The American Bible Society and the Baptists.
IN the early years of the American Bible Society the Baptists, as well as others, contributed their money to its support. In 1835 a by-law was passed by the Society discriminating against certain versions made by Baptist missionaries; and the Baptists, all but a very few, considering themselves unjustly excluded from common rights in the Society, withdrew from its support. We remember how earnestly Dr. Leavitt and others not Baptists, opposed this action of the Society. Four years ago, in a revision of the rules, this by-law was omitted. This action was regarded by many as an abandonment by the Society of its previous position, and a circular was issued by certain prominent Baptists declaring that, in their view, no reason existed why Baptists should not resume their former position in support of the Society; but, to test the matter, an application was made for aid to circulate the Burmese translation of the Bible by Dr. Judson. After some delay, this application has been directly refused, the Society adhering to the principle of the by-law of 1835. The anticipated reunion is, therefore, broken off; Dr. Howard Osgood, the Baptist member of the Society's Committee on Versions, resigns his position; and the alienation of the Baptists from co-operation with the Society may now be considered permanent. We are glad to say that again a strong and able minority was opposed to the decision. The Burmese version of Dr. Judson, who was a man of scholarship as well as Christian zeal, is admitted by the English Bishop of Rangoon to be "a model of idiomatic rendering and of faithful and painstaking labor." The Society condemns it merely on the ground that it translates the Greek word for baptizo by a Burmese word meaning immerse. That this is a mistranslation the Society does not declare. That it is not a legitimate rendering no true scholar would assert. When the late Dean Stanley declared "on philological grounds it is quite correct to translate John the Baptist by John the Immerser," he gave the opinion of the real scholars of all sects. The latest standard lexicons—as Cremer's, Wilke's, and that of Sophocles—define baptism as immersion and they give it no other meaning. The same thing will be seen in the later editions of Liddell & Scott. Martin Luther had some skill at Bible-translating; but he says that the Greek word baptism "Latine potest verti mersio," and old John Calvin, who would compare very well with most of the Bible Society's officials, says "Ipsum baptizandi verbum mergere significat." No one will say that, in rendering into Burmese the passage from the Septuagint which says that Naaman baptized himself seven times in the Jordan, it would be unscholarly to translate baptizo by a word which means immerse. No more can it be called unscholarly if, in the account of John's baptizing, the same Greek word is rendered by the same word in Burmese. When we say that the Greek baptizo can be legitimately translated by immerse we do not imply that it follows that all baptism must be by immersion, any more than, in translating presbuteros by elder, we assert that no young man can be elected to the presbyterial office. At worst, the translation immerse might be infelicitous, as it might be infelicitous to translate denarius by "fifteen cents." The officials of the Society do not charge that Dr. Judson's translation is unscholarly; they condemn it simply because it is a translation. They declare that the Greek word shall not be rendered into the vernacular; but must be transferred from the one language to the other, simply transliterated into the Burmese sentence. They do not say that there is no word in the Burmese to express the act of Naaman and of John, an act so common that one can hardly conceive a language so meager as not to have a word of its own therefore; they do not say that some other Burmese word would present the Greek idea better than the word Dr. Judson has chosen; they say that the Greek word must not be rendered into Burmese at all, but simply transferred, so that its original meaning shall not be expressed. To be consistent, they should forbid anything to be made known of John's place of baptizing at Ænon, near to Salim, except that "there was hudata polla there," and of Philip and the Eunuch it should be reticently divulged merely that "they katebais eis the water" and "anebais ek the water." If it be wrong to give the exact meaning of the word denoting a certain act, we ought to becloud the mention of the attending circumstances, lest they disclose the nature of the act.137 When a translator like Judson claims, and no better scholar stands forth to deny, that a certain Greek word is adequately rendered by a certain Burmese word; for the Society to say that the vernacular term shall not be used, but that the Greek word, which, of course, to the native will be utterly meaningless, must be transferred to the Burmese page is to say that the New Testament shall not be placed before the Burman as clearly as it lay before the eyes of the Greek peasant. The Society is guilty of the most outrageous obscurantism. It binds its vast powers to the work of suppressing a complete knowledge of the meaning of Holy Writ. It plants itself squarely on the position of the Church of Rome—the position that the common people shall not be allowed every word of the Scripture's page, to read it with their own eyes and draw from it what conclusions they think reasonable; but that a portion, at least, of the sacred oracles shall merely be doled out to them by their spiritual guides. The Society says that the meaning of this Greek word shall not be given the Burman through an equivalent word of the vernacular. It must be imparted to him only through the explanations of the missionary. This is not the Protestant but only the Roman Catholic system of Bible translation. There may be weighty reasons in the case of this Greek word for transferring it to the Burmese, as there may be for preferring the transferred denarius and presbyter to fifteen cents and elder; but none are evident except sectarian ones, and our objection is that the Society should stringently forbid a legitimate translation and require a transfer. The officials of the Bible Society are guilty of real sectarianism. It is vain to deny that the only objection they have to Judson's translation is that it may have a certain effect in certain controversies. But what has the Bible Society to do with sectarian controversies? If a certain translation is incorrect, let them condemn it. But what have they to do with the question how it will affect this or that dispute? If a certain translation seems to be scholarly, they should publish it, no matter what effect it may have on ecclesiastical conflicts. The officials of the Society abandon the majestic neutrality of scholarship and the love of truth which asks merely whether a given version is correct. They stoop to inquire how it will affect the interests of contending sects. Gentlemen of the big brick house, it is not a right thing to do! The only question you have a right to ask is whether the translation of Dr. Judson is faithful to the Greek. If it is not, condemn it; if it is, then publish it, no matter what parties of controversialists be helped or hindered thereby. You were not appointed, gentlemen, to watch the interests of contending sects, but to circulate correct translations of the Scriptures; and for you to refuse to circulate a given version, not because it is incorrect, but because it may have a certain effect on certain controversies, is a violation of the solemn trusts committed to your charge.—The N. Y. Independent.