study of the king james bible(钦印〈圣经〉研究)-第42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！
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
133
… Page 134…
Study of the King James Bible
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。
134
… Page 135…
Study of the King James Bible
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
135
… Page 136…
Study of the King James Bible
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；
and the revisers have therefore replaced the old Hebrew word Asherah。
The transliterations of the King James version have not been changed into
translations。 Instead； the number of transliterations has been increased in
the interest of accuracy。 At one point one might incline to be adversely
critical of the American revisers。 They have transliterated the Hebrew
word Jehovah； so they have taken sides in a controversy where scholars
have room to differ。 The version would have gained in strength if it had
