a study of bible-第11节

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！


t　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　incorrect　according　to　the　laws　of　the　language；　rough；　containing　what　we　now　call　〃slang；〃　the　talk　of　a　knot　of　men　on　the　street　corner　waiting　for　a　new　bulletin　of　a　ball　game；　cheap　in　words；　impoverished　in　synonyms；　using　one　word　to　express　any　number　of　ideas；　as　slang　always　does。　Those　two　levels　are　really　farther　apart　than　we　are　apt　to　realize。　A　book　or　an　article　on　the　upper　level　will　be　uninteresting　and　unintelligible　to　the　people　on　the　lower　level。　And　a　book　in　the　language　of　the　lower　level　is　offensive　and　disgusting　to　those　of　the　upper　level。　That　is　not　because　the　ideas　are　so　remote；　but　because　the　characteristic　expressions　are　almost　unfamiliar　to　the　people　of　the　different　levels。　The　more　thoughtful　people　read　the　abler　journals　of　the　day；　they　read　the　editorials　or　the　more　extended　articles；　they　read　also　the　great　literature。　If　they　take　up　the　sporting　page　of　a　newspaper　to　read　the　account　of　a　ball　game　written　in　the　style　of　the　lower　level　of　thought；　where　words　are　misused　in　disregard　of　the　laws　of　the　language；　and　where　one　word　is　made　to　do　duty　for　a　great　many　ideas；　they　do　it　solely　for　amusement。　They　could　never　think　of　finding　their　mental　stimulus　in　that　sort　of　thing。　On　the　other　hand；　there　are　people　who　find　in　that　kind　of　reading　their　real　interest。　If　they　should　take　up　a　thoughtful　editorial　or　a　book　of　essays；　they　would　not　know　what　the　words　mean　in　the　connection　in　which　they　are　used。　They　speak　a　good　deal　about　the　vividness　of　this　lower…level　language；　about　its　popularity；　they　speak　with　a　sneer　about　the　stiffness　and　dignity　of　that　upper　level。

These　are；　however；　only　the　two　extremes；　for　there　is　always　a　middle　level　where　move　words　common　to　both；　where　are　avoided　the　words　peculiar　to　each。　It　is　the　language　that　most　people　speak。　It　is　the　language　of　the　street；　and　also　of　the　study；　of　the　parlor；　and　of　the　shop。　But　it　has　little　that　is　peculiar　to　either　of　those　other　levels；　or　to　any　one　place　where　a　man　may　live　his　life　and　do　his　talking。　If　we　illustrate　from　other　literature；　we　can　say　that　Macaulay's　essays　move　on　the　upper　level；　and　that　much　of　the　so…called　popular　literature　of　our　day　moves　on　the　lower　level；　while　Dickens　moves　on　the　middle　level；　which　means　that　men　whose　habitual　language　is　that　of　the　upper　and　the　lower　levels　can　both　enter　into　the　spirit　of　his　writing。

Now；　originally　the　Bible　moved　on　that　middle　level。　It　was　a　colloquial　book。　The　languages　in　which　it　first　appeared　were　not　in　the　classic　forms。　They　are　the　languages　of　the　streets　where　they　were　written。　The　Hebrew　is　almost　our　only　example　of　the　tongue　at　its　period；　but　it　is　not　a　literary　language　in　any　case。　The　Greek　of　the　New　Testament　is　not　the　Eolic；　the　language　of　the　lyrics　of　Sappho；　nor　the　Doric；　the　language　of　war…songs　or　the　chorus　in　the　drama；　nor　the　Ionic；　the　dialect　of　epic　poetry；　but　the　Attic　Greek；　and　a　corrupted　form　of　that；　a　form　corrupted　by　use　in　the　st