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！


Scriptures。　All　that　happened　was　that　cognizance　was　taken　of　a　dispute　which　would　have　guided　the　King　James　translators　if　it　had　existed　in　their　time；　and　we　should　not　have　become　familiar　with　the　Anglo…Saxon　word　Hell　as　the　translation　of　those　disputed　Hebrew　and　Greek　words。

We　need　not　seek　more　instances。　These　are　enough　to　illustrate　the　saying　that　here　is　an　honest　version；　the　fruit　of　the　best　scholarship　of　the　times；　without　prejudice。

II。　A　second　trait　of　the　work　as　a　version　is　its　remarkable　accuracy。　It　is　surprising　that　with　all　the　new　light　coming　from　early　documents；　with　all　the　new　discoveries　that　have　been　made。　the　latest　revision　needed　to　make　so　few　changes；　and　those　for　the　most　part　minor　ones。　There　are；　to　be　sure；　some　important　changes；　as　we　shall　see　later；　the　wonder　is　that　there　are　not　many　more。　The　King　James　version　had；　to　be　sure；　the　benefit　of　all　the　earlier　controversy。　The　whole　ground　had　been　really　fought　over　in　the　centuries　before；　and　most　of　the　questions　had　been　discussed。　They　frankly　made　use　of　all　the　earlier　controversy。　They　say　in　their　preface：　〃Truly；　good　Christian　reader；　we　never　thought　from　the　beginning　that　we　should　need　to　make　a　new　translation；　nor　yet　to　make　a　bad　one　a　good　one；　but　to　make　a　good　one　better。　That　hath　been　our　endeavor；　that　our　work。〃　Also；　they　had　the　advantage　of　deliberation。　This　was　the　first　version　that　had　been　made　which　had　such　sanction　that　they　could　take　their　time；　and　in　which　they　had　no　reason　to　fear　that　the　results　would　endanger　them。　They　say　in　their　preface　that　they　had　not　run　over　their　work　with　that　〃posting　haste〃　that　had　marked　the　Septuagint；　if　the　saying　was　true　that　they　did　it　all　in　seventy…two　days；　nor　were　they　〃barred　and　hindered　from　going　over　it　again；〃　as　Jerome　himself　said　he　had　been；　since　as　soon　as　he　wrote　any　part　〃it　was　snatched　away　from　him　and　published〃；　nor　were　they　〃working　in　a　new　field；〃　as　Origen　was　when　he　wrote　his　first　commentary　on　the　Bible。　Both　these　thingstheir　taking　advantage　of　earlier　controversies　which　had　cleared　many　differences；　and　their　deliberationwere　supplemented　by　a　third　which　gave　great　accuracy　to　the　version。　That　was　their　adoption　of　the　principle　of　all　early　translators；　perhaps　worded　best　by　Purvey；　who　completed　the　Wiclif　version：　〃The　best　translation　is　to　translate　after　the　sentence；　and　not　only　after　the　words；　so　that　the　sentence　be　as　open　in　English　as　in　Latin。〃　That　makes　for　accuracy。　It　is　quite　impossible　to　put　any　language　over；　word　for　word；　into　another　without　great　inaccuracy。　But　when　the　translators　sought　to　take　the　sentence　of　the　Hebrew　or　the　Greek　and　put　it　into　an　exactly　equivalent　English　sentence；　they　had　larger　play　for　their　language　and　they　had　a　fairer　field　for　accuracy。　These　were　the　three　great　facts　which　made　the　remarkable　accuracy　possible；　and　it　may　be　interesting　to　note　three　corresponding　results　which　show　the　effort　they　made　to　be　absolutely　accurate　and　fair　in　their　translation。

The　first　of　those　results　is　visible　in　the　italicized　words　which　they　used。　In　the　King　James　version　words　in　italics　are　a　frank　acknowledgment　that　the　Greek　or　the　Hebrew　cannot　be　put　into　English　literally。　These　are　English　words　which　are　put　in　because　it　seems　impossible　to　express　the　meaning　originally　intended　without　certain　additions　which　the　reader　must　take　into　account　in　his　understanding　of　the　version。　We　need　not　think　far　to　see　how　necessary　that　was。　The　arrangement　of　words　in　Greek；　for　example；　is　different　from　that　in　English。　The　Greek　of　the　first　verse　of　the　Gospel　of　John　reads　that　〃God　was　the　Word；〃　but　the　English　makes　its　sentences　in　a　reversed　form；　and　it　really　means；　〃the　Word　was　God。〃　So　the　Greek　uses　particles　where　the　English　does　not。　Often　it　would　say　〃the　God〃　where　we　would　say　simply　〃God。〃　Those　particles　are　ordinarily　wisely　omitted。　So　the　Greek　does　not　use　verbs　at　some　points　where　it　is　quite　essential　that　the　English　shall　use　them。　But　it　is　only　fair　that　in　reading　a　version　of　the　Scripture　we　should　know　what　words　have　been　put　in　by　translators　in　their　effort　to　make　the　version　clear　to　us；　and　the　italicized　words　of　the　King　James　version　are　a　frank　effort　to　be　accurate　and　yet　fair。

The　second　result　which　shows　their　effort　at　accuracy　is　in　the　marginal　readings。　Most　of　these　are　optional　readings；　and　are　preceded　by　the　word　〃or；〃　which　indicates　that　one　may　read　what　is　in　the　text；　or　substitute　for　it　what　is　in　the　margin　with　equal　fairness　to　the　original。　But　sometimes；　instead　of　that　familiar　〃or；〃　occur　letters　which　indicate　that　the　Hebrew　or　the　Greek　literally　means　something　else　than　what　is　given　in　the　English　text；　and　what　it　literally　means　is　given　in　the　margin。　The　translators　thereby　say　to　the　reader　that　if　he　can　take　that　literal　meaning　and　put　it　into　the　text　so　that　it　is　intelligible　to　him；　here　is　his　chance。　As　for　them；　they　think　that　the　whole　context　or　meaning　of　the　sentence　rather　involves　the　use　of　the　phrase　which　they　put　into　the　text。　But　the　marginal　references　are　of　great　interest　to　most　of　us　as　showing　how　these　men　were　frank　to　say　that　there　were　some　things　they　could　not　settle。　They　were　rather　blamed　for　it；　chiefly　by　those　who　had　committed　themselves　to　the　Douai　version；　which　has　no　marginal　readings；　on　the　ground　that　the　translation　ought　to　be　as　authoritative　as　the　original。　The　King　James　translators　repudiate　that　theory　and　frankly　say　that　the　reason　they　put　these　words　in　the　margin　was　because　they　were　not　sure　what　was　the　best　reading。　In　the　margin　of　the　epistle　to　the　Romans　there　are　eighty…　four　such　marginal　readings；　and　the　proportion　will　hold　throughout　most　of　the　version。　They　were　only　trying　to　be　accurate　and　to　give　every　one　a　chance　to　make　up　his　own　mind　where　there　was　fair　reason　to　question　their　results。

The　third　thing　which　shows　their　effort　at　accuracy　is　their　explicit　avoidance　of　uniformity　in　translating　the　same　word。　They　tried　to　put　the　meaning　into　English　terms。　So；　as　they　say；　the　one　word　might　become　either　〃journeying〃　or　〃traveling〃；　one　word　might　be　〃thinking〃　or　〃supposing；〃　〃joy〃　or　〃gladness；〃　〃eternal〃　or　〃everlasting。〃　One　of　the　reasons　they　give　for　this　is　quaint　enough　to　quote。　They　said　they　did　not　think　it　right　to　honor　some　words　by　giving　them　a　place　forever　in　the　Bible；　while　they　virtually　said　to　other　equally　good　words：　Get　ye　hence　and　be　banished　forever。　They　quote　a　〃certaine　great　philosopher〃　who　said　that　those　logs　were　happy　which　became　images　and　were　worshiped；　while；　other　logs　as　good　as　they　were　laid　behind　the　fire　to　be　burned。　So　they　sought　to　use　as　many　English　words；　familiar　in　speech　and　commonly　understood；　as　they　might；　lest　they　should　impoverish　the　language；　and　so　lose　out　of　use　good　words。　There　is　no　doubt　that　in　this　effort　both　to　save　the　language；　and　to　represent　accurately　the　meaning　of　the　original；　they　sometimes　overdid　that　avoidance　of　uniformity。　There　were　times　when　it　would　have　been　well　if　the　words　had　been　more　consistently　translated。　For　example；　in　the　epistle　of　James　ii：　2；　3；　you　have　goodly　〃apparel；〃　vile　〃raiment；〃　and　gay　〃clothing；〃　all　translating　one　Greek　word。　Our　revised　versions　have　sought　to　correct　such　inconsistencies。　But　it　was　all　done　in　the　interest　of　an　accuracy　that　should　yet　not　be　a　slavish　uniformity。

This　will　be　enough　to　illustrate　what　was　meant　in　speaking　of　the　effort　of　the　translators　to　achieve　accuracy　in　their　version。

III。　The　third　marked　trait　of　the　work　as　a　version　of　the　Scripture　is　its　striking　blending　of　dignity　and　popularity　in　its　language。　At　any　period　of　a　living　language；　there　are　three　levels　of　speech。　There　is　an　upper　level　used　by　the　clearest　thinkers　and　most　careful　writers；　always　correct　according　to　the　laws　of　the　language；　generally　somewhat　remote　from　common　lifethe　habitual　speech　of　the　more　intellectual。　There　is　also　the　lower　level　used　by　the　least　intellectual；　frequently　incorrec