There need be little hesitation in allowing (I) that. “S.” for saint is a remnant of tradition, at issue with the general sense of the term, which is ill applied for special honor to the inspired writers of the Gospels. II. But it is less easy to see why “the apostle” should be struck out from the title of the Pauline Epistles, or of “Paul the apostle” from the title of the epistle to the Hebrews. “General” is most unsuitable to the title of the Epistles of James and Peter. John and Jude have a “general” character, whether it be so said or not in the titles. The older MSS. say “The Revelation of John,” which may be regarded as a compendium of Rev. 1:1.-III. Holy “Spirit” might well supersede Holy “Ghost.'
If “worship” be retained uniformly for προσκ., a note explaining its general sense is requisite.
“ Through” rather than “by” = διά with the genitive, in general, as well as when it relates to prophecy.-VI. Are not all, or almost all the instances referred to causes of enticement to what is wrong, when therefore “tempt” is right enough? Such a verse as Rev. 3:10 would seem more appropriate for “try” and “trial,” like 1 Peter 1:6.-VII. The archaic “which” might well yield to “who” or “that,” “be” to “are” in the pr. ind.; “wot” and “wist” to “know” and “knew,” “hale” to “drag."-VIII. “Demon” should displace “devil” for δαίμων or δαιμόνιον, and so possessed with a “demon” or “demons."-IX. “With” should hardly move to the margin to let “in” there after “baptize."-X. But “covenant” should everywhere take the place of “testament” except in Heb. 9:15-17. -XI. It is not merely in Luke 8:15, 2 Cor. 1:6, Heb. 12:1, and James 5:11, that “steadfastness” would not suit as an alternate in the margin for “patience"; “patient endurance” seems better. -XII. The approximate rendering of ἀσσάριον as a penny, and δηνάριον as a shilling is preferable to the more distant “farthing” and “penny."-XIII. “God and the Father” is the revived marginal rendering of the Five Clergymen, and worse rather than better than the Authorized Version, “God even the Father,” as in the Revised Version of 1 Cor. 15:24, the real sense being “to Him that is God and Father.” In this way “our” or “His” may not necessarily go beyond “Father."-XIV. To confine “fulfill” to “accomplish,” and the like, might be well.
Matthew
1:7, the marginal “for baptism” is fair; 10 (Luke 3:9) “lieth at” hardly gives the moral force. -6:11 (Luke 11:3) is neither “daily” nor “coming day,” but “sufficient “; 27, “a cubit to the measure of his life” would be strange phraseology. “Stature” is the clear sense of. Luke 14:3, and so here, and in Luke 12:29.-viii. 4, and elsewhere, “go” might suffice without “thy” or “your” way.-9:6, the truth is that the usage does imply “power” (8) as Well as “authority.” It is a nice point, sometimes, to say which predominates. Compare Rev. ix. 3, 10, 19; 11:6, 20:6, -10:39, and often in the Gospels else where, “life” is right, not “soul."-12:23 seems a needless, even if lawful, change; though the Revisers expose themselves to it in John iv. 29; 31, slender indeed is the authority for the awkward marginal “unto you men."-19:14 seems no less uncalled for.-20:1, that was “or” is “is alike uncalled for. Are we to say in Luke 2:15 “the men the shepherds “? In chap. 13:23, 45 52, 18:23, it is simply an enemy, a merchant, a householder, the shepherds. In fact, it was not emphatically a man that was hostile, but the devil, and a King who in truth was not a mere man. So in 21:33, which may have led the Trans-Atlantics to “that was.” 22:23, they are right in correcting the oversight of the Revisers; for it is a question between divided authorities, and not of mere Greek rendering; some deprecating “which say,” others “saying” only.—23:9, “he who is in the heavens,” if we adopt the more generally adopted reading; 23 is not “justice” but “judgment,” as in the Authorized and Revised Versions. So Luke xi. 42, xxvi. 29. (Matt. 14:25, Luke 22:16, 18) is “will,” not “shall."-.-27:7, the pretorium, or governor's palace: so elsewhere.
Mark
2:4, 9, 11, 12, no doubt a “pallet bed” or “couch,” as elsewhere.-7:4, “dip” is more literal than “bathe” or “wash.” —In 10:13 if we say “were bringing” we should also say “were rebuking,” a cumbrous form indeed, were it uniformly carried out. 32 is a question of reading, and the marg. uncalled for. In 45 “also” suffices.-11:24, “have received” scarcely accords with the aorist, and is not idiomatic. -14 is so obscure that “pure,” “liquid,” “spike,” —may be contended for with nearly equal force.
Luke
1:35 recurs substantially to the Authorized Version, save “is begotten” for “shall be born"; “of thee” being generally given up here. The Revised Version is awkward and improbable. 70 “of old” is weak.
37, as there is an article in the Greek, cannot claim it in idiomatic English for one more than the other. 37, “for” or “unto” is a slender question. Important points, as in 2, 14, 22, 38, are passed by in silence.-3:14 seems as little happy in the American suggestion as in the Revised Version. “Harass none, nor accuse falsely” leaves the sense less restrained than either. In 20 the question of “to” or “above” is not much. But it seems strange that both the English Committee and the Americans have failed to observe that the true arrangement in 23 is to treat not as Wieseler ὡς ἐν. τ. I, but the two preceding words ὡυ ὡόσ also, as parenthetical and not part of the genealogy but a collateral remark before it begins. In the proper genealogical line “son” is not expressed; here it is, with the qualification in the strictest accordance with truth. The Lord was legally Joseph's son, and only so; He was really of Mary, whom even the Talmud attests as daughter of Heli. Luke therefore gives the natural line, which exactly suits his general scope, but would not prove Jesus to be the Messiah; whereas Matthew traces down from Absalom and David to Joseph, which was the Solomon branch with full legal title to Messiahship for the Jews, and this equally in its true place. The words would thus sun: “And Jesus himself was at his outset about thirty years old (being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph), of Heli, of Matthat, of Levi,” &c. It is not Joseph, who is here traced from Heli, but our Lord—of course through His mother. Matthew had already explicitly declared that Jacob, not Heli, begat Joseph; Heli not being of Solomon but of Nathan, and therefore unable to give the true succession to the throne of David according to Jehovah's oath. The Lord's title was complete legally, because Mary was espoused to Joseph, who was in the true Solomonic line. Jesus was the Son of God supremely, Mary's son really, and Joseph's legally; all of which must unite in the true Messiah exclusively. For according to scripture He must be God and Son of God, He must be man born of a virgin as none other ever was, and Son of David not merely from Nathan but from Solomon; and this text, rightly divided and understood, helps to clear the truth in an important way.-4:1 is not “in” simply, but “by” from connection with “led.”
6:1 shows strange indifference to the omitted “second-first” of the Revision. In 16 “became a” is literal, as in Mr. Green's Twofold New Testament. But here again no notice of the Revisers' text and margin of ver. 35, while they strain out “Chuza,” instead of the more proper “Chuzas” (see Smith's Dictionary), and “commanded” for “was commanding” or “charging” (see Green). In 33 they prefer the more figurative “drowned” to the more literal “choked.” So in 9 they like “provisions” (12) rather than “victuals,” “apart” (18) rather than “alone,” and “was” for “should be” in 46: small points verily, even if correct, which may well be doubted. In 11 the only point is “bathed himself” for “washed” in 38, as in Mark 7:6. In 12:49 the suggested text is strange, still more the margin. —13:32, margin, is substantially Green's rendering.
In 15:16 can one doubt that the reading of à B D L R, some cursives and very ancient versions, is a softening of the phrase which is certainly not found in the Authorized Version or its American revival?
In 17:6 the authority is preponderant for “have” rather than “had"; as “would have” is also right. In 11 Dean Alford pointed out that the phrase may mean on the frontiers of both. In 18:5 the suggestion for the margin is at least not so odd as Meyer's rendering, offered in all gravity, “lest at last she—in desperation—should come and strike me in the face"! But the Authorized and Revised Versions seem more accurate in construing εὶς. with ἐρχ “continually coming.” The query “and is he slow” &c., seems untenable, no less than “and yet.” It may be well to read uniformly “Olivet” as in Acts 1:12, rather than “the mount of Olives,” as in 19:9, 21:37. In 42 I should be disposed to go farther, and keep “thy” day and “thy” peace in the text. The Americans may well speak of “some ancient authorities” reading the pronoun twice, for the omission of which one may easily account, not so for its insertion.—20:20 “ruling power” says Green. In 22:24 perhaps “should be,” or is more idiomatic here than “is” or “was.” 70, Mr. Green again. 23:2 right; 15 right again. The Revisers were not entitled to ignore so many and good ancient authorities for “I remitted you to him.” In 23, “urgent” is less ambiguous than “instant.” In 48 the remark is well-founded.-:-In xxiv. 30 perhaps the imperfect at the close should be marked. In 38 “thoughts” might suffice, rather than “debatings” or “questionings.”
John
1. The Americans prefer “through” to “by” in 3, 10, 17; and perhaps it might be well thus to discriminate διά from έν which is often better rendered “by” than “in."-2:7 as in Green.—3:20 (as in 5:29) “evil” for “ill” is not much; nor “made full” for “fulfilled.” In 5:27 “a” son of man would be wrong, especially in the text. Read not “the,” but simply “Son” of man. 7:8 right; 21, 22, questionable; 23 right, but trivial; 38 strongly euphemistic, in contrast with their preference in Luke 15:16- 8:24, 25 right. 25 is rather a timid dealing with the wild misrendering of the Revisers, both text and margin. What the Americans would substitute for the present margin should go into the text; and those who demand positive connection of τὴν ἀρχἡν, instead of one merely negative as commonly, can consult Dio Cass. Fragm. Peiresc, ci. ὅτι μαὶ τήν ἀρχὴν ἐπικαλέσαι τι αὐτοῖς ἐτίλμησαν, κ.τ.λ. (Sturz' ed. i. 96; also ii. 342; iii. 688; iv. 52). This may satisfy the most imperious that the only rendering otherwise grammatical and suitable to the context is to give τὴν ἀρχὴν its idiomatic sense of “absolutely” or “altogether.” 26 needs no ridiculous margin of Gr. into. Every one knows that the word means “to” or “unto,” just as well as “into.” The Revisers' margin implies that “into” is alone correct, which is itself incorrect. 44. I agree that “stood” is untenable, and to give the margin is unintelligible, as it is a question of rendering, not of reading according to these or those authorities. -52, 53: so Green, Sic. -58 “was born” is fuller and more precise, but lacks the dignity of the Authorized Version “was.” —10:8 shows the remarkable omission of “before me” in many eminent authorities. Tischendorf, in his 8th edition, has the unenviable singularity of forming his text accordingly: it might be worth mentioning in the margin.-12:43 gives no just ground for “that is” before “of men” and “of God,” nor is “from” needed for “of.” Nor is there sufficient reason to prefer the Revisers' marginal to their text, if the margin is at all justifiable. 14 right, as against “we” in the Revision, notwithstanding many old authorities, which might be stated in the margin.-16:25, 29: if “dark sayings,” so also in 10:7.-17:24 right.-18:37; so McClellan.-21:7 needs explanation rather than a marginal note.