1 Peter
As regards this fervent Epistle of Peter so full of that which is calculated to “strengthen his brethren,” the western Committee appear to be well pleased with the work of the British Revisers. At any rate they themselves have nothing but two at best questionable remarks to offer, which we shall examine in their places, one on 2:2, the other on 5:2.
1:1, 2, in the Revised Version, may be given in a form that suits English readers; but the strict force is, “Peter, apostle of Jesus Christ, to pilgrims (or sojourners) of dispersion, of (or in) Pontus &c. elect according to foreknowledge of God [the] Father, by sanctification of [the] Spirit, unto obedience and blood-sprinkling of Jesus Christ.” The absence of the article is intended, though no doubt our tongue does not admit of the omission so uniformly as the Greek. These are the Israel of God, not Gentiles (to correct a frequently perverted scripture), however truly the latter may partake in the same blessing; but Gentiles are not addressed in the greeting, only the Christian remnant of Jews in the designated quarter of Asia Minor. Further ἐν assuredly does not mean “through;” but “by” may sometimes represent it better than “in,” which of course. is the common equivalent in English. To assume that it should always be “in” is ignorance of or inattention to the usage: see 5 for the difference of “by” and “through.” Some, again, would limit “of Jesus Christ” at the close to the blood sprinkling; but this is unfounded and obscures the great truth that the Christian is set apart to Christ's obedience as truly as to the application of His blood. The anarthrous form quite falls in with this: had the article been there, it would have pointed to Him personally; as it is, we have Him giving character to obedience and blood sprinkling, in contrast with law-obedience and blood of victims which confirmed the old covenant as a penal sanction. The idea is neither obedience of faith (or believing with the heart the gospel), nor obeying what our Lord enjoined; but as He obeyed in the dependence and loving confidence of sonship, so we now practically as under grace and possession of eternal life in Him. The strange mistranslation through misunderstanding of the latter words is even more striking among some of the Reformed than in older translations or comments; but it need not occupy us now, as it has been already dealt with in this review.—6 “in” here also is very doubtful in the “manifold temptations” or “trials,” though quite right at the beginning of the verse. 6, in such cases expresses way and character, which “by” suits English; not the instrument identified with the agent like the simple dative, still less the means distinct from that agent like διἀ. I do not see how talking about “the element and material” helps intelligence.—In 7, as in 13, the Revisers rightly translate, like the Authorized Version ἐν “at” the revelation. What is the use of following the foreign fashion, and saying “in” the element, in time, in which it shall be manifested? It is to lose English in a childish literality of Greek. But is 8 in the Revised Version as accurate as in the Authorized Version? The Americans have not observed, more than the British Revisers, that theirs would answer to μή, not to οὐκ. It should be “having not seen.” In the same verse the Revisers rightly correct “in” to “on,” for the connection of εἰς ὅν is not with ἀγ. but with one or both participles; but, if with both, the Revised Version fails by supplying an object to the first and so connecting the words with π. only. Translate therefore, “on whom though now not looking but believing ye exult” &c. Were the connection with the verb as in the Authorized Version, ἐν ὧ would be the construction required. The ancient versions appear to be for the most part singularly loose and unsatisfactory, as the Pesh. Syriac and Vulgate, which omit and add wildly. The Philoxenian Syriac is correct. The older English are inexact, Wiclif and Rhemish being the worst. In 9 Mr. T. S. Green rightly adheres to “salvation of souls,” or in a general, form soul-salvation. In 11 it is hard to convey some little intimation of the phrase, which marginal (Gr. unto) scarcely meets, “the sufferings [that came] unto Christ,” or “of Christ” as in the Authorized and Revised Versions. Whether ἐν be or be not read in 12, the right version is “by” (hardly “with” as in the Authorized Version alone of English versions), the Rhemish treating the dative as a genitive absolute! in collision with all grammar, doubtless in subserviency to the Vulgate. I am disposed to take ἐν, on full external evidence backed up by the usus loquendi already explained, notwithstanding A B and three cursives, meaning “in virtue of [the] Holy Spirit,” who is looked at, not as a distinct personal abject as in 11, but as a characteristic power for preaching the gospel. Only ignorance of the truth would therefore deny His presence personally in those who thus preached. The anarthrous form is the only correct one for expressing character, as here intended. But why pass over the mistaken text of the Revisers, following the Authorized Version in 15? The marginal is more right, Ἅγ. being not a predicate but the virtual substantive of the phrase, “after the pattern of,” or according to, “the Holy one that called you.” It seems peculiar that 20 should have passed muster with its uncalled for, not to say incorrect, “who was,” as if the article were there. The force is rather, if we must supply anything for English ears, “foreknown as He was,” and omitting “was” before “manifested.”
In 2:1 is not “malice” (marg.) better than the Revised text “wickedness"? It is allowed that the latter more general term may be well in such texts as Acts 8:22. What has been said before in reviewing the Revision need not be repeated now; but it seems to me that λογ. is one of those words which the Christian revelation wanted and modified for its own purpose, elevating it from “reasonable” as in margin or “belonging to the reason,” as the Americans suggest, to “of the word.” Compare Rom. 12:1. In 5 is it not loose to render the text, “ye also... are built,” as in Authorized and Revised Versions? Read “yourselves also...are being built” &c. In 7 why not say, “A stone which the builders rejected, this was made head corner-stone"? In 9 it ought to be more general, “a people for a possession,” though doubtless God's possession is meant. In 10 “God's people” suffices: and at the end “obtained” without “have,” the fact now simply, in contrast with the previous state of Lo-ruhamah. In 13 “to king” is best. In 16 “having freedom,” —the thing freedom as a cover of the thing malice. Even the Revisers do not say “your” wickedness; nor should they with freedom. The article is with both in Greek, not as a possessive, but because contrast makes the two objects, or in a measure personifies them. The difference of aor. and pres. in 17 it is difficult to convey tersely in English. The Americans rightly reject the supply of “them” (with Alford) or “things” (with Huther, &c.), and adhere with the Revisers to the Authorized Version with Wiclif and Rhemish. Tyndale gave here “the cause” (Pesh. Syr.), Cranmer “the vengeance.” Geneva “the punishment.”
3:1 shows a rendering similar to 2:18, and slightly different from 2:13, where it is the aorist, expressive of once-for-all action, as the need presented itself; here it is the present as expressing continuance or habit. In 2 it is remarkable that those who contend for “in” almost to nausea abandon it here, where it might be, for the freer version of “coupled with fear,” which has descended and prevailed since Tyndale. In 3, 4, complication might be avoided by “On whose part let there be, not the outward ornament of” &c..."of the meek” &c. In 12 it is “Jehovah's eyes,” and “Jehovah's face.” It is not in 15 “Lord Christ,” but Christ as Lord as in the Revised Version. In 17 “to suffer doing well than doing ill,” i.e. for the one rather than the other. Is it not strange, first, that the Revisers should have perpetuated the error of the Authorized Version in 20, “Which... were,” as if the Greek had been roc, and next, that the Americans should be insensible to the mistake? The absence of the article proves the participle to be part of the predicate and assigns the reason of their present imprisonment, “disobedient as heretofore they were when” &c. In 21, “not putting away of filth of flesh, but demand” &c.
4:1, 2, the anarthrous construction is little heeded here by the Revisers or the Americans; see also 5, 6. Nor is the plural unintentional which has been relegated to the margin.” In 11 there is need of little, if any, supply: “Let it be” would make the sense plain to the dullest. In 12 “count not as strange the burning [i.e. of persecution] taking place among us for trial, as though” &c. It is not “has taken place” nor “which is to.” The Revised Version is fairly good.
5:1. As the Revisers adopt οὖν “therefore,” they have no right to “the” elders. It would be general in that case. In 2 the weight of authorities is rather equally divided for and against the words “according to God,” in the Revised Version but not in the Authorized Version. The Rhemish has the phrase following the Vulgate, and so Wiclif ("bi God") and Cranmer “(after a Godly sorte)” in a parenthesis of italics. The Complutensian editors have it not, any more than the Vatican MS. and others; the Sin., Alex., and Porph. uncials give it. But there need be no hesitation in rejecting the American preference of the error of the Authorized, Version in Rom. 8:27, which our translators never ventured to repeat as to the same phrase in 2 Cor. 7:9, 10, 11, Eph. 4:24, or 1 Peter 4:6, which is in contrast with κατ ἄνθρωπον and really is a far different idea from and far larger than κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ with which they would identify it. Beza influenced the Authorized Version, and Wetstein sought vainly to defend it; but the heathen, who are so unwisely quoted in that defense, could hardly be expected to understand “after a divine sort” or “character,” in contrast with what suits a man. It is nature and mind rather than “will.” Other points may be left at present.