I can imagine some of my readers objecting here that, whereas I have so rudely assailed15 the method of interpretation16 of New Testament documents adopted by the Nihilistic school—I only use this name as a convenient label for those who deny the historical reality of Jesus Christ—I nevertheless propound17 no rival method of my own. The truth is there is no abstract method of using documents relating to the past, and you cannot in advance lay down rules for doing so. You can only learn how to deal with them by practice, and it is one of the chief functions of any university or place of higher education to imbue18 students with historical method by setting before [216]them the original documents, and inspiring them to extract from them whatever solid results they can. A hundred years ago the better men in the college of Christchurch at Oxford19 were so trained by the dean, Cyril Jackson, who would set them the task of “preparing for examination the whole of Livy and Polybius, thoroughly20 read and studied in all their comparative bearings.”1 No better curriculum, indeed, could be devised for strengthening and developing the faculty21 of historical judgment22; and the schools of Literae Humaniores and Modern History, which were subsequently established at Oxford, carried on the tradition of this enlightened educationalist. In them the student is brought face to face in the original dialects with the records of the past, and stimulated23 to “read and study them in their comparative bearings.” One single branch of learning, however, has been treated apart in the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and pursued along the lines of tradition and authority—I mean the study of Christian3 antiquities24. The result has been deplorable. Intellectually-minded Englishmen have turned away from this field of history as from something tainted25, and barely one of our great historians in a century deems it worthy26 of his notice. It has been left to parsons, to men who have never learned to swim, because they have never had enough courage to venture into deep water. As we sow, so we reap. The English Church is probably the most enlightened of the many sects27 that make up Christendom. Yet [217]what is the treatment which it accords to any member of itself who has the courage to dissociate himself from the “orthodoxy” of the fourth century, of those Greek Fathers (so-called) in whom the human intelligence sank to the nadir28 of fanaticism29 and futility30? An example was recently seen in the case of the Rev1. Mr. W. H. Thompson, a young theological tutor of Magdalen College in Oxford, who, animated31 by nothing but loyalty32 for the Church, recently liberated33 his soul about the miracles of the Gospels in a thoroughly scholarly book entitled Miracles in the New Testament. The attitude of the clergy in general towards a work of genuine research, which sets truth above traditional orthodoxy, was revealed in a conference of the clergy of the southern province, held soon after its publication on May 19, 1911. The following account of that meeting is taken from the Guardian34 of May 26, 1911:—
The Rev. R. F. Bevan, in the Canterbury Diocesan Conference on May 19, 1911, proposed “that this Conference is of opinion that the clergy should make use of the light thrown on the Bible by modern criticism for the purposes of religious teaching.” The Bishop35 of Croydon moved the following rider: “But desires to record its distrust of critics who, while holding office in the Church of Christ, propound views inconsistent with the doctrines36 laid down in the creeds37 of the Church.”
He said it was needful to define what was meant by modern criticism. He referred to a book which had been published quite lately by the Dean of Divinity of Magdalen College, Oxford, a review of which would be found in the Guardian of May 12. He must honestly confess he had not read the book for himself?…. He then premised from the review that the work in question rejects the evidence both for the Virgin39 Birth of Christ and for his bodily [218]Resurrection from the tomb …, and added that the toleration by Churchmen of such doctrines and such views being taught within the bosom40 of the Church was to him most sad and inexplicable41. If such was the instruction which young Divinity students were receiving at the universities, no wonder that the supply of candidates for ordination42 was falling off.
The Rev. J. O. Bevan said it was not in the power of any man or any body of men to ignore the Higher Criticism or to suppress it. It had “come to stay,” and its influence for good or evil must be recognized.
The President (Archbishop of Canterbury) said that “Bible teaching ought to be given with a background of knowledge on the part of the teacher. He should deprecate as strongly as anybody that men who felt that they could not honestly continue to hold the Christian creeds should hold office in the Church of England. But he saw no connection between the sort of teaching which the Conference had now been considering and the giving up of the Christian creed38. The Old Testament was a literature which had come down to them from ancient days. Modern investigation43 enabled them now to set the earlier stages of that literature in somewhat different surroundings from those in which they were set by their fathers and grandfathers.” With regard to the book which had been referred to, the Archbishop said that, if the rider proposed was intended to imply a censure44 upon a particular writer, nothing would induce him to vote for it, inasmuch as he had not read the book, and knew nothing, at first hand, about it. He thought members ought to pause before they lightly gave votes which could be so interpreted.
The motion, on being put to the meeting, was carried with one dissentient. The rider was also carried by a majority.
It amounts, then, to this, that a rule of limited liability is to be observed in the investigation of early Christianity. You may be critical, but not up to the point of calling in question the Virgin Birth [219]or physical resurrection of Christ. The Bishop of Croydon opines that the free discussion of such questions in University circles intimidates45 young men from taking orders. If he lived in Oxford, he would know that it is the other way about.2 If Mr. Thompson had been allowed to say what he thought, unmolested; if the Bishops46 of Winchester and of Oxford had not at once taken steps to silence and drive him out of the Church, students would have been better encouraged to enter the Anglican ministry47, and the more intellectual of our young men would not avoid it as a profession hard to reconcile with truth and honesty and self-respect.
In the next number of the same journal (June 2, 1911) is recorded another example of how little our bishops are inclined to face a plain issue. It is contained in a paragraph headed thus:—
SYMBOLISM OF THE ASCENSION.
The Bishop of Birmingham on the Second Coming.
Preaching to a large congregation in Birmingham Cathedral … the Bishop of Birmingham said that people had found difficulty in modern times about the Ascension, because, they said, “God’s heaven is no more above our heads than under our feet.” That was perfectly48 true. But there were certain ways of [220]expressing moral ideas rooted in human thought, and we did not the less speak continually of the above and the below as expressing what was morally high and morally low, and we should go on doing so to the end. The ascension of Jesus Christ and his concealment49 in the clouds was a symbolical50 act, like all the acts after his Resurrection; it was to impress their minds with the truth of his mounting to the glory of God. Symbols were the best means of expressing the truth about things which lay outside their experience; and the Ascension symbolized51 Christ’s mounting to the supreme52 state of power and glory, to the perfect vision of God, to the throne of all the world?…. The Kingdom was coming—had to come at last—“on earth as it is in heaven”; and one day, just as his disciples53 saw him passing away out of their experience and sight, would they see him coming back into their experience and their sight, and into his perfected Kingdom of Humanity.
Now, I am sure that what people in modern times chiefly want to know about the Ascension is whether it really happened. Did Jesus in his physical body go up like a balloon before the eyes of the faithful, and disappear behind a cloud, or did he not? That is the plain issue, and Dr. Gore54 seems to avoid it. If he believes in such a miracle, why expatiate55 on the symbolism of all the acts of Jesus subsequent to his resurrection? Such a miracle was surely sufficient unto itself, and never needed our attention to be drawn to its symbolical aspects and import. Does he mean that the legend is no more than “a certain way of expressing moral ideas rooted in human thought”? May we welcome his insistence56 on its moral symbolism as a prelude57 to his abandonment of the literal truth of the tale? I hope so, for in not a few apologetic books published by divines during the last twenty-five years I have encountered a [221]tendency to expatiate on the moral significance of extinct Biblical legends. It is, as the Rev. Mr. Figgis expresses it, a way of “letting down the laity58 into the new positions of the Higher Criticism.” Would it not be simpler, in the end, to tell people frankly59 that a legend is only a legend? They are not children in arms. Why is it accounted so terrible for a clergyman or minister of religion to express openly in the pulpit opinions he can hear in many academical lecture-rooms, and often entertains in the privacy of his study? When the Archbishop of Canterbury tells his brother-doctors that “modern investigation enables them now to set the earlier stages of Old Testament literature in somewhat different surroundings from those in which they were set by their fathers and grandfathers,” he means that modern scholarship has emptied the Old Testament of its miraculous60 and supernatural legends. But the Anglican clergyman at ordination declares that he believes unfeignedly the whole of the Old and New Testaments61. How can an Archbishop not dispense62 his clergy from belief in the New, when he is so ready to leave it to their individual consciences whether they will or will not believe in the Old? The entire position is hollow and illogical, and most of the bishops know it; but, instead of frankly recognizing facts, they descant63 upon the symbolical meaning of tales which they know they must openly abandon to-morrow. One is inclined to ask Dr. Gore why Christ could not have imparted in words to his followers64 the secret of his mounting to the supreme state of power and glory? Did they at the time, or afterwards, set any such interpretation on the story of his rising up from the ground like an airship or an exhalation? Of [222]course they did not. They thought the earth was a fixed65, flat surface, and that, if you ascended66 through the several lower heavens, you would find yourself before a great white throne, on which sat, in Oriental state, among his winged cherubim, the Most High. They thought that Jesus consummated67 the hackneyed miracle of his ascension by sitting down on the right hand of this Heavenly Potentate68. If Dr. Gore doubts this, let him consult the voluminous works of the early Fathers on the subject. The entire legend coheres69 with ancient, and not with modern, cosmogony. How can it possibly be defended to-day on grounds of symbolism, or on any other? The same criticism applies to the legend of the Virgin Birth. The Bishop of London is reduced to defending this thrum of ancient paganism by an appeal to the biological fact of parthenogenesis among insects. Imagine the mentality70 of a modern bishop who dreams that he is advancing the cause of true religion and sound learning by assimilating the birth of his Saviour71 to that of a rotifer or a flea72!
The books of Dr. Drews and Mr. Robertson and others of their school are, no doubt, blundering extravaganzas, all the more inopportune because they provoke the gibes73 of Dr. Moulton; but they are at least works of Freethought. Their authors do not write with one eye on the truth and the other on the Pope in the Vatican, or on the obsolete74 dogmas of Byzantine speculation75. It is possible, therefore, to discuss with them, as it is not with apologists, who take good care never to lay all their cards on the table, and of whom you cannot but feel, as the great historian Mommsen remarked, that they are chattering76 in chains (ex vinculis sermocinantes). In the [223]investigation of truth there can be no mental reserves, and argument is useless where the final appeal lies to a Pope or a creed. You cannot set your hand to the plough and then look back.
It was not, then, within the scope of this essay to try to determine how much and what particular incidents traditionally narrated77 of Jesus are credible78. Such a task would require at least a thousand pages for its discharge; I have merely desired to show how difficult it is to prove a negative, and how much simpler it is to admit that Jesus really lived than to argue that he was a solar or other myth. The latter hypothesis, as expounded80 in these works, offends every principle of philology81, of comparative mythology82, and of textual criticism; it bristles83 with difficulties; and, if no better demonstration84 of it can be offered, it deserves to be summarily dismissed.
On the other hand, no absolute rules can be laid down a priori for the discerning in early Christian or in any other ancient documents of historical fact. But students embarking85 on a study of Christian origins will do well to lay to heart the aphorism86 of Renan (Les Ap?tres, Introd. xxix), that “one can only ascertain87 the origin of any particular religion from the narratives or reports of those who believed therein; for it is only the sceptic who writes history ad narrandum.” It is in the very nature of things human that we could not hope to obtain documents more evidential than the Gospels and Acts. It is a lucky chance that time has spared to us the Epistles of Paul as well, and the sparse88 notices of first-century congregations and personalities89 preserved in Josephus and in pagan writers. For during the first two or three generations of its existence the Church interested few [224]except itself. In the view of a Josephus, the Jewish converts could only figure as Jews gone astray after a false Messiah, just as the Gentile recruits were mere79 Judaizers, objects—as he remarks, B. J., II, 18, 2—of equal suspicion to Syrian pagans and Jews alike, an ambiguous, neutral class, spared by the knife of the pagans, yet dreaded90 by the Jews as at heart aliens to their cause.3 There were no folklorists or comparative religionists in those days watching for new cults91 to appear; and there could be little or no inclination92 to sit down and write history among enthusiasts93 who dreamed that the end of the world was close at hand, and believed themselves to be already living in the last days. For this is the conviction that colours the whole of the New Testament; and that it does so is a signal proof of the antiquity94 of much that the book contains. If a Christian of the first century ever took up his pen and wrote, it was not to hand down an objective narrative10 of events to a posterity95 whose existence he barely contemplated96, but, as against unbelieving Jews, to establish from ancient prophecy his belief in Jesus as the promised Messiah, or perhaps as the Word of God made flesh. All Christians97 were aware that Jews, both in Jud?a and of the Dispersion, roundly denied their Christ to have been anything better than an impostor and violator of the Law. They heard the pagans round them echoing the scoffs98 of their Messiah’s own countrymen. Accordingly, the earliest literature of the Church, so far as it is not merely homiletic and hortative99, is controversial, [225]and aims at proving that the Jewish people were mistaken in rejecting Jesus as the Messiah. The Jews neither then nor now have fought with mere shadows; and just in proportion as they bore witness against his Messiahship, they bore witness in favour of his historical reality. It is a pity that the extreme negative school ignore this aspect of his rejection100 by the Jews.
Let me cite one more wise rule laid down by Renan in the same Introduction: “An ancient writing can help us to throw light, firstly, on the age in which it was composed, and, secondly101, on the age which preceded its composition.”
This indicates in a general fashion the use which historians should make of the New Testament. We have at every turn to ask ourselves what the circumstances its contents reveal presuppose in the immediate102 past in the way both of ideas or aspirations103 and of fact or incidents.
In conclusion, I cannot do better than quote the words in which Renan defines in general terms the sort of historical results we may hope to attain104 in the field of Christian origins. It is from the Introduction already cited, pp. vi and vii:—
In histories like this, where the general outline (ensemble) alone is certain, and where nearly all the details lend themselves more or less to doubt by reason of the legendary105 character of the documents, hypothesis is indispensable. About ages of which we know nothing we cannot frame any hypothesis at all. To try to reconstitute a particular group of ancient statuary, which certainly once existed, but of which we have not even the debris106, and about which we possess no written information, is to attempt an entirely107 arbitrary task. But to endeavour to recompose the friezes108 of the Parthenon from what remains109 [226]to us, using as subsidiary to our work ancient texts, drawings made in the seventeenth century, and availing ourselves of all sources of information; in a word, inspiring ourselves by the style of these inimitable fragments, and endeavouring to seize their soul and life—what more legitimate110 task than this? We cannot, indeed, after all, say that we have rediscovered the work of the ancient sculptor111; nevertheless, we shall have done all that was possible in order to approximate thereto. Such a method is all the more legitimate in history, because language permits the use of dubitative moods of which marble admits not. There is nothing to prevent our setting before the reader a choice of different suppositions, and the author’s conscience may be at rest as soon as he has set forth112 as certain what is certain, as probable what is probable, as possible what is possible. In those parts of the field where our footstep slides and slips between history and legend it is only the general effect that we must seek after?…. Accomplished113 facts speak more plainly than any amount of biographic detail. We know very little of the peerless artists who created the chefs d’?uvre of Greek art. Yet these chefs d’?uvre tell us more of the personality of their authors and of the public which appreciated them than ever could do the most circumstantial narratives and the most authentic114 of texts.
[227]
1 I cite an unfinished memoir115 of my grandfather, W. D. Conybeare, himself a pioneer of geology and no mean pal116?ontologist, who owed much of his discernment in these fields to such a training in historical method as he describes. ↑
2 Within the last two months the theological faculties117 of Oxford and Cambridge, and the examining chaplains (of various bishops) resident in those universities, have addressed a petition to the Archbishop of Canterbury praying him to absolve118 candidates for Ordination of the necessity of avowing119 that “they believe unfeignedly in the whole of the Old and New Testaments,” because so many competent and well-qualified students are thereby120 deterred121 from taking holy orders. The Archbishop would, it seems, make the individual clergyman’s conscience the sole judge (to the exclusion122 of the Bishop of Croydon) of the propriety123 of his retaining his orders in spite of his rejection of this and that tradition or dogma. That is at least a sign that opinion is on the move. ↑
3 Such is Renan’s interpretation of this passage in L’Ante-Christ, ed. 1873, p. 259, and he is undoubtedly124 right in detecting in it a reference to the Christians scattered125 abroad in the half-Syrian and pagan, half-Jewish and monotheist, cities of Syria. ↑
The End
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
rev
|
|
| v.发动机旋转，加快速度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
vein
|
|
| n.血管，静脉；叶脉，纹理；情绪；vt.使成脉络 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
sifted
|
|
| v.筛( sift的过去式和过去分词 )；筛滤；细查；详审 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
sift
|
|
| v.筛撒，纷落，详察 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
clergy
|
|
| n.[总称]牧师，神职人员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
testament
|
|
| n.遗嘱；证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
evasions
|
|
| 逃避( evasion的名词复数 )； 回避； 遁辞； 借口 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
instinctive
|
|
| adj.(出于)本能的；直觉的；(出于)天性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
narrative
|
|
| n.叙述，故事；adj.叙事的，故事体的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
narratives
|
|
| 记叙文( narrative的名词复数 )； 故事； 叙述； 叙述部分 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
specious
|
|
| adj.似是而非的；adv.似是而非地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
fable
|
|
| n.寓言；童话；神话 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
assailed
|
|
| v.攻击( assail的过去式和过去分词 )；困扰；质问；毅然应对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
interpretation
|
|
| n.解释，说明，描述；艺术处理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
propound
|
|
| v.提出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
imbue
|
|
| v.灌输(某种强烈的情感或意见)，感染 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
Oxford
|
|
| n.牛津（英国城市） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
thoroughly
|
|
| adv.完全地，彻底地，十足地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
faculty
|
|
| n.才能；学院，系；(学院或系的)全体教学人员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
stimulated
|
|
| a.刺激的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
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： |
|
|
|
|
25
tainted
|
|
| adj.腐坏的；污染的；沾污的；感染的v.使变质( taint的过去式和过去分词 )；使污染；败坏；被污染，腐坏，败坏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
worthy
|
|
| adj.(of)值得的，配得上的；有价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
sects
|
|
| n.宗派，教派( sect的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
nadir
|
|
| n.最低点，无底 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
fanaticism
|
|
| n.狂热，盲信 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
futility
|
|
| n.无用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
animated
|
|
| adj.生气勃勃的，活跃的，愉快的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
loyalty
|
|
| n.忠诚，忠心 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
liberated
|
|
| a.无拘束的，放纵的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
guardian
|
|
| n.监护人；守卫者，保护者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
bishop
|
|
| n.主教，（国际象棋）象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
doctrines
|
|
| n.教条( doctrine的名词复数 )；教义；学说；（政府政策的）正式声明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
creeds
|
|
| （尤指宗教）信条，教条( creed的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
creed
|
|
| n.信条；信念，纲领 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
virgin
|
|
| n.处女，未婚女子；adj.未经使用的；未经开发的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
bosom
|
|
| n.胸，胸部；胸怀；内心；adj.亲密的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
inexplicable
|
|
| adj.无法解释的，难理解的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
ordination
|
|
| n.授任圣职 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
investigation
|
|
| n.调查，调查研究 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
censure
|
|
| v./n.责备；非难；责难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
intimidates
|
|
| n.恐吓，威胁( intimidate的名词复数 )v.恐吓，威胁( intimidate的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
bishops
|
|
| （基督教某些教派管辖大教区的）主教( bishop的名词复数 )； （国际象棋的）象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
ministry
|
|
| n.(政府的)部；牧师 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
concealment
|
|
| n.隐藏, 掩盖，隐瞒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
symbolical
|
|
| a.象征性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
symbolized
|
|
| v.象征，作为…的象征( symbolize的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
disciples
|
|
| n.信徒( disciple的名词复数 )；门徒；耶稣的信徒；（尤指）耶稣十二门徒之一 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
gore
|
|
| n.凝血，血污；v.（动物）用角撞伤，用牙刺破；缝以补裆；顶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
expatiate
|
|
| v.细说，详述 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
insistence
|
|
| n.坚持；强调；坚决主张 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
prelude
|
|
| n.序言，前兆，序曲 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
laity
|
|
| n.俗人；门外汉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
frankly
|
|
| adv.坦白地，直率地；坦率地说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
miraculous
|
|
| adj.像奇迹一样的，不可思议的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
testaments
|
|
| n.遗嘱( testament的名词复数 )；实际的证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
dispense
|
|
| vt.分配，分发；配(药)，发(药)；实施 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
descant
|
|
| v.详论，絮说；n.高音部 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
followers
|
|
| 追随者( follower的名词复数 )； 用户； 契据的附面； 从动件 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
fixed
|
|
| adj.固定的，不变的，准备好的；(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
ascended
|
|
| v.上升，攀登( ascend的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
consummated
|
|
| v.使结束( consummate的过去式和过去分词 )；使完美；完婚；（婚礼后的）圆房 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
potentate
|
|
| n.统治者；君主 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
coheres
|
|
| v.黏合( cohere的第三人称单数 )；联合；结合；（指看法、推理等）前后一致 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
mentality
|
|
| n.心理，思想，脑力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
saviour
|
|
| n.拯救者，救星 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
flea
|
|
| n.跳蚤 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
gibes
|
|
| vi.嘲笑，嘲弄（gibe的第三人称单数形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
obsolete
|
|
| adj.已废弃的，过时的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
speculation
|
|
| n.思索，沉思；猜测；投机 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
chattering
|
|
| n. （机器振动发出的）咔嗒声，(鸟等)鸣，啁啾 adj. 喋喋不休的，啾啾声的 动词chatter的现在分词形式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
narrated
|
|
| v.故事( narrate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
credible
|
|
| adj.可信任的，可靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
expounded
|
|
| 论述，详细讲解( expound的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
philology
|
|
| n.语言学；语文学 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
mythology
|
|
| n.神话，神话学，神话集 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
bristles
|
|
| 短而硬的毛发，刷子毛( bristle的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
demonstration
|
|
| n.表明，示范，论证，示威 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
embarking
|
|
| 乘船( embark的现在分词 )； 装载； 从事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
aphorism
|
|
| n.格言，警语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
ascertain
|
|
| vt.发现，确定，查明，弄清 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
sparse
|
|
| adj.稀疏的，稀稀落落的，薄的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
personalities
|
|
| n. 诽谤，（对某人容貌、性格等所进行的）人身攻击； 人身攻击；人格, 个性, 名人( personality的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
dreaded
|
|
| adj.令人畏惧的；害怕的v.害怕，恐惧，担心( dread的过去式和过去分词) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
cults
|
|
| n.迷信( cult的名词复数 )；狂热的崇拜；（有极端宗教信仰的）异教团体 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
inclination
|
|
| n.倾斜；点头；弯腰；斜坡；倾度；倾向；爱好 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
enthusiasts
|
|
| n.热心人，热衷者( enthusiast的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
antiquity
|
|
| n.古老；高龄；古物，古迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
posterity
|
|
| n.后裔，子孙，后代 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
contemplated
|
|
| adj. 预期的 动词contemplate的过去分词形式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
Christians
|
|
| n.基督教徒( Christian的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
scoffs
|
|
| 嘲笑，嘲弄( scoff的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
hortative
|
|
| adj.激励的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
rejection
|
|
| n.拒绝，被拒，抛弃，被弃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
secondly
|
|
| adv.第二，其次 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
immediate
|
|
| adj.立即的；直接的，最接近的；紧靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
aspirations
|
|
| 强烈的愿望( aspiration的名词复数 )； 志向； 发送气音； 发 h 音 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
attain
|
|
| vt.达到，获得，完成 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
legendary
|
|
| adj.传奇（中）的，闻名遐迩的；n.传奇（文学） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
debris
|
|
| n.瓦砾堆，废墟，碎片 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
friezes
|
|
| n.（柱顶过梁和挑檐间的）雕带，（墙顶的）饰带( frieze的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
legitimate
|
|
| adj.合法的，合理的，合乎逻辑的；v.使合法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
sculptor
|
|
| n.雕刻家，雕刻家 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
accomplished
|
|
| adj.有才艺的；有造诣的；达到了的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
authentic
|
|
| a.真的，真正的；可靠的，可信的，有根据的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
memoir
|
|
| n.[pl.]回忆录，自传；记事录 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
pal
|
|
| n.朋友，伙伴，同志；vi.结为友 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
faculties
|
|
| n.能力( faculty的名词复数 )；全体教职员；技巧；院 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
absolve
|
|
| v.赦免，解除（责任等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
avowing
|
|
| v.公开声明，承认( avow的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
thereby
|
|
| adv.因此，从而 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
deterred
|
|
| v.阻止，制止( deter的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
exclusion
|
|
| n.拒绝，排除，排斥，远足，远途旅行 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
propriety
|
|
| n.正当行为；正当；适当 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
undoubtedly
|
|
| adv.确实地，无疑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
scattered
|
|
| adj.分散的，稀疏的；散步的；疏疏落落的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |