[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

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
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 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
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
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 [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

  • zanotowane.pl
  • doc.pisz.pl
  • pdf.pisz.pl
  • supermarket.pev.pl

    •