Revised New Testament: American Corrections - Jude

By: William Kelly

Narrator: Chris Genthree

• 4 min. read • grade level: 8

The Americans in 1 would (like the Geneva, Rhemish, and Authorized Versions) read “Jude” for “Judas,” adding in marg. Gr. Judas: a remarkable note, especially from those who do not value current customs like the old world. Yet they adopt “Judas,” not Jude, in Matt. 10:4, &c. passim xiii. 55; Mark 6:3³Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. (Mark 6:3); Acts 5:37; 9:11; 15:22³⁷After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. (Acts 5:37)
¹¹And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, (Acts 9:11)
²²Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: (Acts 15:22), &c. In Matt. 1 &c. they do not object to “Judah” for the same word. Such variety in English seems undesirable. The Revisers, with Wiclif, Tyndale, and Cranmer, seem to me fully justified in giving “Judas,” save in citations from the Old Testament where they perpetuate the Hebrew form. As usual we have no notice of the Revisers failure to deal with anarthrous description, which they have represented aright in the second member, not in the first. Was it not as easy to have said, “servant of Jesus Christ,” as “brother of James"? “A” was uncalled for in either case. It has also been remarked (in B. T. Aug. 1882, p. 127) that τοῖς κλ. should not be confounded with τ. κεκλ. as the Revisers do, whereas the Holy Spirit pointedly employs the perf. part. in the two included words of predication, but the verbal adj. with the more direct address. There need be no hesitation in dismissing “sanctified” for “beloved” on the authority of the best MSS. and almost all the ancient versions as well as distinct citation in early times. But it is questionable whether “for” is right with “kept.” That the saints are and were both beloved and kept has great force in so solemn a sketch of imminent apostasy as is here portrayed. But the mischief was by these destroyers getting in, not by erring men going out in outward separation, as is generally and unintelligently assumed. It would have been a great mercy, if they had gone out as in 1 John 2 Ver. 19 is no real difficulty for this view; for the rest of the Epistle proves they were within, intent on their evil purpose or blinded instruments of a worse; and therefore their divisive way was within, not without, so far like the Pharisees among the Jews. In 4 the Americans would have “written of beforehand,” and put “set forth” into the margin: a doubtful Interpretation, as it assigns but a secondary place to the well-known technical force of προγ. They overlook also the old inaccuracy of taking κρῖμα as “condemnation” which is rather κατάκρ. In effect, it becomes this; but we ought always to translate correctly. In 5 they have allowed to pass the feeble rendering of the Authorized and Revised Versions, “afterward;” whereas its force seems to be to mark “the second time” of divine action: first, He saved a people out of Egypt; in the second place, He destroyed them. Still wider of the mark were Tyndale and Cranmer who connected τὸ δ. with “those that believed not.” The Rhemish follows the Vulgate in the true sense; and if some wonder at “Jesus” there, let them remember that excellent authority supports this word, though κύριος, Jehovah, (or ὁ κ. “the Lord,” in the Text. Rec.) has perhaps stronger claims on our acceptance. In 6 they do not notice the scarcely English phrase “hath kept unto,” though one may shrink from G. Wakefield's “keepeth” as hardly a right rendering of the perf. But “hath in keeping” might suffice. And why in 7 should not “the” have been avoided with δίκ as well as “a"? So in 8 too. It is not spiritual defilement, but fleshly. “The” makes it too concrete, as in all the old English versions. And had they no question about the rendering of ἑα υτ ποι. in 12, even if ἀθ. be severed from the preceding and connected with the following, as the Revisers prefer, with the Authorized Translation after Erasmus and Beza? “Shepherds that......feed” is a fertile if legitimate rendering of ποι., if “deluding” is a wild suggestion of Wakefield, though he sends us for confirmation to a lengthy note on Luke 17:7, 8⁷But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat? ⁸And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink? (Luke 17:7‑8), in his Sava Grit. ii. 85-90. Elsewhere has been a full comment in these pages on the odd rendering of 14 “to” these, so that there is the less need to enlarge now. “For,” “of,” “as to,” are legitimate renderings here. But “themselves” as in the Elzevirian text of 19 is an addition to that which is attested by the most reliable witnesses, and looks as if meant to clench the ecclesiastical meaning given to ἀποδ. which means separatism, but of a definite kind within rather than without. To treat it as schism, or rather “heresy” in its scriptural force of a party gone outside, is quite at issue with the intimations of this Epistle. On 22 the Americans would add a not very important marg. note.

Click here to show subject links in the text for more information.