a study of bible-第8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！



The　version　did　not　at　once　supersede　the　Genevan　and　the　Bishops'；　but　it　was　so　incomparably　better　than　either　that　gradually　they　disappeared；　and　by　sheer　excellence　it　took　the　field；　and　it　holds　the　field　to…day　in　spite　of　the　numerous　supposedly　improved　versions　that　have　appeared　under　private　auspices。　It　holds　the　field；　also；　in　spite　of　the　excellent　revised　version　of　1881　made　by　authority；　and　the　more　excellent　version　issued　in　1901　by　the　American　Revision　Committee；　to…day　undoubtedly　the　best　version　in　existence；　considered　simply　as　a　reproduction　of　the　sense　of　the　original。　And　for　reasons　that　may　later　appear；　the　King　James　version　bids　fair　to　hold　the　field　for　many　years　to　come。

When　we　turn　from　the　history　of　its　making　to　the　work　itself；　there　is　much　to　say。　We　may　well　narrow　our　thought　for　the　remainder　of　the　study　to　its　traits　as　a　version　of　the　Bible。

I。　Name　this　first；　that　it　is　an　honest　version。　That　is；　it　has　no　argumentative　purpose。　It　is　not；　as　the　scholars　say；　apologetic。　It　is　simply　an　out…and…out　version　of　the　Scripture；　as　honestly　as　they　could　reproduce　it。　There　were　Puritans　on　the　committee；　there　were　extreme　High　Churchmen；　there　were　men　of　all　grades　between。　But　there　is　nowhere　any　evidence　that　any　one　was　set　on　making　the　Bible　prove　his　point。　There　were　strong　anti…papal　believers　among　them；　but　they　made　free　use　of　the　Douai　version；　and；　of　course；　of　the　Vulgate。　They　knew　the　feeling　that　Hugh　Broughton　had　toward　them；　but　they　made　generous　use　of　all　that　was　good　in　his　work。　They　were　working　under　a　royal　warrant；　and　their　dedication　to　King　James；　with　its　absurd　and　fulsome　flattery；　shows　what　they　were　capable　of　when　they　thought　of　the　King。　But　there　is　no　twist　of　a　text　to　make　it　serve　the　purposes　of　royalty。　They　might　be　servile　when　they　thought　of　King　James；　but　there　was　not　a　touch　of　servility　in　them　when　they　thought　of　the　Scripture　itself。　They　were　under　instruction　not　to　abandon　the　use　of　ecclesiastical　terms。　For　instance；　they　were　not　to　put　〃congregation〃　in　place　of　〃church；〃　as　some　Puritans　wanted　to　do。　Some　thought　that　was　meant　to　insure　a　High　Church　version；　but　the　translators　did　not　understand　it　so　for　a　moment。　They　understood　it　only　to　safeguard　them　against　making　a　partisan　version　on　either　side；　and　to　help　them　to　make　a　version　which　the　people　could　read　understandingly　at　once。　It　was　not　to　be　a　Puritan　Book　nor　a　High　Church　Book。　It　was　to　be　an　honest　version　of　the　Bible；　no　matter　whose　side　it　sustained。

Now；　if　any　one　thinks　that　is　easy；　or　only　a　matter　of　course；　he　plainly　shows　that　he　has　never　been　a　theologian　or　a　scholar　in　a　contested　field。　Ask　any　lawyer　whether　it　is　easy　to　handle　his　authorities　with　entire　impartiality；　whether　it　is　a　matter　of　course　that　he　will　let　them　say　just　what　they　meant　to　say　when　his　case　is　involved。　Of　course；　he　will　seek　to　do　it　as　an　honest　lawyer；　but　equally；　of　course；　he　will　have　to　keep　close　watch　on　himself　or　he　will　fail　in　doing　it。　Ask　any　historian　whether　it　is　easy　to　handle　the　original　documents　in　a　field　in　which　he　has　firm　and　announced　opinions；　and　to　let　those　documents　speak　exactly　what　they　mean　to　say；　whether　they　support　him　or　not。　The　greater　historians　will　always　do　it；　but　they　will　sometimes　do　it　with　a　bit　of　a　wrench。

Even　a　scholar　is　human；　and　these　men　sitting　in　their　six　companies　would　all　have　to　meet　this　Book　afterward；　would　have　their　opinions　tried　by　it。　There　must　have　been　times　when　some　of　them　would　be　inclined　to　salt　the　mine　a　little；　to　see　that　it　would　yield　what　they　would　want　it　to　yield　later。　So　far　as　these　men　were　able　to　do　it；　they　made　it　say　in　English　just　what　it　said　in　Hebrew　and　Greek。　They　showed　no　inclination　to　use　it　as　a　weapon　in　their　personal　warfare。

One　line　of　that　honest　effort　is　worth　observing　more　closely。　When　points　were　open　to　fair　discussion；　and　scholarship　had　not　settled　them；　they　were　careful　not　to　let　their　version　take　sides　when　it　could　be　avoided。　On　some　mooted　words　they　did　not　try　translation；　but　transliteration　instead。　That　is；　they　brought　the　Greek　or　Hebrew　word　over　into　English；　letter　by　letter。　Suppose　scholars　differed　as　to　the　exact　meaning　in　English　of　a　word　in　the　Greek。　Some　said　it　has　this　meaning；　and　some　that　it　has　that。　Now；　if　the　version　committed　itself　to　one　of　those　meanings；　it　became　an　argument　at　once　against　the　other　and　helped　to　settle　a　question　on　which　scholarship　was　not　yet　agreed。　They　could　avoid　making　a　partisan　Book　by　the　simple　device　of　bringing　the　word　which　was　disputed　over　into　the　new　translation。　That　left　the　discussion　just　where　it　was　before；　but　it　saved　the　work　from　being　partisan。　The　method　of　transliteration　did　not　always　work　to　advantage；　as　we　shall　see；　but　it　was　intended　throughout　to　save　the　Book　from　taking　sides　on　any　question　where　honest　men　might　differ　as　to　the　meaning　of　words。

They　did　that　with　all　proper　names；　and　that　was　notable　in　the　Old　Testament；　because　most　Old　Testament　proper　names　can　be　translated。　They　all　mean　something　in　themselves。　Adam　is　the　Hebrew　word　for　man；　Abraham　means　Father　of　a　Great　Multitude；　David　is　the　Hebrew　word　for　Beloved；　Malachi　means　My　Messenger。　Yet　as　proper　names　they　do　not　mean　any　of　those　things。　It　is　impossible　to　translate　a　proper　name　into　another　tongue　without　absurdity。　It　must　be　transliterated。　Yet　there　is　constant　fascination　for　translators　in　the　work　of　translating　these　proper　names；　trying　to　make　them　seem　more　vivid。　It　is　quite　likely；　though　it　is　disputed；　that　proper　names　do　all　go　back　to　simple　meanings。　But　by　the　time　they　become　proper　names　they　no　longer　have　those　meanings。　The　only　proper　treatment　of　them　is　by　transliteration。

The　King　James　translators　follow　that　same　practice　of　transliteration　rather　than　translation　with　another　word　which　is　full　of　controversial。　possibility。　I　mean　the　word　〃baptism。〃　There　was　dispute　then　as　now　about　the　method　of　that　ordinance　in　early　Christian　history。　There　were　many　who　held　that　the　classical　meaning　which　involved　immersion　had　been　taken　over　bodily　into　the　Christian　faith；　and　that　all　baptism　was　by　immersion。　There　were　others　who　held　that　while　that　might　be　the　classical　meaning　of　the　word；　yet　in　early　Christian　custom　baptism　was　not　by　immersion；　but　might　be　by　sprinkling　or　pouring；　and　who　insisted　that　no　pressure　on　the　mode　was　wise　or　necessary。　That　dispute　continues　to　this　day。　Early　versions　of　the　Bible　already　figured　in　the　discussion；　and　for　a　while　there　was　question　whether　this　King　James　version　should　take　sides　in　that　controversy；　about　which　men　equally　loyal　to　truth　and　early　Christian　history　could　honestly　differ。　The　translators　avoided　taking　sides　by　bringing　the　Greek　word　which　was　under　discussion　over　into　English；　letter　by　letter。　Our　word　〃baptism〃　is　not　an　English　word　nor　a　Saxon　word；　it　is　a　purely　Greek　word。　The　controversy　has　been　brought　over　into　the　English　language；　but　the　King　James　version　avoided　becoming　a　controversial　book。　A　number　of　years　ago　the　convictions　of　some　were　so　strong　that　another　version　of　the　Bible　was　made；　in　which　the　word　baptism　was　carefully　replaced　by　what　was　believed　to　be　the　English　translation；　〃immersion；〃　but　the　version　never　had　wide　influence。

In　this　connection　it　is　well　to　notice　the　effort　of　the　King　James　translators　at　a　fair　statement　of　the　divine　name。　It　will　be　remembered　that　it　appears　in　the　Old　Testament　ordinarily　as　〃LORD；〃　printed　in　small　capitals。　A　very　interesting　bit　of　verbal　history　lies　back　of　that　word。　The　word　which　represents　the　divine　name　in　Hebrew　consists　of　four　consonants；　J　or　Y；　H；　V；　and　H。　There　are　no　vowels；　indeed；　there　were　no　vowels　in　the　early　Hebrew　at　all。　Those　that　we　now　have　were　added　not　far　from　the　time　of　Christ。　No　one　knows　the　original　pronunciation　of　that　sacred　name　consisting　of　four　letters。　At　a　very　early　day　it　had　become　too　sacred　to　pronounce；　so　that　when　men　came　to　it　in　reading　or　in　speech；　they　simply　used　another　word　which　is；　translated　into　English；　Lord；　a　word　of　high　dignity。　When　the　time　came　that　vowels　were　to　be　added　to　the　consonants；　the　vowels　of　this　other　word　Lord　were　placed　under　the　consonants　of　the　sacred　name；　so　that　in　the　word　Jehovah；　where　the　J　H　V　H　occur；　there　are　the　consonants　of　one　word　whose　vowels　are　unknown　and　the　vowels　of　another　word　whose　consonants　are　not　used。

Illustrate　it　by　imagining　that　in　American　literature　the　name　Lincoln　gathered　to　itself　such　sacredness　that　it　was　never　pronounced　and　only　its　consonants　were　ever　printed。　Suppose　that　whenever　readers　came　to　it　they　simply　said　Washington；　thinking　Lincoln　all　the　while。　Then　think　of　the　displacement　of　the　vowels　of　Lincoln　by　the　vowels　of　Washington。　You　have　a　word　that　looks　like　Lancilon　or　Lanicoln；　but　a　reader　would　never　pronounce　so　strange　a　word。　He　would　always　say　Washington；　yet　he　would　always　think　the　other　meaning。　And　while　he　would　retain　the　meaning　in　some　degree；　he　would　soon　forget　the　original　word；　retaining　only　his　awe　of　it。　Which　is　just　what　happened　with　the　divine　name。　The　Hebrews　knew　it　was　not　Lord；　yet　they　always　said　Lord　when　they　came　to　the　four　letters　that　stood　for　the　sacred　word。　The　word　Jehovah；　made　up　of　the　consonants　of　an　unknown　word　and　the　vowels　of　a　familiar　word；　is　in　itself　meaningless。　Scholarship　is　not　yet　sure　what　was　the　original　meaning　of　the　sacred　name　with　its　four　consonants。

These　translators　had　to　face　that　problem。　It　was　a　peculiar　problem　at　that　time。　How　should　they　put　into　English　the　august　name　of　God　when　they　did　not　know　what　the　true　vowels　were？　There　was　dispute　among　scholars。　They　did　not　take　sides　as　our　later　American　Revision　has　done；　some　of　us　think　quite　unwisely。　They　chose　to　retain　the　Hebrew　usage；　and　print　the　divine　name　in　unmistakable　type　so　that　its　personal　meaning　could　not　be　mistaken。

On　the　other　hand；　disputes　since　their　day　have　shown　how　they　translated　when　transliteration　would　have　been　wiser。　Illustrate　with　one　instance。　There　is　a　Hebrew　word；　Sheol；　with　a　Greek　word；　Hades；　which　corresponds　to　it。　Usage　had　adopted　the　Anglo…Saxon　word　Hell　as　the　equivalent　of　both　of　these　words；　so　they　translated　Sheol　and　Hades　with　the　English　word　Hell。　The　only　question　that　had　been　raised　was　by　that　Hugh　Broughton　of　whom　we　were　speaking　a　moment　ago；　and　it　had　not　seemed　a　serious　one。　Certainly　the　three　terms　have　much　in　common；　and　there　are　places　where　both　the　original　words　seemed　to　be　virtually　equivalent　to　the　Anglo…Saxon　Hell；　but　they　are　not　the　same。　The　Revised　Version　of　our　own　time　returned　to　the　original；　and　instead　of　translating　those　words　whose　meaning　can　be　debated；　it　transliterated　them　and　brought　the　Hebrew　word　Sheol　and　the　Greek　word　Hades　over　into　English。　That；　of　course；　gave　a　chance　for　paragraphers　to　say　that　the　Revised　Version　had　read　Hell　out　of　the　Scriptures。　All　that　happened　was　tha