1 John
Our friends have yet less to remark on the profoundly interesting and momentous Epistle before us. The Revisers have indeed corrected serious errors in the Authorized Version, and in general done well. But was there nothing to notice till near the end of ch. 3? Why” declare” in 1: 2 and again in 3? The Revisers had already given like the Authorized Version “declared” to ἐξηγ in John 1:1818No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (John 1:18). They are quite right in discriminating ἀπαγγ—from ἀγγ. But why not adhere to its strict sense “report"? They correctly cleave to “message” for the uncompounded substantive in 5. “Report” for ἀπαγγ in 2, 3 is just as suitable as in its ordinary usage. The Revisers have shown undue deference to the Authorized Version in contenting themselves from the beginning of the New Testament with “tell” or “show,” “bring word” or “report” being better in the first occurrence (Matt. 2:88And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also. (Matthew 2:8)). There are cases where the context makes “report” harsh; but here, so far is this from being so, that no word appears so appropriate to my mind. It admirably suits the peculiar relation of the apostle to Christ on the one hand and to the saints addressed on the other. It imports the authority that sent the message, or at least the source whence it was brought. Again, is it not peculiar to give here only “the life, the eternal life?” Though the precisely same structure occurs in 2:25 they are content with “the life eternal.” One need not adduce other phrases to show how little it was called for. In 4 it is well known what conflict there is in the readings and the editions, and this in a twofold question. Should it be ἡμεῖς or ὑμῖν? and again ἡμῶν orὑμῶν? If apparent difficulty will have weight, as goes the familiar maxim of all textual critics, the first person must be allowed to be the less obvious; a corrector's hand would probably bring in the second. Even Stephens and Elzevir do not agree as to the last pair, the Compl. edition joining the former, as did Beza in his first edition, but not in those subsequent. So Tischendorf wavered in both clauses, his eighth edition adopting the first personal pronoun. Both MSS. and Vv. of the highest character have additions unmeaning or worse. In 5, as has been already stated, the true word is ἀγελία “message,” which all critics endorse, though excellent authority sustains the unquestionable error of ἐπαγγ. imported here from ch. 2:25 where it is certainly right. That this is so finds confirmation in ch. 3:11, where ἐπαγγ. occurs again in some first-rate authorities, though it really is nonsense. This is one, of the cases where Colinaeus alone presents the true reading. Did the Authorized translators know this? It is curious that they should give the true sense from the false text of all the other old editions. In 6 we see as elsewhere, “the” darkness. Perhaps the abstract use of the article was forgotten. It is a question of specific darkness in contrast with “the” light, which would give the article. In 7 “Christ” has not only many suffrages but some authorities of weight; yet there can be little doubt that the Revisers have rightly dropt it. In the same verse it is surely open to question at least whether “every” sin be not more exact than “all.” To this may be opposed “all” unrighteousness in 9; but there is meant “every” kind of act, though it be less easy to say so in English of these moral ideas where “all” is on the whole best. To the repentant believers God is faithful and just, not only in remitting their sins as a whole but in cleansing them from every shade of unrighteousness. It is the principle in all its absoluteness, as John loves to speak. See again the force of the present in 7, not mere historic actuality, but the abstract truth, which from the first abides true for the believer. Even in 10 the aorist is avoided, as being the tense of narrative; it is the question of our being no sinners, the denial of our being in that position, which gives God the lie. This is a bolder evil and more flatly opposes His word than saying we have no sin, bad as this self-deception is. The perfect presents the general truth of a continuous state resulting from past acts.
In 2:1 the Americans should have observed the need of discriminating τεκνία from παιδία in this Epistle. The former term beyond doubt includes the family of God as a whole, the latter designates only the youngest portion. Hence, if we adopt “little children” for the one, “babes” might well express the other; if for T. we are content with “children,” we might add “little” children for π. in 13,18 where alone it occurs here. It is confusing and misleads to express no difference as in the Authorized and Revised Vv. Again, none would gather that “righteous” at the end is anarthrous. Bp. Middleton need not excuse the writer; who means to draw attention especially to that quality “as righteous.” The general sense, however, of 1,2, is accurately given in the Revised Version where the Authorized translation had greatly failed. So it is in 8, where the Authorized Version exaggerates while it is also feeble. The darkness is not “past,” but passing away. Why the Revisers say “hath” blinded in 11 does not appear. The fact was enough for the Spirit of God. In 12 there is no doubt that the weight of external evidence is greatly in favor of ἔγρσψα, but there is sufficient testimony in support of γράφω. This, in my judgment, is demanded by internal considerations, easily mistaken by superficial scribes who in all probability changed the form of the verb to suit their perversion through ignorance. The complications of commentators are as helpless as those of the critics. Hence Dr. Wordsworth joins with those whom he often opposes. The truth intended is perfectly clear, though ancients and moderns agree in missing it. There is first the γραφω, “I write,” to the little children or entire family; the apostle writes to all because their sins are forgiven them for His name's sake. Then follows to each section, fathers, young men, and babes, thrice γράφω, “I write.” But next is thrice repeated the form ἔγραψα, “I wrote,” which goes over the ground again, with increasing enlargement to the “young men” (14-17) and to the “babes” (18-27), after which the comprehensive τ. “little children” is resumed in the Epistle, as it had preceded. I presume that the scribes did not observe this, and imagined the threefold connection lay in the end of 13 with 14, and so assimilated the form of the verb. They ought to have seen the threefold exhortation of 13, taken up again and expanded in 14-27. The version in 19 is literally correct (not margin); but is it a good idiomatic rendering? It is not the universality that is denied, but its predicate: “none are of us;” or “all are not of us.” The Authorized version or the margin' is not sense. Compare the end of ver. 21 and the points may be left.
On the whole the Revised Version of ch.3 is good; so that criticism is justly disarmed. Important errors in the Authorized Version are corrected in 1, 2, 3, and 4. It is in 19, 20 that the Americans would read and punctuate “him: because if our heart condemn us, God” &c. (with the present text in the margin). It appears to me that neither is right, and that God being greater than our heart, and knowing all things, is brought in, not for consolation where our heart condemns us, but to deepen self-judgment. It is state, not standing, that is in question. The construction is peculiar from the double ὅτι, which is not without example in the New Testament without construing it as “because,” but referring to the opening words.
Ch. 4 does not furnish matter for the correction of the American Committee. Yet they might have noticed failure in reflecting the force of the text of 2, 3, which, it appears to me, would not prove a barrier insuperable to an evil spirit animating a false prophet. Nay, some of these insist with great force on the Lord's coming in flesh, as Irvingites, &c. Wherein then lies the ground? It is the confession of the person, not of the bare fact. It should be therefore: “every spirit which confesseth Jesus Christ come in flesh is of God; and every spirit which confesseth not Jesus is not of God.” It is the divine One come in flesh that is confessed or not. The evil spirit might urge that He came in flesh, to deny His deity or to insinuate the fallen character of His humanity, which last in effect denies His Godhead and makes the atonement impossible. Indeed this is the great root-lie of Satan against the truth among nominal Christians. Passing hence to 9, “in us” of the text is liable to misunderstanding, margin being for better; so in 16 also. In 17 is an important correction, we may say by the way.
So, as all know, in 5:7, 8, not to speak of 6, as in 13, the true text is correctly represented in the Revised Version. There remains in 18 the American preference of margin himself (for “him” in the text on the slender witness of Apm B 105. as opposed to all other authority). Dean Alford went so far indeed as to translate “it keepeth him” i.e. the divine birth pointed at in the aor. part. γεννηθείς, “he that was begotten.” Mere theory, it seems to me, would deny the reflexive pronoun here.