than to say, as in the former verse, two shall be in the field, without limiting it to either sex? And since the evangelist expressed both in the same manner, was any person entitled to make a difference?-On having recourse again for information, I was answered, that the evangelist had not expressed them both in the same manner; that, on the contrary, the first, as written by him, could be understood only of men, the second only of women-as all the words susceptible of gender were in the fortieth verse in the masculine, and in the forty-first in the feminine. I understood the answer, having before that time learnt as much Latin as sufficiently showed me the effect produced by the gender on the sense. What then appeared to me unaccountable in the translators was, first, their putting the word women in italics, since, though it had not a particular word corresponding to it, it was clearly comprehended in the other words of the passage; and, secondly, their not adding men in the fortieth verse, because, by these two successive verses, the one in the masculine the other in the feminine gender, it appeared the manifest intention of the author to acquaint us, that both sexes would be involved in the calamities of the times spoken of. This is but one instance of many which might be given to show how little dependence we can have on those marks; and that if the unlearned were to judge of the perspicuity of the original, (as I once did,) from the additions which it seems by the common version to have required, their judgment would be both unfavourable and erroneous. The original has in many cases a perspicuity, as well as energy, which the ablest interpreters find it difficult to convey into their versions. The evangelist John (ch. i. 11,) says of our Lord, εις τα ιδια ηλθε, και οἱ ιδιοι αυτον ου Tapeλaßov. I have expressed the sentiment, but not so forcibly, in this manner: He came to his own land, and his own people did not receive him.* On the principles on which the English translation is conducted, the words land and people ought to be visibly distinguished, as having no corresponding names in the original. That the old interpreters would have judged so, we may fairly conclude from their not admitting them, or any thing equivalent, into their version. Yet, that their version is on this account less explicit than the original, cannot be doubted by those that understand Greek, who must be sensible, that, by the bare change of gender in the pronoun, the purport of those names is conveyed with the greatest clearness. See the note on that passage in the Gospel. 9. Our translators have not, however, observed uniformly their manner of distinguishing by the aid of italics. Indeed, if they had, their work must have made a very motley appearance. On * The verse was so rendered in the former edition. In this I have preferred, He came to his own home, and his own family did not receive him. By the same rule the words home and family should be distinguished here, as land and people in the other case. many occasions, the Hebrew or Greek name requires more than one word in our language to express a meaning which it often bears, and which alone suits the context. There was no reason, in rendering yλwooa,* to put unknown in italics before the word tongue, a strange or unknown tongue being one very common signification of the word in the best authors. IIvevuarat is very properly rendered spiritual gifts; it means no less in the apostle Paul's language: but there was no propriety in distinguishing the word gifts by the italic letter; for Tvevuara, a substantive, can in no instance be rendered barely by the adjective spiritual. Sometimes the word in italics is a mere intruder, to which there is not any thing in the import of the original, any more than in the expression, either explicitly or implicitly corresponding; the sense, which in effect it alters, being both clear and complete without it. For an example of this I shall recur to a passage on which I had occasion formerly to remark,+ "The just shall live by faith; but if any man draw back"-where any man is foisted into the text, in violation of the rules of interpreting, which compel us to admit the third personal pronoun he as clearly, though virtually, expressed by the verb. I do not remember such another instance in the English translation, though I had occasion to observe something still more flagrant in the version of the Old Testament by Junius and Tremellius.§ 10. It must be acknowledged, however, that the insertion of a word, or of a few words, is sometimes necessary, or at least convenient, for giving a sufficiency of light to a sentence. For, let it be observed, that this is not attempting to give more perspicuity to the sacred writings, in the translation, than was given them by the inspired penmen in the original. The contemporaries, particularly Hellenist Jews, readers of the original, had many advantages, which, with all our assistances, we cannot attain. Incidental allusions to rites, customs, facts, at that time recent and well known, now little known, and known only to a few, render some such expedient extremely proper. There are many things which it would have been superfluous in them to - mention, which it may, nevertheless, be necessary for us to suggest. The use of this expedient has accordingly never been considered as beyond the legitimate province of the translator. It is a liberty, indeed, which ought to be taken with discretion, and never, but when the truth of what is supplied, and its appositeness are both unquestionable. When I recur to this method, which is but seldom, I distinguish the words inserted by enclosing them in crotchets, having reserved the italic character for at purpose now to be explained. 11. In such a work as the Gospel, which, though of the nature of history, is a history rather of teaching than of acting, and, in • 1 Cor. xiv. 2. Diss. X. Part v. sect. 10. + 1 Cor. xiv. 12. respect of the room occupied, consists in the relation of what was said more than of what was done; I thought it of consequence to distinguish the narrative part which comes directly from the evangelist, from the interlocutory part, (if I may use the expression,) or whatever was spoken either by our Lord himself, or by any of the persons introduced into the work. To the former I have assigned the Italic, to the latter the Roman character. Though the latter branch in this distribution much exceeds in quantity the other, it is but a very inconsiderable part of that branch which is furnished by all the speakers in the history, Jesus alone excepted. Pretty long discourses, which run through whole successive chapters, are recorded as delivered by him without any interruption. 12. Now, my reasons for adopting this method are the two following:-First, I was inclinable to render it evident to every reader, at a single glance, how small a share of the whole the sacred penmen took upon themselves. It is little, very little, which they say as from themselves, except what is necessary for connecting the parts, and for acquainting us with the most important facts. Another reason for my taking this method was, because in a few instances, a reader, through not adverting closely, (and what reader is always secure against such inadvertency?) may not sufficiently distinguish what is said by the historian from what is spoken by our Lord himself, or even by any of the other speakers, in a conversation reported of them. But it may be objected, May not this method sometimes, in dubious cases, confine the interpretation in such a way as to affect the sense? I acknowledge that this is possible; but it does not at present occur to my recollection, that there are cases in these histories wherein any material change would be produced upon the sense, in whichsoever of the two ways the words were understood. In most cases it is evident, with a small degree of attention, what are the words of the evangelist the relater, and what are the words of the persons whose conversations he relates. 13. The principal use of the distinction here made is to quicken attention, or rather to supply a too common deficiency, which most readers are apt at intervals to experience, in attending. And even at the worst, it does not limit the sense of the original in one instance out of twenty wherein it is limited by the pointing, which is now universally admitted by critics to have been in later times superadded. Indeed, there can be no translation of any kind, (for in translating there is always a choice of one out of several meanings of which a word is susceptible,) without such limitations of the sense. Yet the advantages of pointing and translating are too considerable to be given up, on account of an inconvenience more apparent than real. 14. All that is necessary in an interpreter, when the case is doubtful, is to remark in the notes the different ways in which the passage may be understood, after having placed in the text that which appears to him the most probable. In like manner, in the case under consideration, wherever there is the least scope for doubting whether the words be those of the evangelist, or those of any of the speakers introduced into the history, I assign to the passage in this version the character which to the best of my judgment suits it, giving in the notes the reasons of my preference, together with what may be urged for viewing it differently. It is, in effect, the same rule which I follow in the case of various readings, and of words clearly susceptible of different interpretations; also, when an alteration in the pointing would yield a different sense. 15. It is proper to add a few things on the use I have made of the margin. And first of the side margin. One use has been already mentioned, to wit, for marking the chapters and verses of the common division. Beside these, and a little further from the text, I have noted, in the outer margin, the parallel places in the other Gospels, the passages of the Old Testament quoted or alluded to, and also the places in the Scripture, and those in the apocryphal writings, where the same sentiment occurs, or the like incident is related. In this manner, I have endeavoured to avoid the opposite extremes into which editors have fallen, either of crowding the margin with references to places whose only resemblance was in the use of a similar phrase or identical expression, or of overlooking those passages wherein there is a material coincidence in the thought. To prevent, as much as possible, the confusion arising from too many references and figures in the margin, and at the same time to omit nothing useful, I have at the beginning of every paragraph referred first to the parallel places, when there are such places, in the other Gospels. As, generally, the resemblance or coincidence affects more than one verse, nay, sometimes run through the whole of a paragraph, I have made the reference to the first verse of the corresponding passage serve for a reference to the whole; and in order to distinguish such a reference from that to a single verse or sentence, I have marked the former by a point at the upper corner of the figure, the latter by a point at the lower corner, as is usual at the end of a sentence. I have adopted the same method in references to the Old Testament, to mark the difference between those where only one verse is quoted or alluded to, and those wherein the allusion is to two or more in succession.-These are the only purposes to which I have appropriated the side-margin. To give there a literal version of the peculiarities of idiom, whether Hebraisms or Grecisms, of the original, and all the possible ways in which the words may otherwise be rendered, has never appeared to me an object deserving a tenth part of the attention and time which it requires from a translator. To the learned, such information is of no significancy. To those who are just beginning the study of the language, it may indeed give a little assistance. To those who understand only the language of the translation, it is in my judgment rather prejudicial than useful, suggesting doubts which readers of this stamp are not qualified for solving, and which often a little knowledge in philology would entirely dissipate. All that is requisite is, where there is a real ambiguity in the text, to consider it in the notes. As, therefore, the only valuable purpose that such marginal information can answer is to beginners in the study of the sacred languages, and as that purpose so little coincides with the design of a translation of the Scriptures into the vulgar tongue, I could not discover the smallest propriety in giving it a place in this work. 16. The foot-margin I have reserved for different purposes; first, for the explanation of such appellatives as do not admit a proper translation into our language, and as, by consequence, render it necessary for the translator to retain the original term. This I do not consider as a proper subject for the notes, which are reserved chiefly for what requires criticism and argument; whereas all the explanations requisite in the margin, are commonly such as do not admit a question among the learned. Brief explanations, such as those here meant, may be justly considered as essential to every translation into which there is a necessity of introducing foreign words. The terms which require such explanations, to wit, the names of peculiar offices, sects, festivals, ceremonies, coins, measures, and the like, were considered in Dissertation VIII. Of certain terms, however, which come under some of these denominations, I have not judged it necessary to give any marginal explanation. The reason is, as they frequently occur in the sacred books, what is mentioned there concerning them sufficiently explains the import of the words. The distinction of Pharisee and Sadducee, we learn chiefly from the Gospel itself; and, in the Old Testament, we are made acquainted with the sabbath, circumcision, and passover. Those things which stand most in need of a marginal explanation, are offices, coins, measures, and such peculiarities in dress as their phylacteries and tufts or tassels at the corners of their mantles. In like manner, their division of time, even when it does not occasion the introduction of exotic terms, is apt to mislead the unlearned, as it differs widely from the division which obtains with us. Thus we should not readily take the third hour of the day to mean nine o'clock in the morning, or the sixth hour to mean noon. Further, when to Hebrew or Syriac expressions an explanation is subjoined in the text, as is done to the words Talitha cumi, Immanuel, Ephphatha, and to our Lord's exclamation on the cross, there is no occasion for the aid of the margin. When no explanation is given in the text, as in the case of the word Hosanna, I have supplied it on the margin. Of the |