pamphlet entitled " Report on the History of the Be- ;
cent Collation of the English Version of the Bible," N. Y. 1857.)
The standard thus prepared was published in 1851. Though issued in a quiet way, it was received with general approval. For six years it remained the standard of the Society, and during that time not a whisper of disapprobation was heard. But in 1857 a Protestant Episcopal clergyman of Baltimore pub- lished a pamphlet aimed at this work, in which, while carefully avoiding specific charges, the most severe spirit was exhibited. The Society was accused of an attempt to "supersede the time-honored version in its integrity;" it was making a "half-way adventure" toward a new translation ; it was " debasing the stand- ard ;" its Bible was "a vulgarized work," and so on. The committee had found twenty-four thousand varia- tions in the Bibles in common use ; their language was converted into a statement that they had made twen- ty-four thousand changes. The New-York organ of the same church at once joined in the attack, but the amount of its charge was that the standard was differ- ent from every copy collated. In the General Assem- bly of the Old-School Presbyterian Church in the same year, the same subject was brought up by a speaker wdio stigmatized the standard as being "tinkered up" by "an anonymous printer and a New-School preach- er!" Asking, " Why discard these captions that have been acquiesced in two hundred years ?" he forgot that they had not been so acquiesced in, and that abundant reason had been shown for "discarding" them. In Jul}', 1857, the (Presbyterian) Princeton Review had a most bitter article on the same subject. The. only at- tempt to meet the difficulties of the case was the state- ment (page 510) that the Society should "give up en- tirely all idea of producing a standard text," or other- wise should " take the standard editions and collate them." But if this latter course wras followed, as it had been, "the Society would have no right to exer- cise its own discretion in selecting the readings or the punctuation it would adopt." In compliance with these and similar demands from auxiliary bodies, the Board of Managers, in Februaty, 1858, revoked this standard. Their present imperial quarto edition is now their printer's guide. With this action perished the hope of having for the present a generally-ac- cepted standard e>f King James's translation. One cannot now be got up in England by any one church, because dissent in many branches is so extensive; nor by co-operation, because they have no union ; nor by their Bible Society, because it does not print its own books. In this country the American Bible Society is the only body which has any general authority. It is to be regretted that this society has not felt itself au- thorized by its constitution to retain and prosecute the needed work. See Bible Societies, 3, xii.
VI. Marginal Readings. — These are generally passed over by Bible readers, but a careful student will find them invaluable for ascertaining the precise meaning of any text. They are of two kinds: the first, com- monly marked by a dagger (f), giving the literal translation of a peculiar idiom in the originals where it could not. be rendered in good English, also the translation of significant proper names ; and the other, marked by a parallel (||), representing a possible dif- ferent rendering where the original is in doubt from any cause. They are further distinguished by being prefaced by "That is," in the translations of names, or "Ileb.," "Chald.," or "Gr.," according to the original language in the first class; and "Or," in the second class. In many modern Bibles they are re- ferred to by consecutive figures or Greek letters ; hut the system here described is that used by the original translators and by the American Bilde Society. The translators regarded these readings as a component part of their work ; and to the present day ministers of the Church of England read and use either the marginal rendering or that in the text at pleasure. They were
AUTHORIZED VERSION 5(
first used by the translators of the Geneva version of the Bible half a century before ours was made.
Since the publication of our translation in the year 1611, the marginal readings have at various times been enlarged and improved. There are now about three hundred of these more than the original number, and a few have been omitted. Of the others, many have been extended by adding the necessary exple- tives. A few palpable errors have been corrected, as in the note to 1 Sam. v, 4, where the stump of the fish- idol Dagon was ludicrously described as "the filthy part," now correctly printed "the fishy part." In other cases one note has been divided into two, one of each class. In one instance an odd typographical error has been introduced into a note and perpetuated • Jo- nah's gourd (Jonah iv, 6) is in the first edition de- scribed as a " palme-crist," or palma chrlsti (the cas- tor-oil plant), in the margin; but the word has been corrupted into "palmerist," to which no meaning can be attached.
There is no trace of any person or body authorized to make these changes, and except in the correction of palpable typographical errors, as above noticed, it would seem that they should no more be meddled with than should those other readings which form the body of the text. Both came originally from the same translators, and both were intended to be of equal au- thority. This fact at once places them above the rank of mere commentary, and renders their study most im- portant. Ruth i, 20, for example, is almost meaning- less as commonly printed; but when opposite "Nao- mi" we read "that is, Pleasant," and opposite "Ma- ra," " that is, Bitter," we see at once a beauty in the passage of which otherwise we could form no idea. So, also, with strength of expression. Verse 13 of the same chapter is made much stronger when, instead of "it grieveth me much for your sakes," we read, "I have much bitterness for your sakes." Job xvi, 3, is wonderfully strengthened if we adopt the Hebrew idiom — never mind if the English is not so good — and instead of "vain words," read "words of wind." So when, in Job v, 7, we read "sons of the burning coal" instead of " sparks," we at once see, better than by any commentary ever written, the metaphorical character of Old-Testament poetry, and thenceforth can read the poetical books with vastly-increased ap- preciation.