ON THE IMPERFECT RENDERINGS INTRODUCED OR RETAINED IN THE REVISION OF 1611.

The two reasons for further revision which were illustrated in the last lecture are, as will have been seen, of universal application, and must sooner or later apply to every version of the Scriptures, however perfect that version may have been when it was first made. But whatever the skill with which King James’s translators fulfilled their labours (and it is universally acknowledged to be worthy of the highest praise), it would be a vain fancy to imagine that theirs was a perfect work. They themselves would never have claimed such an honour for it, and already in their own day some of their renderings were called in question by competent men. Even if they had never failed in applying the means at their command for the interpretation of the Hebrew and Greek originals, they knew that the knowledge then possessed of these ancient tongues was far from complete, and that by further study and advancing research it would be possible to attain to a more accurate and extensive acquaintance with them.

The progress made in the knowledge of Greek and Hebrew during the last two centuries has, in fact, been such as the revisers of 1611 could have little anticipated. A long list might easily be drawn up of eminent scholars who have given themselves to the investigation of the grammar of the two sacred languages, and of others who have laboured in illustrating the meaning of their terms. In the case of Hebrew, large additions to our knowledge, both of its grammar and its vocabulary, have been won from a source almost entirely unexplored in former times; namely, the study of Arabic and other cognate languages; and in the case both of Hebrew and Greek, much has been gained by the labours of those who have given themselves to the investigation of the general principles of language, and to the study of the relations which different languages sustain to each other. The knowledge of Hebrew and Greek thus attained has been from time to time applied by a still larger number of eminent men to the elucidation of the several books of the Bible, and an immense amount of valuable material for their interpretation has thus been stored up. The meaning of obscure and difficult passages has been elaborately and independently discussed by men of different nationalities, and of different types of theological opinion, and in this way the sense of many passages formerly misunderstood has been satisfactorily determined. And such being the case, it is clearly the incumbent duty of all who truly reverence the Scriptures to desire that these imperfections and obscurities shall be removed, and the more so that some of these erroneous renderings have been used by the opponents of the Bible as their weapons of attack.

That the reader may be able to form some definite judgment upon the matter here presented to him, his attention is called to the following selection of passages from different parts of the Bible, in which it will now be generally acknowledged by competent judges that the translators of 1611 have failed to give a faithful representation of the meaning of the original texts:

Gen. iv. 15 is rendered, in the version of 1611, as in previous versions: “And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him,” and no small amount of ingenuity has been wasted in the endeavour to decide what this supposed mark upon the body of Cain might be. The rendering moreover altogether misrepresented the import of the passage. The “mark” or “sign” was not something intended for the warning of others, but was given to remove the fears of Cain himself, expressed in verses 13, 14: “The Lord set a sign for Cain [to assure him] that whoever found him would not kill him.”

Gen. xx. 16. Here Abimelech is made to say to Sarah, “Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver; behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, with all that are with thee, and with all other; thus she was reproved,” a statement which is both misleading and obscure. It was not Abraham, but the present of money, that was to be for Sarah a covering of the eyes, that is, a testimony to her virtue, and by this act of the king she was not reproved for her conduct, but was cleared in her character. The latter part should be rendered, “Behold, it shall be to thee a covering of the eyes ... and thus she was righted.”

Exod. xvi. 15. “And when the children of Israel saw it, they said one to another, It is manna, for they wist not what it was.” To the ordinary reader this seems to involve a contradiction; but the stumbling-block is at once removed by the more faithful rendering, “They said one to another, What is it? for they wist not what it was.” Further on, in verse 31, it is stated that from this cry, “What is it?” the bread from heaven thus given to them was called Manna, or more correctly Man (the Hebrew word for What?).

Josh. vi. 4. “And seven priests shall bear before the ark seven trumpets of rams’ horns.” This is a very unfortunate rendering; for not only are rams’ horns solid, and so also unsuitable for wind instruments, but also it is only by the merest fancy that any reference to rams can be brought in at all. The word rendered “rams” is “jubilee,” the same as that given to the great Year of Release. It denotes either some kind of trumpet, and is so used Exod. xix. 13, or the sound or signal given by a trumpet. The Year of Release derives its name, the Year of Jubilee, from the solemn sounding of trumpets throughout the land with which it was inaugurated. The original term should here be kept, and the verse should read, “And seven priests shall bear before the ark seven trumpets of jubilee.”[67]

Judges v. 7. “The inhabitants of the villages ceased, they ceased in Israel, until that I Deborah arose, that I arose a mother in Israel.” Here the translators first of all misunderstood the word which they have rendered “villages,” and were then driven to introduce the words “the inhabitants of,” for which, as the italics show, there was nothing in the Hebrew. The picture really drawn in the verse is not that of the depopulation of the country, but of the defenceless and disorganized condition of the people through the absence of judges or rulers. The Septuagint gives the true sense: “The rulers ceased, they ceased in Israel.”[68]

Judges xv. 19. “But God clave an hollow place that was in the jaw, and there came water thereout.” A strange misrepresentation of the meaning of the original. The hollow place was not in the jaw-bone with which Sampson had slain the Philistines, but in some cliff in the neighbourhood, and which derived its name, Ramath-lehi, or more briefly Lehi, from this memorable exploit. The words should be rendered, “But God clave the hollow place which is in Lehi.”

1 Sam. ix. 20. “And as for thine asses that were lost three days ago, set not thy mind on them, for they are found. And on whom is all the desire of Israel? Is it not on thee and on all thy father’s house?” A needless difficulty is here created by suggesting that already the hearts of the people had been set upon Saul for their future king, whereas his future elevation to that office was as yet known to Samuel only. This is removed by the right rendering: “Whose are all the desirable things of Israel? Are they not for thee, and for thy father’s house.”[69]

2 Sam. v. 6. “Except thou take away the blind and the lame thou shalt not come in hither;” a statement to which the reader finds it difficult to attach any appropriate sense. The verse is correctly rendered by Coverdale, who reads, “Thou shalt not come hither, but the blynde and lame shall dryve thee awaie.”

2 Sam. xiv. 14. “For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; neither doth God respect any person: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him.” The statement that God doth not respect any person, however true in itself, has here no relation to the context. The natural meaning of the original words is very different, “God doth not take away life,” that is, as shown by what immediately follows, does not at once and without mercy inflict punishment as soon as guilt is incurred, but “deviseth means,” &c.

2 Kings viii. 13. “And Hazael said, But what, is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing?” Thus read, the words imply that Hazael shrank indignantly from the actions described in the preceding verse; whereas the sense of the passage is that he viewed himself as too insignificant a person to do what he clearly regarded as a great exploit. “But what is thy servant, the [or this] dog, that he should do this great thing?”

1 Chron. xvi. 7. “Then on that day David delivered first this psalm to thank the Lord into the hand of Asaph and his brethren.” This conveys the impression that the psalm which follows is the first psalm that David published, whereas the statement is that on this memorable day—the day on which David brought up the ark from the house of Obed-edom—he formally appointed Asaph and his brethren to the office of superintending the service of praise. (Compare verse 37.) “Then on that day David first gave the praising of the Lord into the hand of Asaph and his brethren.”[70]

Job iv. 6. “Is not this thy fear, thy confidence, thy hope, and the uprightness of thy ways?” By the insertion of “this,” a wrong complexion is given to the passage. Eliphaz, in reference to Job’s fainting under his sufferings, calls attention to the confidence he had formerly professed on the ground of his fear of God and of the uprightness of his conduct; and so indirectly suggests that Job’s piety and uprightness had been unreal. “Is not thy fear [i.e. thy fear of God, thy piety] thy confidence; and thy hope, is it not even the integrity of thy ways?”

Job xix. 26. “And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God.” As the italics show, the original contains nothing corresponding to the words “though,” “worms,” and “body.” Their insertion does not indeed change radically the meaning of the verse, but they weaken its force, and in a measure alter its imagery. The picture presented by the original is a very vivid one. The patriarch, pointing to his body wasting away under disease, says, “After my skin is destroyed thus, yet from my flesh shall I see God.”

Job xxiv. 16. “In the dark they dig through houses, which they had marked for themselves in the daytime; they know not the light.” Here the meaning of the second clause has been altogether missed, and the whole passage is thereby greatly obscured. The writer is describing the deeds of those who rebel against the light and love the darkness: as with the murderer (v. 14) and the adulterer (v. 15), so is it with the robber. “In the dark they dig through houses; in the daytime they shut themselves up; they know not the light.”

Job xxxi. 35. “Oh that one would hear me! behold, my desire is, that the Almighty would answer me, and that mine adversary had written a book.” Job, having asserted his innocence, expresses his strong desire that the charges against him might be brought for decision before the divine tribunal. He, on his part, is quite prepared for the trial; there, he says, is his statement, signed and sealed; let the adversary in like manner present his indictment; he would then be sure of a triumphant issue. “Oh that I had one who would hear me! Behold my mark! May the Almighty answer me, and that I had the accusation that my adversary had written. Surely, I would carry it on my shoulder, I would bind it as chaplets upon me.”

Ps. xvi. 2, 3. “Thou art my Lord; my goodness extendeth not to thee. But to the saints that are in the earth, and to the excellent, in whom is all my delight.” Every reader of this psalm must have felt how obscure, if not unintelligible, are these words. A more faithful rendering gives a clear and appropriate sense, “Thou art my Lord, I have no good above thee. As for the saints on the earth, and the excellent, in them is all my delight.”[71]

Ps. xlii. 4. “When I remember these things, I pour out my soul in me, for I had gone with the multitude. I went with them to the house of God.” The words of the Psalmist are not, as this rendering makes them to be, a mere statement of what happens whenever he remembers the sorrows of the past, and the mockery of his adversaries. They are a declaration of his purpose to remember, with lively emotion and gratitude, the privileges and mercies with which he had been blessed. “I will remember these things [i.e. the things he is about to mention], and I will pour out my soul within me, how I passed along with the multitude, how I went with them [or how I led them] to the house of God.”

Ps. xlix. 5. “Wherefore should I fear in the days of evil, when the iniquity of my heels shall compass me about?” This, though seemingly an exact rendering of the Hebrew, wholly misleads the English reader. The phrase, “iniquity of my heels,” can only suggest to him the iniquity which the man himself has committed, a sense which is altogether unsuited to the passage. The Psalmist would never say that his own personal transgressions were not to him a ground of fear. The word, which in Hebrew means “heel,” is that also which, by a slight modification, forms the name of the patriarch Jacob, the “Heeler,” or supplanter of his brother. In the opinion of many scholars, the simple form here used admits of the same meaning, and they render, “when the iniquity of my supplanters [or the iniquity of those who plot against me] compasseth me about.” Whatever be the true explanation of the Hebrew phrase, it is quite certain that it is the iniquity of others, and not of the speaker, which is referred to. Some change, therefore, in the rendering is clearly called for.

Ps. xci. 9, 10. “Because thou hast made the Lord, which is my refuge, even the Most High, thy habitation; there shall no evil befall thee,” &c. The earlier English translations, the Bishops’, the Genevan, the Great Bible, and Wycliffe’s, have all kept nearer to the original than this. The most ancient version of all, the Septuagint, renders it correctly. The psalm is one of those which are intended to be sung by two singers, or two companies of singers, responding one to the other, and hence arises the frequent change of person that occurs in it. In the first clause of this verse we have one of the singers chanting, “For thou, O Lord, art my refuge.” In the second clause we have the response of the other singer, “Thou hast made the Most High thy habitation; there shall no evil befall thee,” &c., down to end of verse 13.

Eccl. iv. 14. “For out of prison he cometh to reign; whereas, also, he that is born in his kingdom becometh poor.” The meaning attached by the Revisers of 1611 to the second clause seems to be, that the old and foolish king referred to in the previous verse, who was “born in his kingdom,” that is, who succeeded to the kingly power by inheritance, becomes, through his obstinacy, a poor man. This sense can only be got from the words by much straining, and has led to the introduction of the word “becometh,” which represents nothing in the original.[72] The correct rendering gives a plain and suitable sense: “For from the house of prisoners he goeth forth to reign, although in his kingdom [namely, the kingdom over which he now rules] he was born poor.”

Isa. lxiii. 19. “We are thine: thou never barest rule over them; they were not called by thy name.” The sense of this passage is entirely changed by the introduction of the word “thine.” The verse is the penitential acknowledgment of the depressed condition into which the nation had fallen in consequence of its sins. They are no longer as the chosen inheritance (v. 17), they are as an alien people. The Genevan translators give the true sense of the passage, “We have been [better, We are become] as they over whom thou never barest rule, and upon whom thy name was not called.”

Jer. iv. 1, 2. “If thou wilt return, O Israel, saith the Lord, return unto me: and if thou wilt put away thine abominations out of my sight, then shalt thou not remove. And thou shalt swear, The Lord liveth, in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness; and the nations shall bless themselves in him, and in him shall they glory.” This as it stands is hopelessly obscure. The passage is an emphatic announcement of the blessings that would come to the nations from the penitent return of Israel to its faithful allegiance. If Israel will return, will put away all its abominations, and no longer swearing by idols, as if they were the highest objects of reverence, should make in truth and uprightness their appeals to Jehovah, then the nations would share in the blessedness of the kingdom. “If thou wilt return, O Israel, saith the Lord, wilt return unto me, and if thou wilt put away thine abominations out of my sight, and wilt not go astray, and wilt swear, ‘The Lord liveth’ in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness, then the nations shall bless themselves in him,” &c.

Ezek. x. 14. “And every one had four faces: the first face was the face of a cherub, and the second face was the face of a man, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle.” This conveys a wrong impression. The prophet is describing, not as he is here represented, the four faces of all the cherubim, but one face only of each. The Bishops’ Bible gives the true sense by rendering, “Every one of them had four faces, so that the face of the first was the face of a cherub, and the face of the second was the face of a man, and of the third the face of a lion, and of the fourth the face of an eagle.”

Ezek. xxii. 15, 16. “And I will scatter thee among the heathen, and disperse thee in the countries, and will consume thy filthiness out of thee. And thou shalt take thine inheritance in thyself in the sight of the heathen, and thou shalt know that I am the Lord.” The dark phrase, “thou shalt take thine inheritance in thyself,” is commonly explained to mean, that whereas aforetime they were God’s inheritance, they shall now be left to find their inheritance by themselves. A more lucid and more suitable meaning is given to the words by the rendering adopted by most modern commentators, “thou shalt be profaned through thyself in the sight of the nations.”

Dan. iii. 25. “Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.” It is clearly misleading to attribute to Nebuchadnezzar any such exalted conception as that which we attach to the phrase, “the Son of God,” and so to render the clause misrepresents the original. The correct translation is “one like to a son of the gods.” A similar error occurs in vii. 13, where “one like the Son of man,” should be “one like a son of man.”

Hos. vi. 3. “Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the Lord;” thus making the prophet to declare that the attainment of knowledge is dependent upon our perseverance in the search after it. This is an important truth, but is not the meaning of the verse, which is simply an emphatic exhortation to know God and to persevere in knowing Him. “Yea, let us know, let us follow on to know, the Lord.”

Hosea xiii. 14. “O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction.” Though there is some difference of opinion respecting the right rendering of the earlier part of this verse, all are agreed that these should be rendered as they are quoted in 1 Cor. xv. 55, “Where are thy plagues, O death? Where is thy destruction, O grave?”

Matt. vi. 16. The rendering “they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast,” misleads the reader by conveying the impression that the Pharisees were endeavouring to obtain credit under false pretences—were seeming to fast when not doing so in reality; whereas the conduct condemned is that of parading, and calling public attention to, their religious observances. “They disfigure their faces, that they may be seen of men that they are fasting.”[73] So also in verse 18.

Matt. xi. 2. “Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples.” Here the true force of the passage is missed. “Christ,” as used by us, is a proper name, designating the person, and not simply the office of our Lord. It was not because John had heard of certain works done by Jesus of Nazareth that he sent his disciples to Him, but because he recognized in the accounts which were brought to him deeds characteristic of the Christ, the promised Messiah. “When John heard in the prison the works of the Christ.”

Matt. xv. 3. “Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?” The commandment of God might indeed be transgressed by compliance with the traditions of men, but this is not the meaning of our Lord’s words. The Pharisees had asked why the disciples did not observe the traditions of the elders respecting washing. Our Lord justifies them by calling attention to the wrong doing of those who so exalted these outward observations, in themselves mere matters of indifference, as on their account to make void the commandments of God. “Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?”[74]

Mark vi. 20. “For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him.” This erroneous rendering has come down through Tyndale, the Great Bible, and the Genevan, the last of these, however, giving it in the less obscure form, “and did him reverence.” The passage is rightly given by Wycliffe, “and kept him;” i.e. kept him in safety.

Luke i. 59. “And they called him Zacharias.” The form employed in the Greek expresses that the action here spoken of was attempted only, not completed, “they would have called him Zacharias.”

Luke xxi. 19. “In your patience possess ye your souls,” a translation which altogether misses the meaning. The clause is not an exhortation to the maintenance of a calm composure in trouble, but is an exhortation to the acquirement of a higher and nobler life through the brave endurance of suffering. “In your patience win ye your lives.” In the better texts this is given in the form of an assurance: “In your patience ye shall win your lives.”

Luke xxiii. 15. “No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him.” Words unto which an intelligible sense can be put only by straining them to mean that nothing had been done to our Lord to show that in the judgment of Herod He was worthy of death. All obscurity is removed by the more faithful rendering, “nothing worthy of death hath been done by him.”

John iv. 27. “And upon this came his disciples, and marvelled that he talked with the woman.” The surprise of the disciples was not occasioned by the fact that our Lord was conversing with this particular woman; they were surprised that He should talk with any woman. The correct rendering is, as given by the Rheims, “and they marueiled that he talked with a woman.”

John v. 35. “He was a burning and a shining light.” Though this, by frequent quotation, has passed into a sort of proverbial phrase, it is a most unfortunate rendering, and gives an entirely wrong impression of the meaning of the passage. As thus read it sets forth the pre-eminence of John, whereas its true import is to emphasize the subordinate nature of his office and work. Christ, as stated in the first chapter of this Gospel, was “the Light.” In comparison with Him, John was only a lamp which, in order that it may give light, must first be kindled from some other source. “He was the lamp which is kindled and [so] shineth.”

John xv. 3. “Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you,” thus representing the word to be the instrument through which the cleansing was wrought. But though this be true, it is not the truth here set forth. It was not “through,” but “on account of” the word, i.e. because of its virtue and its cleansing power, that they were clean. Here, again, Wycliffe is free from the error into which all the later translators (except the Rheims) have fallen. He renders, “Now ye ben clene for the word that I haue spokun to you.”

Acts ii. 23. “Ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.” The ordinary reader naturally takes the “wicked hands” to be the hands of the Jews, whereas the reference is to the Romans, through whose agency the Jews brought about the crucifixion of Christ, “and by the hands of lawless men, ye crucified and slew.” Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, the Genevan, the Bishops, and the Rheims, all render this clause correctly.

Acts xi. 17. “Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ.” This is incorrect, and suggests a false contrast between “us” and “them,” as if the latter were not believers. Faith in Christ is the ground upon which, in the case of both parties, the gifts referred to were received. The verse is thus given by Tyndale: “For as moche then as God gave them lyke gyftes, as he dyd unto vs when we beleved on the Lorde Iesus Christ.”

Acts xxvi. 23. “That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.” This both needlessly suggests a difficulty to many readers, and altogether conceals one main point of the passage; namely, that the resurrection of Christ was the great source from which illumination would come both to Jews and to Gentiles, “and that He first by His resurrection from the dead should proclaim light to the people and to the Gentiles.”

Rom. ix. 3. “For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.” Such a wish it is impossible that the Apostle could have entertained. His words are the expression of his strong affection for his fellow-countrymen. “I could have wished,” &c.; i.e. if such a wish had been right or possible.Rom. xiii. 11. “And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.” This is ambiguous English, and though a very careful reader might gather the true sense from this rendering, it is very liable to be taken as if meaning that our salvation is nearer than we anticipated; nor is the ambiguity removed by the Genevan, which reads, “nearer than when we believed it.” The reference is to the time of their first exercise of faith in Christ, “nearer than when we first believed.”

1 Cor. i. 21. “For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” This rendering has been a fertile source of error, as if preaching was in itself, or as viewed by the Corinthians, an inappropriate means for the diffusion of the Gospel, a thought altogether at variance with the tone of the context, and with the facts of history. The Greeks were, of all the peoples of antiquity, the least disposed to think lightly of oratory, and the whole tenor of the passage shows that their tendency was to overrate, not underrate, the power of speech. What was foolishness to them was not the act of preaching, but the doctrine preached—salvation through a crucified Christ. The Rheims here clearly enough gives the true sense, “it pleased God by the folishnes of the preaching to saue them that beleeue.”

1 Cor. ix. 5. “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles?” This mode of speech implies that some only of the other apostles were married. What the Greek states is that all or most of them were. Here again the Rheims correctly renders, “as also the rest of the Apostles.”

2 Cor. v. 14. “Because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead,” thus seeming to imply that the death of Christ upon the cross is a proof that all men were in a state of spiritual death; whereas the conclusion which the Apostle draws from the death of Christ is, that all who truly believe in Him die to their old fleshly sinful life, “because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then all died.”

Eph. iii 10. “To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God.” It would only be after much careful consideration that the reader of these words would discover that they cannot mean that the manifold wisdom of God is to be known by the Church. What the Apostle really states is, that it was in the Divine purpose that through the Church the manifold wisdom of God was to be made known to the angelic powers. Of all the ancient versions the Rheims, though here, as usual, disfigured by its offensive Latinisms, most clearly expresses the sense of the verse; its rendering is, “that the manifold wisdom of God may be notified to the Princes and Potentates in the celestials by the Church.”

Phil. iv. 3. “And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel.” This leaves it quite uncertain who are the women referred to, whereas in the original it is plain that they are the two women previously referred to, Euodia, and Syntyche; and the reason why it is urged that assistance should be given to them, is that they had bravely shared with Paul in the toil and conflict of the Christian service. “Help them, for they have laboured with me in the gospel.”

1 Tim. iv. 15. “Meditate upon these things.” This wholly fails to express the apostle’s meaning. His exhortation goes beyond the region of thought; it passes into the sphere of active life, and he urges Timothy to give himself to the diligent practice of the several departments of labour previously referred to. Of the old translators, Tyndale gives it correctly, “These thynges exercyse.”

1 Tim. vi. 2. “And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit.” The last clause of this passage has, in all probability, grievously puzzled many a reader; but with the fuller knowledge of the Greek syntax now possessed, all obscurity passes away. No scholar would now hesitate in rendering, “do them service because they who partake of the benefit are faithful and beloved.”[75]

1 Tim. vi. 5. “Supposing that gain is godliness.” Here again an unnecessary difficulty is introduced; for it is hard to see how any sane person could consider “gain” to be “godliness.” On the other hand, it is unhappily no uncommon experience to meet with persons who treat religion as a means of worldly advantage, and it is to such the Apostle refers. The correct rendering is, “supposing that godliness is gain.”[76]

Heb. iv. 2. “For unto us was the gospel preached as well as unto them,” a rendering which at once raises the objection that “the Gospel,” in the sense which ordinary readers attach to the term, was not preached to the Israelites in the wilderness; nor does any reference to “the Gospel” occur in the immediate context, but simply to the promise of entering into a rest. The plain sense of the passage is, “unto us were good tidings preached as well as unto them.”

Heb. viii. 5. “Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things.” The introduction of the preposition “unto” almost entirely obliterates the meaning of the clause; namely, that the Mosaic priesthood were the ministers, not of the true sanctuary, but of that which is only its copy and shadow. The Rheims correctly renders, “that serve the examplar and shadow of heavenly things.”

Heb. xiii. 7, 8. “Whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation: Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever.” Here there is a double error; first, the connection of the last clause with the preceding, as if it were intended to affirm that Christ was the end of the conversation of their faithful pastors; and secondly, the wrong sense thus given to the word “end,” which here denotes the “outcome” or issue. The Hebrew Christians are urged to imitate the faith of their pastors, considering the blessed issue of their Christian cause. Then follows, as an independent statement, the assertion of the unchangeableness of Christ, which, though not altogether disconnected in thought with what precedes, stands in still closer connection with what follows: “Considering the issue of their way of life, imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever.”

Such are some of the passages from which it may be said, that through the emphatic unanimity of Biblical scholars all obscurity and doubt have been removed. Their true meaning may now be affirmed with a confidence that closely borders upon moral certainty. Through numerous commentaries and other expository works, these results of scholarship are made widely known, and they whose duty it is to expound these passages to others are constrained to point out the imperfection that attaches to the renderings given in the English Bible now ordinarily used. It is obviously a most undesirable thing that the teacher or preacher should be placed under such a necessity. It is not at all times easy so to discharge the duty as that he shall give no offence even to educated hearers; while the simple-minded and unlearned are painfully perplexed; and, unprepared as they are to estimate the limits of possible error, seem to themselves to be launched upon a boundless sea of uncertainty. Revision, therefore, becomes imperative, both for the sake of removing acknowledged blemishes, and also for reassuring the anxious that they are trusting to a faithful guide, and for showing to them how little, comparatively, there is in their beloved Book that needs to be changed.