Revised New Testament: Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians

Chapter 1:1, we have “Christ Jesus” rightly: verse 2, a proper omission of “and Lord Jesus Christ” and in verse 8 of “and” — “God the Father,” &c. But the Revisers are capricious in their treatment of οὶ οὐρ., giving sometimes “heaven,” sometimes “the heavens.” The inspired writers use the two phrases with distinctness of purpose. Thus it is always in Matthew “the kingdom of the heavens,” but in the Revised Version, as in the Authorized Version, “of heaven;” and so with” your,” “our,” or “My Father which is in heaven,” whereas really it is “in the heavens.” Yet the evangelist uses the singular form in chapter 5:18, 34; 6:10, 20, 26; 8:20; 11:23, 25; 13:32; 14:19; 16:1, 2, 3 (if 2, 3 be genuine); 18:18 twice (19:21 being doubtful perhaps); 21:25 twice; 22:30; 23:22; 24:29, 30 twice, 35; 26:64; 28:2, 18. On the other hand, the Revisers rightly say “the heavens” in chapter 3:16, 17, but not (in addition to the phrases already referred to) in chapter 5:12; 16:19 twice, while again they give “the heavens” in chapter 24:29, yet the singular form wrongly in verses 31, 36. Similar caprice might be shown in Mark and Luke where both forms occur (for John's Gospel has only the singular), save that the Revisers in the Acts give the plural correctly in its two occurrences. In Ephesians they give the plural twice rightly, and twice as singular wrongly, as also in Phil. 3:20, the only occurrence there. In our Epistle, chapter 1, they give the plural three times accurately in verses 5, 16, 20 (in chap. 4:1 they adopt the singular variant), but not in 1 Thess. 1:10. In Hebrews they are right save in chapter xii. 23, 25, in both like the Authorized Version. In 1 Peter 1:4 they are wrong, in 2 Peter 3:5, 7, 10, 12, 13 right, in both again following the Authorized Version. In the Revelation there is but one plural occurrence, and the Authorized Version and Revised Version agree in reflecting it rightly. In verse 6 the Revisers follow the good authorities in giving “and increasing,” or “growing” which the Text. Rec. omits, and in dropping the expletive “also” in verse 7, where they adopt the absurd reading of many ancient and modern authorities, ἡμῶν, “our,” instead of ὑμῶν, their marginal alternative. Here however Westcott and Hort had not only Alford, Lachmann, Tregelles, to keep them in countenance, but the Elzevirian Text. Rec. of 1633. This however may have been a mere printer's error, like that of the copyists; for the first (1624) and the latter editions of the Elzevirs adhere to the reading of Erasmus, of the Complutensian, of Colinaeus, of Stephens, and of Beza; as it holds its ground rightly to this day. The ancient versions are unanimous in rejecting ἡμῶν; and no wonder: for the sense which would result from this reading is untrue, as it would seem that Epaphras, valued and faithful as he may have been, was in no sense “vice apostoli,” as says a Latin commentator contrary to all others, Greek or Latin, who allude to it. In verse 10 “increasing in” seems a questionable rendering. Is not “growing by” better, as the margin suggests for the last word? There is no doubt that “through his blood” should vanish from verse 14. It stands rightly in Eph. 1:7, whence probably it was introduced here. The person is the point here, not yet the work, which comes afterward in verses 20-22.— “In him” in verse 16 appears a bald or mystic expression. It was in His power or in virtue of Him that all things were created. To be in Christ, to walk or dwell in Him, is for believers as intelligible as it is blessed; but for the universe to be created in Him, what is the meaning? It is assumption to say that we are shut up to any such rendering. No doubt iv is more than But (the expression of the means or instrument) and supposes intrinsic ability. The next matter of weight for consideration is in verse 19, where the old fault of the Authorized Version reappears. There the excellent Tyndale led the way in error, Wiclif before and the Rhemish since being nearer the truth. The doctrine is as bad as the version, and derogatory to the Son as well as the Spirit in our epistle, and the very part where the prime object is to assert the glory of Christ in every way. For in Him all the fullness was well pleased to dwell, and through Him to reconcile all things unto itself, having made peace through the blood of His cross. The margin offers a less offensive rendering than the Revised text; but chapter 2:9 goes far to commend a version which needs no words to be supplied and wonderfully falls in with the grand aim of exalting Christ's person. In verse 25 the context suggests “complete” rather than “fulfill.” There was a blank left in the revelations of God; and the apostle, as minister not only of the gospel but of the assembly, was given to complete the word of God, who would now manifest to His saints the mystery hidden from the ages and from the generations. Such was the dispensation or stewardship of God given him toward the Gentiles. Compare Eph. 3— “Perfect” in verse 28, as in Phil. 3:15, means “full-grown,” as the Revisers, following the Authorized Version “of full age,” give in Heb. 5:14.
Chapter 2:3 does not exhibit a satisfactory text, though there are added and indefensible words in the text which the Authorized Version followed. It is very doubtful whether “and of Christ” should stand any more than “and of the Father,” the importance of which omission would be that the version would run “in which.” That is, all these treasures are in the mystery. Nor is there need for “so” in verse 6.” Of the sins” is an error in the common Greek text which the Revisers, with the critics, properly omit in verse 11. But are they not adventurous in following the few uncials and cursives, though supported by Greek and Latin ecclesiastics, which drop ἐν and give the force “through” in verse 13? In verse 15, dropping the interpolated copulative, they adhere to the literal or ordinary force of ἀπεκδυσάμενος, “having put off from himself,” with Alford and Ellicott, which results in an apparently fanciful meaning, which it is hard to believe intended by the Spirit of God. Every scholar knows that later usage employed middle forms where a middle sense cannot be recognized, though there is a distinction from the active voice. Hence even Winer does not accept the strict middle sense here, any more than Meyer or others, inclining to some such force as in the Authorized Version. If God be the subject throughout, the Latin application to the Lord's divesting Himself of the flesh or body is out of the question; and certainly the word is rarely if ever used absolutely or with such an ellipsis. Theodoret and Chrysostom are vague, but regard Christ as the subject. In verse 18 they drop the negative with several of our bolder modern critics, which would thus express the pretension of the mystics whom the apostle is exposing. Their version of the last clause in verse 28 is no less bold, though no doubt it suits the context if it were tenable. But does the preposition πρς ever convey the idea of counteraction or adverse aim save from the context, as from any word of fighting or the like, of which there is no trace here? If “against” therefore be improper in this connection, the force would be a warning against ascetic treatment, without a certain honor due to the vessel of the Holy Spirit, which is really for satisfaction of the flesh.
In chapter 3 there is happily but little to remark. The stronger and more accurate force we saw in Gal. 3 reappears in verse 11. But it is very questionable whether “Christ” is not changed for the worse in verse 13 into “Lord” as in A B Dp.m. F G, &c., Vulgate, &c. The Sinaitic reads “God;” the ordinary reading has ancient and extensive support, especially in versions and citations. But the Revisers, with all critics, on the best authority have the peace “of Christ” in verse 15. In the end of verse 16 they rightly give to “God,” and omit “and” in verse 17, as well as “own” in verse 18. In verse 22 it is rightly “the Lord,” not “God” as in the Authorized Version following the Received Text; and the copulative is dropt at the beginning of verse 23, and the causal conjunction before the final clause of verse 24. Of course the first verse of chapter iv. is properly connected with chapter 3 as its true close.
In the last chapter there is yet less to notice. Verse 8 is a plain instance where the influence of most of the oldest copies has misled editors and the Revisers. The Paris rescript and the mass of uncials and cursives and versions are confirmed in their reading as right by the end of verse 9 as well as the beginning of verse 7. In verse 10 it is properly “cousin.” In verse 12 they rightly supply “Jesus” omitted in Text. Rec. In verse 13 it is as in the best copies “labor,” not “zeal,” the manuscripts, differing singularly. The main question of verse 15 lies between “their” (ΰ A C P, eight cursives, &c.) and “his” (D E F G K L and the mass with some ancient versions, &c.), “her” (though adopted by Lachmann who reads Νύμφαν, after the Vatican and very little more) being given in the Revisers' margin, and not “his,” which seems strange.
Revised New Testament: Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians
In this Epistle the critical changes are few.
In chapter 1:1 “from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Origen expressly noted the words as not read in his day, though they are supported by the Sinaitic, Alexandrian, and many other good MSS and versions, &c. B F G and the best versions reject the words. There are slight corrections in verses 8 and 10.
In chapter 2:2 an expletive καί is expunged, as also γάρ in verse 9. There is an omission of καί supplied at the beginning of verse 13, as of ἰδίους in verse 15 and of “Christ” in verse 19. As to translation, is not verse 13 awkwardly rendered? Translate rather, “When ye received God's word of message (or report)—God's word heard—from us, ye accepted not men's word, but as it is truly God's word,” &c.
Chapter 3:2 brings before us a text variously found in the MSS. But if συνεργὸν τοῦ θεοῦ be read, as in the margin, “fellow-worker with God” will not do, for reasons already stated in discussing 1 Cor. 3, &c. It is not the thought at all, however pleasing to man's nature. God employs laborers as work-fellows; but He is no work-fellow of theirs. It is irreverent. In the text they read διάκονον “minister,” as the Vatican copy omits τοῦ θεοῦ, and thus either way the difficulty is avoided. But there is really none when the word is rendered, not as by mere scholarship, but in the knowledge of God. A few lesser points might be spoken of, but the chief is the exclusion of “Christ” which Text. Rec. introduced on insufficient grounds.
In chapter 4:1 there is a short clause omitted in Text. Rec. and Authorized Version which is here rightly given, “even as ye do walk.” The Revisers, I think, aptly render verse 4 “to possess himself of,” as also of course verse 6. In verse 8 it is “you,” not “us.” In verse 13 it is “we,” not “I” as in Text Rec. In verse 14 the margin is right, “through Jesus.” The peculiarity of the “shout” is left out in verse 16.
In chapter v. 3 the particle “for” disappears properly, as it should appear in verse 5. There is little else to note but the omission of ἁγίοις. “holy” in verse 27, where if we take MSS, versions and citations into account, external authority is rather evenly balanced. If it were a solitary expression in the Pauline epistles, this would not really weigh against its occurrence in his earliest, and in so solemn a connection. I doubt the wisdom or certainty of casting it out here. It occurs also in Heb. 3:1.
2 Thessalonians
The rendering of chapter 1:8 is correct, not that of the Authorized Version which overlooks the two articles in the Greek, expressive of two distinct classes of men with whom the day of the Lord is to deal: those that know not God (the nations or heathen); and those that, if they know Him after a sort, obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus (unbelieving Jews). The addition of “Christ” here is questionable; B D E G K L P, some thirty cursives, half the ancient versions, and many ancients who cite, being adverse. In verse 10 it should be “believed.” In verse 12 the weight of authority omits “Christ” at the beginning.
In chapter 2:1 “touching” or “in behalf of” the coming or presence of our Lord Jesus Christ seems to be founded on a misapprehension of the contextual requirement. Nobody doubts that either is a good rendering of the preposition in itself. But the connected language may modify, as well as the subject-matter; and all this has to be weighed. Was it not assumed by the Revisers, as in Alford's Commentary, that the coming of our Lord was the theme which he was about to explain to the Thessalonians? “It is most unnatural,” says the Dean in objection to the rendering of the Vulgate, Authorized Version and many ancient commentators, “that the apostle should thus conjure them by that, concerning which he was about to teach them.” This however is exactly opposed to the fact; for he is beseeching them ὑπὲρτῆς π. τ. κ. ἡ. Ἰ. Χ. κ. ἡ. ἐ. ἐ, ἀ. not to be quickly shaken by a false impression about the day of the Lord. This, not His presence, is the real subject in hand. They are so distinct, that the apostle entreats ὑπὲρ the one not to be troubled about a wrong view of the other. It is the confusion of the two which led to the wrong rendering, as it also forbids the right understanding of the argument and of the truth in the context. It is impossible to read attentively the chapter before and the following verses without perceiving that the apostle is treating of that day, as the Authorized translators rightly saw in verse 3. And therefore it is that in verse 8 we have, not of the Lord's coming merely, but “of the manifestation of his coming,” which really for the sense coalesces with His day. The one is for the gathering to Him of His friends; the other, for the destruction of His foes. Hence it is most intelligible to beseech the brethren, for the sake or on account of that blessed hope, not to be soon agitated nor yet troubled by the error that the day of the Lord was there. He begs them by a motive of deepest comfort not to be upset by the delusion that the day was present. How could this be, as the Lord had not yet come and gathered His own to Himself on high? How could it be, seeing that the apostasy and the man of sin were not yet developed in all their matured and manifested lawlessness, as they must be for the Lord to execute His judgment on them when that day dawns? This may serve to convince serious readers that the actual misunderstanding was about the ἡμέρα or day, not the παρουσία or presence, as has been erroneously taken for granted. Accordingly too the rendering, with a verb of entreaty as here, is properly “for the sake of,” “by reason of,” or, more tersely, “by,” as in all the well-known English versions (Wield, Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Rhemish, and Authorized Version). It is uncritical to confound ἐρςτᾷν περί with ἐρ. ὑπέρ, as the Revisers have done; and the New Testament abounds with proof that, when it was a question of beseeching for a person or asking about a thing, the former is the constant and correct phrase. We are therefore entitled to infer that ἐρ. ὑπέρ has its own distinctive force; and as “on behalf” or “instead of” is excluded by the nature of the case, so the bearing of the context most naturally points to some such rendering as is in the Authorized Version, and beyond just doubt disproves “touching” in the Revised Version or any other rendering of like import. The Revisers however have correctly expunged the “by” of the Authorized Version in the same clause; for the one article of course forms the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ into one closely connected object of thought with “our gathering together unto him,” instead of dissociating them as the unwarranted insertion of “by” does. In verse 2, in the endeavor to be literal have they not missed our own idiom? Dr. Angus ought to be able to say whether “shaken from your mind” is good English. The Authorized Version is at least idiomatic. But they have restored the true reading of “the Lord,” not of “Christ,” and they have given the correct version “is now present” or rather “is present,” instead of the misleading “is at hand,” which has darkened expositors, preachers, and readers without end. In verse 3 they rightly say “the falling away” or apostasy, and as rightly discard “as God,” though it is hard to tell why they did not render morn literally ὅτι ἐστὶν θεός at the end, instead of repeating the English phrase which represents the interpolated ὡς θεόν. In verses 7, 8 they are quite right in giving us “lawlessness,” and “the lawless one,” instead of the words in the Authorized Version which would answer to ἀδικία and πονηός. The latter half of verse 7 is also better rendered as a whole; and “Jesus” is added on excellent authority, of moment to set aside pseudo-spiritual applications of the verse, as “slay” or destroy is better than “consume,” which is popularly employed to aid false interpretation. In verse 11 “sendeth them a working of error” rightly displaces “shall send them strong delusion” in the Authorized Version. But could they not do better for the force of τῷ ψεύδει than perpetuate the old “a lie “? How strange that both Bishop Ellicott and the Into Dean Alford should so little comprehend the truth here set out as to fancy, because of verse 7 and the present tense, that God's sending this judicial delusion is now! What about the lawless one's presence in verse 9? It is the ethical, not the historical, present, an usage quite common in all philosophical and indeed other writings, as well as in holy scripture. The error in this case affects, not the translation, but the intelligence of scripture; but it does affect the version in “them that are perishing” as in verse 10 and often in other words elsewhere, where they convert a moral present into a direct or historical one under the illusion that this only is correct. — “Work and word” rightly take the place of “word and work” in the Text. Rec. and Authorized Version.
In chapter 3:4 the “you” of Text. Rec. disappears. There is a conflict of readings at the end of verse 6, whether it be “he” as in the Authorized Version, “they” as in the Revised Version, or “ye” as in the margin. The singular is ill-attested; “they” has the better claim. In verse 12 they rightly change from “by our” to “in the.” The form of verse 14 “that ye have no company with him” may be right; but in so doubtful a case, does it seem wise or fair to commit the Revision to it?