that the Jesus, mentioned once in the Acts 118, and once in the Epistle to the Hebrews 119, is Joshua. Had the names been totally different in the original, there might have been some reason for adopting this method. The old Oriental names are often of use for pointing out the founders of nations, families, and tribes, and the more recent Greek names serve to connect those early notices with the later accounts of Greek and Roman historians. If they had, therefore, in the translation of the Old Testament, given, as in the original, the name Mizraim to Egypt, Aram to Syria, and Javan to Greece, much might have been urged in defence of this manner. But when all the difference in the words results from an insignificant alteration in the spelling, in order to accommodate the Hebrew name to Grecian ears; to consider them on that account as different names, and translate them differently, does not appear susceptible of a rational apology. What should we think of a translator of Polybius, for example, who should always call Carthage Karchedon, and Hannibal Annibas, because the words of his author are Καρχηδων and Αννίβας, or, to come nearer home, should, in translating into English from the French, call London Londres, and the Hague La Haye. It can be ascribed solely to the almost irresistible influence of example, that our translators, who were eminent for their discernment as well as their learning, have been drawn into this frivolous 119 Heb. iv. 8, 118 Acts, vii. 45. innovation. At the same time their want of uniformity, in using this method, seems to betray a consciousness of some impropriety in it, and that it tended unnecessarily to darken what in itself is perfectly clear. Accordingly, they have not thought it advisable to exhibit the names in the most frequent use, differently in different parts of Scripture, or even differently from the names by which the persons are known in profane history. Thus he whom they have called Moses in the New Testament, is not in the Old Testament made Mosheh, nor Solomon Shelomeh; nor is Artaxerxes rendered Artachshasta, nor Cyrus Choresh, agreeably to the Hebrew orthography, though the names of the two last mentioned, are not derived to us from the New Testament, but from pagan historians. § 12. Not that I think it of any moment whether the names be derived from the Greek, or from the Hebrew, or from any other language. The matters of consequence here are only these two. First, to take the name in the most current use, whether it be formed from the Hebrew, from the Greek, or from the Latin; secondly, to use the same name in both Testaments, when the difference made on it, in the two languages, is merely such a change in the spelling and termination, as commonly takes place in transplanting a word from one tongue into another. Nothing can be more vain than the attempt to bring us, in pronouncing names, to a stronger resemblance to the original sounds. Were this, as it is not, an object deserving the attention of an interpreter, it were easy to show that the methods employed for this purpose have often had the contrary effect. We' have in this mostly followed German and Dutch linguists. Admitting that they came near the truth, according to their rule of pronouncing, which is the utmost they can ask, the powers of the same nominal letters are different in the different languages spoken at present in Europe; and we, by following their spelling, even when they were in the right, have departed farther from the original sound than we were before. The consonant j, sounds in German like our y in the word year, sch with them sounds like our sh, like the French ch, and like the Italian se, when it immediately precedes i or e; whereas sch with us has generally the same sound with sk, and the consonant j the same with g before i or e. Besides, the letters which with us have different sounds in different situations, we have reason to believe, were sounded uniformly in ancient languages, or, at least, did not undergo alterations correspondent to ours. Thus the brook called Kidron, in the common version in the Old Testament, is, for the sake, I suppose, of a closer conformity to the Greek, called Cedron in the New. Yet the c in our language in this situation, is sounded exactly as the s, a sound which we have good ground to think that the corresponding letter in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin never had. 13. THE rules, therefore, which I have followed in expressing proper names, are these: First, when the name of the same person or thing is, in the common translation, both in the Old Testament and in the New, expressed in the same manner, whether it be derived from the Hebrew, or from the Greek, I uniformly employ it, because in that case it has always the sanction of good use. Thus Moses and Aaron, David and Solomon, Jerusalem and Jericho, Bethlehem and Jordan, and many others, remain in the places of which they have had immemorial possession; though of these Moses and Solomon are directly from the Greek, the rest from the Hebrew. Secondly, when the name of the same person or thing is expressed, in the common translation, differently in the Old Testament and in the New (the difference being such as results from adapting words of one language to the articulation of another,) I have, except in a very few cases, preferred the word used in the Old Testament. This does not proceed from the desire of coming nearer the pronunciation of the Hebrew root: for that is a matter of no consequence; but from the desire of preventing, as far as possible, all mistakes in regard to the persons or things spoken of. It is from the Old Testament, that we have commonly what is known of the individuals mentioned in it, and referred to in the New. By naming them differently, there is a danger lest the person or thing alluded to be mistaken. For this reason, I say, Elijah, not Elias; Elisha, not Eliseus; Isaiah, not Esaias; Kidron, not Ce dron. For this reason, also, in the catalogues of our Lord's progenitors, both in Matthew and in Luke, I have given the names, as they are spelt in the common version of the Old Testament. From this rule I admit some exceptions. In a few instances, the thing mentioned is better known, either by what is said of it in the New Testament, or by the information we derive from Pagan authors, than by what we find in the Old. In this case, the name, in the New Testament, has a greater currency than that used in the Old, and consequently, according to my notion of what ought to regulate our choice, is entitled to the preference. For this reason, I say Sarepta and Sidon, not Zarephath and Zidon; as the former names are rendered, by classical use, as well as that of the New Testament, more familiar than the latter. Thirdly, when the same name is given by the sacred writers, in their own language, to different persons, which the English translators have rendered differently in the different applications, I have judged it reasonable to adopt this distinction, made by our old interpreters, as conducing to perspicuity. The name of Jacob's fourth son is the same with that of two of the Apostles. But as the first rule obliges me to give the Old Testament name Judah to the Patriarch, I have reserved the term Judas, as used in the New, for the two Apostles. This also suits universal and present use: for we never call the Patriarch Judas, nor any of the Apostles Judah. The proper name of our Lord is the same with that of Joshua, who is, in the Septuagint, always called |