a study of bible-第31部分

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！


　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；　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　retained　the　dignified　and　noble　word　〃Lord；〃　which　comes　as　near　representing　the　idea　of　the　Hebrew　word　for　God　as　any　word　we　could　find。　It　must　be　added　that　the　English　of　neither　of　our　new　versions　has　the　rhythm　and　movement　of　the　old　version。　That　is　partly　because　we　are　so　accustomed　to　the　old　expressions　and　new　ones　strike　the　ear　unpleasantly。　In　any　case；　the　versions　differ　plainly　in　their　English。　It　seems　most　unlikely　that　either　of　these　versions　shall　ever　have　the　literary　influence　of　the　King　James；　though　any　man　who　will　prophesy　about；　that　affects　a　wisdom　which　he　has　not。

These；　then；　are　the　two　differences　between　this　lecture　and　the　preceding　ones；　that　in　this　lecture　we　shall　deal　with　judgments　as　well　as　facts；　and　that　we　shall　deal　with　the　Bible　of　to…day　rather　than　the　King　James　version。

Passing　to　the　heart　of　the　subject；　the　question　appears　at　once　whether　the　Bible　has　or　can　have　to…day　the　influence　or　the　place　which　it　seems　to　have　had　in　the　past。　Two　things；　force　that　question：　Has　not　the　critical　study　of　the　Bible　itself　robbed　it　of　its　place　of　authority；　and　have　not　the　changes　of　our　times　destroyed　its　possibilities　of　influence？　That　is；　on　the　one　hand；　has　not　the　Bible　been　changed？　On　the　other　hand；　has　it　not　come　into　such　new　conditions　that　it　cannot　do　its　old　work？

It　is　a　natural　but　a　most　mistaken　idea　that　the　critical　study　of　the　Bible　is　a　new　thing。　From　long　before　the　childhood　of　any　of　us　there　has　been　sharp　controversy　about　the　Bible。　It　is　a　controversy…provoking　Book。　It　cannot　accept　blind　faith。　It　always　has　made　men　think；　and　it　makes　them　think　in　the　line　of　their　own　times。　The　days　when　no　questions　were　raised　about　the　Bible　were　the　days　when　men　had　no　access　to　it。

There　are　some　who　take　all　the　Bible　for　granted。　They　know　that　there　is　indifference　to　it　among　friends　and　in　their　social　circle；　but　how　real　the　dispute　about　the　Bible　is　no　one　realizes　until　he　comes　where　new　ideas；　say　ideas　of　socialism；　are　in　the　air。　There；　with　the　breaking　of　other　chains；　is　a　mighty　effort　to　break　this　bond　also。　In　such　circles　the　Bible　is　little　read。　It　is　discussed；　and　time…　worn　objections　are　bandied　about；　always　growing　as　they　pass。　In　these　circles　also　every　supposedly　adverse　result　of　critical　study　is　welcomed　and　remembered。　If　it　is　said　that　there　are　unexplained　contradictions　in　the　Bible；　that　fact　is　remembered。　But　if　it　is　said　further　that　those　contradictions　bid　fair　to　yield　to　further　critical　study；　or　to　a　wiser　understanding　of　the　situations　in　which　they　are　involved；　that　fact　is　overlooked。　The　tendency　in　these　circles　is　to　keep　alive　rather　the　adverse　phases　of　critical　study　than　its　favorable　phases。　Some　of　those　who　speak　most　fiercely　about　the　study　of　the　Bible；　by　what　is　known　as　higher　criticism；　are　least　intelligent　as　to　what　higher　criticism　actually　means。　Believers　regret　it；　and　unbelievers　rejoice　in　it。　As　a　matter　of　fact；　in　developing　any　strong　feeling　about　higher　criticism　one　only　falls　a　prey　to　words；　he　mistakes　the　meaning　of　both　the　words　involved。

Criticism　does　not　mean　finding　fault　with　the　Bible。＇1＇　It　is　almost　an　argument　for　total　depravity　that　we　have　made　the　word　gain　an　adverse　meaning；　so　that　if　the　average　man　were　told　that　he　had　been　〃criticized〃　by　another　be　would　suppose　that　something　had　been　said　against　him。　Of　course；　intelligent　people　know　that　that　is　not　necessarily　involved。　When　Kant　wrote　The　Critique　of　Pure　Reason　he　was　not　finding　fault　with　pure　reason。　He　was　only　making　careful　analytical　study　of　it。　Now；　critical　study　of　the　Bible　is　only　careful　study　of　it。　It　finds　vastly　more　new　beauties　than　unseen　defects。　In　the　same　way　the　adjective　〃higher〃　comes　in　for　misunderstanding。　It　does　not　mean　superior；　it　means　more　difficult。　Lower　criticism　is　the　study　of　the　text　itself。　What　word　ought　to　be　here；　and　exactly　what　does　that　word　mean？　What　is　the　comparative　value　of　this　manuscript　over　against　that　one？　If　this　manuscript　has　a　certain　word　and　that　other　has　a　slightly　different　one；　which　word　ought　to　be　used？


＇1＇　Jefferson；　Things　Fundamental；　p。　90。


Take　one　illustration　from　the　Old　Testament　and　one　from　the　New　to　show　what　lower　or　textual　criticism　does。　In　the　ninth　chapter　of　Isaiah　the　third　verse　reads：　〃Thou　hast　multiplied　the　nation　and　not　increased　the　joy。〃　That　word　〃not〃　is　troublesome。　It　disagrees　with　the　rest　of　the　passage。　Now　it　happens　that　there　are　two　Hebrew　words　pronounced　〃lo；〃　just　alike　in　sound；　but　spelled　differently。　One　means　〃not；〃　the　other　means　〃to　him〃　or　〃his。〃　Put　the　second　word　in；　and　the　sentence　reads：　〃Thou　hast　multiplied　the　nation　and　increased　its　joy。〃　That　fits　the　context　exactly。　Lower　criticism　declares　that　it　is　therefore　the　probable　reading；　and　corrects　the　text　in　that　way。

The　other　illustration　is　from　the　Epistle　of　James；　where　in　the　fourth　chapter　the　second　verse　reads：　〃Ye　lust；　and　have　not；　ye　kill；　and　desire　to　have；　and　cannot　obtain；　ye　fight　and　war；　yet　ye　have　not；　because　ye　ask　not。〃　Now　there　is　no　commentator　nor　thoughtful　reader　who　is　not　arrested　by　that　word　〃kill。〃　It　does　not　seem　to　belong　there。　It　is　far　more　violent　than　anything　else　in　the　whole　text；　and　it　is　difficult　to　understand　in　what　sense　the　persons　to　whom　James　was　writing　could　be　said　to　kill。　Yet　there　is　no　Greek　manuscript　which　does　not　have　that　word。　Well；　it　is　in　the　field　of　lower　critici