study of the king james bible(杯咫ヾ淵将ゝ冩梢)-及14嫗
梓囚徒貧圭�鮗� ○ 賜 ★ 辛酔堀貧和鍬匈��梓囚徒貧議 Enter 囚辛指欺云慕朕村匈��梓囚徒貧圭�鮗� ● 辛指欺云匈競何��
!!!!隆堋響頼��紗秘慕禰厮宴和肝写偬堋響��
under discussion over into English�察�letter by letter。 Our word ;baptism; is
not an English word nor a Saxon word�察 �it is a purely Greek word。 The
controversy has been brought over into the English language�察�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�察 �in which the word baptism was carefully replaced by
what was believed to be the English translation�察 �immersion�察─ �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�察─ �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�察�J or Y�察�H�察�V�察�and H。 There are no vowels�察�indeed�察�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�察�so that when men came
to it in reading or in speech�察 �they simply used another word which is�察�
translated into English�察�Lord�察�a word of high dignity。 When the time came
that vowels were to be added to the consonants�察�the vowels of this other
word Lord were placed under the consonants of the sacred name�察�so that in
the word Jehovah�察�where the J H V H occur�察�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�察�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�察�but a reader would
never pronounce so strange a word。 He would always say Washington�察�yet
he would always think the other meaning。 And while he would retain the
meaning in some degree�察�he would soon forget the original word�察�retaining
only his awe of it。 Which is just what happened with the divine name。 The
Hebrews knew it was not Lord�察�yet they always said Lord when they came
to the four letters that stood for the sacred word。 The word Jehovah�察�made
up of the consonants of an unknown word and the vowels of a familiar
word�察 �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�拭�There was dispute among
scholars。 They did not take sides as our later American Revision has done�察�
some of us think quite unwisely。 They chose to retain the Hebrew usage�察�
and print the divine name in unmistakable type so that its personal
meaning could not be mistaken。
On the other hand�察 �disputes since their day have shown how they
translated when transliteration would have been wiser。 Illustrate with one
instance。 There is a Hebrew word�察 �Sheol�察 �with a Greek word�察 �Hades�察�
which corresponds to it。 Usage had adopted the Anglo´Saxon word Hell as
the equivalent of both of these words�察�so they translated Sheol and Hades
with the English word Hell。 The only question that had been raised was by
that Hugh Broughton of whom we were speaking a moment ago�察 �and it
had not seemed a serious one。 Certainly the three terms have much in
common�察�and there are places where both the original words seemed to be
virtually equivalent to the Anglo´Saxon Hell�察�but they are not the same。
The Revised Version of our own time returned to the original�察�and instead
of translating those words whose meaning can be debated�察�it transliterated
40
´ Page 41´
Study of the King James Bible
them and brought the Hebrew word Sheol and the Greek word Hades over
into English。 That�察�of course�察�gave a chance for paragraphers to say that
the Revised Version had read Hell out of the Scriptures。 All that happened
was that cognizance was taken of a dispute which would have guided the
King James translators if it had existed in their time�察�and we should not
have become familiar with the Anglo´Saxon word Hell as the translation
of those disputed Hebrew and Greek words。
We need not seek more instances。 These are enough to illustrate the
saying that here is an honest version�察�the fruit of the best scholarship of the
times�察�without prejudice。
II。 A second trait of the work as a version is its remarkable accuracy。 It
is surprising that with all the new light coming from early documents�察�with
all the new discoveries that have been made。 the latest revision needed to
make so few changes�察�and those for the most part minor ones。 There are�察�
to be sure�察�some important changes�察�as we shall see later�察�the wonder is
that there are not many more。 The King James version had�察�to be sure�察�the
benefit of all the earlier controversy。 The whole ground had been really
fought over in the centuries before�察 �and most of the questions had been
discussed。 They frankly made use of all the earlier controversy。 They say
in their preface�此 �Truly�察�good Christian reader�察�we never thought from the
beginning that we should need to make a new translation�察�nor yet to make
a bad one a good one�察�but to make a good one better。 That hath been our
endeavor�察 �that our work。; Also�察 �they had the advantage of deliberation。
This was the first version that had been made which had such sanction that
they could take their time�察�and in which they had no reason to fear that the
results would endanger them。 They say in their preface that they had not
run over their work with that ;posting haste; that had marked the
Septuagint�察�if the saying was true that they did it all in seventy´two days�察�
nor were they ;barred and hindered from going over it again�察─�as Jerome
himself said he had been�察 �since as soon as he wrote any part ;it was
snatched away from him and published;�察�nor were they ;working in a new
field�察─�as Origen was when he wrote his first commentary on the Bible。
Both these thingstheir taking advantage of earlier controversies which
had cleared many differences�察�and their deliberationwere supplemented
41
´ Page 42´
Study of the King James Bible
by a third which gave great accuracy to the version。 That was their
adoption of the principle of all early translators�察�perhaps worded best by
Purvey�察 �who completed the Wiclif version�此 �The best translation is to
translate after the sentence�察 �and not only after the words�察 �so