 |  |
sentences are found in more than one of the Gospels, it is no less necessary to translate
them in every place in the same way. These two principles may be illustrated by
reference to a word that perpetually recurs in St. Mark's Gospel, and that may be
translated either `straightway', `forthwith' or `immediately'. Let it be supposed that
the first rendering is chosen, and that the word, in accordance with the first of the above
principles, is in that Gospel uniformly translated `straightway'. Let it be further supposed
that one of the passages of St. Mark in which it is so translated, is found, word for word,
in one of the other Gospels, but that there the rendering of the A.V. happens to be
`forthwith' or `immediately'. That rendering must be changed on the second of the above
principles; and yet such a change would not have been made but for this concurrence of
two sound principles . . . . . This is but one of many instances of consequential alterations
which might at first sight appear unnecessary, but which nevertheless have been
deliberately made, and are not at variance with the rule of introducing as few changes in
the A.V. as faithfulness would allow."
Two other features are noted by the Revisers in reference to their work. One is the
subject of language:--
"We have never removed any archaisms, whether in structure or in words, except
where we were persuaded either that the meaning of the words was not generally
understood, or that the nature of the expression led to some misconception of the true
sense of the passage."
The other feature is that of the marginal notes:--
"They represent the results of a large amount of careful and elaborate discussion, and
will, perhaps, by their very presence, indicate to some extent the intricacy of many of the
questions that have almost daily come before us for decision."
The marginal notes fall into four main groups:--
(1) Differences of reading deemed to be of sufficient importance as to warrant particular
notice.
(2) Exact renderings of Greek words, which, for the sake of the English idiom, were not
so exactly rendered in the text.
(3) A few notes give some explanation which the original seemed to require.
(4) Alternative renderings in difficult or debatable passages.
It is important to remember that where the text of the R.V. agrees with that of the
A.V., at least one third of the Revisers supported the retention, whereas where the R.V.
differs from the A.V., the different reading was supported by at least two thirds of the
Revisers who were present at the second revision (see page 196).
As a general rule, italic type used in the R.V. to indicate the absence of any words in
the original which the sense seemed to require in the translation. The text is arranged in
paragraphs, and the Revisers pertinently remark:--
"The serious obstacles to the right understanding of Holy Scripture, which are
interposed by minute subdivisions are often overlooked; but if anyone will consider for a
moment the injurious effect that would be produced by breaking up a portion of some
standard work into separate verses, he will at once perceive how necessary has been an
alteration in this particular."