« PreviousContinue »
dering yooow, * 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. Ilveúuarat is very often 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 fiveupara, 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, I “ 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. S
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 a 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 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,
Diss. X, Part y. sect. 10.
I Cor. 14: 2. +1 Cor. 14: 12. & Digs. X, Part V. sect. 4,
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 sinall 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. Anoiher reason for ny taking this method was, because in a few instances, a reader, though 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 spokerr by our Lord hiinself, 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 100 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 meaninys 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.*
* [The matter is so obvious that it was thought to be unnecessary to disfigure the page with so large an amount of italics. The beginning of the interlocutory passages is marked by a colon. The point which Dr. Campbell wished to distinguish is nearly as obvious without his distincsion.- Am. Ed.]
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 mentioued, 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 endeavored to avoid the opposite extremes into which editors have fallen, either of crowding the margin with references to places whose only reserrblance was in the use of a similiar 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 runs 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 reserences 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 usefui, 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 VII. 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, neasures, and such peculiarities in dress as their phylacteries and tusts 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 etymological signification of proper names, I have given an account only when there is in the text an allusion to their etymology, in which case to know the primitive import of the term is necessary for understanding the allusion.
17. There is only one other use to which I have applied the foot-margin, The Greek word xúgios was employed by the LXX, not only for rendering the Hebrew word adon, that is lord or master, but also to supply the word JEHOVAH, which was used by the Jews as the proper name of God, but which a species of superstition, that by degrees came generally to prevail among them, hindered them from transplanting into the Greek language. As the name Jehovah, therefore, was peculiarly appropriated 10 God; and as the Hebrew adon and the Greek kyrios, like the Latin dominus and the English lord, are merely appellatives, and used promiscuously of God, angels, and men — I thought it not improper, when a passage in the New Testament is quoted or introduced from the Old, wherein the word rendered in Greek kyrios is in Hebrew Jehovah, to mark this name in the margin. At the same time, let it be observed, that I have made no difference in the text of the version, inasmuch as no difference is made on the text of the Evangelists my original, but have used the common English name Lord in addressing God, where they have employed the common Greek name kyrios.
I shall now conclude with laying a few things before the reader, for opening more fully my design in the notes subjoined to this version. I have in the title denominated them critical and explanatory; -explanatory, to point out the principal intention of them, which is to throw light upon the text, where it seems needful for the discovery of the direct and grammatical meaning; critical, to denote the means principally employed for this purpose, to wit, the rules of criticism on manuscripts and versions, in what concerns language, style, and idiom. I have called them notes rather than appotations, to suggest that as much as possible I have studied brevity, and avoided expatiating on any topic. For this reason, when the import of the text is so evident as to need no illustration, I have purposely avoided diverting the reader's attention by an unnecessary display of quotations from ancient authors, sacred or profane. As I would withhold nothing of real utility, I recur to classical authority when it ap