Dr Malan 0.0.57 18 B 73 THE NECESSITY FOR A REVISION OF THE TAMIL NEW TESTAMENT. AN able article has already appeared in the Harvest Field In submitting some specimens of my criticisms, the result 1. The translator has no right to assume the same degree of freedom in translating the Word of God as other books. The Bible is a book sui generis and the method of translating it should in some respects be also sui generis. The extreme simplicity and naturalness of the diction of the New Testament render a faithful and idiomatic translation of it a matter of comparatively easy accomplishment, provided the language can command a respectable, vocabulary. This is evidently a Providential arrangement to facilitate the spread of the Word of God among all nations. Strict literality, compatible with approved and idiomatic usage, should be the capital rule of every Biblical translator. Sometimes, even the claims of idiom may require to be subordinated to those of intelligible literality, where the nomenclature, peculiarly Christian, is concerned. There is such a thing as Christian idiom in English, and doubtless there will be the same in the Indian languages. 2. The translator has no right to omit words or tone down their force, because they are apparently unnecessary or unmeaning or too strong. Idiom certainly has nothing to do with such cases, as will be seen from examples that 11873 G will be adduced. By such a method, it is apparently sought to place the version in a more advantageous position than the inspired original. Even the oft-recurring words άTокρibeίs and idov in the Gospels, so often suppressed in the current Tamil version, though always faithfully reproduced by Fabricius and Hay, are never used without real force, which good Expositors delight to bring out. 3. As far as possible, the same Greek words should be rendered by the same Tamil words, and no variation should be admitted without the strongest reasons. I fear that this golden rule, theoretically admitted as it may be, is but too often violated in the present Tamil version. 4. In certain connections, kaì, pèv, dè &c. are simply untranslatable and should therefore be left out. But in his great work on the Grammar of the N. T. diction, Winer has exhaustively shown that in the Greek Testament, there is no such a thing as the substitution of one word or phrase for another. The present version exhibits but too many instances of the violation of this acknowledged principle. On such a large subject, the treatment of which forms an important portion of Winer's magnum opus, it would be impertinent to do more than simply refer to a standard work which must be in the hands of every Biblical scholar. Even where, contrary to common usage, the Future is apparently used for the Present or vice versâ and the Aorist for the Future (e.g. John xv. 6), there are ethical or spiritual reasons which a well-furnished Expositor knows how to render; the task of the Translator is simply to reflect the original. "The disciple is not greater than the Master," nor is a version greater than the original. If it can be shown that in the N. T. one word is used for another, that words and forms are used indiscriminately and unmeaningly and that, in short, the writers were ignorant of the elementary laws which govern the language in which they wrote or that they spurned the laws of composition as beneath inspiration-then I say, a critical, careful and reverent study of the N. T. in the original is of no material value. Such a hypothesis, of course, is totally inadmissible. 5. It may be safely assumed that the object of the Madras Auxiliary of the British and Foreign Bible Society is to secure as good a translation of the Word of God as possible; and every thing that helps the realisation of this great end should be cheerfully welcomed. No technical difficulties as to the past rulings of the Delegates-in other words, no species of red-tapism-should be allowed to obstruct the path. 6. With all its defects, the translation of Fabricius is admittedly one of rare excellence, as, on the whole, a faithful reflex of the original. Where it could be shown that he was right or that any alteration of his rendering is needless, to Fabricius let us return, as bound by allegiance to truth. Further, such an act of justice to the memory of that illustrious scholar may yet pave the way to the universal adoption of one really standard Union version by the Tamil Churches. Probably, some of the Lutheran brethren are not averse to a reasonable revision of Fabricius. Not a few of the alterations of his renderings, as will be pointed out, are irritating to me; and I certainly have inherited no bias on the subject. 7. I have thought it necessary, for two reasons, to quote in some instances Mr. Hay's Telugu version of the N. T. 1. In construction and idiom, there is a general similarity between Tamil and Telugu. 2. I regard his translation (according to the text of the Tentative edition of 1880) to be one of rare merit. Having premised these observations, I will now proceed to submit some specimens of my criticisms. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. Ch. i. 21. f (having removed) for årò appears to be beside the mark. Αὐτὸς σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν is = It is he that will save his people from their sins. The construction is, what is termed, pregnant; and the meaning is that he will save them thoroughly from their sins-from the practice of sin into a state of grace and holiness. There is nothing here about the removal of sin. I should propose : தமது ஜனங்களின் பாவங்களிலிருந்து, அவ ர்களை தாமே இரட்சிப்பார். 826 C A. Hay's rendering is correct: leo 8hos. மோசத்திலிருந்து Or தீங்கிலிருந்து இர ட்சிக்க Or விடுதலை செய்ய is a perfectly idiomatic expression, reflecting pregnant sense. The best Expositors think that avròs is emphatic here; and should it not be indicated by Go? The English Revised Version has, It is he. O GUT IT Ch. ii. 4. Doubtless sometimes ar must be affixed to certain substantives for the sake of euphony. But I think it is unnecessary and inelegant here and in a hundred other places in this version. It must be borne in mind that the shorter forms are ever the more expressive and elegant. 16. a means to deceive. The word here, unaíobai, means to be mocked or made sport of. Why should the Magi be charged with deceit ? Restore Fabricius' correct rendering பரிகாசம் பண்ணப்பட்டதை. The word is thus rendered in Matt. xx. 19 of this version. வா Ch.iii. 9. I think Fabricius'@aai is terse and more expressive than the longer form வல்லவராயிருக்கிறார் என்று. 10. I prefer with Fab. simply கோடரி to கோடரியானது. Q is doubtless idiomatic, but it also means the whole tree. Tâν dévoрov in the text is every tree=pQaum 15 LOBO. Tồ Tâν dévdpov is the whole tree. The distinction is real. Cur@ does not quite give the force of Báλerai = is thrown or cast. I should propose எறியப்படுகிறது or எறிந்து விடப்படுகிறது. The word is correctly thus rendered in Matt. v. 29, &c. Why render the verb as if it were Future? The Present sounds awkward in Tamil, but not less so in Greek and English. The reason for the use of the Present where one would expect the Future is well stated by Winer, (N. T. Gr. p. 280, Masson's edition) where he also accounts for the use of the Present in this very verse. Ch. iv. 1. gala determines the personality of the Spirit and is therefore of the nature of a comment, and might expose the version to the charge of unfairness. It should be gall, as in Fab. The article does not necessarily indicate personality, which is determined on other grounds. In Matt. xii. 32, κατὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος ἁγίου is correctly rendered பரிசுத்த ஆவிக்கு விரோதமாக. 4. There is a dignity in the Saviour's reply it is written = எழுதியிருக்கிறது, as Fab. எழுதியிருக்கிறதே mars the dignity, implying that He would have yielded to the tempter, if it were not written. 15. οἱ καθημένοι ἐν χώρα καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου is not surely geor இருளின் திசையிலிருக்கிறவர்கள். and is நிழல் and akoros is இருள். . Doubtless the simile was originally suggested by the gloomy and shady ravines of Palestine. oi katηuévo is καθημένοι certainly more than merely oi ovres. They became weary and sat down out of sheer despair. Or, it may be that Kabŋμévoi is, as suggested by Bengel, " verbum aptum notandæ solitudini inerti.” In either case, the force of the word should be reproduced. மரண நிழலின் திசையில உட் கார்ந்திருக்கிறவர்களுக்கு (or கிடக்கிறவர்களுக்கு, as indicating their helplessness). Fab. has , but he misses the point οι καθημένοι. Hay's rendering of the clause is correct : మరణమ యొక్క నీడగల దేశములో కూర్చునియున్న వారికి, Ch. v. 2. I think ag as Fab., or simply as in other places in this version, is preferable to சொன்னது என்னவென்றால் = if it is asked what he said (it is this). = 12. is rather a weak word for ó polòs 620, கூலி, Fiorio. These words, however, are out of the question here; but I should propose, as conveying the central idea of molòs, viz., benefit or reward in return for something a reward, as Alford puts it, "not earned, but covenanted." 42. CC may be amusing, but it is an expression no more suitable to the dignity of our Lord's discourse than if it were rendered into English: Do not make a wry face! The Tamil idiom does not require such a slangy word. Will not for μý áƒоστраpîs meet at once the demands of literality and idiom? Hay's 3 is the exact counter idiom in Telugu. & IT 48. ICOOT FM60 is a paraphrase of réλeol. 600 is or பரிபூர் Gin in an ethical sense is nothing strange in Tamil. தேவன் பூர்ணர், Or பரிபூர்ணர், or சர்வபரிபூர்ணர் are well known expressions. Hay properly has . పరిపూర్ణుడు. Ch. vi. 2. It is to be hoped that the Jewish σáλmyέ did not send forth the same appalling sounds as the S. Indian (the word here), the use of which is strictly forbidden by the Government. io, the rendering in other எக்காளம், places, is a more suitable word. Further, σadní is no where used causatively compare the rendering in 1 Cor. xv. 52, Rev. viii. 6, &c. Doubtless the hypocrites proclaimed their own deeds. I propose எக்காளம் ஊதாதே, instead of ஊதிவியாதே. 165 7. Is not af (the ignorant) a very objectionable rendering of οἱ ἐθνικοί ? புரஜனங்கள் or புரஜாதியார், the rendering in some places, conveys the meaning adequately without giving offence. The present rendering is extremely offensive and one feels a delicacy in pronouncing it before a non-Christian audience. St. Paul pursued a different course when he complimentarily addressed the Athenians as δεισιδαιμονεστέροι κατὰ τὰπάντα. In my addresses to non-Christians, I generally use the word 4. 16. The words rendered @ are different in the original. It may be a correct rendering of apavicw, but it is far too weak for okupowоí, which literally means dog-facedfrom σku (by transposition Kvot) and oπT. Figuratively, the word means morose, surly. Awri is probably too சுடுமூஞ்சியாய் |
