In 1:1 the omission of the italics supplied in the Authorized Version brings out better the force: “Christ Jesus our hope;” and “true” or “genuine” is better than “own” in 2. The misreading of the Text. Rec. in 4 is the source of the wrong thought in 4, where the real point is God's dispensation or administration, not “godly edifying,” which ought to be an effect of it. In 5 they have well given “charge,” as in 3 and 18, where “commandment” misleads, as many ignorantly think of the law, especially as this follows, not seeing the contrast. It seems surprising that the Revisers in 9 should consign “smiters” “twice to the margin, and give “murderers” in their text. The simple verb certainly means to thresh, or beat, rather than to kill; and the compound in well-known pieces of classic Greek is distinguished, as here, from man-slayers or murderers. (See Lysias, 116; Plat. Phaed. 114; Aristoph. Nub. repeatedly. They rightly present the “gospel of the glory,” instead of the unmeaning or wrong-meaning “glorious gospel.” The glory of God into which Christ has entered is the true and full standard of judgment by which the apostle, who had beyond any other beheld it, measures that which is unsuitable for God and His own. How little those who desire to be law-teachers enter into this! “King of the ages,” in the margin, seems preferable to “King eternal” in the text of 17. Law had been just contrasted with the gospel: God was the sovereign disposer of the ages for His own glory. But here He is the only God; not “only wise,” as in Rom. 16, where the mystery is not revealed, but His righteousness in the gospel of indiscriminate grace, and the law is vindicated yet set aside in Christ deal and risen, and all is conciliated with the fulfillment of His special promises to Israel; none but the “only wise God” could. Here He is the “only God;” He may act in creation or in judgment, in promise, law, or gospel, but He is the only God, whatever be the difference of dealing or dispensation.
In 2:3 why should the Revisers give “desiring” (θέλ.) in 1:7, and “willeth” (θ.) here, but “desire” (βούλοηαι) in 8? In 2 Peter 3:99The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9) they render β. “wishing.” Why this looseness and caprice? Buttmann's distinction 1:26), that θ. [ἐθέλω] is not only the more general expression for willing, which is true, but that kind especially where a purpose is included, as compared with β., which implies a mere acquiescence in the will of others, seems to be quite untenable even in Homer. It is β. which is used especially to express mind or purpose if required. Mr. Green is also faulty in giving just the same force to the two different words in 1 Tim. 2:33For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; (1 Timothy 2:3) and 2 Peter 3:99The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9); so indeed are the old well-known English versions. Is not the rendering of 5 clumsy, though close? In 8, 11, the twofold mistake of the Authorized Version is rectified. Read “the men” and “a woman.” In 9 it is rather “deportment” than “dress,” which follows in 10. In 12 a woman is forbidden to exercise (not merely to usurp) authority. Such full power over man is not hers. In 14 the emphasis is not expressed in English, “quite deceived.” It is a mistake to refer 15 to salvation through the birth of Christ. Bishop Ellicott has said what he can in detail as well as contextually for that application, as Dean Alford for “the higher meaning” of σωθήσεται as in the Revision, but I think in vain. To compare it with 1 Cor. 3:1515If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. (1 Corinthians 3:15) shows a strange cast of mind.
In 3:8 the Revisers rightly omit “not greedy of filthy lucre,” which was introduced from Titus 1 The caution here follows in “no lover of money.” But is there no intended reference to disorder through excess of wine in πάροινον, which they give simply as “brawler,” especially as “striker” follows? Is “condemnation” of the devil correct in 6? κρίηα was either a suit, the matter for it, or the sentence. Mr. Green takes it as “strong impeachment from the devil;” but it seems rather his charge or fault. In 16 there is little doubt that the true reading is ὅς, He who, rather than θεός, though this be implied. B is wanting, but à A C F G, with some cursives and very ancient versions, support ὅς, as D and the Latins read ὅ, K L P and most cursives giving θεός.
The Revisers render aright the beginning of 4:2 so strangely misunderstood in the Authorized Version and elsewhere. Demons might speak lies, of course; but how can we fairly speak of their “hypocrisy,” or “of their own conscience?” It is instructive to see that beside the demons there are the misleaders and the misled. Translate, therefore, “in (or through) hypocrisy of men that speak lies, cauterized in their own conscience,” &c.— “Savior” goes too far in 10, which should rather be “preserver;” but “both” is rightly dropped in an earlier clause of the verse, as “in spirit” is in 12.
In v. 4 they have with good reason omitted “good and.” To say “acceptable” is just the truth. The old error, “having condemnation,” instead of at most “guilt,” recurs in 12. Why should they not have said “an” ox when treading out corn? The Authorized Version is doubly in fault, “the ox that,” &c. In 23 they rightly give “Be no longer a drinker of water.” The Authorized Version, “Drink no longer water,” goes too far. But in 25 ought they not to have rendered it “the good works also [are] manifest” (or, evident beforehand, &c.)?
Chap. 6 has not a few misreadings in the Text. Rec. and the Authorized Version. “The” teaching or doctrine is right in 1; and the close of 2 should be, “they that partake in (or profit by) the good service are believing and beloved.” The Authorized Version of 5 is opposed to all intelligence of the usage of the article. It should be that godliness is gain, or a way of gain, as, in the Revised Version, where “from such withdraw thyself” is rightly omitted. In 7 the Revisers are probably right in excluding “it is manifest” (δῆλον) or the equivalent, in the various MSS. So also in 10 the Revisers properly say “a root of all kinds of evil,” or of all evils. “The root,” as in the Authorized Version, is good neither in doctrine nor in fact nor in grammar. In 12 “also” only encumbers the sense. It is surprising that the Revisers should in their text confound the sense of ζωογονοῦντος (A D F G, P, &c.) with that of the Text. Rec. ζωοποι. (à K L, the cursives in general, &c.) “Preserving alive” is admirably in keeping with the Epistle: of. Ex. 1:17, 18, 2217But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive. 18And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive? (Exodus 1:17‑18)
22And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive. (Exodus 1:22), Judg. 8:1919And he said, They were my brethren, even the sons of my mother: as the Lord liveth, if ye had saved them alive, I would not slay you. (Judges 8:19), Luke 17:3333Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it. (Luke 17:33), Acts 7:1919The same dealt subtilly with our kindred, and evil entreated our fathers, so that they cast out their young children, to the end they might not live. (Acts 7:19). To suppose a reference, as Alford, to “eternal life” above is outrageous, any more than to resurrection with Chrysostom or others. In 17 they are justified in omitting “living.” In 19 it is “that which is really life,” rather than “eternal life” after the Text. Rec.
2 Timothy
There are no remarkable changes which occur to my mind in the early verses of chap. 1 “Beloved child” in 2 displaces “dearly beloved son,” and “supplications” stands in lieu of “prayers” in 3.— “Stir up” still appears in 6, instead of “stir into flame” (or “rekindle") in the margin. It is hard to see why “discipline” should supplant “a sound mind,” in 7. In 8 the truer force appears, “suffer hardship with the gospel,” &c. What is the meaning of “before time eternal,” in 9? In 10 “incorruption” is right, the body being in question, not the soul, life for the soul and incorruption for the body brought to light by the gospel.—The omission of ἐθνῶ Gentiles or nations in 12 rests on the meager testimony of à A 17, contrary to all other authority; but no doubt the Cambridge professors favored the omission, though Lachmann read the word in his later edition, while Tischendorf in his eighth edition joined Tregelles, swayed overmuch as usual by the Sinaitic, as well as by the idea that it may have been borrowed from 1 Tim. 2:77Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. (1 Timothy 2:7). But the context would incline me to its acceptance. In the former Epistle it falls in with the testimony of grace: the glad tidings of a ransom for all could not but go forth to the nations. So here, the power of Christ in death and resurrection gives occasion to the manifestation of eternal counsel, wholly above the coarse of dispensation to Israel; and accordingly the gospel meets men universally in the grace and power of God, and hence in a life superior to death, and a love which no sufferings could daunt or quench. Why should the Revisers repeat the inaccuracy of the Authorized Version in 13? Timothy had heard the truth from the apostle in words taught of the Holy Spirit, and is exhorted to have an outline or pattern of sound words which he had thus heard, an inspired expression of what God has revealed, and this in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. For this power is needed, and Timothy is told to guard the good deposit by the Holy Spirit that dwells in us (i.e., Christians)—both the more urgently wanted because it is a time of departure, as Paul experienced before his decease. Hold “the pattern” misleads, as if Timothy had some well-known formula distinct from apostolic teaching.
In 2:8 the Revisers rightly adopt the ancient reading συλκακοπάθσιν, but their margin gives a sense preferable to their text. The apostle is not here speaking of his own sufferings. The Text. Rec. σὺ οὖν (as in the Authorized Version, “Thou therefore,” &c.) crept in early, as it is found in a few uncials, most cursives, and some ancient versions; but it is a mere clerical blunder.—7 it is correctly “shall give thee.” In 13 “for” is rightly added. In the first clause of 19 they give, quite properly, “the firm foundation standeth,” and “the Lord,” instead of” Christ” in the last clause. But the last verse affords an extraordinary sample of boldness in the Committee, which can hardly have been satisfactory to the Bishop of Gloucester and others. It is the sense preferred by Wetstein and G. Wakefield, and, singular to say, Bengel. It seems to me distinctly ungrammatical on the face of it, that a past act in contrast with present state should be represented by ἐζωγρημένοι, which really implies the present result of what has been done. To bear the sense given, the former ought to have been ξωγρηθέντες, as another has justly remarked. Doubtless the pronouns are distinguished, but it seems harsh indeed to refer αὐτοῦ; to the Lord's servant with so much intervening. Beza's proposal seems best— “that out of the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him, they may awake for [or, unto] His will,” that is, to do God's will. In the margin they do give substantially this alternative; but does it not seem extraordinary that the Committee was found pliant enough to endorse the actual text?
In 3 there is little to notice for general readers till we come to 10, where the Revisers appear to me rightly to read the aorist with à A C E G 17 rather than the perfect of the Text. Rec. with the mass of inferior authority (which probably slipt in through 1 Tim. 4:66If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. (1 Timothy 4:6)): “But thou didst follow up my teaching,” &c. In 14 they decide for the plural, as the margin explains, and so the most ancient MSS., though the ancient versions lean with slight dissent to the singular “whom,” as in the Text. Rec. The version of 16 is questionable. As it stands it might imply that some scriptures are not divinely inspired, which is certainly opposed to the scope. “Every scripture, being divinely inspired, [is] also profitable,” &c., differs from the more usual rendering in the margin only in assuming, instead of asserting, divine inspiration. In any ease it is “every” scripture, which would apply in due time to what was yet to be written as well as to what had been already. It is purposely thrown into axiomatic form. If assumed to be God-inspired, it seems needless to say that it is useful or profitable. I therefore prefer in this the construing of the Authorized Version.
In 4:1 the Revisers reject οὖν ἐγώ, and τοῦ Κυρίου of the Text. Rec. as well as κατά, followed by the Authorized Version, though sustained by the later uncials, almost all the cursives, and all the old versions, even the Latin and Coptic. The testimony of Chrysostom is perplexing, for he seems to support καί (א A D F G., &c.) as well as κατά. But assuming the critical reading, ought we not to render “I charge both by His appearing and His Kingdom?” And why say “the” living and “the” dead? In the end of 4, have they reflected justly or fully ἐκτραπήσονται? Of course they correct “a” into “the” crown, &c. in 8, and that “love” into “have loved.” In 15 they adopt the reading “withstood” for “hath withstood.” In 18 they drop the initiatory copulative, and read only “the Lord” in 22.
Epistle to Titus.
In 1:4 the Revisers on first-rate authority read “grace and peace” instead of “grace, mercy, peace,” as in Text. Rec. and Authorized Version. “Lord” is also omitted. The first copulative is left out on high authority in 10.
In 2:5 “workers at home,” not merely “keepers” there, as the Authorized Version following Text. Rec.: a letter easily omitted makes the difference. In 7 the true text is “uncorruptness, gravity,” ἁφθορίαν, σεμνότητα, not ἁδίαφθορίαν, σ., ἁφθαρσίαν, which last even the Elzevirs and Griesbach, with all modern critics, reject, though Stephanus received it in his edd. of 1546, 1549, and 1550, misled by the Complutensian editors, not Erasmus. In 13 the Revisers translate rightly “the appearing of our great God,” &c.
3:1 is right, “to be obedient,” not “to obey magistrates,” which is already implied. In 5 they rightly follow the Authorized Version, and give “washing.” “Laver” ought not to be even in the margin. (See Eph. 5:2626That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, (Ephesians 5:26).)
Epistle to Philemon
In 2 ἀγαπητῇ, “beloved,” of the Text. Rec., followed by the Authorized Version, is properly excluded, and ἀδελφῇ, “sister,” takes its place on ancient and ample authority. The internal superiority of the critical reading is obvious. But the rendering of 6 seems very dubious in every English version save Tyndale's, the worst perhaps being the Rhemish and the Authorized Version, followed by the Revisers for the sense, though with the change of “fellowship” for “communication.” I believe it ought to be “thy fellowship (or participation) in the faith.” They appear to me no less unhappy in the perpetuating of the Text. Rec. ὐμῖν “you,” in the same verse, though supported by א F G P, many cursives, &c.; but ἡμῖν, “us,” has the excellent authority of A C D E K L, about fifty cursives, and other authorities. This would involve the alternative rendering of “acknowledgment” rather than “knowledge.” “Jesus” should probably be omitted. In 7 the true reading seems to be, as they prefer, χαρὰν γὰρ π. ἔσχον, “for I had great joy.” Even the Elz. (1624) has χαρἄν, instead of the Stephanic χάριν, though both gave ἔχομεν, “we have.” The peculiar emphasis of αὐτόν instead of the vulgar σὺ δέ is well given. προσλαβοῦ in the Text. Rec. was borrowed from verse 17, though many good authorities supply it here. “Lord” should disappear from the end of 20.