скачать книгу бесплатно
Garry Friesen is a professor of Bible at Multnomah Bible College, where he teaches a course on C. S. Lewis. His Ph.D. is from Dallas Seminary, where he did a master’s thesis on Lewis’s view of Scripture. Garry mentors six college students at his house, which has a Narnia theme that brings hundreds every year for a tour. He is an elder at Imago Dei Community and has just finished twenty years’ work on a C. S. Lewis Scripture index with ten thousand entries.
Walter Hooper is a trustee and literary adviser of the estate of C. S. Lewis. In 1963 he served briefly as Lewis’s private secretary, and after Lewis’s death he devoted himself to Lewis’s memory, eventually taking up residence in Oxford, England, where he now lives.
Reed Jolley is a pastor at Santa Barbara Community Church and contributor to C. S. Lewis: Lightbearer in the Shadowlands.
Don King is professor of English at Montreat College, editor of the Christian Scholar’s Review, and the author of three books, including C. S. Lewis, Poet: The Legacy of His Poetic Impulse.
Art Lindsley is a senior fellow at the C. S. Lewis Institute and is the author of C. S. Lewis’s Case for Christ.
Marjorie Lamp Mead is associate director of the Marion E. Wade Center, Wheaton College (Illinois). She is coeditor of Brothers and Friends: The Diaries of Major Warren Hamilton Lewis and C. S. Lewis: Letters to Children, as well as coauthor of A Reader’s Guide Through the Wardrobe and A Reader’s Guide to Caspian.
Earl Palmer was the former senior pastor of University Presbyterian Church and is a speaker at the C. S. Lewis Institute.
Jerry Root wrote both his M.A. thesis and Ph.D. dissertation on C. S. Lewis. He has been teaching college and graduate courses on C. S. Lewis for over thirty years. He currently teaches at Wheaton College (Illinois) and is a visiting professor at Biola University and Talbot Graduate School of Theology. He is the author of C. S. Lewis and a Problem of Evil and coeditor of The Quotable Lewis.
Revd. Dr. Jeanette Sears was formerly the president of the Oxford C. S. Lewis Society and is currently a tutor in doctrine and church history at Trinity College, Bristol, England. She has a Ph.D. in theology (Manchester), was a Kennedy Scholar at Harvard, and is an Anglican priest, novelist, and author of The Oxford of J. R. R Tolkien and C. S. Lewis.
Dick Staub is an award-winning broadcaster, writer, and speaker whose work focuses on understanding faith and culture and interpreting each to the other. The Kindlings organization he oversees (www.TheKindlings.com) is inspired by the intellectual, creative, and spiritual legacy of C. S. Lewis and the Inklings.
James E. Taylor teaches philosophy at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California. He directed the Philosophy Symposium at the C. S. Lewis Foundation’s Oxbridge 2008 Summer Institute in Oxford and Cambridge.
Dr. Michael Ward is chaplain of St. Peter’s College, Oxford, and author of Planet Narnia and The Narnia Code and coeditor of The Cambridge Companion to C. S. Lewis.
PREFACE (#ulink_6c1e75ba-84c2-54fa-99d8-79403dccf13b)
WHY A C. S. LEWIS BIBLE?
by Douglas Gresham
It seems to me that many annotated Bibles are exercises in one man, or one committee of men, presenting their own wisdom and the results of their own biblical studies to the public at large, and while I ascribe to them the very best motives in the world, there still seems to me to be just a touch of arrogance attached to such an endeavour. After all, what is being said is “I/We have studied the Bible for years and I/we have achieved such wisdom therefrom that you need to read my/our comments in order to understand the Bible as deeply and as well as I/we do, which it is of vital importance for you to do.”
However, this annotated Bible is very different. This is a case of the understanding of a man who never thought of himself as a theologian but always regarded himself as a rank amateur in such matters, and yet is now, more than forty-five years after his death, regarded as one of the leading theologians of his day. This is a man who never presented himself as any kind of psychologist and yet now is thought of as a man who understood human thinking and humanity better than any other writer of his time. This is a man who never imagined himself to be a biblical scholar and yet who read and memorised a chapter of the Bible every single day. He is a man who left those of us who have read all his works with one everlasting regret, it is that he did not write more, far more, than he did. And it is not he who has put his thoughts and understandings into this work, but a group of fine scholars, many years after his death, for C. S. Lewis, known as “Jack” by his family and friends, has become one of the most studied and respected writers of the twentieth century.
In all of Jack’s published works, again and again we find great gems of wisdom and knowledge; passages keep appearing that leave us stunned and amazed at the great depth of comprehension that this man exhibited. In the thousands of letters of his enormous correspondence, again and again we find words of warm, compassionate advice to people all over the world who had approached him by mail with a problem. Others, desperate under the thrall of some horrific experience, turned to Jack for solace. He responded not with merely trite and easy utterances glibly borrowed from some self-help book found in a library of such dreary tomes, but with cogent and well-thought-out answers to their problems and difficulties, were they spiritual, emotional, or merely mundane. In the pages of the published volumes of his letters
(#ulink_35bbfc91-84de-5f44-9b55-673a808858d5) we find such wisdom on so many matters that in today’s world of specialisation it is hard to believe that one man could be so knowledgeable and so understanding about so many topics of human striving. The truth is that he wasn’t, or at least he wasn’t all by himself.
As Sir Isaac Newton wisely said: “If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants.” And Jack himself would have been the first to admit that much of his almost unbelievable wealth of knowledge and understanding of so many things of the world came from his voracious reading habits. Since his early childhood, Jack would devour books—books of all kinds, shapes, sizes, and content, and he remembered almost all that he had ever read. Jack knew that the wisdom of the world was all to be found within the pages of books, and he sopped it up like a sponge.
However, there was more than merely worldly wisdom in what Jack read, for the Holy Spirit of God is also present in all great literature. Furthermore, Jack had guidance—guidance that he checked and perused every day, and guidance that he sought and entreated every day. For as well as being a man who relentlessly studied the Bible, Jack was also a man who prayed, continually seeking the wisdom and guidance of the Holy Spirit. He put the problems of others before his maker as often if not more often, and as earnestly if not more earnestly, as he put his own. To seek out the real origins of the godly compassion, understanding, and wisdom with which Jack’s writings are filled would take many years of study and deep thought. We are fortunate indeed that there are scholars today who have been prepared to devote their lives, or at least a goodly portion of them, to just such an endeavour. What you hold in your hands is the assiduous work of many scholars who, with great skill, have brought together hundreds of things that Jack has written from the Narnian chronicles, his scholarly essays, his Christian apologetic works, and even his letters to friends and strangers, to show us how, through the torturous paths of life and literature, they all lead back to the One True Source, the Bible.
Every quote from Jack in this volume can be associated with what he himself learned and took away from certain passages of Scripture, processed within his powerful intellect, and then used in his works, to entertain and always to teach as well the things so vital to human thinking and survival. How often have we read a passage from one of Jack’s books and thought Yes! as the ring of pure truth vibrates with that delightful, familiar chill down our spines and we pause in our reading and gaze sightlessly and unfocused out of the window for a moment to let that truth settle in our minds.
There are two main additions to the knowledge and understanding that we can gain from the study of this Bible. One is just how much of Jack’s thinking was directly and powerfully influenced by his own biblical study—how his mind was challenged and instructed by the Maker of all that is by the texts of His book. And the second is just how an honest mind, working with the guidance of God, along with the benefit of years of careful reading and with the purest of motivation, can make the sometimes seemingly complex and even obscure meanings hidden within the biblical texts suddenly become simple and glaringly obvious to those of us with lesser minds. If you are one whose intellect is greater than Jack’s was, whose education is better than Jack’s was, whose reading is wider than Jack’s was, and whose faith is stronger than Jack’s was, I would very much like to meet you; but don’t bother with this book as you will know already all that it teaches, but for those of us who live on this planet, this is indeed a very valuable work.
1. (#ulink_0b5d8a3c-520c-5300-92bf-c46b316a5e77)The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, vols. 1–3 (New York: HarperCollins, 2000, 2004, 2006).
INTRODUCTION (#ulink_f9c2226c-dfb4-5c60-be70-b7c8f1bb0529)
C. S. LEWIS AND THE BIBLE
by Jerry Root
As a liberally educated Oxford don and later Cambridge professor, C. S. Lewis was well aware of the fact that to understand Western culture—let alone culture in general—one ought to know the Bible. He believed that no other book had such a profound influence on the literature of the world as this one book, for even the Quran instructed its followers to know the Gospels and the Psalms. He clearly saw the profound value of the Bible as a religious book and wrote,
Unless the religious claims of the Bible are again acknowledged, its literary claims will, I think, be given only “mouth honour” and that decreasingly. For it is, through and through, a sacred book. . . . It demands incessantly to be taken on its own terms: it will not continue to give literary delight very long except to those who go to it for something quite different.
(#ulink_429417cc-3168-5e10-8a9d-703cd0d6b872)
Once Lewis became a theist, even before he became a Christian, he began his lifelong practice of daily Bible reading. For Lewis, Bible reading was as natural to his daily routine as eating or sleeping. From the time of his conversion, the atheist turned Christian most often read passages prescribed in the Anglican prayer book, but his method of reading, study, and meditation varied. Sometimes he simply read from cover to cover the King James Version (also known as the Authorized Standard Version) or the Moffat translation; and as a medievalist he was also familiar with the Coverdale Bible. Sometimes, as his published letters indicate, he would focus for a time on a particular book of the Bible such as Romans or the Psalms. Often, as a trained classical scholar he would read frequently from the Greek text of the New Testament. No matter what section of the Bible captured his attention at any given time, this one thing must be said about Lewis: he was a man of the Book. Toward the end of his life Lewis was asked what he thought of the practice of daily devotions. He answered,
We have our New Testament regimental orders upon the subject. I would take it for granted that everyone who becomes a Christian would undertake this practice. It is enjoined upon us by Our Lord; and since they are His commands, I believe in following them. It is always just possible that Jesus Christ meant what He said when He told us to seek the secret place and to close the door.
(#ulink_f91392fc-cd41-54c4-82f6-7887728ab72b)
Lewis faithfully got into the Bible each day, and it is clear from all he wrote that the Bible got into him. In his writing, Lewis sought to focus on what he called “mere Christianity”—that is, those things most central to Christian faith and teaching, and that which is most central to the Bible. From the Scriptures, all that is essential to faith and practice is drawn. As spiritual questions arise out of the text, Lewis intersected with those questions and developed profound apologetics for the faith, including his well-known commentary on whether Jesus was a “liar, lunatic, or the Son of God.”
C. S. LEWIS AS A GUIDE FOR BIBLE READING (#ulink_429878c9-ec42-5df7-ae45-8161e80af24c)
Lewis’s popularity as a writer who transcends all Christian traditions is evidence of how widely he has become a trusted voice and a spiritual guide for those confronted with life’s biggest questions. His years of faithful Bible study as well as his ability to state things clearly and imaginatively reveal that Lewis had the ability to open more than wardrobe doors. His wide background of reading literature of the Western world informed his perspective so that in his one voice we can hear the echo of many voices. Lewis’s uniquely informed knowledge of the terrain of human thought, culture, and experience makes his commentary particularly helpful. He is a valuable guide for any reader who wants to grow in an understanding of Scripture and therefore wants to grow in his or her own life of faith.
Though Lewis wrote only one book that could in any way be construed as something approximating a Bible commentary—Reflections on the Psalms—much of his writing is very much informed by his study of the Bible. It is precisely in this way that Lewis’s own words can become a helpful commentary or guide for Bible reading and study. Someone might ask, “Why is it necessary to have anyone guide a reading of the Bible?” The answer, in part, is that the very history of Jewish-Christian thought has always had respect for biblical guides and teachers. This is as obvious as the record of rabbinical teaching and as proximate as the most recent Sunday-morning sermon given at any church in virtually every country of the world. Certainly anyone who has ever read the Bible more than once knows that a single read through the Scriptures does not leave every question answered. In fact, multiple reads of the text provide enriched and deepening understanding at each new reading. It is a book with layers upon layers of insight. It stands to reason that, if more can be discovered from the text, those who have gone further in the study of the text can benefit those of us who are still learning and teachable. In this way, Lewis is a helpful guide.
In Lewis’s fiction and nonfiction works alike he reminds readers how biblical wisdom is necessary for everyday life. Lewis wrote, “Man approaches God most nearly when he is in one sense least like God. For what can be more unlike than fullness and need, sovereignty and humility, righteousness and penitence, limitless power and cry for help?”
(#ulink_258eebc7-a878-58d7-8933-599f09d26b33) The world is complex, and none of us, on his or her own, is sufficient for the demands of any given day. We need help. The Scriptures give wisdom for those knowing they need more than their own cleverness to negotiate their way through life’s labyrinth.
As a guide, Lewis points out that there is an arrogance embedded in the belief that one can get a last word about God or, for that matter, a last word about the Bible. How is it possible that finite minds—not to mention fallen minds—could ever gain a final and finished grasp of the Omniscient? Certainly we can have a sure word about God: the Bible leaves no door open to relativism. But we cannot have a last word about God, for the Bible leaves no door open to that kind of absolutism that believes it has God fully figured out. It is at this point that Lewis becomes a particularly good guide to the reader of Scripture. Lewis will not let his readers forget that sure words are obtainable while the last words are not. There is in much of his writing a sense of the wonder of the majesty and glory of God that awakens wonder and awe. Lewis never seems to forget that he is small and God is enormous. Application of this fact can be seen in a number of ways.
Lewis was adamant that the Bible, properly read, opens one up to a wider understanding of the world, full of the wonders and wisdom of God. This is something he sought, and he commented, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen not only because I see it but because by it I see everything else.”
(#ulink_4b6f3d12-eeb3-580b-9810-18713a02a817) Lewis believed that the Bible does not close the minds of its readers. On the contrary, it opens them up to the presence and wonder of God as He has displayed His glory everywhere. For example, in reading other books, one’s own understanding of Scripture is bound to deepen. As Lewis observed, “There is nothing in literature which does not, in some degree, percolate into life.”
(#ulink_5b10df4d-68d5-5ee0-9b9a-599e223e7817) The questions of the human heart, embedded in the literature of the world, allow us to seek answers in the Scriptures and thus be impressed once again by their enduring wisdom.
Here again, as a man of letters, Lewis is valuable as a guide because he reminds his readers that literature can open up the Scriptures to us in fresh ways. When reading Lewis’s fiction work— The Chronicles of Narnia—one cannot help but notice that his heroes are all flawed in some way or another. Edmund yields to temptation. Digory struggles to obey. And when Caspian is made King of Narnia, Aslan—the Christ figure of the Narnian books—speaks to him: “You come from the Lord Adam and the Lady Eve,” says Aslan. “And that is both honour enough to erect the head of the poorest beggar, and shame enough to bow the shoulders of the greatest emperor in earth. Be content.”
(#ulink_355f0b50-b298-5f2c-b879-a84a3fb5e092)
Such insight from Lewis sends the reader back to the biblical text with new eyes to see things he or she might otherwise have missed. For instance, to read Proverbs after reading Lewis, one cannot help but notice the dramatic contrasts within that book. A reader will be struck by the contrasting of the wise man with the fool; the righteous man with the wicked man; the industrious man with the sluggard. Proverbs marks the lines of demarcation that Lewis reminds us run through every human heart. Nobody would take us seriously if we claimed to be wise, or righteous, or industrious, for these qualities still elude us. And yet, certainly, we must be weary of being the fool, and the wicked man, and the sluggard.
Lewis also reminds readers to knock down their images of God. He once wrote: “reality is iconoclastic.”
(#ulink_58081239-8fd6-58da-a79b-a9ea5f4cba06) It is one of the biggest ideas occurring throughout his published work. What did he mean by the phrase? An iconoclast is an idol breaker. I may have an image of God in my mind shaped by my reading, sermons I’ve heard, or conversations in which I’ve participated. Pieces of the puzzle come together and take a more robust shape. Nevertheless, the image of a given moment, helpful as it may be, begins to compete against my having a growing understanding of God. Lewis reminds us that God wants to knock out the walls of the temples we build for Him because He desires to give us more of Himself. Lewis wrote, more than once, that he wanted God, not his idea of God.
(#ulink_8994ca92-6bfd-534a-a85c-51d9d4884652) Lewis will not let his readers forget that good thought is dynamic thought and it must not become stagnant. In this way, he will be a helpful guide for the reading of the Scriptures. And in light of this, it is important to remember that Lewis’s own words are not the last words, either, but they can lead us back to Scripture to seek answers and truth.
How to Read The C.S. Lewis Bible (#ulink_fd7b6a59-0510-5ea7-9a46-479ead2217c7)
Imagine if C. S. Lewis were your Oxford tutor or Bible teacher. What would he say, and how would he teach and inspire you? He’d ask the tough questions. He’d make you wrestle with Scripture. He wouldn’t let you get off easy. The C. S. Lewis Bible was developed in order to put his wisdom and insight side-by-side with the Scriptures so that readers might benefit from the years Lewis gave to close personal study of the Bible as it informed his own writing.
In over six hundred readings paired alongside relevant passages in the Bible, C. S. Lewis is offered as a companion and guide to a reader’s daily study of Scripture. As you come across one of these readings within the Bible text, imagine Lewis sitting alongside you, making observations on Scripture. As Lewis did in his daily study, wrestle with the Scriptures, allow his questions to make you dig deeper in the text to look for answers, and set aside time to pause and reflect.
One can deduce from Lewis’s own practices that there are many ways to read The C. S. Lewis Bible—or any other Bible, for that matter. It can, and perhaps ought to be, read cover to cover—as you might read any other book. In fact, the Bible can be read, at a speaking speed, in approximately eighty hours. This means it takes no more than thirteen minutes per day to read through the Bible from start to finish in a year; this is less time than is given over to commercials in one hour of television. Another way is to study one book of the Bible per month, reading that book over and over, each day, in that given month, taking notes on it and exploring its context in greater depth. Furthermore, the Bible could be read thematically. To do this, while reading it through from start to finish, follow a particular theme throughout. Mark down references as you note the frequency of the theme each time it is mentioned. Follow themes like the love of God, the promises of eternal life, our obligation to the poor, the sanctity of life, our responsibility for the environment, and other topics to keep you engaged with the text and to discover what God’s word says on that theme. Each read through the Bible will give you a topical reference tool for studying, in depth, God’s wisdom concerning that particular idea.
The Bible is the most important book ever written. If The C. S. Lewis Bible will encourage you to read it faithfully, then the work of the editors has been worthwhile. It has not been their design to give you more of Lewis any more than a person who puts a frame on a Rembrandt wants to give you more of a frame. The goal of the editors is that the readers of this Bible will become more enamored with the God of the Bible. Lewis is merely a tool to accomplish that end. The editors are convinced that Lewis himself would have had it no other way.
2. (#ulink_1fc9e65a-a764-5728-82fc-21a2bd7f58cd) C. S. Lewis, “The Literary Impact of the Authorised Version” (1950), in Selected Literary Essays, ed. Walter Hooper (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1969), p. 144.
3. (#ulink_b985210c-6dd0-532d-b9ef-dc69aab9b351) C. S. Lewis, “Cross-Examination” (1963), in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970), p. 266.
4. (#ulink_87c39f4e-b98e-55fc-b25d-46c885809dcd) C. S. Lewis, The Four Loves (New York: Harcourt, 1960), p. 14.
5. (#ulink_d725bb5f-551b-5835-a629-1cb76ada8b06) C. S. Lewis, “Is Theology Poetry?” (1944), in The Weight of Glory: And Other Addresses, ed. Walter Hooper (New York: Touchstone, 1996), p. 106.
6. (#ulink_d725bb5f-551b-5835-a629-1cb76ada8b06) C. S. Lewis, The Allegory of Love: A Study in Medieval Tradition (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1936), p. 130.
7. (#ulink_9c143d28-c855-5eba-bafa-c7fae37dc2d0) C. S. Lewis, Prince Caspian: The Return to Narnia (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1951), p. 182.
8. (#ulink_14bf4692-5572-5df0-bdb6-ab2ffbff94ae) C. S. Lewis, A Grief Observed (London: Faber and Faber, 1966), pp. 25, 56, 60.
9. (#ulink_14bf4692-5572-5df0-bdb6-ab2ffbff94ae) C. S. Lewis, A Grief Observed (London: Faber and Faber, 1966), p. 55.
THE SPIRITUAL JOURNEY OF C. S. LEWIS (#ulink_cd4ef952-65ca-5367-b378-e6e86fb5438f)
by Jerry Root
C live Staples Lewis was born November 29, 1898, in Belfast, Ireland. His father was a lawyer, and his mother was a university graduate with a degree in mathematics. He was preceded in birth by his brother Warren Hamilton Lewis, who was a constant friend and companion.
When Lewis was a boy his mother became ill. In the days of her sickness Lewis was told that if he prayed for his mother she would recover. She didn’t. He was later told that if he prayed harder and with more sincerity she would get better. Then, when he was nine years old, she died of cancer. In some ways the young Lewis felt responsible for her death because maybe he could have prayed harder. In time, Lewis came to believe that if God did exist it wasn’t very important, and eventually he abandoned his childhood faith altogether.
Lewis had what might be called spiritual experiences in his youth that haunted him throughout his early life. Most of these came through his reading of romantic literature. He was particularly affected by stories of Norse mythology and medieval knights and their acts of chivalry. One gets the impression that God was wooing Lewis to himself by awakening a longing in him that, if properly followed, would lead Lewis back to faith. Still, Lewis seemed to keep these longings separate from his intellectual life and, at that time, called himself an atheist. Nevertheless, he later observed that the first great problem in life is how one could fit romantic longings of the heart together with the robust intellectual quests of reason. This was certainly Lewis’s desire: to find the object of his deepest longing and have it be intellectually coherent and satisfying.
Lewis’s formal school experiences were difficult for him. Although he was an intelligent and successful student, he was often bullied and found himself the object of scorn and ridicule. When he was a teenager he was sent to Surrey, England, to be tutored by the senior Lewis’s old headmaster, William T. Kirkpatrick, affectionately called the Great Knock. Lewis was to study Greek, Latin, and logic in preparation for his university entrance exams. Those days with Kirkpatrick were idyllic for Lewis. It was during that time in his life he discovered a book titled Phantastes, by George MacDonald. The book recounts the adventures of a man named Anodos (Greek for “no way”). Anodos must go on a pilgrim quest through a fairyland, but “No Way” must be given a way or path. As Anodos follows on his pilgrimage, Lewis found his one quest for the object of his deepest longing also rekindled. Lewis would later write that his imagination was baptized by reading MacDonald.
But what was it Lewis most longed for? During this time in his life he went through what he called the dialectic of desire. He would have his longings awakened by some experience, and with raised expectations he would tether his heart to that object, only to be disappointed when it did not fulfill him. He would untether his desire only to retether it to something else and be disappointed once again. In time he wondered if his deepest desire was really for a mere earthly object. Perhaps he wanted something more.
Lewis sat for “responsions”—the entrance exam to Oxford University—and passed all but the mathematics paper. He was accepted to the university provided that he passed the math section at a later date—something that in fact he failed to do. However, his student career was interrupted by the First World War, and his sense of duty to his adopted country drove Lewis into enlistment in the British Army. He trained for the war in the Officer’s Training Corps at Keble College and was made a lieutenant of the Somerset Light Infantry, arriving at the front in the trenches of the valley of the Somme, on his nineteenth birthday. During this time he began to read the works of G. K. Chesterton and discovered a plausible apologetic for the Christian faith. As he wrote in his autobiography, Surprised by Joy, all of his reading began to close in on him. He was discovering that the authors he most enjoyed were Christians. After the war he found to his delight that the university had waived, for returning officers, the requirement for passing responsions, and he returned to Oxford. Lewis received three degrees—in classics, literature, and philosophy. Later, he would win a teaching post at Magdalen College, Oxford. It was during his early years at Oxford that Lewis began the more serious business of reconsidering the claims of Christianity.
Lewis had many intellectual barriers he had to hurdle, and slowly he passed over each one, moving from his atheism and materialism, through a period of agnosticism and idealism, until he finally became a theist. And it was at this time in his life that Lewis felt he could go no further. He believed he could no more know God personally than Hamlet could know Shakespeare. Nearly two years later Lewis did in fact convert to Christianity. One of his friends at Oxford was J. R. R.
Tolkien, author of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien was a Christian, and Lewis says he was one of the human causes of his conversion; in essence it was Tolkien who led Lewis to faith in Christ. Lewis revisited the Hamlet-Shakespeare analogy and decided it was a good one. Certainly Hamlet, a character in a play, could never break out of the play and introduce himself to the author. But Shakespeare, the author, could have written himself into the play as Shakespeare the character and thereby made an introduction between author and character possible. And Lewis believed that something like this actually occurred in history when God the Son became a man.
Lewis’s conversion to faith was followed by a life of spiritual discipline. He spent time daily in Bible study and prayer. He committed himself to a community of faith and even went to a spiritual director to be discipled. Furthermore, he gave of his resources—both money and time—in service to Christ. He took what he had, his pen and his brilliant mind, and harnessed the gifts God gave him for service to Christ. All who have read his works are the beneficiaries.
EDITOR’S NOTE (#ulink_229dd982-8d60-5ef8-b501-101c698958fd)
On Scripture: C. S. Lewis generally referred to the Authorized Standard Version (King James Version) of the Bible in his writings. He also read regularly and studied from the Greek text.
On grammar: During the time of C. S. Lewis’s writing, English speakers and writers often used the word should where today it is more common to use the word would. In places where the grammar is incorrect, we have placed a bracket next to the word should to provide greater understanding of Lewis’s writings.
On abbreviations: C. S. Lewis had a habitual style of using shorthand or abbreviations in his writings. Following is an explanation of each abbreviation:
cd. = could
v. = very
wd. = would
wh. = which
Xianity = Christianity
TO THE READER (#ulink_079f073b-d803-5ae5-8479-562aec5aee19)
This preface is addressed to you by the Committee of translators, who wish to explain, as briefly as possible, the origin and character of our work. The publication of our revision is yet another step in the long, continual process of making the Bible available in the form of the English language that is most widely current in our day. To summarize in a single sentence: the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible is an authorized revision of the Revised Standard Version, published in 1952, which was a revision of the American Standard Version, published in 1901, which, in turn, embodied earlier revisions of the King James Version, published in 1611.
In the course of time, the King James Version came to be regarded as “the Authorized Version.” With good reason it has been termed “the noblest monument of English prose,” and it has entered, as no other book has, into the making of the personal character and the public institutions of the English-speaking peoples. We owe to it an incalculable debt.
Yet the King James Version has serious defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of biblical studies and the discovery of many biblical manuscripts more ancient than those on which the King James Version was based made it apparent that these defects were so many as to call for revision. The task was begun, by authority of the Church of England, in 1870. The (British) Revised Version of the Bible was published in 1881–1885; and the American Standard Version, its variant embodying the preferences of the American scholars associated with the work, was published, as was mentioned above, in 1901. In 1928 the copyright of the latter was acquired by the International Council of Religious Education and thus passed into the ownership of the Churches of the United States and Canada that were associated in this Council through their boards of education and publication.
The Council appointed a committee of scholars to have charge of the text of the American Standard Version and to undertake inquiry concerning the need for further revision. After studying the questions whether or not revision should be undertaken, and if so, what its nature and extent should be, in 1937 the Council authorized a revision. The scholars who served as members of the Committee worked in two sections, one dealing with the Old Testament and one with the New Testament. In 1946 the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament was published. The publication of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments, took place on September 30, 1952. A translation of the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testament followed in 1957. In 1977 this collection was issued in an expanded edition, containing three additional texts received by Eastern Orthodox communions (3 and 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151). Thereafter the Revised Standard Version gained the distinction of being officially authorized for use by all major Christian churches: Protestant, Anglican, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox.
The Revised Standard Version Bible Committee is a continuing body, comprising about thirty members, both men and women. Ecumenical in representation, it includes scholars affiliated with various Protestant denominations, as well as several Roman Catholic members, an Eastern Orthodox member, and a Jewish member who serves in the Old Testament section. For a period of time, the Committee included several members from Canada and from England.
Because no translation of the Bible is perfect or is acceptable to all groups of readers, and because discoveries of older manuscripts and further investigation of linguistic features of the text continue to become available, renderings of the Bible have proliferated. During the years following the publication of the Revised Standard Version, twenty-six other English translations and revisions of the Bible were produced by committees and by individual scholars—not to mention twenty-five other translations and revisions of the New Testament alone. One of the latter was the second edition of the RSV New Testament, issued in 1971, twenty-five years after its initial publication.
Following the publication of the RSV Old Testament in 1952, significant advances were made in the discovery and interpretation of documents in Semitic languages related to Hebrew. In addition to the information that had become available in the late 1940s from the Dead Sea texts of Isaiah and Habakkuk, subsequent acquisitions from the same area brought to light many other early copies of all the books of the Hebrew Scriptures (except Esther), though most of these copies are fragmentary. During the same period early Greek manuscript copies of books of the New Testament also became available.
In order to take these discoveries into account, along with recent studies of documents in Semitic languages related to Hebrew, in 1974 the Policies Committee of the Revised Standard Version, which is a standing committee of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., authorized the preparation of a revision of the entire RSV Bible.
For the Old Testament the Committee has made use of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1977; ed. sec. emendata, 1983). This is an edition of the Hebrew and Aramaic text as current early in the Christian era and fixed by Jewish scholars (the “Masoretes”) of the sixth to the ninth centuries. The vowel signs, which were added by the Masoretes, are accepted in the main, but where a more probable and convincing reading can be obtained by assuming different vowels, this has been done. No notes are given in such cases, because the vowel points are less ancient and reliable than the consonants. When an alternative reading given by the Masoretes is translated in a footnote, this is identified by the words “Another reading is.”
Departures from the consonantal text of the best manuscripts have been made only where it seems clear that errors in copying had been made before the text was standardized. Most of the corrections adopted are based on the ancient versions (translations into Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, and Latin), which were made prior to the time of the work of the Masoretes and which therefore may reflect earlier forms of the Hebrew text. In such instances a footnote specifies the version or versions from which the correction has been derived and also gives a translation of the Masoretic Text. Where it was deemed appropriate to do so, information is supplied in footnotes from subsidiary Jewish traditions concerning other textual readings (the Tiqqune Sopherim, “emendations of the scribes”). These are identified in the footnotes as “Ancient Heb tradition.”
Occasionally it is evident that the text has suffered in transmission and that none of the versions provides a satisfactory restoration. Here we can only follow the best judgment of competent scholars as to the most probable reconstruction of the original text. Such reconstructions are indicated in footnotes by the abbreviation Cn (“Correction”), and a translation of the Masoretic Text is added.
For the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testament, the Committee has made use of a number of texts. For most of these books, the basic Greek text from which the present translation was made is the edition of the Septuagint prepared by Alfred Rahlfs and published by the Württemberg Bible Society (Stuttgart, 1935). For several of the books, the more recently published individual volumes of the Göttingen Septuagint project were utilized. For the book of Tobit, it was decided to follow the form of the Greek text found in codex Sinaiticus (supported as it is by evidence from Qumran); where this text is defective, it was supplemented and corrected by other Greek manuscripts. For the three Additions to Daniel (namely, Susanna, the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews, and Bel and the Dragon) the Committee continued to use the Greek version attributed to Theodotion (the so-called “Theodotion-Daniel”). In translating Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), while constant reference was made to the Hebrew fragments of a large portion of this book (those discovered at Qumran and Masada as well as those recovered from the Cairo Geniza), the Committee generally followed the Greek text (including verse numbers) published by Joseph Ziegler in the Göttingen Septuagint (1965). But in many places the Committee has translated the Hebrew text when this provides a reading that is clearly superior to the Greek; the Syriac and Latin versions were also consulted throughout and occasionally adopted. The basic text adopted in rendering 2 Esdras is the Latin version given in Biblia Sacra, edited by Robert Weber (Stuttgart, 1971). This was supplemented by consulting the Latin text as edited by R. L. Bensly (1895) and by Bruno Violet (1910), as well as by taking into account the several Oriental versions of 2 Esdras, namely, the Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic (two forms, referred to as Arabic 1 and Arabic 2), Armenian, and Georgian versions. Finally, since the Additions to the Book of Esther are disjointed and quite unintelligible as they stand in most editions of the Apocrypha, we have provided them with their original context by translating the whole of the Greek version of Esther from Robert Hanhart’s Göttingen edition (1983).
For the New Testament the Committee has based its work on the most recent edition of The Greek New Testament, prepared by an interconfessional and international committee and published by the United Bible Societies (1966; 3rd ed. corrected, 1983; information concerning changes to be introduced into the critical apparatus of the forthcoming 4th edition was available to the Committee). As in that edition, double brackets are used to enclose a few passages that are generally regarded to be later additions to the text, but which we have retained because of their evident antiquity and their importance in the textual tradition. Only in very rare instances have we replaced the text or the punctuation of the Bible Societies’ edition by an alternative that seemed to us to be superior. Here and there in the footnotes, the phrase “Other ancient authorities read,” identifies alternative readings preserved by Greek manuscripts and early versions. In both Testaments alternative renderings of the text are indicated by the word “Or.”
As for the style of English adopted for the present revision, among the mandates given to the Committee in 1980 by the Division of Education and Ministry of the National Council of Churches of Christ (which now holds the copyright of the RSV Bible) was the directive to continue in the tradition of the King James Bible, but to introduce such changes as are warranted on the basis of accuracy, clarity, euphony, and current English usage. Within the constraints set by the original texts and by the mandates of the Division, the Committee has followed the maxim, “As literal as possible, as free as necessary.” As a consequence, the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) remains essentially a literal translation. Paraphrastic renderings have been adopted only sparingly, and then chiefly to compensate for a deficiency in the English language—the lack of a common gender third person singular pronoun.
During the almost half a century since the publication of the RSV, many in the churches have become sensitive to the danger of linguistic sexism arising from the inherent bias of the English language towards the masculine gender, a bias that in the case of the Bible has often restricted or obscured the meaning of the original text. The mandates from the Division specified that, in references to men and women, masculine-oriented language should be eliminated as far as this can be done without altering passages that reflect the historical situation of ancient patriarchal culture. As can be appreciated, more than once the Committee found that the several mandates stood in tension and even in conflict. The various concerns had to be balanced case by case in order to provide a faithful and acceptable rendering without using contrived English. Only very occasionally has the pronoun “he” or “him” been retained in passages where the reference may have been to a woman as well as to a man; for example, in several legal texts in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. In such instances of formal, legal language, the options of either putting the passage in the plural or of introducing additional nouns to avoid masculine pronouns in English seemed to the Committee to obscure the historic structure and literary character of the original. In the vast majority of cases, however, inclusiveness has been attained by simple rephrasing or by introducing plural forms when this does not distort the meaning of the passage. Of course, in narrative and in parable no attempt was made to generalize the sex of individual persons.
Another aspect of style will be detected by readers who compare the more stately English rendering of the Old Testament with the less formal rendering adopted for the New Testament. For example, the traditional distinction between shall and will in English has been retained in the Old Testament as appropriate in rendering a document that embodies what may be termed the classic form of Hebrew, while in the New Testament the abandonment of such distinctions in the usage of the future tense in English reflects the more colloquial nature of the koine Greek used by most New Testament authors except when they are quoting the Old Testament.
Careful readers will notice that here and there in the Old Testament the word LORD (or in certain cases GOD) is printed in capital letters. This represents the traditional manner in English versions of rendering the Divine Name, the “Tetragrammaton” (see the notes on Exodus 3:14, 15), following the precedent of the ancient Greek and Latin translators and the long established practice in the reading of the Hebrew Scriptures in the synagogue. While it is almost if not quite certain that the Name was originally pronounced “Yahweh,” this pronunciation was not indicated when the Masoretes added vowel sounds to the consonantal Hebrew text. To the four consonants YHWH of the Name, which had come to be regarded as too sacred to be pronounced, they attached vowel signs indicating that in its place should be read the Hebrew word Adonai meaning “Lord” (or Elohim meaning “God”). Ancient Greek translators employed the word Kyrios (“Lord”) for the Name. The Vulgate likewise used the Latin word Dominus (“Lord”). The form “Jehovah” is of late medieval origin; it is a combination of the consonants of the Divine Name and the vowels attached to it by the Masoretes but belonging to an entirely different word. Although the American Standard Version (1901) had used “Jehovah” to render the Tetragrammaton (the sound of Y being represented by J and the sound of W by V, as in Latin), for two reasons the Committees that produced the RSV and the NRSV returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version. (1) The word “Jehovah” does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew. (2) The use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom the true God had to be distinguished, began to be discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church.
