There is more to court remark in the third Gospel.
In chapter 1:17 is the first change of version to be weighed: ἐν φ. δ. can hardly bear “to” the wisdom of the just, as in the Authorized Version. The Revisers are obliged to intercalate “to walk” in the wisdom, &c., in order to give the force. Some suggest “by” or “according to;” but the sense fails in this connection, if the preposition could bear it. In verse 28 there are two changes of text—the exclusion of “the angel,” though supported by much and good authority, and of “blessed art thou among women,” which incontestably appears in verse 42; in 29 also, “when she saw him” was probably suggested by verse 12. But the rendering of the last clause of verse 35 is strange and objectionable, that of the margin (which is in main the Authorized Version), or the American suggestion, being better. In verse 37 is a bold change of reading (τοῦ Θ. for τῷ Θ.) which necessitates the rendering “no word from God shall be void of power.”
In chapter 2 are changes of text or translation much to be considered. In verse 2 They give, “This was the first enrollment when Quirinius,” &c. It would seem really to be a parenthetic statement to guard from confusion. God caused the decree to bring about the presence of Mary with her affianced husband at Bethlehem, and so accomplish the prophecy of Micah years before the enrollment was completed. Of course they have in verse 10 “all the people,” that is, the Jews. Verse 14 follows the later editors, or their few but first-rate authorities, ἑν ἀνθρώποις ἐνδοκίας “among men in whom he is well pleased.” But Luke was given to magnify the grace of God, not to seal human righteousness. There is good and ample authority for the common text, only rendered “good-will in men,” which incarnation proved. Passing over minor points we have in verse 22 “their” instead of the common “her,” but hardly the exact shade of verses 31, 32. “All the peoples” is better than “all peoples,” and “revelation of Gentiles” is the true meaning, not “to all the Gentiles.” Before the Word was made flesh Gentiles were in the dark as regards the light of God; as the Jews who despised the true light have fallen into darkness, till the word is made good, “Arise, shine, for thy light is come, and the glory of Jehovah is arisen on thee.” The Revisers prefer, in verse 38, “redemption of Jerusalem” to “redemption in it,” though the witnesses are very few. “To Jerusalem” in verse 42 is probably a repetition from the verse preceding.
Chapter 3:2 should be “in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas,” the true text being singular, not plural. A good many small corrections follow. It is surprising that few as yet see that the true parenthesis, marked or not, in verse 23 is not merely “as was supposed” but “being the son as was supposed of Joseph,” so as to connect the genealogy that follows directly with the Lord through Mary. For Joseph was the son of Jacob, in the Solomon line, as Mary was daughter of Heli, in the Nathan line; and our Lord needed to be thus born in order to be unequivocally heir of David and true man. To have been son of Mary was essential to the truth, the means and demonstration as well as the display of the good pleasure of God in men; to inherit the royal, or Solomonic, right to the throne depended on Mary's espousal to Joseph; whilst His being Son of God in the highest sense was the ground and turning-point of all blessing. Had He been really Joseph's son, as He was not, all the truth of His person would have been denied; had He been, as He was not, Mary's son only, He had been true man but not true Messiah. He must therefore be Joseph's son legally, Mary's son truly, and God's Son supremely, in order to satisfy the word and accomplish the purposes of God; and all this the scriptures show plainly that He was. But the proof is enfeebled by not seeing the connection in Luke 3:23, and this in the Revised Version as much as in that of 1611, the only expressed νίος being in the parenthesis, and the proper genealogical line uniformly elliptic, as is often the case in such statements.
In chapter 4 the most striking change is in verse 8, where the common text and all versions founded on it have ὔπαγε ὀπίσς μου, Σατανᾶ, taken from Matt. 16:23, and confounded with Matt. 4:10, where it is rightly ὔπαγε, Σ. Here however these were left out in the wisdom of the Spirit, who inspired Luke to place second what was in fact the third temptation. This made the omission necessary; as otherwise we should have had in Luke the Lord bidding the enemy depart, and instead of it the enemy making another assault immediately after. Perhaps not one of the critical editors saw the impossibility of the words of Matthew re-appearing in Luke, though they rightly left them out on grounds purely diplomatic. Luke as usual presents the circumstances in their moral order, (the natural, the worldly, and the religious temptation respectively,) whilst Matthew, as is his wont, gives them dispensationally, and this fell in here with the order of fact.
The Revisers in chapter v. do not distinguish more than the Authorized Version μέτοχοι, verse 7, and κοινωνοἰ, verse 10, though the latter is the more formal “partners,” the former rather “companions.”
In chapter 6:1 They omit, save in their margin, the word “second-first.” Now the witnesses (à B L) which omit the word are few, though high; and the difficulty of understanding a word nowhere else occurrent, and in itself hard to explain without an exact knowledge of Jewish scripture and usage, accounts readily for the tampering hand of copyists prone to cut knots instead of untying them. The sabbath before the wave-sheaf was offered the Jews ever regarded as great (John 19:31); the sabbath after the wave-sheaf was also in high esteem, but not equal to the former. It was δευτεροπρῶτον Nobody would or could create a needless difficulty by inserting this into A C D E H K M R S U V X r Δ Λ Π; but we can easily account for a few omitting what was hard in their eyes, as it is to most readers still. In verse 17 they rightly translate “a level place,” not a plain, as in the Authorized Version. It was a plateau on the mountain, which upsets the notion of two sermons: one on the mount, the other on a plain. Not so, but the Spirit gave Matthew to present the discourse suitably to his design, and to Luke another method equally in keeping with his aim.
Verse 35 is the most remarkable innovation, as far as translation is concerned, which as yet occurs in the Revision. “But love your enemies.... and lend, never despairing,” with the still stranger marginal alternation, “despairing of no man,” μηδὲν (or, -α) ἀπελπίζοντες. The Authorized Version is “hoping for nothing again.” Now we cannot reason on the usage of the word elsewhere in the New Testament, for this is its only occurrence. What influenced the Revisers is the fact that the word occurs in Polybius and the like in the sense of despairing or giving up in despair, and in the Authol P. ii. 114 of driving to despair. But even Liddell and Scott furnish, from Diog. L. i. 1-59, an instance of the modification, hoping that a thing will not happen. The fact is, that words thus compounded admit of meanings so widely different as to include senses nearly opposed. Thus ἀπάγειν means to take away, or to bring home; ἀπαλλάσσειν to release, to destroy, to escape; ἀπαυρᾶν to take away from, or receive; ἀπειπεῖν to speak out, deny, forbid, disown, or fail; ἀπελαύνειν to drive away, or to march; ἀπέρχεςθαι to go away, or to come back; ἀπεσθίειν to eat off or up, and to leave of eating; ἀπέχειν to keep of or hinder, or to receive in full; ἀποβλέπειν to throw away, and to throw back; ἀποβλέπειν to look on, or at, or away; αποδακρύειν to weep much, or to cease weeping; ἀποδαρθάνειν to sleep a little, or to wake up; ἀπόκεισθαι to be laid up in store, or aside; αποκλαίεςθαι to bewail oneself, or to cease wailing, &c. This induction suffices to show that verbs compounded with ἀπό admit of flexibility enough in sense to cover the meaning attached to the word in our old and other Versions. The question then mainly turns on the requirement of the context. And when one weighs verses 30-34 with care, it seems surprising that a sense so unnatural here should be attached to the word in verse 35. Especially consider the immediately preceding verse: “and if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? even sinners lend to sinners, to receive again as much.” What can be simpler than the converse call of grace, love, do good, lend, “hoping for nothing again.” (Cf.. Luke 14:12.) What worthy sense in such a connection is there in “never despairing"? Does it mean that, whatever we may give thus unselfishly in faith, we are to have no fears of coming short for ourselves? If so, it seems needless, mean, and out of character with all the rest. Never despair because of giving or lending to others! Even a generous man might be beyond such fears, not to speak of a son of the Highest exhorted by the Only-begotten of the Father. And what here is the force of the margin “despairing of no man"? If the Revisers understand despairing of no man's honesty or gratitude in repayment, it seems quite contrary to the spirit of verse 80, not to mention that the sequel of verse 35 casts the believer wholly on God's great recompense.
Have the Revisers caught the idiom in 38, 44; 14:35; 16: 4, 9; 23: 31? The Authorized Version followed by themselves takes it rightly in chapter 12: 20. To give the plural literally misleads the English reader. It is meant to be general, and for us an impersonal or passive turn best expresses the thought. In several cases God is really meant without saying so.
In chapter 7: 31 The Revisers properly drop, among lesser additions without due warrant, the spurious words which begin the verse, which were inserted by copyists who did not perceive that verses 29, 30 are a parenthesis of the evangelist, and that the Lord continues from the end of verse 28.
In chapter 8 one of the most weighty corrections is in verse 54, where “put them all out and” should not be, though rightly in Mark 5:40.
In chapter 9:35 “chosen” takes the place of “beloved Son” as in Matthew and Mark. Verses 55, 56 are simply thus: “But he turned and rebuked them. And they went to another village.” But the end of verse 55 in the vulgar text has more authority than the beginning of verse 56. The Revisers even omit the last words of verse 54.
In the parable of the good Samaritan the Revisers, on good authority, strike out additions of the common text, in verses 32 and 35 especially.
But chapter 11 affords more cases, especially in Luke's form of the prayer, where “Father” alone is read, not “Our Father which art in heaven,” an importation from Matthew, as is “Thy will be done as in heaven so in earth,” and “but deliver us from evil:” all of which petitions had special interest and value for Jewish disciples. Ought there not to have been a more distinctive version of ὁ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ in verse 13 than the “heavenly” of the Authorized Version here followed? (Compare Matt. 5:16, 44, 48; 6:1, 9.)
No doubt cases are not infrequent where an anarthrous form in Greek requires the definite article in our idiom. But the tendency even in the Revised Version is to introduce it needlessly. Thus in chapter 11:31, 32 (as in Matt. 12:41, 42) it is enough and even more exact to say “a queen” and “men of Nineveh.” The article might have been used in Greek if the intention had been to refer to them as those well-known in Old Testament history or prophecy. But as it is not, “the queen”, and “the men” seems uncalled for. On the other hand, why should we have “mint and rue,” &c. (and in Matt. 23:23, “mint and anise and cummin") when the Greek article is so expressly introduced to mark the minutious exactitude of Jewish legalism. Between these however may be noticed in verse 33, “a cellar,” an improvement on “a secret place"; and in verse 41, for “such things as ye have” or “your property,” an unquestionably sound rendering of τὰ ἑνόντα, “those things which are within” and in the margin “ye can,” neither of which seems at all so suitable to the context. Of course those who advocate the revised textual rendering might point to the preceding verses in its justification; but to give for alms those things which are written is really a paradox, instead of the simple dealing with the Pharisee's conscience, which to plain minds is the thing intended. “Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts and these defile the man, anything but a suitable material for alms, leaving all things clean to him.
In chapter 12:31 it is “his [your Father's] kingdom” rather than “the kingdom of God,” though the authorities are not numerous.
In chapter 13:15, Hypocrites, not “hypocrite;” and omit desolate in verse 35, brought in from Matt. 23
In chapter 14:5 the Revisers have resisted the temptation of following the mass of ancient authority and of modern critics, and retain “ass,” giving “son” in the margin.
In chapter 15:22 They add “quickly” on good, but not large, authority, and omit “again” in verse 32.
“It fails” in chapter 16:9 has beyond doubt preponderant authority over “ye fail;” but it is difficult to see its superior force or even propriety.
“Against thee,” in chapter 17:3, came in probably from Matt. 18:15, though even there à B omit, as here also with A L. Omit verse 36, borrowed from Matt. 24:40.
In chapter 18:1 The Revisers rightly translate “that they ought” &c., not “men.” In verse 28 they follow a few very ancient copies in giving “our own” instead of “all,” which however is supported by à A and many other uncials.
I am surprised ἐν τῷ ἐγγίζειν αὐτόν is not represented in its vagueness, “while he was nigh,” so as to suit going out of Jericho as truly as coming in. (Cf. Matt. 20:29; Mark 10:46.) Perhaps they and the Authorized Version were deterred by the story of Zaccheus afterward as the Lord passed through Jericho; but this is no sufficient obstacle. To my mind the aim of the Spirit appears to be the bringing together this story and the parable of the Pounds (chap. 19.) to illustrate the moral ways of God in the two advents of Christ, which would have been marred by the interposition of the blind man healed in its actual historic place.
In chapter 20:13 there is good authority for omitting “when they see him,” with lesser points before and after; also “why tempt ye me?” from Mark, with other omissions. It seems singular that κρίμαshould be confounded in verse 47 with κατάκριμα: “sentence” (often included in “charge” also) is the true thought. (Cf. chap. 23:40.)
In chapter 21:19 the Revisers have adopted a reading and a rendering at least questionable. A B are but slender authority for κτήσεσθε, as against κτήσασθε differing only by one letter; and their own rendering of 1 Thess. 4:5 sustains the Authorized Version, “possess,” against their own “win” here.
There is in chapter 22:31 The precarious omission of the opening words “And the Lord said” with no more than three uncials (B L T). Thus they render, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan asked to have you that he might sift you as wheat; but I made supplication for thee, that thy faith fail not: and do thou, when once thou hast turned again, stablish thy brethren,” consigning to the margin the notion of Alford, &c., that ἐξαιτέομαι should here convey the sense of “obtained you by asking;” which is clean contrary to the context and indeed to the truth generally. They give the addition, on better evidence, of “to-day” in verse 61, whilst all but the same manuscripts omit “struck him on the face and” in verse 64.
Chapter 23:17 is rejected with the best authorities and critics; it was founded probably on Matthew and Mark, with a good many changes of words here and there.
It is strange that any critics should have been moved by an erratic uncial to doubt chapter 24:12 and 40. Many more instances of lesser moment might be added; but these selections may suffice.