刻意的宗教化诠释
在以下五处注释中，译者刻意地对《论语》中的一些观点和理念从宗教的角度加以阐释，不遗余力地将它们与基督教相关联，很大程度上歪曲了原旨。
（1）子曰：“朝闻道，夕死可矣。”
大意：“早晨得知真理，要我当晚死去，都可以。”
译文：Confucius says，if in the morning you hear divine truth，in the evening you may die.
注释：上帝的旨意对每个人来说都至关重要。如果在清晨听到、了解，且坚信了这些真理，那么即便当晚就死去，也是死而无憾。（Divine principles are of the utmost importance to every man；if in the morning a man hear，understand，and firmly believe them，then in the evening he may die without regret.）
进一步注释：永恒的福音多么荣耀！当一个人真诚地信仰神圣的原理，全身心地信赖它所描述的万能的基督的时候，就是他得到上帝的宽恕和赦免的时候。但值得称颂的赦免的理由并不是他的知识，或对福音的信念，而是上帝的功德，是福音引导了他。仅仅听过和相信中国圣人的学说，并不足以让人坦然面对死亡的考验，因为这些学说中没有提及救世主——上帝。……假若孔子听到过《福音书》，他会不会喜笑颜开地信奉它呢？（It is the glory of the everlasting gospel，that the moment a man sincerely believes its sacred principles，and with his whole heart relies on that Almighty Saviour which it reveals，that moment he is pardoned and justified in the sight of God the Judge of all the earth.But as the meritorious cause of his justification，is neither his knowledge，nor belief of the gospel，but the merits of the Divine Saviour，to whom his gospel directs his mind，it does not appear how the mere hearing and believing of the doctrines of the Chinese sages，which reveals no Saviour，could prepare a man for that awful change which he undergoes at death...Had Confucius heard the gospel of Jesus，is it not likely that he would have joyfully embraced it？）（里仁篇4.8，Collie，p.13）
此处的“道”应是泛指哲学上的道理、真理、某种信仰或人生的意义，而不是基督教的神圣教义。译者却从宗教角度出发，认为“道”是“神旨”，只有当一个人虔诚地信奉上帝的旨意，全身心地依赖上帝，才会在濒死的时刻得到宽恕和救赎。他甚至认为，仅仅听信中国圣人的教条，不足以让人面对死亡无所憾无所惧，如果孔子有幸接触到耶稣基督福音的洗礼，圣人大概也会欣然从之。这里，译者显然背离了原文，对信息作了宗教化的诠释，宣扬基督教，认为中国古圣贤的哲学次于基督教的信条。上述评论反映出他对《论语》及孔子的无知，同时也说明了他内心对中国传统文化的鄙夷。以这种心态来翻译《论语》，正是欧洲中心主义的表现。
（2）子曰：“吾未见刚者。”或对曰：“申枨。”子曰：“枨也欲，焉得刚？”
大意：孔子道：“我没见过刚毅不屈的人。”有人答道：“申枨是这样的人。”孔子道：“申枨啊，他欲望太多，那里能够刚毅不屈？”
译文：Confucius said，alas I have not seen a truly inflexible man！Some one replied，is not Shin Chang an inflexible character？Confucius rejoined，Shin Chang is under the influence of lust，how can he be inflexible.
注释：孔夫子哀叹找不到可以继承他学说的人。圣人认为，真正的刚者能洞悉天地之灵息，具备足够的理性和正气培养这种神圣的天赋，直至刚毅不屈的境界，无论任何孤立或联合的外力都无法影响其偏离正道分毫。（Confucius lamented that he could not find an inflexible man who might hand down his doctrines.Those whom the sage considered truly unbending characters were such as had obtained the straight Ke，（soul or breath）of heaven and earth，and who possessed reason and integrity sufficient to cultivate this divine gift，until they arrived at that state of firm inflexibility，which cannot，by the separate，or united influence of all external things be made to swerve one hair's breath from the line of rectitude.）
进一步注释：恐怕很少有人，甚至没人，能够完全达到这种境界。不过，我们或许勉强可以说圣徒保罗和约翰·诺克斯之类的已经接近了。（It is to be feared that few，if any have completely reached this standard；but we may venture to say，that such men as the Apostle Paul，and John Knox came pretty near it.）（公冶长篇5.11，Collie，p.17）
译者认为，孔子所称的“刚者”是那些具备理性、足够正直、从事神职的人，比如圣徒保罗（基督教早期最有影响力的传教士之一）、约翰·诺克斯（苏格兰牧师，新教改革的领袖）。这样诠释显然又将原文的意义狭隘化了，违背了孔子之言的本意。
（3）子贡曰：“夫子之文章，可得而闻也；夫子之言性与天道，不可得而闻也。”
大意：子贡说：“老师关于文献方面的学问，我们听得到；老师关于天性和天道的言论，我们听不到。”
译文：Tsze Kung said，the virtue and elegant manners of our master，we may obtain the knowledge of；but his lectures on the nature of man，and divine reason，we cannot comprehend.
注释：人的本性指的是上天在最初给人定下的神圣的规条。神圣的理性，就是上天自存的本质的原则……圣人很少谈论人性和神圣的理性，他的一些学生也不打算学习这些……子贡那时初听圣人提及这些深层次的知识，故而赞叹其高深。（The nature of man，means the divine principles，which man originally receives from heaven.Divine reason，means the radical essence of celestial，self existent principles...human nature and divine reason，were subjects rarely discussed by the sage，and some of his students were not prepared to study them...Tsze Kung at that time had just begun to hear the sage treat on these high branches of knowledge，and thus extolled their excellence.）（公冶长篇5.12，Collie，p.17）
这句中，“性”是人的自然本性。“天道”是指自然和人类社会吉凶祸福的关系。译者在这里把“人性”和“天道”都归结为“神旨”和“天谕”，并认为它们是高层次的知识，而孔子并没有过多地谈及这方面或教诲弟子这类认识。
同样在该篇中，译者另有一段关于“圣人”（sage）的注释：孔子是能变革天地之人，一切按其道而行，无需多虑或反思，就如自然规律一般稳固可靠。（Confucius was equal to the renovating power of heaven and earth and moved on in his course without the necessity of thought，or reflection，and was steady and infallible as the laws of nature.）孔子的形象在此被扭曲神化了，他具有革天动地的威力，就像自然规律那样可靠、永无过失。（公冶长篇5.12，Collie，p.17）
（4）子曰：“知之者不如好之者，好之者不如乐之者。”
大意：孔子说：“对于任何学问和事业，懂得它的人不如喜爱它的人，喜爱它的人又不如以它为乐的人。”
译文：Confucius said，he who knows right principles，is not equal to him who loves them，nor is he who loves them，equal to him who delights in them.
注释：“知五谷”就是知晓五谷可以食用，“好五谷”就是食而享受之，“乐五谷”就是食之而知足。了解真理却不好之，知识并不完整；好之却不乐之，爱好亦不完满。（Chang King Foo says，the thing may be thus illustrated，to know the five kinds of grain，is to know that they may be eaten，to love them，is to eat and relish them；to delight in them，is to eat and be satisfied.To know，and not to love good principles，shows that knowledge is not complete，to love and not delight in them，shows that love is not perfect.）
进一步注释：这些言论非常正确，也适用于神的启示。对这些原则肤浅而抽象的认知，并未可使“好之”；部分的偏爱或认同，也未可使真正“乐之”。但当宗教真理清楚地在精神层面上被了解，必可使“好之”；继而，“好”可成为一种纯粹的、最可靠的“乐”的来源。（These remarks are perfectly correct，and apply admirably to the doctrines of divine revelation.There is a superficial，speculative knowledge of these principles，which is not productive of love to them，and there is a sort of love，or partial approving of them，which is unaccompanied by genuine delight in truth；but when divine truth is clearly and spiritually understood，it must be loved，and when loved，it must prove a source of the purest and most reliable delight.）（雍也篇6.18，Collie，p.24）
在这里，孔子广泛地讨论了对学问和事业的知晓、喜爱及乐衷之间的区别，而译者却狭义地将话题圈定为人们对“神的启示”和“宗教真理”的认知和喜乐，显然是将原文的内涵缩小化，刻意局限到宗教的意义上去了。
（5）子曰：“禹，吾无间然矣。菲饮食而致孝乎鬼神，恶衣服而致美乎黻冕；卑宫室而尽力乎沟洫。禹，吾无间然矣。”
大意：孔子说：“禹，我对他没有批评了。他自己吃得很坏，却把祭品办得极丰盛；穿得很坏，却把祭服做得极华美；住得很坏，却把力量完全用于沟渠水利。禹，我对他没有批评了。”
译文：Confucius said，I see no flaw（crevice）in the character of Yu.His food was coarse，but his sacrifices in the hall of ancestors，full and rich—his common apparel was mean，but his sacrificial robes，and cap were finely adorned—he lived in a mean palace，but exhausted his strength，in making ditches and water courses（for the good of the people）.I see no defect in Yu.
注释：禹是舜的继承人，曾在天洪之后受帝王任命，负责排水疏淤。禹对这份正义的工作充满热情，在治水的八年中，曾三过家门而不入。（Yu，the successor of Shun，is said to have been employed by that Emperor to drain the Empire after the deluge，so as to carry off the overplus of water.Such was his zeal in this highly meritorious work，that during the eight years in which he attended to it，although he passed his own door three times，he did not enter.）
进一步注释：有人认为，此处的大水就是摩西记录的那场洪水，根据中国年历，发生在公元前2200年，而诺亚和禹就是同一个人。熟悉中国历史和《旧约》的学生，会发现中国的天洪和《圣经》中记录的大水存在很多相似性，而诺亚和禹也很相像。但至于是否有足够的证据来证实这些人和事，尚无从定论。（Some are of the opinion—that the flood here referred to，which took place according to Chinese Chronology about 2200 years before Christ，is the same as that recorded by Moses，and that Noah and Yu are one and the same person.The student who is acquainted with Chinese and old Testament History，will find some points of resemblance between the Chinese flood，and that recorded in the sacred volume，and likewise between Noah and Yu；but whether there be sufficient grounds to identify those persons and events，we shall not take upon us to decide.）（泰伯篇8.21，Collie，p.36）
译者在这里提到中国古代大禹治水，三过家门而不入的故事，并对这场洪水与《圣经》中摩西记录的大洪水作了关联性猜想，甚至认为大禹和诺亚是同一个人。他认为，熟知中国历史和《旧约》的人应该能找出其中很多的相似点。这种刻意的联系是否有些牵强？