, the phrase to sit down, signifying the posture, is the same *Diss. I. Part ii. in them all. I do not here animadvert on the impropriety of this version. I took occasion formerly* to observe, that those Greek words denote always to lie, and not to sit. My intention at present is only to show, that the simplicity of the sacred writers does not entirely exclude variety. Even the three terms above-mentioned are not all that occur in the Gospels for expressing the posture then used at table. Ανακειμαι and κατακειμαι are also employed. It would be in vain to attempt in modern tongues, which are comparatively scanty, to equal the copiousness of Greek; but, as far as the language which we use will permit, we ought not to overlook even these little variations. An 10. The evangelists have been thought, by many, so much to coincide in their narratives, as to give scope for suspecting that some of those who wrote more lately copied those who wrote before them. Though it must be owned that there is often a coincidence, both in matter and in expression, it will not be found so great in the original, nor so frequent, as perhaps in all translations, ancient and modern. Many translators have considered it as a matter of no moment, provided the sense be justly rendered, whether the differences in the manner were attended to or not. Nay, in certain cases, wherein it would have been easy to attain in the version all the variety of the original, some interpreters seem studiously to have avoided it. Perhaps they did not judge it convenient to make the appearance of a difference between the sacred writers in words, when there was none in meaning. In this, however, I think they judged wrong. agreement in the sense is all that ought to be desired in them; more especially, as they wrote in a language different from that spoken by the persons whose history they relate. When this is the case, the most tenacious memory will not account for a perfect identity of expression in the witnesses. Their testimony is given in Greek. The language spoken by those whose story they relate, was a dialect of Chaldee. They were themselves, therefore, (at least three of them,) the translators of the speeches and conversations recorded in their histories. The utmost that is expected from different translators is a coincidence in sense; a perfect coincidence in words, in a work of such extent as the Gospel, is, without previous concert, impossible. Consequently, an appearance of difference, arising solely from the use of different expressions, is of much less prejudice to the credibility of their narration, than the appearance of concert or copying would have been. When, therefore, the language of the interpreter of the Gospels will admit an imitation of such diversities in the style, it ought not to be overlooked. If possible, their narratives should be neither more nor less coincident in the version than they are in the original. And to this end, namely, that the phraseology * Diss. VIII. Part iii. sect. S, &c. may nearly differ as much in English as it does in Greek, I have, on some occasions, chosen not the very best word which might have been found, satisfying myself with this, that there is nothing in the word I have employed, unsuitable, dark, or ambiguous. But, as was signified before, it is not possible so to diversify the style of a version, as to make it always correspond in this respect to the original. Nor ought a correspondence of this kind ever to be attempted at the expense of either perspicuity or propriety. I shall only add, that a little elevation of style may naturally be expected in quotations from the Prophets and the Psalms, and in the short canticles which we have in the two first chapters of Luke; for in these, though not written in verse, the expression is poetical. 11. Fourthly, Not only the differences in the styles of the different evangelists ought not to pass entirely unnoticed; but the same thing may be affirmed of the changes sometimes found in the terms used by the same evangelist. Here, again, I must observe, that it were in vain to attempt an exact correspondence in this respect. There is a superior richness in the language of the sacred writers, which even their style, though simple and unaffected, (for they never step out of their way in quest of ornament,) cannot entirely conceal. They use considerable variety of terms for expressing those ordinary exertions for which our modern tongues hardly admit any variety. I have given one specimen of this in the words whereby they express the posture then used at meals. I shall here add some other examples. The following words occur in the New Testament, Aɛyw, ETTW, φημι, φάσκω, φράζω, ρεω, είρω, ερέω, all answering to the English verb say. Of these we may affirm with truth, that it is but rarely that any of them admits a different rendering in our language. The words κοινοω, μολύνω, μιαίνω, σπιλοω, ῥυποω, correspond to the English verb defile, by which they are commonly rendered: so also do the words βρωσκω, εσθίω, τρωγω, φαγω, to the English verb eat. The greater part of the words subjoined are in the common translation rendered always, and the rest occasionally, by the English verb see ; είδω, απειδω, οπτομαι, οπτάνω, βλεπω, εμβλεπω, όραω, καθοραω, θεαομαι, θεωρεω, ἱστορεω. Yet in none of the lists afore-mentioned are the words perfectly synonymous, nor can they be always used promiscuously by the inspired penmen. They are consequently of use, not only for diversifying the style, but for giving it also a degree of precision which poorer languages cannot supply. The same thing may be exemplified in the nouns, though not perhaps in the same degree as in the verbs. Αρς, αρνίον, αμνός, are used by the evangelists, the first by Luke, the other two by John; and are all rendered in the common translation lamb: dikτυον, αμφιβληστρον, σαγηνη, in the Gospels, are all translated And though the latter might have been varied in the version, net. the other could not with propriety. Sometimes we are obliged to render different words which occur pretty often, but are not entirely synonymous, by the same English word, for want of distinct terms adapted to each meaning. Thus the words "aidia and Tɛkva are, if I mistake not, uniformly rendered children; though the former word particularly respects the age and size, the latter solely the relation. The first answers to the Latin pueruli, the second to liberi. The English word children is well adapted to the former, though sometimes but awkwardly employed to denote the latter. Yet, for want of another term to express the offspring, without limiting it to either sex, we find it necessary to use the English word in this application. The word ó #λnocov, used by the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke, yerov by Luke and John, and TeplotKoç only by Luke, are all rendered neighbour. And though they are evidently not of the same signification, it would be difficult in our language to express the sense of any of them in one word which would answer so well as this. Yet, that they are not synonymous, every one who understands Greek must on reflection be sensible. For if, instead of Anσiov, in the commandment, Αγαπησεις τον πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτον, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," we should substitute either γειτονα οι περιοικον, we should totally alter the precept; for these terms would comprehend none but those who live within what is strictly called the neighbourhood. The translation, indeed, into English, ought to be the same; and, to say the truth, it would be a more exact version of that precept, than it is of the precept as we actually find it in the Gospel: for let it be observed, that the word neighbour is one of those which, for want of more apposite terms, we are obliged to admit in Scripture in a meaning not perfectly warranted by common use. I shall add but one other example: The word poç, used by Matthew, Luke, and John, and iraupoç, used only by Matthew, are both rendered friend; yet in their genuine signification there is but little affinity between them. The former always implies affection and regard, the latter does not. The latter, not the former, was employed as a civil compellation to strangers and indifferent persons. It is that which is given, in the parable of the labourers in the vineyard, Matt. xx. 13, to the envious and dissatisfied labourer; in the parable of the marriage feast, ch. xxii. 12, to the guest who had not the wedding garment; and it was given by our Lord to the traitor Judas, ch. xxvi. 50, when he came to deliver him up to his enemies. I do not say that rape is not rightly translated friend in these instances; for common use permits us to employ the word in this latitude. But it is to be regretted that we have not a word better adapted to such cases, but are obliged to prostitute a name so respectable as that of friend. Besides, it is manifest, that for this prostitution we cannot plead the example of the evangelists. I make |