Acts of the Apostles
2:47 is better in the Authorized Version than in the Revision, whether of British or of Americans; but of the two latter the American version, “those that were saved,” is not strictly grammatical. The British amendment, “those that were being saved,” might be correct but for other considerations. Every scholar knows that the present tense, including its participle, need not be temporal, but may be what is called ethical. Hence the general truth and the particular context must often come in to decide the real force intended. In itself the words τοὺς σωζομένους might quite well mean “those that were being saved” if the present participle were only used relatively. But there is an absolute usage which drops all thought of actual time, and simply expresses a person (as ὁ ἐρχόμενος he that should come), or a class (as οἱ ἁγιαζὁμενοι) characterized according to the word employed. And so the Revisers correctly take it in Luke 13— “Are they few that be saved?” Are those to be saved few? “The saved” is true; but is not quite the thought. Compare 1 Cor. 1:1818For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. (1 Corinthians 1:18), 2 Cor. 2:1515For we are unto God a sweet savor of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: (2 Corinthians 2:15) (Rev. 21:2424And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honor into it. (Revelation 21:24) being no genuine occurrence). In Eph. 2:55Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) (Ephesians 2:5) is quite a different form, which does mean “ye are,” or have been “saved.” It seems impossible to admit the strict relative present with Peter's σώθητε just before in verse 40; for the aorist and the relative present cannot apply together. It must be therefore the absolute present, with no definite notion of time, which it is difficult in English to express justly. If the Americans meant this, they were right in their aim. But a full view of the Scripture use of the various forms appears to exclude the Revisers' version of the phrase. A Christian could not be said to be σωθείς or σεσωσμένος, if he is only in process of being saved. If σωζόμενος be applied, as it is, to such an one, it must be apart from time, referring to no particular moment when the action takes place. In 3:21 as in 15:18 “from of old” is well enough. But it is hard to see why we should go back to “it” in Acts 8:1616(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) (Acts 8:16) from the “he” of both Authorized and Revised Versions. They are, however, in. my opinion quite right in adopting the critical reading ἐττοφ., instead of the received ἐτροπ. which seems a mere though early blunder of à B and most others, but not of A Cp.m. some good cursives and all the ancient versions save the Vulgate. It is pleasant therefore to find Alford, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Wordsworth, supporting Griesbach, Mill, &c. Bengel in his Gnomon labors elaborately to show that, though the orthography differs, the notion is the same. It is painful to see the error, which Deut. 1 refutes, perpetuated in the Revision. This was due probably to Drs. W. and H. The marginal of 14:8 had better be omitted. In 15:23 the weight of testimony is against the insertion of καὶ οἱ before ἀδ., but the American rendering is harsh indeed, however well meant, as compared with the more natural one in the Received Text. In 17:2 “very religious” seems nearer the mark than “rather superstitious.” In 19:31, “Asiarchs” with a marginal explanation is suggested; but if so, should there not be “Praetors” or Duumvirs in 16:20, 38, and “Politarchs” in 27:6? With 20:38 we cannot agree. It is a question of Scripture and spiritual judgment amidst the collision of witnesses. For “many,” in 21:10 and 24:17 they would give in the text the Revisers' marginal “some.” “More” than might have been expected is the source of the phrase. The question raised in 23:30 is between έξαυτῆς which the Revisers prefer on the excellent authority of B H L P, most cursives, Syr. Pesh., Sah., Memph., Theb., &c., and A E, a few cursives and Versions. Alford, Green, Westcott and fort adopt the former, as Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles the latter. The Revisers are, I doubt not, right; though it might be well, with the Americans, to add the other in the margin. In 25:3, if we will be exact, it is rather laying “an ambush” than “a plot” or “wait.” I doubt that either Revisers or Americans have hit the mark in 26:28, 29. “In a little thou art persuading” &c. “Both in a little and in a great” [degree] &c. In 27:37 the omission of 200 in the Vatican MS., and the Sahidic version is not, as is suggested, worth notice in the Revisers' margin.
Romans
1:17 “from” faith is here objectionable, as leading the reader naturally to the error of conceiving from one degree of faith to another, from less to more. This is not at all the thought any more than “by” in the Revised Version, which makes no just sense with “is being revealed.” Hence the Revisers separated it from ἀπ., its true connection, to “righteousness,” which alters the truth and mars it. In the gospel God's righteousness is revealed by faith unto faith in the gospel. Still worse in 18 is the rendering of the Revisers “hold down,” or of the Americans “hinder.” Either is to lose the point, which is to mark God's wrath against not only every sort of ungodliness, but unrighteousness of men that hold the truth in unrighteousness. Firm orthodoxy may go with practical disregard of righteousness. Holding truth down is scarcely sense; hindering it adds no worthy idea to the phrase. Holding the truth is a solemn caution for professing Christians now, as once for Jews.
2:12 is a curious instance of the Revisers' neglect of their own claim laid to superior accuracy in the aorist. Why should not the “have” be omitted twice in the text without any marginal Greek? In 13 the Americans are as wrong in saying “the” law twice, as the Revisers with their “a” twice. It means the law-hearers, the law-doers. Bishop Middleton was mistaken in laying down absolutely, that, if the governing noun has the article, the governed must also. But this does not justify Dean Alford in overlooking the proper force of the anarthrous construction, which gives law a general character instead of specifying only that of Moses. In 14 they are quite wrong in mistranslating μὴ ν. after the Revisers had corrected the similar error of the Authorized Version. So “having no” is correct, instead of “not having the.” Again it is not 14, 15 only but 13 also which constitute the parenthesis. The connection of “in a day when,” &c., is with “shall be judged,” at the end of verse 12. In 15 they seem right, and also 18, and 22.
In 3:9 it is pleasant to say we are agreed; and 21. As to 23, compare ii. 12. In 25 right; “get forth a mercy-seat (or; propitiatory) through faith in his blood,” omitting marginal 9; 10 and 11. To make a paragraph of 31 seems needless. It well closes the verses from 21.
4:1 it appears to me, according to the best testimony (à AC D E F G, some cursives, and ancient versions, &c.) connects “our forefathers (or fathers) according to flesh,” not “hath found according to the flesh” (K & P), most cursives, &c.) as the Americans would prefer for the text, relegating the former to the margin. Westcott and Hort follow B, 47p.m. and Chrysostom's comment in cutting the knot by the omission of “hath found” altogether. In v. 1, 2, 3 they are quite right in preferring “we” to “let us” as the Revisers say. The change of ο to ω is one of the most frequent errors in the oldest copies; and this accounts for the subjunctive displacing the indicative to the grievous detriment of the sense, whatever ingenious pleaders may argue to the contrary. As to 7 agreed.
In 6:5 is it not a marvel that a considerable number of sensible men should not have been struck by the oddity of “united with him by the likeness of his death, we shall be also by the likeness of his resurrection"? It is really identified with the likeness in each case respectively. One would not impute a dogmatic aim or effect; but united with Christ by the likeness of His death or of His resurrection is strange doctrine, if indeed it have any proper sense. And why change “serve sin” in 6 into “be in bondage to sin,” which is sadly ambiguous at best? Yet worse is the rendering of 10 on which the Americans are still silent; the Authorized Version gives the only true sense. In 7 we may of course explain in the margin δεδ. as released, cleared, discharged, “hath his quittance,” &c. But it is of moment to hold “is justified” in the text, though it is singular to see the Revisers departing from their own canons of exactness as to the aorist and the perfect in this short verse. “Freed” as in the Authorized Version is equivocal, and might be confounded with that “liberty” which the Spirit of the Lord produces. From the structure of the word we see that the justification here meant is expressed not as an act but as a state. It is hard to see what is gained by the suggestion on 7:25, which is not very smooth English, without being closer to the Greek.
In 8:3 it is simply for the text a return to the Authorized Version with the R. V. rendering in the margin. I believe it should be “Spirit” (not “spirit,” as if it was ours only) in 4, as well as 5, 6, and in 10 as well as 9, 13. The anarthrous construction does not deny the Holy Spirit to be in question, but presents it as character, rather than as the person objectively viewed; which might be no less true of Father and Son: only it is, from the nature of the case, more frequently so predicated of the Spirit. This is a great blemish in the Revised Version, as it was even worse in the Authorized Version, being uniformly a small “s “; which Dr. Scrivener throughout has rectified in the excellent Cambridge Paragraph Bible of 1873. As to 13, agreed; though it is a small question; and so 24, if not 26 (as before). In 34 it is a question of an accent, and so of a tense present or future. The future I presume to be due to Drs. Westcott and Hort after Lachmann (Tyndale, the Geneva, and the Rhemish giving it of old); and perhaps one may add the Hebrew of Isa. 1 In the Septuagint also we find the future, but quite another phrase. It seems to us with Dean Alford that ὁ δικαιῶν naturally leads to the present ὁ κατακρίνων, and that the balance and the emphasis might be preserved better throughout by a colon before “who,” not only between verses 34 and 35, but also between 35 and 36.
The marginal alternatives presented as to 9:5 are unworthy efforts of unbelief to enfeeble the plain testimony of the text to the Divine glory of the Lord Jesus, and the American note sins against the usus loquendi like others.—22 is a marginal that weakens the sense.
They are right in preferring to begin the paragraph of chapter 11 with verse 11 rather than 13. How strange that the Americans fail to notice the error in the misrendering of 31? For it really opposes and upsets the very doctrine the apostle is teaching in the chapter, insinuating a notion flattering to Gentile conceit, and at issue with all the prophetic word?
But “spiritual,” if strange in the Revisers' margin is worse for the text of chapter xii. 1 as the rendering of λογικός, which may mean of the mind, intelligent, or again according to the word, but should not be confounded with πν., however truly they may coalesce. In verse 6 the question is whether “faith” is not better than “the” or “our” faith. Abstraction gives the article in Greek in contrast with English; which the Revisers have often overlooked, as e. g., in verses 2, 3, where “our” is erroneously introduced from inattention to the principle. The Americans seem even less at home if possible here, as we may see by their suggestion on verse 19 and other places.
There is an important error to notice in the Authorized Version at xvi. 26 perpetuated by the Revisers which the Americans have overlooked. “The scriptures of the prophets” is a misleading sense. The apostle uses quite a different phrase for what is promised through God's prophets in holy scriptures. Here he carefully defines the mystery or secret kept in silence in times of old, but now manifested and by prophetic scriptures (such as he and the other inspired men of the New Testament were writing) according to command of the everlasting God made known for obedience of faith unto all the nations. Prophetic scriptures here mean emphatically and distinctively the New Testament epistles in which God was pleased to reveal the mystery of Christ and the church, in pointed contrast with the law and the prophets when the mystery was hid and He had covenant dealings with His ancient people separated from all the nations.