IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 .!• m 1 2,2 I.I :" hi IS 1— 1 1- ,. Uui. ||2.0 nil 1 ft 1.25 1.4 111^ 1.6 V} ^ /}. 'c^l e: e). e. ^P ,s.=> W J^ % /y 6^. M. Photographic Sdences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14S80 (716) 872-1^03 ^ iP :\ iV \ 6^ fc' M^< Q- CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 1980 Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bib. aphiques The tot The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change tne usual method of filming, are checked below. L'Institut a microfilm6 le meilleur exemplaire Qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. The pos oft film yi Coloured covers/ '^l Couverture de couleur y G D Covers damaged/ Couverture endommag6e Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque □ Coloured maps/ C artes g^ographiques en couleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couteur (i.e. autre que bieue ou noire) D D D D Coloured plates and/or illusti'ations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reiid avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr6e peut causer de I'or.ibre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int^rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ li se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas dtd filmdes. n n n n Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag6es Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur^es et/ou pellicul6es Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d^coior^es, tachet6es ou piqu6es Pages detached/ Pages ddtach^es Showthrough/ Transparence Orif beg the sioi oth Ttrs sioi or i I — I Quality of print varies/ D D D Quality indgaie de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire Only edition avjiilable/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best pos;^ible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 film6es d nouveau de fapon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. The sha TIN whi Ma diff ent beg rigl^ req me' D Aa:'« o^er wonders werTn,!" f ''"'Tf ™^ »» the search for meaning Tftrstnflt "m'" "■" --Id-ussed its The error mio-hf li«.ro k ^ ™i^cake in reading. --noo.„f:it:o:tSai*^^ ^"^^* I Mis-Headings of /Scripture. 11 II. THERE can be little doubt that the Bible is the hardest book in the world to read properly. It therefore demands, if but for this reason only, all the more attention at the hands of those who attempt to read it in public. The difficulty of reading it arises, no doubt, in part from the character of the book itself, in part from the archaic language of much of the authorized version. There is a necessary awe and reverence connected with the Book of books, which naturally oppress the conscientious reader with a nervous sense of responsibility attaching to his office. There is, however, some little difficulty about the use of obsolete words ; and some difficulty about the obscure meaning of whole passages. It is the same as ever about God's word. When in the Tem- ple on the Tuesday in Holy Week, God's word was revealed by a voice to our Blessed Lord, " the people that stood by said that it thundered ; others said an angel spake to Him." Our Lord knew what the voice said. So it is now ; the careless curious people hear and read God's word, and it seems like a noise in the dark, a matter of interest and perhaps curios- ity, but without much special meaning — "it thun- dered" — others again with reverent mind recognize a voice from Heaven articulate with meaning, but do 12 Mis-ReiHlings of Scripture. not understand. Some there are that hear and receive ar.d nnderstand the message. Every reader of the Bible in public should endeavour that if his hearers are not of the last named class the fault does not lie at his own door. The value of good reading may be emphasized by the following anecdote of John Bright, who was renowned for his power of elocution. One of his colleagues asked him if ne could account for his pro- ficiency in this respect. He said he could only think of one thing, and that was the manner in which his mother used to read the Bible. She was accustomed to read it aloud to her children, who were so fascin- ated by her reading that they strove to imitate her manner and articulation. Before we pass on to consider some other points which are apt to mislead, some further remarks may be made about printers' errors. One Bible is known as the "printers' Bible" because of a remarkable mis- print in the cxixth Psalm, 161st verse, which read ''Printers have persecuted me without a cause." It may be that it represents a grim irony of the com- positor who recognized how he had persecuted the poor authors and readers ; or it may have been an unintentional slip. Be this as it may, while printing has increased knowledge, it has occasionally stereo- typed error. There is one advantage now-a-days ; the long s has dropped out of fashion, and almost all the Bibles in our Churches have the modern printing, so that no Ms-Readings of Scripture. 18 warning in that respect is necessary. But a few years back we heard a layman read without misgiving on his part, though not without giving pain to others, "All the people that came together to that fight smote their breasts." (Luke xxiii. 48.) In one passage a mistake has been stereotyped which might now be remedied, though perhaps many would be astonished if not scandalized at first. The passage in S. Matt, xxiii. 24 should run " which strain out a gnat and swallow a camel." The misprint is due to the authorized version in 1611. Before that date Tyndall, Cramner, and Geneva all had " strain out:' The idea is well expressed in the Homilies, " they would, as it were, nicely take a fly out of their cup, and drink down a whole camel." (Of Good Works, pt. 2.) It would help the understanding of the passage if the error were corrected. In the extremely useful " Parallel Bible " (as it is called) the Authorized and Revised Versions are printed side by side. In the Old Testament the editor has taken great pains to mark in the margin all deviations (except in mere matters of spelling) from the real Authorized Version of 1611; in the New Testament the editor has not been so careful. We proceed to point out some errors in printing which should be taken heed to. From some perverseness the printer or editor has been pleased to alter the word of conscious virtue, "shamefast," to the word of conscious guilt, "shame- faced"; it is hard perhaps to imagine a greater mis- 14 Mis-Headings of Scripture. take. Thus in I. Tim. ii. 9, the printer makes S. Paul say that women "should adorn themselves with shamefacedness" ! ! To be "shamefaced" is to show conscious shame for having done wrong. The good old English "shamefast" implies the instinctive avoidance of anything unseemly; the nearest ap- proach to its meaning is in the word "modest." In reading, therefore, the reader should be careful to pronounce as it was printed in 1611, "shamefastness." The same verse is fruitful in traps for the reader. First the word " women " should be emphasized, as marking the first subject of the Apostle's injunctions. In verse 8 read with emphasis on the word men^ " I will therefore that men pray everywhere " ; that is, as the Apostle is speaking of public worship, none but men are to pray aloud in public, women are to be silent in Church. The Greek word is men as distin- guished from, and not including, women. In verse 9 the Apostle passes on to speak of women. A little stress, therefore, should be laid on the word, as mark- ing the new subject of the address. Then the printers have played havoc with " broided " hair, that is, " braided hair " ; some Bibles have " broidered hair." Fancy embroidering the hair on the head : Another misprint is found in some Bibles in II. Cor. xii. 2, which is not of so much importance. The true reading is " 1 knew a man in Christ above four- teen years ago," when some printers have about. But worse difficulties have arisen from mistakes in punctuation, whether by omission or wrong position Mis-Readings of Scripture. 15 of stops; and from the modern division into verses; while soma have been perplexed by the italics in the authorized version. The italics for the most part mark words that have been inserted to make the full sense, there being no exact counterpart in the Greek. In reading the Bible, therefore, no stress whatever should be laid on the words in italics. The custom of showing emphasis by italicizing did not exist in 1611, when the Authorized Version was completed. In passing we may remind our readers that through- out the Old Testament small capital letters always mark the word which represents the unspeakable Name of God. For example, in Ezekiel xxxvi. 28 we read, " The heathen shall know that I am the Lord, saith the Lord God," where the capital letters shew that Lord and God both represent the Great Name of God, which some erroneously pronounce Jehovah. This is true wherever in the Old Testament either of these two words are printed in capital letters. We have often heard young unwary readers caught in the trap by the unnatural division into verses of sentences in the Bible. An instance of this is seen in Genesis xxiii. 18, where there is not the slightest pause to be made at the end of the verse. The whole passage is of great interest to lawyers, as being part of a conveyancing deed, nearly four thousand years old. The division of the verse with a capital letter beginning the next verse has proved a snare to many a careless reader. Similarly little pause should be made at the end of the 52nd verse of S. Matthew 'I 16 Mis-Meadinga of Scripture. xxvii. The rising of the saints and their coming out of their graves both took place "a/ifgr the Lord's Resurrection " — Though " the rocks rent and the graves were opened" at the moment of His death. Perhaps the best way to read this passage would be to place a full stop in the middle of verse 52 : after this manner — At His death " the earth did quake, and the rocks rent, and the graves were opened. And many- bodies of the Saints which slept arose, and came out of their graves after His resurrection." The other division, as we know, has perplexed many faithful souls, who thought the passage at variance with S. Paul's statement that our Blessed Lord was "the first fruits of them that slept " ; whereas indeed the same truth is enunciated in both passages. One other instance of the snare of this verse divi- sion will suffice to set readers on their guard. This time it shall be an instance where much too often the sense is carried on from one verse to another, instead of a full stop being made at the end of a verse. Refer- ence is made to Hebrew xiii. 7. At the end of this verse some printers have placed a comma, leading the sense on to the next verse ; others have a semicolon, and generally a colon. But of late we are thankful to see a full stop has been adopted in most editions. The mistake has arisen from two causes ; first, the misunderstanding the words " end of their conversa- tion," and secondly, the absence of any verb or copula in the next verse. The whole passage reads thus: "Remember them which have the rule over Mi8'Readinff8 of Scripture. 17 you, who have spoken unto you the word of God ; whose faith follow considering the end of their con- versation. Jesus Christ [is] the same yesterday, and to-day, and forever : be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines." Some editions have a comma after conversation as if our Blessed Lord were the end or object of their manner of life. This is a most popular error with devout but inaccurate minds. It has been cut as a text upon tombstones, and has been enlarged upon in sermons. But a glance at the original Greek would have shown such a meaning to have been impossible. The Apostle (for it can be no less) calls upon the Hebrew Christians to consider or remember how their teachers sealed their faith in their death. The Epistle was written after the mar- tyrdom of S. James, the brother or relation of our Lord, who had presided over the church in Jerusalem. The Apostle points to this in the words " considering the end of their conversation," which means nothing more nor less than " the issue (or end) of their life," in other words, their death. The Revised Version has " considering the issue of their life imitate their faith." It is very much to be wished that the little word is could be introduced in its proper place in verse 8. John Wesley in his useful commentary on the New Testament introduced it, the revisors have introduced it, and it is necessary to make sense. The verse is really the beginning of a new paragraph, and gives point to the following exhortation. Your master is ever the same, do not you therefore allow your 18 Mis- Readings of Scripture. doctrine to vary. "Jesus Christ is the same yes- terday, and to-day, and forever: don't you his dis- ciples be carried about with divers and strange doctrines." We have no more space to consider the question of punctuation ; it must be left to the next paper to consider the matter further. . mtti w ^imm n fn- Mis-Headings of Scripture. 19 III. THE ancient custom of writing words without much (if any) division between them, and without any punctuation, must have been a help to good reading. None then would have dared to have read in public without reading over the passage before- hand. But English requires some little help, as there are too few inflections of words; and stops and para- graphs have helped to make reading an easy matter. At the same time stops wrongly placed confuse the meaning so much that in legal documents, as a rule, stops are avoided as much as possible. To a public reader of Scripture we must say over and over again, read the lesson over beforehand, if possible to another, and let him tell you what meaning he attaches to your reading. The man who read "they found Mary and Joseph and the Babe, lying in a manger," (S. Luke ii. 16), would have benefited by a pre- vious criticism that a manger was scant room for three : and the repartee, " that was the miracle of it," would have been ruled out of place. Some instances of erroneous punctuation will be noticed before we pass on to consider some passages where lack of punctuation (perhaps necessary) has proved fatal to some even careful readers. The parable of the seed growing secretly, which is Mi8-Iieadinf/s of Scripture. peculiar to the Gospel of S. Mark (S. Mark iv. 26), will afTbrd an instance of what is probably a case of wrong punctuation. The parable is that the seed is committed to the ground, and when that is done the sower does no more, he leaves it alone. The business of the sower a id the world at large goes on the same as ever, and the seed grows without any further effort on the man's part. If the parable be read as punc- tuated the meaning is much obscured — "As if a man should cast seed into the ground, and should sleep, and ris(j night and day, and the seed should grow up he knoweth not how. For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself." This implies an anxious care on the part of the man to find out how the seed grows ; he is represented as constantly breaking his sleep, that he may go and see how the growth is advancing. Now a slight alteration in the punctuation alters this and must commend itself at once to all. "As if he . . . should sleep and rise, night and day " ; that is, sleep by night, and rise by day, as is his usual custom, taking no further care for the growth of the seed ; the reason of his confidence being given, "for the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself^ automatically without man's interference. In another passage a strange controversy has arisen about the position of a comma, upon which we will not enter more than to say that there can be but little real doubt that the true punctuation of the passage in question is as follows : " This man having offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, Sct down." (Heb. x. 12.) Mia-Iieadinga of Scripture. 21 The " one sacrifice for sins for ever " is that sacrifice the efficiency and application of which lasts on to the end, till all need of atonement shall have passed away. Some copies have the comma after " sins," making it "for ever sat down." The passage occurs in the Epistle for Good Friday in the Prayer Book. In modern Cambridge editions of the Prayer Hook it is properly printed ; in those with the Oxford imprint the error has not been corrected, and it is advisable to alter it with a pen and ink lest readers should be led astray. Only two more instances of erroneous punctuation will be given as specimens. In II. Kings viii. 13 the comma after wliat is clearly a mistake and destroys the point of question and answer. Instead of " But what, is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing?" read the passage thus, "But what is thy servant, a dog, that he should do this great thing ? " that is, " what am I, servant as I am, that I should do this?" Then Elisha answers in effect, "Dog though you are, the Lokd destines you to be king." Next, in Acts xxii. 6, the comma should be struck out after noon and placed after Damascus: "Was come nigh unto Damascus, about noon suddenly there shone from Heaven a great light:" though it was noon the glory of an Eastern Sun was paled before the brilliancy of the heavenly light. We will now furnish some instances of texts where the general omission of any punctuation has caused a false meaning to be attached to the passage. Some- 22 Mis-Headings of Scripture. times indeed the absence of stops is almost necessi- tated by the grammatical construction of the sentence, and in such cases a little previous care is necessary to prevent mistakes being incurred. For example, the unprepared reader w^ill probably be perplexed by the commencement of the twenty-fourth chapter of the Book of Job : " Why, seeing times are not hidden from the Almighty, do they that knovi'' Him not see His days ? " Now at first there is some dcmbt as to whether the negation not belongs to know., or see. Is the meaning " Why do they, that know not God, see His days ? " or " Why do not they, that know Him, see His days ? " Directly the two are placed thus in contrast it is seen that the latter is the true meaning. If therefore the reader had done as we must insist he should have done, viz., read the lesson over before- hand, there would have been no hesitancy. Perhaps the passage might be punctuated with pen and ink as follows, and then there would be no mistake, if the reader were unprepared : " Why, seeing times are not hidden from the Almighty, do they, that know Him, not see His days ? " The next instance is one which perhaps will affect the clergy very much more than the laity. It is one which has this peculiarity that the printers of the Prayer Book have introduced a stop in the passage which has made almost every clergyman every Sunday make a mistake in reading. In reading the Second Commandment a pause should be made aftei the word generation; the words "unto the third and fourth i Mis-Readings of Scripture. 28 generation " should be read as in a parenthesis. The comma placed after children in the Prayer Book has confused matters a great deal, and it seems to be due to a misprint in the Great Prayer Book of 1636, in which all the alterations of 1661 were marked, from which the sealed books wer'> all printed. If there be a comma printed after children there should be an- other after generation. Let us try to persuade our clergy to read thus: "Visit the sins of the fathers upon the children (unto tlie third and fourth genera- tion) of them that hate Me." How rarely amongst our Bishops, priests, deacons or lay readers do we hear this division of the words ! Still when attention has been drawn to it there can be no doubt about the true manner of reading. Next attention must be drawn to a passage which has suffered verv much from careless readers. We have heard men really thoughtful and learned turn by a wrong pause a statement of S. John into what is a shocking profanity, as if it were the wildest Calvinism: and we have been assured that our expe- rierce is not unique. It occurs in the Epistle for the First Sunday after Easter, and to prevent mistakes it would be well to mark with commas the true sequence of words. Great pain has been given by reading thus (I. S. John V. 10), " He that believeth not, God hath made him a liar " — which is shocking to any pious mind. A little care beforehand, a short glance at the Greek, would show at once that the true way to read the text is, '"' He, that believeth not God, hath made 24 Mis-Readings of Scripture. Him a liar ; " that is, if we do not believe what God says, it is as much as if Ave professed that the God of truth could be a liar. It is earnestly to be hoped that none of our readers will ever make this terrible mis- take of reading, These examples may for the present be sufficient to sho\/ that readers had better not trust to the punc- tuation to help them, but had better read the lesson over beforehand. Other examples will occur under other divisions of the papers. But before we pass on a word perhaps may be said by way of hint upon articulation and pronunciation. The first great rule is, pronounce every consonant sharjily and clearly, and do not introduce consonants which are not printed. We have heard, "This was made a statue for Israel and a law rof the God of Jacob" (Psalm Ixxxi. 4). Here a t was left out in statute., and by law of equipoise perchance an r was inserted before of. We have heard also a preacher of no mean powers, a Cathedral dignitary, spoil a strik- ing anecdote in his sermon by saying " He stood like a statute : " emphatic but impossible. "Victoria rour Queen" is not unusual ; "diaw rout, we saw rit with our eyes; Aquila rand Priscilla" offend our ears not seldom. Similarly this is specially to be observed in composite words. Careless readers and speakers often say, o-ffenders, o-ffences, e-nable, o- blation, and the like; where it should be of-fenders, en-able, ob-lation, and so forth. There is one word so sacred and blessed to us that it should be most Mis-Readings of Scripture. 25 carefully pronounced : but it is necessary to mention that to re- deem would mean to think over again (if it means anything), whereas red-eem means to buy back. Then how painful it is to hear the name of the Heavenly city called Jeroozalum : who would believe that Jeroozalum meant " Vision of peace ? " There is one word to which attention may be drawn, as the spelling remains the same in the Bible though it has varied in other English writings to suit the pronunciation: it is the word "hough." The com- bination of letters " ough " is very difficult to pro- nounce properly. How charming is it to hear a real Irishman pronounce "Lough," or "slough;" the Scotch " Loch " is not nearly so interesting, but is nearer the pronunciation of the word " hough." In Joshua xi. 6 (see also II. Sam. viii. 4) the reader should pronounce as if it were printed, " Thou shalt hock their horses," that is, hamstring them. This pronunciation could not have been known to the Revisers of the Old Testament : if it had been they could not have been guilty of such an unmelodi- ous combination as they have introduced in Genesis xlix. 6, " They houghed an ox." It reminds one of the cry heard in a chop house in the city of London. A waiter was shouting orders for soup down the lift, and he said, " One hox, two mocks, a pea and a bully." It is impossible to suppose that the Revisers of 1611 could have tolerated " they hocked an ox." Similarly the word " hale " (in S. Luke xii. 58 and Acts viii. 3) is generally spelt liaul now, and should 26 Mis-Readings of Scripture. be so pronounced. The broadc7 pronunciation of the letter a reminds us of the word " staves," the plural of "staff" This should be distinguished from the plural of stave; for though staff and stave were originally one and the same word, yet difference ot pronunciation has here followed difference of mean- ing, and a similar distinction should be made in the plural. Just as stave and cave are pronounced ahke, so are their plurals, staves and caves. So again, calf and staf are pronounced nearly alike, as are their plurals^ calves and staves. (See I. Sam. xvu. 43, h. Matthew x. 10, xxvi. 47, etc.) Again, ^oocZman is a word the use of which has quite gone out, and so the pronunciation has been lost. It is generally read as if it was two words, " the good man of the house." In ancient days the master of a house was called goodman, as the mistress was called goodwife : and just as in goodwife the accent was so strong on the first syllable that it became shortened into Goody (e. g., Goody Twoshoes), so in goodman the accent is strong on the first syllable just as it is in woodman. (See Prov. vii. 19, S. Matthew xx. 11, xxiv. 43, S. Mark xiv. 14, S. Luke xii. 39, xxn. 11.) The word, goodman, in this sense is not unusual in Shakespeare. Mis-Meadings of Scripture. 27 IV. IN the English language the pronouns are often difficult to manage, and have to be treated with much consideration in reading or wjiting. If any- one doubts this, let him try to write a letter of twenty lines in the third person. " He wishes him to send his horse to him soon " is vague. More intelligible, but less correct, is the language of the irate washer- woman : " Mrs. Jessop presents her compliments to Mr. Simmonds, and, sir, I think you have behaved shameful." Then, with respect to reading, if any one doubts it, let him go and listen to a well-known clergy- man, who is well learned, but unduly exalts unem- phatic pronouns at the expense of longer and more important words, which he snubs undeservedly. The result is that his reading is not smooth and pleasant to understand, but it is rather jerky, and like driving over a Corduroy road* without sods having been put over the logs. The worst of it is that a false emphasis on a pronoun often turns a sentence into grotesque nonsense. The well-known and time- ♦A corduroy road is a road made over a swamp by putting trunks of trees side by side. Earth, and sods of grass, are generally spread over to correct the inequalities. Where thia is not done the jolting to the carriage is very unpleasant. rfr I 28 Mis-Readings of Scripture. II ' ! honored mistake which is handed down with delight from school-boy to school-fellow must here be spoken of, because all our readers will be expecting it, and it will be well to get it over. The request of the old prophet at Bethel to his sons, and their fulfilment of it (I. Kings xiii. 27), is said to have been so mangled by an inattentive reader as to produce a startling result : " Saddle me, the ass. And they saddled him." Here the false accent introduces a folly, which must be carefully avoided. Luther said that much of the theology of the Scriptures lay in the pronouns. There is a great deal of truth in this, and as there is truth in it, we must be as careful as possible to give due emphasis where it is required, and as carefully avoid undue emphasis where it is undesirable. To give an example : How seldom is there much importance attached to the reading of the verse in S. John's gospel (xii. 41), " These things spake Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him." And yet in this verse is contained a wonderful proof that S. John is witnessing to our Lord's divinity; and it should be read in such a manner as would draw the attention of the hearers to the verse and emphasize its testimony to our Lord's pre-existence and divinity. "These things spake Esaias when he saw His glory, and spake of Him." S. John here tells us that the glory manifested to Isaiah in his great vision (Isaiah vi.) was the glory of that same Jesus who had been doing so many miracles before the eyes of the Jews. He therefore Mis-Headings of Scripture. 29 existed seven hundred years before. But if we turn to the vision of Isaiah we find that the person whose glory is manifested to the prophet is no less a person than One to whom the incommunicable Name of God is applied ; therefore the Person whose glory was seen by Isaiah was Himself very and eternal God. Hence the text in S. John is of the utmost importance, and has been used effectively by Bishop Pearson in his great work upon the Creed. It would seem well to draw attention to it as much as possible in reading by a slight but prominent emphasis upon the two words His and Rim. An important point to be remarked about pronouns is that where the nominative of the pronoun is ex- pressed in the original it is invariably emphatic, and the corresponding pronoun in English should be emphasized. Here of course is a difficulty to those to whom the original is a sealed book ; but a few such passages will be given by way of samples. One of the most important occurs first in order in the Gospel of S. Matthew. When the angel instructed S. Joseph what to call the Holy Child (S. Matthew i. 21), he said, " Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins." Here the nominative, " He shall save," is as emphatic as it is possible to be ; it is emphatic in the original from its position, and from the fact of its being expressed. It would have been better if it could have been trans- lated " He Himself" (and no other), but in reading it would be almost impossible to put too much stress tl ff' 80 Mis-Headings of Scripture. on the HE : it was the first revelation of the imme- diate nearness of the Saviour. The Revisers of 1881 knew this and have striven to represent it; but they fail as they often do in their English, and here rather unaccountably in their scholarship. They have ren- dered it, "For it is he that shall save." This pro- posed correction takes for granted that there would be a Saviour, which the original Greek does not ; it is therefore an error of scholarship. In S. Luke xxiv. 21 we have the Greek for the English " it is he that shall," which contains four words, to the one simple pronoun in this passage of S. Matthew. We have also the same Greek phrase in S. Matthew xi. 14, so that it cannot be said S. Matthew did not fully know the Greek usage when he wished to employ it. It is simply. He Himself and no other shall save His people. Hitherto there had doubtless been saviours, who had saved the people from their enemies. Such were called saviours (Neheniiah ix. 27, II. Kings xiii. 6) ; but these were simply instruments in a higher hand — God saved Israel by others. But now all this is changed. God Himself is to save His people from their worst of enemies, their sins. Remark, too, this is implied in the glorious name Jesus. This means Saviour, but it means more. The original bearer of the name was the lieutenant of Moses, and was sent with other spies to search out the land. He then bore the name Oshea, which means Saviour. But the young man was proud of his master Moses, and it may be that his position elated him ; at all events Mis-Headings of Scripture. 81 as he went to spy out the land Moses changed his name that he might have a continual reminder that his own strength or wisdom was powerle3S to save, but that it was God who saved by his means, and he called him Jehoshua, that is, " Jehovah shall save." This name was afterwards contracted to Joshua, and when, two hundred years before Christ, the Hebrew was translated into Greek, the Hebrew form was softened into the Greek Jesus. The name therefore means " Jehovah Saviour," and the angel points out how appropriate the name was to the Holy Child, " For He Himself shall save His people from their sins." We must be pardoned for this long explanation of this glorious text ; the desire was to attract attention to it that it may be read properly. Another important passage occurs in one of S. Paul's Epistles (I. Cor. vii. 40). It is important because it has been generally misunderstood ; and its misinter- pretation has given rise to some discomfort. We once heard the sad remark from a layman, " It is a pity that S. Paul said 'I think I have the Spirit,' as few would be certain, if he were doubtful himself." Now if this passage had not been read with a false emphasis on the verb thinks this layman probably would not have been led into this mistake. The truth is the whole chapter abounds with proof of S. Paul's inspiration ; and though we must not trespass on the work of a commentator, yet a few words are necessary to point this out, so as to show the meaning and force of the saying, " I think that I have the Spirit of God." 8fi Mis-Headings of Scripture. i: We must reineinber then that this Epistle was written before any one of the four Gospels was committed to writing ; and the Apostle in answering the questions propounded to him by the Corinthians distinguished between commands that had been left behind by our Lord Himself, and the answers which he gives under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. On the whole question of marriage the Lord had spoken. His discourses were not as yet committed to writing, it is true, still they were treasured up in the memory of the Apostles. On such points then S. Paul can say that the one who gives the answer is " not I, but the Lord," whose word settles the question beyond all controversy. There is no distinction here then between a revelation from God and a private opinion of the Apostle: the distinction is between the discourse or command given on earth by our Lord Himself, and the authoritative utterance of the Apostle under inspiration. Next we must remember that there were at Corinth many teachers, who had sprung up like toadstools directly the Apostles had left, who were striving to maximize their own importance and minimize that of the Apostle. S. Paul, therefore, at the end of his answer on the question of marriage and virginity, asserts his own claim to inspiration. He too is re- puted as inspired; it is no specialty of the opposing teachers. The first nominative pronoun is emphatic, doubly emphatic ; first because of its expression, and secondly because it has the word " also " so joined to Mis-Headings of Scripture. 88 it that nothing short of some revisers' dynamite could have caused a disruption. "And I tliink also that I have the Spirit of God." There should be no stress on the verb think. Indeed some have thought that it should be translated, "And /also am reputed.'" In the second chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians, the same Greek verb in the participial form is translated (Gal. ii. 2, 6) once " were of reputation," and twice "seemed to be somewhat." The Revisers have "were of repute" or "reputed" each time, a?^d it is thought by many that such should be the translation in this place. But we must pass on. The next example need not detain us long. In the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (II. Cor. xii. 11) the Apostle's meaning must be brought out by emphasizing the pronouns : " I have become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me; for /ought to have been commended of yow." How emphatic is the antithetical " but 1 say unto you" in the Sermon on the Mount (S. Matthew v. 22, 28, 32, etc.), marking the higher and more spiritual teaching of the Gospel. The astonishment of the Commander at Jerusalem is also marked by the emphasis on the pronoun: "Art thou a Roman?" (Acts xxii. 27) where generally the emphasis is wrongly placed on Roman. We know from contemporary criticism that S. Paul's personal appearance was not such as at first to command respect or admiration. " His bodily pres- ence is weak and his speech contemptible," said the w 84 Mis-Readings of Scripture. opposing false teachers (II. Cor. x. 10). The account in the curious story of S. Paul and Thecla is to the same effect: "A man small in size, bald-headed, bandy- legged, healthy, with eye-brows meeting, rather long- nosed, full of grace." This must have been written less than a century after the death of the Apostle. S. Chrysostom also mentions (in the fourth century) that S. Paul was "a three cubit man," meaning small in stature. The officer in command, therefore, asked in surprise, judging, from a soldier's point of view, of a man by his muscles, "Tell me, art thou a Roman?" On the other hand the question the same officer had asked a little previously is often mis-read by a false emphasis on the pronoun : "Canst thou speak Greek?'' There is no emphasis on thou. The Commander im- plies that unless the prisoner can speak Greek (the lingua franca at Jerusalem) with ease and freedom, it was useless for him to attempt to speak to an angry mob. But S. Paul knew an easier ay to gain silence, and he spoke in Aramaic. MiB-Readinga of Scripture. 86 V. PRONOUNS must still occupy our attention, though enough lias been said at present upon the emphatic nominative. The other variety of pronouns will now be spoken of, though we cannot so easily gather them into groups. The first chapter of Genesis w:'^ crive more than one example of ordinary misplaced iphasis. "The beast of the earth after his kind, ai, ittle after their kind, and everything that creepeth ui)on the earth after his kind." (Gen. i. 25.) Many readers emphasize the his and their^ which they would not do if they thought a minute. For the possessive pronoun here should be passed over as lightly as possible, whatever emphasis or accent there is given being reserved for kind. In verse 27 the words him and them require no such stress as is often given them ; indeed thej require no emphasis at all. The possessive pronoun is sometimes mangled in public reading in a sad way. The last verse of the eighteenth chapter of S. Matthew is a case in point, being hardly ever read with proper emphasis or punctuation. The wording is no doubt rather pecu- liar, and somewhat difficult, and this may account for 86 Mis-Readings of Scripture. '* p. < iii Sii I the genera.! break-up of ordinary readers when they come upon the passage unawares. It is a great ad- vantage, however, that the meaning is always trans- parent, even through the most reprehensible reading ; yet it would make nonsense it there were an attempt to explain it as commonly read. The most common reading of the passage may be represented thus : " If ye from your heart, forgive not every one, his brother THEIR trespasses." What can "7«'s brother their tres- passes " mean read in a clause by itself in this way ? While, no doubt, the passage is difficult to read pro- perly, there is a way of meeting the difficulty if a little care be used. The words " every one his brotiier " must be read as in a parenthesis, and wheii this is done all will go smoothly. " If ye from your hearts for- give not (every one his brother) their trespasses." (S. Matthew xviii. 35.) In reading parentheses it is well to lower the voice, and also to drop into another key, while the parenthe- sis lasts. This enables the hearer to recognize that it is a parenthesis, and he will listen with greater intelligence, and therefore with greater attention. S. Paul, however, in his eagerness and rapidity of thought, sometimes becomes involved in a parenthesis of considerable length, which makes his epistles very hard at times to be read properly, and all the more worthy to be read with the utmost care. To return to our pronouns : A great source of per- plexity to the unwary, and indeed sometimes also to the careful reader, is the identical spelling of the Mis-Readings of Scripture. 87 pronoun that and the conjunction that. Over and over again does the reader (wary or unwary) puzzle his hearers by his own misapprehension of a passage he has undertaken to read. Sometimes the pronoun is made to appear as the conjunction, and vice jersa^ until the hearer is obliged to be content with a general perception of what is intended to be conveyed. Here again we would appeal to all to whom is committed the glorious privilege and the grave responsibility of reading God's Word, God's Wobd, in public to bend all their best energies to the work. And what a difference there is in the congregation when there is intelligent and devout reading, and when the reader growls out something as if it were in a character with which he was not familiar, in a language with which he was unacquainted. How often does a reader do his work as if he had never seen the passage be- fore, and was trying to make out the meaning as he went along. Let such an one read the following (Rom. xiii. 11, the epistle for Advent Sunday) : "And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake." Let each reader ask himself what is the meaning of the first that. Is it merely a kind of anticipation of the second that, or is it a different word with a different meaning altogether ? The prob- ability is that four out of five of our readers are much perplexed as they read to tell what lh^ ining should be given to the passage. The first that is a pronoun and should be emphasized, and no emphasis whatever should be placed on the next ensuing thatf which is a conjunction. I ,. .- 88 Mis-Readmgs of Scripture. This ambiguity is very prolific in mistakes, as our readers can always remark for themselves. Here is another difficult passage, which is indeed very hard to analyze or parse with exactitude. In the Epistle of S. James (S. James iv. 15) a verse begins, " For that ye ought to say." What does this mean ? Does for that give the same meaning as because f or is the word that a pronoun, and do the words for that yield the same meaning as instead of that ? The chances are that scholars looking at the original Greek will differ as to the meaning intended to be conveyed by the translators. It is a very curious thing that the two words occmr in this passage in all the following revised translations : Tyndale, 1534 ; Cranmer, 1539; Geneva, 1557 ; Rheimes, 1582 ; Douay, 1609 ; AutLorized, 1611. Wiclif, in 1380, had " Therefor that ye saye," which is a little more difficult. There can be no doubt about the meaning of the original; it is to be taken with the verse next but one preceding. " Go to, now, ye that say, to-day or to-morrow we will go, . . . instead of saying^ If the Lord will." This is the translation of Gilbert Wakefield, in 1791. The revisers have not altered the text, where indeed a little alteration was called for, but have put " instead of your saying " into the margin. It is very puzzling indeed to say whether the authorized version means " For that (a conjunction meaning because') ye ought to say," or " For that (that is, instead of that saying) ye ought to say." Nor does it help to look at the version of Beza, which seems to have biassed our Mis-Reading8 of Scripture. 89 translation, though perhaps not in this point, for his Latin is as ambiguous as our English. On the whole we incline to the opinion that the meaning intended is that the two words for that are to be regarded as a conjunction and to be taken as equivalent to because. Another similar passage is in the mysterious saying of Hebrews v. 7 : " Was heard in that he feared." Some readers have been known to pronounce these words as meaning "in the matter about which he feared," as if that was a pronoun. But there is no question here that it only means " because he feared." The word that should therefore be pronounced as lightly as possible. It is difficult to tell beforehand what mistake may be made in reading, but the ambiguity of the word that often forms a snare when it might least be expected. Thus in the cry of the shipmaster some have been led into error, as we can testify : " What meanest thou, O sleeper? Arise, call upon thy God, if so be that God will think upon us that we perish not." (Jonah i. 6). We heard a reader wrongly emphasize the word that., and stoutly maintained that he was right, because "■ each man cried unto his god," hoping that one or other of them might help ; so Jonah might succeed in calling on his God, because that God might be the one to help. We need not enter further upon the question than to say that no such idea is to be found in the Hebrew, and the meaning is only conjunctional — "If so be that." No empha- sis, therefore, should be laid on the word that in this passage. I 40 Mis-Jieadings of So'ipture. 4 1 ^ ; i, ii One more instance of this deceptive ambiguity must be referred to, since it is hardly ever read properly, and there can be no doubt as to its meaning. It occurs in the Epistle to the Ephesians * (Eph. iv. 9) : " Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first." Probably not one per cent, of readers have so emphasized the first that as to lead their hearers to see that S. Paul is arguing from an expression in the text that he had just cited. It would have been an imciensj advantage if an English word could have been introduced, as elsewhere, to make the sense plainer. It should be, " Now this phrase, ascended, what does it mean but that he first descended^ The revisers have " Now this, He ascended," which is a halting step in the right direction. This use of a Greek expression is almost confined to S. Luke and S. Paul in the New Testa- ment. Once indeed it occurs in S. Matthew and in a doubtful instance in S. Mark, though it may perhaps be the right reading. But S. Luke has the turn of speech ten times and S. Paul seven times. This is one of those little coincidences of idiom that mark the intimacy of those two great saints. When two men become great friends each readily and rapidly picks up some little peculiarity of expression which his friend is in the habit of using constantly. In the matter of pronouns there is a difficulty in use in distinguishing between the nearer and the more remote antecedent, especially when it is the ♦ This is the Epistle for S. Mark's Day ; and for ordination of Priests. Mis-Headwgs of /Scripture. 41 personal pronoun that is employed. Even in the demonstrative pronouns the distinction between this and that, these and those, often seems pedantic and archaic. It is important to remember that sometimes a pronoun is referring to a remote antecedent. It is important to remember it because sometimes an infidel will confuse and perplex a believer with some superficial and claptrap remark which may puzzle a reader at first sight. For example : " Thou through Thy Commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies, for thei/ are ever with me." (Ps. cxix. 98.) Here the word the^ refers to the more remote ante- cedent " Commandments," and not to the word " enemies." In S. Luke's account of the Transfiguration, there is an instance of this which is very apposite, because the meaning is not at once apparent. " They feared when they entered into the cloud." (S. Luke ix. 34.) Here the word they refers to different sets of persons each time it is used, and there should be some difference of emphasis to mark this. It is not at all unusual to find this entirely overlooked. In one of Mr. Isaac Williams' beautiful sermons the text is moralized upon as if the apostles entered into the cloud and suffered from fear as the cloud passed over them. Now we do not wish to say that such moralizing is unjustifiable. We must acknowledge that it is not to be found in the text of the original. It is almost to be wished that some little variation could have been introduced into the English. The I ■, - -V- and Greek, took liberties with the name of this potentate; we need not therefore hesitate to give the ordinary English pronunciation, Sennacherib, the Archdeacon aforesaid notwithstanding. Such are some of the traps and discomforts that lie in the path of the reader who is desirous of pronouncing words according to their original pro- nunciation. When, however, such a reader goes about the world, and knocks against many minds, the chances are that good-humored raillery will in course of time draw him into the second stage, that of a compro- miser. It will be represented to him, as it was to another who wished to be free from all convention- alities, and began always, "Here begins such a chapter," as it seemed to him peculiar and ridiculous to say heginneth. Which (said his friend) is most peculiar and ridiculous, to say heginneth, or to say differently from all others? Or, again, when a pedantic gentleman persisted in saying, "Here beginueth part of such a chapter at such a verse." First of all, you cannot say, "Here heginneth two parts of two chapters, at such a verse of the former chapter " ; and secondly, why cannot you follow the simple rule of the rubric of your Church, as better men than you have been accustomed to do for more than two hundred years at least ? Is it not an error to read in Church in such a way as is not usual when there is nothing important concerned? The main effect will be that the hearers will think more of I MM«*|S!i ii 68 Mis-Readings of Scrijyture. the reader than what he reads, which is much to be avoided. They will be thinkinor more of what is to them a funny pronunciation than of what he is say- ing. Remember, this is very different from reading God's Word in such a manner as to draw attention to its meaning. The late Bishop Huntingford, »,ho was renowned for his classical accuracy, was asked by one of his Archdeacons if he had visited the agricultural show. He said at once, pompously, " Agri-cul-iooral, Mr. Archdeacon, agri-cul-^ooral." " My Lord," was the answer at once, " I thought it was the most natooral way of speaking." This kind of remonstrance, then, generally leads to a compromise which is commonly of this kind. The reader determines to pronounce in the ordinary way with the English accent, that is, with the accent thrown far back in the word for the most part, when the word is well known, but to retain the correct emphasis (as he thinks) when thi, word is not so well known. This is a step in advance. The reader now no longer speaks of Debohra, Samareya, Alex- andreya, and the like ; and his hearers are enabled to recognize old friends in Deborah, Samaria, Alexandria. But still this compromise enables the reader to cling to certain peculiarities. David's body guard is still composed of the Ch'rethites and the P'letbites, and still S. Paul and his company go down to Atta-lei-a (Acts xiv. 25). There is much to be said for this view, and it is not to be wondered at that it is -■> .\ Mis-Readings of Scripture. C9 adopted by so r.iany readers at the present time. For example, the Apocalypse (now read in public with such good results) has not yet become familiar, and there are words therein which are read with advantage with an emphasis not purely English. When the word chryso-prasus is read with an accent on the first and third syllables, a hearer who has any knowledge of Greek nc once perceives that the stone is of a yellowish green, a golden leek ; and there is some advantage in quickening the attention of an intelligent hearer. But who can tell the true original pronunciation of Attalia? The Greek accent is certainly on the second syllable. The modern Greeks invariably pronounce according to the accent as we should expect. The English accent would be on the same syllable: what is there to show that it is right to pronounce the name with the accent on the third syllable — Attaleya? Dryden certainly pronounced according to the Greek accent, or he could never have written: " Tlie deist thinks lie stands on firmer ground " Cries Eureka, the miglity secret 's found." We now would say Eureeka. But we are outrunning the constable, and must reserve the third stage for the next paper. S w Mis-Headings of Scripture. 11 IX. IN discussing generally the question how to pro- nounce the names in the Bible, we have seen how an earnest reader may be driven from a pedantic pronunciation — which he thinks was the original pronunciation — to a compromise; and we have hinted that he may, as he grows older (and perliaps wiser J), arrive at the third stage, where men boldly and courageously pronounce each name with English accentuation. There is real ground for this, iov he would only be doing what all nations of antiquity have done from the first. We will not vex our readers with cuneiform examples of the Assyrian approximation to the pronunciation of the names of Accad. Let us tal- .xample by Greece. The Greeks were very conceited, and they had reason for It; and they improved upon their neighbors' names as suited them best. Take for example the name of those that dwelt by the side of the Nile. They liked to call themselves Copts. Copt, said the Greok, what cultivated gentlemen of art could pronounce such a name ; if we are to pronounce it. It must be softened and made genteel. So the hard C was softened into g and a prefix was added, and the necessary Greek termination given, ai i Copt u i'S li if* jl i; if 72 Mis-Iieadings of /Scrijytiire. became Ai-gupt-os. ^Eguptos, said the Englishman, what a foolish name ; we will drop the os at all events, if we are to use it, it is so vulgar. So with us it is E-gypt. Then the Italians in modern times were the lirst to introduce commerce into Western Euroj)e from Mohammedan Egypt. The Arabs called the chief town of Egypt, El-Kahireh. Pooh ! said the Italians, that is not a reasonable name at all ; we will drop the El, which is pure nonsense, give the word a decent Italian pronunciation, and call the place Cairo, which name it bears amongst English- men to this day. If, therefore, we would pronounce the names as Englishmen would, we should be following the best examples of antic^uity. In the country districts of England to this day the children in reciting the Creed always say, " Ponce Pilate," just as children were taught to say four or five hundred years ago in England. This is more consistent than Pontius Pilate ; for if we say Pontius, why not Pilatus ? This seems like a compromise. In modern travel care has to be taken to remember from which direction you approach a town. The same city in Switzerland is called Coire by the Frencli, Chur by the Germans, Coira by the Italians. It is a peculiarity of northern nations to throw the accent as far back in the word as possible ; and, though sometimes it causes a scramble of syllables, yet not infrequently in English the accent is found on the fourth syllable from the end of the word : Honourable, abominable, interminable, inestimable. Mis-Readings of Scripture. 73 are all instances of this. The last example is the most difficult of all to pronounce, because of the two labials m and h coming so close the one to the other; and often have we heard from careless lips, " inestimal love." Those, then, who have advanced wholly to this stage pronounce all well known names as they are usually pronounced; and in the less known throw the accent as far back as is convenient. They are bold enough to be able to face the accusation of not knowing Greek, or Hebrew, or Latin, and say that when the pedagogues have agreed for twenty years about Greek accents, and pronunciation -^f Greek words according to their accents, they will gladly hear what they have to say. First, then, we would say in this matter to a reader. Provide yourself with a Variorum Teacher's Bible. It is by far the best book of the kind, and the most useful. At the end of this Bible, amongst other useful helps, you will find a list of proper names, with their pronunciation marked and the syllables divided. It is well worth buying. Or perhaps he may purchase the Accented Bible, published by S. P. C. K., with all the proper names accented, showing the pronunciation. The Oxford " Helps to the Study of the Bible " are not so reliable, as we shall see presently. If, however, these are not to be had, from one cause or another, then take this general rule : Pro- nounce as in English, with an English accent, taking 74 Mia-Readmgs of Scripture. i care as a rule to prononnce each vowel by itself. Thus E-li-se-us (S. Luke iv. 27), Ti-mo-the-us are each four syllabled words, and should never be pronounced as three syllables with a diphtliong at the end. Do 7iot say Elisuse, or Timothuse. To this rule there are but few exceptions. Then, as a rule., always pronounce the final e in a word. In Urbane it is to be omitted, as it is a misprint now, not having been corrected when the unpronounced final e was removed from other names. Jn Magdalene, too, and Eunice, the final e had better be dropped, as botli words have passed into common use in English. It is much to be regretted that there has not been some approximation of spelling between the Old and New Testaments, where the same name occurs in both. Still the variation of spelling shows that there was then a variation in tlie pronunciation of the names; and the variation is not to be blamed. If the final e in Noe be pronounced short it will sound very much like Noah, and it is as well that this should be done. Again, it is much to be regretted that, when the ancient patriarch and leader of the Jews is mentioned in the New Testament, he is not called Joshua, instead of Jesus. We were present once in Hursley Church when the sainted John Keble read the lesson. He read, " If Joshua had given them rest " (Heb. iv. 8). This is perfectly allowable, as Joshua is marked in the margin as an alternative ; there cannot, therefore, be any harm in importing it into the text in reading. We would IP" Mis- Headings of Scripture. 75 therefore earnestly urge upon readers to say, " Our fathers, . . . brought in with Joshua'' (Acts vii. 45); and "If Joshua had given them rest"; for if the Greek form be retained it is specially puzzling to him that occupieth the room of the unlearned. We will now speak of a word which will please our readers, when we tell them that they may pro- nounce it as they like, so long as they make three syllables of it : Can-da-ce (Acts viii. 27). However they pronounce it, no matter if they cannot prove themselves right, no one can prove them wrong. The Greek accent requires the pronunciation which we have generally heard : Can-day-cee, with the a long. This seems the best way to pronounce it. In our youth we were told that the a was short, and the word should be pronounced with the emphasis on Can : (7an-da-sy. We were also told that the word had been found in an Iambic line of jwetry with the a short. We humbly accepted the statement; but having now for many years been endeavouring to verify our reference in this matter, we can only say we don't believe it, and challenge proof. The best authorities give the a long, according to the Greek accent. It is quite true that in the Oxford " Helps " it is given short; but then they mark Tertullus to be pronounced Ter-ttillfis, like Tertle-us, which is quite enough to condemn that publication, and we need not trouble our heads about it. Be sure, however, to pronounce the final e, with the above exceptions. We once heard a Bishop read 70 Mis-ReiuUuga of ^Scrijyture. m^ "he called the name of the place Eu-hak-kore " (Judges XV. 19) without pronouncing the final e, which was startling to one following the lection in Hebrew. We said above, pronounce every vowel. Tlie name Pharaoh is perhaps an exception. The second a is so short as not to be pronounced. The common pronunciation, " Pha-roh," is probably as correct as we can make it. At the same time there are diph- thongs ai and ei. For example, we should say, Sinai, Sa-rai, each of two syllables only ; I-sai-ali, Mik-nei-ah, Plei-a-des ; but Mount Le-ir, To-i, To-u, Re-u, Sto-ics, and so on. We should only weary our readers to no purpose if we gave more instances. Long usage may perhaps give some sanction to the soft pronunciation of c before i and e ; but we would suggest with diffidence that it be pronounced hard. Saul is called the son of Kish in the Old Testament, and Cis in the New might be pronounced Kis ; Cenchrea, ^ew-chre-a, with stress on the lirst syllable ; Cephas, Kephas ; Beth-Haccerem, Beth- Hakkerem. Similarly might it be as well to pronounce g always hard. Beth-phag-gee with the hard g nearly approaches the meaning, " House of figs." There is no symptom that the g was ever pronounced soft in ancient days. As the last chapter of the Epistle to the Romans is a great test of knowledge, and knowing ones are always on the watch to see if the reader is ignorant fill*-'' III Mia-Iieadinys of Scripture, 77 or not, we will end this paper with u suggestion of the true i)ronunciution of esich doubtful word. Cenchrea pronounce ifm-chre-a, emi)hasis on Ken ; E]. tc-ne-tus, emphasis on ce ; Urbane (do not pro- nounce the final e) : Phleg-ow, Pa«-ro-bas; T\-mo- the-us. There is one more point in the chapter to which attention should be drawn. Many readers nowadays do not pronounce the possessive "a" at the end of Aristobulus, in the phrase, " Aristobulus's household." The apostrophe marks the omission by the printer of the other «; but it should always be pronounced, as indeed it should be in Isaiah xi. 8 ; "Cockatrice' den" should be "Cockatrice's den." With these words we must commend the whole question of Proper Names to the careful considera- tion of our readers. if I- I: u 3Bs-lieacUvgs of ScripUire. 79 X. FROM the pronunciation of proper names we may perliaps pass on to draw attention to some other words which may have escaped notice. Tliere are often words in English where a verb and a substantive are spelt exactly alike, and the accent alone tells whether it is a verb or a noun. When, foi- example, we see "contrast" written or printed we must look for the context to see whether the stress or emphasis be laid on the first or the last syllable. In the verb the last syllable is accented ; in the noun the first has the stress laid on it. We CM\-tra8t one thing with another; but two colours look well in cow-trast. There are several such words in Scripture, and it is ns well to remember this rule. Thus in I. Sam. xv. 9, Saul says, "Every thing that was vile and refuse they destroyed utterly." Here we must read with the accent on the first syllable — "rg/-use." So also in Amos viii. 6, Lam. iii. 45, etc. But in Exodus iv. 28, Heb. xii. 25, etc., the verb must be read "re/wsf?." Similarly the word "convert" is sometimes a noun, sometime*s a verb. In Isaiah i. 27 read "her cow-verts"; but in Isaiah vi. 10, " and ^ow-vert and be healed." In like manner those who are most careful in their .1^ '< ill n' If 80 Mis-Readings of Scripture. pronunciation make a difference between the verb and the adjective of the word perfect : " That we might ^Qvfect that which is lacking in your faith (T. Thess. iii. 10) ; " Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings thou hast per/ec^ed praise (S. Matt. xxi. 16 ; see also Psalm cxxxviii. 8, Bible version) ; but " we speak of wisdom unto them that are period " (I. Cor. ii. 6), and the use of the adjective is so common that no further example is necessary. There are also two words which were originally spelt alike, but are now distinguished by different spelling, as well as different accentuation ; we mean prophecy and prophesy. The former is the noun, which in singular and plural should be emphasized on the first syllable — proph-e-cj ; the latter, the verb, should have the stress laid on the last syllable — p]ophe-8«/. There are, however, two words whose spelling and pronunciation do not vary, whether the word represents a noun or a verb ; the words are traffick and travail. Some readers have a habit of making a difference in the pronunciation of wrath and wroth ; but this is probably an error in judgment. There is really no difference in meaning, and wroiJi should be pro- nounced like froi}^ and then th. t would be no pei'ceptible difference in sound between wrath and wroth. Some few persons pronounce hath as if there were an r in the word — harth ; but this seems to be a little fad which is not likely to find imitators. Ill iii^ Mis-Beadings of Scripture. 81 One unusual word is used only once in Scripture, and has become so antiquated as to have passed away entirely from our language. Lest, therefore, one of our friends should come upon it suddenly in reading the prophet Isaiah, we will draw attention to it for a moment. The word we refer to is hest^nd. The latter part of the word is well known to us, as it forms the latter half of a word very dear to many f us, homestead; as also of a word of not infrequent use, bedstead, Mnd in the common word, instead of. The word steaa is used in Scripture for place or abode: "They dwelt in their steads" (I. Chron. v. 22), i. e., ill their houses, or abodes, or homesteads. "Whom he raised up in their stead" (Joshua v. 7): in their station or position. Hence the word "instead of" this or that. The word "bestead," then, means situuted ; and in the passage in which it occurs (Isaiah viii. 21), "hardly bestead," means in a position of great trouble and anxiety. The word should be pronounced with a strong accent on the last syllable, liko become, bestir, bemoan, and other such words. Some readers do not pay sufficient attention to the pronunciation of ow at the end of a word, clipping it so short at times that it sounds like er. This is awkward in some passages, such as Genesis xxviii. 18: "He took the stone that he had put for his lAWows and set it up for a pillar." Great care should be taken in reading this, that it be not misunderstood. __ . If lil II jl wm lii lli B (i 82 Mis-Headings of Scripture. In consequence of this bad pronunciation the pas- sage in Isaiah xiv. 8, is often taken in the wrong meaning : " No feller is come up against us.'' As man is continually likened to a tree, so here the cedars of Lebanon are represented as rejoicing over the destruction of Babylon, since none came near to fell the trees — "no feller is com?^," that is, the smaller king;i and princes of the people were in peace and were no longer in danger of being killed or cut down in battle. In passing we may menticn that there are some antiquated forms of words, which may perhaps be so pronounced as to be like the modern word. Such a word is lien ; " Though ye have lien among the pots" (Ps. Ixviii. 13), which is now lain. In the time of the authorized version the word was changing, so that the word lain is used about twice as often as lien; but both are used. Now that lien has passed cut of use altogether, there is no reason why it should not be pronounced Z«m, when it is necessary to rea'l it. Again, loaden (Isaiah xlvi. 1) is not now used. We say laden, and loaded ; and as laden is frequently used in the authorized version there is no reason why the passage in question should not be read, " Your carriages were heavy laden." It is different with holpen ; it is perhaps not well to alter this to helped. Yet the changes that Dr. Blayney introduced a century ago into the printing of the Bible are some of them more impor- tant than such a variation would be. We do not ii' 31%8-Ileadings of Scripture. %% now refer to the alterations made in the margin and its references. These were, in our opinion, unjustifiable. The margin of the authorized version contained compart.tively few references ; but all of them were to the purpose, and a large proportion of them were references to that part of the Bible which we call the Apocrypha. These Dr. Blayney wholly omitted in his revision for the Oxford Press, which was entirely unauthorized by the Church ; and what was worse, he introduced a largo number of references which are of little value, and some of them '■ an erroneous interpretation. No doubt Dr. J iCy acted for the best; but a great many people who act for the best without proper authori- zation do a great deal of harm. He has introduced changes into the text ; not important changes, perhaps ; still we have noted ten changes in Genesis (one is Midianites for Medanites, who sold Joseph to Potiphar), eight in Exodus, twenty in Leviticus, sixteen in Numbers, and thirteen in Deuteronomy, making sixty-seven in the five books of Moses. If this be allowable surely a slight change in pronuncia- tion may be allowed, that what "s read may be more certainly " understanded of the people." Two other words may be lightly alluded to which are liable to be unkindly treated by some. '' Mis- chievous " is to be pronounced with accent on w^^«, and as three syllables only. We have not infre- quently heard it called " miscAeevious," a word of tour syllables with accent on the italicized letters. 84 Mis-Headings of Scripture. jniiu; Another word, " revenue," may be pronounced with the accent on the first syllable. Some few years ago it was pronounced "revenue," but this is passing away. There is a peculiarity in the language at the end of the sixteenth century and the beginning of the seventeenth, which may here be mentioned. Two nouns, or nominatives, are often used with a singu- lar verb, especially if the verb comes first, or the noun which comes nearest the verb happens to be in the singular number. This had escaped the notice of a very careful reader, and the result was that in the prayer at the close of the Litany he was in the habit of making an unusual pause, in order, as he thought, to make good grammar. The passage in question runs thus : " The craft and subtlety ol the devil or man worketh against us." The clergy- man in question thought that the disjunctive "or" marked off man as the nominative to worketh^ because the verb was in the singular. He therefore always made a pause to mark this, reading it thus : " The craft and subtlety of the devil ; or man worketh against us," as if the craft and subtlety were wholly of the devil. Whereas indeed it should run thus : " The craft and subtlety (of the devil or man) worketh." This peculiarity is frequent in Shakespeare, and is not at all uncommon in the authorized version ; the reader, therefore, must be prepared for this peculiarity. Some instances must be well known to our readers, others perhaps may Mis-Meadinffs of Scrrpture. 85 have been overlooked. " Where moth and rust doth corrupt" (S. Matth;iW vi. 19). '' l^ow abideth faith, hope, charity, these three " (I. Cor. xiii. 13). " And so was James and John " (S. Luke v. 10). "Whyzs earth and ashes proud." " When distress and anguish cometh upon you." " The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue is from the Lord." " Before man is life and death." Such are a few instances of that which only requires to be pointed out to be readily acknowledged. #: >**' Mis-HeacUiigs of Scripture. 87 XI. HAVING gone through most oi' the hints about reading, which can well be grouped under various headings, we will now draw attention to some passages where a proper emphasis enables the hearer to understand with greater facility. First of all, we will instance some of our Blessed Lord's own sayings. Take for example the sermon at Nazareth (S. Luke iv. 25-7). How rarely is this read so as to lead the hearers to realize why it was that the people became so angry. Let the reader, then, read it over before- hand, and he will see that the rage of the people arose from the same cause that gave rise to Jonah's anger, and made the mob at Jerusalem call out at S. Paul's speech, "Away with such a fellow from the earth, for it is not fit that he should live " (Acts xxii 22). The Jews could not bear the thought that the mercy of God should be extended to the Gentiles: their cry was ever, "pour out Thine indignation upon the heathen, who have not known Thee, and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon Thy Name." Jonah tells us that this was the reason he fled towards Tarshish ; that he did not wish to let the heathen know that God was a "gracious ^ t , 1 1 I 88 Mis-Meadinga of Scripture. God, and merciful, slow to anger, and repented of the evil." When the reader has realized this he has gained one in)})()rtant steii. Tiien let him see if, by emphasizing certain words, lie can present this idea more plainly before his hearers. The result will be, probably, that he will read as follows, the italics showing where enii)hasis would be i)laced : " Of a truth I sa}'' unto you, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias (when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land) ; but unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta^ a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. And many lepers were in Israel in the time of E-li-se-us the prophet ; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian,'''' The emphasis, thus placed, will contrast, in both cases, Israel with the heathen, and will show that in cither case the prophet was accepted and conve" jd grace and gifts of God to the heathen, to the exclusion of Israel. Then the hearers will understand why it is that we read at once, "And all the} in the Synagogue, when they had heard these things, were filled with wrath." Or again : take that most beautiful and comfort- ing parable of the prodigal son. The extreme love and forbearance of the father is greatly heightened by being contrasted with the sullen jealousy of the elder brother. We do not wish to speak of the interpretation of it all : how the elder brother repre- sents the Jewish people, who were jealous and angry i Mia-Eeddings of Scripture. 89 at the favor shown to the heatlien prodigals ; but a little care in reading will throw brighter and keener , light upon the love and long-suftering of God, as shadowed in the father of the prodigal (S. Luke XV. 29). See, then, the sullen remonstrance of the elder brother : " Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy command- ment, and yet thou never gavost me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends ; but as soon as tUg thy 8071 [each word is full of bitterness, he will not acknowledge his brother] was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf." He comphiins that he never had so much as a worthless kid ; but his disgraceful brother has at once not only a calf, but one that had been stall-fed for some great occasion. In contrast with this how soothing and encouraging to the penitent is the deep love for both sons which beams out in the glorious answer of the father : " Son, thou art ever with me, and all thai, I have is thine. It was meet that we should make merry and be glad; for this thy brother [gentle rebuke couched in the same language as the bitter sneer of the brother] was dead, and is alive again ; was lost and is found." Next, let us see how a little emphasis will holp the understanding of our Lord's address to Simon the Pharisee (S. Luke vii. 44): "I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet ; IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 •56 13.2 I.I IIIM 14 1.25 M i.8 lA IIIIII.6 > ;^ /A / y Photographic Sciences Corporation % V ^^-^V'j. 6^ >> % v^ ri>' 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. MS80 (716) 872-4503 W<3 M^ 'Q.^ O^ ■■■■■■■■■liiiKri 90 Mis-Readings of Scripture. but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head. Thou gavest me no kiss ; but this woman, since the time I came in, hath not ceased to kiss my feet. Mine head with oil thou didst not anoint ; but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment." Thus, the indif- ferent carelessness of the supercilious Pharisee is contrasted with the deep love of the penitent. One verse from the Sermon on the Mount may be referred to, inasmuch as its continual use as an offertory sentence has familiarized it in a slightly different sense from that which it bears in its context. In S. Matthew v. 16, " Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works," the word 30 really refers to what has gone before, and not to what is coming on. It is not, as most persons understand it, " so shine that men may see." The text, indeed, should not be taken out of its context, if the full sense is to be understood. The verse before gives the reason for so : " Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, and it givetli light [shineth] to all that are in the house. In this manner let your light shine [^give lights the word is the same in the original] before men, in order that they may see your good works." In reading the chapter, therefore, it is not very difficult to give the mean- ing; and we would recommend that verses 14, 15, 16 be read as one paragraph, so as to connect the meaning throughout, making a longer pause before Ms-Readings of Scripture. 91 ' and after than at any full stop in the paragraph, and slightly altering the punctuation : " Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, and it giveth light unto all that are in the house ; let your K^ : . .^o shine before men ; that they may see your go^ ^ works, and glorify your Father which is in Heaven." When the sentence is read in the Offertory it is impossible to give the exact meaning, and if it was always important to give the exact meaning this sentence would have to be omitted. Indeed, as it is much more frequently read as an OfiFertory sen- tence, and as the erroneous meaning is the one which of necessity is more frequently presented to the minds of the faithful, it is almost a necessity that it be misunderstood, when it is read in its context. It would be a great advantage if in the Offertory it could be read as in the Revised Version, "Even so let i/our light," or, "In this manner let your light shine." In the parable of the Pharisee and Publican (S. Luke xviii. 11) some readers have emphasized the continual recurrence of the I of the Pharisee; but this is not necessary. But with himself should be emphasized. Some have explained it as if it were by himself, as if he were a Separatist in his prayer as in his name; for Pharisee is the Greek form of the Hebrew word " Perushim," Separatists. But this is hardly the meaning. It is rather that his prayer was murmured to himself, with himself as 92 Mis-Headings of Scripture. its object. The exact rendering of the Greek would be "towards himself." God was not so much the object of his prayer as himself. The parable was spoken to warn them that " trusted in themselves that they were righteous." The Publican is utterly forgetful of self in the consciousness of his offended God : the Pharisee is satisfied with his self-com- placent attitude of mind. In reading, therefore, it would be well to emphasize thus : " The Pharisee stood, and prayed thus with himself ^ The series of sayings of our Blessed Lord at the mysterious Last Supper (recorded only by S. John) are all of them so deeply wonderful that they should be read with the greatest care and attention. But if this is true of all the chapters, the last of them, S. John xvii., most especially requires care. It is the High-priestly prayer of our Blessed Lord just before He went out to offer Himself a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. Readers of this chapter should read it over several times on their knees before they venture to read it in public. If it had been possible to omit the word shall in verse 20, it would have been an advantage, as it would represent the best reading of the original. In this prayer " the believers," " the faithful," were already regarded by our Blessed Lord as existing, and He prayed for them as eternally present to his mind: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which are believing on Me through their word." At the feet washing there is a passage to which attention may be drawn. The passage is the con- ( Mis-Headings of Scripture. 98 versation between our Lord and S. Peterv which we will give, without comment, with the emphasis which seems best to us (S. John xiii. 6 sq.) : " Peter saith unto Him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? Jesus answered and said unto him, What / do, thou knowest not now ; but thou shalt know hereafter. Peter saith unto Him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered Him, If I wash thee not then hast thou no part with me. Simon Peter saith, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. Jesus saith to him. He that is washed [i. e., has his whole bodv bathedl needeth not, save to wash his feet^ but is clean every whit." Perhaps here one word may be said about the manner of giving out the lesson. The rubric is quite clear, and is as suitable to the " Revised Lectionary," as it is called, as it was to the old Table of Lessons. " Here beginneth such a Chapter, or Verse of such a chapter of such a Book." This is clear enough. But it is somewhat important to call attention to the real names of the Books of the Bible : as it is quite impossible to say what mistakes will not be made. The following (will it be believed?) startling inaccuracies are vouched for : "The Book of the Prophet barouche" (Baruch). "The first Epistle of Paul to Peter." "The Epistle according to St. James." " The first Epistle of General St. John." " The Gospel according to Isaiah." The last is no doubt perfectly true, but it is un- usual, and must have puzzled the faithful laity who were present. , Mis-Beadings of Scripture. 95 ■ XII. AS we draw near the end of these papers, we would express a hope that something that has been written may ha\ e led some to think more highly of the privilege of reading God's Word in public, or indeed in private. Each reader should do all in his power to understand the passage or the chapter himself jBrst, and then so to read it as to enable others 1,0 understand it. Some people seem to think that any one can read the Bible, and that little experience or knowledge is required for the purpose. The result i& somewhat sad at times, as when a man read that the Tabernacle was covered with "beggars' skins," instead of badger, saying that in the enlightened days of Moses they would not tolerate such fellows, and that if any one of the beggars he knew had existed in Moses' days they would have stretched him on a pole and skinned him.* But without descending to the rubbish that some are content to call expounding Scripture, there are plenty of mistakes made by readers who are gener- ally careful, and to a few more of these we will draw attention in this concluding paper. * This is reported to have been said by a local preacher In the United States. 96 Mis-Readings of Scripture. A somewhat common mistake is made in Acts x. 3 : " He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day." Many readers make a pause after vision, and say, " evidently about the ninth hour of the day," which is nonsense. How could it be evident that it was three o'clock in the afternoon ? This, no doubt, was one hour of prayer, and the pious centurion was then praying. But the word evidently/ applies wholly to the character of his vision. The vision was external to himself, manifest and clear; there was no possibility of error in the matter ; there was no room for mistake. The pause, therefore, should be made after evidently^ with a little stress upon the word : " He saw in a vision evidently (about the ninth hour of the day), an angel," etc., the words with the parenthesis being read in a lower tone of voice, as we have already suggested, so as to keep the attention of the hearers fixed on the main subject of the sentence. The Revised Version removes the ambiguity by trans- lating, " He saw in a vision openly y Another mistake or a misplaced pause may be heard sometimes in S. Luke xiv. 9, where we have heard a reader stumble, and go back to read it so as to make sense : " He that bade thee and him come and say to thee." We have heard this read with a pause after come, as if it were, " he bade thee come." But it is not so ; the word hade (to be pronounced, by the bye, as if there were no e at the end, had') here means invited^ and nothing else : " He that Mia-Readinga of Scripture. 97 invited thee and him," the master of the feast. The pause should therefore be placed after him : " He, that bade thee and him, come and say to thee." The passage occurs in the Gospel for the 17th Sunday after Trinity. A similar mistake may too often be heard when the Epistle for Trinity Sunday is read (Rev. iv. 11) : " For thy pleasure they are and were created." Here there is frequently a pause placed after were^ while are and were are both emphasized : " they are and were^ created." The only meaning which this can give is that all things not only are created for the pleasure of the Almighty, but that were in former times created for this purpose. This would be needless repetition, and it certainly does not represent the meaning of the passage, which should be read thus : " For Thy pleasure they are, and were created^'' that is, for Thy pleasure they still exist, for thy pleasure they were originally called into existence. Sometimes, however, it seems quite impossible to give the true meaning by any true emphasis of reading. Take, for example, the words, "purging all meats " (S. Mark vii. 19). In order to give the true meaning of this we must introduce some such words as " This he said." The meaning would seem to be that the Lord by His saying abolished all distinction of meats, making them all clean, the word purging^ or cleansing, being here taken in the same sense as in Acts x. 15 : " What God hath 98 M%8-Rfi.adings of Scripiure. cleamedy that call not thou common." The only way to road the passage is to make a somewhat long pau'je, and then to say "purging all meats." This will draw attention to the true meaning : that these words are not part of our Lord's words, but are an e5:plaration of the evangelist. The Revisers have gr;ippled with the difficulty in the way we have suggested : " This he said, making all meats clean." In S. Mark ii. 16 it would be well to emphasize "Ais house," in order to lead the hearers to understand that it was in the house of Levi (afterwards S. Matthew) that our Lord sat at meat. They would then understand the better how natural it was that " many publicans and sinners sat also with Jesus and His disciples." In S. Luke's account of the institution of the Blessed Sacrament of the Lord's Supper (S. Luke xxii. 19) care should be taken to lay a little stress on the article the in verse 20 : " Likewise also the Cup after Supper." This was the institution of the Chalice. In verse 17 there is no article in the original Greek ; it should therefore, in accuracy, be (what the Revisers have) a cmjo, and not the cup. The only way to mark the distinction between an ordinary cup of wine and the Chalice of the Sacrament is to mark the second cup with some emphasis such as we have suggested : "Likewise the Cup after Supper." This leads to the suggestion of care in reading the account of the institution as given by S. Matthew, Mis-Meadings of Scripture. 99 ' "Drink ye all of it" (S. Matthew xxvi. 27). This is scmetimes so read as if " all of it" was to be con- sumed. But the all belongs to ye, " Drink ye all," and the " of it " is one use of the preposition of, to which we have referred before, meaning " from." A pause or stop, therefore, should be made af<:er all: " Drink ye all, of it." It is certainly very remarkable how that, in view of the present denial of the Cup to the laity by the Roman Church, the Evangelists should be so careful to emphasize the fact that all drank of it, a fact not mentioned when the species of bread is spoken of. S. Matthew records the special command of the Lord, " Drink ye all, of it." S. Mark says, "And they all drank of it" (S. Mark xiv. 23). In reading S. Luke xxiii. 32, there is with many a reverential feeling that they, at least, will not couple our Blessed Lord with convicted malefactors; many, therefore, read, "There were also two otb.r (male- factors), led with him to be put to death." While we may deeply sympathize with this feeling, we must say that such punctuation is not justified by the original ; and, therefore, to adopt it is practically to condemn the Scriptures, and to be wise above that which is written. The really pious and reverent reader will see at once a literal fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy, under inspiration, " He was numbered with the trans- gressors," and will not hesitate to read what the Evangelist wrote: "There were also two other malefactors." The stop inserted in some editions is quite unauthorized. It will rather deepen the 100 Mis-Readings of Sanpture. i I huniiliiition of tlH3 reader who, while he shrinks with abhorrence from reckoning his Saviour with sinners at all, yet recognizes yAnxt tlie sin of each sinner has done : " numbered Him '.vith the transgressors." A very difficult passage to read properly is to be found in S. Luke xxiv. 18. The best way would seem to read with emphasis as follows : "Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not heard ? " The usual e!nphasis on stranger seems to be erroneous. It is not easy in I'eading to render the meaning of Acts ii. 24 apparent to all intelligent hearers: " Having loosed the pains of death." Death is here personified, and is represented as a woman in travail with child ; when the child is born and has life, then the pains of labour are loosed and have an end. It is impossible that the pains be protracted beyond a certain time (Hosea xiii. 13), otherwise double death would ensue. This is the meaning of the passage ; but how this is to be represented in reading had better be decided by each reader. We cannot give advice in the question. In Titus iii. 4 it is well perhaps to place a pause after kindness^ and another after man^ so as to show that " love toward man " is one word. It would be, " the kindness and philanthrop}'^ of GoD our Saviour." Some wrongly place a comma after the word God^ and read thus : " The kindness, and love of God, toward man." But it is not " kindness toward man," but " love toward man." Read, therefore, thus : " When the kindness, and love of God our Saviour towards man, appeared." The Revisers suggest a Mis-Headings of Scripture. 101 way out of the difficulty, thus : " The kindness of God our Saviour, and His love toward man." In Acts xiii. 27 a false accent is often given, thus : "They have fulfilled Mm in condemning ffm." Probably the readers have been misled by supposing that the italics in the Authorized Version imply em- phasis. The contrary, however, is the case. The words are of such little importance that the Greek- omits them altogether, and this is made known by the italics. No stress at all should be laid upon these words. What slight emphasis is given should be reserved for fulfilled and condemning: " Ti.ey have fulfilled them in condemning him." A mistaken pause is sometimes made in Heb. i. 4: " He that hath by inheritance, obtained a more excel- lent Name." The real meaning is given in the Revised Version : " he hath inherited." The words " hath by inheritance obtained " represent one word only in Greek, and should be pronounced without pause to let this be remarked. In the sixth verse the Revisers have voted to read, * " when he again bringeth in the first-born," as if it was not until the Resurrection that the angels were to worship the Lord. But there seems to be no refer- ence to any previous " bringing in ; " and while the Revisers have sanctioned a beautiful idea, there is no necessity for altering the present reading of the Authorized Version. Th(3 exact translation of the Greeh might be, " And when, again, he bringeth." Gt 102 Mis-Jieadings of Scripture. ih: In Heb. iii. 5, 6, emphasis should be placed on Mosca and Christy who are contrasted in the two verses. The fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews is difficult to read properly, and the reader should be careful. The Authorized Version has too literally- rendered the Greek, "■ If they shall enter into my rest " (verses 3, 5), which is the literal rendering of a Hebrew idiom which means " they shall not enter." The full Hebrew phrase is found elsewhere : -' The Lord do so to me and more also if I taste bread, or aught else, until the sun be down" (II. Sam. iii. 35). That is a strong oath, " I will not taste bread." The same construction in Hebrew and Greek is to be found in I. Sam. iii. 14, xxviii. 10, II. Sam. xi. 11, etc. In verse 7, '•'•To-day " must be emphasized. But the whole argument to prove that there is a rest in the future for the people of God is so close that we have not space here, at the end of a series of papers, to dwell upon it, and must only commend it to the care of all intelligent readers. We have now come to an end of our hints and examples ; and if one congregation has been able to benefit by a more careful rendering of God's Word; or one reader in public or private has been led to take greater care in presenting the meaning of God's Word to the hearers; if one person has been led to think more of some one passage in God's Word, our labour (which has not been slight) has not been in vain. Pi"' liS'DEX OF TEXTS. Page. Genesis, i, 2.5^ 27, 35 " xviii. IS), 50 " xxiil. 18, 15 " xxviii. 18, 81 " xliii. 22 .58 " xlix. (?, 25 Exodus, iv. 2.3, 79 " xxxii. 32, 56 Joshua, xi. 6, 25 Judges, ix. 53, 60 " XV. 19, 76 I. Samuel, xv. 9, 79 " xvii. 43, 26 " xviii. 30, 59 II. Samuel, iii. 35, 102 " viii. 4, 25 " xii. 20, 54 " xxiil., 65 I. Kings, xiii. 27, 28 II. Kings, viii. 13, 21 " ix. 26, i) " xiii. 5, 30 I. Chron., v. 22, 81 Nehemiah, ix. 27, 30 Job, xxiv. 1, 22 Psalms, xlviii. 5, 48 " Ixviii. 13, 82 " Ixviii. 31, .50 " Ixxxi. 4, 24 " cv. 28, .53 Page. Psalms cxix. 98, 41 *' cxxxviii. 8, 80 Proverbs, vii. 19, 2