on Hebrew religion more important; The case of the Hebrew scriptures6 and religion stands on different ground; for the Jews were Semites, and their myths of creation and of the origin and early history of man are, by the admission even of orthodox divines of to-day, largely borrowed from the more ancient civilization of Babylon. Thus [203]Heinrich Zimmern (art. “Deluge7,” in Encyclop?dia Biblica) writes: “Of all the parallel traditions of a deluge, the Babylonian is undeniably the most important, because the points of contact between it and the Hebrew story are so striking that the view of the dependence8 of one of the two on the other is directly suggested even to the most cautious of students.”
yet a Jew may have possessed9 some imagination of his own This undoubted occurrence of Babylonian myths in the Book of Genesis has provided some less critical and cautious cuneiform scholars with a clue, as they imagine, to the entire contents of the Bible from beginning to end. It is as if the Jews, all through their literary history of a thousand years, could not possibly have invented any myths of their own, still less have picked a few up elsewhere than in Babylon. Accordingly, in a volume of 1,030 enormous pages, P. Jensen has undertaken to show1 that the New Testament10, no less than the Old, was derived from this single well-spring. Moses and Aaron, Joshua, Jeroboam, Rehoboam, Hadad, Jacob and Esau, Saul, David and Jonathan, Joseph and his brethren, Potiphar, Rachel and Leah, Laban, Zipporah, Miriam sister of Moses, Dinah, Simeon and Levi, Jethro and the Gibeonites and Sichemites, Sarah and Hagar, Gilgamesch, Eabani, and the holy harlot, protagonists11 of the entire Old TestamentAbraham and Isaac, Samson, Uriah and Nathan, Naboth, Elijah and Elisha, Naaman, Benhadad and Hazael, Gideon, Jerubbaal, Abimelech, Jephthah, Tobit, Jehu, and pretty well any other personage in the Old Testament, are duplicates, according to him, of Gilgamesch or his companion the shepherd Eabani (son of Ea), or of the Hierodule or sacred prostitute, [204]and of a few more leading figures in the Babylonian epic12. There is hardly a story in the whole of Jewish literature which is not, according to Jensen, an echo of the Gilgamesch legend; and every personage, every incident, is freely manipulated to make them fit this Procrustean13 bed. No combinations of elements separated in the Biblical texts, no separations of elements united therein, no recasting of the fabric14 of a narrative15, no modifications16 of any kind, are so violent as to deter17 Dr. Jensen. At the top of every page is an abstract of its argument, usually of this type: “Der Hirte Eabani, die Hierodule und Gilgamesch. Der Hirte Moses, sein Weib und Aaron.” In other words, as Moses was one shepherd and Eabani another, Moses is no other than Eabani. As there is a sacred prostitute in the Gilgamesch story, and a wife in the legend of Moses, therefore wife and prostitute are one and the same. As Gilgamesch was companion of Eabani, and Aaron of Moses, therefore Aaron was an alias18 of Gilgamesch. Dr. Jensen is quite content with points of contact between the stories so few and slight as the above, and pursues this sort of loose argument over a thousand pages. Here is another such rubric: “Simson-Gilgamesch’s Leiche und Saul-Gilgamesch’s Gebeine wieder ausgegraben, Elisa-Gilgamesch’s Grab ge?ffnet.” In other words, Simson, or Samson, left a corpse19 behind him (who does not?); Saul’s bones were piously20 looked after by the Jabeshites; Elisha’s bones raised a dead Moabite by mere21 contact to fresh life. These three figures are, therefore, ultimately one, and that one is Gilgamesch; and their three stories, which have no discernible features in common, are so many disguises of the Gilgamesch epos.
as also of the entire New TestamentBut Dr. Jensen transcends22 himself in the New [205]Testament. “The Jesus-saga23,” he informs us (p. 933), “as it meets us in the Synoptic Gospels, and equally as it meets us in John’s Gospel, stands out among all the other Gilgamesch Sagas24 which we have so far (i.e., in the Old Testament) expounded25, in that it not merely follows up the main body of the Saga with sundry26 fragments of it, like so many stragglers, but sets before us a long series of bits of it arranged in the original order almost undisturbed.”2
And he waxes eloquent27 about the delusions28 and ignorance of Christians29, who for 2,000 years have been erecting31 churches and cathedrals in honour of a Jesus of Nazareth, who all the time was a mere alias of Gilgamesch.
John—Eabani Let us, then, test some of the arguments by which this remarkable32 conclusion is reached. Let us begin with John the Baptist (p. 811). John was a prophet, who appeared east of the Jordan. So was Elias or Elijah. Elijah was a hairy man, and John wore a raiment of camel’s-hair; both of them wore leather girdles.
Now, in the Gilgamesch story, Eabani is covered with hair all over his body (p. 579—“am ganzen Leibe mit Haaren bedeckt ist”). Eabani (p. 818) is a hairy man, and presumably was clad in skins (“ist ein haariger Mann und vermutlich mit Fellen bekleidet”). Dr. Jensen concludes from this that John and Elijah are both of them, equally and independently, duplicates or understudies of Eabani. It [206]never occurs to him that in the desert camel’s-hair was a handy material out of which to make a coat, as also leather to make girdles of, and that desert prophets in any story whatever would inevitably33 be represented as clad in such a manner. He has, indeed, heard of Jo. Weiss’s suggestion that Luke had read the LXX, and modelled his picture of John the Baptist on Elijah; but he rejects the suggestion, for he feels—and rightly—that to make any such admissions must compromise his main theory, which is that the old Babylonian epic was the only source of the evangelists. No (he writes), John’s girdle, like Elijah’s, came straight out of the Saga (“wohl durch die Sage34 bedingt ist”). Nor (he adds) can Luke’s story of Sarah and Zechariah be modelled on Old Testament examples, as critics have argued. On the contrary, it is a fresh reflex of Gilgamesch (“ein neuer Reflex”), an independent sidelight cast by the central Babylonian orb35 (“ein neues Seitenstück”), and is copied direct. We must not give in to the suggestion thrown out by modern critics that it is a later addition to the original evangelical tradition. Far from that being so, it must be regarded as an integral and original constituent36 in the Jesus-saga (“So wird man zugestehen müssen, dass sie keine Zugabe, sondern ein integrierender Urbestandteil der Jesus-sage ist”).
Jesus—Gilgamesch From this and many similar passages we realize that the view that Jesus never lived, but was a mere reflex of Gilgamesch, is not, in Jensen’s mind, a conclusion to be proved, but a dogma assumed as the basis of all argument, a dogma to which we must adjust all our methods of inquiry37. To admit any other sources of the Gospel story, let alone historical facts, would be to infringe38 the exclusive apriority, as [207]a source, of the Babylonian epic; and that is why we are not allowed to argue up to the latter, but only down from it. If for a moment he is ready to admit that Old Testament narrative coloured Luke’s birth-story, and that (for example) the angel’s visit in the first chapter of Luke was suggested by the thirteenth chapter of Judges, he speedily takes back the admission. Such an assumption is not necessary (“allein n?tig ist ein solche Annahme nicht”).
“So much,” he writes (p. 818),
of John’s person alone. Let us now pursue the Jesus Saga further.
In the Gilgamesch Epic it is related how the Hunter marched out to Eabani with the holy prostitute, how Eabani enjoyed her, and afterwards proceeded with her to Erech, where, directly or in his honour, a festival was held; how he there attached himself to Gilgamesch, and how kingly honours were by the latter awarded to him. We must by now in a general way assume on the part of our readers a knowledge of how these events meet us over again in the Sagas of the Old Testament. In the numerous Gilgamesch Sagas, then [of the Old Testament], we found again this rencounter with the holy prostitute. And yet we seek it in vain in the three first Gospels in the exact context where we should find it on the supposition that they must embody39 a Gilgamesch Saga—that is to say, immediately subsequent to John’s emergence40 in the desert. Equally little do we find in this context any reflex of Eabani’s entry into the city of Erech, all agog41 at the moment with a festival. On the other hand, we definitely find in its original position an echo of Gilgamesch’s meeting with Eabani.3
[208]
Evangelists borrowed their saga from Gilgamesch epos alone Let us pause a moment and take stock of the above. In the epic two heroes meet each other in a desert. John and Jesus also meet in a desert; therefore, so argues Jensen, John and Jesus are reproductions of the heroes in question, and neither of them ever lived. It matters nothing that neither John nor Jesus was a Nimrod. This encounter of Gilgamesch and Eabani was, as Jensen reminds us, the model of every Old Testament story in which two males happen to meet in a desert; therefore it must have been the model of the evangelists also when they concocted42 their story of John and Jesus meeting in the wilderness43. But how about the prostitute; and how about the entry into Erech? How are these lacun? of the Gospel story to be filled in? Jensen’s solution is remarkable; he finds the encounter with the prostitute to have been the model on which the fourth evangelist contrived44 his story of Jesus’s visit to Martha and Mary. For that evangelist, like the synoptical ones, had the Gilgamesch Saga stored all ready in his escritoire, and finding that his predecessors45 had omitted the prostitute he hastened to fill up the lacuna, and doubled her into Martha and Mary. In this and many other respects, so we are assured by Jensen, the fourth evangelist reproduces the [209]Gilgamesch epic more fully46 and systematically47 than the other evangelists, and on that account we must assign to John’s setting of the life of Christ a certain preference and priority. He is truer to the only source there was for any of it. The other lacuna of the Synoptic Gospels is the feasting in Erech and Eabani’s entry amid general feasting into that city. The corresponding episode in the Gospels, we are assured, is the triumphant48 entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, which the Fourth Gospel, again hitting the right nail on the head, sets at the beginning of Jesus’s ministry49, and not at its end. But what, we still ask, is the Gospel counterpart to the honours heaped by Gilgamesch on Eabani? How dull we are! “The baptism of Jesus by John must, apart from other considerations, have arisen out of the fact that Eabani, after his arrival at Gilgamesch’s palace, is by him allotted50 kingly honours.”4
So then Eabani, who as a hairy man was John the Baptist, is now, by a turn of Jensen’s kaleidoscope, metamorphosed into Jesus, for it is John who did Jesus the honour of baptizing him. Conversely, Gilgamesch, who began as Jesus, is now suddenly turned into John. In fact, Jesus-Gilgamesch and John-Eabani have suddenly changed places with one another, in accordance, I suppose, with the rule of interpretation51, somewhere laid down by Hugo Winckler, that in astral myths one hero is apt to swop with another, not only his stage properties, but his personality. But fresh surprises are in store for Jensen’s readers. [210]
Over scores of pages he has argued that John the Baptist is no other than Eabani, because he so faithfully fulfils over again the r?le of the Eabanis we meet with in the Old Testament. For example, according to Luke (i, 15, and vii, 33) John drinks no wine, and is, therefore, a Nazirean, who eschews52 wine and forbears to cut his hair. Therein he resembles Joseph-Eabani, and Simson-Eabani, and Samuel-Eabani, and also Absolom, who, as an Eabani, had at least an upper growth of hair. And as the Eabani of the Epic, with the long head-hair of a woman, drinks water along with the wild beasts in the desert, and as Eabani, in company with these beasts, feeds on grass and herbs alone, so, at any rate according to Luke, John ate no bread.5
Imagine the reader’s consternation53 when, after these convincing demonstrations55 of John’s identity with Eabani, and of his consequent non-historicity, he finds him a hundred pages later on altogether eliminated, as from the Gilgamesch Epic, so from the Gospel. For the difficulty suddenly arises before Dr. Jensen’s mind that John the Baptist, being mentioned by Josephus, must after all have really lived; but if he lived, then he cannot have been a mere reflex of Eabani. Had he only consulted Dr. Drews’s work on the Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus (English translation, p. 190), he would have known that “the John [211]of the Gospels” is no other than “the Babylonian Oannes, Joannes, or Hanni, the curiously-shaped creature, half fish and half man, who, according to Berosus, was the first law-giver and inventor of letters and founder56 of civilization, and who rose every morning from the waves of the Red Sea in order to instruct men as to his real spiritual nature.”
Why could not Dr. Jensen consult Dr. Drews “as to the real spiritual nature” of John the Baptist? Why not consult Mr. Robertson, who overwhelms Josephus’s inconvenient57 testimony58 to the reality of John the Baptist (in 18 Antiq., v, §59; 2) with the customary “suspicion of interpolation.” Poor Dr. Jensen lacks their resourcefulness, and is able to discover no other way out of his impasse60 than to suppose that it was originally Lazarus and not John that had a place in his Gilgamesch Epic, and that some ill-natured editor of the Gospels, for reasons he alone can divine, everywhere struck out the name of Lazarus, and inserted in place of it that of John the Baptist, which he found in the works of Josephus. Such are the possibilities of Gospel redaction as Jensen understands them.
One more example of Dr. Jensen’s system. In the Gospel, Jesus, finding himself on one occasion surrounded by a larger throng61 of people than was desirable, took a boat in order to get away from them, and passed across the lake on the shore of which he had been preaching and ministering to the sick. The incident is a commonplace one enough, but nothing is too slight and unimportant for Dr. Jensen to detect in it a Gilgamesch parallel, and accordingly he writes thus of it: “As for Xisuthros, so for Jesus, a boat is lying ready, and like Xisuthros and Jonas, Jesus [212]‘flees’ in a boat.”6 Xisuthros, I may remind the reader, is the name of the flood-hero in Berosus. Hardly a single one of the parallels which crowd the thousand pages of Dr. Jensen is less flimsy than the above. Without doing more violence to texts and to probabilities, one could prove that Achilles and Patroclus and Helen, ?neas and Achates and Dido, Don Quixote and Sancho Panza and Dulcinea, were all of them so many understudies of Gilgamesch, Eabani and his temple slave; and we almost expect to find such a demonstration54 in his promised second volume.
I cannot but think that my readers will resent any further specimens62 of Dr. Jensen’s system. He has not troubled himself to acquire the merest a b c of modern textual criticism. He has no sense of the differences of idea and style which divide the Fourth from the earlier Gospels, and he lacks all insight into the development of the Gospel tradition. He takes Christian30 documents out of their historical context, and ignores their dependence on the Judaism of the period B.C. 100 to A.D. 100. He has no understanding of the prophetic, Messianic and Apocalyptic63 aspects of early Christianity, no sense of its intimate relations with the beliefs and opinions which lie before us in apocryphs like the Book of Enoch, the Fourth Esdras, the Ascent64 of Isaiah, the Testaments65 of the Patriarchs. He has never learned that in the four Gospels he has before him successive stages or layers of stratification of Christian tradition, and he accordingly treats them as a single literary block, of which every part is of [213]the same age and evidential value. Like his Gilgamesch Epic the Gospels, for all he knows about them, might have been dug up only yesterday among the sands of Mesopotamia, instead of being the work of a sect with which, as early as the end of the first century, we are fairly well acquainted. Never once does he ask himself how the authors of the New Testament came to have the Gilgamesch Epic at the tips of their tongues, exactly in the form in which he translates it from Babylonian tablets incised 2,000 years before Christ? By what channels did it reach them? Why were they at such pains to transform it into the story of a Galilean Messiah crucified by the Roman Governor of Jud?a? And as Paul and Peter, like everyone else named in the book, are duplicates of Gilgamesch and Eabani, where are we to draw the line of intersection66 between heaven and earth; where fix the year in which the early Christians ceased to be myths and became mere men and women? This is a point it equally behoves Dr. Drews and Mr. Robertson and Professor W. B. Smith to clear up our doubts about. [214]
1 Das Gilgamesch Epos in der Weltliteratur, 1906. ↑
2 P. 933: “Die Jesus-sage nach den1 Synoptikern—wie auch die nach Johannes—unterscheidet sich nun67 aber von allen anderen bisher er?rterten Gilgamesch-sagen dadurch, dass sie hinter dem Gros der Sage nicht nur einzelne Bruchstücke von ihr als Nachzügler bringt, sondern eine lange Reihe von Stücken der Sage in fast ungest?rter ursprünglicher Reihenfolge,” etc. ↑
3 P. 818. So weit von Johannis Person allein. Verfolgen wir nun die Jesus-Sage weiter.
Im Gilgamesch Epos wird erz?hlt, wie zu Eabani in der Wüste der J?ger mit der Hierodule hinauszieht, wie Eabani ihrer habe geniesst, und dann mit ihr nach Erech kommt, wo grade oder ihm zu Ehre ein [208]Fest gefeiert wird, wie er sich dort an Gilgamesch anschliesst und ihn durch Diesen k?nigliche Ehren zuteil werden. Welche Metamorphosen diese Geschehnisse in den Sagen des alten Testaments erlebt haben, darf jetzt in der Hauptsache als bekannt vorausgesetzt werden. In zahlreichen Gilgamesch-Sagen fanden wir nun die Begegnung mit der Hierodule wieder. Aber vergeblich suchen wir sie dort in den drei ersten Evangelien, wo ihr Platz w?re, falls diese etwa eine Gilgamesch-Sage enthalten sollten, n?mlich unmittelbar hinter Johannis Auftreten in der Wüste. Ebenso wenig finden wir an dieser Stelle etwa einen Reflex von Eabani’s Einzug in das festlich erregte Erech. Wohl dagegen treffen wir an ursprünglicher Stelle ein Wiederhall von Gilgamesch’s Begegnung mit Eabani. ↑
4 P. 820. Jesu Taufe durch Johannes w?re sonst auch daraus geworden, dass Eabani, nach dem er an Gilgamesch’s Hof gelangt ist, durch Diesen K?niglicher Ehren teilhaft wird. ↑
5 Nach Lukas (i, 15 and vii, 33) trinkt Johannes keinen Wein, ist also ein Nasir?er, der keinen Wein trinkt und dessen Haar nicht kekürzt wird, ebenso wie Joseph-Eabani, wie Simson als ein Eabani, wie Samuel-Eabani, wie Absolom als Eabani wenigstens einen üppigen Haarwuchs besitzt, und wie der Eabani des Epos, mit dem langen Haupthaar eines Weibes, in der Wüste mit den Tieren zusammen Wasser trinkt, und wie Eabani mit diesen Tieren zusammen nur Gras und Krauter frisst, so isst Johannes, nach Lukas wenigstens, kein Brot. ↑
6 P. 838: Wie für Xisuthros, liegt für Jesus ein Schiff bereit, und, wie Xisuthros und Jonas, “flieht” Jesus in ein Schiff. ↑
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
den
|
|
| n.兽穴；秘密地方；安静的小房间，私室 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
precipitate
|
|
| adj.突如其来的；vt.使突然发生；n.沉淀物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
derived
|
|
| vi.起源；由来；衍生；导出v.得到( derive的过去式和过去分词 )；（从…中）得到获得；源于；（从…中）提取 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
rites
|
|
| 仪式，典礼( rite的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
mythology
|
|
| n.神话，神话学，神话集 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
scriptures
|
|
| 经文，圣典( scripture的名词复数 )； 经典 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
deluge
|
|
| n./vt.洪水，暴雨，使泛滥 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
dependence
|
|
| n.依靠，依赖；信任，信赖；隶属 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
possessed
|
|
| adj.疯狂的；拥有的，占有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
testament
|
|
| n.遗嘱；证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
protagonists
|
|
| n.（戏剧的）主角( protagonist的名词复数 )；（故事的）主人公；现实事件（尤指冲突和争端的）主要参与者；领导者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
epic
|
|
| n.史诗，叙事诗；adj.史诗般的，壮丽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
procrustean
|
|
| adj.强求一致的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
fabric
|
|
| n.织物，织品，布；构造，结构，组织 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
narrative
|
|
| n.叙述，故事；adj.叙事的，故事体的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
modifications
|
|
| n.缓和( modification的名词复数 )；限制；更改；改变 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
deter
|
|
| vt.阻止，使不敢，吓住 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
alias
|
|
| n.化名；别名；adv.又名 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
corpse
|
|
| n.尸体，死尸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
piously
|
|
| adv.虔诚地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
transcends
|
|
| 超出或超越（经验、信念、描写能力等）的范围( transcend的第三人称单数 )； 优于或胜过… | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
saga
|
|
| n.(尤指中世纪北欧海盗的)故事，英雄传奇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
sagas
|
|
| n.萨迦（尤指古代挪威或冰岛讲述冒险经历和英雄业绩的长篇故事）( saga的名词复数 )；（讲述许多年间发生的事情的）长篇故事；一连串的事件（或经历）；一连串经历的讲述（或记述） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
expounded
|
|
| 论述，详细讲解( expound的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
sundry
|
|
| adj.各式各样的，种种的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
eloquent
|
|
| adj.雄辩的，口才流利的；明白显示出的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
delusions
|
|
| n.欺骗( delusion的名词复数 )；谬见；错觉；妄想 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
Christians
|
|
| n.基督教徒( Christian的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
erecting
|
|
| v.使直立，竖起( erect的现在分词 )；建立 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
inevitably
|
|
| adv.不可避免地；必然发生地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
sage
|
|
| n.圣人，哲人；adj.贤明的，明智的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
orb
|
|
| n.太阳；星球；v.弄圆；成球形 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
constituent
|
|
| n.选民；成分，组分；adj.组成的，构成的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
inquiry
|
|
| n.打听，询问，调查，查问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
infringe
|
|
| v.违反，触犯，侵害 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
embody
|
|
| vt.具体表达，使具体化；包含，收录 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
emergence
|
|
| n.浮现，显现，出现，（植物）突出体 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
agog
|
|
| adj.兴奋的，有强烈兴趣的； adv.渴望地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
concocted
|
|
| v.将（尤指通常不相配合的）成分混合成某物( concoct的过去式和过去分词 )；调制；编造；捏造 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
wilderness
|
|
| n.杳无人烟的一片陆地、水等，荒漠 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
contrived
|
|
| adj.不自然的，做作的；虚构的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
predecessors
|
|
| n.前任( predecessor的名词复数 )；前辈；（被取代的）原有事物；前身 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
systematically
|
|
| adv.有系统地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
triumphant
|
|
| adj.胜利的，成功的；狂欢的，喜悦的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
ministry
|
|
| n.(政府的)部；牧师 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
allotted
|
|
| 分配，拨给，摊派( allot的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
interpretation
|
|
| n.解释，说明，描述；艺术处理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
eschews
|
|
| v.（尤指为道德或实际理由而）习惯性避开，回避( eschew的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
consternation
|
|
| n.大为吃惊，惊骇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
demonstration
|
|
| n.表明，示范，论证，示威 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
demonstrations
|
|
| 证明( demonstration的名词复数 )； 表明； 表达； 游行示威 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
Founder
|
|
| n.创始者，缔造者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
inconvenient
|
|
| adj.不方便的，令人感到麻烦的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
testimony
|
|
| n.证词；见证，证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
sect
|
|
| n.派别，宗教，学派，派系 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
impasse
|
|
| n.僵局；死路 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
throng
|
|
| n.人群，群众；v.拥挤，群集 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
specimens
|
|
| n.样品( specimen的名词复数 )；范例；（化验的）抽样；某种类型的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
apocalyptic
|
|
| adj.预示灾祸的，启示的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
ascent
|
|
| n.(声望或地位)提高；上升，升高；登高 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
testaments
|
|
| n.遗嘱( testament的名词复数 )；实际的证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
intersection
|
|
| n.交集，十字路口，交叉点；[计算机] 交集 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
nun
|
|
| n.修女，尼姑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |