The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-07-13

existing version be closely followed
5. That it is desirable that the Convoca-
ton should nominate body of its own
members to undertake the work of re-
vision, who shall be at liberty to invite
the cooperation of any eminent for schol-
arship, to whatever nation or religious
body they may belong"
The principles and rules agreed to by
the committee of Convocation, May 25th,
1870, were the following
81. To introduce as few alterations as
possible into the text of the Authorized
Version consistently with faithfulness.
q To limit, as far as possible, the ex-
preston Of such alterations to the lam
guage of the Authorized and earlier Eng
lish versions.
8. Each company to go twice over the
portion to be revised, once Professionally,
the second time finally, and on principles
of voting as hereinafter is provided. =
4. That the text to be adopted be that
for which the evidence is decidedly pre-
ponderating; and that when the text so
adopted differs from that from which the
Authorized Version was made, the alter
alton be indicated in the margin.
B. To make or retain no change in the
text on the second final revision by each
company, except t1oo-thirdS of those pre-
sent approve of the same, but on the first
revision to decide by simple maorities.
3. In every case of proposed altera-
ton that may have given rise to discus
sion, to defer the voting thereupon till
the next meeting, whatsoever the same
shall be required by one-third of those
present at the meeting. such intended
vote to be announced in the notice for
the next meeting.
Z. To revise the headings of chapters
and pages, paragraphs, italics, and pune
turtion.
s. To refer, on the part of each COM
pany, when considered desirable, to di-
vines scholars, and literary men, whether
at home or abroad, for their opinions"
In general, as has been before allowed.
there is little to object to in these rules.
They will be seen to relate chiefly to the
text, to the translation, and to the divis-
ions and mode of printing. The great
guiding principle was that the thing to
be done was not to make a new version
but to revise an old one. Certainly this
principle was the only correct one. 1t is
true that brand new Version of the
Scriptures has sometimes been called for
even when another Version into the same
language was actually in existence. This
has only been, however, when the exist
ing Version was radically bad one and
even in such case, the existing Version
must have been worthless indeed, before
it could be deprived of all claim to occa-
sional notice in the construction of the
new one. The line between new Yer
sion and mere revision is not an easy
one to draw. Even a new Version NAV
sometimes revise an old one, and a mere
revision, when it goes deep enough, ne
cessarily sometimes renders a passage
anew from the original. But the line
exists, and is an important one, and the
revlsers OF the almost incompatible Yer
sion of King James, have done well in
adhering to it, in theory, at all events,
if not also in practice. The question may
be reserved as to whether critical tert
should have been adopted in place of the
tertus receptus. We are none the less
persuaded that the tertuS receptus has
nothing but prescription, and that com
paratively recent prescription, to stand
on, and is in itself entitled to no author
ity whatever. The rules in regard to
corrections Of the translation could hardly
be improved upon, unless indeed it were
judged wise and best to restrict the lib
erty of the revisers within narrower
limits. The question as to the degree OF
freedom that ought to have been given to
the revisers in this essential matter will
also be reserved awhile. We have no
exceptions to take, at present, to the new
divisions into paragraphs and chapters,
or as to the mode OF indicating the verses
and poetry.
TheiStio Revolution