ersion could
hardly be fully specified without taking into consideration the margin in
its entirety. As readers of the Preface to the New Testament (very few,
I fear, to judge by current criticisms) will possibly remember,
alternative readings and renderings were prohibited in the case of the
Authorised Version, but, as we know, the prohibition was completely
disregarded, some thirty-five notes referring to readings, and probably
more than five hundred to alternative renderings. In the fundamental
rules of Convocation for the Revision just the opposite course was
prescribed, and, as we know, freely acted on.
These alternative readings and renderings must be carefully considered,
as in the case of renderings much light is often thrown on the true
interpretation of the passage, especially in the more difficult portions
of the New Testament. Their relation however to the actually accepted
Version must not be exaggerated, either in reference to readings or
renderings. I will make plain what I mean by an example. Dr. Westcott
specifies a reading of importance in John i. 18 where he states that the
reading in the margin ("God only begotten") did in point of fact express
the opinion of the majority of the Company, but did not appear in the
text of the Version because it failed to secure the two-thirds majority
of those present at the final revision. This, perhaps, makes a little
too much of an acceptance at a somewhat early period of the labours of
the Company. So far as I remember the case, the somewhat startling
alteration was accepted at the first revision (when the decision was to
be by simple majorities), but a margin was granted, which of course
continued up to the second revision. At that revision the then text and
the then margin changed places. Dr. Hort, I am well aware, published an
important pamphlet on the subject, but I have no remembrance that the
first decision on the reading was alluded to, either at the second
revision or afterwards, in any exceptional manner. It did but share the
fate of numberless alterations at the first revision that were not
finally confirmed.
The American Revisers, it will be observed, agree as to the reading in
question with their English brethren; and the same too is the judgement
of Professor Nestle in his carefully edited Greek Testament to which I
have already referred.
I have dwelt upon this particular case, because though I am especially
desirous to encourage a far
|