1. A similar remark applies here as to 2 John There is in 2 the better rendering of “in (lit. concerning) all things,” not “above all things” as in Homeric usage. Thus simply is a strange difficulty, as others before had shown it ought to be, banished from our version. In 8 it is rightly “brethren.” Compare 2 John 7. The literal rendering “thy truth” would hardly convey the meaning, and “the truth that is in thee” as in the Authorized Version is not quite the thought, but “thy [abiding in the] truth, even as thou walkest in truth.” In 4 an omission is supplied, “these things,” or “this.” Only here Text. Rec. omits τῇ, which is read by A B C &c., and this the Revisers rightly follow, “in the truth.” The marginal alternative of “grace” for “joy” would scarcely have received notice if the combined Vatican and Vulgate had not stood so high with the Cambridge school. The correction in 5 is important, for the ordinary text is almost senseless, “to the brethren and to strangers.” It is really “toward the brethren, and that, strangers,” τοῦτο instead of the second εἰς τοὐς. Gaius, or Caius, was, thus open-hearted toward the preaching or teaching brethren, and this if strangers; and John would have him go on in that faithful work of love. He would have Gains, not merely to receive them, but to set them forward (6) on their journey worthily of God, who loves such men and such ways. In 7 “the Name” is the true reading on almost all authority worth speaking of, without “his” (αὐτοῦ), which is due to the Complutensian editors (not to Erasmus), followed by Beza and Elz. The best authorities give, not ἐθνῶν, but ἐθνικῶν, “of those of the nations” or Gentiles. In 8 it is not ἀπολ., as in Text. Rec., but ὑπολ., to bear up or welcome. It may be well to mention here that àp.m. and A join in the absurd misreading ἐκκλησίᾳ, instead of ἀληθείᾳ. This error may have been through the words that follow. How vain to idolize these venerable documents! Had B instead of A been one, we might have heard more on behalf of the variant. From 9 the Text. Rec. drops τι, “somewhat,” which the Revisers of course accept on excellent authority. They have done well to mark ἐπιδέχεται as distinct from ὑπολ. in 8. It is used for recognition or admission of authority, and sometimes for entertaining people. Never was a mistake greater than to conceive the Greek Testament lacking in precision. So in 10, “bring to remembrance” is more correct than “remember,” as “wicked” is preferable to “malicious.” The casting out those who would receive the traveling brethren appears to have been an arbitrary rejection or declaring out, not a Scriptural expulsion or putting out on the part of the assembly. Gaius was not to “imitate” the evil but the good (11). The copula of Text. Rec. should disappear. In 12 it is rightly the sing. “thou knowest,” not “ye know” as in the Authorized Version following Text. Rec. It seems strange that in 14, as in 2 John 12, the margin does not represent, as in the Authorized Version, the literal rendering “mouth to mouth.” In 14 we find “the” friends rightly in the Revised Testament on both occasions. In the second epistle we have the children of the elect sister saluting; here as writing to Gains the apostle brings in the friends saluting and saluted. How refined and sincere is the love that is of God!
J E.
1. The Authorized Version has “the,” the Revised Version “a,” servant. Judas, bondman, &c., is best, as often pointed out. “To them that are called” would answer to τοῖς κεκλημένοις rather than to τ. κλητοῖς, the called. But “for” Jesus Christ, though grammatical, is open to question; “in” as parallel would seem better, or perhaps “by.” “Sanctified” in the Authorized Version is the right version of a wrong reading displaced on good authority by “beloved.” 3. It seems strange that Lachmann should by punctuation so divide the sentence as to impair or destroy what is otherwise simple and weighty. He puts a comma after the twofold ὑμῖν, the effect of which is to falsify the epistle; for it does not treat of the common salvation, but is an earnest contention for the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Mere scholarship without a spiritual mind is untrustworthy in divine things. In Text. Rec. followed by the Authorized Version ἡμῶν is wrongly omitted: the Revised Version inserts it correctly on high authority, and renders the text better in more than one word. In 4 κρῖμα is rather the “charge” for which they were to be judged than “condemnation.” Hence it came to mean the sentence or doom, as with us crime. In 5 the marginal rendering appears to be better than that of the text; but θεόν of the Text. Rec. is rightly rejected on ample authority. The Revisers correct the double error of the Authorized Version in 5, “once knew.” It should be “know once for all.” “This” is an error, not of rendering like those just named, but of the Text. Rec. followed by Authorized Version. It should be πάντα, “all things,” not τοῦτο, “this,” as in the later copies. It is a mercy that the love of paradox with deference to A B &c. did not as in Lachmann and Alford introduce Ἰησοῦς here, where Κὐριος without the article, Jehovah, is the true reading. But why τὸ δ., “afterward"? Why not “in the second place?” In 6 “angels” rightly in the Revised Version, not “the” as if all were concerned. It is a defined set among the angels. But is “hath kept... unto” good English? “He hath in keeping” might do better perhaps; and so I see, nearly, Mr. T. S. Green. In 8 the Revisers rightly give us” —yet,” and drop “filthy,” which is implied in the context, as they represent well the anarthrous force of οὗτοι ἐνυπν., which can hardly bear “these dreamers,” but means rather “these in their dreams,” or “dreaming as they do.” In 12 I think there cannot be a doubt of the article as the genuine reading, which gives vividness and objectivity to the σπιλάδες, whether sunken rocks or blots be meant. But it is not correct to impute to Beza simply the Authorized Version which construes do. with ἑαυ. π., inasmuch as the Syriac and ancient versions in general so take it, except perhaps the Vulgate followed by the Rhemish alone of English versions, which takes it with εὐωχού—In 13 it should be the plural form “shames” or “disgraces,” which is more usual in English, to guard from the equivoque; for they can clearly have no sense of shame. It means shameful things.
Do not the Revisers furnish an unnatural and misleading version of τούτοις in 14? What is the sense of “to these?” One can imagine a far-fetched way of supposing that Enoch prophesied to the corrupting apostates who shall meet their doom when the Lord is come in judgment. But a dative of reference is far simpler, “for,” “as to,” “of” as in all the English versions like others. They of course give “came” as in prophetic vision, not “cometh,” which is to confound the tense system; and they translate ἐν here rightly with (i.e. amidst) His holy myriads. And here be it noted that Professor Volkmar's assumption that Jude quoted from the so-called Book of Enoch is not only unfounded but gross ignorance; for while the words in our epistle fall into harmony with all revelation, those of the Aethiopic document are as different from Jude's as they are opposed to the truth. The apocryphist makes the Lord come in judgment of His holy myriads 1 instead of His enemies, contrary to all scripture, but the not unnatural thought of any unbeliever, Jew or Gentile. It is untrue that Jude quoted from this pretended Book of Enoch. The κατὰ πάντων of our epistle (15) resists any such idea. Not improbably it was a Jewish forgery; and men who could resort to such iniquity have no true perception of the truth, as here we see that, if the forger meant to incorporate the words of Jude into his fable, he failed even to accomplish this seemingly mechanical task, and taught heterodoxy in the change he introduced, however slight in appearance. Compare either the English version of Laurence (chap. 2 p. 2, Oxford, 1821) or the Aethiopic (chap. 2 p. 2, Oxon. 1838). M. de Sacy renders the passage correctly enough, “Et venit cum myriadibus sanctorum, ut faciat judicium super eos,” &c. His note adds: “All reste, on pourrait supposer que l'auteur du livre d'Enoch aurait emprante ce passage de Saint Jude.” Very likely the author imitated Jade, and incorrectly borrowed, as we have seen. Certainly Jude did not quote from this apocryphal book, as Professor Westcott like others seems to suppose.
In this same 15 Tischendorf retains αὐτῶν after ἀσεβεῖς as in the Text. Rec., contrary to his critical note (Ed. viii.), which rejects it on the highest authority, but he reads λόγων against weighty witnesses. In 18 there is a question of text and of translation. Text. Rec., in accordance with the majority, reads ἐν ἐ. χ., in the last time; but the ancient copies give ἐπ'ἐσχάτου [τοῦ] χ., à &c. attesting the article, B C &c. omitting it, which the Revisers follow. Compared with other varieties of the phrase, it would seem to mean “at the end of the time.” In 19 the true reading is ἁποδ. without ἑαυτούς, as Eras. Compl. and Stephens edited, but Colinaeus even before Beza and Elz. added it. The Rescript of Paris supports it and a few cursives, which may have been Beza's three old copies. But this sort of separatist is not to be confounded with the αἱρετικός in Titus 3, 1 Cor. 11, Gal. 5, for the mischief was according to the context from their being within, not from their going out. They were certainly far from the mind and grace of Christ; but if they separated the saints from themselves or themselves from the saints, it was not, it would appear, by an outward breach: they carried on their deadly and corrupting work inside: They were “sensual,” as the Authorized and Revised Versions say, or rather “natural” men. Dean Alford reasons from the words, not from the written word, when he treats ψυσικοί as midway, between πν. and σαρκικοί. For 1 Cor. 3 plainly prove that σ. is the true midway term, and means one unduly deferring to intellect or fleshly feeling, but a saint (like the Corinthian believers); whereas ψ. means man in his natural and absolutely unrenewed estate, as indeed here described πν. μὴ ἔχ. In 22, 23,. the authorities are most conflicting. Some like the Text. Rec. make but two classes, others three. One could not gather from the Greek or the English of the Revisers that some of the most venerable and best documents, supported by the oldest versions and other witnesses. point to ἐλέγχετε. (A C, many cursives and versions), not ἐλεεῖτε (or 1XEar/., in 22; or yet more to Zancplyoifivoec (14 A B C &o., which they rightly follow. The Vulgate repreBents the ancient text fairly, save that it deserts its own rendering of S, in verse 9, which substantially suits 22 far better than “judicatos.” Dr. Wells and Bengel first vindicated the true text, in which the critics wonderfully agree. Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Wordsworth, Griesbach and Scholz are poor enough,Weetcott and Hort worst of all; for what can be more absurd than for scholars to present, as an inspired text, such a jumble of readings as orie tdv 1XEEcire &atcpevopivovc 04,4'Ere itc 7f.
K.r.X.? For to construe this at all we must take the first words as a strict relative, and the first verb as an indicative, to the utter dislocation of the rest of the sentence, and the destruction of any just sense from it as a whole. The twofold Asars of N B cannot stand, nor the omission of oSc Si in 13 before creoCere. The Revisers did adopt unhappily the first iXEare, but the rest of their text is all right. It seems surprising that they should not have named in their margin the good and ancient evidence for iXiyxErE. In 24 both Authorized and Revised Versions agree in adopting “you” as in N B C L, many cursives, and all the versions of note, though Eras., the Compl., Colinaeus, Stephens, Bengel, &o. preferred abrcnic,” them,” with K P and some forty cursives. In 25 there is no reasonable doubt that goo? in the Text. Rec., followed by the Authorized Version, is well left out by the superior authority of the older MSS. and versions. It probably crept in from Rom. 16:27, where it is as perfectly in place as here superfluous. But there are two omissions also of the Text. Rec., which are properly supplied by the Revisers, as, I. X. r.K. bpti-Jv and 7rpO z. r. °wamn, which rest on ample and sure authority, giving of course additional force and beauty to this solemn yet comforting epistle, with its closing doxology.