Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

:

imaginable the problem of Translation, one of the most manysided and difficult that can be named. And if this holds universally, in how much greater a degree when the book to be translated is the Bible! Here, anything like a mechanical levelling up of terms, every attempt to impose a pre-arranged system of uniform rendering on words, every one of which has a history and (so to speak) a will of its own, is inevitably destined to result in discomfiture and disappointment. But what makes this so very serious a matter is that, because Holy Scripture is the Book experimented upon, the loftiest interests that can be named become imperilled; and it will constantly happen that what is not perhaps in itself a very serious mistake may yet inflict irreparable injury. We subjoin an humble illustration of our meaning-the rather, because it will afford us an opportunity for penetrating a little deeper into the proprieties of Scriptural translation :

6

(c) The place of our LORD's Burial, which is mentioned upwards of 30 times in the Gospels, is styled in the original, μmμelov. This appellation is applied to it three times by S. Matthew;-six times by S. Mark;-eight times by S. Luke;1 -eleven times by S. John. Only on four occasions, in close succession, does the first Evangelist call it by another name, viz. Tápos.2 King James's translators (following Tyndale and Cranmer) decline to notice this diversity, and uniformly style it the sepulchre.' So long as it belonged to Joseph of Arimathea, they call it a 'tomb' (Matth. xxvii. 60): when once it has been appropriated by the LORD of Glory,' in the same verse they give it a different English appellation. But our Revisionists of 1881, as if bent on making a fresh departure,' everywhere substitute 'tomb' for 'sepulchre' as the rendering of μvnueîov. Does any one ask, And why should they not? We answer, Because, in connection with the Sepulchre' of our LORD, there has grown up such an ample literature and such a famous history, that we are no longer able to sever ourselves from those environments of the problem, even if we desired to do so. In all such cases as the present, we have to balance the loss against the gain. Quite idle is it for the pedant of 1881 to insist that Tápos and μvnueîov are two different words. We do not dispute the fact. (Then, if he must, let him represent Túdos in some other way.) It remains true, notwithstanding, that the receptacle of our SAVIOUR'S Body after His dissolution will have to be spoken of as 'the Holy Sepulchre' till the end

1 Twice he calls it μνῆμα.

2 Ch. xxvii. 61, 64, 66; xxviii. 1. of

of time; and it is altogether to be desired that its familiar designation should be suffered to survive unmolested on the eternal page, in consequence. There are, after all, mightier laws in the Universe than those of grammar. In the quaint language of our Translators of 1611: For is the Kingdom of GOD become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free?' And as for considerations of etymological propriety, the nearest English equivalent for μvnμeîov (be it remembered) is not tomb,' but monument.'

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

(d) Our Revisionists seem unaware that 270 years of undisturbed possession have given to certain words rights to which they could not else have pretended, but of which it is impossible any more to dispossess them. It savours of folly as well as of pedantry even to make the attempt. Audaxn, etymologically, signifies teaching,' no doubt; but it does not follow that the Latin equivalent, doctrine' is therefore to be obliterated from the sacred page. The Evangelists relate that the people were astonished at our LORD's doctrine':1 and that He warned His disciples against the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.' 2 What possible benefit can result from substituting teaching' in places like these? Is it not admitted that the terms respectively connote somewhat different notions? Then, why-when 'doctrine' is meant-thrust 'doctrine' out, in order to bring 'teaching in? . . . When S. Paul speaks of the doctrine of baptisms' (Heb. vi. 2), it is simply incomprehensible to us why the teaching of baptisms' should be deemed a preferable expression. But, in fact, the Revisionists are not consistent: for if the warning against being 'tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine,' may stand in Ephes. iv. 14, why is it not left standing in Heb. xiii. 9?

(e) In the same spirit, we can but wonder at the bad taste and singular lack of judgment which has ventured to substitute "bowls' for 'vials' in the Book of Revelation.3 As a matter of fact, we venture to point out that piáλŋ no more means 'a bowl' than 'saucer' means 'a cup.' But waiving this, we are confident that our Revisers would have shown more wisdom if they had let alone a word which, having no English equivalent, has passed into the sacred vocabulary of the language, and has acquired a conventional signification which will cleave to it for ever. Vials of wrath' are understood to signify the outpouring of GOD's wrathful visitations on mankind: whereas

1 S. Matth. vii. 28; xxii. 33. S. Mark i. 22. S. Luke iv. 32.
2 S. Matth. xvi. 12.
3 Eight times in Rev. xvi.

' bowls'

1

bowls' really conveys no meaning at all, except a mean and unworthy, not to say an ambiguous one. What must be the impression made on persons of very humble station, labouringmen, when they hear of the seven Angels that had the seven bowls'? (Rev. xvii. 1.) The piáλn,-if we must needs talk like Antiquaries - is an almost flat, circular, very shallow vessel, of which the contents can be discharged in an instant. It was used in pouring out libations. There is, at the back of it, in the centre, a hollow for the first joint of the forefinger to rest in. Patera the Latins called it. Specimens are to be seen in abundance.-The same Revisionists have also fallen foul of the alabaster box of ointment,'-for which they have substituted an alabaster cruse of ointment.' But what is a 'cruse'? Their marginal note says, 'Or, ‘a flask': but once more, what is a flask'? Certainly the vessel, to which that name is now commonly applied, bears no resemblance whatever to the vase called aλáßaoтpov. The probability is that the receptacle for the precious ointment with which the sister of Lazarus provided herself, was likest of all to a small medicinebottle (lecythus the ancients called it), made however of alabaster; of which specimens abound. But why not let such words alone? The same critics have had the good sense to leave standing the bag,' for what was confessedly a box (S. John xii. 6: xiii. 29); and 'your purses' for what in the Greek is unmistakably 'your girdles' (S. Matth. x. 9). We can but repeat that possession for three centuries conveys rights which it is always useless, and sometimes dangerous, to dispute. "Vials' will have to be put back into the Apocalypse.

·

(f) Having said so much about the proposed rendering of such unpromising vocables as μνημεῖον-διδαχή φιάλη, it is time to invite the reader's attention to the calamitous fate which has befallen certain other words of infinitely greater importance. And first for 'Ayárη-a substantive noun unknown to the heathen, even as the sentiment which the word expresses proves to be a grace of purely Christian growth. What else but a real calamity would be the sentence of perpetual banishment passed by our Revisionists on that most excellent gift, the gift of Charity,' and the general substitution of 'Love' in its place? Do not these learned men perceive that Love' is not an equivalent term? Can they require to be told that, because of S. Paul's exquisite and life-like portrait of CHARITY,' and the use which has been made of the word in

[ocr errors]

1 S. Matth. xxvi. 7. S. Mark xiv. 3. S. Luke vii. 37.

sacred

sacred literature in consequence, it has come to pass that the word 'Charity' connotes many ideas to which the word 'Love' is an entire stranger? that Love,' on the contrary, has come to connote many unworthy notions which in Charity' find no place at all? And if this be so, how can our Revisionists expect that we shall endure the loss of the name of the very choicest of the Christian graces,—and which, if it is nowhere to be found in Scripture, will presently come to be only traditionally known among mankind, and will in the end cease to be a term clearly understood? Have the Revisionists of 1881 considered how firmly this word 'Charity' has established itself in the phraseology of the Church, ancient, medieval, and modern, -and in our Book of Common Prayer? how thoroughly it has vindicated for itself the right of citizenship in the English language? how it has entered into our common vocabulary, and become one of the best understood of household words'? Of what can they have been thinking when they deliberately obliterated from the thirteenth chapter of S. Paul's 1st Epistle to the Corinthians the nine-fold recurrence of the name of 'that most excellent gift, the gift of CHARITY'?

[ocr errors]

(g) With equal displeasure, but with even sadder feelings, we recognize in the present Revision a deliberate elimination of 'MIRACLES' from the N. T.-Not so, (we shall be eagerly reminded,) but only of their name. True, but the two perforce go together, as every thoughtful man knows. At all events, the getting rid of the name,-(except in the few instances which are enumerated below,)-will in the account of millions be regarded as the getting rid of the thing. And in the esteem of all, learned and unlearned alike, the systematic obliteration of the signifying word from the pages of that Book to which we refer exclusively for our knowledge of the remarkable thing signified, cannot but be looked upon as a memorable and momentous circumstance. Some, it may be, will be chiefly struck by the strangeness of the proceeding: for at the end of centuries. of familiarity with such a word, we are no longer able to part company with it, even if we were inclined. The term has struck root firmly in our Literature: has established itself in the terminology of Divines: has grown into our common speech. But further, even were it possible to get rid of the words 'Miracle' and Miraculous,' what else but abiding inconvenience would be the result? for we must still desire to speak about the things; and it is a truism to remark that there are no other words in the language which connote the same ideas. What therefore has been gained by substituting 'sign' for Vol. 153.-No. 305. 'miracle'

E

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

6

[ocr errors]

'miracle' on some 19 or 20 occasions-('this beginning of his signs did Jesus,'-'this is again the second sign that Jesus did') -we really fail to see. That the word in the original is onμeîov, and that onμeîov means 'a sign,' and no other thing, we are aware. But what then? Because ayyeλos, in strictness, means a messenger,'-ypapý, a writing,'-UπOKPITýs, ‘an actor,'—¿ккλŋσía, an assembly,'—evayyéλov, 'good tidings,'ἐπίσκοπος, ' an overseer,βαπτιστής, one that dips, παράdeloos, a garden,'-pants, a learner,'-xápis, 'favour':-are we to forego the established English equivalents for these words, and never more to hear of grace,' 'disciple,' 'Paradise,' 'Baptist,' 'Bishop,' Gospel,' Church,'' hypocrite,' 'Scripture,' 'Angel'? Is it then desired to revolutionize our sacred terminology? or at all events to sever with the Past, and to translate the Scriptures into English on etymological principles? We are amazed that the first proposal to resort to such a preposterous method was not instantly scouted. The words are not only not equivalent, but they are quite dissimilar. All signs are not miracles'; though all miracles' are undeniably 'signs.' Would not a marginal annotation concerning the original word, as at S. Luke xxiii. 8, have sufficed? And why was the term 'miracle' as the rendering of onμeîov2 spared only on that occasion in the Gospels; and only in connection with S. Peter's miracle of healing the impotent man, in the Acts?3 We ask the question not caring for an answer. We are merely bent on submitting to our readers, whether, in an age like the present of wide-spread unbelief in the Miraculous, it was a judicious proceeding in our Revisionists almost everywhere to substitutesign' for 'miracle' as the rendering of onμelov.

[ocr errors]

(h) In a similar spirit, we altogether disapprove of the attempt to introduce is epileptic' as the rendering of σenuáčerai in S. Matth. xvii. 15. The miracle performed on 'the lunatic child' may never more come abroad under a different name. In a matter like this, 500 years of occupation (or rather 1700, for lunaticus' is the reading of all the Latin copies), constitute a title which may not be disputed. 'EPILEPTIC' is a gloss —not a translation. Even were it demonstrable that Epilepsy exclusively exhibits every feature related in connection with the 4 specially present case; and that sufferers from Epilepsy are

E.g. S. Matth. xxvi. 48. S. Luke ii. 12.

2 Aúvaμis is rendered 'miracle' in the R. V. about half-a-dozen times.

3 Acts iv. 16, 22.-On the other hand, 'sign' was allowed to represent onμetov repeatedly in the A.V., as in S. Matth. xii. 38, &c., and the parallel places: S. Mark xvi. 17, 20: S. John xx. 30.

4 S. Matth. xvii. 15: S. Mk. ix. 18, 20, 22, 26: S. Lu. ix. 39, 42.

affected

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »