The apostolic epistles afford quite another test of our Revisers; for doctrine far more than narrative materially affects our judgment, as in the earlier half of the New Testament, where a choice of reading or of rendering lies otherwise open to me. A right decision is, if possible, as much more momentous as it is more delicate. Of course we take the epistles as they stand in the English Bible.
The first verse of the first chapter of Romans affords an instance of loose or wrong views. “Called to be an apostle” is no less mistaken than “called to be saints” in verse 7. As he was then an apostle, so were they saints. There is no need of supplying any words in either case; and in both the supply of “to be” rather weakens and falsifies, instead of justly defining the sense. It was for the saints in their call, as for the apostle in his, a fact. In neither case was it a birthright, nor was it a human acquirement; but they became, what they were, apostles or saints by calling. It was the call of grace, according to divine purpose, but an actual relationship, which “to be” at least obscures. So it is also in 1 Corinthians, Jude, and the Revelation, as well as in Rom. 8:2828And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. (Romans 8:28). Again, γρ. singular or plural, for “the scripture” or “the scriptures,” regularly takes the article; so that, in Greek, there must be a specific reason here to render the word anarthrous. The epithets here and in chapter 16:26 are supposed by some to account for this, as others allege the prepositions; but neither ground seems satisfactory; and it is weak to say that it was indifferent to insert or omit the Greek article. The expression here then appears to be purposely general. Further, the characteristic description of, not God's gospel only, but His Son, in verses 3, 4, is not as faithfully reflected in the Revision as one might desire: see also verse 16. So, in verses 17, 18, one doubts the need of saying either “a” righteousness or “the” wrath, the phrases being alike characteristic.
But the Version of κατεχόντων in verse 18 calls for the more notice, as the Company adopt a sense which has prevailed extensively among ancients and moderns; yet is it not the primary force of the word but rather a possible contextual modification, which the context here in my judgment proves inadmissible. The word means, not simply like ἔχειν, to have, but to have thoroughly, to take (Matt. 21:3838But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. (Matthew 21:38), Luke 14:99And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room. (Luke 14:9)), to possess (1 Cor. 7:3030And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; (1 Corinthians 7:30)), to hold, or keep if there be danger of losing, to hold fast (Luke 8:55A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it. (Luke 8:5) Cor. 11:2; 15:2; 1 Thess. 5:2121Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21), &c.); if there be an opposing power, to withhold or hinder. (2 Thess. 2:5, 65Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. (2 Thessalonians 2:5‑6).) What then is the connection of the passage helping us to determine which of these shades of meaning is best here? The apostle (ver. 16) was not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God's power unto salvation to every one that believeth, both Jew first and Greek. For God's righteousness is revealed therein from faith unto faith, according as it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith, verse 17. This may be fairly regarded as the subject-matter of the epistle. The next verse states summarily why such an intervention of grace was requisite if a man was to be saved righteously. For there is revealed God's wrath from heaven against (or upon) all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men that possess or hold the truth in unrighteousness. This is precisely what is unfolded in what follows to the end of chapter 3:20: first, every sort of ungodliness in the Gentile world, gross to the end of chapter 1, and more refined in the first half (vers. 1-16) of chapter 2; where secondly he turns to the proof of unrighteousness in those that hold the truth in unrighteousness, which marks the self-satisfied and unbelieving Jew. Nor is anything more common in Christendom than truth, or orthodoxy, held ever so firmly along with total disregard of practical righteousness. It was notoriously so at that time among the Jews. Assuredly this is a phase of evil against which God's wrath is revealed; and the warning is as solemn as it is instructive in the most comprehensive treatise inspiration furnishes on the foundation of Christianity. Stifling or hindering the truth is a part of men's ungodliness no doubt; but for this very reason it does not fit in so strikingly with the Spirit's distinction between every sort of ungodliness and unrighteousness of those that hold the truth in unrighteousness. It appears to me then that “hold down” or hinder,” as the Revisers (English and American) say, does not give the true sense, nor does the marginal alternative “withhold” of the previous English Versions, still less “detain” of the Rhemish, with the Vulgate, Syriac, and Arabic. The Coptic is right, if I may judge from Wilkins. The Ethiopic is there quite unreliable, I believe therefore that the Authorized Version is right, not the Revision.
The Company have, as almost all allow, properly cast out “of Christ” (ver. 16), “also” (ver. 24), “of and fornication” (ver. 29), “implacable” (ver. 31). In verse 28 they render οὐκ ἐδ. “refused,” which is beyond question more correct than “did not like” of the Authorized Version. From “proving,” in the sense of assaying, the word comes to mean “approve,” or think good, or choose; and “hateful to God” is the true force rather than “haters of God” in verse 30. Whether they are not deceived by sound in giving πρ. rather than ποι. the sense of “practice” is a grave consideration, though they stand not alone in their judgment; it affects the bearing of many scriptures from Matthew to Revelation as well as Romans frequently.
In chapter 2 there is much less to arrest us. “Incorruption” is right, not immortality, in verse 7, as in Eph. 6:2424Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen. <<To the Ephesians written from Rome, by Tychicus.>> (Ephesians 6:24) morally, and 2 Tim. 1:1010But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel: (2 Timothy 1:10), as well as 1 Cor. 15:42, 50, 5342So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: (1 Corinthians 15:42)
50Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. (1 Corinthians 15:50)
53For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. (1 Corinthians 15:53). But “a” law in verse 13 seems objectionable, if they discard the article with the first νόμου and accept it with the second where Mr. Palmer gives the article. With Alford, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Wordsworth, the article should be in neither, and the version accordingly be “the law-hearers” and “the law-doers,” or “the hearers of law” and “the doers of law” as Mr. Green. We all know that Bishop Middleton in his celebrated treatise repeatedly pronounces this form inadmissible; but it is his oversight of cases not in the New Testament only (Matt. 11:1313For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. (Matthew 11:13); Heb. 9:1313For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: (Hebrews 9:13)) but in the purest Attic Greek. (Plat. Phaedr. 808, 811, edd. Bait. Orell. et Winck.) Equally wrong was Mr. Gilbert Wakefield, who tries to account for the absence of the article in the sentence of Mark where it is well established. The governed noun need not therefore take the article, because the governing noun has it; whether it should take it or not depends on general principles. In verse 27 they have followed others in correcting the strange inaccuracy of the Authorized Version “by” the letter, &c. for which they give “with” to express the condition, not the instrument. The medium through which the act was done is not in question. But here again why not “who with letter and circumcision art a transgressor of law"? Of course the blunder of ἴδε “behold,” for εἰ δέ “but if” (ver. 17) in the vulgarly received text is corrected.
Chapter 3 offers more frequent and grave matter for inquiry. Thus the Authorized Version in the end of verse 4 is corrected into “comest into judgment,” and “taketh vengeance” into “visiteth with wrath.” But why should not the Revisers adhere to their usual “judgment” in verse 8? In the following verse they render προεχόμεθα “are we in worse case than they?” instead of the generally preferred “better,” with the marginal alternative of “do we excuse ourselves?” The active voice may mean to have the advantage or surpass, the passive to be excelled; and so Wetstein suggested here, whom substantially the Company follow in their text, whilst giving the view of Hemsterhuis, Venema, Koppe and Wahl, in the margin, founded on one sense of the middle voice as such is beyond question of common usage. As the word occurs but once in the New Testament, we have no direct help to decide; but it has been pointed out that παρέχεσθαι is used (Acts 19:2424For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, which made silver shrines for Diana, brought no small gain unto the craftsmen; (Acts 19:24); Col. 4:11Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven. (Colossians 4:1); Titus 2:77In all things showing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine showing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, (Titus 2:7)) where it differs from παρέχειν only by a delicate shade. Hence in not a few passages there is a conflict of readings between the active and the middle form of verbs, as in Luke 15:99And when she hath found it, she calleth her friends and her neighbors together, saying, Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece which I had lost. (Luke 15:9), John 14:2323Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. (John 14:23), Acts 23:1313And they were more than forty which had made this conspiracy. (Acts 23:13). Whether in the simple verb or in its compounds, the active and the middle in some cases approximate, though no doubt each has its appropriate application. In the present instance the middle voice suits the force intended, far more than the active προέχομεν: “are we on our part better?” And as the context favors this rendering, so it condemns the version of the Revisers beyond all others as well as their margin. For in the previous verses the apostle had shown clearly that the Jews possessed signal advantages of an exterior sort over the Gentile; and this he was careful to press as aggravating their responsibility: for the argument towards the close of chapter 2 might have seemed to place them all on one dead level. But if we, the Jews, have superior privileges, specially in having the scriptures, are we in ourselves better? Not so certainly; for we before charged both Jews and Greeks with being all under sin; and then scriptures are quoted from the Psalms and the Prophets exposing their sins in every way and in the highest degree. Thus the very law in which they boasted was the irrefutable witness of their universal and heinous guilt; that, as the Gentiles were already proved abominable, and the Jews were now convicted by what the law speaks to those within its scope, every mouth might be stopped and all the world come under God's judgment. And this serves to show the mistaken division here; for verses 19 and 20 close this paragraph, the opening words being bound up with the citations from the law, or Old Testament. Sin was universal; law, far from delivering, wrought only full knowledge of sin. Man had nothing but unrighteousness for God: had God anything for man but wrath and judgment?
“But now apart from law God's righteousness hath been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ unto all and upon all that believe.” Such is the fresh subject, though in resumption of the great keynote just raised for a moment in chapter 1:17, but interrupted to let in the demonstration of man's state which called forth God's wrath. It will be noticed by the reader what havoc is made by the omission of καὶ ἐπὶ π. “and upon all” in verse 22. No doubt four or five of the oldest uncials with two cursives and some ancient versions and fathers leave the words out; and they are followed by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort. But the Homeoteleuton simply and satisfactorily accounts for the slip, aided as it may have been by the inability of many to see the double beating of the truth enunciated. For how readily the mind swerves to Calvinistic views, or to Arminian; and how few accept the truth in its fullness, of which extreme partisans see but one part, unintelligently opposed to the other part! The main body of uncials, cursives, versions, and fathers declares for the text as rendered in the Authorized Version. Even the mutilated form of some of the best Latin copies (“super omnes") bears witness against that abbreviation which has found favor. And though the expositions of Greeks and Latins have little worth or point, they show the fact; for it is no question of Jews and Gentiles, but of God's righteousness manifested unto all, going out toward all indiscriminately, and taking effect actually on all those that believe. To overlook the difference of the prepositions is unworthy, and yet more so to confound “all” with “all that believe.” The old writers who state but misapprehend the difference were certainly not the men to foist in a clause which, giving both comprehensiveness and precision, falls in as strikingly with this epistle in particular as with all scripture generally. God's righteousness could not but be for all; but in fact none but believers profited by it through faith in Christ. Its direction was towards all, not merely all believers, but all mankind; its application was upon all that believe. To take away the former is to deprive it of breadth; to blot out the latter is to deny its depth and strength. “Unto,” not “upon,” all that believe is far short of divine truth. The ordinary reading just suits the gospel of God; that of the Revisers seems equally one-sided and useless. To say that God's righteousness is unto all that believe would be a truism.
On the other hand it is strange to see that they retain “a propitiation” with the Authorized Version in verse 25, instead at best of presenting a “propitiatory” or mercy-seat as the Greeks generally understood, and they themselves do elsewhere (Heb. 9:55And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly. (Hebrews 9:5)) and Tyndale did here. The rendering also that follows, “through faith, by his blood,” is by no means sure. In verse 28 it seems peculiar that “for” (à A Dp.m. E F G, many cursives, versions, and fathers, and hence received by almost all, notwithstanding B C K L P and the Syrr. &c. which favors “therefore") is not approved by the Company, but “therefore” as in the received text. What misled was the supposition that it is a conclusion from the argument preceding, but rather a reason in support of verse 27. They are bold men who reject the judgment of Alford, Bengol, T. S. Green, Griesbach, Harwood, Koppe, Mill, Scholz, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Wells, Wordsworth, and the Five Clergymen. Is it that Drs. Westcott and Hort have changed their opinion? Judging by Dr. Vaughan's text of Romans (1st ed.) they did not then oppose the critics.—Nor do the Devisers seem successful in dealing with the anarthrous form of verses 31, 32, nor with the distinctive force of the prepositions, &c. in verse 30. It is not “the” circumcision and “the” uncircumcision, which would imply these bodies of people, but persons of either class as such: “by faith,” not by works of law which Jews might plead, and “through their faith” if Gentiles believed in Christ: the one excluding legal pretension, the other honoring faith where it existed.
In chapter 4 the main blemish is one perpetuated from the Authorized Version in verse 12, and probably due to not seizing the force of π. π., which means chief, or first characteristic, type of true separation to God; “father of circumcision, not to those of circumcision only [Jewish], but also to those that walk in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham, which he had in uncircumcision [Gentile believers].” The erroneous version appeared in Tyndale, but not in the other English translations (Wiclif, Cranmer, Geneva, and Rhemish), which rightly give two classes, not one only characterized doubly.
In chapter 5 none can be surprised to hear that the Revisers adopt for their text “let us have” for “we have,” though in Greek it is only the question of a long for a short o, letters habitually confounded (Itacism as it is called) in the best and oldest MSS. The diplomatic groundwork, though seemingly strong beyond measure, is therefore really precarious, unless the context be also clear and sure. But in my judgment the dogmatic or inferential, not exhortatory, character in this part of the epistle decidedly demands the indicative rather than the subjunctive in chapter 5: 1, 2, 3, as is strongly confirmed by the structure of verse 11, which does not admit of the latter. But souls weak in the gospel would naturally incline to the subjunctive of old as now. Of course, “reconciliation” displaces “atonement” in verse 11. But it seems strange that the Company have not adopted, even in the margin, the excellent suggestion of the famous Dr. Bentley (Ellis, p. 28) presenting the first clause of verses 15, 16 in the interrogative form. The sense is clearer thereby. They correct the confusion of οίς as if it were ἐπί in the elliptical verse 18, and rightly say “unto all men to condemnation,” &c.; also of course “the one” and “the many” are accurately given throughout, with other corrections of interest.
In chapter 6 the revision of verse 3 may dispel the delusion that all were not baptized, only many: strange oversight of the force of the phrase. But baptism was to or unto, not “into,” a person, though that of the Spirit was “into one body.”
The revision of chapter 7:3, 4, “be joined to,” is certainly better than the too definite “married” of the Authorized Version. The Greek exactly answers to the Hebrew, as for instance in Hos. 3, “To be, or belong to” is the literal and precise force. Again, it is high time that the doctrinal error involved in the editions of Beza, and repeated in the text of the Authorized Version, should be expunged. Indeed, it seems to lack the support of a single MS or even version, and to have been a mere conjecture of Beza founded on a misconception of Chrysostom, who really, like every other early ecclesiastical writer, had ἀποθανόντες (not —τος). That the law died is Antinomian in tendency; that the Christian died to law (Gal. 2:1919For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. (Galatians 2:19); Col. 2:2020Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Colossians 2:20), Hi. 3), is sound and fundamental truth. There is a various reading here (τοῦ θανάτου) supported by Greco-Latin uncials, and mentioned by Origen as then extant in some Greek copies, and followed by the Vulgate (except the Amiatine, which gives morientes, though it should be mortui), and many Latin fathers. But this is to miss the means of discharge or quittance from the law. Of course the Rhemish, like Wiclif, adheres to the less correct form of the Vulgate, whilst all the other English Versions were right in this till the Authorized Version went farther astray than ever. Erasmus, not in his first but in a later edition, had paved the way for Beza's rash conjecture through a misuse of Chrysostom's comment on the passage. Dr. Bloomfield, in his Recensio Synoptica, v. 580, attributes ἀποθανόντος to accident. But this is beyond controversy a mistake, from not knowing the facts. Had it been found in Greek copies, it might have been so; but we can trace its first appearance to the intentional alteration of Theodore de Beze.—Toward the close of the same verse (6) do not the Company go too far in translating ὥστε δουλεύειν ἡμᾶς, “so that we serve,” and not “so as to serve,” or “so that we should serve"? There seems no effort on the Revisers' part to distinguish between σαρκινός (ver. 14) and σαρκικός in 1 Cor. 3:3; 9:123For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? (1 Corinthians 3:3)
12If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ. (1 Corinthians 9:12), though there is in 2 Cor. 3:33Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. (2 Corinthians 3:3).
Chapter 8 is of mingled character. The Revisers are justified in excluding the last clause of verse 1, which, even if genuine, is incorrectly rendered in the Authorized Version. But why print “Spirit” with a capital in verses 2, 9 (twice), 11 (twice), 14 and 16, while they print it with a small letter in verses 4, 5 (twice) 6, 9 (twice more), 13, 15? Again, in verse 4 the textual rendering and the marginal should change places; and so perhaps in verse 11. In verse 24 they have adopted “who hopeth for that which he seeth?” on the authority, as far as I am aware, of the great Vatican uncial (1209) supplemented by the margin of a Bodleian cursive, Roe 16, conventionally cited among the Pauline copies as 47. No editor has as yet ventured to put this forward as the true text, though no doubt the resulting sense seems simple and suitable—indeed so much so as to look like the smoothing down of a rather rugged phrase. And it may be mentioned that Mr. Hansell's Oxford edition of the more famous uncials does not represent B aright, any more than older editors, ὓ γὰρ βλέπει τις, τί ἐλπίζει; whereas Tischendorf reports its text (p.m.) as ὂ γὰρ βλ., τίς ἐλπ. The margin of verse 47 is the less trustworthy here as reading ὑπομένει for ἐλπ. though, strange to say, àp.m. and A do the same. Is it not strange that under such circumstances so ill-sustained a reading should be the ground of a change in so grave a work as the publicly revised version of the New Testament? In verses 27, 28, the added words in Italics only encumber and enfeeble the sense. The Spirit intercedes for the saints according to God and His nature, yet more than His will, which comes very short of the truth. And though the “purpose” be without doubt of God, still it has pleased Him not to qualify it here in any way, as the fullest explanation follows in verses 29, 30. The conformity to the image of His Son is in resurrection glory, far beyond and distinct from any transformation meanwhile by the Spirit as described in 2 Cor. 3:1818But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. (2 Corinthians 3:18). The punctuation of verses 33-35 is better than in the Authorized Version, but not quite uniformly correct. “Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth: who is he that condemneth [or shall condemn]? It is Christ Jesus that died, yea rather that was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us: who shall separate from the love of Christ? shall tribulation,” &c. In the close of this part of the apostle's profound communication there is good and full authority, as is well known, for placing “nor powers” after (not before) “nor things present nor things to come.”
The opening verses of chapter 9 are fairly rendered in the Revised V. as in the Authorized, being substantially alike. The marginal alternatives are of no real weight; the last, like the American suggestion, being unidiomatic. For in such cases the predicate ought to have the emphatic position, and the subject should have the article in Greek, the only apparent exception being the LXX's rendering of Psa. 68:1919Blessed be the Lord, who daily loadeth us with benefits, even the God of our salvation. Selah. (Psalm 68:19), which is acknowledged as corrupt. Mr. T. S. Green has inadvertently dropt the rendering of καὶ ἡ νομοθεσία, “and the law-giving” out of this portion. Verse 9 runs “For this word is of promise” or [one] of promise, the Revised seeming looser than the Authorized Version. And ought there not to be “one” vessel (not “a” merely) in verse 21, to express the first 8 Verse 28 is presented in the abridged form of the oldest MSS and versions, which most modern editors prefer; the larger form seems assimilated to the LXX. Other omissions of less moment occur here and there. The Authorized Version alone fell into the unmeaning error of “that” stumbling-stone in the last verse.
In chapter 10:1 all critics of weight on ample evidence, instead of “for Israel,” read “for them,” as following up chapter 9. But the Revisers also adopt the briefer reading in verse 5, on small but ancient and good testimony. In verse 12 the Revisers go back in substance, though more correctly, to the English versions older than the Authorized Version, with a copulative perhaps needlessly inserted. They also drop as not duly authenticated one of the last clauses of verse 15 (“of those that announce glad tidings of peace") with the noble quaternion, H A B C, supplemented by a few cursive witnesses, ancient versions, and early writers.
The latter part of chapter 11:6 is rejected by àp.m. A C D E F G P, &e., with the ancient versions, save the Syrr. and Eth., and so is properly left out of text and margin by the Revisers, notwithstanding its presence (p.m.) in the favorite Vatican, L, and the mass of cursives. In verse 17 they adopt, on the doubtful authority of àp.m. B C with the Coptic, the singular exclusion of καί; “and.” That the copyists took liberties with the verse is plain from D F G omitting τῆς ῥίζης altogether, and in Latin as well as Greek. In verse 21 they discard (as do some modern critics) fame's, and with the best copies read simply οὐδε σοῦ φείσεται in the face of Chrysostom's express contradiction. (iv. 338, Field, Oxon, 1849.) Certainly the preferred text is far easier than that commonly received, which is opposed to the well-known canon of diplomatic criticism. In verse 22 θεοῦ “God's,” is now given on weighty grounds. Verse 31 is an unhappy instance of misrendering; the comma if inserted should follow, not precede, τῶ ὑμ. ἐλέει, as the true force is “even so have these also disbelieved your mercy, that they also may be objects of mercy.” The older English versions were right, following with the Pesch. and the Philox. Syrr., the Coptic, and the Vulgate, till the Geneva misled under the false guidance of Beza. Luther on the one hand and Estius on the other were nearer the truth; and so apparently Green, Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles.
There is little to arrest in the revision of chapter 12. To render ὁ πρ. in verse 8 “ruleth” is a deduction from the close meaning of “presideth,” though perhaps allowable and true; as in verse 10 the word translated “preferring” means being the first, or leading the way in the honor paid to each other. It is one of the strange phenomena of ancient copies that some (Dp.m. F G) should be found with the monstrous reading καιρῶ “time” or “season;” that Erasmus should have adopted it in his editions ii.-v. after having “the Lord” in his first edition; and that Stephens, Mill, and even Griesbach should have followed in his wake. The weight of external evidence as well as internal propriety so decidedly preponderates against this heathenish maxim that one is surprised to see greater weight attached to it by the marginal note of the Revisers than in the Authorized Version. Every recent editor of weight rejects it with N A B Dcorr. E L P and almost all the cursives, ancient versions and fathers, save some Latins. To buy up the fit time is one thing; to serve it is another, which wrongs the Lord to whom alone we owe allegiance unlimited. In verse 16 τοῖς ταπ. συναπαγόμενοι is rendered worse than in the Authorized Version, which adheres to the personal application prevalent with the Greek commentators. But the Revision on too narrow a view of the antithesis decides with some moderns for the neuter, “condescend to things that are lowly,” adding in the margin the impossible literal rendering “be carried away with.” Now condescension is not a Christian feeling, but rather of Gentile patrons (cf. Luke 22:25, 2625And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. (Luke 22:25‑26)). It supposes the maintenance in the saints of what Christ destroys and displaces by grace in a new creation; whereas “going along with,” or some such rendering stronger than the “inclining” of the Five Clergymen, seems to me required by the word as modified by the context. It would be too much to expect in heathen writings the expression of a feeling there unknown; but Chrysostom (in loc.) fairly explains. Theodoret's συγκατιέναι falls into the idea of condescension (Opera Omnia ex recens. Jac. Sirmondi, v. 134). Mr. Green gives “assort yourselves with the lowly.”
In chapter 8 are a few inconsiderable but warranted changes from the Text. Rec. and the Authorized Version, as in verses 1, 3, 7, 9.
In chapter 14 they rightly omit the second clause of verse 6, as well as “both".... “and revived” in verse 9. They also properly substitute “God” for “Christ” in verse 10. Then again they duly distinguish between “destroy” in verse 15, and “overthrow” in verse 20, which is neglected in some careful versions. On rather slender authority they leave out “or is offended, or is weak” at the end of verse 21. But they are certainly justified in relegating to the end of chapter 16 the doxology which some 200 cursives with L and others foist in here, though two uncials A P have it in both, and some in neither.
In chapter 15 some few slight differences from the Authorized Version are adopted, as in verses 4, 7, 8, 17, 19, 29. In verse 16 is not some of the force of the apostolic phrase lost in the vague “minister of Christ Jesus.... ministering the gospel of God"? It is” serving sacrificially” as just after explained in an allusion to Num. 8—Mr. Green by the way leaves out of his version the English corresponding to εἰς τὰ ἔθνη in this connection.
Chapter 16, furnishes but inconsiderable variations. In verse 1 it should be “Cenchreae.” The “also” of verse 2 should be with “she herself,” not with “myself.” — “Prisca” is the true form in verse 3; as in verse 5 it should be “Asia,” not “Achaia,” and in verse 6 “you” rather than “we.” Junias and Urbanus are preferable to “Junia and Urbane.” In verse 16 the apostle added “all,” which slipt out of the received text and Authorized Version. “ Amen” should disappear from the end of verse 20, after a benediction which some repeat with πάντων added as verse 24, contrary to N ABC and other good authorities; as others omit it at verse 20. “ By the scriptures of the prophets” in verse 26 misleads: read “by prophetic writings” or scriptures, meaning thereby his own epistles on “the mystery,” or the inspired writings in general of the New Testament. For the church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. (Eph. 2, 3.)