AN AMENDED TRANSLATION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. BY HENRY CRAIK. LONDON: SAMUEL BAGSTER AND SONS, PATERNOSTER ROW. 1847. PREFACE. IN presenting to the attention of the Christian Church an amended version of the Epistle to the Hebrews, it seems expedient, if not absolutely needful, briefly to assign my reasons for attempting a work of so much responsibility. Excellent, in many respects, as the common translation of the Scriptures confessedly is, no one who has carefully studied the inspired originals will be disposed to deny, that it contains, a very considerable number of inaccurate renderings. The causes of this I do not now dwell upon: it is sufficient, for my present purpose, simply to refer to the fact itself. It is the opinion of the writer, that, of all the books that compose the New Testament, the Epistle to the Hebrews is the least accurately translated. This is not a view hastily taken up; but the result of many years' habitual study of the Greek Scriptures, and of very especial attention to this Epistle in particular. If this view be correct, it furnishes a sufficient justification for any competent individual attempting to furnish a more exact translation. But it may be said, that the numerous critical and expository works, devoted to the elucidation of this portion of the divine word, render such an attempt unnecessary. In reply to this, the writer would only remark, that he is not acquainted with any re-translation of the Epistle suitable for the great majority of Christian readers. Such works as those of Professor Stuart are obviously of too critical a character to suit the bulk of believers, while some others, of a more popular description, do not, for other reasons, answer the desired end. Having thus given a general account of the reasons which have induced the writer to publish the accompanying translation of this very important Epistle, it may be proper to specify some particular instances of passages in the received version which require correction. The Epistle, when read in Greek, contains within itself ample evidence of its having been written during the period previous to the destruction of the Temple, and while the solemnities of the Levitical ritual continued to be celebrated. In every single instance in which reference is made to the legal ordinances, the present tense of the verb is employed.* Thus ix. 6, 7, read in the original, represent the ordinances referred to, as being observed during the period at which the Apostle wrote. For the past tense "went", we ought to substitute "go" or "enter"; and for the same term supplied in the next verse, we ought, in consistency, to substitute "entereth". In ver. 9, we have a similar mistake, and also "could" instead of " can." In x. 1, again, we have "offered" instead of" offer." Let In ix. 8, we have it stated, according to the English translation, "that the way into the Holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first Tabernacle was yet standing.” Now let any thoughtful reader ponder this assertion. him keep in mind, that, for all practical purposes-relating to the Apostle's reasoning, the Tabernacle and Temple were substantially one; the Tabernacle being, in fact, a moving Temple, and the Temple being a stationary Tabernacle. Let him reflect on the truth, that the way into the Holiest was assuredly made manifest many years before the Temple was destroyed, and he will find it impossible to reconcile the statement of the received translation, with the actual state of the case. The difficulty, however, is entirely removed by a reference to the original text. There it is asserted, that the way into the Holiest of all was not yet made manifest, as long as the first Tabernacle had (or kept) its standing. It had originally its standing from God. It lost that original standing, when, in connexion with the offering up of the true sacrifice, the veil was rent: and this fact, that the Temple, with its imposing ceremonies, had lost the place originally held, was fully manifested, when, on the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit came down to witness to those who believed on Jesus, and, through them, to all observers, that the earthly temple, priesthood, and ordinances, had all been set aside, through the Great High Priest having * The only apparent exception occurs in the use of orŋkɛ the perfect tense of tornu (x. 11). But this exception is only apparent, inasmuch as the perfect and pluperfect of that verb are employed, both by other writers and by the writers of the Greek Testament, for the present and imperfect respectively. accomplished his atoning work and entered upon his priestly office in the Heavenly Sanctuary. The first Tabernacle, therefore, continued to stand, and the ordinances of the ancient ritual continued to be celebrated, for nearly forty years after it had lost its standing. In ch. vii. 19, the received version furnishes us with a marginal as well as a textual rendering. In either way, the sense is grievously misrepresented. The verse requires no supplement, and, when properly translated, is in admirable consistency with the whole current of the reasoning employed. Verse 18, For there is, on the one hand, a setting aside of the preceding ordinance, on account of its weakness and unprofitableness. Verse 19, (For the law perfected nothing); and there is, on the other hand, the introduction of a better hope by which we draw near unto God. All this the Apostle deduces from the brief quotation taken from the one hundred and tenth Psalm; and, in the expression, "after the order of Melchisedec," we have the setting aside of the preceding ordinance: in the words, "thou art a priest for ever," we have the introduction of a better hope. We may remark, in closing, that the above re-translation brings out a meaning in beautiful accordance with the peculiar character of the Epistle. One of the most remarkable features of difference between this and the other Apostolic writings, consists in the mode in which the truth is brought out and presented to the mind of the reader. In the other Epistles, while reference is repeatedly made to the ancient Scriptures, the writer does not, in general, ground upon their testimony alone the proof of his assertions. He speaks as the authoritative messenger of God, declaring, in many instances, such things as had not been revealed to the prophets of the former economy. But, in this Epistle, the writer advances very few statements simply on the ground of his own authority. Almost every doctrine taught in it is established by references to the Old Testament; so that the truths presented to the reader of this inspired exposition, command the assent and reverence of all who acknowledge the divinity of the Hebrew Scriptures. It is by repeated and varied references to the ancient |