3:1 seems too vague in margin 4. It was after that lapse of time. —16. The margin (2) is better than the text or the softer American view. —20 stands cumbrously if even correctly in the Revised Version. It would be better if only a comma displaced; “and yet;” which applies to the Americans as well.—22 is one of the very many cases where the Revisers forsake their judgment as to the aorist without reason. In 23 is an instance that they forgot that personification gives the article in Greek, but not in English. The Americans have noticed the inconsistency; but correct γέγονεν in 24 from “hath been” to “is become.” It is clearly more than the simple fact, ἐγένετο Americans do not notice the strange punctuation of 26, due, I presume, less or more to the Bishop of Durham's influence. I do not admit that the context points to any such severance between “faith” and “Christ Jesus.”
4:12 “Become” is well for “be” and “am become,” for “am"; but the great oversight in the Revised Version is in the last word; for, if we are to supply, it should be “were,” not “are.” They had been Gentiles without law and Paul maintains freedom from law by Christ dead and risen as the nor mal condition of the Christian, not getting under law after faith in Christ like the Galatians actually. No supply might be best. —16 is well enough. In 18, 19, a dash would be better after “you,” and before “my children;". for the Revisers have put, not a comma, but a period between the verses,
5:1 is a perplexing question of text. If be read, the Authorized Version is substantially right`; if omitted by the Revisers, and the οὖν read after στ,, their version is (I think) correct, rather than marginal 4. The suggestion on 12 is too vague for the text, even if the sense.—20 should be compared with 1 Cor. 11:2929For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. (1 Corinthians 11:29).
6:1 does not mean surprised “by,” but taken or detected “in.” Nor does” since” suit 10 like “as.” In 11 it is the epistolary aorist, which in our idiom Means “I write.” The Revisers are right in saying “with how large letters,” γράμμασιν. Had Paul meant to say “how long, or large, a letter,” as in the Authorized Version, &c. the proper Greek would be γράμματα. And π. well expresses the length of the letters, not of the letter, which is by no means long.
Ephesians
1:16 See the note in the “Bible Treasury” for December, 1881, page 378. The suggestion is right.
2:2. It is really “authority” rather than “power"; and “power"; would appear to be erroneous.
3:13. The American suggestion, which we find in the Syriac and elsewhere, seems as unworthy of the truth and general context as unsupported by the surrounding words.
6:9 is literally “the Master of both them and you.” To warrant the suggestion, the Greek might have been ὁ καὶ αὐτ. καὶ ὑμ. κ.
Philippians
116, 17. The suggestions seem uncalled for, as already implied in the text.—22 seems to me as ill-rendered by the Americans as by the Revisers. Living and dying were before the apostle—to live, Christ; and to die, gain. But if to live in the flesh [were his], this, he says, is to me worth while, or fruit of work to reap; and what I shall choose, I know not [or cannot tell, for γν. may mean either]. The “if” of the Revisers and correctors seems quite out of place from not separating the last clause, whether we omit marginal 5 or not. To regard καὶ as introducing the apodosis appears only to embarrass. The Bishop of Durham confesses how doubtful that construction is here, and how awkwardly the sentence runs even if admissible.
2:1 is a questionable change, though on the surface “exhortation” may seem close. 6. Is not “subsisting” a more suitable word than the suggested “existing"? The verse runs better in the Revised Version, “a thing to be grasped” not fitting in well.
14 διολ.. is used for “questionings” as well as “reasonings,” and “disputes,” and may be so used here. 15 “become,” instead of “be,” is suggested (I presume) the better to mark γένησθς rather than ἦτε (A D E F G &c.) which Lachmann preferred.
3:8. “Refuse,” as in the margin, is a wider and well supported sense rather than “dung,” though this too the word σκύβαλα meant. 9 “of” God to my mind keeps up the idea of intrinsic and immediate source rather than an external removal, and at any rate a more remote starting-point like “from.” 12, “lay” and “laid” hold on are all well for apprehend and apprehended; but the better point in the margin of the Revisers over their text is in taking ἐφ'ᾦ in the usual sense of the condition, or occasion, which gives character to what is spoken of, “for that,” “seeing that.” —13 is the same thing.
4:4. Assuredly “farewell” does not deserve a place in the margin here. Indeed the Americans should have objected to it in the margin of iii. 1. Here it is monstrous: for what is the meaning of “Farewell in the Lord alway?” and why not, if it be so, say in 1 Thess. 5:1616Rejoice evermore. (1 Thessalonians 5:16), Farewell “alway"? There indeed they omit their marginal note properly; but they should not have given it here. In 19 “fulfill” is one of the singular aberrations of the Revision Committee, without even a marginal alternative. The sense is “supply” as in the Authorized Version.
Colossians
1:36 is their first suggestion, and the very strange one of ἀπό “for,” rather than “from,” as of course it means. Perhaps Alford misled them w'o says it is “temporal,” and not “hidden from,” which is exactly what it says and is. What do the Americans mean by “for the ages and for the generations"? It is hard to see why the Revisers were not content with the Authorized Version. “All” seems a loose way of representing the doubled preposition and article. No notice is taken of the real mistakes in the Revision of 16 and 19, and of the unhappy severance of 24, &c. from the previous verses; by which the double ministry of Paul is cut through, whereas the connection adds much to the force. Also the word “fulfill” in 25 should be “complete.” There was a blank page of revelation which Pau was called to fill up. “Fulfill” is another and her erroneous idea.
2:15. The Americans are right in preferring in substance the Authorized Version to the Revised Version, though they would put their text in the margin.
3:5. “Put to death” is best, and marginal 12 uncalled for. In 16, not improbably the Americans are right in thus following Alford, Bengel, &c.
1 Thessalonians
2:6, “burdensome” fails to express the claims of weight, charge, or authority here meant.
4:12 is more “honorably” or “reputably” than “honestly,” or “becomingly,” as suggested.
5:22 is “form,” not “appearance.”
2 Thessalonians
2.:2 The Americans are here thoroughly wrong in all Greek, profane as well as sacred; for ἐνὲστ. means “is present,” and not “is just at hand” or “impending.” 10. See Acts 2:4747Praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. (Acts 2:47), &c.
3:2 agreed.