a study of bible-第38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！


stics　or　literary　influence　of　the　Bible；　but　sought　first　to　find　the　facts　and　then　to　discover　what　explained　them。　It　might　be　very　difficult　to　determine　what　is　the　actual　place　of　the　Bible　in　the　life　of　to…day。　Perhaps　it　would　be　impossible　to　give　a　broad；　fair　judgment。　It　is　quite　certain　that　the　people　of　James's　day　did　not　realize　the　place　it　was　taking。　It　is　equally　certain　that　many　of　those　whom　it　most　influenced　were　entirely　unconscious　of　the　fact。　It　is　only　when　we　look　back　upon　the　scene　that　we　discover　the　influence　that　was　moving　them。　But；　while　it　is　difficult　to　say　what　the　place　of　the　Bible　actually　is　in　our　own　times；　the　place　it　ought　to　have　is　easier　to　point　out。　That　will　involve　a　study　of　the　conditions　of　our　times；　which　suggest　the　need　for　its　influence。　While　we　must　consider　the　facts；　therefore；　we　will　be　compelled　to　pass　some　judgments　also；　and　therein　this　lecture　must　differ　from　the　others。

The　second　fact　of　difference　is　that　while　the　earlier　lectures　have　dealt　with　the　King　James　version；　this　must　deal　rather　with　the　Bible。　For　the　King　James　version　is　not　the　Bible。　There　are　many　versions；　there　is　but　one　Bible。　Whatever　the　translators　put　into　the　various　tongues；　the　Bible　itself　remains　the　same。　There　are　values　in　the　new　versions；　but　they　are　simply　the　old　value　of　the　Bible　itself。　It　is　a　familiar　maxim　that　the　newest　version　is　the　oldest　Bible。　We　are　not　making　the　Bible　up　to　date　when　we　make　a　new　version；　we　are　only　getting　back　to　its　date。　A　revision　in　our　day　is　the　effort　to　take　out　of　the　original　writings　what　men　of　King　James's　day　may　have　put　in；　and　give　them　so　much　the　better　chance。　There　is　no　revised　Bible；　there　is　only　a　revised　version。　Readers　sometimes　feel　disturbed　at　what　they　consider　the　changes　made　in　the　Bible。　The　fact　is；　the　revision　which　deserves　the　name　is　lessening　the　changes　in　the　Bible；　it　is　giving　us　the　Bible　as　it　actually　was　and　taking　from　us　elements　which　were　not　part　of　it。　One　can　sympathize　with　the　eloquent　Dr。　Storrs；　who　declared；　in　an　address　in　1879；　that　he　was　against　any　new　version　because　of　the　history　of　the　King　James　version；　describing　it　as　a　great　oak　with　roots　running　deep　and　branches　spreading　wide。　He　declared　we　were　not　ready　to　give　it　up　for　any　modern　tulip…tree。　There　is　something　in　that；　though　such　figures　are　not　always　good　argument。　Yet　the　value　to　any　book　of　a　worthy　translation　is　beyond　calculation。　The　outstanding　literary　illustration　of　that　fact　is　familiar。　The　Rubaiyat　of　Omar　Khayyam　lay　in　Persian　literature　and　in　different　English　translations　long　before　Fitzgerald　made　it　a　household　classic　for　literary　people。　The　translator　made　the　book　for　us　in　more　marked　way　than　the　original　writer　did。　In　somewhat　the　same　way　the　King　James　version　gave　to　the　English…speaking　people　the　Bible；　and　no　other　version　has　taken　its　place。

Yet　that　was　not　a　mistaken　move　nearly　forty　years　ago；　when　the　revision　of　the　King　James　version　was　proposed　and　undertaken。　Thirty　years　ago　（1881）　it　was　completed　in　what　we　ordinarily　call　the　Revised　Version；　and　ten　years　ago　（1901）　the　American　form　of　that　Revised　Version　appeared。　Few　things　could　more　definitely　prove　the　accepted　place　of　the　King　James　version　than　the　fact　that　we　seem　to　hear　less　to…day　of　the　Revised　Version　than　we　used　to　hear；　and　that；　while　the　American　Revised　Version　is　incomparably　the　best　in　existence　in　its　reproduction　of　the　original；　even　it　makes　way　slowly。　In　less　than　forty　years　the　King　James　version　crowded　all　its　competitors　off　the　field。　The　presence　of　the　Revised　Version　of　1881　has　not　appreciably　affected　the　sales　or　the　demand　for　the　King　James　version。　In　the　minds　of　most　people　the　English　and　the　American　revisions　stand　as　admirable　commentaries　on　the　King　James　version。　If　one　wishes　to　know　wherein　the　King　James　version　failed　of　representing　the　original；　he　will　learn　it　better　from　those　versions　than　from　any　number　of　commentaries；　but　the　number　of　those　to　whom　one　or　other　of　the　versions　has　supplanted　the　King　James　version　is　not　so　large　as　might　have　been　expected。

There　were　several　reasons　for　a　new　English　version　of　the　Bible。　It　was；　of　course；　no　indignity　to　the　King　James　version。　Those　translators　frankly　said　that　they　had　no　hope　to　make　a　final　version　of　the　Scriptures。　It　would　be　very　strange　if　in　three　hundred　years　language　should　not　have　grown　by　reason　of　the　necessities　of　the　race　that　used　it；　so　that　at　some　points　a　book　might　be　outgrown。　In　another　lecture　it　has　been　intimated　that　the　English　Bible；　by　reason　of　its　constant　use；　has　tended　to　fix　and　confirm　the　English　language。　But　no　one　book；　nor　any　set　of　books；　could　confine　a　living　tongue。　Some　of　the　reasons　for　a　new　version　which　give　value　to　these　two　revisions　may　be　mentioned。

1。　Though　the　King　James　version　was　made　just　after　the　literary　renaissance；　the　classical　learning　of　to…day　is　far　in　advance　of　that　day。　The　King　James　version　is　occasionally　defective　in　its　use　of　tenses　and　verbs　in　the　Greek　and　also　in　the　Hebrew。　We　have　Greek　and　Hebrew　scholars　who　are　able　more　exactly　to　reproduce　in　English　the　meaning　of　the　original。　It　would　be　strange　if　that　were　not　so。

2。　Then　there　have　been　new　and　important　discoveries　of　Biblical　literature　which　date　earlier　in　Christian　history　than　any　our　fathers　knew　three　hundred　years　ago。　In　some　instances　those　earlier　discoveries　have　shown　that　a　phrase　here　or　there　has　been　wrongly　introduced　into　the　text。　There　has　been　no　marked　instance　where　a　phrase　was　added　by　the　revisers；　that　is；　a　phrase　dropped　out　of　the　original　and　now　replaced。　One　illustration　of　the　omission　of　a　phrase　will　be　enough。　In　the　fifth　chapter　of　I　John　the　seventh　verse　reads：　〃For　there　are　three　that　bear　record　in　heaven；　the　Father；　the　Word；　and　the　Holy　Ghost；　and　these　three　are　one。〃　In　the　revised　versions　it　is　omitted；　because　it　seems　quite　certain　that　it　was　not　in　the　original　writing。　It　does　not　at　all　alter　the　meaning　of　Scripture。　While　it　appears　in　most　of　the　best　manuscripts　which　were　available　for　the　King　James　translators；　earlier　manuscripts　found　since　that　time　have　shown　that　it　was　formerly　written　at　the　side　as　a　gloss；　and　was　by　some　transcriber　set　over　in　the　text　itself。　The　process　of　making　the　early　manuscripts　shows　how　easily　that　could　have　occurred。　Let　us　suppose　that　two　or　three　manuscripts　were　being　made　at　once　by　different　copyists。　One　was　set　to　read　the　original；　as　he　read；　the　others　wrote。　It　would　be　easy　to　suppose　that　he　might　read　this　marginal　reference　as　a　suitable　commentary　on　the　text；　and　that　one　or　more　of　the　writers　could　have　written　it　in　the　text。　It　could　easily　happen　also　that　a　copyist；　even　seeing　where　it　stood；　might　suppose　it　had　been　omitted　by　the　earlier　copyist；　and　that　he　had　completed　his　work　by　putting　it　on　the　margin。　So　the　next　copyist　would　put　it　into　his　own　text。　Once　in　a　manuscript；　it　would　readily　become　part　of　the　accepted　form。　Discoveries　that　bring　that　sort　of　thing　to　light　are　of　value　in　giving　us　an　accurate　version　of　the　original　Bible。

3。　Then　there　are　in　our　King　James　version　a　few　archaic　and　obsolete　phrases。　We　have　already　spoken　of　them。　Most　of　them　have　been　avoided　in　the　revised　versions。　The　neuter　possessive　pronoun；　for　example；　has　been　put　in。　Animal　names　have　been　clarified；　obsolete　expressions　have　been　replaced　by　more　familiar　ones；　and　so　on。

4。　Then　there　were　certain　inaccuracies　in　the　King　James　version。　The　fact　is　familiar　that　they　transliterated　certain　words　which　they　could　not　well　translate。　In　the　revised　versions　that　has　been　carried　farther　still。　The　words　which　they　translated　〃hell〃　have　been　put　back　into　their　Hebrew　and　Greek　equivalents；　and　appear　as　Sheol　and　Hades。　Another　instance　is　that　of　an　Old　Testament　word；　Asherah；　which　was　translated　always　〃grove；〃　and　was　used　to　describe　the　object　of　worship　of　the　early　enemies　of　Israel。　The　translation　does　not　quite　represent　the　fact；