a study of bible-第15部分

快捷操作: 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! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！


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　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