a study of bible-第8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！


ey　started　the　movement　for　a　new　version　of　the　Bible。　It　was　on　the　second　day　of　the　conference；　January　16th；　that　Dr。　Reynolds；　president　of　Corpus　Christi　College；　Oxford；　who　represented　the　moderate　Puritan　position；　and；　like　many　moderate　men；　was　rather　suspected　by　both　extreme　wings；　instanced　as　one　of　the　hardships　of　the　Puritans　that　they　were　compelled　to　use　the　prayer…book　of　the　time；　and　that　it　contained　many　mistranslations　of　Scripture；　some　of　which　he　quoted。　Now；　it　so　happens　that　the　errors　to　which　he　referred　occur　in　the　Bishops'　and　the　Great　Bible；　which　were　the　two　authorized　versions　of　the　time；　but　are　all　corrected　in　the　Genevan　version。　We　do　not　know　what　point　he　was　trying　to　make；　whether　he　was　urging　that　the　Genevan　version　should　supplant　these　others；　or　whether　he　was　calling　for　a　new　translation。　Indeed；　we　are　not　sure　that　he　even　mentioned　the　Genevan　version。　But　James　spoke　up　to　say　that　he　had　never　yet　seen　a　Bible　well　translated　into　English；　but　the　worst　of　all　he　thought　the　Genevan　to　be。　He　spoke　as　though　he　had　just　had　a　copy　given　him　by　an　English　lady；　and　had　already　noted　what　he　called　its　errors。　That　was　at　the　very　least　a　royal　evasion；　for　if　there　was　any　Book　he　did　know　it　was　the　Genevan　version。　He　had　been　fairly　raised　on　it；　he　had　lived　in　the　country　where　it　was　commonly　used。　It　had　been　preached　at　him　many　and　many　a　time。　Indeed；　he　had　used　it　as　the　text　for　that　paraphrase　of　the　Revelation　of　which　we　spoke　a　moment　ago。　And　he　knew　its　noteswell　he　knew　them　knew　that　they　were　from　republican　Geneva；　and　that　kingly　pretensions　had　short　shrift　with　them。　James　told　the　conference　that　these　notes　were　〃very　partial；　untrue；　seditious；　savoring　too　much　of　traitorous　and　dangerous　conceits；〃　supporting　his　opinion　by　two　instances　which　seemed　disrespectful　to　royalty。　One　of　these　instances　was　the　note　on　Exodus　1：17；　where　the　Egyptian　midwives　are　said　to　have　disobeyed　the　king　in　the　matter　of　destroying　the　children。　The　note　says：　〃Their　disobedience　to　the　king　was　lawful；　though　their　dissembling　was　not。〃　James　quoted　that；　and　said：　〃It　is　false；　to　disobey　the　king　is　not　lawful；　and　traitorous　conceits　should　not　go　forth　among　the　people。〃

Some　of　the　High　Church　party　objected　that　there　were　translations　enough　already；　but　it　struck　James's　fancy　to　set　them　all　aside　by　another　version；　which　he　at　once　said　he　would　order。　It　was　to　be　made　by　the　most　learned　of　both　universities；　then　to　be　revised　by　the　bishops　and　other　Church　dignitaries；　then　presented　to　the　Privy　Council；　and　finally　to　be　passed　upon　by　himself。　There　is　the　echo　of　some　sharp　Scotch　experiences　in　his　declaration　that　there　were　to　be　no　marginal　notes　in　that　new　version。

When　they　looked　back　on　the　conference；　the　Puritans　felt　that　they　had　lost　everything；　and　the　High　Church　people　that　they　had　gained　everything。　One　of　the　bishops；　in　a　very　servile　way；　and　on　his　knee；　gave　thanks　to　God　for　having　given　the　country　such　a　king；　whose　like　had　never　been　seen　since　Christ　was　on　earth。　Certainly　hard　times　were　ahead　for　the　Puritans。　The　King　harried　them　according　to　his　word。　Within　sixteen　years　some　of　them　landed　at　Plymouth　Rock；　and　things　began　to　happen　on　this　side。　That　settlement　at　Plymouth　was　the　outcome　of　the　threat　the　King　had　made　at　the　Hampton　Court　conference。

But　looking　back　one　can　see　that　the　conference　was　worth　while　for　the　beginning　of　the　movement　for　the　new　version。　The　King　was　true　to　his　word　in　this　line　also；　and　before　the　year　was　out　had　appointed　the　fifty…four　best　Bible　scholars　of　the　realm　to　make　the　new　version。　They　were　to　sit　in　six　companies　of　nine　each；　two　at　Oxford；　two　at　Cambridge；　and　two　at　Westminster。　The　names　of　only　forty…seven　of　them　have　come　down　to　us；　and　it　is　not　known　whether　the　other　seven　were　ever　appointed；　or　in　what　way　their　names　have　been　lost。　It　must　be　said　for　the　King　that　the　only　principle　of　selection　was　scholarship；　and　when　those　six　groups　of　men　met　they　were　men　of　the　very　first　rank；　with　no　peers　outside　their　own　numberswith　one　exception；　and　that　exception　is　of　some　passing　interest。　Hugh　Broughton　was　probably　the　foremost　Hebrew　scholar　of　England；　perhaps　of　the　world；　at　the　time；　and　apparently　he　was　not　appointed　on　the　committee。　Chiefly；　it　seems　to　have　been　because　he　was　a　man　of　ungovernable　temper　and　utterly　unfitted　to　work　with　others。　Failure　to　appoint　him；　however；　bit　and　rankled；　and　the　only　keen　and　sharp　criticism　that　was　passed　on　the　version　in　its　own　day　was　by　Hugh　Broughton。　He　sent　word　to　the　King；　after　it　was　completed；　that　as　for　himself　he　would　rather　be　rent　to　pieces　by　wild　horses　than　have　had　any　part　in　the　urging　of　such　a　wretched　version　of　the　Bible　on　the　poor　people。　That　was　so　manifestly　pique；　however；　that　it　is　only　to　be　regretted　that　the　translation　did　not　have　the　benefit　of　his　great　Hebrew　knowledge。　John　Selden；　at　his　prime　in　that　day；　voiced　the　feeling　of　most　scholars　of　the　times；　that　the　new　translation　was　the　best　in　the　world　and　best　gave　the　sense　of　the　original。

We　do　not　know　much　of　the　personnel　of　the　company。　Their　names　would　mean　very　little　to　us　at　this　distance。　All　were　clergymen　except　one。　There　were　bishops；　college　principals；　university　fellows；　and　rectors。　Dr。　Reynolds；　who　suggested　it　in　the　first　place；　was　a　member；　though　he　did　not　live　to　see　the　work　finished。　This　Dr。　Reynolds；　by　the　way；　was　party　to　a　most　curious　episode。　He　had　been　an　ardent　Roman　Catholic；　and　he　had　a　brother　who　was　an　equally　ardent　Protestant。　They　argued　with　each　other　so　earnestly　that　each　convinced　the　other；　the　Roman　Catholic　became　a　Protestant；　and　the　Protestant　became　a　Roman　Catholic！　Dr。　Lancelot　Andrewes；　chairman　of　one　of　the　two　companies　that　met　at　Westminster；　was　probably　the　most　learned　man　in　England。　They　said　of　him　that　if　he　had　been　present　at　the　tower　of　Babel　he　could　have　interpreted　for　all　the　tongues　present。　The　only　trouble　was　that　the　world　lacked　learning　enough　to　know　how　learned　he　was。　His　company　had　the　first　part　of　the　Old　Testament；　and　the　simple　dignity　of　the　style　they　used　shows　how　scholarship　and　simplicity　go　easily　together。　Most　people　would　consider　that　the　least　satisfactory　part　of　the　work　is　the　second　section；　running　from　I　Chronicles　to　Ecclesiastes。　A　convert　from　another　faith；　who　learned　to　read　the　Bible　in　English；　once　expressed　to　a　friend　of　my　own　his　feeling　that　except　for　the　Psalms　and　parts　of　Job；　there　seemed　to　be　here　a　distinct　letting…down　of　the　dignity　of　the　translation。　There　is　good　excuse　for　this；　if　it　is　so；　for　two　leading　members　of　the　company　who　had　that　section　in　charge；　both　eminent　Cambridge　scholars；　died　very　early　in　the　work；　and　their　places　were　not　filled。　The　third　company；　sitting　at　Oxford；　were　peculiarly　strong；　and　had　for　their　portion　the　hardest　part　of　the　Old　Testamentall　the　prophetical　writings。　But　they　did　their　part　with　finest　skill。　The　fourth　company；　sitting　at　Cambridge；　had　the　Apocrypha；　the　books　which　lie　between　the　Old　and　the　New　Testaments　for　the　most　part；　or　else　are　supplemental　to　certain　Old　Testament　books。　Their　work　was　rather　hastily　and　certainly　poorly　done；　and　has　been　dropped　out　of　most　editions。　The　fifth　company；　sitting　at　Oxford；　with　great　Greek　scholars　on　it；　took　the　Gospels；　the　Acts；　and　the　Revelation。　This　company　had　in　it　the　one　layman；　Sir　Henry　Savile；　then　the　greatest　Greek　scholar　in　England。　It　is　the　same　Sir　Henry　Savile　who　heard；　on　his　death…bed　in　1621；　that　James　had　with　his　own　hands　torn　from　the　Journal　of　Parliament　the　pages　which　bore　the　protest　in　favor　of　free　speech　in　Parliament。　Hearing　it；　the　faithful　scholar　prayed　to　die；　saying：　〃I　am　ready　to　depart；　the　rather　that　having　lived　in　good　times　I　foresee　worse。〃　The　sixth　company　met　at　Westminster　and　translated　the　New　Testament　epistles。

It　was　the　original　plan　that　when　one　company　had　finished　its　part；　the　result　should　go　to　each　of　the　other　companies；　coming　back　with　their　suggestions　to　the　original　workers　to　be　recast　by　them。　The　whole　was　then　to　be　reviewed　by　a　smaller　committee　of　scholars　to　give　it　uniformity　and　to　see　it　through　the　press。　The　records　are　not　extant　that　tell　whether　this　was　done　in　full　detail；　though　we　may　presume　that　each　section　of　the　Scripture　had　the　benefit　of　the　scholarship　of　the　entire　company。

We　know　a　good　deal　of　the　method　of　their　work。　We　shall　understand　it　better　by　recalling　what　material　they　had　at　hand。　They　were　enabled　to　use　the　result　of　all　the　work　that　had　been　done　before　them。　They　were　instructed　to　follow　the　Bishops'　Bible　wherever　they　could　do　so　fairly；　but　they　were　given　power　to　use　the　versions　already　named　from　Wiclif　down；　as　well　as　those　fragmentary　versions　which　were　numerous；　and　of　which　no　mention　has　been　made。　They　ransacked　all　English　forms　for　felicitous　words　and　happy　phrases。　It　is　one　of　the　interesting　incidents　that　this　same　Hugh　Broughton；　who　was　left　off　the　com