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.”