'Y^ILE«¥]M]I¥EI^SIIirY-

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

GIFT OF

The Bev. Fleming James

COMPANION TO THE
MARGINAL READINGS
BIBLE
AUTHORISED BY THE GENERAL CONVENTION OF 1901

By
C. W. E. BODY, D.D., D.C.L.
II.
Professor of Old Testament Literature and Interpretation in the
General Theological Seminary, New York

With the Compliments of the Author

NEW YORK
THOMAS NELSON & SONS_
37 East 18th Street

25c

PREFACE
Many enquiries have reached me from various quar
ters which have shown the need for a short pamphlet
giving detailed information as to the history, nature, and
aims of the Marginal Readings Bible authorised by the
General Convention of 1901. Hence the present attempt
to supply this need. My best thanks are proffered to my
dear friend and colleague on the Commission, the Right
Rev. the Bishop of Vermont, for much valuable help. It
is right, however, to say that for the statements here
made no member of the Commission except the author
is responsible.
C. W. E. Body.
Lent, 1904.

I.
THE NECESSITY FOR AMENDING THE KING
JAMES VERSION
For two centuries and a half the King James Version
held unquestioned sway in English-speaking Christen
dom. Its magnificent diction has made it at once the
first of English classics and the book dear to the heart
of the people. That even at the present time it should
so largely retain this unique position is undoubtedly in
great measure due to the facts of its history. It came
as the last and the crown of a long series of English Ver
sions, from the first attempt to translate into English
the Latin Vulgate made by Wyclif, to the popular but
unauthorised Geneva Version. The translators of 1611
were able to utilise the varied experience of this host of
previous workers in the same field, and looking back
upon them all to combine their excellences, whilst avoid
ing what had proved to be faults. These advantages were
wisely recognised and seized. A great opportunity was
used to the full with the result already noticed.
Within the last thirty years, however, the progress of
Biblical study and archaeological research has given to
the world treasures of new knowledge in regard to both
the text and the meaning of the Scriptures, with which
the translators of 161 1 (who scrupulously made use of
all the information within their reach) had no means of
becoming acquainted. Thus it has become increasingly
manifest that some amendment of the 161 1 version is
imperatively necessary if it is to continue to hold that
5

COMPANION TO THE

position among English-speaking Christians which its
merits won for it in the past. It is the object of this
chapter to give illustrations of the chief classes of such
defects as are referred to, so as to aid the reader to grasp
the urgent necessity for removing these blemishes, and
thus to enable this magnificent and venerable version to
meet the needs of our own day.
We may group these defects under the main heads of
I. Inaccurate translations ;
II. Obscurities due mainly to obsolete words and
phrases ;
III. Errors in textual readings.
Under the head of inaccuracies we may notice, first,
passages in which the older rendering has been found to
create in many minds serious moral difficulty.
Such are the injunctions in Matt. vii. 28 ff. to " take
no thought," where the meaning is that we should avoid
needless and faithless anxiety. " Be not therefore anx
ious." In the parable of the unjust steward (Luke xvi., 8,
9) we should read " his lord " for " the lord " in the
commendation of the defaulting servant; and the final
application should run, " Make to yourselves friends by
means of the mammon of unrighteousness," instead of
the ambiguous, " Make to yourselves friends of the
mammon," etc., which might seem to enjoin friendship
with a thing unrighteous.
In Matt, xvii, 27 our Lord's anxiety was not lest
He should " oflfend " his Jewish critics in the usual sense
of that word, but lest he should " cause them to stumble."
How many have been hindered from Holy Communion
by the words which predicate " damnation " of those who
eat and drink unworthily, while St. Paul was really warn
ing of " judgment " for those who received " in an un
worthy manner!" (I Cor. xi., 29.)
If we read that the Son of Man has " authority " on
earth to forgive sins, and that such " authority " has been

MARGINAL READINGS BIBLE

given unto men, we are saved from the possibilities of
misapprehension which lurk under the mere thought of
"power" in this relation. (Mark ii. lo.)
In the sentence on the slothful servant in the parable
of the talents the Lord was entitled at his coming to look
for his own with " interest," not " usury " with its sug
gestion of unlawful gain. (Matt. xxv. 27.) This confu
sion of " interest " with " usury " occurs in several other
important places.
In I Tim. vi. 10 we should read that " the love of money
is a root of all kinds of evil," where the 161 1 rendering,
" is the root of all evil," gives a sense which is ineffective
because clearly exaggerated.
Secondly, we may notice instances of obscurity. These
are often due to the fact that words have now become
obsolete which in the seventeenth century were quite
clear in their meaning. Such are " honest " in the sense
of " honourable," " convenient " for " befitting," " con
versation " for " manner of life," " charger " for " plat
ter," " carriages" for " baggage," and the like. So in
Matt. xvii. 25 Jesus " prevented him " in the sense of
" spake first unto him," not, as in our modern usage,
" hindered him." Other obscurities are due to inexact
translation, e.g., in Pilate's verdict on our Lord, he finds
no " crime " in him, instead of no " fault " (John xviii.
38), a matter with which as a Roman judge he was not
concerned; in Luke xxii. 37 the things concerning the
Lord in the mystery of the Passion now have " fulfil
ment," not " an end ;" the final condemnation in John iii.
20 is directed against him that " practiseth " evil, not
against one that occasionally " doeth " it. Instances of a
different character are the prohibition to St. Mary of
Magdala in John xx. 17, where " Touch me not " should
be " Take not hold of me," so as to endeavour to detain
me in the old earthly intercourse; or in I Tim. ii. 15
where the salvation of the woman is not " in childbear-

8 COMPANION TO THE
ing " but " through the childbearing," i. e. the Incarna
tion of the Lord.
The reference in many passages of St. Paul's Epistles
to the definite time of disciples' initiation into the Chris
tian Church, with their renunciation of evil and promises
of loyalty to Christ, and the conferring of Baptismal
grace, is obscured for the ordinary reader by the use of
the perfect tense instead of the aorist ; e.g. Rom. vi. 2 ff.
Gal. iii. 27. So with reference to confirmation, Heb.
vi. I is made difficult and the position of the laying on
of hands among the fundamentals of the Christian Re
ligion obscured by the rendering " principles " for " first
principles." Similarly in Acts xix. 6 the point of St.
Paul's question is quite lost by rendering, " Have ye re
ceived the Holy Ghost since ye believed ? " instead of
" Did ye receive the Holy Ghost when ye believed ? " viz.
through the laying on of hands.
Once more, with regard to the Christian ministry, its
office to " tend " as well as " feed " the sheep of Christ is
lost in the ordinary version of John xxi. 16. The right
title of Phoebe in the subscription to the Epistle to the
Romans is not the vague " servant " but the definite
" deaconess " of the Church at Cenchrea. ( See also the
Appendix to the Marginal Readings Bible on I Tim.
iii. II.)
Much of the Pauline teaching on the Christian life is
cleared by the removal of such obscurities as " creature "
for "creation" in 2 Cor. v. 17 (and a similar welcome
change in another connection in Romans viii. 19, 20, 21,
of the waiting of the creation for its deliverance from
bondage), in Phil. iii. 20 our "conversation" in heaven
for " citizenship," or in I Cor. xii. 6, where the mark of
the Holy Ghost in the soul is not to be able to say that
" Jesus is the Lord," but that " Jesus is Lord," that is,
supreme Master and Lord of the life of the disciple.
That deadly sin which St. Paul tells the Thessalonians

MARGINAL READINGS BIBLIC

(I Thess. iv. 6) God will most surely avenge, is not
merely the wronging of a brother in " any matter " but
specifically in " the matter," i.e., as is clear from the con
text, in the matter of seducing a wife from her marriage
vow by adultery ; so the uselessness of mere asceticism for
its own sake in moral discipline is made plain when in
Col. ii. 25 we substitute for the meaningless A. V. render
ing, the statement that such " severities to the body "
" are not of any value against the indulgence of the
flesh." How much more helpful it is to be told of " love " as
the supreme Christian grace rather than " charity " with
its present misleading connotation of almsgiving, while
it is of greatest importance to connect our Lord's sum
mary of the law with St. Paul's eulogy and with St.
John's declaration of the divine character (Matt. xxii.
37-40, I Cor. xiii., I John iv. 7-8).
The organised character of the evil kingdom is ob
scured by the common rendering " devils " where subor
dinate evil spirits are meant, instead of keeping (as in
the Greek) this supreme title of " the great calumniator "
for Satan, and, with the American Revision, using the
distinct Greek word " demons " for the plural.
Much clearness for many readers unacquainted with
the Greek tongue is gained by rendering the proper
names of Old Testament personages in the New Testa
ment by the common appellations which they bear in the
Old Testament, rather than by a literal reproduction of
the less familiar Graecised forms in which they occur
in the New Testament Greek. Thus in Heb. iv. 8 "Jesus "
is quite misleading for " Joshua " ; so in Jude is " Core "
for " Korah " ; we may note similarly in the Gospels
" Eliseus " for " Elisha," " Elias " for " Elijah," etc.
Thirdly, there are places (not relatively many in num
ber, but often important) where a better textual reading
clears up a difficulty or emphasizes the true meaning.

COMPANION TO THE

Thus in Gal. iii. i St. Paul admonishes the Galatians
before whose eyes Jesus Christ had been set forth (that
is, in the apostolic preaching) crucified. The longer and
faulty text used by the A. V. " crucified among you "
creates a needless difficulty.
So in the well known passage about the heavenly wit
nesses (I John V. 7-8), the shorter and more accurate
reading in which these words are omitted presents the
Apostle's argument unbroken, whilst the inserted words
needlessly interrupt it. These words are absent from all
but the latest Greek MSS., and are generally recognised
to be no part of the original text. To avoid misconcep
tion it may be worth while to notice that " the insertion
here is not quoted by the great controversial writers of
the fourth and fifth centuries ; the age which formulated
the great doctrinal decisions of Christology." It can be
shown to have originated in a gloss explanatory of the
passage, as a similar comment on the text of St. John
is found in several Latin Fathers; this gloss written in
the margin of Latin MSS. later found its way into some
Greek codices. The removal of this insertion gives clear
ness to the argument in St. John, without in any way
weakening the attestation to the true statement of doc
trine contained in the passage. The universal acceptance
of the doctrine could, of course, have alone made possi
ble the insertion of the gloss.
If the substitution (as the result of the preponderant
witness of our present critical authorities) of the vague
" which " for " God " in I Tim. iii. 16 (showing that the
verse is a broken quotation from some existing Chris
tian document) is to some a matter of regret, it must be
remembered that in three other passages the result of
textual emendation is to strengthen the testimony of the
New Testament writers to our Lord's true Godhead,
viz., John i. 18 (" God only begotten " for " the only be-

MARGINAL READINGS BIBLE II
gotten Son "), Titus ii. 13 and 2 Pet. i. i (" our God and
Saviour"). Other instances of important teaching brought out by
the correct reading are I John v. 18, " He who was begot
ten of God (i.e. Christ) keepeth him (i.e. the Christian)
instead of the Christian keeping himself), Eph. vi. 9, I
Pet. iii. 15, I John iii. i. Rev. i. 6, ix. 15.
It will be clear from the above that textual criticism
is by no means the foe to a right and deep appreciation
of the New Testament writings which it is by some sup
posed to be. As a recent competent writer in the Ency
clopaedia Biblica says on this subject (Mr. F. C. Burkitt
in vol. iv., p. 5031, art. " Text and Versions "). " It is
always wholesome to remind oneself of the comparative
soundness of the text." Such blots as exist " are not
enough seriously to obscure the main features of the nar
rative or the ideas expressed."
Passing from the New Testament to the Old, the same
classes of errors in the Version of 161 1 recur there also.
Instances of moral difficulties created by inaccurate
translation are Ex. iii. 12 and xii. 25, " borrow " (of the
Israelites departing from Egypt) instead of " ask " or
" demand," which gives an entirely wrong conception of
a promise to return things which the Israelites claimed
as some compensation for all the wrong done to
them; or II Sam. xii. 31, where according to the A. V.
David appears guilty of savage cruelty towards the Am
monite captives in putting them " under saws and har
rows of iron," etc., whereas the better translation affirms
that he put them to " labour " with these instruments and
at the brickkiln, in compulsory service, this latter point
depending upon the correction of a slight and common
error in the text (Resh substituted for Daleth).
Other cases of inaccurate translation are " burden of "
in the Prophets, which should in most cases be rendered

COMPANION TO THE

" oracle concerning " ; in the last chapter of Ecclesiastes,
the difficult " masters of assemblies " should be " collec
tors of sentences" (xii. ii) whose words are as nails
well fastened.
Among obscurities caused by obsolete words we may
notice the familiar " meat " for " meal " offering, where
the oblation being entirely of cereals included no meat in
the usual sense ; so " chapiters " for " capitals " (of a
building), "tables" (for writing) where "tablets" are
meant, " fray " in the sense of " terrify," etc.
Quite a number of passages throughout the Old Tes
tament, but particularly in the Prophets, are unintelligi
ble owing to some ancient error in textual reading which
the testimony of the Septuagint and other ancient ver
sions enables us to correct. Thus in Hosea v. ii the sin
of Ephraim is said to consist in his walking willingly
after " the commandment." The right rendering based
upon a versional correction is " vanity," in the common
meaning of idolatry, which makes the passage perfectly
clear. Again in Zech. xiv. 5 the announcement that Is
rael shall flee before the judgment of God is followed
by " The Lord my God shall come, and all the saints
with thee." The obscurity is at once removed by the ver
sional reading " with him."
Some misreadings had been noticed in the Massoretic
text itself, but the hint was not followed by the 161 1
translators. Hence the well known difficulty in the
Christmas lesson, Isaiah ix. 2, where for " not increased
the joy," we should read " increased their joy."
There are also familiar passages, occurring sometimes
in the Sunday lessons, in which while there is no error
in the text or rendering, yet, owing to changes in taste
or feeling, it is desirable to use some paraphrase to give
the meaning intended, without suggesting to a modem
reader associations of a distracting or needlessly dis
tasteful character. The practical usefulness of the ver-

MARGINAL READINGS BIBLE 1 3
sion is greatly increased by the adoption of such a ren
dering of the meaning of the original text in this small
class of passages.
The above instances are but specimens of large classes
of faulty renderings distributed through the pages of the
King James version, the aggregate effect of which is very
seriously to diminish its usefulness and to offset its un
doubted and great merits. These faults are not confined
to a few passages, but recur continually. It becomes
clear therefore that a serious responsibility rests upon all,
whether individuals or Churches, who, after these facts
have become clear, continue to give to the people the
King James version in its unamended form. The loss to
religion thereby caused, particularly in the case of the
young, is often very grave. People whose literary taste
has been cultivated are offended at hopeless obscurities in
the Bible, vyhich they regard as belonging to the Scrip
tures themselves. A dangerous and weakening sense of
unreality about the Bible is often produced which reacts
on the whole moral and religious life.
Hence the American Church has after long and anxious
consideration provided for her children a systematic and
careful revision of the King James version which will be
described fully in the next chapter.

II
HISTORY AND PLAN OF THE MARGINAL
READINGS BIBLE
Considerations such as those advanced in the preceding
Chapter impelled the Convocation of Canterbury in the
year 187 1 to initiate the movement which ultimately re
sulted in the issue of the Revised edition of the New
Testament in 1881, of the Old Testament in 1885, and of
the books of the Apochrypha in 1895.
The question of authorising the use of the Revised
Version in the American Church was mooted in the years
following the issue of the Revised Old and New Testa
ments, and came before the General Convention of 1892
through a memorial from the Diocese of Massachusetts
presented to that body asking consideration concerning
the permissive use of the Revised Version in this Church.
After careful consideration of the memorial by a Commit
tee of the House of Deputies the General Convention at
that session refused to consent, being unwilling to author
ise the use of the Revised Version as a whole, while
quite ready to adopt many of the improvements contained
in it. Accordingly on the initiation of the House of Bish-
ops^ and the motion of the lamented Bishop Dudley, of
Kentucky, it was resolved at the same Convention to ap
point a Joint Committee to consider in conjunction with
a similar Committee which it was erroneously supposed
had been appointed by the Convocation of Canterbury,
which, if any, of the amendments in the Revised Version
might properly be authorised by the General Convention
14

MARGINAL READINGS BIBLE 1 5
as marginal readings. When the next Convention met
in 1895 it was found that the idea of cooperating with an
English Committee was groundless, and so the whole
subject of amendments to the King James Version, with
out restriction to those contained in the R. V., was com
mitted to a Joint Commission (not confined as a Com
mittee would be, to members of the Convention), to re
port thereon to the next General Convention.
The work entrusted to this Commission was large and
arduous. Six years accordingly elapsed before it was in
a position to make a Report covering the whole field allot
ted to it, a preliminary Report on the New Testament
being presented in 1898. Owing to changes caused by
deaths and resignations during this period of time there
were in all seven Bishops and nine Presbyters who took
part in the work. The Commission of five Bishops and
five Presbyters as originally nominated consisted of the
Right Revs. A. C. Coxe, Bishop of Western New York ;
T. U. Dudley, Bishop of Kentucky ; T. F. Davies, Bishop
of Michigan ; T. F. Gailor, Bishop of Tennessee, and A.
C. A. Hall, Bishop of Vermont ; the Revs. E. Harwood,
T. S. Drowne, J. Carey, E. A. Renouf, and G. H. Ster
ling. Vacancies were filled by the appointment of the
Right Revs. W. W. Niles, Bishop of New Hampshire,
and C. Whitehead, Bishop of Pittsburgh, and of the Revs.
J. Binney, C. W. E. Body, T. J. Packard, and L. Water
man. The Commission thus appointed was thoroughly
representative of the best thought and experience of the
Church ; eight of its members were or had been engaged
in professorial work, representing in this capacity the
following institutions: University of Virginia, Trinity
College, Berkeley Divinity School, University of the
South, General Theological Seminary, Virginia Semi
nary, and Faribault. The members of the Commission
were engaged on the work for a period of six years ; the
first three of which were spent mainly on the New Testa-

l6 COMPANION TO THE
ment, and the last three chiefly on the Old Testament and
Apocrypha. In all the Commission held 9 meetings,
in the course of which it sat for 86 working days.
No pains or care were spared to make the work com
plete and accurate. The several books of the Bible were
first assigned to different members of the Commission for
special study, each member being made responsible for
the first draft of suggested marginal readings on the por
tion given to him. These suggestions were circulated
among all the members in advance of the meetings of the
Commission so as to allow time for their thorough con
sideration before the Commission met. At the meeting
each suggestion, whether from the member immediately
responsible or from others, was taken up in order, dis
cussed and finally voted upon. The common discussion
was found of the greatest practical service. Each sug
gestion was regarded from different points of view, not
merely academic but practical. The work acquired far
greater unity in its several parts than could otherwise
have been the case, and in its final shape represented not
merely the judgment but the contribution of the whole
Commission in every part.
The central aim kept steadily in view throughout was
that laid down as the guiding principle of the whole work
by the General Convention, viz., the instruction of the
people. " Even in quite minor corrections " the practi
cal element of " instruction " was " the primary
thought." The Commission desired to " give an intelligi
ble meaning to every part of the Bible," and so to give to
Church people everywhere much of the advantage in this
respect previously restricted to those who were able to
procure the aid of commentaries. Their hope was that in
this way they might " aid in encouraging regular private
study of God's Word as well as in promoting edification
in the public services." " The work done by the Commis
sion had the approval of all its members so long as they

MARGINAL READINGS BIBLE I^

were able to serve upon it," and its final recommendations
were presented to the General Convention of 1901 for ap
proval and ratification signed by all the members of the
Commission serving at the time. This complete unity of
standpoint among the various members of the Commis
sion had largely grown out of the progress of the work
itself. The Commission included members who had
taken, an active part in the unsuccessful attempt for the
recognition of the Revised Version as a whole, and
others who had at one time been inclined to doubt the
necessity of any such revision at all. Actual experience
however of the work in. hand convinced all of the
advantages of the plan laid down by the General Conven
tion. The opportunity thus given for a systematic review of
the original Revision of 1881-5, in the light both of
the mass of valuable theological literature (imcluding
criticisms of the Revision); which had appeared in the
interval, together with freedom in selection between' the
mai^inal readings of the Revised Versiorr and its text,
gave to the work a far more complete character than
could have been secured by the mere adoption of one of
the editions of the Revised Version. The Commission
was able to make use of the improvements (often dis
tinctly desirable for our country) suggested by the Amer
ican Revisers, indicated for the most part in their Pcef-
erences printed as an appendix to the Westminster Re
vision, but finally set forth in the American standard edi
tion of the Revised Bible published in the fall of 1901.
This conviction of the Commission will, it is believed,
be shared by the Church generally, as the information
which determined the result in the case of the Commission
is put within the reach of readers. To give this informa
tion is the main object of the present pamphlet.
The recommendations of the Commission for alterna
tive Marginal Readings were with one limitation ap-

COMPANION TO THE

proved by the General Convention of 1901 for insertion
in an edition of the Bible to be printed for this purpose.
Owing apparently to a strong desire on the part of the
members of the Convention not to take any step which
could in any way be construed as making a fresh cleavage
in the matter of the Sacred Scriptures between the
Church and other Christian bodies, the Convention lim
ited the marginal readings which could be inserted in the
Old and New Testaments to such of the recommendations
of the Commission as were taken either from the text or
margin of the English Revised Version, or from the text
or margin of the American edition of the same, or from
the existing margin of the King James version; thus
narrowing to these sources the unrestricted liberty of se
lection which had been given by the General Convention
of 1895. In the Books of the Apocrypha, which were
not generally used by the Protestant bodies around us,
the original liberty was confirmed.
Fortunately however it was found that the surviving
members of the original American company of revisers,
who were preparing their American Standard Bible at
the same time that our Commission was at work, and
whose book was published almost simultaneously with the
Report of the Commission, had independently arrived
in a large number of instances at practically the same
amendments of the English Revised Version as those of
fered by the Commission. This coincidence of result
saved much of the labour of the Commission which
would otherwise have been lost from the margin ot the
Bible under the ruling of the General Convention above
mentioned, and also testified in a striking manner to the
scientific value of the work of each body. The fact is
worth remembering when it is sometimes objected that
the selected Marginal Readings merely represent the
preferences of a small number of scholars of the Epis
copal Church.

MARGINAL READINGS BIBLE 19
The Marginal Readings having been authorised for use
in Church, it was important at once to provide a large edi
tion for the lecturn, while a smaller edition was also need
ed for private use. In the case of the English Westmins
ter Revision the smaller edition was published long be
fore a lecturn edition was issued or planned. It was made
possible for us to produce both editions simultaneously
by the generosity of a layman, who provided for the mak
ing of the plates of the larger Bible, while all other ex
penses connected with the printing and publication of
both editions were undertaken by Messrs. Thomas Nel
son & Son, who also generously waived their claims to
copyright (owing to accidental priority of publication)
in the American Standard edition of the Bible, thus giv
ing to our work a completeness which it could not other
wise have had.
The relation of the work to the Revised Version will
be considered in detail in the next Chapter.

Ill
THE MARGINAL READINGS BIBLE AND THE
REVISED VERSIONS
The plan of using marginal readings in connection with
the revision of the King James Version did not, as is
often supposed, originate with our General Convention.
In the original resolution adopted by the Convocation of
Canterbury which initiated the movement, a revision was
suggested " by marginal notes or otherwise." The sec
ond of the fundamental rules ultimately adopted laid
down " that the revision should be so conducted as to
comprise both marginal renderings and such emenda
tions as it may be found necessary to insert in the text of
the Authorized Version." But from the speeches made in
the Convocation by those in charge of the matter it is
clear that the plan of embodying the results of the revis
ion in marginal readings only, as shadowed forth in the
initial resolution, with the hope that ultimately after due
trial such readings might be inserted in the text of the
King James Version, and the whole as thus amended for
mally substituted for the older version by proper author
ity, was much in their minds; one main difficulty in
the way seems to have been the expense involved in
printing such Marginal Readings Bibles at a reasonable
price. In the light of subsequent history it is clear that
such tentative action would have had many advantages.
The Revisers however in practice interpreted the rule
above quoted in favour of so large an emendation of the
text of the Authorised Version as really amounted to a
new translation, though they only allowed amendments

MARGINAL READINGS BIBLE 21
to be inserted in the text which obtained a two-thirds ma
jority of those present at the final revision. Thus in their
margin, along with unimportant notes, are found some
of the most important and greatly needed amendments
which just failed of a sufficient majority to carry them
into the text. These all being printed in most editions,
without distinction, in small type at the bottom of the
page, the idea of marginal renderings as a prominent part
of the original scheme has been almost obliterated from
the popular mind.
The whole English-speaking world has been put under
such a lasting obligation by the labour and scholarship
freely devoted for so many years by the Revisers that it
seems almost ungracious to refer to any defects in their
great and monumental work. No word shall fall from
the author of this outline calculated in any degree to de
tract from the glory which will rightly belong to this
epoch-making work in all subsequent history of the Eng
lish Bible. Such defects as must in justice to the subject
be touched upon were inevitable in what was so com
pletely a pioneer work, and in many cases almost uncon
sciously grew out of its very excellences. The present
writer is too deeply conscious of what he personally
owes to the teaching and inspiration of the great Cam
bridge scholars whose influence so largely determined
the course of the work to permit himself even a thought
in the least inconsistent with loving gratitude for the
friendship with which they honored him or loyalty to
their revered memory. These great men, aHke by exam
ple and precept, taught that no considerations of a per
sonal character should ever be allowed to interfere with
wider obligations of duty.
Passing from such considerations, then, it must be ac
knowledged that the Revised Version has largely failed
to justify the hope of its promoters that it would super
sede the King James Version as the one Bible of English

COMPANION TO THE

speaking Christians. Alike in Britain and America* com
petent observers speak of its " comparative neglect," of
" its failure," of "the fate that has overtaken it;" and the
like. When in 1899 the Upper House of the Canterbury
Convocation passed a permissive resolution for the use
of the Revised Version at the lecturn " where both
clergy and people desired it," the House of Laymen of
the Province (an unofficial body in England, but voicing
general educated lay opinion) could only be brought to
endorse the " occasional " employment of Lessons from
the Revised Version where in the interests of more accu
rate translation it is desirable. The Convocation of York
has throughout declined to commit itself to the Revised
Version, and a Committee of that body is at present en
gaged upon a revision of the King James Version on lines
similar to those adopted by ourselves.
It is sometimes urged that the Latin Vulgate made its
way but slowly ; but it must not be forgotten that in the
case of the Vulgate its exquisite Latin commended it to
popular favour as compared with the relatively rude and
provincial style of the various versions which it dis
placed. The English of the King James Version on the
other hand is unrivalled, and, with the exception of an ob
solete word here and there, thoroughly adapted to twen
tieth century use, while for two centuries it reigned su
preme in the affection of Anglo-Saxons.
Undoubtedly one chief reason for the limited progress
of the Revised Version is that sufficient attention was not
paid by the Revisers to the extraordinary hold which the
King James Version has upon the love and reverence of
all classes of people alike. Any version which should
succeed in gaining for itself that place in the future must
not aim at being a " new translation " to anything like
* Bishop Walsham How in England in 1892, Rev. Professor Packard
of the American Company of Revisers in 1899 and Professor Paterson of
Edinburgh in 1903.

MARGINAL READINGS BIBLE 23
the extent which appeared to the Revisers consistent with
the repudiation of such a purpose in their original in
structions. What Dr. A. B. Davidson, of Edinburgh (himself a
member of the Company of Revisers, and a scholar of
world-wide fame, recently removed by death), said in an
essay on " The Bible and Its Revision," will hardly be
claimed as expressing what was actually done by the Re
visers, particularly in the New Testament, but it ex
presses accurately enough the result aimed at in the Mar
ginal Readings Bible. Dr. Davidson writing while the
New Testament Revision was in progress (although the
essay has only last year been published), says: " The lan
guage and rhythm of the Authorised Version must be
preserved. Nothing that is not absolutely wrong, or not
absolutely out of use, should be removed." Similarly in
dealing with the principle to which the Revisers so
closely adhered that " the same Greek or Hebrew word
should always be rendered by the same English word,"
Dr. Davidson well says that " the genius of one language
differs from that of another; that sameness and ex
actness characterise the Greek, variety and looseness
the English; that the Hebrew language is poor in
its vocabulary, while the English is copious; that
even where a word corresponds in general to an
other, the addition of an epithet may destroy the cor
respondence, and render the use of another term neces
sary ; that not only meaning but rhythm, flow and sound
make up language." Hence he pleads that in the attempt
to correct the too great multiplication of renderings in
many places of the King James Version, the opposite
principle " should be exercised with great liberality, and
variety admitted whenever idiom or rhythm or even vig
orous expression requires it." He deprecates an " over-
scholarship " which will " make a version strained where
before it was easy."

24 COMPANION TO THE
It is difficult to withhold assent to Professor Paterson's
editorial comment upon these passages. (Priejface, pages
vii., viii.) " The essay makes it perfectly clear that he
(Dr. Davidsjon) foresaw and indeed foretold, even before
its pub&ation, the fate which has already overtaken the
Revised Version."
Step hy step as the matter proceeds we pass from the
correction oi " plain and clear errors " to " changes neces
sary in the judgment of the most competent scholars,"
then to " as few alterations as possible consistently ,with
faithfujjttess ;" and in the practical outcome this rule -was
pressed to an amount of minute alteration which would
have been well in place in a version intended for a schol
arly commentary hut was fatal to wide popular use by
people so accustomed .to the fanaaliar woicds of the older
version. When it became clear that such minuteness of alteration
as a matter of fact was seriously hindering the usefulness
of the new version, it was almost inevitable that men's
thjoughts should return to the origiiaal idea of marginal
readings as affording a way of preserving the really im
portant gains of the Revision for general and .authorita'
tive use, without interfering with the more limited sphere
of scholarly influence in which the Revised Version has
won so much acceptance.
The plan was mooted by leading Churchmen like the
late Dr. Liddon and Bishop Walsham How, of Wake
field. It was found however that in England there were
insuperable difficulties in the way. Any plan involving
a selection from the Revisers' work appeared somewhat
ungracious toward men of the highest position in ithe
Church, .especially when it was clear that they, inot un
naturally, strongly opposed any such step ; which, mojie-
over, would be rendered difficult by the privileges of
copyright in England made over to the University Passes
in consideration of their undertaking the expense of tpub-

MARGINAL READINGS BIBLE 2$

lishiftg the Revised Version. Accordingly the choice in
England still lies between the retention of the King James
Version, with all its faults pointed out in the first chapter,
and! the use of the Revised Version in its entirety. Save
for the action of the Convocation of York, which has not
yet led to any definite published result, no middle way is
open to the members of the English Church, by which
th€y can retain the version they so greatly love with only
its plain faults amended.
It will have been obvious from what has already been
stated to how large an extent a Marginal Readings Bible
like ours would have met a largely felt need.
What however could not be done in England was for
tunately well within our reach in America. Here was a
clear field in which the experiment could be tried. Ac
cordingly when in 1892 it was plain from the action of
the General Convention that the Church was not prepared
to accept the Revised Version for permissive use, it was
determined to take the English suggestion and secure an
amended edition of the King James Version such as has
now been authorised.
Nor must the larger use of the King James Version be
regarded merely as a concession to the demands of the
people, involving thereby substantial loss in scientific ac
curacy. Even if it had been so, authorised editions of
the Bible must be primarily adapted to the needs of the
whole Christian people rather than to those of a limited
class who possess abundant other ways of satisfying
their special wants in the matter. But on the contrary
the whole trend of scientific progress in the last decade
has been to cast doubt upon the necessity of a large num
ber of the smaller changes made by the Revisers.
Increased and steadily increasing knowledge of the
Greek of the New Testament has shown that as much
stress as was supposed twenty years ago cannot be laid
in aH cases (apart from considerations of context) upon.

26 COMPANION TO THE
for example, the strict meaning of the aorist, or the exact
distinction of some prepositions. This result has been
mainly due to the discovery of papyri throwing light upon
contemporary Greek of the period to which the New Tes
tament writings belong.
A significant illustration of the change which is taking
place in this respect may be found in the new Commen
tary on the Epistle to the Ephesians by Dr. J. Armitage
Robinson, one of the most distinguished representatives
of present Cambridge scholarship. In forming his trans
lation of the Epistle to accompany his Commentary he
says that he has " only departed from the Authorised Ver
sion where that version appeared to me to fail to bring
out correctly and intelligibly the meaning of the origi
nal." On comparison with the alterations made by the
Revisers it will be found that Dr. Robinson's changes
amount to scarcely more than one in three of theirs, and
this in a translation intended primarily for scholars and
unhindered by any of those more popular considerations
to which I have already alluded.
Similar tendencies are at work in the sphere of textual
criticism to those just noted in linguistic studies. It is
being increasingly felt that new factors have to be taken
into account, the importance of which twenty years ago
was not sufficiently realised, and which in some cases
tend to modify our judgment with regard to certain crit
ical problems.
Thus, for example, it has become much more proba
ble that some of the New Testament writings, notably
the Acts of the Apostles, were issued in different recen
sions in the Apostolic age, and that the traces of these re-
censional variations have survived to the present day in
diversities of reading in our various authorities. Thus
Mr. Rackham, the latest editor of the Acts in his well-
known and standard commentary, argues for the genuine
ness of the Confession of faith by the Ethiopian eunuch

MARGINAL READINGS BIBLE 27
prior to baptism in Acts viii. 37, although it cannot re
main in the text according to the tests of documentary
criticism alone. He contends that its position in the Be-
zan text is due to its existence in one edition of the Lucan
Acts ; and that both the fact that the profession of faith
at Baptism was sufficiently familiar to all may have in
duced the evangelist to omit the verse subsequently for
mere brevity's sake, and that the appositeness and ex
treme simplicity of the question and answer point to their
genuineness, while the hypothesis of interpolation is dis
credited by the fact that no other account of baptism in
the Acts has been similarly dealt with (Page 123).
Other places in which Rackham prefers the sense or
words of the King James Version which I have noted are
V. 19, xvi. 16, xvii. 14, 17, xviii. 5, 17, 24.
Rackham, it is true, defends the retention of the Re
vised Version in the commentary as a rule adopted for
this set of commentaries on the ground that " however
much this version may be open to criticism or have fallen
short of the ideal version, it must be allowed to be a much
closer representation of the original Greek than the Au
thorised Version, and that in a commentary, whose ex
press aim is to ascertain for its readers as far as possible
the exact meaning of a book, fidelity to the original is a
primary requirement."
The implied admissions thus made, together with the
facts above stated, may well make us thankful that in a
version for general use we have adopted one which
unites fidelity to the sense of the original with the reten
tion in all other cases of the King James Version.
I omit here consideration of the growing importance
of what Dr. Hort named the " Western interpolations,"
because the whole subject is in a tentative condition and
no certain results can be said to have been reached.
On the whole, then, while the number of instances in
which later research can be said to have shown the in-

28 COMPANION TO THE
accuracy of any of the changes made in the Revised Ver
sion is exceedingly small (Mark xiv. 65 and Eph. ii. 21
may be cited as instances of this class), yet in a relatively
very large number of cases grave doubt has been thrown
on the necessity of the smaller changes made in the Re
vised New Testament.
The use of the Marginal Readings Bible cannot there
fore from the view of the latest scholarship be rightly
characterised as a retrograde step on our part.
We may now pass from the general subject of the va
rious advantages attending the larger retention of the
distinguishing points of the King James version in the
Marginal Readings Bible to the specific gains which come
to us from the liberty of selection between the marginal
renderings and the text of the Westminster Revision, and
also between that of the American and the English edi- .
tions of the same.
First, as to gains from the margin of the English edi
tion, the following may serve as specimens: the definite
term " Magi " in the narrative of Matt. ii. for the gen
eral appellation " wise men " ; " bound by his oath " for
"a debtor" (Matt, xxiii. 16, 18); "factious" for "he
retical " of characteristics warranting rejection (Titus
iii. 10) ; " Deaconess " for the indefinite " servant " in
Rom. xvi. I ; " ask me no questions " for " ask me noth
ing " (John xvi. 23) ; kill " with pestilence " for " with
death " in Rev. vi. 18 ; " Advocate " or " Helper " of the
Holy Spirit for " Comforter," which to most people sug
gests an undue limiting of the Spirit's work (John xiv.
26, etc.). In the Old Testament may be noted the open
ing words of Agur (Prov. xxx. i), "the man saith, I
have wearied myself, O God, I have wearied myself, O
God, and am consumed," for the unintelligible " the man
spake unto Ithiel even unto Ithiel and Ucal " ; " the sacri-
ficers of men kiss the calves " (identifying idolatry with
inhumanity) for the obscure " let the men that sacrifice

MARGINAL READINGS BIBLE 29
kiss the calves " (Hos. xiii. 2) ; " The fool shall no more
be called noble" (Isai. xxxii. 5, 8) for "the vile person
shall no more be called liberal " ; the teaching (that is, of
the prophet) for " the law " in Isaiah viii. 16, 20.
To this class belong the considerable number of ver
sional amendments of the Massoretic text such as Hosea
V. I ; " vanity " for " the commandment " (already noticed
on page 12) ; the important change in II Sam. xii. 31 (ex
plained page 11) ; " until he come whose it is " for the ob
scure " until Shiloh come " in the difficult passage Gen.
xlix. 10; ye "mighty ones," (i. e. judges) for " congrega
tion " in Ps. Iviii. i ; " them that seek thy face, O God of
Jacob," for " O Jacob " (in the beautiful Psalm xxiv. 6) ;
the transgression of the wicked saith within " his heart "
for "my heart" (Ps. xxxix. i), etc.
It may be noted that many of the marginal readings
in the New Testament above cited are in the American
revision transferred to the text ; while in the case of the
versional readings in the Old Testament the Revisers de
scribe them as embodying a " very probable " correction
of the Massoretic text although for reasons which they
mention they did not venture to place them in the text
of the Revised Version. Such reasons do not hold in
the Marginal Readings Bible on account of the alterna
tive character of the marginal readings throughout.
These facts will dispose of the objection that the judg
ment of the Joint Commission simply stands opposed to
that of the Revisers on this matter of selecting their
marginal alternatives in preference to their text.
A few instances may be given of important corrections
of the Westminster revision which are taken from the
American edition of that work, and which would be sac
rificed by the adoption of the English form of the re
vision. Such are the following : " Freedmen " for " Liber
tines " in Acts vi. 9 ; " guard " for " ward " in the narra-

^O COMPANION TO THE
tive of St. Peter's release (Acts xii. lo) ; " platter " for
"charger" (Matth. xvi. ii); "one" for "a man" in
our Lord's teaching about the new birth (John iii, 3, S) ;
" terrify " for " fray " in Zechariah i. 21 ; " bandage " for
¦" roller " in Ezek. xxx. 21 ; " my anguish, my anguish "
in Jer. iv. 19, for " my bowels, my bowels," with many
similar instances of a corresponding helpful paraphrase
of this Semitic figure ; " watch over against watch " for
" ward over against ward " in Neh. xii. 24 ; " swear " for
" lift up the hand " (often in the prophets), etc.
To these may be added a multitude of words better
adapted for American readers than the corresponding ex
pressions in the English edition, such as " grain " for
"corn"; "knew" for "wist"; "since" for "sith";
"chiefs" for "dukes" (of Edom); "capital" for
"chapter," "master" for "goodman" (of the house),
etc.; "rim" for "crown" of the ark (Ex. xxv. 11);
" settings " for " ouches " (of the ephod), etc.
Something may be said of the deutero-canonical books
of the Apocrypha. These, which are necessary to a
complete Bible, are not contained in the American Stand
ard edition, thus unfitting it for use in our churches;
while, since the English Revised version of the Apocry
pha was published, important manuscripts giving the
original Hebrew of a large part of one of the Books (Ec-
clesiasticus) have been discovered, which before were
only known in a Greek version of the Hebrew original.
Although the newly recovered portions do not contain a
pure Hebrew text they yet enable us in many places
greatly to improve this important book.
Thus in vii. 26 for " Hast thou a wife after thy mind ?
forsake her not: but give not thyself over to a light
woman," we should read " Hast thou a wife ? forsake her
not : but give not thy confidence to one that is hateful "
(thus amending a passage which has for all the Christian
centuries been felt to be a sore blot on the morality of the

MARGINAL READINGS BIBLE 3 1
book) . Again at the close of the beautiful lesson appointed
for St. Luke's Day in chapter xxxviii. the common text
reads, " He that sinneth before his Maker, let him fall
into the hands of the physician," a direct contradiction
of what had been stated just before; the difficulty is now
completely removed by the reading of the Hebrew, viz.,
" He that sinneth before his Maker will show himself
unruly before the physician," and so will refuse to give
to him the honour previously enjoined. In the magnifi
cent section at the end of the book about the great heroes
of Israel, passage after passage is now made clear which
was before obscure. One instance must suffice. In xlix.
9, in reference to Ezekiel it is said in the common text,
" For he made mention of the enemies under the figure
of rain, and directed them that went right." The text
appears hopelessly wrong and obscure. It should read,
" Also he made mention of Job, who maintained all the
ways of righteousness," referring of course to Ezek.
xiv. 20.
Careful readers of the Bible will find much help in the
renderings and marginal notes printed in the Appendix.
These, though not authorised by General Convention for
public use in Church, yet place within the reach of every
reader a large number of aids to the understanding of
difficult passages, which represent the labour of the Com
mission, and are not found in either of the Revised Bibles.
A few instances will show their character. We may
notice (a) Cases of paraphrase by which the English-speak
ing reader is enabled to understand Hebrew symbolic
expressions, clear enough to those for whom they were
originally written, but needing interpretation for readers
of the present day. One of these, " swear " for " lift up
the hand " has been noticed under another head. In
stances peculiar to the Appendix are " restore the pros
perity " for " turn the captivity " (the expression being

32 COMPANION TO THE
used of Job and in several places in the prophets where
a literal captivity is not intended) ; " bond or free " for
the recurring phrase " him that is shut up or left " (a
figure for the whole population) ; so in passages like Job
iii. 8, which use metaphor based on the old Semitic legend
of the destruction of the monster which symbolises dark
ness and chaos by the forces which express light and or
der, the enchanters " ready to rouse up leviathan," whom
Job in his despair calls to curse the day of his birth, are
more clearly described as those who are " skilful to
shroud it in darkness." It is clearly of advantage that
readers who have no means of access to expensive com
mentaries should be enabled in this way to gain some
knowledge of the real meaning of a difficult passage.
(b) Versional and other textual amendments. Thus
in Isai. xxi. 8, the watchman who beholds the armed
troop coming from the fall of Babylon is made in the A.
V. to cry, " A lion. My lord, I stand continually on my
watch tower," where the reference to a lion has no ex
planation in the context; in the Revised Version this is
changed into " he cried as a lion," etc., which is clearly
somewhat incongruous, while by the transposition of two
consonants in the Hebrew text we obtain the simple
emendation now generally accepted, " He said. See, my
lord, I stand continually," etc. Once more, in the bless
ing of Jacob, Naphtali is rightly described under the har
monious figure of " a towering oak which sendeth forth
goodly boughs," instead of the very difficult expression,
" a hind let loose, he giveth goodly words." Instances
like these might be multiplied throughout the Old Tes
tament. (c) Amended renderings. Thus in Cant. i. 5, the Shu-
lamite maiden should describe herself not as " black, but
comely," an expression hardly adapted for an Asiatic
burned by exposure to the sun, but rather as " dark, hut
comely " ; the women who hunt for souls in Ezekiel xiii.

MARGINAL READINGS BIBLE 33
i8, " bind charms upon all wrists " instead of the incom
prehensible " sew pillows upon all elbows " ; in I Pet. iii.
21, that wherein baptism doth also now save us should
probably be read as " the seeking after a good conscience
toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"
instead of the difficult translation of the A. V. the " an
swer of a good conscience," which the English R. V.
changes into the " interrogation of a good conscience,"
and the American Standard edition into the " appeal of
a good conscience " ; in Deut. xxiv. i, a passage of much
importance owing to its citation in the New Testament,
it is pointed out (as is now generally recognised) that
the injunction therein contained does not inaugurate a
practice of divorce, but limits the unjust use of a freedom
already possessed (compare Our Lord's correction of the
question put to him of " Why did Moses command " into
"Moses suffered," Matt. xix. 7, 8). In Matt. v. 31,
Our Lord is giving the authoritative teaching of Judaism
in the form traditionally familiar rather than in the exact
words of the original injunction. In Heb. ix. 15-18, a
rendering of this well-known passage is given in the Ap
pendix, in which the rendering " covenant " for " testa
ment " is carried consistently throughout, while the R.
V. translates the same Greek word by " covenant " in the
first and last sections and by " testament " in the middle
verses. It is surely well that such important alternatives should
be accessible to those who desire to get further light on
difficult passages.
In regard to difficult questions of textual criticism the
plan of marginal readings clearly gives a liberty of alter
native readings without committing the Church prema
turely to a decision on controverted and uncertain matters
which must for their ultimate solution require longer
time and wider research.
Passages like Luke ii. 14 ("men in whom he is well
pleased ") or the shorter reading in Matt. xix. 9, repre-

34 COMPANION TO THE
sent an important class where it is desirable that the
Church should have before it both possible interpreta
tions of the original words, without attempting to decide
absolutely between them.
The effect of such longer research is making itself
manifest in a changed attitude towards the famous crit
ical text of Westcott and Hort in some important respects,
summarised by the late Dr. Salmon in his " Some
Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the New Testa
ment," 1897. These contentions are acknowledged as
made out in their main Hues by Bishop Ellicott (The Re
vised Version of Holy Scripture, 1901). It is true that
the Bishop of Gloucester rightly distinguishes between
the text of the two great Cambridge scholars and that
adopted by the Revisers ; but even in the latter case one
of our most famous modern critical authorities. Bishop
John Wordsworth, of Salisbury, when speaking in favour
of the permissive resolution adopted by the Canterbury
Convocation (see page 22), is careful to guard himself
by the statement, " I do not agree with a certain number
of their readings," showing clearly that the matter can
not be regarded as closed.
Fresh discoveries, like that of the Sinaitic Syriac ver
sion, and research constantly being pushed in directions
hitherto inadequately explored, account sufficiently for
this suspension of judgment. It is hardly too much to
say that the whole educated world is anxiously waiting
at the present moment for the publication of Prof. Von
Soden's forthcoming work on the New Testament as
likely to set before it facts and conclusions of the highest
importance. Under these circumstances the tentative character of
the marginal emendations of text which are everywhere
marked out by an asterisk prefixed in the margin and an
" Or " at the bottom of the page, and so are readily dis-
tinguisheable from the rest, has considerable advantages ;

MARGINAL READINGS BIBLE 35
even though we may not endorse entirely Dr. Salmon's
vigorous statement of satisfaction in the opportunity still
remaining to us, owing to the fact that the Authorized
Version has not been superseded by the Revised, of read
ing in our churches to-day the words which were read
at Rome in the second century.
A concluding word may be added with regard to the
explanatory headlines which have been abandoned in the
English Revised Bible. This feature of the King James
Version has been retained in the edition of the Marginal
Readings Bible intended for ordinary use, the headlines
having been thoroughly revised throughout, so as to give
as far as possible a useful analysis of the different books
rather than simply (as was often the case in older edi
tions) to refer to some striking passage on the page or
column. New headlines have been inserted in the Books
of the Apocrypha, which had not been so treated before.

IV
CONSIDERATIONS IN CONCLUSION
The facts contained in the preceding chapter will, I
trust, have made it clear that no great loss has resulted
from the principle laid down by the General Convention
that only changes involving alteration in the meaning of
the older version, and so suitable for the instruction of
the people, should be admitted into the marginal readings ;
any such loss in isolated cases is far more than counter
balanced by the large and important gains due to the
larger use of the familiar version, the liberty of selecting
from the margins of the Revised Versions, and the use
of the American as well as the English edition of the Re
vised Version. If fidelity to the original is held to include
substance as well as form, then fidelity can confidently
Tie claimed for the Marginal Readings Bible as contrasted
with the ordinary edition of the Westminster revision.
It may be well in conclusion to notice a few points of
detail which to some minds may seem to weaken the force
of the general argument.
I. With regard to the preservation of a larger part of
the A. V. it has been urged that this is of principal im
portance in passages which are most familiar to the ordi
nary reader, and that it is just here that the most impor
tant alterations are found in the margin. It might be suf
ficient to reply that a principle of general application
throughout the Bible cannot, if conceded to be sound, be
successfully met by reference to one striking instance.
But the matter can be put more strongly. The Bishop of
36

MARGINAL READINGS BIBLE 37
Gloucester by a count based upon the chapters of the Ser
mon on the Mount has estimated that the changes made
by the Revisers in the Gospels number about three to
every two verses. This for the 1 1 1 verses of the Sermon
on the Mount would give some 165 changes in the Re
vised Version. In the Marginal Readings Bible for the
same section the total number is 25, or a little more than
one in every four verses. The average for the whole of
the Gospels may be taken as even lower, and as the Gospel
narrative in its main parts is reasonably familiar to most
devout people, it will be obvious how real is the difference
in regard to. retention of the language and rhythm of the
older version in this central part of the New Testament
Scriptures. At the same time the changes which are
made are sufficient to clear the meaning and stimulate
the thought of the reader or hearer without perplexing
him with a multitude of to him unimportant variations.
2. It is sometimes felt that the General Convention by
giving to the Minister the liberty of using or not using
the authorised Marginal Readings has introduced an un
accustomed and undesirable latitude in the reading of
Holy Scripture in the Church.
Such an objection will, of course, not be shared by
those who favour the removal of all canonical restrictions
with regard to a Standard edition of the Bible and advo
cate (as it is urged is the case in England) practical lib
erty to use any version of the Bible in the services of the
Church which to the minister may seem good. To such
minds the measure of liberty now given must necessarily
appear dwarfed and inadequate. It may, however, be
mentioned that even if it be the case that no authoritative
endorsement of the King James version was ever given
(certainly none of general force has been discovered),
yet owing to the conservative tendency of the English
character, the number of instances in which even the Re
vised Version was used prior to the passing by the Con-

38 COMPANION TO THE
vocation of Canterbury of an enabling resolution was in
finitesimal ; showing that in any case a judgment of the
living representatives of the Church's authority was de
sired in a manner thus left open, before individuals felt
themselves justified in taking action in a point so im
portant as the substitution in Church of a new version
for that of 1611.
Without dwelling further on this point, it may be urged
on the main subject that liberty (within limits duly set
-out by competent authority) in the reading of Holy Scrip
ture has from the sixteenth- century downwards been a
prominent mark of our branch of the Church.
Thus we have not been) careful to remove the use of
«arlier versions of the Bible from their accustomed place
in our Services, although for the most part those ver
sions have been superseded by that of 1611. The. contin
ued use of earlier versions, in the Prayer Book Psalter, in
the Comfortable words in the Holy Communion office,
and in other places, is well known.
Further the same subordination of rigid uniformity to
practical considerations is shown in the supplying, both
in the version of 161 1 and in the earlier English versions
generally, of marginal alternatives and other notes.
In the case of the marginal alternatives the translators
of 161 1 emphatically asserted the advantage of retaining
such " variety of translations," saying that " diversity of
signification and sense in the margin, where the text is
not so clear, must needs do good ; yea, is necessary, as we
are persuaded." (The Translators to the Reader, pre
fixed to the edition of 161 1.)
It is equally certain that in conformity with the princi
ples thus enunciated they intended that it should be law
ful at the discretion of the Minister to select from the mar
ginal alternatives such as he might desire in preference
to the translation given in the corresponding place in the
text, and that such liberty is recognised as existing still

MARGINAL READINGS BIBLE 39
at the present day. It is probably true that with us in
America this liberty has not been commonly acted upon,
and so its very existence has fallen out of ordinary view.
But this does not in any degree weaken the importance
of the fact that such liberty as is now thought excessive
has all along been given in the case of the Authorised
Version both in England and in our own Church, and has
from time to time been used amongst ourselves, particu
larly in the case of the marginal alternative to the Christ
mas lesson given in Isaiah ix. 2.
Moreover the liberty thus existent was in some ways
more open to question than that now given. For in the
King James version the marginal alternatives for the
most part represented what may be called secondary ren
derings, those preferred by the Translators being of
course given in the text, while in the case of the new
Marginal Readings Bible the opposite is normally the
case. Further, the caprice of printers who have trans
ferred the marginal alternatives from the clear typo
graphical position which they occupied in the origi
nal edition in 161 1, as in the present Marginal Readings
Bible, to one of indiscriminate confusion with all kinds
of other matter, has, through the resulting typographical
obscurity, made their use as originally contemplated
almost impossible.
So far as practical divergence in the reading of the
Bible is concerned, it may reasonably be anticipated that
as the Bible authorised in 1901 makes its way in the recog
nition of the Church the general practice will increasingly
approximate to the habitual use of the authorized Mar
ginal Readings ; which will be seen to be of great practical
advantage, and around which no such controversies are
ever likely to gather as have historically attended the
question of using the Revised Version.
A word may perhaps be said here as to the limitation
of the use of the marginal alternatives to the Lessons as

40 COMPANION TO THE
distinct from the Epistles and Gospels. It is often felt
that there is some inconsistency in reading from the Mar
ginal Readings Bible at one part of the service, and, it
may be, shortly after in the case of the very same passage
being obliged to use the older version in the reading of the
Epistle or Gospel.
Of course this difficulty is not peculiar to the Marginal
Readings Bible. The limitation is equally binding in
England under the permissive resolution of the Convoca
tion of Canterbury for the use of the Revised Version
under certain conditions, and would operate equally
amongst us if a permissive use of the Revised Version
were granted.
It results from the fact that constitutional limitations
exist in the way of changing any thing expressly in
serted in the Prayerbook in both Churches, which are not
operative against alterations in the method of reading the
appointed lessons.
The difficulty may after a time be removed by consti
tutional legislation, and meanwhile it will be diminished
if it is borne in mind that the marginal alternatives are
not in the vast majority of cases so much changes of
meaning as explanations of what is obscurely expressed.
Where such are clearly given by the Church in one form
the older words begin to acquire the more precise mean
ing, and thus the objection to their partial retention van
ishes. A familiar example of the value of a marginal note
in this respect is seen in the explanation attached to the
clause of the Apostles' Creed, " He descended into hell."
Although the explanatory words, " He went into the
place of departed spirits," are scarcely ever used in pub
lic recitation, yet their presence in the rubric has sufficed
to clear the meaning of the older words, which in conse
quence create no difficulty.
3. The supposed difficulty of practically using the Mar-

MARGINAL READINGS BIBLE 41
ginal Readings Bible at the lecturn presents a serious
obstacle to some people.
This, it is believed, has its origin mainly in the case
of those who either have not given the new Bible a fair
trial in actual experience, or else have used the small in
stead of the large lecturn edition. There is a certain
difficulty (not very great usually) in reading the lessons
from a small Bible in any case, as the general use of lec
turn Bibles sufficiently testifies. But with the edition of
usual lecturn size, the whole difficulty is infinitesimal and
entirely disappears after a small amount of trial. Of
course the reader ought in any case to know beforehand
the chapter he proposes to read in public service.
Experience at the General Theological Seminary,
where the Marginal Readings Bible has been in constant
daily use by the students in reading the lessons, shows
that the effect of having one's attention called by the
marginal reading to important points in the narrative
is at once greatly to improve the accuracy and style of
the reader and to call out the interest of the congregation
in a marked and special degree.
4. Nor is there any more valid ground of objection to
the practical helpfulness of the new Bible for private and
devotional study. While it retains all the vividness of
style and power of association which are such marked
features of the older version, the marginal readings cen
tre the attention on important points not previously
grasped; and thus serve the purpose of stimulating
thought, for which many people are accustomed to use a
small commentary. The mind is thus started thinking in
a way which the straightforward Revised text would
often fail to effect. Clergymen and scholars who possess
large powers of concentrated attention, and possess many
commentaries in which their thoughts are directed to such
special points, may find such aid as I have mentioned un
necessary ; but the ordinary reader possesses none of these

42 COMPANION TO THE
things, and the bold way in which the margins are set out
supplies just what he needs. Moreover even for techni
cally trained experts the hold which inaccurate concep
tions derived from the familiar words has upon the mind
is very strong; and almost any one would derive more
accurate knowledge from regular use of the Marginal
Readings Bible than from that of the Revised Version
or even of a Parallel Bible, owing to the striking way in
which attention is called to the points one most needs to
know to counteract this unconscious influence.
5. It is sometimes urged that those who prefer the
Revised Version, even though the grounds of their pref
erence may be largely based on sentiment, have the same
right as others to have their predilections considered and
to work for their satisfaction.
Certainly, if the matter were now brought up for the
first time, and there were no long history of deliberate
action on the part of the duly constituted representatives
of the Church stretching over a period of years. Un
der such circumstances, if we are not practically to stul
tify all our past corporate action in deference to the
claims of individual preference, it is surely necessary to
look at the whole matter from a wider and higher stand
point. The plan for a Marginal Readings Bible has been rat
ified by the successive votes of four General Conven
tions. As the result of such action an enormous amount
of labour has been spent and large financial risks run to
enable the will of the Church to obtain practical realisa
tion. It will hardly conduce to the efficiency of our cor
porate action, or enhance the respect paid to it by those
outside, if before the new Bible has had any fair chance
of proving its merits by actual trial, the General Conven
tion should be induced by considerations of sentiment,
resting on no adequate basis of facts, to stultify in large

MARGINAL READINGS BIBLE 43,
measure its own action by allowing a permissive use of
the Revised Version.
Looking at the matter from the standpoint of our own
practical unity in so important a subject, it must be ob
vious that the only results of allowing such use, after alt
the controversies now happily dying out which have in
the past raged on this particular question, would be to de
feat the fair prospects of united action on the basis of the
Marginal Readings Bible. Such common action would
simply reflect in the Church at large the unity which the
plan has already produced in great measure in the con
sideration of the subject in past General Conventions.
The other course would introduce extremely varied
usage, and, reviving old controversies, would probably
result, as in England, in the vast majority of churches
still clinging to the old version with all its errors. Such
a spectacle would be a serious practical denial before our
people of the importance attached to accuracy in the read
ing and weighing of the Word of God, and would cause
pleasure only to those whose care for the witness of the
Church as a whole is inferior to their attachment to their
own predilections.
It will be time enough to ask for the use of the Re
vised Version when sufficient trial has shown beyond a
peradventure that the Marginal Readings Bible cannot
fulfil the natural and reasonable expectations which its
nature and history suggest.

k% '»- \ 4

9-fla.i

liii ¦ -^