a study of bible-第12章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


；　striving　for　effect；　ornamental　phrases　characteristic　of　the　time。　Men　were　feeling　that　this　English　language　was　rough　and　barbarous；　insufficient；　needing　enlargement　by　the　addition　of　other　words　constructed　in　a　foreign　form。　The　essays　of　Lord　Bacon　are　virtually　contemporaneous　with　this　translation。　Macaulay　says　a　rather　hard　word　in　calling　his　style　〃odious　and　deformed；〃＇1＇　but　when　one　turns　from　Bacon　to　the　English　Bible　there　is　a　sharp　contrast　in　mere　style；　and　it　favors　the　Bible。　The　contrast　is　as　great　as　that　which　Carlyle　first　felt　between　the　ideas　of　Shakespeare　and　those　of　the　Bible　when　he　said　that　〃this　world　is　a　catholic　kind　of　place；　the　Puritan　gospel　and　Shakespeare's　plays：　such　a　pair　of　facts　I　have　rarely　seen　save　out　of　one　chimerical　generation。〃＇2＇　And　that　gives　point　to　the　word　already　quoted　from　Hallam　that　the　English　of　the　King　James　version　is　not　the　English　of　James　I。


＇1＇　Essay　on　John　Dryden。

＇2＇　Historical　Sketches；　Hampton　Court　Conference。


Four　things　helped　to　determine　the　simplicity　and　pure　Englishunornamented　Englishof　the　King　James　version；　made　it；　that　is；　the　English　classic。　Two　of　these　things　have　been　dealt　with　already　in　other　connections。　First；　that　it　was　a　Book　for　the　people；　for　the　people　of　the　middle　level　of　language；　a　work　by　scholars；　but　not　chiefly　for　scholars；　intended　rather　for　the　common　use　of　common　people。　Secondly；　that　the　translators　were　constantly　beholden　to　the　work　of　the　past　in　this　same　line。　Where　Wiclif's　words　were　still　in　use　they　used　them。　That　tended　to　fix　the　language　by　the　use　which　had　already　become　natural。

The　other　two　determining　influences　must　be　spoken　of　now。　The　third　lies　in　the　fact　that　the　English　language　was　still　plastic。　It　had　not　fallen　into　such　hard　forms　that　its　words　were　narrow　or　restricted。　The　truth　is　that　from　the　point　of　view　of　pure　literature　the　Bible　is　better　in　English　than　it　is　in　Greek　or　Hebrew。　That　is；　the　English　of　the　King　James　version　as　English　is　better　than　the　Greek　of　the　New　Testament　as　Greek。　As　for　the　Hebrew　there　was　little　development　for　many　generations；　Renan　thinks　there　was　none　at　all。　The　difference　comes　from　the　point　of　time　in　the　growth　of　the　tongue　when　the　Book　was　written。　The　Greek　was　written　when　the　language　was　old；　when　it　had　differentiated　its　terms；　when　it　had　become　corrupted　by　outside　influence。　The　English　version　was　written　when　the　language　was　new　and　fresh；　when　a　word　could　be　taken　and　set　in　its　meaning　without　being　warped　from　some　earlier　usage。　The　study　of　the　Greek　Testament　is　always　being　complicated　by　the　effort　to　bring　into　its　words　the　classical　meaning；　when　so　far　as　the　writers　of　the　New　Testament　were　concerned　they　had　no　interest　in　the　classical　meaning；　but　only　in　the　current　meaning　of　those　words。　In　the　English　language　there　was　as　yet　no　classical　meaning；　it　was　exactly　that　meaning　that　these　writers　were　giving　the　words　when　they　brought　them　into　their　version。＇1＇　There　is　large　advantage　in　the　fact　that　the　age　was　not　a　scientific　one；　that　the　language　had　not　become　complicated。　So　it　becomes　interesting　to　observe　with　Professor　March　that　ninety…three　per　cent。　of　these　words；　counting　also　repetitions；　are　native　English　words。　The　language　was　new；　was　still　plastic。　It　had　not　been　stiffened　by　use。　It　received　its　set　more　definitely　from　the　English　Bible　than　from　any　other　one　workmore　than　from　Shakespeare；　whose　influence　was　second。


＇1＇　Trevelyan；　England　under　the　Stuarts；　p。　54；


The　fourth　fact　which　helped　to　determine　its　English　style　is　the　loyalty　of　the　translators　to　the　original；　notably　the　Hebrew。　It　is　a　common　remark　of　the　students　of　the　original　tongues　that　the　Hebrew　and　Greek　languages　are　peculiarly　translatable。　That　is　notable　in　the　Hebrew。　It　is　not　a　language　of　abstract　terms。　The　tendency　of　language　is　always　to　become　vague；　since　we　are　lazy　in　the　use　of　it。　We　use　one　word　in　various　ways；　and　a　pet　one　for　many　ideas。　Language　is　always　more　concrete　in　its　earlier　forms。　In　this　period　of　the　concrete　English　language；　then；　the　translation　was　made　from　the　Hebrew；　which　was　also　a　concrete；　figurative　language　itself。　The　structure　of　the　Hebrew　sentence　is　very　simple。　There　are　no　extended　paragraphs　in　it。　It　is　somewhat　different　in　the　New　Testament；　where　these　paragraphs　are　found；　certainly　in　the　Pauline　Greek；　but　even　there　the　extended　sentences　are　broken　into　clauses　which　can　be　taken　as　wholes。　The　English　version　shows　constantly　the　marks　of　the　Hebrew　influence　in　the　simplicity　of　its　phrasing。　Renan　says　that　the　Hebrew　〃knows　how　to　make　propositions；　but　not　how　to　link　them　into　paragraphs。〃　So　the　earlier　Bible　stories　are　like　a　child's　way　of　talking。　They　let　one　sentence　follow　another；　and　their　unity　is　found　in　the　overflowing　use　of　the　word　〃and〃one　fact　hung　to　another　to　make　a　story；　but　not　to　make　an　argument。　In　the　first　ten　chapters　of　I　Samuel；　for　example；　there　are　two　hundred　and　thirty…eight　verses；　one　hundred　and　sixty　of　them　begin　with　AND。　There　are　only　twenty…six　of　the　whole　which　have　no　connective　word　that　thrusts　them　back　upon　the　preceding　verse。

In　the　Hebrew　language；　also；　most　of　the　emotions　are　connected　either　in　the　word　used　or　in　the　words　accompanying　it　with　the　physical　condition　that　expresses　it。　Over　and　over　we　are　told　that　〃he　opened　his　mouth　and　said；〃　or；　〃he　was　angry　and　his　countenance　fell。〃　Anger　is　expressed　in　words　which　tell　of　hard　breathing；　of　heat；　of　boiling　tumult；　of　trembling。　We　would　not　trouble　to　say　that。　The　opening　of　the　mouth　to　speak　or　the　falling　of　the　countenance　in　anger；　we　would　take　for　granted。　The　Hebrew　does　not。　Even　in　the　description　of　God　you　remember　the　terms　are　those　of　common　life；　He　is　a　shepherd　when　shepherds　are　writing；　He　is　a　husbandman　threshing　out　the　nations；　treading　the　wine…　press　until　He　is　reddened　with　the　wineand　so　on。　That　is　the　natural　method　of　the　Hebrew　languageconcrete；　vivid；　never　abstract；　simple　in　its　phrasing。　The　King　James　translators　are　exceedingly　loyal　to　that　original。

Professor　Cook；　of　Yale；　suggests　that　four　traits　make　the　Bible　easy　to　translate　into　any　language：　universality　of　interest；　so　that　there　are　apt　to　be　words　in　any　language　to　express　what　it　means；　since　it　expresses　nothing　but　what　men　all　talk　about；　then；　the　concreteness　and　picturesqueness　of　its　language；　avoiding　abstract　phrases　which　might　be　difficult　to　reproduce　in　another　tongue；　then；　the　simplicity　of　its　structure；　so　that　it　can　be　taken　in　small　bits；　and　long　complicated　sentences　are　not　needed；　and；　finally；　its　rhythm；　so　that　part　easily　follows　part　and　the　words　catch　a　kind　of　swing　which　is　not　difficult　to　imitate。　That　is　a　very　true　analysis。　The　Bible　is　the　most　easily　translated　book　there　is；　and　has　become　the　classic　for　more　languages　than　any　other　one　book。　It　is　brought　about　in　part　in　our　English　version　by　the　faithfulness　of　the　translators　to　the　original。


Passing　from　these　general　considerations；　let　us　look　directly　at　the　English　Bible　itself　and　its　literary　qualities。　The　first　thing　that　attracts　attention　is　its　use　of　words；　and　since　words　lie　at　the　root　of　all　literature　it　is　worth　while　to　stop　for　them　for　a　moment。　Two　things　are　to　be　said　about　the　words：　first；　that　they　are　few；　and；　secondly；　that　they　are　short。　The　vocabulary　of　the　English　Bible　is　not　an　extensive　one。　Shakespeare　uses　from　fifteen　to　twenty　thousand　words。　In　Milton's　verse　he　uses　about　thirteen　thousand。　In　the　Old　Testament；　in　the　Hebrew　and　Chaldaic　tongue；　there　are　fifty…six　hundred　and　forty…　two　words。　In　the　New　Testament；　in　the　Greek；　there　are　forty…eight　hundred。　But　in　the　whole　of　the　King　James　version　there　are　only　about　six　thousand　different　words。　The　vocabulary　is　plainly　a　narrow　one　for　a　book　of　its　size。　While；　as　was　said　before；　the　translators　avoided　using　the　same　word　always　for　translation　of　the　same　original；　they　yet　managed　to　recur　to　the　same　words　often　enough　so　that　this　comparatively　small　list　of　six　thousand　words；　about　one…third　Shakespeare's　vocabulary；　sufficed　for　the　stating　of　the　truth。

Then；　Secondly；　the　words　are　short；　and　in　general　short　words　are　the　strong　ones。　The　average　word　in　the　whole　Bible；　including　the　long　proper　names；　is　barely　over　four　letters；　and　if　all　the　proper　names　are　excluded　the　average　word　is　just　a　little　under　four　letters。　Of　course；　another　way　of　saying　that　is　that　the　words　are　generally　Anglo…Saxon；　and；　while　in　the　original　spelling　they　were　much　longer；　yet　in　their　sound　they　were　as　brief　as　they　are　in　our　present　spelling。　There　is　no　merit　in　Anglo…　Saxon　words　except　in　the　fact　that　they　are　concrete；　definite；　non…abstract　words。　They　are　words　that　mean　the　same　to　everybody；　they　are　part　of　common　experience。　We　shall　see　the　power　of　such　words　by　comparing　a　simple　statement　in　Saxon　words　from　the　English　Bible　with　a　comment　of　a　learned　theologian　of　our　own　time　on　them。　The　phrase　is　a　simple　one　in　the　Communion　service：　〃This　is　my　body　which　is　given　for　you。〃　That　is　all　Saxon。　When　our　theologian　comes　to　comment　on　it　he　says　we　are　to　understand　that　〃the　validity　of　the　service　does　not　lie　in　the　quality　of　external　signs　and　sacramental　representation；　but　in　its　essential　property　and　substantial　reality。〃　Now　there　are　nine　words　abstract　in　their　meaning；　Latin　in　their　form。　It　is　in　that　kind　of　words　that　the　Bible　could　have　been　translated；　and　in　our　own　day　might　even　be　translated。　Addison　speaks　of　that：　〃If　any　one　would　judge　of　the　beauties　of　poetry　that　are　to　be　met　with　in　the　divine　writings；　and　examine　how　kindly　the　Hebrew　manners　of　speech　mix　and　incorporate　with　the　English　language；　after　having　perused　the　Book　of　Psalms；　let　him　read　a　literal　translation　of　Horace　or　Pindar。　He　will　find　in　these　two　last　such　an　absurdity　and　confusion　of　style　with　such　a　comparative　poverty　of　imagination；　as　will　make　him　very　sensible　of　what　I　have　been　here　advancing。〃＇1＇


＇1＇　The　Spectator；　No。　405。


The　fact　that　the　words　are　short　can　be　quickly　illustrated　by　taking　some　familiar　sections。　In　the　Ten　Commandments　there　are　three　hundred　and　nineteen　words　in　all；　two　hundred　and　fifty…nine　of　them　are　words　of　one　syllable；　and　only　sixty　are　of　two　syllables　and　over。　There　are　fifty　words　of　two　syllables；　six　of　three　syllables；　of　which　four　are　such　composite　words　that　they　really　amount　to　two　words　of　one　and　two　syllables　each；　with　four　words　of　four　syllables；　and　none　over　that。　Make　a　comparison　just　here。　There　is　a　paragraph　in　Professor　March's　lectures　on　the　English　language　where　he　is　urging　that　its　strongest　words　are　purely　English；　not　derived　from　Greek　or　Latin。　He　uses　the　King　James　version　as　illustration。　If；　now；　we　take　three　hundred　and　nineteen　words　at　the　beginning　of　that　paragraph　to　compare　with　the　three　hundred　and　nineteen　in　the　Ten　Commandments；　the　result　will　be　interesting。　Where　the　Ten　Commandments　have　two　hun