The word pitiful, with us, never means, as it does in Scripture, in conformity to etymology, compassionate, merciful; but paltry, contemptible. In the following words also there is a deviation, though not so considerable, from the ancient import. Meat and food are not now synonymous terms, neither are cunning and skilful, honest and decent or becoming, more|| and greater, quick¶ and living, faithless** and incredulous, coasts†† and territories, or borders not confining with the sea. The like variations have happened in verbs. To prevent‡‡ is hardly ever now used, in prose, for to go before; to faint,§§ for to grow faint, to fail in strength; to ensue,|||| for to pursue; to provoke, ¶¶ for to excite to what is proper and commendable; to entreat,*** for to treat; and to learn,††† for to teach. Even adverbs and particles have shared the general fate. Yea and nay,‡‡‡ though still words in the language, are not the expression of affirmation and negation as formerly; instantly$$$ we never use for earnestly, nor hitherto|||||| for thus far. Yet this was, no doubt, its original meaning, and is more conformable to etymology than the present meaning; hither being an adverb of place and not of time. More instances might be given if necessary. Now to employ words which, though still remaining in the language, have not the sanction of present use for the sense assigned to them, cannot fail to render the passages where they occur almost always obscure, and sometimes ambiguous. But as every thing which may either mislead the reader, or darken the meaning, ought carefully to be avoided by the interpreter, no example, however respectable, will in such things authorize our imitation. An alteration here implies nothing to the disadvantage of preceding translators, unless it can be supposed to detract from them, that they did not foresee the changes, which in after-times, would come upon the language. They employed the words according to the usage which prevailed in their time. The same reason which made them adopt those words then, to wit, regard to perspicuity by conforming to present use, would, if they were now alive, and revising their own work, induce them to substitute others in their place. 7. Another case in which a translator ought not implicitly to follow his predecessors, is in the use of words now become obsolete. words, in the Disquisitions concerning the Antiquities of the Christian Church, p. 4. note. * James 5: 11. || Acts 19: 32. #1 Thess. 4: 15. T¶ Heb. 10: 24. Matt. 5:37. Exod. 38: 23. § 2 Cor. 8: 21. Matt. 2. 16. |||| 1 Pet. 3: 11. + Matt. 3: 4. There is little or no scope for this rule, when the version is in a dead language like the Latin, which except in the instances of some ecclesiastic terms, such as those above taken notice of, is not liable to be affected by the changes to which a living tongue is continually exposed. The very notion of a dead language refers us to a period which is past, whose usages are now over, and may therefore be considered as unchangeable: but in living languages, wherein use gradually varies, the greatest attention ought to be given to what obtains at present, on which both propriety and perspicuity must depend. Now, with respect to our common version, some words are disused only in a particular signification, others are become obsolete in every meaning. The former ought to be avoided, in such acceptations only as are not now favored by use. The reason is obvious; because it is only in such cases that they suggest a false meaning. The latter ought to be avoided in every case wherein they do not clearly suggest the meaning. I admit that there are certain cases in which even an obsolete word may clearly suggest the meaning: For, first, the sense of an unusual or an unknown word may be so ascertained by the words in connexion, as to leave no doubt concerning its meaning; secondly, the frequent occurrence of some words in the common translation, and in the English liturgy, must hinder us from considering them, though not in common use, as unintelligible to persons acquainted with those books. The danger, therefore, from using words now obsolete, but frequently occurring in the English translation, is not near so great as the danger arising from employing words not obsolete in an obsolete meaning, or a meaning which they formerly had, but have not at present; for these rarely fail to mislead. Further, a distinction ought to be made in obsolete words, between those which, in Scripture, occur frequently, and whose meaning is generally known, and those which occur but rarely, and may, therefore, be more readily misunderstood. The use of old words, when generally understood, has, in such a book as the Bible, some advantages over newer terms, however apposite. A version of holy writ ought no doubt, above all things, to be simple and perspicuous; but still it ought to appear, as it really is, the exhibition of a work of a remote age and distant country. When, therefore, the terms of a former version, are, by reason of their frequent occurrence there, universally understood, though no longer current with us either in conversation or in writing, I should account them preferable to farmiliar terms. Their antiquity renders them venerable. It adds even an air of credibility to the narrative, when we consider it as relating to the actions, customs, and opinions of a people very ancient, and, in all the respects now mentioned, very different from There may, therefore, be an excess in the familiarity of the style, though, whilst we are just to the original, there can be no ex us. cess in simplicity and perspicuity. It is for this reason that I have. retained sometimes, as emphatical, the interjections lo! and behold! which, though antiquated, are well understood; also, that the obsolete word host is, in preference to army, employed in such phrases as the host of heaven, the Lord of hosts; and that the terms tribulation, damsel, publican, and a few others are considered as of more dignity than trouble, girl, toll gatherer; and therefore worthy to be retained. For the like reason, the term of salutation hail, though now totally disused except in poetry, has generally, in the sacred writings, a much better effect than any modern form which we could put in its place. To these we may add words which (though not properly obsolete) are hardly ever used, except when the subject in some way or other, concerns religion. Of this kind are the words sin, godly, righteous, and some others, with their derivatives. Such terms, as they are neither obscure nor ambiguous, are entitled to be preferred to more familiar words. And if the plea for consecrated words extended no further, I should cheerfully subscribe to it. I cannot agree with Dr. Heylip, who declares explicitly against the last-mentioned term, though, by his own explanation, it in many cases conveys more exactly the sense of the original than the word just, which he prefers to it. The practice of translators into other languages, where they are confined by the genius of their language, is of no weight with us. The French have two words, pouvoir and puissance; the English word power answers to both. But, because we must make one term serve for both theirs, will they, in complaisance to us, think they are obliged to confine themselves to one? And as to those over-delicate ears, to which, he says, cant and fanaticism have tarnished and debased the words righteous, and righteousness; were this consideration to influence us in the choice of words, we should find that this would not be the only sacrifice it would be necessary to make. It is but too much the character of the age to nauseate whatever, in the intercourse of society, has any thing of a religious or moral appearance; a disposition which will never be satisfied, till every thing serious and devout be banished, not from the precincts of conversation only, but from the language. * But to return: When words totally unsupported by present use occur in Scripture but rarely, they are accompanied with a degree of obscurity which renders them unfit for a book intended for the instruction of all men, the meanest not excepted. Of this class are the words leasing, for lies; ravin for prey; bruit, for rumor; marvel, for wonder; worth, for be; wot and wist, for know and knew; to bewray, for to expose; to eschew, for to avoid; to skill, for to be knowing in, or dexterous at; to wax, for to become; to lease, *Theol. Lect. vol. i. p. 7. for to lose; and to lack, for to need or be wanting. Terms such as some of these, like old vessels, are, I may say, so buried in rust, as to render it difficult to discover their use. When words become not entirely obsolete, but fall into low or ludicrous use, it is then also proper to lay them aside. Thus folk, for people; trow, for think; seethe, for boil; sod and sodden, for boiled; score, for twenty; twain for two; clean and sore, when used adverbially, for entirely and very much; all to, albeit, and howbeit, may easily be given up. To these we may add the words that differ so little from those which have still a currency, that it would appear like affectation to prefer them to terms equally proper and more obvious. Of this kind are mo, for more; strait and straitly, for strict and strictly; aliant, for alien; dureth, for endureth; camp, for encamp; minish, for diminish; an hungered, for hungry; garner, for granary; trump, for trumpet; sith, for since; fet, for fetched; ensample, for example; mids, for midst. I shall only add, that when old words are of low origin, harsh sound, or difficult pronunciation, or when they appear too much like learned words, familiar terms, if equally apposite, are more eligible. For this reason, the nouns backslidings, shamefacedness, jeopardy, and concupiscence, may well be dispensed with. Upon the whole, there is still some danger in retaining words which are become obsolete, though they continue to be intelligible. Words hardly sooner contract the appearance of antiquity, by being abandoned by good use, than they are picked up as lawful prize by writers in burlesque, who, by means of them, often add much poignancy to their writings. This prostitution, when frequent, produces an association in the minds of readers the reverse of that which originally accompanied them. Hence it is, that though nothing is better suited to the seriousness and importance of the subject of holy writ than solemnity of style; nothing is at the same time more hazardous, as no species of diction borders on the ludicrous oftener than the solemn. Let it suffice, therefore, if, without venturing far from the style of conversation in quest of a more dignified elocution, we can unite gravity with simplicity and purity, which commonly secure perspicuity. With these qualities, there can be no material defect in the expression. The sprightly, the animated, the nervous, would not, in such a work, be beauties, but blemishes. They would look too much like meretricious ornaments, when compared with the artless, the free, yet unassuming manner of the sacred writers. 8. But if it be of consequence to avoid antiquated words, it is not less so to avoid antiquated phrases, and an antiquated construction. No writing in our language as far as I know, is less chargeable with idiomatical phrases, vulgarisms, or any peculiarities of expression, than the common translation of the Bible; and to this it is in a great measure imputable, that the diction remains still so perspicuous, and that it is universally accounted superior to that of any other English book of the same period. But, though remarkably pure in respect of style, we cannot suppose that no idiomatical phrases should have escaped the translators, especially when we consider the frequency of such phrases in the writings of their contemporaries. Yet, in all the four Gospels, I recollect only two or three which come under that denomination. These are, The goodman of the house, They laughed him to scorn, and They cast the same in his teeth; expressions for which the interpreters had not the apology that may be pleaded in defence of some idioms in the Old Testament history, that they are literal translations from the original.* That the English construction has undergone several alterations since the establishment of the Protestant religion in England, it would be easy to evince. Some verbs often then used impersonally, and some reciprocally, are hardly ever so used at present. It pitieth them, would never be said now. It repented him may possibly be found in modern language, but never he repented himself. There is a difference also in the use of the prepositions. In was then sometimes used for upon, and unto instead of for. T Of was frequently used before the cause or the instrument, where we now invariably use by ;** of was also employed in certain cases, where present use requires off or from.†† Like differences might be observed in the pronouns. One thing is certain, that the old usages in construction oftener occasioned ambiguity than the present, which is an additional reason for preferring the latter. 9. Finally, in regard to what may be called technical, or, in Simon's phrase consecrated terms, our translators, though not entirely free from such, have been comparatively sparing of them. In this they have acted judiciously. A technical style is a learned style. That of the Scriptures, especially of the historical part, is the reverse; it is plain and familiar. If we except a few terms, such as angel, apostle, baptism, heresy, mystery, which, after the example of other western churches, the English have adopted from the Vulgate; and for adopting some of which, as has been observed good reasons might be offered; the instances are but few wherein the common name has been rejected, in preference to a learned and peculiar term. Nay, some learned terms, which have been admitted into the liturgy, at least into the rubric, the interpreters have not thought proper to introduce into the Scriptures. Thus the words, the nativi Matt. 20: 11, οἰκοδεσπότου; 9: 24, κατεγέλων αὐτοῦ; 27: 44, Τὸ αὐτὸ ὠνείδιζον αυτῷ. |