A few instances may be quoted to illustrate the nature of such easily recognized changes as the sacred text has suffered. In Jonah 1, 9, the prophet says: "I am a Hebrew," where the original reading probably was (as the Septuagint has it): "I am a servant of Jehovah." The difference is between Ivri, Hebrew, and Ivdi, the servant of Jehovah. In I Peter ii, 3, it will always be dubious whether the correct reading is: "If ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious," or "that the Lord is Christ." The fact is that both these words were sometimes written with the letters Chs, standing for both Christos and Chrestos, gracious. In Genesis i, 8, the words: "God saw that it was good" is wanting at the end of the second day's creation, but it is found in verse 10, in the middle of the third day's work, indicating a transposition. Sometimes verses have been added by later copyists. Such variations amount to many thousands in all, leaving the present text very far from satisfactory in its details.
Theologians, in admitting this, as they are compelled to do by the facts, generally smooth the disagreeable impression over with the assurance that none of all these variations in the text affect the meaning in the least degree. "The most inaccurate text ever written," they say, "leaves the truths of Scripture substantially unchanged." But this is evidently said more for the sake of the effect than for the sake of truth. For the theologians themselves—particularly the Protestants—always insist on the very letter of the text. The little words "this is" were sufficient in the quibble between Luther and Calvin to cut the Protestantic party in two halves, each wishing to roast the other in hell. Yes, the theologians build doctrines not only on words but on forms of words, discriminating between the meaning of the same words when used in this form or the other. In a text where words are so important, it is ridiculous to say that many thousand variations are of no importance. And besides, since we know there are many thousand variations, how do we know that there are not many thousand more which have not yet been detected?
This question must be solved before we are prepared to admit that the Bible is a sufficient guide, and has done away with the necessity of further revelation.
But we will pass by the difficulties thus far pointed out. We will suppose that we have settled beyond doubt the number of books to be accepted as canonical. We will suppose that the original text has been preserved, and that the translations thereof in our vernacular tongues are correct. All this we suppose, for the sake of the argument, and yet we will find the greatest difficulty still exists—that of understanding the sacred volume correctly. Indeed, this difficulty is so great that probably not one single man now living can understand it all, and those that understand part of it right do so by the aid of the Spirit of God.
Some of the difficulties in understanding even the translations of the Bible may now be pointed out.
It is admitted that the words used in the Scriptures are sometimes to be used in a figurative sense and sometimes in a literal sense. What words are, in each case, to be understood strictly literally and what figuratively must be left to the judgment of the reader. And from this fact numerous errors have arisen.
People have sometimes allegorized where no allegory was intended, as Origen in reading that Abraham in his old age married Keturah. Now, he says, the word Keturah means "sweet odor;" and "sweet odor" refers to the fragrance of righteousness: Hence he concludes that Abraham in his old age became very pious or righteous, and that this fact is meant when Moses states that the patriarch married Keturah. Equally absurd is the following a la Swedenborg: "Adam represents the intellect and Eve the feeling. That Adam and Eve begat sons and daughters means, therefore, that the union between intellect and feeling is what produces knowledge in man." These instances are extremely absurd and the errors of this kind of interpretation are easily perceived. But sometimes the errors are not so palpable, although equally absurd. As for instance, when it is contended that the "kingdom" of Christ means a religion and not a real kingdom, or that "the first resurrection" means a revival of the principles for which the martyrs were killed. In such cases the errors are great, and hundreds of Bible readers commit just such errors, in many instances without even knowing it.
Then, sometimes words that are really used figuratively are understood literally. You will see pictures, occasionally, where Lazarus is enjoying his heavenly bliss by sitting in the lap ("the bosom") of Father Abraham, the artist having misunderstood the figurative expression used by our Lord.
This kind of error is more easily committed in reading the prophetical portions of the Bible. The prophets borrow words denoting natural objects in order to represent what is spiritual and abstract. Their books are hieroglyphical, although they do not draw their hieroglyphic pictures, as did the Egyptian priests, but describe them in words. Hence the great difficulty in interpreting prophecy. It is not less difficult than to interpret many ancient Egyptian records. The prophets, for instance, talk of a "horn" and mean a "crown" or a "kingdom." "Beast" is a usurping tyrannical power. "Key" stands for lawful authority. "Virgins" are faithful worshippers, not defiled by idolatry.
Generally it must be borne in mind that every word should be understood as it was commonly understood at the time the Bible was written. Much minute inquiry, in fact more than most people are prepared to give, is needed in order to avoid errors arising from a violation of this rule.