a study of bible-第12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！


of　epic　poetry；　but　the　Attic　Greek；　and　a　corrupted　form　of　that；　a　form　corrupted　by　use　in　the　streets　and　in　the　markets。

That　was　the　original　language　of　the　Bible；　a　colloquial　language。　But　that　fact　does　not　determine　the　translation。　Whether　it　shall　be　put　into　the　English　language　on　the　upper　level　or　on　the　lower　level　is　not　so　readily　determined。　Efforts　have　been　made　to　put　it　into　the　language　of　each　level。　We　have　a　so…　called　elegant　translation；　and　we　have　the　Bible　cast　into　the　speech　of　the　common　day。　The　King　James　version　is　on　the　middle　level。　It　is　a　striking　blending　of　the　dignity　of　the　upper　level　and　the　popularity　of　the　lower　level。

There　is　tremendous　significance　in　the　fact　that　these　men　were　making　a　version　which　should　be　for　all　people；　making　it　out　in　the　open　day　with　the　king　and　all　the　people　behind　them。　It　was　the　first　independent　version　which　had　been　made　under　such　favorable　circumstances。　Most　of　the　versions　had　been　made　in　private　by　men　who　were　imperiling　themselves　in　their　work。　They　did　not　expect　the　Book　to　pass　into　common　use；　they　knew　that　the　men　who　received　the　result　of　their　work　would　have　to　be　those　who　were　earnest　enough　to　go　into　secret　places　for　their　reading。　But　here　was　a　changed　condition。　These　men　were　making　a　version　by　royal　authority；　a　version　awaited　with　eager　interest　by　the　people　in　general。　The　result　is　that　it　is　a　people's　Book。　Its　phrases　are　those　of　common　life；　those　that　had　lived　up　to　that　time。　It　is　not　in　the　peculiar　language　of　the　times。　If　you　want　to　know　the　language　of　their　own　times；　read　these　translators'　servile；　unhistorical　dedication　to　the　king；　or　their　far　nobler　preface　to　the　reader。　That　is　the　language　peculiar　to　their　own　day。　But　the　language　of　the　Bible　itself　is　that　form　which　had　lived　its　way　into　common　use。　One　hundred　years　after　Wiclif　it　yet　speaks　his　language　in　large　part；　for　that　part　had　really　lived。　In　the　Bibliotheca　Pastorum　Ruskin　makes　comment　on　Sir　Philip　Sidney　and　his　metrical　version　of　the　Psalms　in　these　words：　〃Sir　Philip　Sidney　will　use　any　cow…boy　or　tinker　words　if　they　only　help　him　to　say　precisely　in　English　what　David　said　in　Hebrew；　impressed　the　while　himself　so　vividly　of　the　majesty　of　the　thought　itself　that　no　tinker's　language　can　lower　it　or　vulgarize　it　in　his　mind。〃　The　King　James　translators　were　most　eager　to　say　what　the　original　said；　and　to　say　it　so　that　the　common　man　could　well　understand　it；　and　yet　so　that　it　should　not　be　vulgarized　or　cheapened　by　adoption　of　cheap　words。

In　his　History　Hallam　passes　some　rather　sharp　strictures　on　the　English　of　the　King　James　version；　remarking　that　it　abounds　in　uncouth　phrases　and　in　words　whose　meaning　is　not　familiar；　and　that　whatever　is　to　be　said　it　is；　at　any　rate；　not　in　the　English　of　the　time　of　King　James。　And　that　latter　saying　is　true；　though　it　must　be　remembered　that　Hallam　wrote　in　the　period　when　no　English　was　recognized　by　literary　people　except　that　of　the　upper　level；　when　they　did　not　know　that　these　so…　called　uncouth　phrases　were　to　return　to　common　use。　To…day　it　would　be　absurd　to　say　that　the　Bible　is　full　of　uncouth　phrases。　Professor　Cook　has　said　that　〃the　movement　of　English　diction；　which　in　the　seventeenth　and　eighteenth　centuries　was　on　the　whole　away　from　the　Bible；　now　returns　with　ever…accelerating　speed　toward　it。〃　If　the　phrases　went　out；　they　came　back。　But　it　is　true　that　the　English　of　the　King　James　version　is　not　that　of　the　time　of　James　I。；　only　because　it　is　the　English　of　the　history　of　the　language。　It　has　not　immortalized　for　us　the　tongue　of　its　times；　because　it　has　taken　that　tongue　from　its　beginning　and　determined　its　form。　It　carefully　avoided　words　that　were　counted　coarse。　On　the　other　hand；　it　did　not　commit　itself　to　words　which　were　simply　refinements　of　verbal　construction。　That；　I　say；　is　a　general　fact。

It　can　be　illustrated　in　one　or　two　ways。　For　instance；　a　word　which　has　become　common　to　us　is　the　neuter　possessive　pronoun　〃its。〃　That　word　does　not　occur　in　the　edition　of　1611；　and　appears　first　in　an　edition　in　the　printing　of　1660。　In　place　of　it；　in　the　edition　of　1611；　the　more　dignified　personal　pronoun　〃his〃　or　〃her〃　is　always　used；　and　it　continues　for　the　most　part　in　our　familiar　version。　In　this　verse　you　notice　it：　〃Look　not　upon　the　wine　when　it　is　red；　when　it　giveth　HIS　color　aright　in　the　cup。〃　In　the　Levitical　law　especially；　where　reference　is　made　to　sacrifices；　to　the　articles　of　the　furniture　of　the　tabernacle；　or　other　neuter　objects；　the　masculine　pronoun　is　almost　invariably　used。　In　the　original　it　was　invariably　used。　You　see　the　other　form　in　the　familiar　verse　about　charity；　that　it　〃doth　not　behave　itself　unseemly；　seeketh　not　HER　own；　is　not　easily　provoked。〃　Now；　there　is　evidence　that　the　neuter　possessive　pronoun　was　just　coming　into　use。　Shakespeare　uses　it　ten　times　in　his　works；　but　ten　times　only；　and　a　number　of　writers　do　not　use　it　at　all。　It　was；　to　be　sure；　a　word　beginning　to　be　heard　on　the　street；　and　for　the　most　part　on　the　lower　level。　The　King　James　translators　never　used　it。　The　dignified　word　was　that　masculine　or　feminine　pronoun；　and　they　always　use　it　in　place　of　the　neuter。

On　the　other　hand；　there　was　a　word　which　was　coming　into　use　on　the　upper　level　which　has　become　common　property　to　us　now。　It　is　the　word　〃anxiety。〃　It　is　not　certain　just　when　it　came　into　use。　I　believe　Shakespeare　does　not　use　it；　and　it　occurs　very　little　in　the　literature　of　the　times。　Probably　it　was　known　to　these　translators。　When　they　came；　however；　to　translating　a　word　which　now　we　translate　by　〃anxious〃　or　〃anxiety〃　they　did　not　use　that　word。　It　was　not　familiar。　They　used　instead　the　word　which　represented　the　idea　for　the　people　of　the　middle　level；　they　used　the　word　〃thought。〃　So　they　said；　〃Take　no　thought　for　the　morrow；〃　where　we　would　say；　〃Be　not　anxious　for　the　morrow。〃　There　is　a　contemporary　document　which　illustrates　how　that　word　〃thought〃　was　commonly　used；　in　which　we　read：　〃In　five　hundred　years　only　two　queens　died　in　child　birth；　Queen　Catherine　Parr　having　died　rather　of　thought。〃　That　was　written　about　the　time　of　the　King　James　version；　and　〃thought〃　evidently　means　worry　or　anxiety。　Neither　of　those　words；　the　neuter　possessive　pronoun　or　the　new　word　〃anxious；〃　got　into　the　King　James　version。　One　was　coming　into　proper　use　from　the　lower　level；　and　one　was　coming　into　proper　use　from　the　upper　level。　They　had　not　yet　so　arrived　that　they　could　be　used。

One　result　of　this　care　to　preserve　dignity　and　also　popularity　appears　in　the　fact　that　so　few　words　of　the　English　version　have　become　obsolete。　Words　disappear　upward　out　of　the　upper　level　or　downward　out　of　the　lower　level；　but　it　takes　a　long　time　for　a　word　to　get　out　of　a　language　once　it　is　in　confirmed　use　on　the　middle　level。　Of　course；　the　version　itself　has　tended　to　keep　words　familiar；　but　no　book；　no　matter　how　widely　used；　can　prevent　some　words　from　passing　off　the　stage　or　from　changing　their　meaning　so　noticeably　that　they　are　virtually　different　words。　Yet　even　in　those　words　which　do　not　become　common　there　is　very　little　tendency　to　obsolescence　in　the　King　James　version。　More　words　of　Shakespeare　have　become　obsolete　or　have　changed　their　meanings　than　in　the　King　James　version。

There　is　one　interesting　illustration　to　which　attention　has　been　called　by　Dr。　Davidson；　which　is　interesting。　In　the　ninth　chapter　of　the　Judges；　where　we　are　told　about　Abimelech；　the　fifty…third　verse　reads　that　a　woman　cast　a　stone　down　from　the　wall　and　〃all　to　break　his　skull。〃　That　is　confessedly　rather　obscure。　Our　ordinary　understanding　of　it　would　be　that　she　did　that　for　no　other　purpose　than　just　to　break　the　skull　of　Abimelech。　As　a　matter　of　fact；　that　expression　is　a　printer's　bungling　way　of　giving　a　word　which　has　become　obsolete　in　the　original　form。　When　the　King　James　translators　wrote　that；　they　used　the　word　〃alto；〃　which　is　evidently　the　beginning　of　〃altogether；〃　or　wholly　or　utterly；　and　what　they　meant　was　that　she　threw　the　stone　and　utterly　broke　his　skull。　But　that　abbreviated　form　of　the　word　passed　out　of　use；　and　when　later　printersnot　much　latercame　to　it　they　did　not　know　what　it　meant　and　divided　it　as　it　stands　in　our　present　text。　It　is　one　of　the　few　words　that　have　become　obsolete。　But　so　few　are　there　of　them；　that　it　was　made　a　rule　of　the　Revised　Version　not　to　admit　to　the　new　version；　where　it　could　be　avoided；　any　word　not　already　found　in　the　Authorized　Version；　and　also　not　to　omit　from　the　Revised　Version；　except　under　pressure　of　necessity；　any　word　which　occurred　there。　It　is　largely　this　blending　of　dignity　and　popularity　that　has　made　the　King　James　version　so　influential　in　English　literature。　It　talks　the　language　not　of　the　upper　level　nor　of　the　lower　level；　but　of　that　middle　level　where　all　meet　sometimes　and　where　most　men　are　all　the　while。

These　are　great　traits　to　mark　a　book；　any　book；　but　especially　a　translationthat　it　is　honest；　that　it　is　accurate；　and　that　its　language　blends　dignity　and　popularity　so　that　it　lowers　the　speech　of　none