study of the king james bible(钦印〈圣经〉研究)-第11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！
were parts of the Bible available in Spanish； French； and Dutch。 They
were kept at hand constantly for any light they might cast on difficult
passages。
For the Old Testament there were very few Hebrew texts。 There had
been little critical work yet done on them； and for the most part there were
only different editions running back over the centuries。 We have little
more than that now； and there is almost no new material on the Old
Testament since the days of the King James translators。 There was； of
course； the Septuagint； the Greek translation from the Hebrew made
before Christ； with the guidance it could give in doubtful places on the
probable original。 And finally there was the Vulgate； made into Latin out
of the Greek and Hebrew。 This was all the Old Testament material they
had； or that any one could have in view of the antiquated original sources。
The New Testament material was more abundant； though not nearly so
abundant as to…day。 There were few manuscripts of the early days to which
they could refer； but there were the two great critical versions of the New
Testament in Greek； that by Erasmus and the Complutensian； which had
made use of the best manuscripts known。 Then； finally again； there was
34
… Page 35…
Study of the King James Bible
the Vulgate。
We must stop a moment to see what was the value of the Vulgate in
this work。 It is impossible to reckon the number of the early New
Testament manuscripts that have been lost。 In the earlier day the Scriptures
were transmitted from church to church； and from age to age； by
manuscripts。 Many of them were made as direct copies of other
manuscripts； but many were made by scribes to whom the manuscripts
were read as they wrote； so that there are many； though ordinarily
comparatively slight； variations among the manuscripts which we now
know。 More manuscripts are coming to light constantly； manuscripts once
well known and then lost。 Many of them； perhaps many earlier than we
now have； must have been familiar to Jerome four hundred years after
Christ。 When； therefore； there is a plain difference between the Vulgate
and our early Greek manuscripts； the Vulgate may be wrong because it is
only a translation； but it may be right because it is a translation of earlier
manuscripts than some of ours。 It is steadily losing its value at that point；
for Greek manuscripts are all the time coming to light which run farther
back。 But we must not minimize the value of the Vulgate for our King
James translation。
With all this material the scholars of the early seventeenth century set
to work。 Each man in the group made the translation that seemed best to
him； and together they analyzed the results and finally agreed on the best。
They hunted the other versions to see if it had been better done elsewhere。
The shade of Tindale was over it all。 The Genevan version was most
influential。 The Douai had its share； and the Bishops' was the general
standard； altered only when accuracy required it。 On all hard passages they
called to their aid the appropriate departments of both universities。 All
scholars everywhere were asked to send in any contributions； to correct or
criticize as they would。 Public announcement of the work was made； and
all possible help was besought and gladly accepted。
Very faithfully these greatest scholars of their time wrought。 No one
worked for money； and no one worked for pay； but each for the joy of the
working。 Three years they spent on the original work； three years on
careful revision and on the marginal references by which Scripture was
35
… Page 36…
Study of the King James Bible
made to throw light on Scripture。 Then in six months a committee
reviewed it all； put it through the press； and at last； in 1611； with the
imprint of Robert Barker； Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty； the
King James version appeared。 The name Authorized Version is not a
happy one； for so far as the records go it was never authorized either by
the King or the bishop； and； even if it were； the authority does not extend
beyond the English Church； which is a very small fraction of those who
use it。 On the title…page of the original version； as on so many since； is the
familiar line； 〃Appointed to be Read in Churches；〃 but who made the
appointment history does not say。
The version did not at once supersede the Genevan and the Bishops'；
but it was so incomparably better than either that gradually they
disappeared； and by sheer excellence it took the field； and it holds the field
to…day in spite of the numerous supposedly improved versions that have
appeared under private auspices。 It holds the field； also； in spite of the
excellent revised version of 1881 made by authority； and the more
excellent version issued in 1901 by the American Revision Committee； to…
day undoubtedly the best version in existence； considered simply as a
reproduction of the sense of the original。 And for reasons that may later
appear； the King James version bids fair to hold the field for many years to
come。
When we turn from the history of its making to the work itself； there is
much to say。 We may well narrow our thought for the remainder of the
study to its traits as a version of the Bible。
I。 Name this first； that it is an honest version。 That is； it has no
argumentative purpose。 It is not； as the scholars say； apologetic。 It is
simply an out…and…out version of the Scripture； as honestly as they could
reproduce it。 There were Puritans on the committee； there were extreme
High Churchmen； there were men of all grades between。 But there is
nowhere any evidence that any one was set on making the Bible prove his
point。 There were strong anti…papal believers among them； but they made
free use of the Douai version； and； of course； of the Vulgate。 They knew
the feeling that Hugh Broughton had toward them； but they made
generous use of all that was good in his work。 They were working under a
36
… Page 37…
Study of the King James Bible
royal warrant； and their dedication to King James； with its absurd and
fulsome flattery； shows what they were capable of when they thought of
the King。 But there is no twist of a text to make it serve the purposes of
royalty。 They might be servile when they thought of King James； but there
was not a touch of servility in them when they thought of the Scripture
itself。 They were under instruction not to abandon the use of ecclesiastical
terms。 For instance； they were not to put 〃congregation〃 in place of
〃church；〃 as some Puritans wanted to do。 Some thought that was meant to
insure a High Church version； but the translators did not understand it so
for a moment。 They understood it only to safeguard them against making a
partisan version on either side； and to help them to make a version which
the people could read understandingly at once。 It was not to be a Puritan
Book nor a High Church Book。 It was to be an honest version of the Bible；
no matter whose side it sustained。
Now； if any one thinks that is easy； or only a matter of course； he
plainly shows that he has never been a theologian or a scholar in a
contested field。 Ask any lawyer whether it is easy to handle his authorities
with entire impartiality； whether it is a matter of course that he will let
them say just what they meant to say when his case is involved。 Of course；
he will seek to do it as an honest lawyer； but equally； of course； he will
have to keep close watch on himself or he will fail in doing it。 Ask any
historian whether it is easy to handle the o
