study of the king james bible(钦印〈圣经〉研究)-第43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 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
136
… Page 137…
Study of the King James Bible
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
137
… Page 138…
Study of the King James Bible
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。
138
… Page 139…
Study of the King James Bible
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 criticism to observe that there is a
Greek word which sounds very much like this word 〃kill；〃 which means to
envy； that would fit exactly into the whole text here。 All that lower
criticism can do is to point out such a probability。
When this form of criticism has done its part； and careful study has
yielded a text which holds together and which represents the very best
which scholarship can find for the original； there is still a field more
difficult than that； higher in the sense that it demands a larger and broader
view of the whole subject。 Here one studies the meaning of the whole； the
ideas in it； seeks to find how the revelation of God has progressed
according to the capacities of men to receive it。 Higher criticism is the
careful study of the historical and original meanings of Scripture； the
effort to determine dates and times and； so far as may be； the author of
each writing； analyzing its ideas； the general Greek or Hebrew style； the
relation of part to part。 That is not a thing to be afraid of。 It is a method of
study used in every realm。 It is true that some of the men who have
followed that method have made others afraid of it； because they were
afraid of these men themselves。 It is possible to claim far too much for
such study。 But if the result of higher criticism should be to show that the
latter half of the prophecy of Isaiah is much later than the earlier half； that
is not a destruction of the Word of God。 It is not an irreverent result of
study。 If the result of higher criticism is to show that by reason of its
content； and the lessons which it especially urges； the Epistle to the
Hebrews was not written by the Apostle Paul； as it does not at any point
claim to have been； why； that is not irreverent； that is not destructive。
There is a destruc
