94 AMERICAN BIBLE UNION. Harbinger, Mar. 1, '65. REVIEWS, NOTES ON PASSING EVENTS, CORRESPONDENCE, &c. THE AMERICAN BIBLE UNION, H. T. ANDERSON'S TRANSLATION, AND THE DISCIPLES. facts rather than strong words, and while manifesting kindliness of spirit, severely cuts up the Union. Among the instances of defective rendering cited are "Take no thought for life, for food, for raiment, for to-morrow." Every one knows the constant harping of the Infidel upon what he terms the absurd teaching of Christ in regard to "thought for to-morrow," and that again and again he has to be told that thought THOUSANDS are now busy with increased Bible reading, resulting from their possession of a translation of the New Testament by the A. B. U. and also of one by H. T. Anderson. If not comparing part with part, they are certainly comparing translation with translation and enlarged acquaintance with the truth will most certainly result. We presume no one expected, either from the A. B U. or from H. T. A. a translation which would not ad-does not express the meaning of the term mit of improvement, and certainly every one knew that both translations, however excellent, would be pretty freely pulled to pieces. The Union New Testament, issued by the final revisers, has, however, fallen far short of what was expected, and the bulk of the Disciples in America have abandoned the Union. Still, there is much to rejoice over. The Union New Testament is a vast improvement upon the Common Version, and may be accepted as a large instalment. Then, its present issue is not considered final and important points are under consideration. Yes, and in some particulars at least, there will be emendations. Place the Common Version, that of the Union, and the one by H. T. A. side by side, and the Union will certainly occupy the middle place-superior to the Authorised and vastly inferior to the other. In saying this we claim not to have formed an opinion by thorough examination of the works, for in point of fact we have not yet read twenty chapters in either of them. Still we speak with some measure of confidence, arising from acquaintance with a large amount of criticism from all sides. Our object in now referring to the subject is not that of expressing an individual opinion, but rather the more serviceable work of gathering up what we take to be the general results of a wide range of careful examination, thus helping the reader to understand the position of the Bible Union and the merits of the translations now submitted for their purchase. Lard's Quarterly for October has a pungent article," The Bible Union its Works Criticised." It contains hard used by Jesus. Still the objectionable rendering is retained by the Union, though they must know that the ori ginal term does not denote prudential consideration, but anxious solicitude. Then in regard to the use of the word devils. In the original the one great enemy of God and man is called the Devil, and the many unclean and wicked spirits are called demons. The two are never confounded in the Scriptures nor in the writings of scholars-yet in defiance of all criticism the Union terms them all devils. Then, also, Hades is uniformly rendered under world, whereas the term in no way expresses the locality of the place it designates but simply implies the unseen. This, however, is an improvement upon the Common Version, because while that Version translates both Hades and Gehenna by the one word hell, the Bible Union never give hell as the representative of Hades, and thus they preserve a distinction which the original marks and which the common text destroys. Then eis to onoma, in the commission, is rendered in the name, destroying the significance of the Lord's instruction as to the purpose of baptism. John is also made to say, I immerse you in water unto repentance,' and Paul is made to ask, “Unto what then were you immersed?" But immersing men "unto John's immersion" is without meaning. Why depart from the common signification of eis? Then the old confusion of the Common Version of metanoeo and metamelomai (both in that version rendered repent) is retained. In this way we might go over a large number of examples of defective rendering, but opportunity will 66 Harbinger, Mar. 1, '65. AMERICAN BIBLE UNION. not admit, neither is it requisite to our present purpose. The January issue of the Quarterly contains a letter from C. A. Buckbee, who is in a position to speak for the Union with some authority. His let ter was called forth by the article alluded to, and is addressed to M. E. Lard. A few lines here and there will not be uninteresting. "The Committee stated in the prefatory note to the first edition, that there were questions on which they had not yet had sufficient opportunity for conference and decision. These questions they will now have time to consider; and I believe the results will gratify you, and give joy to all the friends of God's pure word. pro I am fully persuaded that the work undertaken by the American Bible Union will be thoroughly done. I am glad to see the friends of the Bible interested in thei gress of this movement. I do not believe that this first edition from the Committee has reached the limit of their ability to render the original perfectly into our tongue. It is an honest contribution, and is in the right direction. Whatever further possible improvements can be made, will be made. The determination of every officer and manager, and of every translator, and I believe of every member of the Bible Union, is fixed, never to rest till in our language we have a perfect version; I mean a version as perfect as men can make a version free from any sectarian bias, pure in its style, idiomatic in expression, and faithful in all respects to the sacred origi nals. It is a hopeful sign that the very first issues awaken discussion and elicit criticism. Even if the criticisms are not all favorable, it is good. It is better that we whose hearts are in the work should be the first to find how far short we have come from hitting the mark the first time, since we know that we shall work on until we work up to the perfect standard which we mean to reach. We, who are the friends of truth, have nothing to fear in carrying on the examination in the open day, before There is great hope for the all men. cause in this fact. 'IN the name,' or INTO the name,' which shall it be, in a faithful version? I like into the name. I have used that expression for years, when immersing peni tent believers. Our final Committee have this question before them. They are as anxious to be true to God and men as any person can be. And one thing is sure: the Bible Union will have the truth on that point. You ought to know that some things remain 95 in the Revision as they were in the Common Version, not because the Committee are satisfied with them; but because they have not yet reached expressions that fully meet their view of what the change stated, that I am certain that we will be should be. This they have so frequently far more gratified by their work gradually perfected than we could be by immature changes that might be made, avoiding some difficulties, and yet such as would not be all we need. The great family of immersed believers in Christ are irrevocably committed to the work of procuring faithful translations of the Bible. The Disciple and the Baptists in this work are one people. They are one in many other things-more nearly one people than many wish to believe. They love God's pure word. They really desire an accurate version. They wish to follow fully the counsel of God. Give them the truth, the whole truth, in the translation, and I am persuaded that the intelligent piety of these powerful bodies will respond to that truth. Whatever they find in the practice and teaching condemned by the pure word of the Lord, they will cast from them. My acquaintance with some of the representative men among the Disciples has endeared them to my heart. I honor and love them. And it is my hope that at no distant day these bodies may be completely one in Christ Jesus. Their unity will contribute greatly to the union of all who love the truth. But our union must be based on the pure word of God; and I look upon the Bible Union organization as a providential agency adapted to open the way for this desirable result. The brethren of the Reformation have been hearty and faithful co-laborers in the Bible Union. In the board of Managers, the Disciples' church in New York is more largely represented than any other church in the city. Their influence is felt for good, and their counsel is always sought in all our undertakings. I am glad it is There is no enterprise of this age in which they can exert an influence outside their own ranks so powerful as in connection with this Bible Union work. They have, in the origin, history, and the labors of the Union, a common share and blessing. They will have a mutual reward and joy in the final results." So. To this the editor of the Quarterly replies at length. Some of his points we reproduce "I thank you sincerely for the foregoing candid, fraternal letter; and with real pleasure lay it before my readers. I feel this to be an act of simple justice to yourself, but especially so to the Society in whose 96 AMERICAN BIBLE UNION. interest you speak. Coming as the letter does from a Baptist, one who has from the first been identified with the Bible Union, who knows perfectly its labors and its aims, and who has himself with heart and hope wrought in it and for it, must certainly entitle it to a most friendly reading from all. Besides the last number of the Quarterly bore heavily on the rules and works of the Bible Union. Of this I am not insensible; and it is but frankness to say that it was not undesigned. If, however, injustice has been done, or too great a degree of severity used, no one can be more willing than I that the readers of the Quarterly should know the fact. Of this, then, your letter will enable them to judge. Of these criticisms I do not propose now to speak. They are before the public, and of them the public will form its own judgment. For this they were written. They are not both from the same hand; but both are alike endorsed. Of them I shall add only that purer motives never moved the heart than prompted them. They are not the product of passion, but the sedate convictions of those who penned them-convictions not the most hastily formed, nor resting, it may be, upon the narrowest possible view of the subjects treated of. A change in these judgments, so far as they directly respect the deliverances of the Bible Union on their merits, is something not likely, we think, soon to occur; and we must add, something we should regret to see occur. The change we wish, and for which, by your leave, we will still not unfondly hope, is a change, not in the judgments expressed, but a change in the things judged. No loftier love of truth dwells in human forms than that which induced the criticisms in question; and when the errors complained of are corrected, no broader smile will sit on any face, or deeper joy fill any heart, than that same love will cause in the complainers. Our devout prayer is, that our feeble hope may not be disappointed. Harbinger, Mar. 1, '65. little shy. We are silly children, and when you burn our fingers once think us not odd should we refuse to commit them to your keeping again. All you bid us hope for, we will hope for; and all you bid us expect, we will expect; and more than this we will expect. We will expect the same degree and kind of disappointment in coming time that sickens us now. From this you see how thoroughly we are prepared for the most agreeable of all surprises. Will you disappoint us in this? Our mutual friend and brother, Hoiman, has forwarded me the New Testament as corrected by the final Committee?' I thank him for his courtesy. Is this the work of the final Committee? It is; we are not mistaken-the print is on the titlepage. But is this the final work of the final Committee? It is not. Your letter plainly tells me so. Why, then, was it printed? Why sent forth to the world? Why was it not withheld till finished in every paragraph, sentence, word, and point? We have become accustomed to wait on the Bible Union; we could have waited on it still; our patience could, without a break, have reached through ten years more-it is of the most tenacious stuff. Again: this work, though 'corrected' by the final committee, is after all, it seems, not correct. This we think more than likely. But of its incorrections-are they known, or are they unknown? If known why does the book contain them? Why were they not removed? If unknown, do they certainly exist? And if not, how can you promise us corrections in time to come? Bear with me, generous brother, in my rudeness; but I wish you to see yourselves as others see you. we But when, we repeat, when may we expect the final work of the final Committee, in its final dress? May we expect it in five years? In ten? In twenty? Shall we never be answered? Or shall whose heads are growing grey, who inwardly so deeply sigh for that final workshall we in sorrow descend into the grave without ever once looking on that lovely thing we long for-the sacred New Testament accurately expressed in chaste, simple happy English ? We pause, but not to hear the reply. You tell me that the Bible Union in time gone has had its troubles, encountered its difficulties, and carried long and painfully its anxieties. All this we will believe on your single word. But you add that its expectations, and those of its friends, were not realized within the allot- Allow me to reciprocate in most cordial ted time. We well knew this But tell terms the hope you express, and as I beme, noble brother, do you allot us now ano- lieve from your heart, that at no distant ther time? What guarantee, then, give day the Baptists and we as a people may you us that even within this time the ex- be one. Few events of earth could so fill pectations you would have us cherish still me with joy as this. For our present sewill be realized? Would you build our paration, in my candid opinion, no justifihopes on nothing surer than the unfulfil-able reason exists. But suffer me to add, ling past and the vaguely promising pre- that the question lies with the Baptists. If so, be not angry with us, 1 en- It is they, not we, who have reared the ditreat you, should our credulity prove aviding wall; and they, not we, must take sent? Harbinger, Mar. 1, '65. AMERICAN BIBLE UNION. it down. As for ourselves, we have firmly, and I believe immovably, taken our stand, and tendered the olive branch. That tender has been coldly spurned. Here the matter rests. When the Baptists see fit to relax their unsanctioned restrictions on our intercourse, and to meet us on the pure word of God and that only, to meet us in the spirit of the great Teacher, then shall we extend to them a hand as warm and a heart as true as earth shall ever boast. You tell me that in your Board of Man. agers the Disciples of New York are more largely represented than any other church in the city. I regret that you should have told me this. I doubt not you did it from a sense of justice to my brethren. But is this all that is due them? Who of all the denominations within your memory, the Baptists even not excepted, gave the Bible Union the unanimous countenance it received from the Disciples? And can you name the body that poured into your treasury its thousands with the same liberal hand which marked their conduct? Have you honored them as they deserved to be honored even on this score? I stoop to utter no complaint; but I am not above expressing in terms of proper bearing my sense of wrong. Why have we not been represented even in your 'final Committee?' Do you haughtily reply: Your scholarship is insufficient. Hold! courteous stranger, hold! Long before the works of your final Committee have passed the ordeal of that contemptible scholarship, you may have many grave reasons to lower your tone a little. But few of my brethren have spoken as yet infer not their non-existence. Incognito they may have been, still they have not lacked a whereabouts. Let me relate you a little incident for your illumination. Forgive my boldness. Hardly four summers have gone since an obscure village school teacher in the State of Kentucky, unknown to the world, especially to the Bible Union, undertook a translation of the New Testament. He wrought not amid the splendors of Broome Street, nor had he access to hoary libraries, opulent in ancient manuscripts and modern learning. No. He wrought in his humble, hired cot, in penury and want, unblessed by the world's eclat, and unsmiled upon by names of the great. Yet at this writing his work in faultless dress lies before me. And now, without expressing any opinion as to its absolute merits, I lay it on the stand of the final Committee, beside their corrected work, and proudly challenge for it a comparison with the finest thing they have done. Taunt us not too confidently with our want of scholarship till you know us better. You might arouse men where you little dreamt to find babes sleeping. 97 But you reiterate that the Disciples in the city of New York are more largely represented in your Board than any other church in it. To this we have nothing to say. But I have too much respect for your courtesy and good sense to think you expected me to infer from this that the Dis. ciples as a body are represented in any sense in your Board. Such representation is a fact which we must decline to recognize. I doubt not the brethren from the city who sit on your Board are very estimable gentlemen. I know none of them, except possibly one, and am only by him left to feel the absence of representation to be the more real. Are we represented there by men who know and are known to our powerful body as you are pleased to style us-men who have spent their lives for it, and whose names are embalmed in its best and holiest memories? You must answer this. Suffer me to say that this plea of representation falls coldly on my ear. To some it may serve as a covering of the eyes; not to me. Of one thing I am sure we are not represented in your Board by W. K. Pendleton, John W. McGarvey, Alexander Procter, or plain honest Ben. Franklin. You will say: Their services eould not be had. Did the Union ever try to procure their services? Not extremely, we conjecture. By every consideration of justice and gratitude, by the ties which spring from a great common work, by the tribute which is due to the laborer, by the measure which should be meted to distinguished liberality, by the respect which belongs to the loftiest interest, by the estimate in which the prayers of a thousand hearts should be held-by all these have we, as a people, been entitled to be at all times as numerously represented, both in your Board and in your final Committee, as the Baptists. This we claim as a stern right; more than this, not. Bear with me, dear Sir, but did it never occur to you that there is nothing which could bring the color to the cheek of refinement in proclaiming to the world that the Bible Union is a nonpartisan institution, and yet in filling all its high places with Baptist men, and in doing all its important final work with Baptist fingers? Who did this? you will say. Who did this? say I. Sprinkling sects did it not; my brethren did it not; who then? Baptist men love Baptist men is brief. But are not distinguished men in Germany engaged on the final work of the Union? Aye; and for bunkum, toomen who know less of the English language than many a kitchen maid in New York City. Will these furnish us the most elegant English version in the world? Perhaps so. I wish it were in my power to feel that 98 AMERICAN BIBLE UNION. the hearts and affections of my brethren should return to the Bible Union, and to assure you that such is likely to be the case. But it is not. They are gone from you now, forever gone. Compliments and flattering epithets have no effect. We look with mournful feelings on our past folly in committing to your keeping our confidence as we did. We shall never trust you again. Henceforth we are our own Bible Union. Your works we shall curiously read; those we confide in we shall make ourselves. Only one point remains on which we feel special solicitude, and on which we wish to speak with peculiar emphasis. We touch the motives of no man in, or working for, the Bible Union. We acquit you here, kind brother, of even the sem. blance of wrong. On this point, then, we beg you to feel most perfectly at ease. The things we complain of we are more than willing to place to the account of frail humanity, working not in its intentional moods, but under the burden of its great unconscious infirmities. We pray you, accept this assurance as from our heart. In conclusion, I beg to say that I am profoundly sensible of the high bearing and fine spirit of your letter. We are unused to such things from Baptists, for which they are all the more delicious. Accept assurance of my heart-warm Christian affection and high personal regard. Yours in the great work of Christ, EDITOR." Harbinger, Mar. 1, '65 as in press, without any decisive judgment As to the mechanical execution of Bro. Anderson's translation, we must pronounce it, to our taste, faultless. Nothing can be more lovely to the eye, in the shape of a book, than these clean white pages, so finely proportioned, bold, sharp type, and airy spacing. On simply opening the work, it salutes the look as if it were something The next matter which demands nohalf divine. There sits on every page an tice is the translation by H. T. Ander- easy, graceful air, which makes the readson. The same number of the Quar-ing an exquisite pleasure. We love the terly from which the above is taken contains a penetrating review of this largely praised work. We feel bound at least to give the substance of it, because as large praise from other reviewers has been reprinted in our pages, many seem disposed to purchase, and some are asking us to print a cheap edition for circulation in this country.* It is, then, our duty to avoid one-sidedness, and to give fairly the state of opinion as we find it. The following then is, with such omissions as we consider could be allowed without detriment to the argument, the burden of the last number of the Quarterly upon the work in question "We sincerely regret that Bro. Anderson's work was not simply announced as in hand, If this request is complied with it will be under an arrangement which will secure a due amount of profit upon every copy to the Translator, who deserves the gratitude and support of all who love the truth.-ED. the dress in which the word of Christ shall generous liberality which grudges not to appear abroad-beauty, purity, and charming simplicity. Could we be fascinated to overlook a blemish in any translation of holy truth, we should fear to trust ourselves to write over this most artistic thing We certainly feel the book to be one of the most elegant and appropriate in appearance we have ever seen. that Bro. Anderson's translation carries to As a general remark we wish to say, us obvious evidence on every page of minute, painstaking care and perfect fair ness. We do not think that even the most captious spirit can accuse him of not meaning to be just to the original, and accurate in expressing its sense. We are free to say we have been unable to detect even one trace of any other than the noblest purpose to give to the world the exact meaning of the sacred text. 1.-Non-translations. For this heading *These brethren formed their opinion upon chapters of the work, published side by side with the corresponding portions of the Bible Union. |