SAWYER'S VERSION.
Chap. ii. verse 4.
"Then Herod seeing that he was despised by the Magi, was exceedingly angry, and sent and destroyed all the children, in Bethlehem, and in all its borders, from two years old and under, according to the precise time which he had learned of the Magi."
Here is a comparison of the two translations of a simple narrative text taken at random. The essential changes (improvements?) made by Mr. Sawyer are in the words which we have Italicized. Two of these changes, the substitution of "Magi" for "wise men," and of "destroyed" for "slew," we shall pass with the single observation, that the rendering of the common version is in both instances the more accurate and better expressed. Mr. Sawyer substitutes "despised" for "mocked," as the translation of [Greek: henepaichthae]. Is this literal? or is it an improvement? The Greek verb [Greek: hemaiso] has the signification primarily to deride, to mock, to scoff at, and secondarily to delude, to deceive, to disappoint, but it has not the meaning to despise. The word mock is used in our language in both these significations,—in the secondary sense when it refers to men's hopes or expectations,—as, to mock one's hopes, that is, to delude or disappoint one's expectations. In this sense, and in this alone, it is obviously used in this passage. The wise men did not scoff at King Herod, but they did delude him; they mocked his expectation of their return, and went back to their own country without returning to report to him, because they had been "warned of God in a dream," not because they despised the king. To say, as Mr. Sawyer does, that they "despised" him, is neither warranted by the meaning of [Greek: enepaichthae], nor is such a rendering accordant with the facts of the story or the connections of the thought. It is a forced and far-fetched translation, and a change from the common version much for the worse. The same word is of frequent occurrence in the Scriptures. In the Septuagint, Jer. x. 14, it is used in the same sense as in Matt. ii. 16. It is worthy of note that in no other instance does Mr. Sawyer render it by "despised." In Luke xviii. 32 and xxii. 63, and Matt. xx. 19, he translates it "mocked," like the common version. Mr. Sawyer should be more consistent, if he would have us put faith in his scholarly pretensions and literal accuracy. The passage in which he indulges in this variation from his own rule is the one of all the list where such a translation is particularly fitting, and where neither force, clearness, nor precision is gained by the substitution.
Mr. Sawyer renders [Greek: katha thov chrinon du haekribose] thus: "according to the precise time which he had learned."—Is this literal or correct? [Greek: 'Akriboo] signifies to inquire diligently, assiduously, or accurately, and has no such signification primarily as to learn. If the reader will now turn to Mr. Sawyer's translation of the 7th verse of the same chapter of Matthew, he will there find that he translates [Greek: haekribose] "asked"! And yet it stands in that passage in precisely the same connection of thought as in the 16th verse; so that we have our translator, who gives us only strictly literal renderings, translating the same word, occurring in the same relative connection, in the one instance by "asked," and in the other by "had learned,"—neither of them legitimate translations, and neither precisely expressing the thought. The rendering "asked" falls as far short of the full and forcible meaning of [Greek: haekribose], in the one case, as "had learned" varies from its strictly literal signification in the other.
We will now examine another passage illustrating Mr. Sawyer's consistent fidelity to literal renderings. He translates the word [Greek: phuchae], Luke xii. 19, 20, and 23, "soul"; thus, "I will say to my soul," find "Is not the soul more than the food?"—agreeing with the common version in the first instance, and differing from it in the second. But he renders [Greek: phuchae] in Mark viii. 36, 37, Luke xvii. 33, and Matt. xvi. 26, "life"; thus, "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his life?" "For whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it." In these cases he seems to have made his choice between the renderings "soul" and "life" according to no rule of translation or of criticism in philology, but as his fancy dictated. How shall we explain these inconsistencies, and, at the same time, grant Mr. Sawyer his claim to literalness of rendering?
Luke ix. 24, 25, Mr. Sawyer translates [Greek: phuchae] "life," and then renders [Greek: eauthon de apolesas ae zaemiotheis] "and destroys himself or loses his life." The common version is "and lose himself or be cast away," which is not only more strictly literal, but far more forcible. [Greek: 'Apollumi] conveys the strongest idea of total, irremediable ruin; and [Greek: zaemioo], when used, as in this passage, in the aorist tense, has the signification of bringing loss or ruin upon one's self. Both these thoughts are lost in Mr. Sawyer's translation; and a more tame, insufficient, and tautological rendering than his could scarcely be imagined.
Another instance of Mr. Sawyer's singular choice of renderings, in his zeal for improvement, is found in Luke viii. 46, which he translates, "Some one touched me; for I perceived a power going from me." The common version, "Somebody touched me; for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me," is clear and precise; Mr. Sawyer's version, "a power," is more indefinite and less forcible. Any intelligent reader will at once perceive that the common version is the better, and that Mr. Sawyer's improved rendering is almost meaningless.
One more example of these strictly literal renderings must suffice, John iii. 4. common version,—"Nicodemus saith unto him, 'How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb and be born?'" Sawyer's version,—"Nicodemus said to him, 'How can a man be born when he is old? can he become an unborn infant of his mother a second time, and be born?'" The absurdity of the form of language put into the mouth of Nicodemus by Mr. Sawyer is obvious at a glance; no such thought was ever so expressed by any speaker in any language; it is wholly forced and unnatural; and upon comparing Mr. Sawyer's translation with the original, we find that he has paraphrased the passage with a vengeance, altogether omitting to translate the clause [Greek: eis thaen koilian … eiselthein kai gennaethaenai], and interpolating an expression, instead, which is neither in the original text nor in the thought. Probably Mr. Sawyer's motive for taking this extraordinary liberty was a false delicacy, amounting to prudery; but it ill assorts with his assertion, that his work is not a paraphrase, nor one of compromises, or of conjectural interpretations.
We might proceed with numerous illustrations' exhibiting the weakness of Mr. Sawyer's claim of an improved and strictly literal rendering, but these are enough. Before he claims much on the score of scholarly accuracy or critical rendering, he must explain these inconsistencies and remove these blemishes. But if such faults are patent in the simplest narrative passages, what confidence can we place in Mr. Sawyer as a translator of difficult, abstruse, doctrinal, and disputed texts? In every instance in which we have tested his translation of the original, the changes which he has made from the common version not only, in our judgment, are no improvements, but positively render the expression less clear, less forcible, and less precise; of course, as the language is made worse, the thought is, in the same proportion, obscured.