Gal 216 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.
Gal 316 Now to Abraham + + . were the promises made.
1 Ti 32 A bishop...
1Ti 610 For the love of money is the root of all evil.
He 115... for before his translation he had this testi- mony, that he pleased God.
He 127 If ye endure chasten- ing, God dealeth with you as with sons,
_He 13° Let your conversa- tion$§$ be without covetous- ness.
Rev 195 Praise our God, all ye his servants.
RV 1881.
Mt 1392, .. it is greater* than the herbs.
Lk 55... . we toiled all night, and took nothing.+
Jn172., .. that whatsoever thou hast given him, to them he should give eternal life.
Ac 2187 Dost thou know t¢ Greek?
Ac 2716 , . . we were able, with difficulty, to secure § the boat.
Ro 57 for || peradventure for the good man some one would even dare to die.
Ro 5) For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many.
1Co 5! It is actually J re- ported...
2Co102. .. that Imay not when present show courage with the confidence wherewith I count to be bold against some, which count of us as if we walked according to the flesh.
Gal 216 . . . knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, save [m. but only] through faith in Jesus Christ.**
Gal 316 Now to Abraham were the promises spoken.
1 Ti 382 The bishop...
1Ti 610 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. tt
He 115... for before his translation he hath had wit- ness borne to him that he had been well-pleasing unto God.
He 127 Itisfor {{ chastening that ye endure; God dealeth with you as with sons.
He 13° Be ye free from the love of money.
Rev 195 Give praise to our God, all ye his servants.
The Revisers of the OT had a task before them in some respects more difficult, in others easier, than
that which the NT Revisers had had to face.
On
the one hand, their subject was a much longer one ;
more varied in its contents,
and hence requiring
more diversified knowledge in those who dealt with
* Query, used here as a superlative?
Mt 18! and elsewhere.
éeifav is so used in
The tendency of the superlative Jorm of
adjs. to disappear in NT Greek (noticed by Rutherford in the Pref. to his new translation of Romans, 1900) is illustrated by the fact that miyioros is only found once in the NT (2 P 14).
t Justified by RV on ground of aorist tenses,
t For the ellipse of acaeiy with EAAnuosi, see Field, in loc.
§ ‘Difficulty’ not found in AV. ‘Secure,’ as a verb, only in Mt 2814 (Suis dpepipevovs ronoowev), where the Revisers have
substituted ‘rid
you of care.’
As a rendering of xspizporeis
yevéodos in the present passage, ‘secure’ is inappropriate, unless
(as is probable enough) the RV
‘get hold of.’
uses it as simply equivalent to
|| The ‘for’ refers to a thought suppressed, by a common Gr.
idiom. Rutherford thus
1s supplies the ellipse : conceivable, not wholly inconceivable 5 for,’ ete. text the words are scarcely intelligible,
‘I say barely As left in the
4] ‘ Actually’ in this sense is a modernism. ** Burgon (The Revision Revised, p. 147) quotes Bp. Words- worth of Lincoln as saying that the statement thus put forth,
with ‘save’ instead of ‘but,’ or
‘but only,’ ‘is illogical and
erroneous, and contradicts the whole drift) of St. Paul’s argu-
ment in that Ep. and in the Ep. t
tt ravroy cay, not TovTolay,
.
Wetstein) Athen. vii. p. 280 A yuorpos iOov7],
Sa, anarthrous as predicate, F
0 the Romans.’
is ‘all,’ not ‘all kinds of,’ With ield (in loc.) aptly compares (after » &pxn rol pile xeevrds ayallod 4 ris
{tt ss has undoubtedly better authority than ¢. But, with this allowance, let the two versions be compared simply as English.
§§ Gr. 0 spores. (Rhemish). unintelligible here, to a modern reader.
‘Let your manners be without auarice’ It must be admitted, however, that the AV is very or, if intelligible, gives a totally false sense
it; beset, moreover, with greater obscurities, and not illustrated by the light shed from many quarters upon the NT. On the other hand, the confessed obscurity of many passages formed a justification of the Revisers’ work ; fewer persons were competent to criticise their work; and they had the advantage of an interval of four years after the appearance of the revised NT, in 1881, in which to profit by the verdict passed by public opinion upon the performance of their colleagues. Above all, they were not hampered by the constant necessity of deciding between rival texts of the original. Very wisely, we think, they came to the conclusion, as stated in their Preface, that ‘as the state of knowledge on the subject is not at present such as to justify any attempt at an entire reconstruction of the text on the authority of the Versions, the Revisers have thought it most prudent to adopt the Massoretic Text as the basis of their work, and to depart from it, as the Autho- rized Translators had done, only in exceptional cases.’