« AnteriorContinuar »
is penitentia, for μετανοεω and μεταμελομαι, indiscriminately, pænitentiam ago, pænitentiam habeo, pæniteo, or me pænitet. These can hardly be said to express more than the English words repentance and repent. Μετανοιαν αμεταμελητον is not improperly rendered pænitentiam stabilem, agreeably to an acceptation of the term above taken notice of.
Beza, one of the most noted, and by Protestants most imitated, of all the Latin translators since the reformation, has carefully observed the distinction, wherever it was of consequence; for, as I remarked, there are a few cases in which either term might have been used in the original, and concerning which, a translator must be directed by the idiom of the tongue in which he writes. The same distinction had been made before, though not with perfect uniformity, by the translators of Zuric. Beza's word for METAVoew is resipisco, and for METAVOLA, resipiscentia. To this last term he was led both by analogy, and (if not by classical authority) by the authority of early ecclesiastical writers, which, in the translation of holy writ, is authority sufficient. These words have this advantage of pænitere and pænitentia, that they always denote a change of some continuance, and a change to the better. For ustaus 20μαι his word is penitere. Thus μεταμεληθεις, Spoken of Judas, is pænitens : Metavoiav auetaueantov, resipiscentiam cujus nunquam pæniteat, in which the force of both words is very well expressed. So is also queTavontov xapdiav, cor quod resipiscere nescit. Erasmus, one of the earliest translators on the Ro
mish side, uses both resipisco and pænitentiam ago, but with no discrimination. They are not only both employed in rendering the same word UETAVOEW, but even when the scope is the same. Thus LETAVOELTe, in the imperative, is at one time resipiscite, at another pænitentiam agite : so that his only view seems to have been to diversify his style.
Castalio, one of the most eminent Latin Protestant translators, has been sensible of the distinction, and careful to preserve it in his version. But, as his great aim was to give a classical air to the books of Scripture, in order to engage readers of taste who affected an elegant and copious diction; he has disfigured, with his adventitious ornaments, the native simplicity which so remarkably distinguishes the sacred penmen, and is, in fact, one of their greatest ornaments. We can more easily bear rusticity than affectation, especially on the most serious and important subjects. Among other arts, by which Castalio has endeavoured to recommend his work, one is a studied variety in the phrases, that the ear may not be tired by too frequent recurrence to the same sounds. The words under consideration afford a strong example. The verb LETAVoew is translated by him, I know not how many different ways. It is se corrigere, vitam corrigere, redire ad frugem, redire ad sanitatem, reverti ad sanitatem ; when the vices which we are required to amend are mentioned, the phrase is, desciscere a sua pravi. tate, desistere a turpitudine, desistere a suis ope. ribus, impudicitia sua recedere, sua homicidia, &c.
emittere. METAVOLa partakes of the like variety. It is emendata vita, vitæ emendatio, correcta vita, vitæ correctio, morum correctio, correcti mores, corrigenda vita, sanitas, pænitentia ; and in the oblique cases, frugem and bonam frugem. For latauehoua. I only find the two words pænitere and mutare sententiam. Μετανοιαν αμεταμελητον is not badly rendered vitæ correctionem nunquam panitendam, quemaueanta xaplouata munera irrevocabilia, and auetaVontos xapdia, deploratus animus..
Diodati, the Italian translator, in every case of moment, renders the verb LETAVOELV ravedersi, which in the Vocabolario della Crusca is explained resipiscere, ad mentis sanitatem redire ; but for the noun letavota he always uses penitenza, and for Letausãouai, very properly pentirsi. The Geneva French translates μετανοεω, s'amender, μεταμελομαι, se repentir, and METAVOLA repentance. In both these versions they use, in rendering LETA VOLav auetaueanTov, the same paronomasia which is in the common English version. Diodati has penitenza della quale huom non si pente. The Geneva French has repentance dont on ne se repent.
The other passages, also above quoted from the original, they translate in nearly the same manner.
manner. Luther, in his German translation, has generally distinguished the two' verbs, rendering usTavoelv bulle thun, and detaļEdeodai, reuen or gereuen.
I shall give, as another example of words, supposed to be synonymous, the terms αγιος and όσιος. The former is, if I mistake not, uniformly rendered in the New Testament, holy, or, when used substantively in the plural, saints. The latter, except in one instance, is always rendered by the same term, not only in the English Bible, but in most modern translations. Yet that these two Greek words are altogether equivalent, there is, in my opinion, good reason to doubt. Both belong to the second class of words which I explained in a former Dissertation 140. They relate to manners, and are therefore not so easily defined. Nor are such words in one language ever found exactly to tally with those of another. There are, however, certain means, by which the true sig. nification may, in most cases, be, very nearly, if not entirely, reached. I shall, therefore, first mention my reasons for thinking that the two words dylos and SOLOS, in the New Testament, are not synonymous, and then endeavour to ascertain the precise meaning of each.
140 Diss. II. § 4.
§ 2. That there is a real difference in signification between the two Greek words, notwithstanding their affinity, my first reason for thinking is, because in the Septuagint, which is the foundation of the Hel. lenistic idiom, one of them is that by which one He. brew word, and the other that by which another, not at all synonymous, is commonly translated. 'Ayros is the word used for w7p kadosh, sanctus, holy, ootos for Tom chasid, benignus, gracious.
$ 3. My second reason is, because these words have been understood by the ancient Greek translators to be so distinct in signification, that not, in one single instance, is the Hebrew word kadosh rendered by the Greek όσιος, or chasid by άγιος. What gives additional weight to this reason, is the consideration, that both words frequently occur; and that the Greek translators, though they have not been uniform in rendering either, but have adopted different words, on different foccasions, for translating each; have, nevertheless, not in a single instance, adopted any of those terms for rendering one of these Hebrew words, which they had adopted for rendering the other. Few words occur oftener than kadosh. But, though it is, beyond comparison, oftenest translated dyios, it is not so always. In one place it is rendered xalapos, mundus, clean ; the verb kadash, the etymon, is rendered dogačelv, glorificare, to glorify, avaşıBašelv ascendere facere, to cause to ascend, wadapišeiv purgare, to cleanse, åyvičev purificare, to purify, as well