meaning. It must be injudicious, therefore, to render the verse in such a manner as to leave no room, to persons in their circumstances, for doubt and perplexity. Yet in one version it is thus translated: "In a very little time you will not see me in a very little time you will see me again-for I am going to the Father, shortly to return." The last clause, shortly to return, for which there is no warrant in the original, removes the difficulty at once, and consequently makes the disciples appear, in the subsequent verses, in a very strange light, as being at a loss to understand what is expressed in the clearest manner. It holds therefore, true in general, that in translating prophecy we ought to avoid giving the version either more or less light than is found in the original. The anonymous translator often errs in this way. Thus in the prophecy on Mount Olivet, where our Lord says, Matt. xxiv. 6. "These things must happen, but the end is not yet," the last clause, ovπw EOT TO TEλos, he renders, "the end of the Jewish age is not yet." There is nothing answering to the words of the Jewish age in the Gospel. It is not certain

that the word TEλoç here relates to the same event which is called OvvTeλɛla tov alwvos a little before, in ver. 3. At any rate, there is no mention of Jews, or Jewish, in the whole prophecy. Nay, if it were absolutely certain that the meaning is what this interpreter has expressed, it would be wrong to render it so, because we have reason to conclude, that it was not without design that our Lord, on that occasion, employed more general terms.

25. In some cases it is particularly unsuitable to be more explicit than the sacred authors, how certain soever we be that we express the meaning. A little reflection must satisfy every reasonable person, that events, depending on the agency of men, cannot with propriety be revealed so as to be perfectly intelligible to those on whose agency they depend. For, if we suppose that the things predicted are such as they would not knowingly be the instruments of executing, either it will be in their power to defeat the intention of the prophecy, or they must be overruled in their actions by some blind fatality, and consequently cannot be free agents in accomplishing the prediction. Neither of these suits the methods of Providence. God does not force the wills of his creatures; but he makes both their errors and their vices conduce to effect his wise and gracious purposes. This conduct of Providence was never more eminently displayed than in what related to the death and sufferings of the Son of God. The predictions of the ancient prophets are so apposite, and so clearly explained by the events, that we are at no loss to apply them; nay, we find some difficulty in conceiving how they could fail of being understood by those who were the instruments of their accomplishment. Yet, that they were misunderstood by them, we have the best authority to affirm; "I wot," says Peter, Acts iii. 17, 18, to the people of Jerusalem, who had with clamour

demanded of Pilate the crucifixion of Jesus, "that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers; but those things which God before had showed, by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled." The predictions in the Gospel are conveyed in the same idiom, and under the like figurative expressions, as are those of the Old Testament. And though many of the events foretold, which are now accomplished, have put the meaning of such prophecies beyond all question, we ought not, in translating them, to add any light borrowed merely from the accomplishment. By so doing, we may even materially injure the history, and render those mistakes incredible, which, on the more exact representation of things as they must have appeared at the time, were entirely natural.

26. The commentator's business ought never to be confounded with the translator's. It is the duty of the latter to give every thing to his readers, as much as possible with the same advantages, neither more nor fewer, with which the sacred author gave it to his contemporaries. There were some things which our Saviour said, as well as some things that he did, to his disciples, which it was not intended that they should understand then, but which, if taken notice of then, and remembered, they would understand afterwards: "These things," said our Lord, "I have spoken to you in figures; the time cometh when I shall no longer speak to you in figures, but instruct you plainly concerning the Father," John xvi. 25. It was, therefore, not intended that every thing in the Gospel should be announced, at first, with plainness. It is withal certain, that the veil of figurative language thrown over some things, was employed to shade them only for a time, and, in the end, to conduce to their evidence and greater lustre. "For there was no secret that was not to be discovered; nor was aught concealed which was not to be divulged," Mark iv. 22. Now, justice is not done to this wise conduct of the Spirit, unless things be represented in this respect also, as nearly as possible, in his own manner. And those translators who have not attended to this, have sometimes, by throwing more light than was proper on particular expressions, involved the whole passage in greater darkness, and made it harder to account for the facts recorded.

27. At the same time let it be remembered, that the case of prophecy is in a great measure peculiar; and we have reason to think, that there is hardly any other case in which we are in danger of exceeding in perspicuity. Even in those places of the Gospel about the meaning of which expositors are divided, there is ground to believe that there is no intended obscurity in the original; but that the difficulty arises merely from an allusion to some custom, or an application of some term, at that time familiar, but at present not easily discovered. Where the translator is in the dark, his version ought not to be decisive; but where

he has rational grounds for forming a judgment, what he judges to be the sense he ought to express with clearness.

28. I have oftener than once had occasion to observe, that wherever propriety, perspicuity, and the idiom of the tongue employed, permit an interpreter to be close, the more he is so the better. But what it is to be literal, I have never yet seen defined by any critic or grammarian, or even by any advocate for the literal manner of translating. A resemblance in sound, by the frequent use of derivatives from the words of the original, cannot, where there is no coincidence in the sense, confer on a translator even the slight phrase of being literal. Who would honour with this denomination one who, in translating Scripture, should render συμφωνια, symphony, ὑπερβολη, hyperbole, παροξυσμος, ραroxysm, papuaкεia, pharmacy, σνкоpaνтELV, to play the sycophant, Tapadoča, paradoxes, idiwrns, idiot? But some of the consecrated words have no better title to this distinction.

66

αποσκιασμα.

I once met with a criticism, I do not remember where, on a passage in the Epistle of James, (chap. i. 17,) in which God is called the “ Father of lights,” παρ' ᾧ ουκ ενι παραλλαγη, η τροπης аоσкιασμа. The critic profoundly supposes, that the sacred penman, though writing to the Christian converts of the dispersed Jews, amongst whom there certainly were not many noble, or rich, or learned, addressed them in the language of astronomy; and therefore renders Tapadλayn, parallax, and roon, tropic. If this be to translate very literally, it is also to translate very absurdly. And surely the plea is not stronger than is urged in favour of those interpreters, who, without regard to usage in their own language, scrupulously exhibit in their versions the etymologies of their author's words, especially compound words. Such, if they would prefer consistency, ought to translate evn≈ns, well-bred, ραδιουργία, easy work, σπερμολογος, seed-gatherer, πανούργος, all-working, yawσσокоμоv, tongue case, and waμmoλvç, all-many. The similar attempts of some at analyzing phrases or idiomatical expressions in their versions, which are but a loser sort of composition, fall under the same denomination. Both the above methods, though differing greatly from each other, are occasionally patronized as literal by the same persons. There is a third particular, which is considered as perhaps more essential to this mode of interpreting than either of the former, and which consists in tracing as nearly as possible in the version, the construction and arrangement of the original. This, if not carried to excess, is less exceptionable than either of the former.

29. But it deserves our notice, that translators attempting in this way to keep closely to the letter, have sometimes failed through their attending more to words and particles, considered separately, than to the combination and construction of the whole sentence. Thus the words of our Lord,* Haç yao ó aιTwv daμßavel,

* Matt. vii. 8. See the Note on that verse.

Kaι & LηTwv EÚρtoket, as rendered in the common translation, "for every one that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth," err in this very way. O nrwV EVOLσKEL, taken by itself as a separate sentence, cannot be better rendered than "he that seeketh findeth." But in this passage it is only a clause of a sentence. The words Taç yao, wherewith the sentence begins, relate equally to both clauses. The version here given, " For whosoever asketh, obtaineth; whosoever seeketh, findeth," is in fact, therefore, more close to the letter as well as the sense; for, by the syntactic order, the second clause evidently is πας ὁ ζητων εὑρισκει. The Vulgate is both literal and just, "Omnis enim qui petit, accipit; et qui quærit, invenit." Here omnis, like raç, belongs to both members. Had our translators, in the same manner said, Every one that asketh, receiveth; and that seeketh, findeth; leaving out the pronoun he, they would have done justice both to the form and to the sense, But they have chosen rather to follow Beza, who says, Quisquis enim petit, accipit; et qui quærit, invenit;" where, though the second member is the same as in the Vulgate, the expression in the Gospel is in effect differently translated, as quisquis cannot, like omnis, be supplied before qui. I acknowledge that there is not a material difference in meaning. Only the second clause in Beza is expressed more weakly, and appears not to affirm so universally, as the first clause. The clause, as expressed in Greek, has no such appearance.

66

30. For a similar reason, the words óπоν ó σкwλNĘ AVTWV OV TEλευτα, και το πυρ ου σβέννυται, Mark ix. 44, 46, 48, are in my opinion more strictly rendered, where their worm dieth not, and their fire is not quenched, than as in the common version "the fire is not quenched." The manner in which the clauses are here connected, rendered the repetition of the pronoun in the second clause unnecessary, because in Greek it is in such cases understood as repeated; whereas in English, when the fire is said, the pronoun cannot be understood. It is excluded by the article, which is never by us joined with the possessive pronoun. Could we, with propriety, imitate the Greek manner entirely, making the personal pronoun supply the possessive, and saying, where the worm of them dieth not, and the fire is not quenched, the pronoun might be understood in English as well as in Greek. But such an idiom with us would be harsh and unnatural. It gives an additional probability to this explanation, that, in the passage in the Old Testament referred to, (Isa. lxvi. 24,) it is expressly their fire, as well as their worm. In Hebrew the affixes are never left to be supplied. This remark regards only the exhibition of the construction, for the sense is not affected by the difference.

31. The words of John, (1 Ep. iii. 7,) 'O Tov Tηy dikalovvv δικαιος εστι, καθώς εκείνος δικαιος εστι, are in my judgment more literally rendered, He that doth righteousness is righteous, even as God is righteous, than as it stands in the English translation,

even as he is righteous." The English pronoun he does not correspond to the Greek Kavos so situated. In English, the sentence appears to most readers a mere identical proposition: in Greek it has no such appearance, EKEIVOç plainly referring us to a remote antecedent. As no pronoun in our language will here answer the purpose, the only proper recourse is to the noun whose place it occupies; Luke ix. 34. The intention of the three examples just now given is to show, that, when the construction of the sentence is taken into the account, that is often found a more literal (if by this be meant closer) translation, which, to a superficial view, appears less so.

32. I shall here take notice of another case in which we may translate literally, nay, justly and perspicuously, and yet fail greatly in respect of energy. This arises from not attending to the minute, but often important differences in structure, between the language of the original and that of the version. Of many such differences between Greek and English I shall mention at present only one. We find it necessary to introduce some of the personal pronouns almost as often as we introduce a verb. Not only does our idiom require this, but our want of inflections constrains us to take this method for conveying the meaning. In the ancient languages this is quite unnecessary, as the inflection of the verb, in almost every case, virtually expresses the pronoun. There are certain cases, nevertheless, wherein the pronoun is also employed in those languages. But in those cases it has, for the most part an emphasis which the corresponding pronoun with us, because equally necessary in every case, is not fitted for expressing. Thus our Lord says to his disciples, John xv. 16, Ουχ ύμεις με εξελέξασθε, αλλ' εγω εξελεξαμην ύμας, which is rendered in the common version, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you." This version is at once literal, just, and perspicuous; yet it has not the energy of the original. The stress laid on vutç and εγω, which are here contrasted with manifest intention, because the words are otherwise superfluous, is but feebly, if at all, represented by the pronouns ye and I, which are in English necessary attendants on the verbs. Our translators could not have rendered differently, had the words been Ου με εξελέξασθε, αλλ' εξελεξάμην ύμας. Yet every reader of taste will perceive that this expression is not nearly so emphatical. I might add, that such a reader will be sensible, that even so light a circumstance as beginning the sentence with the negative particle adds to the emphasis, and that vuç ov would not have been so expressive as Ovx vμaç. To do justice, therefore, to the energy, as well as to the sense of the original, it is necessary, in modern languages, to give the sentence a different turn. The Port Royal, and after them Simon, and other French translators, have done this successfully by rendering it, "Ce n'est pas vous qui m'avez choisi, mais c'est moi qui vous ai choisi." The like turn has been given by some