a study of bible-第18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！


s　minds　had　found　a　new　freedom；　and　they　used　it　to　discuss　great　themes。　They　even　began　to　sing。　The　reign　of　Elizabeth　had　prepared　the　way。　The　English　scholar　Hoare　traces　this　new　liberty　to　the　sailing　away　of　the　Armada　and　the　releasing　of　England　from　the　perpetual　dread　of　Spanish　invasion。　He　says　that　the　birds　felt　the　free　air；　and　sang　as　they　had　never　sung　before　and　as　they　have　not　often　sung　since。　But　this　was　not　restricted　to　the　birds　of　English　song。　It　was　a　period　of　remarkable　awakening　in　the　whole　intellectual　life　of　England；　and　that　intellectual　life　was　directing　itself　among　the　common　people　to　religion。　Another　English　writer；　Eaton；　says　a　profounder　word　in　tracing　the　awakening　to　the　reformation；　saying　that　it　〃could　not　fail；　from　the　very　nature　of　it；　to　tinge　the　literature　of　the　Elizabethan　era。　It　gave　a　logical　and　disputatious　character　to　the　age　and　produced　men　mighty　in　the　Scriptures。〃＇1＇　A　French　visitor　went　home　disgusted　because　people　talked　of　nothing　but　theology　in　England。　Grotius　thought　all　the　people　of　England　were　theologians。　James's　chief　pride　was　his　theological　learning。　It　did　not　prove　difficult　to　find　half　a　hundred　men　in　small　England　instantly　recognized　as　experts　in　Scripture　study。　The　people　were　ready　to　welcome　a　book　of　great　ideas。　Let　us　pass　by　those　ideas　a　moment；　remembering　that　they　are　not　enough　in　them…　selves　to　give　the　work　literary　value；　and　turn　our　minds　to　the　style　of　the　English　Bible。


＇1＇　T。　R。　Eaton；　Shakespeare　and　the　Bible；　p。　2。


From　this　point　of　view　the　times　were　not　perfectly　opportune　for　a　piece　of　pure　English　literature；　though　it　was　the　time　which　produced　Shakespeare。　A　definite　movement　was　on　to　refine　the　language　by　foreign　decorations。　Not　even　Shakespeare　avoids　it　always。　No　writer　of　the　time　avoids　it　wholly。　The　dedication　of　the　King　James　version　shows　that　these　scholars　themselves　did　not　avoid　it。　In　that　dedication；　and　their　preface；　they　give　us　fine　writing；　striving　for　effect；　ornamental　phrases　characteristic　of　the　time。　Men　were　feeling　that　this　English　language　was　rough　and　barbarous；　insufficient；　needing　enlargement　by　the　addition　of　other　words　constructed　in　a　foreign　form。　The　essays　of　Lord　Bacon　are　virtually　contemporaneous　with　this　translation。　Macaulay　says　a　rather　hard　word　in　calling　his　style　〃odious　and　deformed；〃＇1＇　but　when　one　turns　from　Bacon　to　the　English　Bible　there　is　a　sharp　contrast　in　mere　style；　and　it　favors　the　Bible。　The　contrast　is　as　great　as　that　which　Carlyle　first　felt　between　the　ideas　of　Shakespeare　and　those　of　the　Bible　when　he　said　that　〃this　world　is　a　catholic　kind　of　place；　the　Puritan　gospel　and　Shakespeare's　plays：　such　a　pair　of　facts　I　have　rarely　seen　save　out　of　one　chimerical　generation。〃＇2＇　And　that　gives　point　to　the　word　already　quoted　from　Hallam　that　the　English　of　the　King　James　version　is　not　the　English　of　James　I。


＇1＇　Essay　on　John　Dryden。

＇2＇　Historical　Sketches；　Hampton　Court　Conference。


Four　things　helped　to　determine　the　simplicity　and　pure　Englishunornamented　Englishof　the　King　James　version；　made　it；　that　is；　the　English　classic。　Two　of　these　things　have　been　dealt　with　already　in　other　connections。　First；　that　it　was　a　Book　for　the　people；　for　the　people　of　the　middle　level　of　language；　a　work　by　scholars；　but　not　chiefly　for　scholars；　intended　rather　for　the　common　use　of　common　people。　Secondly；　that　the　translators　were　constantly　beholden　to　the　work　of　the　past　in　this　same　line。　Where　Wiclif's　words　were　still　in　use　they　used　them。　That　tended　to　fix　the　language　by　the　use　which　had　already　become　natural。

The　other　two　determining　influences　must　be　spoken　of　now。　The　third　lies　in　the　fact　that　the　English　language　was　still　plastic。　It　had　not　fallen　into　such　hard　forms　that　its　words　were　narrow　or　restricted。　The　truth　is　that　from　the　point　of　view　of　pure　literature　the　Bible　is　better　in　English　than　it　is　in　Greek　or　Hebrew。　That　is；　the　English　of　the　King　James　version　as　English　is　better　than　the　Greek　of　the　New　Testament　as　Greek。　As　for　the　Hebrew　there　was　little　development　for　many　generations；　Renan　thinks　there　was　none　at　all。　The　difference　comes　from　the　point　of　time　in　the　growth　of　the　tongue　when　the　Book　was　written。　The　Greek　was　written　when　the　language　was　old；　when　it　had　differentiated　its　terms；　when　it　had　become　corrupted　by　outside　influence。　The　English　version　was　written　when　the　language　was　new　and　fresh；　when　a　word　could　be　taken　and　set　in　its　meaning　without　being　warped　from　some　earlier　usage。　The　study　of　the　Greek　Testament　is　always　being　complicated　by　the　effort　to　bring　into　its　words　the　classical　meaning；　when　so　far　as　the　writers　of　the　New　Testament　were　concerned　they　had　no　interest　in　the　classical　meaning；　but　only　in　the　current　meaning　of　those　words。　In　the　English　language　there　was　as　yet　no　classical　meaning；　it　was　exactly　that　meaning　that　these　writers　were　giving　the　words　when　they　brought　them　into　their　version。＇1＇　There　is　large　advantage　in　the　fact　that　the　age　was　not　a　scientific　one；　that　the　language　had　not　become　complicated。　So　it　becomes　interesting　to　observe　with　Professor　March　that　ninety…three　per　cent。　of　these　words；　counting　also　repetitions；　are　native　English　words。　The　language　was　new；　was　still　plastic。　It　had　not　been　stiffened　by　use。　It　received　its　set　more　definitely　from　the　English　Bible　than　from　any　other　one　workmore　than　from　Shakespeare；　whose　influence　was　second。


＇1＇　Trevelyan；　England　under　the　Stuarts；　p。　54；


The　fourth　fact　which　helped　to　determine　its　English　style　is　the　loyalty　of　the　translators　to　the　original；　notably　the　Hebrew。　It　is　a　common　remark　of　the　students　of　the　original　tongues　that　the　Hebrew　and　Greek　languages　are　peculiarly　translatable。　That　is　notable　in　the　Hebrew。　It　is　not　a　language　of　abstract　terms。　The　tendency　of　language　is　always　to　become　vague；　since　we　are　lazy　in　the　use　of　it。　We　use　one　word　in　various　ways；　and　a　pet　one　for　many　ideas。　Language　is　always　more　concrete　in　its　earlier　forms。　In　this　period　of　the　concrete　English　language；　then；　the　translation　was　made　from　the　Hebrew；　which　was　also　a　concrete；　figurative　language　itself。　The　structure　of　the　Hebrew　sentence　is　very　simple。　There　are　no　extended　paragraphs　in　it。　It　is　somewhat　different　in　the　New　Testament；　where　these　paragraphs　are　found；　certainly　in　the　Pauline　Greek；　but　even　there　the　extended　sentences　are　broken　into　clauses　which　can　be　taken　as　wholes。　The　English　version　shows　constantly　the　marks　of　the　Hebrew　influence　in　the　simplicity　of　its　phrasing。　Renan　says　that　the　Hebrew　〃knows　how　to　make　propositions；　but　not　how　to　link　them　into　paragraphs。〃　So　the　earlier　Bible　stories　are　like　a　child's　way　of　talking。　They　let　one　sentence　follow　another；　and　their　unity　is　found　in　the　overflowing　use　of　the　word　〃and〃one　fact　hung　to　another　to　make　a　story；　but　not　to　make　an　argument。　In　the　first　ten　chapters　of　I　Samuel；　for　example；　there　are　two　hundred　and　thirty…eight　verses；　one　hundred　and　sixty　of　them　begin　with