The First Epistle To The Corinthians.
It is only needful to call attention to “called to be,” in verses 1, 2, as the error of the Blemish version, followed by the Authorized Version and Cranmer. Wiclif seems better, but especially Tyndale and the Geneva version, as they gave “by vocation,” and “by calling,” which reflect the sense justly enough, though (strange to say) in Rom. 1 both were wrong in verse 1, right in verses 6, 7. Verse 24 helps to prove that the addition of “to be” is not only needless but wrong. Again in verse 18 the Company gives us “are being saved” from not bearing in mind that the present participle may be, and often is, employed to present a class stamped with the character of salvation, rather than the process or fact going on. Compare the remarks made on the revision of Acts 2:4747Praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. (Acts 2:47). They forget the absolute present, which this must be, not an actual present, as already shown. They are right in verse 21, “the preaching” or thing preached, as also “signs” for “a sign,” in verse 22, as has been generally allowed; so also in the imperative force “behold,” in verse 26. They are justified again in their rendering of verse 30.
But in the first verse of chapter ii. occurs an extraordinarily violent change, the “mystery” instead of “testimony” of God. This of course turns on the adoption of μυστήριον (as in àp.m. A C, some seven or eight cursives, the Pesch. Syr., and Memph., with some early citations, whereas all the editors of note, even the most extreme, properly adhere to μαρτύριον, with the great stream of authority early and later. Alford and Meyer treat it as a gloss from verse 7, Bachmann and Tregelles, bold as they were, reject it from their text. None but Drs. Westcott and Hort admit it. Was it not strange that a company of grave men, under the call to provide a version aspiring to general acceptance, should yield to so precarious and generally rejected a reading? The context is, in my judgment, certainly and irreconcilably opposed to the innovation. For the apostle distinguishes between his first announcing at Corinth the glad tidings, apart from every human effort to make the truth palatable, not knowing anything among them save Jesus Christ and Him crucified, and the speaking wisdom among the perfect or full-grown, God's wisdom in a mystery. This evident and most momentous contradistinction is ruined by endorsing the blunder of scribes, who confounded two words similar in appearance, and easily interchanged by any whose spiritual senses were not exercised to discern the difference. Hence Bengel gave this variant his lowest mark in the Appar. Crit., while in his Gnomon he expounds, with his usual fine tact, the difference between verses 1 and 7 in a way which shows how rightly μυστήριον, must vanish from any place in the first. Griesbach gave a better mark to the reading than it deserves. Pott pertinently remarks that not καταγγέλλων but γνωρίζων or λαλπων would suit μυστ., whereas it exactly fits in with μαρτ. Omitting lesser points, the last clause of verse 13 appears to be inadequately rendered if we take the context into account. The marginal “combining” is the simple unmodified force of συγκρίνειν, to which is opposed thinly. directly afterward. Now if the aim of the verse had been duly weighed, it would have been seen that it is a question, not here (as in verse 14) of receiving and knowing, but of communicating. Hence the conveyance of spiritual things by spiritual [words] is the meaning, rather than expounding or interpreting special things to spiritual men, though otherwise the words might quite bear this. Thus the source that revealed, the means of communication, and the power of reception, are shown to be in the Spirit of God. “Combining” is too vague; “comparing” or “interpreting” would do well for the receiver; but neither expresses properly the conveyance of the truth or spiritual things by the inspired agents in a medium of spiritual words.
In chapter 3:3 they have rightly dropt “and divisions,” and in verse 9 rendered the phrase “God's fellow-workers,” instead of “laborers together with God,” which is very objectionable, as irreverent and feeding human vanity. It is the more peculiar therefore that in 2 Cor. 6:11We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain. (2 Corinthians 6:1) our Revisers should there introduce the obnoxious idea in italics. So do the Five Clergymen, and Dean Alford in his version. They were fellow-laborers doing God's work; but to say “fellow-workers with God” is false and presumptuous, and so of course is “with him.” In verse 16 they make the apostle say, “a temple of God,” as does Mr. T. S. Green. No doubt the phrase is capable of being so rendered in itself; but the truth forbids. It should be God's temple. The same oversight of the anarthrous construction often occurs. The Company were not masters of the use or absence of the Greek article. Whether the English should have the indefinite article or not depends on the nature of the case, and often on the truth as defined elsewhere. A similar error occurs in Eph. 2:2222In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:22); it is common in other subjects also.
In chapter 4:1 They have, like others, rightly added “Here” (ὦδε), though Mr. Green adheres to the received reading (ὃ δὲ), and translates “And for the rest of the matter.” And in verse 6 they follow the critical omission of ψρονεῖν, which would then give “that in us ye may learn the [lesson], Nothing above what is written.” There seems no need to depart from the historic force of the aorist in verse 18 (compare also their rendering of the aorist in vers. 8, 17).
The received reading “is named” in chapter 5:1 gives place to the true and nervous sense resulting from its simple omission according to the best authorities. In verse 9 they retain the Authorized Version, instead of the epistolary aorist, which, however, they express in verse 11. This insinuates the idea of some that the apostle had written a previous letter which we have not. Grammatically there is no doubt that both may refer to the epistle he was then writing, as every scholar must know; and νυνἰ may have a logical force, or a temporal, as required. Of course τῆ ἐπιοτ cannot mean “an epistle,” as in the older versions, but “the,” or “mine.” The revision properly omits “therefore,” in verses 7, 13. It is a direct call in both, not a consequence.
The most important change in chapter 6, well known and fully sustained by authority, is the omission of the latter half of the last verse. Unspiritual men thought “the body” too low, and must needs foist in, “and in your spirit, which are God's,” which distracts from the aim in view. The body of the Christian, which is even now God's temple by the Spirit's dwelling, soon to be conformed to the body of Christ's glory, is claimed meanwhile for his glorifying God therein, whatever be the difficulties or doubts or unbelief of philosophy.
In chapter 7 there are unwarranted additions of the common text struck out with good reason from verses 3, 5, and 39. The chief mistranslations in the chapter, are, however, not rectified in the text, and in one weighty case at least not even in the margin. Thus “abusing,” in verse 31 would answer to χρώμενοι, not to καταχρώμενοι (as the margin corrects, and the text in chapter 11:18), and the great difficulty created by not extending “virgins” to virginity in both sexes (cf. Rev. 14:44These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. (Revelation 14:4)) is left without help, especially in verses 36-38, where the estate seems meant. Doddridge was more perplexed by this passage than by any other in the epistle; and no wonder, if he followed the Authorized Version, which the Revisers also follow. Verse 47, as he admits, “puts the issue of the matter on the man's own mind, the power he had over his own will, and his having no necessity; whereas if a daughter or a ward were in question, her inclination, temper, and conveniency were certainly to be consulted; and it would be the same if the virgin spoken of were one to whom the man was himself engaged.” That παρθένος should be extended from the person to the condition (παρθενία) is easy to see, though it may want proof. Perhaps we should hardly look for it in the classic language of the corrupt Greek mind. The difficulty of ἐκγαμιζων, or rather of γαμ., the critical form, is null; were it γαμῶν, as Mr. Slade thought, in the case of his own virginity, it would be insuperable, for how could a man be said to marry it? If he took a wife, he might be said to give it in marriage by an easy figure, from just before speaking of keeping his own virgin estate—an emphasis very hard to apply to one's ward or daughter as assumed. The addition of “daughter” three times, in my opinion, makes the revision worse than the Authorized Version.
In chapter 8:7 the Company, like Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles, have adopted συνηθεία, “through their habituation,” with-s A B P, four or five cursives, Memph. Basin. &c., against συνειδήσει, “through their conscience,” with the great mass of other authority. They have also reversed the ordinary order in the latter part of verse 8.
A similar inversion occurs in chapter 9:1.—Passing over minor matters, they have rightly inserted the omitted clause of verse 20. Yet why translate ἀδόκιμος here “rejected,” but in 2 Cor. 13 “reprobate” as in Rom. 1:2828And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; (Romans 1:28)? “Worthless” would be yet better than “rejected” in Heb. 6 where it is a question of “land” or “ground.”
From chapter 10 the Revisers have struck out some additions long abandoned on good authority, and substituted particles (or other words as in verse 9) more in accordance with the context, which had got changed by careless or meddling scribes. See verses 1, 10, 13, 23, 24, 28, 30.
“Traditions,” in chapter 11: 2, though lawful otherwise, seems objectionable as exposing the unwary reader to a serious assumption of Rome, which tends and is even boldly used to subvert the authority of scripture. In the margin of verse 19 they give “factions” or “sects,” which more truly represents αίρέσεις than “heresies” or heterodoxies, which does not seem meant. They were parties in separation from the assembly, which the apostle warns must result from the “schisms” or divisions already within. This is very important; for many mistake the truth here taught and imagine that “schism” is the fruit of “heresy;” whereas on the contrary splits without, or “heresies” as here shown (that is, factions or sects), come from splits within (that is, “schisms” or divisions). Differences within are dangerous and bad; but when self-will and impatience burst all the bands of unity and boldly take shape as a party without, how much worse? The kindred word, “an heretical man” in Titus 3:10,10A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; (Titus 3:10) is thus rendered plain, as not necessarily heterodox, but independent and self-willed, impatiently breaking through unity in his self-confidence and disregard of the assembly. It is strange that the Revisers, or any one else, should continue the misleading “heretic,” when it really means a sectary or party-leader. Hence it is no question of putting him out; for he was gone out; and Titus after a first and second admonition was simply to have done with him, “knowing that such a one is perverted and sinneth, being self-condemned.” The main mistranslations in the section relating to the Lord's Supper are corrected by the Revisers, though “guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord” in verse 27 may still leave the door open to mistake. But “Take, eat” and “broken” are rightly gone from verse 24 “covenant” appears in verse 25, “or” displaces “and” in verse 27, “the” supplants “that” twice in verse 28, above all “judgment” expels “damnation” which was always an inexcusable error refuted by verse 32, and “discern” is rightly used both for “the body” that is, the Lord's, and “ourselves” in verses 29, 31. These corrections, long known and sure, are none the less to be thankfully received in what is now so largely disseminated where the English language is used or known. Evil and superstitious doctrine, too common, will hence be detected; and by grace the truth will get in where it has long been obscured.
Chapter 12 affords much less scope for remark, as there was less disposition in the copyists or translators. In verse 2 The Revisers rightly read “when ye were Gentiles, ye were led away unto those dumb idols, howsoever” &c. Verse 3 is also rendered better. Needless additions of the received text vanish from verses 6, 12, 21.
I cannot but coincide with the Revisers in preferring “love” to charity in chapter 13 as elsewhere.
The changes in chapter 14 are almost as few as in chapter 12, but those made (5, 18, 25, 35, 37) seem well-founded, though it is strange that τὰ πν. in verse 1 and πν. in verse 12 should be alike translated “spiritual gifts.”
Nor is there much to remark as to chapter 15. In verse 2 “are saved” is right, though not consistent with the work elsewhere. One omission, of ἐγένετο, is notorious in verse 20. “ To God even the Father,” in the Revised as in the Authorized Version, is not a happy rendering; and still less is Mr. Green's “to God the Father;” because both tend to lower the Son, as if the Father only were God, or as if the Father might be all in all, whereas it is really God (i.e., Father, Son, and Holy Ghost). Hence “to him that is God and Father” appears less objectionable. “To God and the Father” say the Five Clergymen, which sounds as if the Father were not God; yet this none can mean. There is a double correction though slight, in verse 44, as also in verse 47; see also verse 55.
In chapter 16 it is surprising that the Revisers support the various old English versions (Wiclif excepted) in verse 3, against the more natural sense which the Greek commentators prefer. His recommending them by letters is the point. There is nothing else that strikes me as notable save in verse 22: “if any one loveth not the Lord, let him be anathema. Maranatha [that is, Our Lord cometh].”
The Second Epistle To The Corinthians.
In chapter 1:9 the margin seems better than the text, which seems to betray ignorance of the truth conveyed. In verse 12 The Revisers are pretty bold in absolutely discarding “simplicity” for the alternative “holiness” without even a marginal note. In verse 20 they give the sense, if not perfectly, far better than the Authorized Version.
It is not at all clear, to say the least, that the apostle refers, in chapter 2: 3, 4, to the same letter. But in verse 3 he may speak of the present or second, and in verse 4 of the first, which would affect the version. Here the two are identified. Verse 10 is rendered from a better text than the received. “Leadeth us in triumph” in verse 14 is correct; but “in” them that “are being saved” does not agree with “are saved” in 1 Cor. 15:22By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. (1 Corinthians 15:2) any more than with the truth. Is not “retailing,” or “trafficking with” the word, the point in verse 17? “Which” is an error, and rightly dropt in the revision.
In chapter 3: 3 is a bold adoption of the reading καρδίαις, with the version “tables that are hearts of flesh.” It is to be presumed that the two Bishops Wordsworth, Dr. Scrivener, and other sober scholars in the Committee did not tamely give in, without a severe struggle, to what one of them not long ago called a “perfectly absurd reading.” Yet that reading externally has the strongest authority. The Five Clergymen adopt the reading of the most ancient copies, but adhere to the Authorized Version, explaining it by “heart-tables of flesh.” But a grievous error follows in the very arrangement of the paragraph. The vital thread of connection is cut through by closing one section at the end of verse 11, and beginning a new one at verse 12. Now, whether we do or do not use parenthetical marks, there is one of the apostle's frequent parentheses in this chapter, embracing verses 7-16; so that, for the sense, verse 6 is followed (with a most instructive digression helping on the truth between) by verse 17,” for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.... Now the Lord is the spirit.” It is not that the Lord is the Spirit, as they print, which tends to confound the Lord Jesus, the spirit underneath the letter in question, with the Holy Ghost. I am convinced that spiritual intelligence of this most instructive scripture, as a whole, is impossible without seizing this; and it is, I submit, equally evident that the Committee cannot have perceived it: else they had not so divided what ought at least to have been left unbroken, if they did not supply the aid of the usual parenthetical signs to help the reader, as they do sometimes, but too sparingly. Again occurs the strange version “a” new covenant, through their not apprehending the characterizing force of the anarthrous construction, to the detriment of the meaning. “ Came with glory” is right, only stating that it was so brought in, and contrasted with the ministration of the Spirit (for it should be thus, not “spirit") being, or subsisting in glory. Compare verse 11 also.
In chapter 4 there are some peculiar changes, especially in verse 6, where they represent the apostle thus: “Seeing it is God that said, Light shall shine out of darkness, who shined,” &c. Here they follow Tischendorf's eighth edition against his seventh, or rather àp.m. A B Dp.m. and a few other witnesses against the great mass of manuscripts, versions, &c. They are right of course in giving “the gospel of the glory,” not “the glorious gospel:” a most unhappy rendering, which leads into all sorts of wrong thoughts, besides missing the truth. In verses 10, 11 it is “Jesus” all through, not “the Lord,” as the received text adds in verse 10.
In chapter 5:3 they rightly adhere to the Authorized Version, rejecting the perversion of Dean Alford and others, as also in verse 7. Of course they avoid the equivocal language of our version in verse 9. But there are grave questions in verse 14, where, with the critics, they follow the stream of the most ancient manuscripts, and drop the hypothetical particle represented in the Rescript of Paris and many other copies, with the best versions, and, I think, most early citations. But in my judgment. whatever the reading or translation, the Bishop of Durham is not warranted in saying that a death to sin is meant, but death through sin to interfere with a revelation so foreign to Christendom.
It is not true that all men have died with Christ to their former selves and to sin, so as to be therefore bound to lead a new life—His life. Nor is this said here; but Christ's dying for all is used as a proof of death in all. There is even a contrast, “they which live,” with all who died; and οἰ ζῶντεσ means not merely that they were alive, but that they lived spiritually, and of these as distinguished from all who died—of these only is it added that they should no longer live unto themselves, but unto Him who, for their sakes, died and rose again. The “all” who died are all men, who are naturally lost; “they who live” are the saved who are called to live to the dead and risen Christ, and no longer (as once) to themselves. It is true that these died with Christ to sin; but this is the doctrine of Rom. 6, and not of 2 Cor. 5. It is here death through, and not to, sin; and the making it “to sin” introduces the confusion and heterodoxy evident in Dr. Lightfoot's doctrine. All men have not participated potentially, as he says, in Christ's death; for this is true only of those who live through faith, in contrast with all who died through sin. I doubt not that all are bought; but only believers have in Him redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of their trespasses. The righteousness of God by faith in Jesus Christ is toward all, and upon all that believe. The gospel is not limited, as some would make it; but it is efficacious, though for faith only, unlike what others say. In verse 19 the Revisers avoid the error of the Five Clergymen, but the omission of the comma after Christ vitiates their rendering as compared with that of the Authorized Version. The last verse is more energetic without “for,” which some Greek scribes thought proper to insert rather early.
The Revisers are assuredly justified in connecting closely chapter 8 with the preceding chapter, the rest returning to what he had said in chapter 2, the end of which had led him out in a grand unfolding of the gospel, which some were even then quick to clog and adulterate by mixing the law with it; and the gospel led him out into an admirable setting forth of the service of Christ according to His death, resurrection, and glory in the power of the Spirit. From this rich digression he comes back to his question with the Corinthian saints. Verses 8-10 are in general far closer than in the Authorized Version, though one may question the taste of “which bringeth no regret,” in verse 10: not, or never to be regretted seems simpler. Verse 13 is more correct now.
In chapter 8:8 and 4, stand more correctly in the revision; as also verses 7, 12, 19, 21, 24.
In chapter 9 there is, if possible, less to note: verses 4, 10, 18, 14.
Of chapter 10 the reader can compare verses 7, 13, 16, which give the sense better than the Authorized Version.
Their judgment as to the true text of chapter 11: 3 seems very questionable; but I do not argue it here, nor specify more.
Chapter 12:1 should be weighed: see also verses 11, 12, 14, 18, 19.
Nor is there much to be noticed in chapter xiii. But it seems strange that the Revisers should fail here also to preserve the force of the scriptures from ruin through vicious punctuation. Verse 3 ought to begin a new sentence, interrupted by a digression which begins with the latter half of that verse and includes also verse 4; and the conclusion or apodosis of the sentence, which answers to the protasis of the first half of verse 3, follows in verse 5. So that if by external marks, we are to help readers who easily let slip the connection of thought, it would run thus:— “Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me (who to youward is not weak but is powerful in you; for indeed he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by God's power; for we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him through God's power toward you), try your own selves whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves,” &c. The arrangement, bad in the Authorized Version, is no better in the Revised; and perhaps this has contributed to the singular misconception which has prevailed as to the passage. How many misuse it to consecrate their inward workings of question and doubt as to God's grace toward them, as it this scripture set them so to work! It is really an irrefragable argumentuni ad honzinent and a withering rebuke to Corinthian vanity if they had any heart for Christ and His apostle. Since they sought a proof of his apostleship, why not examine themselves? They were their own selves the proof, unless they were reprobate—the last thing they thought. As surely, then, as they were in the faith, he was an apostle—to them without doubt who, through his speaking, had Christ in them. The whole force of this argumentative appeal turns on their assurance of being in the faith to the certainty of his apostleship; and this, generally misunderstood through stops which ruthlessly surrender all the links and ignore the parenthesis essential to be noted, is perverted by unbelief to prove that the apostle calls on the believer to search and see whether he be not an unbeliever after all The Revisers certainly cannot boast of rescuing the passage from the confusion which here reigns in the Authorized Version, and almost all others. They probably just followed mechanically in the wake of their predecessors; for had they previously understood the reasoning of the apostle or stopped to consider the meaning of the text they were translating, it is hard to see how they could have overlooked the facts, that verse 2 closes the previous subject, and that the new sentence passes from 8 to 5, with an intervening digression.