Spiritual Magazine.

Vol. VI.]

MARCH, 1865.

[No. 3.

REMARKS ON THE CHARACTER OF SWEDENBORG'S TRANSLATION OF GENESIS, AS GIVEN AND EXPLAINED IN HIS" ARCANA COLESTIA."

'HE character of a translation of any book or document from ne language into another will, apart from the necessary requireients of the rendering, depend both on the particular purpose or which such a translation is made, and on the relative affinity r non-affinity in which the two idioms stand to each other. If le chief object of the translator is to produce what is called "readable" translation, his business will be to construct a itable frame or clothing in his "native" tongue, for the ideas hich he has recognized and appreciated in a foreign dress. In is case many of the outward habiliments will have to be affed, altered, and re-cast, in order to make the new comer resentable in his new sphere; and after all, take what pains you ke, the odds are that he will still show some outlandish ways bout him. However, after all, this is the most likely way of ar forming a tolerably close acquaintance with our distinguished reigner, provided namely, that our "mutual friend" has been p to his duty.

Far different is the case with what may be called documentary ranslations, that is to say, translations in which not the spirit or eal meaning of the text is the principal object to be attended to, ut the very phrase itself. In this case the chief business of the ranslator is to follow the text sentence by sentence, and if Jossible, to find words and phrases in his own language which vill adequately, or pretty nearly so, express the meaning, that is o say, the dictionary-meaning of the sentences he has to translate. In this case the spirit of the original will have to be considerably lisregarded, and it will be found necessary, again and again, to add notes in order to explain what, after all, is meant by the translation. A third mode of translation is the one called verbal,

VOL. VI.

G

if it be really at all allowable to call this kind of transferring, a translation. Here the translator cares for nothing but for the words, which according to their form, connexion, and individual meaning, he has to register on his paper, and the sum total of which register of translated words he calls his translation.

Looking at Swedenborg's translation of Genesis, as given in his Arcana, we find that from its character it belongs mainly to the third class of translations we have mentioned. That this is really the case, any reader who is a little acquainted with Hebrew will at once allow. Whatever the advantages may be which a translation of this kind may be hoped to secure, experience as well as the nature of the case itself, prove that the disadvantages necessarily connected with it, are so formidable as to render any useful result impossible. The reader of course will bear in mind that we do not here refer to cases where both languages present precise equivalents of words and phrases, but to those cases in which the idioms differ so essentially that a literal translation would not only render the meaning of the original obscure, but would make it necessarily altogether unintelligible and void of sense. Swedenborg has paid this penalty of his mode of trans lation to the full, more so even than the authorized English Version.

A few passages chosen at random will illustrate what wa mean. In Vol. VII., p. 276, of the Arcana, being a translation of Genesis xlii. 15, we read, "In this ye shall be proved: Pharaoh live, if ye shall go forth hence, unless your youngest brother come hither." If this translation convey any sense, it is beyond our skill to discover it. The original simply says "by the life of Pharaoh, you shall not go hence," &c. This is simple enough, and satisfies all the requirements of the context. Swedenborg, however, is apparently at a loss what to make of this passage according to his own translation. In his notes) relating to the "internal sense" he says, (page 301) "That this signifies that it must needs be that the truths appertaining to them are of such a character, unless they be conjoined to spiritual good, cannot so well be explained according to the signification of the expressions themselves. In Vol. VI., page 8 (being the translation of Genesis xxxii. 20), we read the following astounding declar ation of Jacob:-" I will expiate his faces in the present going before me, and afterwards I will see his faces; peradventure will lift up my faces." What the natural or human sense these words is, Swedenborg does not in any way inform us. As to the internal sense he assures us (page 31) that, "the manner in which each of these circumstances here mentioned occurs, cannot possibly be explained to the apprehension; for so long the common or general principles of a subject are not known, its

singulars cannot rise into any light, but fall into mere shade." We suspect that the shadiness of his own translation must bear the blame of this declaration.

Vol. VI., p. 88 (Genesis xxxiii. 14), we read, "Let my Lord, I pray thee, pass over before his servant, and I will proceed to the foot of the work which is before me, and to the foot of the children," &c. Here we are again quite at a loss to conjecture what kind of work that can be, to the foot of which Jacob intends to proceed; still more, we wonder what the foot of the children can mean, to which he means to proceed. In the notes explaining the internal sense, Swedenborg says, that "hereby is signified, according to common or general principles." But why fall back upon such an out-of-the-way interpretation? The word, here translated by "work," elsewhere occurs in the signification of cattle; and the simple and quite satisfactory meaning of the text is, that Jacob proposes to follow Esau at a rate of locomotion, such as the walking powers of the cattle and of the children will allow.

However, let these instances be sufficient, as a few specimens of the very unsatisfactory lapses into which Swedenborg has been betrayed by his want of a thorough scholarlike acquaintance with the original text. It would be a useless task to enlarge the list, for his translation positively swarms with them. On the contrary, we wish to call the attention of our readers to certain passages in his translation, where, whilst the original text is wrongly rendered, a pointed " internal sense" is foisted upon this false rendering.

Vol. I., p. 109 (Genesis iv. 22), we read; And Zillah, she also bare Tubal Cain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron," &c. The word here translated "instructor," signifying "hammerer," or "smith," and never "instructor;" and the word here translated "artificer," signifying "cutter," " "cutting instrument," the simple meaning of this passage is, " Tubal Cain, a smith (or forger) of all kinds of cutting instruments of brass and iron." This is also the rendering of the Septuagint; kai v σφυζοκόπος χαλκεὺς χαλκοῦ καὶ σιδήρου, and of all modern scholars. What then will become of all that Swedenborg says, p. 142, about the difference as to the internal sense, between father and instructor, and, p. 142, about the meaning of artificer? It merely falls to the ground.

Vol. I., p. 305, Swedenborg translates Genesis viii. 3, And the waters receded from off the earth, in going and returning," and v. 5, "And the waters were in going and decreasing," and being strangely ignorant of a well-known Hebrew idiom, according to which the verb "to go" is used, instead of the adverbs" continually," "successively," "steadily," he gives, pp. 312-13, a long account of temptations and fluctuations (!) a

view which was apparently only suggested to him by his erroneous translation. Compare also Genesis xii. 9, and Swedenborg's version.

In Genesis xvi., we have the account of Hagar's vision in the wilderness. Verse 13, it is said, " And she called the name of Jahveh that spake to her; thou (art) the God of my vision, for she said (thought), do I really live after my vision?" by which she meant to express her astonishment at finding herself still alive after her vision, according to the old belief that no one can see God and live. Swedenborg, after the fashion of his time renders this; "And she called the name of Jehovah that spake to her, Thou, God, seest me; for she said, have I also here seen after Him that seeth me?" which latter clause is pure nonsense. | How much better the LXX ὅτι εἶπε καὶ γὰρ ἐνώπιον εἶδον οφθέντα μεν Swedenborg, however, apparently suspecting nothing wrong, gives a full account (p. 397) of the inner sense of this unintelli gible passage, which he had previously made not only entirely wrong, but unintelligible.

or

is

Genesis xxi. 18, we read the following exhortation addressedto Hagar; "Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him fast." The last verb is in the original expressed by the well-known phrase, "make strong thy hand on him," which corresponds to the Greek phrase ἐηφύειν χεῖρα, οι κρατεῖν τινος. Swedenborg apparently not acquainted with this idiom, and renders it in a manner conveying the sense that her own hand was to be made strong by him, "strengthen thine hand in him." In his note to this pas sage he coolly remarks, Vol. III., p. 320, "What is here meant by strengthening the hand in him, cannot be understood by any one, except from the internal sense."

Genesis xxx. 11, the name of Gad is explained by the circul stance, that at his birth his mother used the words, "with luck," corresponding to the Latin name Felix, or as the marginal reading suggests, "Good luck is coming." In the same mannet the LXX have ev Túxn, and the Vulgate, Fortuna. Swedenborg, like the English bishops in the authorized version, bowing to the authority of some fanciful translator, renders the word, a troop by which he is of course obliged also to reject the reading of the text, and to adopt the marginal conjecture. As he does not give an account of the natural sense of the Biblical text, we are of course left in the dark as to what he might think the natural meaning of this translation really was. What he gives as the internal sense of the troop, &c., of course hangs in the air with out any legitimate connection with this passage of the Bible.

In Vol. V., p. 301, we meet with a most astounding specimen of translation, if this name can possibly be used with reference to a series of words which absolutely preclude every sense.

Genesis xxxi. 4, is there translated, " And Jacob sent and called Rachel and Leah the field to his flock." These words yielding no natural sense whatever, it might easily occur to the reader to mend the text by supposing that by an oversight of the compositor, the word "into" had been omitted before field. But on turning to page 312, we find, amongst other things propounding the "internal sense" of this passage, so remarkably nistranslated, the following statement:"That to send to these Rachel and Leah) and call the field to his flock, denotes to adjoin ohimself, is manifest." This mode of explaining the Bible efies any criticism whatever. It is neither literal, nor accurate, or true. The simple, plain meaning of the text is, "And acob sent and ordered Rachel and Leah into the field to the attle."

A similar case of utter incapacity to understand the simple leaning of the text occurs, p. 303, where Genesis xxxi. v. 29, translated, "Let God have my hand to do with you evil," &c., nd at page 336 in the notes about the internal sense we read, "Let Fod have my hand to do with you evil, signifies a state of indigation if he had ability." How badly and negligently this is xpressed! a state of indignation if he had ability! But turning the Hebrew text, we find that nothing is there said about dignation, but on the contrary, Laban clearly tells Jacob that e had the power to do him serious injury, but that he refrained. he Hebrew text reads, "It is in the power of my hand to evil unto you, but the God of your father said to me last ight," &c., just as the English Bible has it. Swedenborg's anslation is utterly inadmissible on a variety of grounds, which is not necessary to detail. They are manifest to any competent [ebraist.

Vol. VI., p. 280, Swedenborg still subscribes to the "coat of arious colours," although a little reading in Josephus and some ther authorities, as well as the etymology of the Hebrew word self, might have shewn him that the "various colours" are a pecimen of that well-known fancywork in which the LXX ranslators most freely indulge, when they find that they are at he end of their solid knowledge. At all events, it would have een more satisfactory to the natural interpreter of the Bible if wedenborg had here unfolded the internal sense of " long sleeves,' nstead of giving that of "various colours," which he should have nown was a simple but serious blunder of his.

We have thus exhibited a few of the specimens of the kind of renderings which a competent reader may find in the pages of Swedenborg's Arcana by a cursory examination. It is not our intention to weary the patience of our readers by giving a more extended list; but we cannot help, in conclusion, referring