TheversiondidnotatoncesupersedetheGenevanandtheBishops\'；butitwassoincomparablybetterthaneitherthatgraduallytheydisappeared，andbysheerexcellenceittookthefield，anditholdsthefieldto-dayinspiteofthenumeroussupposedlyimprovedversionsthathaveappearedunderprivateauspices。
Itholdsthefield，also，inspiteoftheexcellentrevisedversionof1881madebyauthority，andthemoreexcellentversionissuedin1901bytheAmericanRevisionCommittee，to-dayundoubtedlythebestversioninexistence，consideredsimplyasareproductionofthesenseoftheoriginal。Andforreasonsthatmaylaterappear，theKingJamesversionbidsfairtoholdthefieldformanyyearstocome。
Whenweturnfromthehistoryofitsmakingtotheworkitself，thereismuchtosay。WemaywellnarrowourthoughtfortheremainderofthestudytoitstraitsasaversionoftheBible。
I。Namethisfirst，thatitisanhonestversion。
Thatis，ithasnoargumentativepurpose。Itisnot，asthescholarssay，apologetic。Itissimplyanout-and-outversionoftheScripture，ashonestlyastheycouldreproduceit。
TherewerePuritansonthecommittee；therewereextremeHighChurchmen；thereweremenofallgradesbetween。ButthereisnowhereanyevidencethatanyonewassetonmakingtheBibleprovehispoint。Therewerestronganti-papalbelieversamongthem；buttheymadefreeuseoftheDouaiversion，and，ofcourse，oftheVulgate。TheyknewthefeelingthatHughBroughtonhadtowardthem；
buttheymadegeneroususeofallthatwasgoodinhiswork。Theywereworkingunderaroyalwarrant，andtheirdedicationtoKingJames，withitsabsurdandfulsomeflattery，showswhattheywerecapableofwhentheythoughtoftheKing。Butthereisnotwistofatexttomakeitservethepurposesofroyalty。TheymightbeservilewhentheythoughtofKingJames；
buttherewasnotatouchofservilityinthemwhentheythoughtoftheScriptureitself。Theywereunderinstructionnottoabandontheuseofecclesiasticalterms。Forinstance，theywerenottoput\"congregation\"inplaceof\"church，\"
assomePuritanswantedtodo。SomethoughtthatwasmeanttoinsureaHighChurchversion；
butthetranslatorsdidnotunderstanditsoforamoment。Theyunderstooditonlytosafeguardthemagainstmakingapartisanversiononeitherside，andtohelpthemtomakeaversionwhichthepeoplecouldreadunderstandinglyatonce。ItwasnottobeaPuritanBooknoraHighChurchBook。ItwastobeanhonestversionoftheBible，nomatterwhosesideitsustained。
Now，ifanyonethinksthatiseasy，oronlyamatterofcourse，heplainlyshowsthathehasneverbeenatheologianorascholarinacontestedfield。Askanylawyerwhetheritiseasytohandlehisauthoritieswithentireimpartiality，whetheritisamatterofcoursethathewillletthemsayjustwhattheymeanttosaywhenhiscaseisinvolved。Ofcourse，hewillseektodoitasanhonestlawyer，butequally，ofcourse，hewillhavetokeepclosewatchonhimselforhewillfailindoingit。Askanyhistorianwhetheritiseasytohandletheoriginaldocumentsinafieldinwhichhehasfirmandannouncedopinions，andtoletthosedocumentsspeakexactlywhattheymeantosay，whethertheysupporthimornot。Thegreaterhistorianswillalwaysdoit，buttheywillsometimesdoitwithabitofawrench。
Evenascholarishuman，andthesemensittingintheirsixcompanieswouldallhavetomeetthisBookafterward，wouldhavetheiropinionstriedbyit。Theremusthavebeentimeswhensomeofthemwouldbeinclinedtosalttheminealittle，toseethatitwouldyieldwhattheywouldwantittoyieldlater。Sofarasthesemenwereabletodoit，theymadeitsayinEnglishjustwhatitsaidinHebrewandGreek。Theyshowednoinclinationtouseitasaweaponintheirpersonalwarfare。
Onelineofthathonesteffortisworthobservingmoreclosely。Whenpointswereopentofairdiscussion，andscholarshiphadnotsettledthem，theywerecarefulnottolettheirversiontakesideswhenitcouldbeavoided。Onsomemootedwordstheydidnottrytranslation，buttransliterationinstead。Thatis，theybroughttheGreekorHebrewwordoverintoEnglish，letterbyletter。SupposescholarsdifferedastotheexactmeaninginEnglishofawordintheGreek。Somesaidithasthismeaning，andsomethatithasthat。Now，iftheversioncommitteditselftooneofthosemeanings，itbecameanargumentatonceagainsttheotherandhelpedtosettleaquestiononwhichscholarshipwasnotyetagreed。TheycouldavoidmakingapartisanBookbythesimpledeviceofbringingthewordwhichwasdisputedoverintothenewtranslation。Thatleftthediscussionjustwhereitwasbefore，butitsavedtheworkfrombeingpartisan。Themethodoftransliterationdidnotalwaysworktoadvantage，asweshallsee，butitwasintendedthroughouttosavetheBookfromtakingsidesonanyquestionwherehonestmenmightdifferastothemeaningofwords。
Theydidthatwithallpropernames，andthatwasnotableintheOldTestament，becausemostOldTestamentpropernamescanbetranslated。
Theyallmeansomethinginthemselves。
AdamistheHebrewwordforman；AbrahammeansFatherofaGreatMultitude；DavidistheHebrewwordforBeloved；MalachimeansMyMessenger。Yetaspropernamestheydonotmeananyofthosethings。Itisimpossibletotranslateapropernameintoanothertonguewithoutabsurdity。Itmustbetransliterated。
Yetthereisconstantfascinationfortranslatorsintheworkoftranslatingthesepropernames，tryingtomakethemseemmorevivid。Itisquitelikely，thoughitisdisputed，thatpropernamesdoallgobacktosimplemeanings。Butbythetimetheybecomepropernamestheynolongerhavethosemeanings。Theonlypropertreatmentofthemisbytransliteration。
TheKingJamestranslatorsfollowthatsamepracticeoftransliterationratherthantranslationwithanotherwordwhichisfullofcontroversial。
possibility。Imeantheword\"baptism。\"
TherewasdisputethenasnowaboutthemethodofthatordinanceinearlyChristianhistory。ThereweremanywhoheldthattheclassicalmeaningwhichinvolvedimmersionhadbeentakenoverbodilyintotheChristianfaith，andthatallbaptismwasbyimmersion。Therewereotherswhoheldthatwhilethatmightbetheclassicalmeaningoftheword，yetinearlyChristiancustombaptismwasnotbyimmersion，butmightbebysprinklingorpouring，andwhoinsistedthatnopressureonthemodewaswiseornecessary。Thatdisputecontinuestothisday。EarlyversionsoftheBiblealreadyfiguredinthediscussion，andforawhiletherewasquestionwhetherthisKingJamesversionshouldtakesidesinthatcontroversy，aboutwhichmenequallyloyaltotruthandearlyChristianhistorycouldhonestlydiffer。ThetranslatorsavoidedtakingsidesbybringingtheGreekwordwhichwasunderdiscussionoverintoEnglish，letterbyletter。Ourword\"baptism\"
isnotanEnglishwordnoraSaxonword；itisapurelyGreekword。ThecontroversyhasbeenbroughtoverintotheEnglishlanguage；
buttheKingJamesversionavoidedbecomingacontroversialbook。AnumberofyearsagotheconvictionsofsomeweresostrongthatanotherversionoftheBiblewasmade，inwhichthewordbaptismwascarefullyreplacedbywhatwasbelievedtobetheEnglishtranslation，\"immersion，\"buttheversionneverhadwideinfluence。
InthisconnectionitiswelltonoticetheeffortoftheKingJamestranslatorsatafairstatementofthedivinename。ItwillberememberedthatitappearsintheOldTestamentordinarilyas\"LORD，\"printedinsmallcapitals。
Averyinterestingbitofverbalhistoryliesbackofthatword。ThewordwhichrepresentsthedivinenameinHebrewconsistsoffourconsonants，JorY，H，V，andH。Therearenovowels；indeed，therewerenovowelsintheearlyHebrewatall。ThosethatwenowhavewereaddednotfarfromthetimeofChrist。
Nooneknowstheoriginalpronunciationofthatsacrednameconsistingoffourletters。Ataveryearlydayithadbecometoosacredtopronounce，sothatwhenmencametoitinreadingorinspeech，theysimplyusedanotherwordwhichis，translatedintoEnglish，Lord，awordofhighdignity。Whenthetimecamethatvowelsweretobeaddedtotheconsonants，thevowelsofthisotherwordLordwereplacedundertheconsonantsofthesacredname，sothatinthewordJehovah，wheretheJHVHoccur，therearetheconsonantsofonewordwhosevowelsareunknownandthevowelsofanotherwordwhoseconsonantsarenotused。
IllustrateitbyimaginingthatinAmericanliteraturethenameLincolngatheredtoitselfsuchsacrednessthatitwasneverpronouncedandonlyitsconsonantswereeverprinted。SupposethatwheneverreaderscametoittheysimplysaidWashington，thinkingLincolnallthewhile。ThenthinkofthedisplacementofthevowelsofLincolnbythevowelsofWashington。
YouhaveawordthatlookslikeLancilonorLanicoln；butareaderwouldneverpronouncesostrangeaword。HewouldalwayssayWashington，yethewouldalwaysthinktheothermeaning。Andwhilehewouldretainthemeaninginsomedegree，hewouldsoonforgettheoriginalword，retainingonlyhisaweofit。
Whichisjustwhathappenedwiththedivinename。TheHebrewsknewitwasnotLord，yettheyalwayssaidLordwhentheycametothefourlettersthatstoodforthesacredword。
ThewordJehovah，madeupoftheconsonantsofanunknownwordandthevowelsofafamiliarword，isinitselfmeaningless。Scholarshipisnotyetsurewhatwastheoriginalmeaningofthesacrednamewithitsfourconsonants。
Thesetranslatorshadtofacethatproblem。
Itwasapeculiarproblematthattime。HowshouldtheyputintoEnglishtheaugustnameofGodwhentheydidnotknowwhatthetruevowelswere?Therewasdisputeamongscholars。
TheydidnottakesidesasourlaterAmericanRevisionhasdone，someofusthinkquiteunwisely。
TheychosetoretaintheHebrewusage，andprintthedivinenameinunmistakabletypesothatitspersonalmeaningcouldnotbemistaken。
Ontheotherhand，disputessincetheirdayhaveshownhowtheytranslatedwhentransliterationwouldhavebeenwiser。Illustratewithoneinstance。ThereisaHebrewword，Sheol，withaGreekword，Hades，whichcorrespondstoit。UsagehadadoptedtheAnglo-SaxonwordHellastheequivalentofbothofthesewords，sotheytranslatedSheolandHadeswiththeEnglishwordHell。TheonlyquestionthathadbeenraisedwasbythatHughBroughtonofwhomwewerespeakingamomentago，andithadnotseemedaseriousone。Certainlythethreetermshavemuchincommon，andthereareplaceswhereboththeoriginalwordsseemedtobevirtuallyequivalenttotheAnglo-SaxonHell，buttheyarenotthesame。TheRevisedVersionofourowntimereturnedtotheoriginal，andinsteadoftranslatingthosewordswhosemeaningcanbedebated，ittransliteratedthemandbroughttheHebrewwordSheolandtheGreekwordHadesoverintoEnglish。That，ofcourse，gaveachanceforparagrapherstosaythattheRevisedVersionhadreadHelloutoftheScriptures。AllthathappenedwasthatcognizancewastakenofadisputewhichwouldhaveguidedtheKingJamestranslatorsifithadexistedintheirtime，andweshouldnothavebecomefamiliarwiththeAnglo-SaxonwordHellasthetranslationofthosedisputedHebrewandGreekwords。
Weneednotseekmoreinstances。Theseareenoughtoillustratethesayingthathereisanhonestversion，thefruitofthebestscholarshipofthetimes，withoutprejudice。
II。Asecondtraitoftheworkasaversionisitsremarkableaccuracy。Itissurprisingthatwithallthenewlightcomingfromearlydocuments，withallthenewdiscoveriesthathavebeenmade。thelatestrevisionneededtomakesofewchanges，andthoseforthemostpartminorones。Thereare，tobesure，someimportantchanges，asweshallseelater；thewonderisthattherearenotmanymore。TheKingJamesversionhad，tobesure，thebenefitofalltheearliercontroversy。Thewholegroundhadbeenreallyfoughtoverinthecenturiesbefore，andmostofthequestionshadbeendiscussed。
Theyfranklymadeuseofalltheearliercontroversy。Theysayintheirpreface:\"Truly，goodChristianreader，weneverthoughtfromthebeginningthatweshouldneedtomakeanewtranslation，noryettomakeabadoneagoodone，buttomakeagoodonebetter。Thathathbeenourendeavor，thatourwork。\"Also，theyhadtheadvantageofdeliberation。Thiswasthefirstversionthathadbeenmadewhichhadsuchsanctionthattheycouldtaketheirtime，andinwhichtheyhadnoreasontofearthattheresultswouldendangerthem。Theysayintheirprefacethattheyhadnotrunovertheirworkwiththat\"postinghaste\"thathadmarkedtheSeptuagint，ifthesayingwastruethattheydiditallinseventy-twodays；norwerethey\"barredandhinderedfromgoingoveritagain，\"asJeromehimselfsaidhehadbeen，sinceassoonashewroteanypart\"itwassnatchedawayfromhimandpublished\"；norwerethey\"workinginanewfield，\"asOrigenwaswhenhewrotehisfirstcommentaryontheBible。Boththesethings——theirtakingadvantageofearliercontroversieswhichhadclearedmanydifferences，andtheirdeliberation——weresupplementedbyathirdwhichgavegreataccuracytotheversion。Thatwastheiradoptionoftheprincipleofallearlytranslators，perhapswordedbestbyPurvey，whocompletedtheWiclifversion:\"Thebesttranslationistotranslateafterthesentence，andnotonlyafterthewords，sothatthesentencebeasopeninEnglishasinLatin。\"Thatmakesforaccuracy。
Itisquiteimpossibletoputanylanguageover，wordforword，intoanotherwithoutgreatinaccuracy。ButwhenthetranslatorssoughttotakethesentenceoftheHebrewortheGreekandputitintoanexactlyequivalentEnglishsentence，theyhadlargerplayfortheirlanguageandtheyhadafairerfieldforaccuracy。Thesewerethethreegreatfactswhichmadetheremarkableaccuracypossible，anditmaybeinterestingtonotethreecorrespondingresultswhichshowtheefforttheymadetobeabsolutelyaccurateandfairintheirtranslation。
Thefirstofthoseresultsisvisibleintheitalicizedwordswhichtheyused。IntheKingJamesversionwordsinitalicsareafrankacknowledgmentthattheGreekortheHebrewcannotbeputintoEnglishliterally。TheseareEnglishwordswhichareputinbecauseitseemsimpossibletoexpressthemeaningoriginallyintendedwithoutcertainadditionswhichthereadermusttakeintoaccountinhisunderstandingoftheversion。Weneednotthinkfartoseehownecessarythatwas。ThearrangementofwordsinGreek，forexample，isdifferentfromthatinEnglish。TheGreekofthefirstverseoftheGospelofJohnreadsthat\"GodwastheWord，\"buttheEnglishmakesitssentencesinareversedform，anditreallymeans，\"theWordwasGod。\"SotheGreekusesparticleswheretheEnglishdoesnot。Oftenitwouldsay\"theGod\"wherewewouldsaysimply\"God。\"Thoseparticlesareordinarilywiselyomitted。SotheGreekdoesnotuseverbsatsomepointswhereitisquiteessentialthattheEnglishshallusethem。ButitisonlyfairthatinreadingaversionoftheScriptureweshouldknowwhatwordshavebeenputinbytranslatorsintheirefforttomaketheversioncleartous；andtheitalicizedwordsoftheKingJamesversionareafrankefforttobeaccurateandyetfair。
Thesecondresultwhichshowstheireffortataccuracyisinthemarginalreadings。Mostoftheseareoptionalreadings，andareprecededbytheword\"or，\"whichindicatesthatonemayreadwhatisinthetext，orsubstituteforitwhatisinthemarginwithequalfairnesstotheoriginal。Butsometimes，insteadofthatfamiliar\"or，\"occurletterswhichindicatethattheHebrewortheGreekliterallymeanssomethingelsethanwhatisgivenintheEnglishtext，andwhatitliterallymeansisgiveninthemargin。Thetranslatorstherebysaytothereaderthatifhecantakethatliteralmeaningandputitintothetextsothatitisintelligibletohim，hereishischance。Asforthem，theythinkthatthewholecontextormeaningofthesentenceratherinvolvestheuseofthephrasewhichtheyputintothetext。Butthemarginalreferencesareofgreatinteresttomostofusasshowinghowthesemenwerefranktosaythatthereweresomethingstheycouldnotsettle。Theywereratherblamedforit，chieflybythosewhohadcommittedthemselvestotheDouaiversion，whichhasnomarginalreadings，onthegroundthatthetranslationoughttobeasauthoritativeastheoriginal。TheKingJamestranslatorsrepudiatethattheoryandfranklysaythatthereasontheyputthesewordsinthemarginwasbecausetheywerenotsurewhatwasthebestreading。InthemarginoftheepistletotheRomansthereareeighty-
foursuchmarginalreadings，andtheproportionwillholdthroughoutmostoftheversion。Theywereonlytryingtobeaccurateandtogiveeveryoneachancetomakeuphisownmindwheretherewasfairreasontoquestiontheirresults。
Thethirdthingwhichshowstheireffortataccuracyistheirexplicitavoidanceofuniformityintranslatingthesameword。TheytriedtoputthemeaningintoEnglishterms。
So，astheysay，theonewordmightbecomeeither\"journeying\"or\"traveling\"；onewordmightbe\"thinking\"or\"supposing，\"\"joy\"or\"gladness，\"\"eternal\"or\"everlasting。\"Oneofthereasonstheygiveforthisisquaintenoughtoquote。TheysaidtheydidnotthinkitrighttohonorsomewordsbygivingthemaplaceforeverintheBible，whiletheyvirtuallysaidtootherequallygoodwords:Getyehenceandbebanishedforever。Theyquotea\"certainegreatphilosopher\"whosaidthatthoselogswerehappywhichbecameimagesandwereworshiped，while，otherlogsasgoodastheywerelaidbehindthefiretobeburned。SotheysoughttouseasmanyEnglishwords，familiarinspeechandcommonlyunderstood，astheymight，lesttheyshouldimpoverishthelanguage，andsoloseoutofusegoodwords。Thereisnodoubtthatinthiseffortbothtosavethelanguage，andtorepresentaccuratelythemeaningoftheoriginal，theysometimesoverdidthatavoidanceofuniformity。Thereweretimeswhenitwouldhavebeenwellifthewordshadbeenmoreconsistentlytranslated。Forexample，intheepistleofJamesii:2，3，youhavegoodly\"apparel，\"vile\"raiment，\"andgay\"clothing，\"
alltranslatingoneGreekword。Ourrevisedversionshavesoughttocorrectsuchinconsistencies。
Butitwasalldoneintheinterestofanaccuracythatshouldyetnotbeaslavishuniformity。
Thiswillbeenoughtoillustratewhatwasmeantinspeakingoftheeffortofthetranslatorstoachieveaccuracyintheirversion。
III。ThethirdmarkedtraitoftheworkasaversionoftheScriptureisitsstrikingblendingofdignityandpopularityinitslanguage。Atanyperiodofalivinglanguage，therearethreelevelsofspeech。Thereisanupperlevelusedbytheclearestthinkersandmostcarefulwriters，alwayscorrectaccordingtothelawsofthelanguage，generallysomewhatremotefromcommonlife——thehabitualspeechofthemoreintellectual。
Thereisalsothelowerlevelusedbytheleastintellectual，frequentlyincorrectaccordingtothelawsofthelanguage，rough，containingwhatwenowcall\"slang，\"thetalkofaknotofmenonthestreetcornerwaitingforanewbulletinofaballgame，cheapinwords，impoverishedinsynonyms，usingonewordtoexpressanynumberofideas，asslangalwaysdoes。Thosetwolevelsarereallyfartherapartthanweareapttorealize。Abookoranarticleontheupperlevelwillbeuninterestingandunintelligibletothepeopleonthelowerlevel。Andabookinthelanguageofthelowerlevelisoffensiveanddisgustingtothoseoftheupperlevel。Thatisnotbecausetheideasaresoremote，butbecausethecharacteristicexpressionsarealmostunfamiliartothepeopleofthedifferentlevels。
Themorethoughtfulpeoplereadtheablerjournalsoftheday；theyreadtheeditorialsorthemoreextendedarticles；theyreadalsothegreatliterature。Iftheytakeupthesportingpageofanewspapertoreadtheaccountofaballgamewritteninthestyleofthelowerlevelofthought，wherewordsaremisusedindisregardofthelawsofthelanguage，andwhereonewordismadetododutyforagreatmanyideas，theydoitsolelyforamusement。Theycouldneverthinkoffindingtheirmentalstimulusinthatsortofthing。Ontheotherhand，therearepeoplewhofindinthatkindofreadingtheirrealinterest。Iftheyshouldtakeupathoughtfuleditorialorabookofessays，theywouldnotknowwhatthewordsmeanintheconnectioninwhichtheyareused。Theyspeakagooddealaboutthevividnessofthislower-levellanguage，aboutitspopularity；theyspeakwithasneeraboutthestiffnessanddignityofthatupperlevel。
Theseare，however，onlythetwoextremes，forthereisalwaysamiddlelevelwheremovewordscommontoboth，whereareavoidedthewordspeculiartoeach。Itisthelanguagethatmostpeoplespeak。Itisthelanguageofthestreet，andalsoofthestudy，oftheparlor，andoftheshop。Butithaslittlethatispeculiartoeitherofthoseotherlevels，ortoanyoneplacewhereamanmaylivehislifeanddohistalking。Ifweillustratefromotherliterature，wecansaythatMacaulay\'sessaysmoveontheupperlevel，andthatmuchoftheso-calledpopularliteratureofourdaymovesonthelowerlevel，whileDickensmovesonthemiddlelevel，whichmeansthatmenwhosehabituallanguageisthatoftheupperandthelowerlevelscanbothenterintothespiritofhiswriting。
Now，originallytheBiblemovedonthatmiddlelevel。Itwasacolloquialbook。Thelanguagesinwhichitfirstappearedwerenotintheclassicforms。Theyarethelanguagesofthestreetswheretheywerewritten。TheHebrewisalmostouronlyexampleofthetongueatitsperiod，butitisnotaliterarylanguageinanycase。TheGreekoftheNewTestamentisnottheEolic，thelanguageofthelyricsofSappho；
northeDoric，thelanguageofwar-songsorthechorusinthedrama；northeIonic，thedialectofepicpoetry；buttheAtticGreek，andacorruptedformofthat，aformcorruptedbyuseinthestreetsandinthemarkets。
ThatwastheoriginallanguageoftheBible，acolloquiallanguage。Butthatfactdoesnotdeterminethetranslation。WhetheritshallbeputintotheEnglishlanguageontheupperleveloronthelowerlevelisnotsoreadilydetermined。Effortshavebeenmadetoputitintothelanguageofeachlevel。Wehaveaso-
calledeleganttranslation，andwehavetheBiblecastintothespeechofthecommonday。
TheKingJamesversionisonthemiddlelevel。
Itisastrikingblendingofthedignityoftheupperlevelandthepopularityofthelowerlevel。
Thereistremendoussignificanceinthefactthatthesemenweremakingaversionwhichshouldbeforallpeople，makingitoutintheopendaywiththekingandallthepeoplebehindthem。Itwasthefirstindependentversionwhichhadbeenmadeundersuchfavorablecircumstances。Mostoftheversionshadbeenmadeinprivatebymenwhowereimperilingthemselvesintheirwork。TheydidnotexpecttheBooktopassintocommonuse；theyknewthatthemenwhoreceivedtheresultoftheirworkwouldhavetobethosewhowereearnestenoughtogointosecretplacesfortheirreading。
Butherewasachangedcondition。Thesemenweremakingaversionbyroyalauthority，aversionawaitedwitheagerinterestbythepeopleingeneral。Theresultisthatitisapeople\'sBook。Itsphrasesarethoseofcommonlife，thosethathadliveduptothattime。Itisnotinthepeculiarlanguageofthetimes。Ifyouwanttoknowthelanguageoftheirowntimes，readthesetranslators\'servile，unhistoricaldedicationtotheking，ortheirfarnoblerprefacetothereader。Thatisthelanguagepeculiartotheirownday。ButthelanguageoftheBibleitselfisthatformwhichhadliveditswayintocommonuse。OnehundredyearsafterWiclifityetspeakshislanguageinlargepart，forthatparthadreallylived。IntheBibliothecaPastorumRuskinmakescommentonSirPhilipSidneyandhismetricalversionofthePsalmsinthesewords:\"SirPhilipSidneywilluseanycow-boyortinkerwordsiftheyonlyhelphimtosaypreciselyinEnglishwhatDavidsaidinHebrew；impressedthewhilehimselfsovividlyofthemajestyofthethoughtitselfthatnotinker\'slanguagecanloweritorvulgarizeitinhismind。\"TheKingJamestranslatorsweremosteagertosaywhattheoriginalsaid，andtosayitsothatthecommonmancouldwellunderstandit，andyetsothatitshouldnotbevulgarizedorcheapenedbyadoptionofcheapwords。
InhisHistoryHallampassessomerathersharpstricturesontheEnglishoftheKingJamesversion，remarkingthatitaboundsinuncouthphrasesandinwordswhosemeaningisnotfamiliar，andthatwhateveristobesaiditis，atanyrate，notintheEnglishofthetimeofKingJames。Andthatlattersayingistrue，thoughitmustberememberedthatHallamwroteintheperiodwhennoEnglishwasrecognizedbyliterarypeopleexceptthatoftheupperlevel，whentheydidnotknowthattheseso-
calleduncouthphrasesweretoreturntocommonuse。To-dayitwouldbeabsurdtosaythattheBibleisfullofuncouthphrases。
ProfessorCookhassaidthat\"themovementofEnglishdiction，whichintheseventeenthandeighteenthcenturieswasonthewholeawayfromtheBible，nowreturnswithever-acceleratingspeedtowardit。\"Ifthephraseswentout，theycameback。ButitistruethattheEnglishoftheKingJamesversionisnotthatofthetimeofJamesI。，onlybecauseitistheEnglishofthehistoryofthelanguage。Ithasnotimmortalizedforusthetongueofitstimes，becauseithastakenthattonguefromitsbeginninganddetermineditsform。Itcarefullyavoidedwordsthatwerecountedcoarse。Ontheotherhand，itdidnotcommititselftowordswhichweresimplyrefinementsofverbalconstruction。That，Isay，isageneralfact。
Itcanbeillustratedinoneortwoways。Forinstance，awordwhichhasbecomecommontousistheneuterpossessivepronoun\"its。\"Thatworddoesnotoccurintheeditionof1611，andappearsfirstinaneditionintheprintingof1660。Inplaceofit，intheeditionof1611，themoredignifiedpersonalpronoun\"his\"or\"her\"
isalwaysused，anditcontinuesforthemostpartinourfamiliarversion。Inthisverseyounoticeit:\"Looknotuponthewinewhenitisred；whenitgivethHIScolorarightinthecup。\"
IntheLeviticallawespecially，wherereferenceismadetosacrifices，tothearticlesofthefurnitureofthetabernacle，orotherneuterobjects，themasculinepronounisalmostinvariablyused。Intheoriginalitwasinvariablyused。
Youseetheotherforminthefamiliarverseaboutcharity，thatit\"dothnotbehaveitselfunseemly，seekethnotHERown，isnoteasilyprovoked。\"Now，thereisevidencethattheneuterpossessivepronounwasjustcomingintouse。Shakespeareusesittentimesinhisworks，buttentimesonly，andanumberofwritersdonotuseitatall。Itwas，tobesure，awordbeginningtobeheardonthestreet，andforthemostpartonthelowerlevel。TheKingJamestranslatorsneverusedit。Thedignifiedwordwasthatmasculineorfemininepronoun，andtheyalwaysuseitinplaceoftheneuter。
Ontheotherhand，therewasawordwhichwascomingintouseontheupperlevelwhichhasbecomecommonpropertytousnow。Itistheword\"anxiety。\"Itisnotcertainjustwhenitcameintouse。IbelieveShakespearedoesnotuseit；
anditoccursverylittleintheliteratureofthetimes。Probablyitwasknowntothesetranslators。
Whentheycame，however，totranslatingawordwhichnowwetranslateby\"anxious\"
or\"anxiety\"theydidnotusethatword。
Itwasnotfamiliar。Theyusedinsteadthewordwhichrepresentedtheideaforthepeopleofthemiddlelevel；theyusedtheword\"thought。\"
Sotheysaid，\"Takenothoughtforthemorrow，\"
wherewewouldsay，\"Benotanxiousforthemorrow。\"Thereisacontemporarydocumentwhichillustrateshowthatword\"thought\"
wascommonlyused，inwhichweread:\"Infivehundredyearsonlytwoqueensdiedinchildbirth，QueenCatherineParrhavingdiedratherofthought。\"ThatwaswrittenaboutthetimeoftheKingJamesversion，and\"thought\"
evidentlymeansworryoranxiety。Neitherofthosewords，theneuterpossessivepronounorthenewword\"anxious，\"gotintotheKingJamesversion。Onewascomingintoproperusefromthelowerlevel，andonewascomingintoproperusefromtheupperlevel。Theyhadnotyetsoarrivedthattheycouldbeused。
OneresultofthiscaretopreservedignityandalsopopularityappearsinthefactthatsofewwordsoftheEnglishversionhavebecomeobsolete。
Wordsdisappearupwardoutoftheupperlevelordownwardoutofthelowerlevel，butittakesalongtimeforawordtogetoutofalanguageonceitisinconfirmeduseonthemiddlelevel。Ofcourse，theversionitselfhastendedtokeepwordsfamiliar；butnobook，nomatterhowwidelyused，canpreventsomewordsfrompassingoffthestageorfromchangingtheirmeaningsonoticeablythattheyarevirtuallydifferentwords。YeteveninthosewordswhichdonotbecomecommonthereisverylittletendencytoobsolescenceintheKingJamesversion。
MorewordsofShakespearehavebecomeobsoleteorhavechangedtheirmeaningsthanintheKingJamesversion。
ThereisoneinterestingillustrationtowhichattentionhasbeencalledbyDr。Davidson，whichisinteresting。IntheninthchapteroftheJudges，wherewearetoldaboutAbimelech，thefifty-thirdversereadsthatawomancastastonedownfromthewalland\"alltobreakhisskull。\"Thatisconfessedlyratherobscure。
OurordinaryunderstandingofitwouldbethatshedidthatfornootherpurposethanjusttobreaktheskullofAbimelech。Asamatteroffact，thatexpressionisaprinter\'sbunglingwayofgivingawordwhichhasbecomeobsoleteintheoriginalform。WhentheKingJamestranslatorswrotethat，theyusedtheword\"alto，\"
whichisevidentlythebeginningof\"altogether，\"
orwhollyorutterly，andwhattheymeantwasthatshethrewthestoneandutterlybrokehisskull。Butthatabbreviatedformofthewordpassedoutofuse，andwhenlaterprinters——notmuchlater——cametoittheydidnotknowwhatitmeantanddivideditasitstandsinourpresenttext。Itisoneofthefewwordsthathavebecomeobsolete。Butsofewarethereofthem，thatitwasmadearuleoftheRevisedVersionnottoadmittothenewversion，whereitcouldbeavoided，anywordnotalreadyfoundintheAuthorizedVersion，andalsonottoomitfromtheRevisedVersion，exceptunderpressureofnecessity，anywordwhichoccurredthere。ItislargelythisblendingofdignityandpopularitythathasmadetheKingJamesversionsoinfluentialinEnglishliterature。Ittalksthelanguagenotoftheupperlevelnorofthelowerlevel，butofthatmiddlelevelwhereallmeetsometimesandwheremostmenareallthewhile。
Thesearegreattraitstomarkabook，anybook，butespeciallyatranslation——thatitishonest，thatitisaccurate，andthatitslanguageblendsdignityandpopularitysothatitlowersthespeechofnone。TheyareallconspicuoustraitsofourfamiliarversionoftheBible，andintheminpartliesitspowerwiththegenerationsofthesethreecenturiesthathavefolloweditsappearance。
LECTUREIII
THEKINGJAMESVERSIONASENGLISHLITERATURE
LETitbeplainlysaidattheveryfirstthatwhenwespeakoftheliteraryphasesoftheBiblewearenotdiscussingthebookinitshistoricmeaning。Itwasnevermeantasliteratureinourusualsenseoftheword。Nothingcouldhavebeenfurtherfromthethoughtofthemenwhowroteit，whoevertheywereandwhenevertheywrote，thanthattheyweremakingaworldliterature。Theyhadthecharacteristicsofmenwhodomakegreatliterature——
theyhadclearvisionandagreatpassionfortruth；theylovedtheirfellowsmightily，andtheywerefarmoreconcernedtobeunderstoodthantospeak。Thesearetraitsthatgotomakegreatwriters。Butitwasneverintheirmindsthattheyweremakingaworldliterature。TheBibleisabookofreligioussignificancefromfirsttolast。Ifitutterlybrokedownbythetestsofliterature，itmightbeasgreatabookasitneedstobe。Itisasubordinatefactthatbythetestsofliteratureitprovesalsotobegreat。Prof。Gardiner，ofHarvard，whosebookcalledTheBibleasEnglishLiteraturemakesothersuchworksalmostunnecessary，franklybaseshisjudgmentontheresultofcriticalstudyoftheBible，butheservesfairwarningthathetakesinspirationforgranted，andthinksit\"obviousthatnoliterarycriticismoftheBiblecouldhopeforsuccesswhichwasnotreverentintone。AcriticwhoshouldapproachitsuperciliouslyorarrogantlywouldmissallthathasgiventheBookitspowerasliteratureanditslastinganduniversalappeal。\"[1]FartheroverinhisbookhegoesontosaythatwhenwesearchforthecausesofthefeelingswhichmadethemarvelousstyleoftheBibleanecessity，explanationcanmakebutashortstep，for\"weareinarealmwheretheonlyultimateexplanationisthefactofinspiration；andthatisonlyanotherwayofsayingthatweareinthepresenceofforcesaboveandbeyondourpresenthumanunderstanding。\"[2]
[1]Preface，p。vii。
[2]Page124。
However，wemayfairlymakedistinctionbetweentheBibleasanoriginalworkandtheBibleasaworkofEnglishliterature。FortheBibleasanoriginalworkisnotsomuchabookasaseriesofbooks，theworkofmanymenworkingseparatelyoveraperiodofatleastfifteenhundredyears，andthesemenunconsciousforthemostpartofanypurposeofagreement。
Thisseriesofbooksismadeonebookintheoriginalbytheunityofitsgeneralpurposeandtheagreementofitsparts。TheBibleinEnglishis，however，notaseriesofbooks，butproperlyonebook，theworkofsixsmallgroupsofmenworkinginconsciousunitythroughashortperiodofyears。Andwhilethereisvariationinstyle，whilethereareinequalitiesinresult，yetitstandsasasinglepieceofEnglishliterature。
Ithasaliterarystyleofitsown，eventhoughitfeelspowerfullytheHebrewinfluencethroughout。
AndwhileitwouldnotbeacondemnationoftheBibleifitwerenotgreatliteratureinEnglishorelsewhere，itisstillpartofitspowerthatbyliterarystandardsaloneitmeasureslarge。
Itissothatmenoflettershaverateditsinceitcameintoexistence。\"Itholdsaplaceofpre-eminenceintherepublicofletters。\"WhenJohnRichardGreencomestodealwithit，hesays:\"AsamereliterarymonumenttheEnglishversionoftheBibleremainsthenoblestlanguageoftheEnglishtongue，whileitsperpetualusemadeofitfromtheinstantofitsappearancethestandardofourlanguage。\"[1]AndinMacaulay\'sessayonDryden，whileheisdeploringthedeteriorationofEnglishstyle，heyetsaysthatintheperiodwhentheEnglishlanguagewasimperiledthereappeared\"theEnglishBible，abookwhichifeverythingelseinourlanguageshouldperishwouldalonesufficetoshowtheextentofitsbeautyandpower。\"
[1]ShortHistoryoftheEnglishPeople，Bookvii，chap。i。
ThemerefactthattheEnglishBiblecontainsareligiondoesnotaffectitsstandingasliterature。
HomerandVirgilareGreekandRomanclassics，yeteachofthemcontainsadefinitereligion。YoucanbuildupthereligiousfaithoftheGreeksandRomansoutoftheirgreatliterature。SoyoucanbuildupthereligiousfaithoftheHebrewsandtheearlyChristiansfromtheOldandNewTestaments。\"ForfifteencenturiesaHebrewBook，theBible，containedalmostthewholeliteratureandlearningofawholenation，\"whileitwasalsothebookoftheirreligion。
Asliterature，however，apartfromitsreligiousconnection，itissubjecttoanyofthecriteriaofliterature。Insofaritisthefairsubjectofcriticism。Itmuststandorfallwhenitenterstherealmofliteraturebythestandardsofotherbooks。Indeed，manyquestionsregardingitsdates，theauthorshipofunassignedportions，themeaningofitsdisputedpassagesmaybeansweredmostfairlybyliterarytests。Thatisalwaysliabletoabuse；butliterarytestsarealwaysliabletothat。Therehavebeenenoughblundersmadeintheknowledgeofusalltorequireustogocarefullyinsuchamatter。
TheWaverleyNovelswerepublishedanonymously，and，whilesomesuspectedScottatonce，otherswereentirelyclearthatonthegroundofliterarystylehisauthorshipwasentirelyimpossible!
Letamagazinepublishananonymousserial，andreaderseverywherearequicktorecognizethewriterfromhisliterarystyleandhisgeneralideas，buteachgroup\"recognizes\"
adifferentwriter。Argumentsbasedchieflyonstyleoverlookthelargepersonalequationinallwriting。Thesamewriterhasmorethanonenaturalstyle。Itisnotuntilhebecomesinacertainsenseaffected——growsproudofhispeculiarities——thathesettlesdowntooneform。
Anditisquiteimpossibletoassignabooktoanynarrowhistoricalperiodonthegroundofitsstylealone。ButthoughlargeemphasiscouldbelaidupontheliterarymeritsoftheBibletotheobscuringofitsothermoreimportantmerits，itisyettruethatfromtheliterarypointofviewtheBiblestandsasanEnglishclassic，indeed，astheoutstandingEnglishclassic。Toacknowledgeignoranceofitistoconfessone\'sselfignorantofourgreatestliterarypossession。
AmomentagoitwassaidthatasapieceofliteraturetheBiblemustacceptthestandardsofotherliterarybooks。Forallpresentpurposeswecandefinegreatliteratureasworthywrittenexpressionofgreatideas。Ifwemaytaketheword\"written\"forgranted，theroughdefinitionbecomesthis:thatgreatliteratureistheworthyexpressionofgreatideas。Workswhichclaimtobegreatinliteraturemayfailofgreatnessineitherhalfofthattest。Petty，local，unimportantideasmaybewellclothed，orgreatideasmaybeunworthilyexpressed；ineithercasetheliteratureispoor。Itisnotuntilgreatideasareweddedtoworthyexpressionthatliteraturebecomesgreat。Failureatoneendortheotherwillexplainthefailureofmostoftheworkthatseekstobeaccountedliterature。
Theliteraryvalueofabookcannotbedeterminedbyitsstylealone。Itispossibletosaynothinggracefully，evenwithdignity，symmetry，rhythm；butitisnotpossibletomakeliteraturewithoutideas。Abidingliteraturedemandslargeideasworthilyexpressed。Now，ofcourse，\"large\"and\"small\"arenotwordsthatareusuallyappliedtothemeasurementofideas；butwecanmakethemseemappropriatehere。Letusmeanthatanideaislargeorsmallaccordingtoitsbreadthofinteresttotheraceanditslengthofinteresttotherace。Ifthereisanideawhichisofvaluetoallthemembersofthehumanraceto-day，andwhichdoesnotloseitsvalueasthegenerationscomeandgo，thatisthelargestpossibleideawithinhumanthought。Transientliteraturemaydowithoutthoselargeideas。Agiftedyoungreportermaydescribeadogfightorapresidentialnominatingconventioninsuchtermsaslifthisarticleoutofcarelessnessandhastynewspaperwritingintotherealmofrealliterature；butitcannotbecomeabidingliterature。Ithasnotalargeenoughideatokeepitalive。Andtoanyonewholovesworthyexpressionthereisasenseofdegradationintheuseoffineliterarypowersforthedescriptionofpurelytransientlocalevents。Itisalwaysregrettablewhenmenwithliteraryskillareavailableforthedescriptionofaballgame，orareexploitedasworthywritersaboutaprize-fight。Ifamanhaspowertoexpressideaswell，heoughttousethatpowerfortheexpressionofgreatideas。
Manyofushaveseenadozenbookshailedasclassicnovelssuretolive，eachofthemthegreatAmericannovelatlast，theauthortobecomparedwithDickensandThackerayandGeorgeEliot。Andthebookshavegonethewayofalltheearth。Withsome，thetroubleisaweak，involved，orotherwisepoorstyle。
Withmostthetroubleislackofrealideas。
CharlesDickens，tobesure，doesdealwithboarding-schoolsinEngland，withconditionswhichintheirlocalformdonotrecurandarenotfamiliartous；buthedealswiththemasinvolvingagreatprincipleoftherelationofsocietytoyouth，andsoDavidCopperfieldorOliverTwistbecomesabookforthelifeofallofus，andforalltime。AndevenhereitisevidentthatnotallofDickens\'sworkwilllive，butonlythatwhichisleastnarrowlylocalandismostbroadlyhuman。
ThereisafurtherstrikingillustrationinafamiliareventinAmericanhistory。MostyoungpeoplearerequiredtostudyWebster\'sspeechinreplytoRobertHayneintheUnitedStatesSenate，usingitasamodelinliteraryconstruction。
ThespeechofHayneislosttoourinterest，yetthefactisthatHaynehimselfwasgiftedinexpression，thatbythestandardsofsimplestylehisspeechcomparesfavorablywiththatofWebster。YetreadingWebster\'sreplytakesonenottothelocalconditionwhichwasconcerningHayne，buttoagreatprincipleoflibertyandunion。Heshowsthatprincipleemerginginhistory；thelocaltouchesarelosttothoughtashegoeson，andatruthisexpressedintermsofhistorywhichwillbevaliduntilhistoryisended。ItisnotsimplyWebster\'sstyle；itisthatwithhisgreatideawhichmadehisreplymemorable。
ThatneitherideasnorstylealonecankeepliteraturealiveisshownbyliteraryhistoryafterShakespeare。Justafterhimyouhavethe\"mellifluouspoets\"ofthenextperiodontheonehand，withstyleenough，butwithsuchattenuatedideasthattheirworkhasdied。WhoknowsDraytonorBrownorWither?Ontheotherhand，therecamethemetaphysicianswithideasinabundance，butnotstyle，andtheirworkshavedied。
Here，then，istheEnglishBiblebecomingthechiefEnglishclassicbytheweddingofgreatideastoworthyexpression。Fromonepointofviewthisearlyseventeenthcenturywasanopportunetimeformakingsuchaclassic。
Theologywasapopularsubject。Men\'smindshadfoundanewfreedom，andtheyusedittodiscussgreatthemes。Theyevenbegantosing。
ThereignofElizabethhadpreparedtheway。
TheEnglishscholarHoaretracesthisnewlibertytothesailingawayoftheArmadaandthereleasingofEnglandfromtheperpetualdreadofSpanishinvasion。Hesaysthatthebirdsfeltthefreeair，andsangastheyhadneversungbeforeandastheyhavenotoftensungsince。
ButthiswasnotrestrictedtothebirdsofEnglishsong。ItwasaperiodofremarkableawakeninginthewholeintellectuallifeofEngland，andthatintellectuallifewasdirectingitselfamongthecommonpeopletoreligion。
AnotherEnglishwriter，Eaton，saysaprofounderwordintracingtheawakeningtothereformation，sayingthatit\"couldnotfail，fromtheverynatureofit，totingetheliteratureoftheElizabethanera。ItgavealogicalanddisputatiouscharactertotheageandproducedmenmightyintheScriptures。\"[1]AFrenchvisitorwenthomedisgustedbecausepeopletalkedofnothingbuttheologyinEngland。GrotiusthoughtallthepeopleofEnglandweretheologians。James\'schiefpridewashistheologicallearning。ItdidnotprovedifficulttofindhalfahundredmeninsmallEnglandinstantlyrecognizedasexpertsinScripturestudy。Thepeoplewerereadytowelcomeabookofgreatideas。Letuspassbythoseideasamoment，rememberingthattheyarenotenoughinthem-
selvestogivetheworkliteraryvalue，andturnourmindstothestyleoftheEnglishBible。
[1]T。R。Eaton，ShakespeareandtheBible，p。2。
FromthispointofviewthetimeswerenotperfectlyopportuneforapieceofpureEnglishliterature，thoughitwasthetimewhichproducedShakespeare。Adefinitemovementwasontorefinethelanguagebyforeigndecorations。
NotevenShakespeareavoidsitalways。Nowriterofthetimeavoidsitwholly。ThededicationoftheKingJamesversionshowsthatthesescholarsthemselvesdidnotavoidit。Inthatdedication，andtheirpreface，theygiveusfinewriting，strivingforeffect，ornamentalphrasescharacteristicofthetime。MenwerefeelingthatthisEnglishlanguagewasroughandbarbarous，insufficient，needingenlargementbytheadditionofotherwordsconstructedinaforeignform。TheessaysofLordBaconarevirtuallycontemporaneouswiththistranslation。
Macaulaysaysaratherhardwordincallinghisstyle\"odiousanddeformed，\"[1]butwhenoneturnsfromBacontotheEnglishBiblethereisasharpcontrastinmerestyle，anditfavorstheBible。ThecontrastisasgreatasthatwhichCarlylefirstfeltbetweentheideasofShakespeareandthoseoftheBiblewhenhesaidthat\"thisworldisacatholickindofplace；thePuritangospelandShakespeare\'splays:suchapairoffactsIhaverarelyseensaveoutofonechimericalgeneration。\"[2]AndthatgivespointtothewordalreadyquotedfromHallamthattheEnglishoftheKingJamesversionisnottheEnglishofJamesI。
[1]EssayonJohnDryden。
[2]HistoricalSketches，HamptonCourtConference。
FourthingshelpedtodeterminethesimplicityandpureEnglish——unornamentedEnglish——oftheKingJamesversion，madeit，thatis，theEnglishclassic。Twoofthesethingshavebeendealtwithalreadyinotherconnections。
First，thatitwasaBookforthepeople，forthepeopleofthemiddleleveloflanguage；aworkbyscholars，butnotchieflyforscholars，intendedratherforthecommonuseofcommonpeople。
Secondly，thatthetranslatorswereconstantlybeholdentotheworkofthepastinthissameline。WhereWiclif\'swordswerestillinusetheyusedthem。Thattendedtofixthelanguagebytheusewhichhadalreadybecomenatural。
Theothertwodetermininginfluencesmustbespokenofnow。ThethirdliesinthefactthattheEnglishlanguagewasstillplastic。Ithadnotfallenintosuchhardformsthatitswordswerenarroworrestricted。ThetruthisthatfromthepointofviewofpureliteraturetheBibleisbetterinEnglishthanitisinGreekorHebrew。Thatis，theEnglishoftheKingJamesversionasEnglishisbetterthantheGreekoftheNewTestamentasGreek。AsfortheHebrewtherewaslittledevelopmentformanygenerations；Renanthinkstherewasnoneatall。
ThedifferencecomesfromthepointoftimeinthegrowthofthetonguewhentheBookwaswritten。TheGreekwaswrittenwhenthelanguagewasold，whenithaddifferentiateditsterms，whenithadbecomecorruptedbyoutsideinfluence。TheEnglishversionwaswrittenwhenthelanguagewasnewandfresh，whenawordcouldbetakenandsetinitsmeaningwithoutbeingwarpedfromsomeearlierusage。
ThestudyoftheGreekTestamentisalwaysbeingcomplicatedbytheefforttobringintoitswordstheclassicalmeaning，whensofarasthewritersoftheNewTestamentwereconcernedtheyhadnointerestintheclassicalmeaning，butonlyinthecurrentmeaningofthosewords。