The astral John Baptist And he proceeds to dilate12 on the thesis that the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan was “the reflection upon earth of what originally took place among the stars.” This discovery rests on an equation—pre-philological, of course, like that of “Maria” with “Myrrha”—of the name “John” or “Jehohanan” with “Oannes” or “Ea,” the Babylonian Water-god. However, this writer is here not a little incoherent, for only on the page before he has assured us, as of something unquestionable, that John was closely related to the Essenes, and baptized the penitents13 in the Jordan in the open air. Was Jordan, too, up in [156]heaven? Were the Essenes there also? Mr. Robertson, of course, pursues the same simple method of disposing of adverse14 evidence, and asserts (p. 396) that Josephus’s account of John “is plainly open to that suspicion of interpolation which, in the case of the allusion15 to Jesus in the same book (Antiq., xviii, 3, 3), has become for most critics a certainty.” He does not condescend16 to inform his readers that the latter passage2 is absent from important MSS., was unknown to Origen, and is therefore rightly bracketed by editors; whereas the account of John is in all MSS., and was known to Origen. But as we have [157]seen before, Mr. Robertson is one of those gifted people who can discern by peculiar17 intuitions of their own that everything is interpolated in an author which offends their prejudices. He has a lofty contempt for the careful sifting18 of the textual tradition, the examination of MSS. and ancient versions to which a scholar resorts, before he condemns19 a passage of an ancient author as an interpolation. Moreover, a scholar feels himself bound to show why a passage was interpolated, in whose interests. For, regarded as an interpolation, a passage is as much a problem to him as it was before. Its genesis has still to be explained. But Messrs. Robertson and Drews and Smith do not condescend to explain anything or give any reasons. A passage slays20 their theories; therefore it is a “vital interpolation.” It is the work of an ancient enemy sowing tares21 amid their wheat.
Josephus’s reference to James, brother of Jesus John the Baptist having been removed in this cavalier fashion from the pages of Josephus, we can hardly expect James the brother of Jesus to be left, and he is accordingly kicked out without ceremony. It does not matter a scrap22 that the passage (Antiquities xx, 9, 1, 200) stands in the Greek MSS. and in the Latin Version. As Professor W. B. Smith’s argument on the point is representative of this class of critics, we must let him speak first (p. 235):—
Origen thrice quotes as from Josephus the statement that the Jewish sufferings at the hands of Titus were a divine retribution for the slaying of James.
He then proceeds to quote the text of Origen, Against Celsus, i, 47, giving the reference, but mangling23 in the most extraordinary manner a text that is clear and consecutive24. For Origen begins [158](ch. xlvii) by saying that Celsus “somehow accepted John as a Baptist who baptized Jesus,” and then adds the following:—
In the Eighteenth Book of his Antiquities of the Jews Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising25 purification to those who underwent the rite2. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy26 against Jesus was the cause of these calamities27 befalling the people since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says, nevertheless—although against his will, not far from the truth—that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus called Christ, the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished28 for his righteousness (i.e., strict observance of the law).
In a later passage of the same treatise29 (ii, 13), which Mr. Smith cites correctly, Origen refers again to the same passage of the Antiquities (xx, 200) thus: “Titus demolished30 Jerusalem, as Josephus writes, on account of James the Just, the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ.” Also in Origen’s commentary on Matthew xiii, 55, we have a like statement that the sufferings of the Jews were a punishment for the murder of James the Just.
Origen therefore cites Josephus thrice about James, and in each case he has in mind the same passage—viz., xx, 200. But Mr. Smith, after citing the shorter passage, Contra Celsum, ii, 13, goes on as follows:—
The passage is still found in some Josephus manuscripts; but, as it is wanting in others, it is, and must be, regarded as a Christian interpolation older than Origen.
[159]
Will Mr. Smith kindly31 tell us which are the MSS. in which are found any passage or passages referring the fall of Jerusalem to the death of James, and so far contradicting Josephus’s interpretation32 of Ananus’s death in the History of the Jewish War, iv, 5, 2. Niese, the latest editor, knows of none, nor did any previous editor know of any.
Mr. Smith then proceeds thus:—
Now, since this phrase is certainly interpolated in the one place, the only reasonable conclusion is that it is interpolated in the other.
But “this phrase” never stood in Josephus at all, even as an interpolation, and on examination it turns out that Professor Smith’s prejudice against the passage in which Josephus mentions James, is merely based on the muddle34 committed by Origen. Such are the arguments by which he seeks to prove that Josephus’s text was interpolated by a Christian, as if a Christian interpolator, supposing there had been one (and he has left no trace of himself), would not, as the protest of Origen sufficiently35 indicates, have represented the fall of Jerusalem as a divine punishment, not for the slaying of James, but for the slaying of Jesus. Having demolished the evidence of Josephus in such a manner, Mr. Smith heads ten of his pages with the words, “The Silence of Josephus,” as if he had settled all doubts for ever by mere33 force of his erroneous ipse dixit.
The testimony36 of Tacitus The next section of Professor Smith’s work (Ecce Deus) is headed with the same effrontery38 of calm assertion: “The Silence of Tacitus.” This historian relates (Annals, xv, 44) that Nero accused the Christians39 of having burned down Rome. Nero [160]
subjected to most exquisite40 tortures those whom, hated for their crimes, the populace called Chrestians. The author of this name, Christus, had been executed in the reign41 of Tiberius by the Procurator Pontius Pilate; and, though repressed for the moment, the pernicious superstition42 was breaking forth43 again, not only throughout Jud?a, the fountain-head of this mischief44, but also throughout the capital, where all things from anywhere that are horrible or disgraceful pour in together and are made a religion of.
In the sequel Tacitus describes how an immense multitude, less for the crime of incendiarism than in punishment of their hatred45 of humanity, were convicted; how some were clothed in skins of wild beasts and thrown to dogs, while others were crucified or burned alive. Nero’s savagery46 was such that it awoke the pity even of a Roman crowd for his victims.
Such a passage as the above, written by Tacitus soon after A.D. 100, is somewhat disconcerting to our authors. Professor Smith, proceeding47 on his usual innocent assumption that the whole of the ancient literature, Christian and profane48, of this epoch49 lies before him, instead of a scanty50 débris of it, votes it to be a forgery. Why? Because Melito, Bishop51 of Sardis about 170 A.D., is the first writer who alludes52 to it in a fragment of an apology addressed to a Roman Emperor. As if there were not five hundred striking episodes narrated by Tacitus, yet never mentioned by any subsequent writer at all. Would Mr. Smith on that account dispute their authenticity54? It is only because this episode concerns Christianity and gets in the way of his theories, that he finds it necessary to cut it out of the text. You can prove anything if you cook your evidence, and the wanton [161]mutilation of texts which no critical historian has ever called in question is a flagrant form of such cookery. In the hands of these writers facts are made to fit theory, not theory to fit facts.
Testimony of Clement55 agrees with Tacitus I hardly need add that the narrative56 of Tacitus is frank, straightforward57, and in keeping with all we know or can infer in regard to Christianity in that epoch. Mr. E. G. Hardy58, in his valuable book Christianity and the Roman Government (London, 1894, p. 70), has pointed59 out that “the mode of punishment was that prescribed for those convicted of magic,” and that Suetonius uses the term malefica of the new religion—a term which has this special sense. Magicians, moreover, in the code of Justinian, which here as often reflects a much earlier age, are declared to be “enemies of the human race.” Nor is it true that Nero’s persecution60 as recorded in Tacitus is mentioned by no writer before Melito. It is practically certain that Clement, writing about A.D. 95, refers to it. He records that a πολ? πλ?θο?, or vast multitude of Christians, the ingens multitudo of Tacitus, perished in connection with the martyrdom of Peter and Paul. He speaks of the manifold insults and torments61 of men, the terrible and unholy outrages62 upon women, in terms that answer exactly to the two phrases of Tacitus: pereuntibus addita ludibria and quaesitissimae poenae. Women, he implies, were, “like Dirce, fastened on the horns of bulls, or, after figuring as Danaides in the arena63, were exposed to the attacks of wild beasts” (Hardy, op. cit., p. 72). Drews on Poggio’s interpolations of TacitusHowever, Drews is not content with merely ousting64 the passage from Tacitus, but undertakes to explain to his readers how it got there. It was, he conjectures65, made up out of a similar passage read in the [162]Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (written about 407) by some clever forger10, probably Poggio, who smuggled67 it into the text of Tacitus, “a writer whose text is full of interpolations.” It is hardly necessary to inform an educated reader, firstly, that the text of Tacitus is recognized by all competent Latin scholars to be remarkably68 free from interpolations; secondly69, that Severus merely abridged70 his account of Nero’s persecution from the narrative he found in Tacitus, an author whom he frequently copied and imitated; thirdly, that Poggio, the supposed interpolator, lived in the fifteenth century, whereas our oldest MS. of this part of Tacitus is of the eleventh century; it is now in the Laurentian Library. I should advise Dr. Drews to stick to his javelin-man story, and not to venture on incursions into the field of classical philology71.
Pliny’s letter to Trajan Having dispatched Josephus and Tacitus, and printed over their pages in capitals the titles The Silence of Josephus and The Silence of Tacitus, these authors, needless to say, have no difficulty with Pliny and Suetonius. The former, in his letter (No. 96) to Trajan, gives some particulars of the Christians of Bithynia, probably obtained from renegades. They asserted that the gist73 of their offence or error was that they were accustomed on a regularly recurring74 day to meet before dawn, and repeat in alternating chant among themselves a hymn75 to Christ as to a God; they also bound themselves by a holy oath not to commit any crime, neither theft, nor brigandage76, nor adultery, and not to betray their word or deny a deposit when it was demanded. After this rite was over they had had the custom to break up their meeting, and to come together afresh later in the [163]day to partake of a meal, which, however, was of an ordinary and innocent kind.
In this repast we recognize the early eucharist at which Christians were commonly accused of devouring77 human flesh, as the Jews are accused by besotted fanatics78 of doing in Russia to-day, and by Mr. Robertson in ancient Jerusalem. Hence Pliny’s proviso that the food they partook of was ordinary and innocent. The passage also shows that this eucharistic meal was not the earliest rite of the day, like the fasting communion of the modern Ritualist, but was held later in the day. Lastly, the qualification that they sang hymns79 to Christ as to a God, though to Pliny it conveyed no more than the phrase “as if to Apollo,” or “as if to Aesculapius,” clearly signifies that the person so honoured was or had been a human being. Had he been a Sun-god Saviour80, the phrase would be hopelessly inept81. This letter and Trajan’s answer to it were penned about 110 A.D.
Of this letter Professor W. B. Smith writes (p. 252) that in it “there is no implication, not even the slightest, touching82 the purely83 human reality of the Christ or Jesus.” Let us suppose the letter had referred to the cult72 of Augustus C?sar, and that we read in it of people who, by way of honouring his memory, met on certain days and sang a hymn to Augustus quasi deo, “as to a God.” We know that the members of a college of Augustals did so meet in most cities of the Roman Empire. Well, would Mr. Smith contend in such a case that the letter carried no implication, not even the slightest, touching the purely human reality of the Augustus or C?sar? Of course he would not. If this letter were the sole [164]record in existence of early Christianity, we might perhaps hesitate about its implications; but it is in the characteristic Latin which no one, so far as we know, ever wrote, except the younger Pliny, and is accompanied by Trajan’s answer, couched in an equally characteristic style. It is, moreover, but one link in a long chain, which as a whole attests84 and presupposes the reality of Jesus. Mr. Smith, however, does not seem quite sure of his ground, for in the next sentence he hints that after all Pliny’s letter is not genuine. These writers are not the first to whom this letter has proved a pons asinorum. Semler began the attack on its genuineness in 1784; and others, who desired to eliminate all references to Christianity in early heathen writers, have, as J. B. Lightfoot has remarked (Apostolic Fathers, Pt. II, vol. i, p. 55), followed in his wake. Their objections do not merit serious refutation.
Evidence of Suetonius There remains Suetonius, who in ch. xxv of his life of Claudius speaks of Messianic disturbances85 at Rome impulsore Chresto. Claudius reigned86 from 41–54, and the passage may possibly be an echo of the conflict, clearly delineated in Acts and Paulines between the Jews and the followers of the new Messiah.3 Itacism or interchange of “e” and “i” being the commonest of corruptions87 in Greek and Latin MSS., we may fairly conjecture66 Christo in the source used by Suetonius, who wrote about the year 120. Christo, which means Messiah, is intelligible88 in relation to Jews, but not Chresto; and the two words were [165]identical in pronunciation. Drews of course upholds Chresto, and in Tacitus would substitute for Christiani Chrestiani; for this there is indeed manuscript support, but it is gratuitous89 to argue as he does that the allusion is to Serapis or Osiris, who were called Chrestos “the good” by their votaries90. He does not condescend to adduce any evidence to show that in that age or any other Chrestos, used absolutely, signified Osiris or Serapis; and there is no reason to suppose it ever had such a significance. He is on still more precarious91 ground when he surmises92 that Nero’s victims at Rome were not followers of Christ, but of Serapis, and were called Chrestiani by the mob ironically, because of their vices93. Here we begin to suspect that he is joking. Why should worshippers of Serapis have been regarded as specially94 vicious by the Roman mob? Jews and Christians were no doubt detested95, because they could not join in any popular festivities or thanksgivings. But there was nothing to prevent votaries of Serapis or Osiris from doing so, nor is there any record of their being unpopular as a class.
In his life of Nero, Suetonius, amid a number of brief notices, apparently96 taken from some annalistic work, includes the following: “The Christians were visited with condign97 punishments—a race of men professing98 a new and malefic superstition.” On this passage I have commented above (p. 161).
Origin of the name “Christian” Characteristically enough, Dr. Drews assumes, without a shadow of argument, that the famous text in Acts which says that the followers of Jesus were first called Christians in Antioch is an interpolation. It stands in the way of his new thesis that the Roman people called the followers of Serapis—who was [166]Chrestos or “good”—Chrestiani, because they were precisely99 the contrary.4 Tacitus does not say that Nero’s victims were so called because of their vices. That is a gloss100 put on the text by Drews. We only learn (a) that they were hated by the mob for their vices, and (b) that the mob at that time called them Chrestiani. His use of the imperfect tense appellabat indicates that in his own day the same sect37 had come to be known under their proper appellation101 as Christiani. In A.D. 64, he implies, a Roman mob knew no better. [167]
1 The passage in which Josephus mentions John the Baptist runs as follows: “To some of the Jews it seemed that Herod had had his army destroyed by God, and that it was a just retribution on him for his severity towards John called the Baptist. For it was indeed Herod who slew102 him, though a good man, and one who bade the Jews in the practise of virtue103 and in the use of justice one to another and of piety104 towards God to walk together in baptism. For this was the condition under which baptism would present itself to God as acceptable, if they availed themselves of it, not by way of winning pardon for certain sins, but after attaining105 personal holiness, on account of the soul having been cleansed106 beforehand by righteousness. Because men flocked to him, for they took the greatest pleasure in listening to his words, Herod took fright and apprehended107 that his vast influence over people would lead to some outbreak of rebellion. For it looked as if they would follow his advice in all they did, and he came to the conclusion that far the best course was, before any revolution was [155]started by him, to anticipate it by destroying him: otherwise the upheaval108 would come, and plunge109 him into trouble and remorse110. So John fell a victim to Herod’s suspicions, was bound and sent to the fortress111 of Machaerus, of which I have above spoken, and there murdered. But the Jews were convinced that the loss of his army was by way of retribution for the treatment of John, and that it was God who willed the undoing112 of Herod.” ↑
2 The suspect passage in which Josephus refers to Jesus runs thus, Ant. xviii, 3, 3: “Now about this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one may call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive what is true with pleasure, and he attracted many Jews and many of the Greeks. This was the ‘Christ.’ And when on the accusation113 of the principal men amongst us Pilate had condemned114 him to the cross, they did not desist who had formerly115 loved him, for he appeared to them on the third day alive again; the divine Prophets having foretold116 both this and a myriad117 other wonderful things about him; and even now the race of those called Christians after him has not died out.”
I have italicized such clauses as have a chance to be authentic53, and as may have led Origen to say of Josephus that he did not believe Jesus to be the Christ. For the clause “This was the Christ” must have run, “This was the so-called Christ.” We have the same expression in Matt. i, 16, and in the passage, undoubtedly118 genuine, in which Josephus refers to James, Ant., xx, 9, 1. Here Josephus relates that the Sadducee High-priest Ananus (son of Annas of the New Testament), in the interval119 of anarchy120 between the departure of one Roman Governor, Festus, and the arrival of another, Albinus, set up a court of his own, “and bringing before it the brother of Jesus who was called Christ—James was his name—and some others, he accused them of being breakers of the Law, and had them stoned.”
In the History of the Jewish War, iv, 5, 2, Josephus records his belief that the Destruction of Jerusalem was a divine nemesis121 for the murder of this Ananus by the Idumeans.
There is not now, nor ever was, any passage in Josephus where the fall of Jerusalem was explained as an act of divine nemesis for the murder of James by Ananus. Origen, as Professor Burkitt has remarked, “had mixed up in his commonplace book the account of Ananus’s murder of James and the remarks of Josephus on Ananus’s own murder.” ↑
3 So in Acts xviii, 12, we read of faction122 fights in Corinth between the Jews and the followers of Jesus the Messiah; Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia, who cared for none of the matters at issue between them, is a well-known personage, and an inscription123 has lately been discovered dating his tenure124 of Achaia in A.D. 52. ↑
4 Tacitus very likely wrote Chrestiani. He says the mob called them such, but adds that the author of the name was Christ, so implying that Christianus was the true form, and Chrestianus a popular malformation thereof. The Roman mob would be likely to deform125 a name they did not understand, just as a jack-tar turns Bellerophon into Billy Ruffian. Chrestos was a common name among oriental slaves, and a Roman mob would naturally assume that Christos, which they could not understand, was a form of it. ↑
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
rite
|
|
| n.典礼，惯例，习俗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
antiquities
|
|
| n.古老( antiquity的名词复数 )；古迹；古人们；古代的风俗习惯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
narrated
|
|
| v.故事( narrate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
followers
|
|
| 追随者( follower的名词复数 )； 用户； 契据的附面； 从动件 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
wrath
|
|
| n.愤怒，愤慨，暴怒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
slaying
|
|
| 杀戮。 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
forgery
|
|
| n.伪造的文件等，赝品，伪造（行为） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
forger
|
|
| v.伪造；n.（钱、文件等的）伪造者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
attained
|
|
| （通常经过努力）实现( attain的过去式和过去分词 )； 达到； 获得； 达到（某年龄、水平、状况） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
dilate
|
|
| vt.使膨胀，使扩大 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
penitents
|
|
| n.后悔者( penitent的名词复数 )；忏悔者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
14
adverse
|
|
| adj.不利的；有害的；敌对的，不友好的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
allusion
|
|
| n.暗示，间接提示 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
condescend
|
|
| v.俯就，屈尊；堕落，丢丑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
peculiar
|
|
| adj.古怪的，异常的；特殊的，特有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
sifting
|
|
| n.筛，过滤v.筛( sift的现在分词 )；筛滤；细查；详审 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
condemns
|
|
| v.（通常因道义上的原因而）谴责( condemn的第三人称单数 )；宣判；宣布…不能使用；迫使…陷于不幸的境地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
slays
|
|
| 杀死，宰杀，杀戮( slay的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
tares
|
|
| 荑；稂莠；稗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
scrap
|
|
| n.碎片；废料；v.废弃，报废 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
mangling
|
|
| 重整 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
consecutive
|
|
| adj.连续的，联贯的，始终一贯的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
promising
|
|
| adj.有希望的，有前途的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
conspiracy
|
|
| n.阴谋，密谋，共谋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
calamities
|
|
| n.灾祸，灾难( calamity的名词复数 )；不幸之事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
distinguished
|
|
| adj.卓越的，杰出的，著名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
treatise
|
|
| n.专著；(专题)论文 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
demolished
|
|
| v.摧毁( demolish的过去式和过去分词 )；推翻；拆毁（尤指大建筑物）；吃光 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
kindly
|
|
| adj.和蔼的，温和的，爽快的；adv.温和地，亲切地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
interpretation
|
|
| n.解释，说明，描述；艺术处理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
muddle
|
|
| n.困惑，混浊状态；vt.使混乱，使糊涂，使惊呆；vi.胡乱应付，混乱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
testimony
|
|
| n.证词；见证，证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
sect
|
|
| n.派别，宗教，学派，派系 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
effrontery
|
|
| n.厚颜无耻 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
Christians
|
|
| n.基督教徒( Christian的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
exquisite
|
|
| adj.精美的；敏锐的；剧烈的，感觉强烈的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
reign
|
|
| n.统治时期，统治，支配，盛行；v.占优势 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
superstition
|
|
| n.迷信，迷信行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
mischief
|
|
| n.损害，伤害，危害；恶作剧，捣蛋，胡闹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
hatred
|
|
| n.憎恶，憎恨，仇恨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
savagery
|
|
| n.野性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
proceeding
|
|
| n.行动，进行，(pl.)会议录，学报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
profane
|
|
| adj.亵神的，亵渎的；vt.亵渎，玷污 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
epoch
|
|
| n.(新)时代；历元 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
scanty
|
|
| adj.缺乏的，仅有的，节省的，狭小的，不够的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
bishop
|
|
| n.主教，（国际象棋）象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
alludes
|
|
| 提及，暗指( allude的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
authentic
|
|
| a.真的，真正的；可靠的，可信的，有根据的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
authenticity
|
|
| n.真实性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
clement
|
|
| adj.仁慈的；温和的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
narrative
|
|
| n.叙述，故事；adj.叙事的，故事体的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
straightforward
|
|
| adj.正直的，坦率的；易懂的，简单的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
hardy
|
|
| adj.勇敢的，果断的，吃苦的；耐寒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
pointed
|
|
| adj.尖的，直截了当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
persecution
|
|
| n. 迫害,烦扰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
torments
|
|
| （肉体或精神上的）折磨，痛苦( torment的名词复数 )； 造成痛苦的事物[人] | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
outrages
|
|
| 引起…的义愤，激怒( outrage的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
arena
|
|
| n.竞技场，运动场所；竞争场所，舞台 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
ousting
|
|
| 驱逐( oust的现在分词 )； 革职； 罢黜； 剥夺 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
conjectures
|
|
| 推测，猜想( conjecture的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
conjecture
|
|
| n./v.推测，猜测 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
smuggled
|
|
| 水货 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
remarkably
|
|
| ad.不同寻常地，相当地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
secondly
|
|
| adv.第二，其次 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
abridged
|
|
| 削减的，删节的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
philology
|
|
| n.语言学；语文学 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
cult
|
|
| n.异教，邪教；时尚，狂热的崇拜 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
gist
|
|
| n.要旨；梗概 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
recurring
|
|
| adj.往复的，再次发生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
hymn
|
|
| n.赞美诗，圣歌，颂歌 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
brigandage
|
|
| n.抢劫；盗窃；土匪；强盗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
devouring
|
|
| 吞没( devour的现在分词 )； 耗尽； 津津有味地看； 狼吞虎咽地吃光 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
fanatics
|
|
| 狂热者，入迷者( fanatic的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
hymns
|
|
| n.赞美诗，圣歌，颂歌( hymn的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
saviour
|
|
| n.拯救者，救星 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
inept
|
|
| adj.不恰当的，荒谬的，拙劣的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
touching
|
|
| adj.动人的，使人感伤的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
purely
|
|
| adv.纯粹地，完全地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
attests
|
|
| v.证明( attest的第三人称单数 )；证实；声称…属实；使宣誓 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
disturbances
|
|
| n.骚乱( disturbance的名词复数 )；打扰；困扰；障碍 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
reigned
|
|
| vi.当政，统治（reign的过去式形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
corruptions
|
|
| n.堕落( corruption的名词复数 )；腐化；腐败；贿赂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
intelligible
|
|
| adj.可理解的，明白易懂的，清楚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
gratuitous
|
|
| adj.无偿的，免费的；无缘无故的，不必要的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
votaries
|
|
| n.信徒( votary的名词复数 )；追随者；（天主教）修士；修女 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
91
precarious
|
|
| adj.不安定的，靠不住的；根据不足的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
surmises
|
|
| v.臆测，推断( surmise的第三人称单数 )；揣测；猜想 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
vices
|
|
| 缺陷( vice的名词复数 )； 恶习； 不道德行为； 台钳 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
specially
|
|
| adv.特定地；特殊地；明确地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
detested
|
|
| v.憎恶，嫌恶，痛恨( detest的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
condign
|
|
| adj.应得的，相当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
professing
|
|
| 声称( profess的现在分词 )； 宣称； 公开表明； 信奉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
gloss
|
|
| n.光泽，光滑；虚饰；注释；vt.加光泽于；掩饰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
appellation
|
|
| n.名称，称呼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
slew
|
|
| v.（使）旋转；n.大量，许多 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
virtue
|
|
| n.德行，美德；贞操；优点；功效，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
piety
|
|
| n.虔诚，虔敬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
attaining
|
|
| （通常经过努力）实现( attain的现在分词 )； 达到； 获得； 达到（某年龄、水平、状况） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
cleansed
|
|
| 弄干净，清洗( cleanse的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
apprehended
|
|
| 逮捕，拘押( apprehend的过去式和过去分词 )； 理解 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
upheaval
|
|
| n.胀起，(地壳)的隆起；剧变，动乱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
plunge
|
|
| v.跳入，(使)投入，(使)陷入；猛冲 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
remorse
|
|
| n.痛恨，悔恨，自责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
fortress
|
|
| n.堡垒，防御工事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
undoing
|
|
| n.毁灭的原因，祸根；破坏，毁灭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
accusation
|
|
| n.控告，指责，谴责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
condemned
|
|
| adj. 被责难的, 被宣告有罪的 动词condemn的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
formerly
|
|
| adv.从前，以前 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
foretold
|
|
| v.预言，预示( foretell的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
myriad
|
|
| adj.无数的；n.无数，极大数量 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
undoubtedly
|
|
| adv.确实地，无疑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
interval
|
|
| n.间隔，间距；幕间休息，中场休息 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
anarchy
|
|
| n.无政府状态；社会秩序混乱，无秩序 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
nemesis
|
|
| n.给以报应者，复仇者，难以对付的敌手 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
faction
|
|
| n.宗派，小集团；派别；派系斗争 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
inscription
|
|
| n.（尤指石块上的）刻印文字，铭文，碑文 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
tenure
|
|
| n.终身职位；任期；(土地)保有权，保有期 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
deform
|
|
| vt.损坏…的形状；使变形，使变丑；vi.变形 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |