Langdon 2M W Meking the of The Book shaps in Mi e MISHAPS IN THE MAKING OF “THE BOOK” par THE— REV. WM. MARVIN LANGDON, M. A. (Princeton) South Orange, New Jersey. Author Of Some Merits of the American Standard Bible, and the Peculiar Case of Stanley Dodd & Co. vs. James King. Asheville, North Carolina. 1924 If you receive this pamphlet, kindly read it, and criticise, review, circulate, or return it, or remit 50 cents to Wm. M. Langdon, West Asheville, N. C. Return-postage, herewith. Copies may be bought from the author or from other booksellers. v9 West Asheville, N. C., 26th August, 1924. Dedicated to H. M. LYDENBURG, New York Public Library. FOUR FOREWORDS TO PROFESSIONAL AND LAY READERS TO PROFESSIONALS To the kindly Scholar: The indication of errors in this pamphlet will be appreciated, and constructive criti- cisms will be gratefully received. To the Editor or Publisher: If anyone thinks a part or - the whole of the pamphlet worth reprinting or review- ing, his kindness will be recompensed, if possible. TO THE LAITY To the sentimental Reader: One who is more sensitive than sensible is cautioned to shun the shock that the reading of this pamphlet might occasion. Most people are excessively conservative, and are pained by the sug- gestion of change. So, if emotion overpowers the rea- son, let ignorance continue to be bliss, leave the follow- ing pages unread, and pass the pamphlet on to some more curious mind. To the sensible Reader: Any reader who approves of the pamphlet, and is appreciative and enthusiastic enough to wish to aid in its circulation, and in the pro- motion of English Bible translation, will be heartily welcomed as a co-operator. Mishaps in the Making of “The Book” “The book? What book?” Why, the Book of all books; yet the Book whose source and author are disputed. Some say it came from God; others say it originated with men. But all admit—unless they are utterly thoughtless—that the Bible came thru men. Men are fallible, tho God is not; men make mistakes; God permits them, altho His provi- dence has marvelously guarded His Book from the large proportion of error that is found in all other ancient works. Can man know God? Christ said: “No one knows the Father, but the Son, and he to whom the Son reveals Him.” -Are the Living Word and the Written Word the only reve- lations of God? Certainly not; the Bible itself tells us that nature reveals God, and that God revealed Himself in the Garden of Eden. He walked and talked with Adam and Eve. Enoch walked with Him, and God spoke to Noah, to Abraham, and to his descendants down to the time of Moses. But with Moses the written revelation began. Here again we find two views, and with the conservative view rather than the rationalistic we are now concerned. There is a Mohammedan legend that God provided Adam with writing materials and taught him how to write, as well as how to talk! Tho the possibility of writing even in Moses’ day has been doubted, in this case the objectors have been thor- cughly answered. The development of the art of writing has been traced from the pictures of the cave men thru the hieroglyphs of the Egyptians, the alphabet of the Phoe- nicians, the Hebrews’ habit of writing consonants straight along with no vowels between; the Greek customs of run- ning words together with no spaces between, of indiffer- ently dividing the last word of the line, and of abbreviat- ing some common words; traced thru the introduction of capitals and punctuation, with signs to express emotion; the marshalling of sentences in paragraphs; the division of the matter into chapters, sections, cantos and books, down to the emphatic display of modern advertising and the artis- tic and vivifying printing of poetry and drama. There are only three occasions on which the Bible represents its divine Author as Himself writing. The first of these occa- sions was the promulgation of the Law on Mount Sinai; and this brings us to the consideration of THE NAME. 4 MISHAPS IN THE MAKING THE NAME. “The name? What name?” Why, the unique Name of the unique person of the unique Book; the Ineffable Name; and, later, the Lost Name. The unique Person is not the petty “parson” of the village or community. He is The Per- son of the universe. Now we may know a person without knowing his name. Some may be surprised to hear that the question has been raised whether God has a name. But in the early Christian centuries the negative of this question was stoutly maintained. Man cannot know God fully; can he then name God? Adam named the animals, but did he name God? Justin Martyr wrote: “No one can give a name to the ineffable God; and if anyone dare to say that He has a name, he raves in hopeless madness.” Eve knew and used the name ‘“Jehovah;” so did the patriarchs. And to Moses the name was more fully explained. As man could neither name nor understand God, God must have revealed Himself, as the Scripture says, thus evidencing its inspira- tion. We are familiar with the lists of 250 names and titles of God and of Christ. But we should note that the word “name” is used in ways both :strict and loose. Here we shall use the word more strictly than it is commonly used. Strict- ly speaking we know only three names of God: Jehovah, Jah, and Jesus. In the ordinary English Bible ‘Jehovah’ first appears in the phrase “Jehovah Jireh,” Gen. 22:14, where the King James committee evidently thought it would not do to substitute ‘‘Lord”’ for God’s name. But if we read the original, or a corrected instead of a corrupted translation, we find this name in the combination form ‘Jehovah God,” in the second chapter of Genesis. The Cre- ator is called Elohim in the first chapter of Genesis. The covenant-making God is called Jehovah Elohim in the sec- ond portion of Genesis. In the 4th chapter the simple “Je- hovah” is used of Him. The combination “Lord Jehovah” occurs in 15:2; “God Most High” in 14:18-22; and “God Almighty” in Gen. 17:1. 7 , But none of these except “Jehovah” is a name of God; the others are titles, epithets, descriptive terms. The com- bination of a noun with an adjective does not produce a name. The names “Jehovah” and “Jah” are unique; no other person in the universe has these names, altho they are found as elements of many compound names. But “there are lords many and gods many.” “Lord” and “god” are common nouns; “lord” is used also as a title. But the title “Jord” is not distinctive like the name “Jehovah;” it is MISHAPS IN THE MAKING 5 ambiguous. It may be used of all sorts of persons, as the god Baal, my lord Cesar, my lord Bishop, the lord mayor, Lord Dundreary, etc. “Lord” is not a name any more than “Mr.,” “Dr.,” “Bishop,” “King,” are names. We do not speak of the “name Mr.,”’ tho we do speak of the “name King,” and we say ‘Mr. James King.” In these cases the title “King” has by frequent usage come to be a proper name. And so we use “Lord” as a name when we speak of. “John Lord;” “Bishop” as a name when we speak of ‘‘Grace Bishop.” But in all other cases these words are only titles. So the unwarranted substitution of “Lord” for “Jeho- vah” thousands of times in the Old Testament cannot really make “Lord” a name of God. ‘‘Lord’” means ruler and owner, the master of slaves. And of course such God is; our Creator owns us, and we are His slaves. But God did not remind the Jews of this nearly seven thousand times under the Old Covenant; He used His title ‘Lord’ only about three hundred times. In the other instances He used His covenant name, the name He gave to Moses when He came down to deliver His people from a cruel bondage. “Jehovah” suggests the considerate and condescending God who has come to rescue His people. It does imply His abso- lute deity, His eternal self-existence, His infinite majesty ; but it suggests His fidelity and helpfulness also. He is the Becoming One or self-revealer, the Coming One for whom His suffering people are waiting. Likewise “god” is a com- mon noun, and is used of Ashtoreth, Molech and Beelzebub, of Jupiter, Venus and Pluto, and millions of other gods. It is used in the Old Testament of the true God over two thousand times; and in the versions it was substituted, some hundreds of times, for “Jehovah” in the original. But the general term for the deity whom we worship cannot possibly take the place of the name of our God. We have found the name “Jehovah” in the book of Gene- sis. In the account of the call of Moses (Ex. chs. 3 and 6) God says that His name was not understood by the fathers, who knew Him rather as the powerful God who richly sup- plied their needs. So God explained His name to Moses as meaning the Absolute One, essentially existing and pro- gressively unfolding Himself to man, the Friend of His people, who was always coming for their deliverance. The great “I Am” said to Moses: Jehovah “is my name for- ever; it is my memorial to all generations.’”’ Here again the King James committee were compelled to restore “Je- hovah” as Moses wrote it; and on three other occasions likewise, in Exodus, Judges and the Psalms, and in two passages in Isaiah. God inspired men to write it throughout 6 MISHAPS IN THE MAKING the Old Testament, but He Himself wrote it with His finger on tables of stone, as related in Ex. 24:12; 31:18; and 32:16. In His law Jehovah cautioned Israel not to use His name lightly (Ex. 20:7; Lev. 18:21,), and He coupled profaning the name of God with the sin of profaning their children—of sacrificing them in the fire to the “King Idol,” Molech. This passage reads, in Fenton’s version: “You shall not give your seed to pass to Molok: and thus defile the name of your God.” If this be correct, it would have de- prived the Jews of this proof text for discarding Jehovah’s name. For it represents child-sacrifice as bringing dis- honor to God, instead of prohibiting the profanation of God’s name. The devil took occasion of these prohibitions to pervert man’s understanding of God’s words, and to bring about the first great mishap in the transmission of God’s message. The Jews have herein given us an illustration of the in- sufficiency of a good motive; for the good motive may be accompanied by a bad deed, and bring forth evil conse- quences. The Jews illustrate also how an error at its origin may be of comparatively smal] importance, but may later develop to dangerous dimensions. The first step in this de- velopment may have been this: Satan, in his unresting op- position to God’s plan, inspired some unknown Jew, of an. unknown age, to conceive that, since God’s name must not be profanely pronounced, it was therefore best to avoid the risk of this frivolity by eschewing the utterance of the name altogether. (2) This scribe or priest imbued his fel- low scribes with his mistaken scruples. He suggested that instead of reading “Yahweh” in the Scriptures over six thousand times, they substitute “Adonai.” But at Gen. 15:2 and hundreds of other points they found the combination “Adonai Yahweh.” Their difficulties were multiplying, as difficulties always will, when one leaves the straight and narrow path of right and truth. They could not read ‘‘Ado- nai Adonai;” so they substituted “Elohim” for ‘‘Yahweh” and read “Adonai Elohim,” “Lord God.” (8) The Jewish officials communicated their excessive reverence to the whole nation. (4) Many centuries after Moses the supersti- tion became established. The only time the name could be uttered was when the high priest entered the Holy of Holies on the annual Day of Atonement. We can hardly see how the custom could have been settled before the comple- tion of the Old Testament writings. For if it was dangerous to utter the name, why was it not equal sacrilege to write it? But history gives no clue. to the dates. MISHAPS IN THE MAKING 7 (5) The fifth step was tampering with the sacred writ- ings. The scribes, as they copied their rolls, generally wrote YHWH, but there were 134 exceptions to this rule. (Bul- linger and Ginsberg). In these cases the scribes allowed their superstition about the name to exceed their reverence for the holy book, and they removed YHWH bodily from the text and substituted the consonants of Adonai. In Gen. 18:22 they even reversed the positions of Jehovah and Abraham, where the original text read: ‘Jehovah stood before Abraham;”’’ for they thought this statement deroga- tory to the divine dignity! (6) “Adonai” was now so fully recognized that when the Hebrew YHWH was translated into Greek by the Septuagint, a few centuries before Christ, it appeared as “kurios,” Lord. (7) The Jews of Palestine spoke Aramaic, but many of them used the Greek Septua- gint as well as the Hebrew Old Testament. The Septuagint was probably used by the Lord himself and his apostles and by the writers of the New Testament. Hence the Aramaic and-the Greek for “Lord” came to the minds, lips and pens of these Jews instead of the significant name ‘“‘Yahweh.”’ When Mary, who was to be the mother of Jesus, burst into her song of joy, she probably used Aramaic, and said: “My heart exalts Adonai.” Whether in her heart she thought of “Yahweh” as being thus replaced because the latter name was too awful to utter, we cannot say. But were it not for the vain thought of the unknown Jew of centuries before, she would have used “Yahweh” as Hannah did when she uttered the song from which Mary quoted. Mary’s song was repeated and became a classic, and Saint Luke learned it; and he wrote in Greek: “My heart exalts ton kurion,” the Lord. As to the custom of our Lord we have no statement. We cannot say that he never used ““Yahweh,” or say that he never told anyone that it should be used reverently instead of the ‘“‘kurios’” that the Septuagint scholars had substituted. But it seems probable that he conformed to the custom of his people, and did not consider it desirable to raise an issue on a point on which they were so violently prejudiced. The important issues of the Sabbath and of his divinity and Messiahship were quite sufficient without dis- tracting their attention by introducing the question as to the name of God. As Rotherham says: The Messiah “was not a scribe or literary critic; his mission was much high- er. He had to plead his Messiahship at the bar of the Scrip- tures as then current, and any criticism by him of the na- tion’s Sacred Documents might have placed a needless ob- stacle in the people’s path.” If he did not read before the 8 MISHAPS IN THE MAKING jealous Nazarenes: “The Spirit of Jehovah is upon me,” etc., nor remind the bloodthirsty officials that David said: “Jehovah has said unto my lord,” etc., he certainly knew what the prophet and the Psalmist wrote. Moreover, we are told that many in his time spoke of God as “‘the Father;” and Jesus emphasized this relationship and constantly re- ferred to God as his Father and the Father of his hearers. And as the covenant name “Jehovah” had brought God nearer than ‘‘Lord” to the Israelites, so the term “Father” brought Him nearer to the Jews and to humanity than “Jehovah” would; and it expressed God’s marvelous conde- scension and kindness. A generation after the resurrection, when the New Tes- tament writers were recording the life of our Jord, and writing “kurios’” in Greek, they probably thought of ‘“ku- rios”’ as meaning “Jehovah,” and knew that their readers would so think of it. But this consciousness faded away, and Gentiles who knew not Jewish history and literature would understand “kurios’” only in the sense familiar to them—of ‘“‘lord.’”’ A rather interesting instance of the mis- leading effect of substituting “Lord” is found in the Greek writer Hermogenes, of the second century, A. D. He speaks of the “name God” being used in the first of Genesis, and argues from-the combination “Lord God,” in the second portion, that God became Lord only after the creation of things, especially of man, when He had something to lord it over. His whole argument is wrecked on the rocks, be- cause in reality “Lord” does not appear in this second por- tion of Genesis. But thanks to a meddlesome Jew, some half a dozen centuries earlier than Hermogenes, the name “Jehovah” had already been forgotten by many, and Her- mogenes supposed that Moses had actually written ‘Lord God” instead of “Jehovah God’?! Had Hermogenes known the truth he would never have educed his argument. And since Hermogenes was in error in speaking of the “name God,” he had, tho he did not know it, a nameless God. (8) The “‘kurios,”’ substituted in the Old Testament, and written as an original in the New Testament, was naturally translated into other languages by their word for “Lord.” Perhaps even in the first century “Jehovah” appeared in Latin as “Dominus.” Certainly ‘‘Dominus” was used in the Latin versions, and since Jerome it has stood in the Vulgate with the authorization of the Roman Catholic church. (9) By the middle of the first Christian millennium the pro- nunciation of Hebrew generally was being forgotten by the mass of readers, and so the rabbis found it necessary to add vowels, below or above the consonants, throughout the MISHAPS IN THE MAKING 9 Old Testament text. But coming to the consonants of YHWH, they added not its proper vowels, but those of adonai or elohim, as these were the words pronounced by the reader. After the destruction of the temple there was no Holy of Holies for the annual entrance of the high priest, and no annual pronunciation of the name. Since the name was not pronounced, as the centuries passed, its pro- nunciation and complete form were forgotten. (10) A millennium later, at the beginning of the six- teenth century, writers who were not influenced by the Jewish superstition tried to reproduce the sacred name, and combined its consonants, Y, H, W, H, with e, o, a, the vowels of adonai, thus forming a hybrid word. We find va- ried spellings of the name in English, the I and J and the v and v being sometimes interchanged. As far as we can learn it was not used by Wycliff, adonay appearing in his manuscript; and when this was printed, centuries later, we find “The Lord seeth” in Gen. 22:14. In Tindale’s Exodus, chs. 6 and 17, we find Jehouah. In the Matthew and Taver- ner Bibles Jehouah occurs a third time—in Judges. In the Great and the Bishops’ Bibles, it occurs twice—Iehouah in Ex. 6 and Iehoua in Ps. 83. The Genevan divines advanced to five times;.and the King James savants added the two occurrences in Isaiah. The Douay used adonay only in Ex. 6:3. But in over 6,800 cases the King James committee used “Lord ;” while other versions used its equivalent perhaps in every instance; as senor, in Italian, signor, in Spanish, herr in German, etc. The French use “L’Eternel.”” Some modern English translators pursue diverse and devious paths. Drs. George R. Noyes (1866), John E. McFadyen, and Charles F. Kent use sometimes “Jehovah” and sometimes “Lord.” They argue that “Jehovah” is now unfamiliar; that it was the name of a tribal god, and “Lord” is applica- ble to the God of all nations; but this point may be pressed too far. McFadyen argues also that the Jews them- selves, in the second and third books of the Psalter, re- placed the “Yahweh” of their earlier editions with ‘‘God” in later copies. Dr. James Moffatt, in his forthcoming Old Testament, intends to write “The Eternal;” tho he does not claim that it is satisfactory. The Rev. E. Hampden-Cook, editor of the Weymouth Testament, who is anxious to pro- duce a modern Old Testament, plans to use “The Most High.” 3 The Fenton Old Testament, which has been for two decades the only complete one in modern English, is very variegated. It starts with “the EVER-LIVING” in capitals, but soon slides into “LORD” in capitals: Gen. 3:22; 18:1; 10 MISHAPS IN THE MAKING but in verse 13 it uses the lower case letters, and explains “Yahweh” as a “Divine Messenger”! At Ex. 4:24 it falls to “Chieftain,” explained in a long footnote of dubious rationality! At Ex. 6:3 a footnote says: “Johvah is first used here as a Divine name.” In Jud. 6:14 “Yahweh” be- comes ‘‘Noble Man’”—‘“evidently not the Creator’! In the arrangement of Ex. 20:2 it fortunately agrees with the commentators who make this verse part of the first com- mandment and find Jehovah’s signature at the beginning and end of the first table. At Ex. 34:5 it uses “Jehovah ;” and in the next verse, when Jehovah solemnly proclaims His name: “Jehovah, Jehovah, a God merciful,” etc., it shortens the second “Jehovah” to “LIVING.” In a score of passages in the rest of the Pentateuch, it employs ‘Jeho- vah.” In the historical books “‘Ever-Living’” seems’ more common than in the prophetical, where “Lord” is often found. The variety in Isaiah is especially profuse: we have “Life-Giving:” 17:6; “still LIVING:” 43:3; but in verse 15, “STILL LIVING’! in numerous places simply “THE LIFE.” The combination “Lord Jehovah” appears as “LORD OF LIFE:” 30:15; as “the PRINCE EVER-LIV- ING:” 52:4; as “Th’ ALMIGHTY LIFE:” 50:4 (“‘Jeho- vah of Hosts” also appears as “Th’ ALMIGHTY LIFE:” 48:2); as “the GREAT LORD:” 56:8; as “the MIGHTY LORD:” 50:5,7; and very commonly throughout Ezekiel. “The name of Jehovah” appears as “THE LIVING POW- ER:” Isa. 50:10; as “His LIVING NAME: ” 56:6. In Jere- miah 16:21, “my name is Jehovah” is twisted into “My NAME is THE ETERNAL.” Fenton thus employs one or two dozen different substitutes for “Jehovah,” a bewilder- ing variety that shows the translator’s inventive power, but only makes the reader dizzy, and sheds no dazzling light. Such a treatment of the inspired Word is erratic and inconsistent; it is not even a useful paraphrase; far less a translation. (11) In the authorised version the need of distinguishing between “Jehovah” and “‘Lord” was recognized, and “Lord,” misrepresenting “Yahweh,” was printed in small capitals, while “Lord,” translating ‘‘Adonai” appears several hun- dred times in lower case letters. (12) But those who quote the Bible are not as careful as those who print it, and they constantly neglect this distinction of type. Thus has Jeho- vah permitted Satan to drive Him slowly from His Holy Book; and today in our hymns and other religious literature His original name has been largely lost. We saw that the sacred name was written by Jehovah—eight times in the first table, if He wrote the commandments as they now MISHAPS IN THE MAKING 11 read; the name was written, by the Holy Spirit thru sev- eral dozen human authors during one millennium nearly seven thousand times; and by the Evil Spirit thru thousands of men for two millenniums, it has been cast out and vari- ously substituted. Results of the Substitution. We will next note some of the results of this substitution. In the common version of the Old Testament we have three different English words for one in the original—Jehovah, Lord and God; and the English reader, and more especial- ly the hearer, cannot tell when the original was “Yahweh’”’ and when, ‘‘Adonai” or ‘‘Elohim.”’? When God reveals Him-. self to man He subjects Himself to the limitations of human speech. And since language is an imperfect medium for conveying thought, a perfect revelation is impossible. But there is no need of man’s gratuitously making the revela- tion defective by his interference. The American revision uses “Jehovah” for both “Yah” and “Yahweh.” And if this version ought not to distinguish ‘‘Eloah,” “‘Elohim” and “El,” some Bible certainly should do so. The notes of the Companion and Newberry Bibles fortunately meet this need. As an illustration of the confusion caused by the Jewish meddler, read the 6th of Isaiah to someone. In the A. V. “Lord” occurs three times, and “LORD” three times. The hearer finds no difference in these six “‘Lords;” only the reader sees the distinction in type. But in the American revision both reader and hearer know when Isaiah wrote “Jehovah” and when he wrote “Lord.” In the 6th of Ezekiel, A. V., “Lord”’ occurs eight times—five in capitals, three in lower case. In these three cases “Lord” is prefixed to “Jeho- vah,” in the A. R. V.; as we combine title and name in the phrase “King George.” In the A. V. “LORD” is used five times for “Jehovah,” and “GOD” is used three times for “Jehovah’—confusion that is foolish as well as false. Eze- kiel wrote “Jehovah” eight times in this chapter and ‘‘Lord”’ three times. Why misrepresent him and the God who in- spired him? In Psalm 110:1 the same thing is true. In the A. R. V. the distinction between “Jehovah” and David’s “Lord,” the Messiah, is clear. But in the revised New Tes- tament, where this verse is quoted four times, the ambiguity and obscurity resulting from the Jewish error still persist. An explanatory note is called for, which otherwise would have been needless. About twenty years after the A. V. was issued, we believe, small capitals were introduced into these four quotations; but the revisers conscientiously abolished 12 MISHAPS IN THE MAKING . these capitals, and now even the reader of the New Testa- ment finds no difference between the two “Lords.” The original distinction between the Father and the Son has vanished! In seores of instances in the New Testament “Lord” appears where “Yahweh” would have been used but for the ‘“Mishap”—but for the over-reverent and over- zealous Jew who, like Uzzah, undertook to steady the holy receptacle that held the Law of Jehovah. Even were this additional meaning (‘‘Yahweh’’) not im- posed on ‘“‘kurios,” kurios would already have a sufficient burden to carry. For it is used not only in the sense of divine Lord, but with reference to a human master, and also in the ordinary form of civility which we use in “Mr.” and “‘Sir.’’ Let us stop to illustrate this by a short story. Some men were once sent to procure a mount for their teacher, and finding two donkeys they started to unhitch them, but the OWNERS remonstrated. On being informed that the MASTER needed the ass, objection ceased. As the Prophet rode into the national capital, he was acclaimed as the King coming in the name of the Lord—JEHOVAH’S Anointed. The religious leaders objected to this demonstra- tion, and appealed to the would-be Messiah: “MASTER, rebuke your disciples!” In their national shrine these lead- ers argued against the Pretender. In his replies he spoke of - JEHOVAH as the God of the living; he quoted the 110th Psalm, as all three synoptists relate, “JEHOVAH said to David’s MESSIAH,” ete. Soon after, some Greeks came and said to Philip: “SIR, may we have an interview with this wonderful prophet?” They did not call him, “Philip,” but addressed him politely; as we would say, to a man of the name of ‘Phillips—“MR. Phillips.” The evangelist com- ments on the unbelief of the Jews, quoting Isaiah: ‘““JEHO- VAH! who could believe such a tale? How can our King be a sacrifice?” But when the sacrificed Lamb had come to life again, John tells how the unbelief of Thomas was turn- ed to faith and adoration as he exclaimed: “My LORD and my God!” Some years later, Herod, who had martyred one of Messiah’s ambassadors, was hailed by fawning Pheni- cians as a god; but the Messenger of JEHOVAH smote him, because he failed to honor God. In like fashion Roman emperors claimed divine honors; Cesar was KURIOS to his subjects, and the Christians who refused to worship this “God” were martyred! But “kurioi‘’ may be rendered sim- ply as “gentlemen ;’’ Goodspeed represents the jailer, scared to death by the earthquake, as addressing his prisoners: “GENTLEMEN, what must I do to be saved ?” The dozen or more words printed above in capitals are MISHAPS IN THE MAKING 13 selected from many instances that show the varied uses of the word “kurios.” In the mouth of friends and foes, of dis- ciples and Pharisees, Greeks and Phenicians, of prophet and Psalmist, lawgiver and divine Lord, “‘kurios” is found with a scale of ideas that, shading into one another, range from the term of respectful address, to Jehovah, the God of the old covenant. They saw him first as a man, a teacher; later, as a wonder-worker. One of the twelve apostles never called him “Lord,” but always, ‘‘Rabbi.” Gradually, how- ever, they were convinced of his deity, and a week after his resurrection Thomas reached the climax. But “kurios”’ serves as the form for addressing him, whether in ordinary respect or in profound veneration. In the later books of the New Testament “kurios’” is used hundreds of times of Christ; in Mark it occurs eight times, in the Corinthians, 64 times. Some scholars say that “‘kurios” is used for God 120 times in the N. T.; 79 times in quoting “Jehovah” from the O. T. But when there is only one word to be used of va- rious persons, its reference in some cases will be doubtful, and the doctors will disagree in their decisions. If ‘‘Jeho- vah” had been used in the N. T., that name, being unique, could have no doubtful reference. But the result of the substitution of “Lord” is not only confusion, but misrepresentation and slander. We have al- ready referred to this Mishap, but we may illustrate it fur- ther. A head of a house has gone to Russia and falls serious- ly ill. As he does not expect to recover he asks a Russian friend to write for him a testamentary epistle to his wife. She receives the document, and not understanding Russian has it translated by two linguists, independently. The hus- band’s name is Theodore, and has been used at various points in the letter. One translator renders it faithfully in every instance; the other substitutes for it the word ‘‘mas- ter.”” Which of these two translations will the wife prefer? She might say: “IT always loved my husband devotedly; I regarded him, as his name implies, as a gift from God, a boon from heaven; and I served him faithfully as my liege lord. I know that Sarah was commended for calling Abra- ham ‘lord;’ but that custom does not suit us today. If Saint Peter were now living, he might not press that term in these days of democracy. I constantly addressed Theodore by his beautiful and significant name. I shall not misrep- resent him as a tyrant; it would be slandering him to say that he always insisted on autocracy in our family. So, of course where he dictated the name Theodore, I will read that name. If he speaks of ‘the name of Theodore,’ it would 14 MISHAPS IN THE MAKING be foolish to change his phrase to ‘the name of master.’ For ‘master’ is not a name anyway.” In the Old Testament the phrase ‘‘the name of Jehovah” is very common. And when it is wrongly written, ‘‘the name of the Lord,” folly is substituted for sense. If, as we insisted, “Jehovah” is a name, we may properly speak of “the name, Jehovah.” “‘Lord” is not a name, and it is an absurdity to write, “the name, Lord.” Quite the worst result of this substitution is that, if it is not blasphemy to take liberties with our Heanvely Father’s Letter to His Children, it is at least treachery and false- hood. The simple reader of the common version is deceived when he is told that God wrote this book and called Himself “Lord” in any case, when He actually used His Name of Grace. The Jews repudiated God’s name of favor, and by substituting His title of majesty and despotism, thrust their Friend and Father afar off—away up to the zenith of the universe! What is the penalty for “taking away” aught of God’s message to men? What is the punishment for injur- ing the innocent, for robbing Christendom and the world? At last, after enduring this perversion for millenniums, the Christian world has had, for a few generations, versions that substitute seven thousand truths for the seven thou- sand lies! How can anyone who esteems truth hesitate in his choice of a version? Some versions slander the divine Au- thor; others honor Him. Some are foolish; others, sensible. Some, blasphemous or false; others, faithful. If we cannot make a perfect version, should we not at least make use of the most perfect version that we have? Some one may here object: “Inspiration has endorsed this substitution, and it is the Holy Spirit whom you correct when you restore ‘Jehovah’ in the New Testament.” This is just what Benjamin Wilson did in nearly a score of places in his Emphatic Diaglott. However, there can be no objec- tion to a marginal note at such points, calling attention to the fact that “Jehovah” was intended by the sacred writers, Even supposing that God in the N. T. has endorsed man’s error; would that justify man in continuing the error today in reproducing the Old Testament? Should we still falsify history and misrepresent God by following in the rough by-path of the wandering Jew instead of traveling the beautiful highway of truth? This far-reaching error of the Jewish scribe has set inspiration against inspiration: the O. T. uses “Yahweh,” and the N. T., in quoting the passage im point, and in similar circumstances, uses “Lord.” Why did God permit this contradiction in His Book? Well, why did He permit evil in the universe? Why did He allow other MISHAPS IN THE MAKING 15 admitted errors to creep into the Book of Truth? Why did He allow any misunderstanding of His meaning? Why has He permitted men continually to contend over the interpre- tation of almost every chapter and doctrine of the 66 divi- sions? Which of His gifts to man has man not corrupted? Facts may be admitted, even when they cannot be explained. Again, we may consider a similar problem in the New Testament. In these days of Modernism and the New Evan- gelism, and the repudiation of a divine Savior, it is very common to emphasize the humanity of “Jesus;” to speak of him as a mere man, and to mention him with less respect than is shown to men. When we speak of “King George’’ of England, we do not familiarly call him “George,” but we respectfully leave that privilege to his queen and consort. Why then should we deny to the Lord Jesus his title? Sup- pose, as a reaction against this tendency, some conservative should endeavor to sanctify the name “Jesus,” and should propound the theory that it was too sacred to utter, too holy for human lips, and therefore in reading the New Testament, or on any other occasion, the name must not be pronounced, but the word “Savior” or “Master” must be substituted. Suppose that in the course of time this re- sulted in the disappearance of the name “Jesus” from Christendom, and the loss of its original form and pro- nunciation. But after further lapse of time the name is re- vived as far as possible, and restored to the Holy Book. Would this restoration be acceptable and welcome to Bible lovers? Should they not be grateful? In like manner sup- pose that some editors thought “Father” was too fa- miliar a term for us to use of God in the present dispen- sation, and therefore substituted ‘Ruler’ or “Master” wherever Father had been used. Would modern Christen- dom submit to the suppression of the precious epithet? And would not the church be grateful to subsequent editors who should restore the endearing term ‘‘Father’’? Again, one may ask: “Did: not God declare to Moses: ‘This is my name forever, and this. is my memorial to all generations’? How then could He be faithless to His decla- ration?’’ We may find similar promises in Holy Writ that seem to have failed of literal fulfillment. The fulfillment of this promise seems to have suffered an eclipse for many Christian generations. Yet God made provision for the preservation of His covenant name in the name of his Anointed One. Unfortunately most Christians are ignorant of this fact: that “Jehovah” inheres in “Jesus;” that the J, e, of “Jesus” represents “Jehovah.” Ask any company of Christians the meaning of “Jesus,” and a few may an- 16 MISHAPS IN THE MAKING swer, “Savior.” Fewer still can give the true answer, “Je- hovah is our Savior.” As we have seen, the divine providence led to the recov- ery of the Lost Name with the revival of learning, and to the restoration of it in a few instances in the English ver- sions. Possibly intervening versions made more use of it, but the first translator we know who restored it throughout was Robert Young, 1862; next came J. N. Darby, 1881. The British revisers, 1885, ventured on only eight additions to the seven occasions in the A. V.; but the American re- visers, 1901, also restored it throughout, and so did the Improved Bible of the American Baptists, 1912. J. B. Roth- erham used ‘‘Yahweh” everywhere. A colloquial version of eight Old Testament books of history and prophecy, edited by G. C. Martin, uses “Yahweh.” Thus, in our day, this Mishap has been partly remedied, and the tetragramma- ton that God wrote on stone, and His servants wrote on parchment, may be read today in its revived and printed form, THE NAME JEHOVAH. Christ and Messiah. 7 We may at this point allude’ to the title of Jesus, which involves a question of translation, but does not involve a serious mishap like the loss of the name Jehovah. The angels announced to the shepherds of Bethlehem that the newborn Savior was (according to most versions) ‘Christ the Lord.” These last three nouns are all called titles of Christ, but their uses are not identical. “Savior” is a de- scriptive epithet, an appellation, referring to his purpose and work. If we spoke of “Life-saver Jones,” or “Saver Brown,” and the like, “Saver” would become a title, as “Master” becomes a title in the familiar form “Mr.” “Christ” is from the Greek “christos,” a participle or verbal adjective or substantive, meaning “anointed,” “an anointed one.” It was at first used as a descriptive epithet of Jesus, then as a title of Jesus; and at last was used as a surname, becoming a proper noun. In “Jesus Christ’ “Christ” is add- ed as a surname to the given name “Jesus.” In “Christ Jesus” “Christ” is a title prefixed to the name “Jesus.” Jesus was first Jehovah’s Anointed One; then, “King Jesus;’ and lastly “Jesus Christ.”’ Now “Messiah” is originally the exact Hebrew equiva- lent of the Greek “Christ.” But altho “Messiah” and “Christ’”’ are the same originally, they have come to suggest different ideas. “Jesus Messiah” does not sound like a prop- er noun as “Jesus Christ” does. The idea suggested by the mention of “Messiah” is a prince expected by the Jews. MISHAPS IN THE MAKING 17 The idea suggested by the word “Christ” is a savior who came two millenniums ago—the God of the Christians. Both words mean “anointed,” one who, by a simple cere- mony, is set apart, selected and appointed, to a special func- tion, to the honorable office of prophet, priest or prince. When we think of the Messianic office, the one of these three uppermost in our minds is the office of king. So when we say “Jesus Christ,’ we think of a person of that name; we do not think of his office. When we say “Jesus the Mes- siah,” we think of the coming King, Jehovah’s Anointed. Thus the connotations of “Christ” and ‘“‘Messiah” have changed with the usage of the ages. Now when we compare the usage of the conventional versions with that of the adventurous or unconventional translations, we find that some of the latter make consider- able use of “Messiah” instead of “Christ.” The Hebrew ‘“Messiah”’ is seldom used by the translators of our common versions. It does not appear in the O. T., A. R. V., and appears only twice in the A. V., Dan. 9:25,26. Fenton and Young use it in Psa. 2:2, and Fenton, in Dan. 9:24, in a peculiar interpretation. In the Twentieth Century N. T., the the first verse of the book (Mk. 1:1) speaks of “Jesus Christ.” This is the surname, and even Fenton uses “Christ” here. But in Mat. 1:16 Fenton translates “Christos” “the appointed Messiah;’’ and in the 17th verse renders it ‘the Messiah.” In Luke 2:11 the original is “christos kurios,” with neither article nor conjunction. Here Fenton, Moffatt and Benj. Wilson render “the Lord Messiah;’” Goodspeed, “your Messiah and Lord;”’ the Riverside, “Christ and Lord;” Kent, “God’s Anointed ;”’ Weymouth, Robertson and Montgomery, “the Anointed Lord;”’ the A. R. V., gives the same in the margin; but the text and-various other versions have the familiar “Christ the Lord.” J. N. Darby prints the article in brackets: “‘Christ [the] Lord.’”’ Another trans- lator renders ‘“‘Messiah Yahweh.” Why not translate: ‘An- ointed Jehovah?” Jesus was the anointed of Jehovah, yet he was himself Jehovah, incarnate; hence, “anointed Lord,” with a note naming “Jehovah,” should be acceptable. Our discussion has previously shown how many pages of explan- ation would be required to make the ordinary reader under- stand why the N. T. authors did not write “Jehovah.” We have above nine different renderings of two words, by over a dozen translators; enough to give ignorant believers in the verbal inspiration of the A. V. some conception of the difficulty of translating the 800,000 words of Scripture. But the latest version, the new “Weymouth” (1924), gives a tenth reading, simply “the Christ.”’ This implies a differ- 18 MISHAPS IN THE MAKING ent Greek text; but the translator gives no note nor explan- ation of his divergence. Illustrations might be multiplied; but we sum up by observing that Robertson, in Luke, uses “Messiah” six times; Wilson, in the Gospels and Acts, uses it 49 times; in the N. T. Moffatt uses it 8 times; Kent, 19 times; in the whole Bible Fenton uses it 80 times; and Arthur 8. Way, in his version of 14 epistles, uses ‘‘Messiah”’ throughout; tho he shows some hesitation, on his page of reasons for always using “Messiah” instead of Christ.” If one should consider all these cases individually, we do not see how he could escape the conviction that there is often great fitness in the choice of the Hebrew term. We saw that some translators, at Luke 2:11, inserted a definite article. Now the article is a small part of speech, but it has its importance. The English is fortunately rich enough to have both definite and indefinite articles; the Greek has only the definite. Some say that “‘kurios” in the N. T. is generally used of “Jehovah,” and ‘“‘ho kurios” is used for ‘‘the Lord,” etc. This shows of how much import- ance a little word may be. And we have already seen the un- certainty and the disagreement of the doctors as to the meaning in many cases. Likewise ‘“‘ho christos” is generally the adjective or title, and ‘‘christos” alone is the proper name. The one represents Jesus the King; the other speaks of “Jesus King’—as we would speak of “James King’— without any thought of kingship or Messiahship. Prof. R. D. Wilson says that “Christ” is used 285 times in the N. T.; “Jesus Christ,’ 91 times; “Christ Jesus,” 50; and “Lord Jesus Christ,’ 83. “Lord” is used of Christ 368 times, and “Lord” is used of God, 120 times. Who can estimate the difficulty of distinguishing “Jehovah,” “‘Lord God,” “‘Lord Jesus,” “Christ,” and “Messiah,” in many obscure cases when poverty of language and confusion needlessly caused occasion the use of one word for several persons? So, with the title of Jesus as well as with the name of God, there may be room for improvement on the work of the old trans- lators. Mishaps in Arrangement. Not only in the matter of translation may mishaps oc- cur, but also in the presentation of a literature; in the form of its arrangement. Thought is expressed not only by words, but by mere space, and by position in space; not only by written characters, but by the absence of characters, by blanks between parts of the writing. We referred, at the beginning of our discussion, to the absence of spaces be- tween letters and words, between sentences and paragraphs, between chapters and books, in the earliest forms of writ- MISHAPS IN THE MAKING 19 ing. We do not know all the history of the arrangement of our Bible, but we know that Paul refers to “the second Psalm” (Acts 18:33); and perhaps in his day all the Psalms were numbered, and the Psalter divided into its five separate books. If the length of book-rolls was limited to thirty feet, perhaps this prevented the whole Psalter from being written on one roll; and caused Samuel and other books to be written on two rolls instead of one. Then, with- in the rolls the Law and the Prophets were divided into portions for periodical readings in the synagogues. There was a gap of four centuries between the writing of the Old and New Covenants. During this period the 24 Hebrew books were translated into Greek, and the number was increased, by dividing them differently, to 39. A four- fold classification, introducing an historical section, was made of them instead of the triple distinction of Law, Prophets and Psalms. We do not know how many different rolls were found in the synagogue chests, covering these 39 books, nor how many rolls were added in the Christian churches for the 27 New Covenant books that finally brought the total number to 66. But in the third century, A. D., the roll-form gave way to books of leaves, as the horse is now surrendering to the automobile; and the whole Bible could then be written in a single volume. The division into 66 books was followed by the Latin Vulgate and then by the successive versions in the languages of Europe. After another millennium the Hebrew divisions into longer and shorter ‘“‘lessons,” etc., gave way to Christian separa- tions into chapters and verses—divisions made not always for the better; for the break is frequently made in the mid- dle instead of at the end of a subject. In illustration of - such mishaps we shall venture to append a novelette that treats of this theme. RUIN? OR RESTORATION? 1. Hash? or the Fowl Articulate? Mrs. James King was newly wed, newly rich, and newly arrived in Peking. Her cousin, Miss Marcia Stanley Dodd, a tall and beautiful girl, who had grown up and graduated in America, had accompanied her to the Orient. Mr. King, an old-fashioned Britisher, had joined the foreign commun- ity of the Celestial capital, and lived near the American Legation. Marcia’s brother, ‘‘Stan’’ Dodd, some years be- fore, had made a desperate effort to get control of King’s rights in America, but had found him exceedingly tena- cious of his claim. (Accounts of the argument have been given by the Homiletic Review and the Bibliotheca Sacra). 20 MISHAPS IN THE MAKING The King’s had called on their neighbors and on the nota- ble partis whose acquaintance was desirable; and had re- ceived their return calls and had called again. A wide- awake American, Mr. Marvin Inglis, had become enamored of Miss Dodd, proposed to her, and had been accepted. And now Mrs. King was planning an impressive dinner for a circle of select friends to whom she would announce the engagement. Her Chinese chef, Kin Jay, had been inter- rogated as to his ability to prepare the turkey that was to honor this occasion. To him we must apologize for our crude attempt to reproduce his elegant “‘pidgin—i. e., busi- ness—English;’’ but we may convey his idea thus: “QO, yes, lady; me can roast bird; cook topside way.” So Mrs. King, with childlike confidence, had entrusted the preparation to his assured ability, and sat down to the table with her brilliant assemblage of guests; and after the fish course had remarked, sotto voce, to Mr. Inglis: “My chef secured the largest turkey that I ever saw; and Mr. King is such a good carver. So you must tell him what is your choice portion.” But she had ‘‘counted her chicken before it was hatched ;” for as the waiter set the large dish before the host, it dis- closed no noble fowl, elaborately garnished, with arms up-. stretched to the knife-blade, but a multitudinous collection of morsels, each small enough to be received in the mouth from celestial chopsticks! Mrs. King’s countenance fell; she bit off the end of her tongue (the first word that came to her lips) and swallowed it; and for two days and nights after the party suffered indigestion from the red-hot mor- sel! But in spite of her dismay and mortification, she cheerily exclaimed: “You will all have to shut your eyes, exercise a powerful imagination, and reproduce the bird entire!” The British Ambassador volunteered an explanation: _“The Chinese think it barbarous to use a knife, like the butcher, in the dining room; so they make the food all ready for the mouth, in the kitchen.” When all was over Kin Jay explained to his mistress his point of view: “Me no steal any turkey; him all there on the plate, ready to eat. Me do all the work for honorable master; he no have to cut meat from the bones.” (Mrs. King sighed). “If Kin ever do turkey trick, one more time, lady bounce me right quick !” 2. Ribbons? or Garments? A few days later he summoned up courage to ask leave to MISHAPS IN THE MAKING 21 attend a party given by his friends; and a scheme occurred to Mr. King that would at once furnish a complete re- venge for the mistress, and afford an instructive object lesson to the domestic. The master accordingly engaged some amateur highwaymen to waylay Kin on his way to the party. These enthusiastic bandits adroitly held up the cheerful youth in a dark street, gagged him, stripped him of his holiday attire, tore his coat and skirt into numerous strips four or five inches wide, and then addressed him: “Now which will you choose? Shall we cut off your feet? or your head? Shall we carve you in pieces? or let you go, whole and free?” To the last of these four proposals the terrified Kin ve- hemently nodded his assent, and his captors then amazed him by returning the streamers with the sage advice: “Now re-dress yourself in these convenient portions of your clothing; number them in order, if you like; and you will find them far more suitable than the logical divisions of coat and skirt. Turkey hash is more easily edible than the whole bird!” 3. Mangled Fragments? or a Perfect Physique? A few days after the banquet Inglis called at the King’s, somewhat gloomy because of a horrible dream, which he proceeded to relate to them. “T dreamt that Marcia went to Tientsin to purchase her trousseau. On her return I was at the station to meet her. As she got off the train she saw me, but did not see a train that was approaching on the intervening track. She was in such haste to reach me that she stumbled and fell across the track, arms stretched above her head. The wheels passed over her, severing head, hands and feet from her body, which was dragged and terribly mangled. I was utterly crazed by the sight, and laughed insanely, crying out: ‘O, it is all for the best. I can handle the pieces better than such a heavy body! All the pieces are equal to the whole.’ So I began to pick up the pieces, one by one, and lay them to- gether in order, but as I deposited each fragment, there was rung from me the sad moan: ‘This is not Marcia! This is not Marcia!’ ”’ 4. Verse Division? or Artistic Presentation? The most prominent minister in the Chinese cabinet had been a guest at the Kings’ banquet, for he was an esteemed friend who cordially reciprocated the regard of his new acquaintances. The honorable Mr. Sun had acquired a per- fect mastery of English, and he was developing an interest in the religion of these people whom he had once regarded 22 MISHAPS IN THE MAKING as “foreign devils.” The King’s were strongly imbued with the missionary spirit, and were very anxious to make a favorable impression upon this influential man in behalf of Christianity. As Inglis finished telling his dream, Mr. Sun happened in to make his party call. In their conversation the subject of the Christian revelation came up, and Mr. Sun remarked to Mrs. King: “T looked into your classic, which you gave me the other day, and was greatly surprised by the form of presenta- tion of your sacred literature; if indeed it deserves the de- scription of ‘literature.’ For it violates the fundamental canons of expression and of rhetoric. It is hardly a ‘book;’ at least, it is unlike every other book in existence. It is a curio! For it is mechanically divided into short paragraphs of nearly uniform length, the breaks often coming right in the middle of sentences; a wretched arrangement for either the private or the public reader. It reminded me of the turkey hash that greeted our sight when you were expect- ing a fine fowl, to be artistically disjointed; and also of the ribbons that your highwaymen told Kin Jay were just as convenient to don as the logically divided coat and skirt!” “Yes,” interposed Marcia, ‘“‘and it is like Mr. Inglis’ lu- natic dream, in which he declared that my pieces were pre- ferable to my personality complete! The aim of the printer is to so arrange the matter as to enlighten the reader. If the editor does not use his brain to analyse the material, then the reader has to find the beginning and end of sen- tences and themes and sections; and the ordinary reader has not the brains to achieve this. The ordinary public reader is tripped up by the broken sentences and mangled themes of the book you had, so that he fails to convey the truth to his audience. If I wrote Mrs. King a letter chopped up in these verse-paragraphs, she would say I had taken leave of my senses. If a foreman printed a newspaper in verse fashion, he would be discharged before noon. If a pub- lisher printed a book in this minced-meat style, the author would be unutterably indignant, and the public would not buy a copy of the book. If it was a valuable and unique work, people who had to have it would buy it and put up with it. But if issued in two editions, one in the thought- concealing form, and the other, thought-revealing, and copies were placed on sale, side by side, not a copy of the former edition would be purchased, and all of it might at once be consigned to the bon-fire or the pulp-vat. “The objections to this senseless verse-division are not merely theoretical and sentimental, but are of practical importance. This outrage on. the Holy Book was perpetrated MISHAPS IN THE MAKING 23 less than four centuries ago. During this period the error has led people to look upon the Bible as a collection of in- dependent texts; which texts might be appealed to, irre- spective of their context, as proofs of every kind of idea and doctrine. And this practice is responsible for some of the sad divisions and schisms of Christendom. It is true that the King James version can be, and has been, presented in paragraph form; but such editions were little appreci- ated and their influence was inconsiderable. When the re- vised versions appeared in paragraph form, some British and some Americans still insisted that the book, or the Sunday school lesson texts taken from it, should be chopped up into these chips of a few lines each. People had become accustomed to regard this form as the norm for Bible printing, and for various reasons have refused to surrender what has been a great injury to their scriptures and to their religion. Of course the division into paragraphs is differently executed by different editors, and the length of paragraphs varies from the cumbersome size of those in the revisions to the detailed and artistic modern printing of works like Weymouth’s, in which each participant in con- versation is given, for every remark he makes, a separate paragraph in quotation marks.” 5. Mutilation and Murder? or a Logical Unit? “Another injury,’ added Stanley, “has arisen from the blind division of the chapters. If the highwaymen who tore up Kin Jay’s garments had cut off his feet, he would have been more seriously outraged than he was. If they had cut off his head, his friends would have sought vengeance on the murderers. But in just as cruel a way the old versions mutilate and murder the Word of God. The story of crea- tion which forms the impressive introduction to the Scrip- tures has its end severed from it by the premature indica- tion of ‘Chapter 2’ of Genesis. And Isaiah’s ode on Jehovah’s Suffering Servant, Satisfied, is beheaded by the inopportune marking of ‘Chapter 53.’ Such instances are painfully num- erous in the medieval versions. Dr. Bullinger lists a number of these mutilations in his illuminating work on the way to enjoy the Bible. “He claims that mutilations occurred in making some of the larger divisions also. The Hebrew division of the Old Testament books into 24 was altered to 39 by the Septua- gintal committee, and the divisions sometimes come in the middle of narratives. The reason may have been the poor one that the scribe did not make his parchment roll long enough! Bullinger does not criticise the division into Old 24 MISHAPS IN THE MAKING and New Testaments, tho he makes a very interesting com- ment on the connection of Malachi with the New Covenant. But, he says, the mistranslation, ‘Testament’ instead of ‘Covenant,’ in these titles, has been a calamity to the church. The American New Testament revisers made a step toward correction here, adding an alternative ‘New Covenant’ to the title page. Thus,”’ concluded Stanley, ‘“‘the illogical sepa- rations of parts of subjects have blurred our understand- ing of much of this wonderful revelation. If it would be an insult to a human author thus to mutilate his work, how much greater an insult is it to the divine Author to make hash of the noblest literature in the world!” 6. A Strange Language? or Our Mother Tongue? “Then,” suggested Marcia, ‘there are other objections to the King James version beside its failure to ‘rightly divide the word of truth;’ and one is the kind of English in which this important revelation is brought to us. Every genera- tion should be addressed in its own language; and the more important the subject matter, the more necessary it is that the language should be natural and accustomed.” ‘Would you abandon the best English that was ever writ- ten?’ queried Mr. King. “Can you find more terse, simple and dignified English anywhere than that of the King James Bible?” “No,” replied Marcia, ‘“‘but I would relegate it to its place in the study of literature. Students may find profit in the King James version just as they do in Shakespeare, Milton and all old English and Anglo-Saxon authors. But if the King James English were ten times as admirable as it is, that would not make it our English, the English of the present day; nor would it be appropriate for use today. A message from God to man is the most important communi- cation that we can think of; and it, above all other mes- sages, should be conveyed in our mother-tongue.”’ “T could never give up the Authorized Version,” inter- posed Mrs. King; “it was my mother’s Bible; it was the means of her conversion and of mine, and of multitudes of others. And I mean to live and die and go to heaven on my old Bible.” “That is all very well for you,” replied Marcia, “but with many it is different. Most people are outside of the church, and have not been brought up on the King James Bible, and the word of God ought to reach them in their natural speech. No wonder the man in the street, with ill-concealed disdain, sometimes asks: ‘Why can not Christians keep their sacred classic up to date?’ The King James English is MISHAPS IN THE MAKING 25 of course effective for journalistic parodies and parables; and no doubt we shall long use some of the King James expressions in our prayers. But while many congregations permit their preachers to read the Bible and pray in that English, they would not for a week tolerate their preaching in such English.”’ “The missionaries who, during the past century, have translated the Bible into Chinese,” remarked Mr. Sun, “‘did not translate it into the Chinese of centuries long gone, but into the Chinese of today. If America were heathen, and missionaries went there to translate the Bible, they would not think of using the best King James English, but would render the original into the best modern American. So, if the Lord Jesus Christ came to any country today, as he once came to Palestine and used not the classical Hebrew but the vernacular dialect, Aramaic, He would today use the present speech of the people He was addressing, and never, that of their remote ancestors.” “People are sensible,” remarked Inglis, “in their busi- ness dealings and social intercourse. If, when I came here just now, I had asked: ‘Where art thou, Marcia?’ ‘What doest thou here, Dodd?’ and talked on in that fashion, you would say I was slightly cracked; that my style was stilted and ridiculous. Passing to the more important matter of religion does not change the situation except to make it more reasonable for the Bible to read: ‘Where are you, Adam?’ ‘What are you doing here, Elijah? Hence, altho a conservative humanity insisted that the King James ver- sion should be revised only where absolutely necessary, I consider that mere revision was inadequate. If reason in- stead of custom had been consulted, the demand would have been for retranslation. Conservatives dote on the King James English because ‘it is quaint and unique, and raises religion above the common;’ and they expect the King James Bible to continue the common version for all time to come. To the progressives this is unpractical; the antique English is suggestive of cant and insincerity, and so is al- ready unsuitable for use. For religion is not a matter to be restricted to certain holy days and holy places; but it should sanctify every day and every place.” 7. Bad English? or Good Grammar? “The King James English,” said Mr. Sun, “is not only foreign to you, but many of its expressions are, to the mod- ern ear, most clumsy and uncouth; such as: ‘which my covenant they brake.’ Others, according to modern stand- ards, are even ungrammatical, as the use of double nega- 26 MISHAPS IN THE MAKING tives and the misplacing of adverbs. When the supreme Rabbi discourses on Prayer, He is represented as instruct- ing His disciples to insult His Father by intimating that He is a thing (‘Our Father which’) instead of a person (‘Our Father who’). An admirer of the King James trans- lators has said: ‘There were giants in those days.’ While we are glad to admit that, we must remember that ‘a dwarf on the giant’s shoulders sees farther than the giant;’ and those giants made grammatical blunders that a schoolboy should be ashamed to make. You claim that the unique Man portrayed in the gospels is God; if so, he must be omniscient. Yet he is represented as ignorant of the simpie rules of grammar; for in this version he is quoted six times as saying: ‘Whom do men say I am?’ ete. And in Acts 18:25 His forerunner is represented as misusing the same objec- tive ‘whom.’ These errors jar on the ear of a lover of good English as false notes grate on the ear of a sensitive musi- cian.” “T am very sorry, Mr. Sun,” said Inglis, “that you derived your first impression of the Christian scriptures from Mrs. King’s Bible. I am going to loan you some modern trans- lations that are open to none of these objections. They are artistically paragraphed, and illuminated by section-head- | ings and side-titles; they are in our mother tongue; the un- couth expressions are not found, and the grammatical errors are corrected. Thus the King’s English is not mur- dered. Moreover, indecent expressions are refined. We must remember that the King James English is not always the “matchless English’ of which some preachers so enthusi- astically orate. If any preacher would dare to stand in his pulpit and read to a mixed audience some passages from the A. V. that we would indicate, his officers would prompt- ly kick him out of the church door, and in disgust hurl King James out of the window! But if he should read the Same passages from a refined modern version, not a ripple of dissatisfaction would pass over the congregation. Surely common sense dictates the choice of a decent version. 8. Falsehood? or Truth? “In another important point these versions have im- proved on the medieval ones: they omit some passages which all scholars, even the most conservative, admit to be spurious additions. They omit also a number of other pas- sages that are in dispute, and which the extreme conserva- tives would retain. But if in a single case the A. V. says: ‘John wrote this;’ when everyone knows that he did not, MISHAPS IN THE MAKING 27 then the A. V. is a falsifier, and professes to be the book of the God of Truth while it contains a known lie. “Many people speak of the ‘Bible’ without knowing what the word means: they mean the King James version, and they forget to distinguish between the original and the 800 partial versions that have been made from it (150, com- plete). They forget to distinguish between the first auto- graph and the copies that have been successively made for millenniums, into which many errors have crept, in spite of the greatest possible care. Some good people, and even great scholars with a pulpit Bible between their hands, are fond of announcing: ‘I believe every word of this book from cover to cover.’ This fashion is to be deprecated as inaccu- rate; for it leads the ordinary hearer to imagine that the King James Bible is inspired and inerrant, a character which no theologian nor any thoughtful person ever claimed for any copy or translation. Even if God miraculously guarded the original writers and amanuenses from a single slip in a jot or tittle, no one can conceive of infallability in any copyist or translator.” ‘““Have you not read,” interjected Mrs. King, ‘“‘the asser- tion of a noted professor of a great American university, published in a prominent ladies’ magazine, that the King James Bible is inspired?” - “T grant that exception,” admitted Inglis; ‘‘but that pro- fessor is a literary ‘fan,’ and he is not using the word ‘in- spired’ in a technical, but in the popular, sense. And that very professor was unaware of the glaring errors of the seven ‘whoms’ in the medieval version; and when we called them to his attention, and he had investigated the matter, the most he could say was that it is a wonder that the King James committee made so few mistakes! When writers like him and Dean Burgon enthuse over the Authorized version, you will find them careful to mention none of these defects and deficiencies, even tho aware of them. Burgon, who was not only an intelligent but an erudite scholar, was so car- ried away by the A. V. that he defended even its verse- form! And even the professor of English literature, when he quotes, follows the senseless paragraphs of the King James instead of printing the passage as if his readers had learned to read, and knew the difference between logical and lunatic paragraphing. Apparently he does not appre- ciate the dictum of a prince of Bible-printers (the author of THE LITERARY STUDY OF THE BIBLE) that ‘the King James Bible is the worst printed book in the world” Thus, alas, doth usage close the eyes of reason! Reason, 28 MISHAPS IN THE MAKING however, insists on the truth, even tho copyists, translators and editors are thereby shown to be human and fallible. 9. Robbery? or Reparation? “We are, then, obliged to charge the King James version with being a liar, .because of unjustifiable additions. And we regret that we must charge it with being a robber also because of unjustifiable subtractions. We have already re- marked that it robs God of His dignity by speaking of Him as a thing; it robs Him of His intelligence by representing Him as using bad grammar; it robs Him of His gracious words when it reproduces His thoughts in awkward, grace- less style; and we might ask also if, according to the Septua- gint, it does not rob the Old Testament of many passages that the original contained, and which were omitted by copyists of late date. But the most serious robbery was when the Jews robbed God of His ineffable name; when they robbed the Book, for two millenniums, of the name of its Author. “Mr. King, if you wrote a book, and put your name, ‘James King,’ on the title page, and on the next page wrote: ‘Copyright, by James King,’ and ‘on the following leaf dedi- cated the book over your name, ‘James King,’ and signed the preface and perhaps some footnotes ‘James King;’ and you © gave the manuscript to a publisher, and he substituted everywhere for your name the description: ‘a British sub- ject,’ and sent you a copy of the book thus printed; would you not feel unspeakably outraged and insulted?” “Indeed I should,” answered Mr. King. “I would surely collect the heaviest damages I could.” “Much more, then, when the Lord Jehovah places His name in His book not a meagre seven, but nearly seven thousand, times, and we print, in almost every instance, only His title, we have insulted Him, and robbed Him and His readers of their rights. Now some modern versions, in- cluding the American Standard, have tried to repair this damage by restoring the holy name in some 6,823 instances. And one edition (Bullinger’s COMPANION BIBLE) notes the 134 additional cases in which the ancient Sopherim robbed the book not only of the pronunciation of the in- effable name, but of the name itself—consonants as well as vowels! That is, they substituted the consonants of Adonai or Elohim as well as their vowels for those of Yahweh. You know what curse the book of Revelation denounces on those who ‘take away from’ the Word of God; and if the infinite One is greater than you are, you can estimate how much worse it is to insult Him than to insult you!” MISHAPS IN THE MAKING 29 10. Apathy’? or Advance? “We must allow,” admitted Mrs. King, ‘“‘that the moderns have made some improvements upon the earlier versions. But in many cases I think that the revisers’ attempts to amend have resulted only in spoiling a good rendering.” “That is true,” replied Marcia, and it is most unfortun- ate. But you would not therefore go back to a version that, as we have seen, has such serious faults? Shall we not rather revise again? Or, as was suggested, make a new translation? If the English of the modern versions is not satisfactory, are there no scholars and poets today who can write as good English, or even better English for the Bible than they use in secular literature? Of course we would have difficulties today in this task which the Christians of King James’ day did not meet. They were not divided into two camps—Fundamentalist and Modernist. Today each of these parties would require its own Bible. The effort of Dr. Scofield’s committee, in 1911, to produce a Fundamentalist version, was not a success; altho their work in certain re- spects may be unsurpassed. But they refused to restore ‘Jehovah;’ and their production, in spite of liberal adver- tising, did not become widely known.” “We must have, anyway,’ remarked Mr. King, ‘better paragraphing than the revisions furnish, equal to that of the best modern English versions. And the verse numbers should be confined to the margin instead of intruding into the text. Where the end of a verse is doubtful, some sign can readily be placed at the proper point in the line. Continuous paging throughout the Bible can easily be supplied for those who do not know whether a certain book is in the Old or New Testament, and therefore cannot tell, when using a revised edition, whether to look for ‘page 150’ in the Old or New Testament!” “I am surprised to hear,” replied Marcia, “that even the separate paging of the Old and New Testaments in the re- vision has proved a stumbling block. The Rationale of AVitis. “But how do you account for the popular indifference to the improvements that we have? for the apathy as to fur- ther advance?” “Well,” replied Inglis, “one of the strongest characteris- tics of human nature is conservatism. It is so much easier to stay in a rut and to stick in the mud than to pull out and to build a hard, smooth road, that people prefer to tolerate the mediocre and the inferior. They are apparently bound by a chain of fateful kinship and descent: Indifference is 30 MISHAPS IN THE MAKING the child of Indolence, the sister of Ingratitude, the mother of Ignorance. Ignorance produces Prejudice; Prejudice be- gets Bigotry; and Bigotry, a friend of Fanaticism, is the parent of Persecution. When it has martyred its victims, Persecution produces Deicide and Suicide, as in the case of Pilate. Humanity murdered its Messiah, Jews and Gentiles joining in his assassination and in the execution of his com- missioner to the nations. Yet Christ and Paul were seek- ing only to bring peace to the earth. Rome murdered Wy- clif and Tindale, and then burnt them, because they were bringing the Bible to the people in an intelligible vernacu- lar. The King James translators and their successors have, in milder modes, been attacked because they provided im- proved versions for the Anglo-Saxon. While the American Revision Committee has been treated with ingratitude by the majority of Americans who have not learned, in over a generation, the difference between the A. V. and the R. V., still the mass of American scholars have adopted the Re- vision, and the fiftieth anniversary of the beginning of the Committee’s labors was celebrated throughout the country, two years ago, with appropriate enthusiasm. “But most people are afflicted with kainophobia, they are convinced that ‘what is new is not true.’ As the Israel- ites read the Old Covenant with veiled face, so Christians. insist on reading Holy Writ thru burnt glasses, lest the glory of its full meaning should blind them! When the Cre- ator made man, He built a little box on top of his shoulders, and installed in it an organ which may be called a ‘thinker.’ This, it is claimed, makes man a rational animal. But does man appreciate God’s gift? Do you know anyone who uses his thinker ?” “T believe,” said King meekly, “that a few people make use of it.” “True, said Inglis, and the rest of men are not rational animals, but sheep. A bell-wether happens to start in a cer- tain direction, and the rest follow. The bell-wether may think, or he may not. If he thinks, he may think well; or ill. But the rest follow, and call the following ‘conserva- tism.’ I have previously remarked that conservatism is not essentially a good principle. Its quality is contingent. It depends on the object of the conservation—whether the custom conserved be good or bad, better or best. So, when a bell-wether, in 1551 A. D., committed this folly of muti- lating the divine literature, other printers followed him, up to the last century, when some other bell-wether began to think, and thought better of it. Recently an advocate for the A. V. has revived the criticisms of Dean Burgon, made MISHAPS IN THE MAKING 31 40 years ago, of the Greek text of the New Testament adopted by the revisers, and has claimed that the later manuscripts are of more value than those of the fourth and fifth centuries, such as the Sinaitic and Vatican manu- scripts. But his plausible arguments have not spread alarm among scholars nor thrown their ranks into disorder. “dison has declared that it takes the public from seven to rorty years to appreciate a new invention. And if that is so, in the material sphere, it is not strange if it requires a generation or two for Christians to adopt an improved form of their sacred heritage. “Men are victims not only of inertia, but also of indiff- erence. The Creator provided man’s organism not only with a thinker, but with an organ which we may call a ‘feeler,’ and which is capable of expressing affection; so He hoped that man would show some filial affection toward his father- ly Maker. But does man respond to this expectation? If he showed an interest in the God of revelation, would he not show an equal interest in the revelation? If he appreciated God’s condescending to be called a Father, would he push Him far away by calling Him ‘Lord’? If he cared more about God and His Word, would he rest content with a good version when a better one is at his elbow? “If ignorant people are indifferent, they will not learn. Dr. Frank Crane has characterized the multitudes as cow- ardly and lazy. But should he stop with the multitudes? Will not some of their leaders fall under the same con- demnation? The people are like their priests and princes, and they can influence even their prophets. If the scholars of the country would inaugurate a campaign for the in- struction of the people, we might anticipate a development of public sentiment. But what if the preachers are ignor- ‘ant? In our national metropolis we met a preacher who affirmed: ‘The revision has been a curse’! In a smaller city a leading preacher innocently asked: ‘What is the Geneva version?’ A prominent educator thought that the chapter and verse division was inspired; influential citizens sup- posed that the A. V. was inerrant! Even some preachers who are intelligent and informed are inactive; they are slow to inform their charges of the defects of the common version, fearing to undermine their faith and to excite the prejudice and opposition of the bigoted. They would ‘let well enough alone’ rather than try to illumine the sur- rounding darkness. They evidently consider discretion the better part of valor, and hesitate to attack a popular idol. For they remember that Canute found it bootless to chastise the ocean. Protestants thus follow in the steps of the church 32 MISHAPS IN THE MAKING of Rome, which would keep the people in ignorance of the Bible so that they may depend upon the priest for knowl- edge and may continue under his control. 12. Folly? Or Wisdom? “Everyone admits that the A. V. was the best version up to the past century, and all admire the style of English that was used in the palmy days of Elizabeth and James. But we do not therefore today print all our newspapers and books in Elizabethan English! In all cases excepting the divine message, we have sense enough to address our fel- lowmen in their mother tongue. For the first twenty years of my grandfather’s life the A. V. was the best Bible, and so he was justified in using it. For the next two decades he had a better Bible in the British version. But for the last twenty three years we have had the American revision and the multiplying versions in modern English, and the wealth of understanding and enjoyment of the Word that these ver- sions furnish. There was an advantage, of course, in having a single standard version: it gave the power of association to a certain familiar form of words, and in quoting Scrip- ture there was no hesitation in choosing a version. But there is a greater advantage in knowing the spirit of the Book, and even in learning the truth that it is impossible always to define its exact meaning, than there is in an ignorant and mistaken confidence in its literal correctness. There is certainty enough for us in the essentials without our being dogmatic as to every detail. “The immortal Shakespeare intimated that we are a race of fools, and the inspired Paul assured us that we are with- out exception knaves. Even the divine Messiah was com- pelled to confess that his people, the ‘children of light,’ in comparison with the children of this Age, are ‘less wise.’ If, as King David suggested, men are often fools and all are liars, and if King James was known as ‘the most learned fool in Europe,’ is it surprising that the Bible made by the Jacobean committee is opén to the charges of being, in spots, a liar and a robber, a fool and a boor, a slanderer and blasphemer, a murderer and mutilator? Have we not shown it to be, at these points, a shame to civilization, a disgrace to Christianity, and a dishonor to its divine Au- thor? I hate to soil my lips by using the lying ‘Lord’ of the intervening versions, in place of the name ‘Jehovah,’ writ- ten by the divine Spirit. The A. V. is a back number, and people are slowly learning this fact. I feel sorry for you as an advocate of the A. V., a victim of a vice (AVitis, in sci- entific parlance) that should be strenuously avoided; for MISTAKES IN THE MAKING 33 when intrenched it is almost ineradicable. You are a Jacob- olater, a devotee of a regal idol to whom you are so wedded that a hint of divorce would be beneath contempt, a separa- tion would be an inconceivable impossibility !’” At this onslaught Mrs. King threw up her hands in hope- less horror; and Mr. King remonstrated : “T fear that you forgot your gloves when you started out to handle us.”’ “Perhaps I did,” admitted Inglis; “but if I have spoken error, bear witness of the error; if truth, why should you be so indignant? Why not make acknowledgments and amends, and be thankful? Perhaps I am too severe, but even the Lord of Love was faithfully stern in his denunciations of the Pharisees.”’ The King’s were evidently so hard hit by these assaults that the Dodd’s and Inglis and Sun thought it best to dis- continue the argument, and they courteously withdrew. 13. A Good Work? or a Better? Not long after this time the Inglis-Dodd nuptials were celebrated, and for their honeymoon Marvin and Marcia took a trip to the Great Wall and the Ming Tombs, return- ing to the Western Hills. In.a letter to the King’s signed by the couple, Inglis wrote this conclusion to the discussion: “We know how you felt the charges which we made against your Bible. But we felt obliged to make them in the interests of truth. On the other hand, we wish you to remember that we fully recognize the lofty position occu- pied, and the marvelous influence wielded, for three cen- turies by the King James version. Of course the medieval] translators and publishers did the best they knew how, making all their blunders with the best intentions; so, in their quaint phrase, ‘the times of that ignorance God winked at.’ We shall always have their work on our shelf for reference, and shall continue to quote it as we do Shakspere; for we learned its Janguage at our mother’s knees. But we thank God that in-these days neither we nor the children of this generation are limited to that work in medieval English. And we are not so encrusted in a hard shell of conservatism that we turn our backs on modern works and on the blaze of light that shines from these new versions, thanks to the prolonged labors of multitudes of scholars. So, for practical every-day use, and for the stranger to our religion, we want a book in our mother tongue,.and the most accurate and polished translation possible. We cannot use a good book when we have at hand a better one. For we should fear the curse spoken by 34 MISTAKES IN THE MAKING Jehovah thru His prophet Malachi on the deceiver who has in his flock a male and vows and sacrifices a female, cor- rupt and diseased (v. chap. 1:14, Fenton, etc.). When he can honor the Great King with a good acceptable offering, he presents an inferior one. Thus, I believe, Jehovah must condemn a Christian church or a Christian individual that undertakes to serve Him with a good Bible when a better cne has been provided. We can never make the best Bible, for that is ideal. Even if we had the original autographs, we could not make a perfect translation. But we can con- tinue to aim at it, each generation or century vieing with the preceding one. It took the King James version a half- century to supplant the Geneva Bible; and it may take, even in this rapid age of the twentieth century, as long for the Standard to replace the Authorised. No doubt scholars are laboring to obtain a better text, and they are endeavor- ing to produce a modern version that will surpass any yet made. Since, at the present time, we cannot combine all excellencies in a single work, we must glean from all or- chards in order to compound a fruit-nectar of the most exquisite flavor.” Inglis closed the letter with this bit of news: “We have explored the extensive grounds of the Summer Palace, which recall the days of imperial splendor; and have found on a commanding hill-top a ruined structure which we propose to restore; and we can spend there a pro- longed honeymoon. Thither we shall invite you to come and visit us, and celebrate our wedding anniversary. You shall bring with you Kin Jay, resplendent in rainbow raiment, his apparel of ribbons wonderfully pieced, and he shall serve a royal bird entire. The ‘mangled remains of Marcia’ shall be reunited in the handsome lady who will grace the head of the table; and we must all drink a toast to Restora- tion as unspeakably preferable to Ruin!’ Conclusion. Our subject is endless, but its discussion must end. We have selected only a few of the prominent Mishaps in the Making of the Book from a multitude of minor mishaps. We have the misfortune to inherit a Bible version so illus- trious that it blinds our eyes to the possibility and need of a better version; so that we cling to the Book in our great- great-grandmother tongue which, even tho that speech be better than ours, is not as appropriate to us as our mother tongue is. But the Bible territory is boundless, and the MISTAKES IN THE MAKING 35 ed largest room in the world is the room for improvement. If one who has thought that the Bible cannot be improved has given a fair consideration to these mishaps as to the name of God, the character of the language, and the mode of arrangement of the text, must he not admit that such facts are a promising antidote to the poison that spreads the epidemic of AVitis! AN AFTERWORD TO THE CAUSTIC CRITIC! This effort will furnish a fine field for your wit, ridicule and sarcasm. Since you are in the overwhelming majority, you can crush a lone antagonist with the greatest ease! Craig me " OM) idl ia i i} ce ne al > - Pai Fie Lean. cde = ee - « = are” ae: age i) MS i gam ae BS186 .L27 ishaps in the making of “the Book’’. Princeton Theolog eminary—Speer Library iil ical S 1012 00059 3980