study of the king james bible(钦印〈圣经〉研究)-第12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！
have to keep close watch on himself or he will fail in doing it。 Ask any
historian whether it is easy to handle the original documents in a field in
which he has firm and announced opinions； and to let those documents
speak exactly what they mean to say； whether they support him or not。 The
greater historians will always do it； but they will sometimes do it with a bit
of a wrench。
Even a scholar is human； and these men sitting in their six companies
would all have to meet this Book afterward； would have their opinions
tried by it。 There must have been times when some of them would be
inclined to salt the mine a little； to see that it would yield what they would
want it to yield later。 So far as these men were able to do it； they made it
say in English just what it said in Hebrew and Greek。 They showed no
inclination to use it as a weapon in their personal warfare。
One line of that honest effort is worth observing more closely。 When
37
… Page 38…
Study of the King James Bible
points were open to fair discussion； and scholarship had not settled them；
they were careful not to let their version take sides when it could be
avoided。 On some mooted words they did not try translation； but
transliteration instead。 That is； they brought the Greek or Hebrew word
over into English； letter by letter。 Suppose scholars differed as to the exact
meaning in English of a word in the Greek。 Some said it has this meaning；
and some that it has that。 Now； if the version committed itself to one of
those meanings； it became an argument at once against the other and
helped to settle a question on which scholarship was not yet agreed。 They
could avoid making a partisan Book by the simple device of bringing the
word which was disputed over into the new translation。 That left the
discussion just where it was before； but it saved the work from being
partisan。 The method of transliteration did not always work to advantage；
as we shall see； but it was intended throughout to save the Book from
taking sides on any question where honest men might differ as to the
meaning of words。
They did that with all proper names； and that was notable in the Old
Testament； because most Old Testament proper names can be translated。
They all mean something in themselves。 Adam is the Hebrew word for
man； Abraham means Father of a Great Multitude； David is the Hebrew
word for Beloved； Malachi means My Messenger。 Yet as proper names
they do not mean any of those things。 It is impossible to translate a proper
name into another tongue without absurdity。 It must be transliterated。 Yet
there is constant fascination for translators in the work of translating these
proper names； trying to make them seem more vivid。 It is quite likely；
though it is disputed； that proper names do all go back to simple meanings。
But by the time they become proper names they no longer have those
meanings。 The only proper treatment of them is by transliteration。
The King James translators follow that same practice of transliteration
rather than translation with another word which is full of controversial。
possibility。 I mean the word 〃baptism。〃 There was dispute then as now
about the method of that ordinance in early Christian history。 There were
many who held that the classical meaning which involved immersion had
been taken over bodily into the Christian faith； and that all baptism was by
38
… Page 39…
Study of the King James Bible
immersion。 There were others who held that while that might be the
classical meaning of the word； yet in early Christian custom baptism was
not by immersion； but might be by sprinkling or pouring； and who insisted
that no pressure on the mode was wise or necessary。 That dispute
continues to this day。 Early versions of the Bible already figured in the
discussion； and for a while there was question whether this King James
version should take sides in that controversy； about which men equally
loyal to truth and early Christian history could honestly differ。 The
translators avoided taking sides by bringing the Greek word which was
under discussion over into English； letter by letter。 Our word 〃baptism〃 is
not an English word nor a Saxon word； it is a purely Greek word。 The
controversy has been brought over into the English language； but the King
James version avoided becoming a controversial book。 A number of years
ago the convictions of some were so strong that another version of the
Bible was made； in which the word baptism was carefully replaced by
what was believed to be the English translation； 〃immersion；〃 but the
version never had wide influence。
In this connection it is well to notice the effort of the King James
translators at a fair statement of the divine name。 It will be remembered
that it appears in the Old Testament ordinarily as 〃LORD；〃 printed in
small capitals。 A very interesting bit of verbal history lies back of that
word。 The word which represents the divine name in Hebrew consists of
four consonants； J or Y； H； V； and H。 There are no vowels； indeed； there
were no vowels in the early Hebrew at all。 Those that we now have were
added not far from the time of Christ。 No one knows the original
pronunciation of that sacred name consisting of four letters。 At a very
early day it had become too sacred to pronounce； so that when men came
to it in reading or in speech； they simply used another word which is；
translated into English； Lord； a word of high dignity。 When the time came
that vowels were to be added to the consonants； the vowels of this other
word Lord were placed under the consonants of the sacred name； so that in
the word Jehovah； where the J H V H occur； there are the consonants of
one word whose vowels are unknown and the vowels of another word
whose consonants are not used。
39
… Page 40…
Study of the King James Bible
Illustrate it by imagining that in American literature the name Lincoln
gathered to itself such sacredness that it was never pronounced and only
its consonants were ever printed。 Suppose that whenever readers came to it
they simply said Washington； thinking Lincoln all the while。 Then think of
the displacement of the vowels of Lincoln by the vowels of Washington。
You have a word that looks like Lancilon or Lanicoln； but a reader would
never pronounce so strange a word。 He would always say Washington； yet
he would always think the other meaning。 And while he would retain the
meaning in some degree； he would soon forget the original word； retaining
only his awe of it。 Which is just what happened with the divine name。 The
Hebrews knew it was not Lord； yet they always said Lord when they came
to the four letters that stood for the sacred word。 The word Jehovah； made
up of the consonants of an unknown word and the vowels of a familiar
word； is in itself meaningless。 Scholarship is not yet sure what was the
original meaning of the sacred name with its four consonants。
These translators had to face that problem。 It was a peculiar problem at
that time。 How should they put into English the august name of God when
they did not know what the true vowels were？ There was dispute among
scholars。 They did not take sides as our later American Revision has done；
some of us think quite unwisely。 They chose to retain the Hebrew usage；
and print the divine name in unmistakable type so that its personal
meaning could not be mistaken。
On the other hand； disputes since their day have shown how they
translated when transliteration would have been wiser。 Illustrate with one
instance。 There is a Hebrew word； Sheol； with a Greek word； Hades；
whi
