: used with profane authors than with the sacred. If the general tenor and connexion be preserved in the thoughts of a Greek or Latin poet, and if the diction be harmonious and elegant, a few mistakes about the import of words, by which the scope of the whole is little affected, will be thought, even by the most fastidious critics, a more pardonable fault than such obscurity as interrupts a reader, and makes it difficult for him to divine the sense. But it is otherwise with a book of so great authority as the Scriptures. It is better that in them the reader should sometimes be at a loss about the sentiment, than that he should have a false sentiment imposed upon him for a dictate of the Spirit of God. I approve much more what follows in Houbigant: "Humani ingenii est, non linguæ cujuscunque obscuritas, divini sermonis dos perpetua, ut dignitas, ita etiam perspicuitas. Ut quanquam obscura nunc esset Hebraica lingua, tamen dubitandum non esset, quæ sacri auctores scripserunt, perspicue scripsisse nobis igitur esse maxime elaborandum, ut quæ nunc nobis obscura esse videantur, ad pristinam nativamque perspicuitatem, quoad fieri potest, revocemus; non autem nos nobis contentos esse debere, si quæ prima specie obscura erant, obscure converterimus." I have already given my reasons for thinking, that the historical style of the Scriptures, in consequence of its greater simplicity, is naturally more perspicuous than that of most other writings. But it is impossible that their sense should appear, even to men of profound erudition, with the same facility and clearness as it did to the countrymen and contemporaries of the inspired writers, men familiarized to their idiom, and well acquainted with all the customs and manners to which there are in those writings incidental allusions. If then, to adopt Le Clerc's similitude, we prefer likeness to the original before beauty, we must endeavor to make our translation as perspicuous to our readers, as we have reason to think the writings of Moses were, not to modern linguists, but to the ancient Israelites, and the writings of the evangelists to the Hellenist Jews. This is the only way, in my judgment, in which, consistently with common sense, we can say that a resemblance in perspicuity is preserved in the translation. 22. But, it may be asked, Is there then no case whatever, wherein it may be pardonable, or even proper to be in some degree obscure? I acknowledge that there are such cases, though they occur but seldom in the historical books. First, it is pardonable to be obscure, or even ambiguous, when it is necessary for avoiding a greater evil. I consider it as a greater evil in a translator to assign a meaning merely from conjecture, for which he is conscious he has little or no foundation. In such cases, the method taken by Castalio is the only unexceptionable method-to give a literal translation * Diss. III. of the words, and acknowledge our ignorance of the meaning. For the same reason, there will be a propriety in retaining even some ambiguities in the version. But this method ought to be taken only when the interpreter, using his best judgment, thinks there is ground to doubt which of the two senses suggested by the words is the meaning of the author. If the language of the version be susceptible of the same ambiguity which he finds in the original, it ought to be preserved; but if the language be not susceptible of it, which often happens, the translator should insert the meaning he prefers in the text, and take notice of the other in the notes, or on the margin. I shall give some examples of both. The Evangelist John (ch. 1: 9), says, "Ην τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ὁ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον. Here we have an ambiguity in the word Zozóuevov, which may be either in the nominative neuter, agreeing with gas, or the accusative masculine, agreeing with vooлоν. Our translators have preferred the latter meaning, and said, "That was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." It was hardly possible to preserve the native simplicity of the expression, and to retain the ambiguity in English. I have therefore, as I preferred the former meaning, rendered the verse, "The true light was he, who, coming into the world, enlighteneth every man ;" and mentioned the other sense in the note, assigning the reasons which determined my choice. Another Evangelist (Matt. 19: 28), represents our Lord as saying, Λέγω ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὑμεῖς οἱ ἀκολουθήσαντες μοι, ἐν τῇ παλιγγενεσία, ὅταν καθίσῃ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπὶ θρόνου δόξης αὐτοῦ, καθίσεσ θε καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐπὶ δώδεκα θρόνους, κρίνοντες τὰς δώδεκα φυλὰς του Ισραήλ. Here the clause, ἐν τῇ παλιγγενεσίᾳ, may be construed either with the preceding words or with the following. In the former of these ways our translators have understood them, and have therefore rendered the verse, "I say unto you that ye which have followed me in the regeneration; when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." I think, on the contrary, that the words ought to be understood in the latter way, and have therefore translated them in this manner: "I say unto you, that at the renovation, when the Son of Man shall be seated on his glorious throne, ye my followers, sitting also upon twelve thrones, shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel." For this choice I have assigned my reasons in a note on the passage. 23. But it sometimes happens, that the preference of one of the meanings of an equivocal word or phrase, cannot be determined with probability sufficient to satisfy a candid critic. In this case, when the version can be rendered equally susceptible of the different meanings, candor itself requires that the interpreter give it this turn. By so doing, he puts the unlearned reader on the same footing on which the learned reader is put by the author. It does not often happen that this is possible, but it happens sometimes. The word alov may denote, either the word, in its largest acceptation, or the age, state, or dispensation of things, answering nearly to the Latin seculum. There are some passages in the New Testament, on which probable arguments may be advanced in favor of each interpretation. Nay, some have plausibly contended that in the prophetic style there is no impropriety in admitting both senses. Now, by rendering alov, in those doubtful cases, state, the same latitude is given the sentiment in English which the words have in, the original. See the note on this passage in Matt. 12: 32, ovx aqοὐκ ἀφε εθήσεται αὐτῷ, οὔτε ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι, οὔτε ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι, which I have rendered" will never be pardoned, either in the present state, or in the future." 24. There are, moreover, a few instances, in which it cannot be doubted that there is an intentional obscurity. In these it is plain, that the same degree of darkness which is found in the original, ought, as far as possible, to be preserved in the version. Predictions are rarely intended to be perfectly understood till after their fulfilment, and are intended to be then understood by means of their fulfilment. When our Lord said to his disciples, in his last consolatory discourse, John 16: 16, "Within a little while ye shall not see me, a little while after ye shall see me, because I go to my Father," we learn from what follows, that they did not understand him. Yet, though he perceived they were puzzled, he did not think proper to clear up the matter; but, that his words might make a deeper impression upon their minds, he mentioned some additional circumstances the triumph of the world, the sorrow of the disciples at first, and joy afterwards. He knew that his death and resurrection, which were soon to follow, would totally dissipate all doubts about his 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 verse, 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 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. 24: 6, "These things must happen, but the end is not yet," the last clause, ovno orì to telos, he ren ders "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 tilos here relates to the same event which is called ovvrekɛia tou aivos 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 3: 17: 18, to the people of Jerusalem, who had with clamor 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 16: 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 4: 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 praise of being literal. Who would honor with this denomination one who, in translating Scripture, should render ovuqwvia, symphony, υπερβολή, hyperbole, παροξυσμός, paroxysm, φαρμακεία, pharmacy, ovxoqavrεiv, to play the sycophant, napádoğa, paradoxes, |