THE CHINESE NEW TESTAMENT.

By REV. ARNOLD FOSTER, B. A.

FOR several months a discussion has been going on in the pages of

the Recorder relative to a Chinese version of the New Testament in easy book style. It seems time that something should be done to bring this discussion to a practical issue. One such version is already before the missionary body and has been a good deal talked about. Another version is, we are told, in course of preparation. There is an almost unanimous feeling amongst missionaries that it is in every way desirable that only one such version should come into general use amongst the Chinese; but there is less agreement on the question of how this most desirable end should be arrived at. Some missionaries think with Bishop Moule that Mr. John's version should at version should at once be accepted provisionally, and that Mr. John should be encouraged to spend three or four years more in perfecting it, with all the help he can get, and which he has already invited, from other students of Chinese. Other missionaries think with Dr. Mateer that it would be well if Mr. John could be associated with Bishop Burdon and Dr. Blodget in the work upon which they are at present engaged, viz., that of reproducing the Peking Mandarin Version in the style which has generally been spoken of as "easy wan li." Others again seem to wish to have a committee appointed, which without accepting either Mr. John's version or any other, should make all the use it can of all existing Chinese versions-Mr. Johu's amongst the rest-and endeavour to produce a version which would command something like universal acceptance amongst missionaries.

Roughly speaking, nearly all missionaries who desire a version of the New Testament in easy wăn, take one or other of these three views of the situation. It seems to me that it ought not to be difficult to find some way of harmonizing these views, so that at all events the large majority of missionaries in China might feel that it was possible for them to co-operate in getting substantially what they feel they require. But in order to do this we may all have to submit to some modification of what seems to us individually to be the most desirable plan, and it will be my endeavour in this paper to show what modifications would I think meet the case.

In the first place then, we must recognize the strength of each of the different proposals now before us, and at the same time we must recognize the force of the objections which exist to them. While one may see much to be said in favour of Bishop Moule's proposal, one may also sympathize with Dr. Mateer's feelings in

regard to a version which is the work of one man, and which has been only so far modified by the criticisms of others as the translator himself has thought fit to accept those criticisms. But in answer to Dr. Mateer's objection, it may fairly be urged, first that Mr. John's version is really not the work of one man. Mr. John has to my certain knowledge made a most conscientious use of the work of all his predecessors and while aiming at a style which has not hitherto been adopted, has coveted nothing less than mere originality of rendering. Anybody who will be at the pains to read carefully through any single chapter of the New Testament in this version comparing it verse by verse with other existing versions, will find that while there are abundant signs of independent work, there are abundant signs also that Mr. John has carefully considered the renderings of his predecessors, and has made all the use he could of them.* Then secondly, while it is true that it is not the highest ideal of a version that it should be in any sense the work of one man, yet every one must admit that there are circumstances under which practically a better version can be produced in this way than in any other that could be suggested. In England, or America, or Germany, scholars competent to revise the national version of the Scriptures and with ample leisure for the task, might be found by the dozen, a :d in any of those countries for one man to attempt to make a version for general use, would of course be preposterous. But in China the case is entirely different. Here, out of the whole missionary body the number of men who in the judgment of their fellows would be competent to revise the translation of the Bible is exceedingly small, and nearly all of those who are competent in point of scholarship, are men whose time is already fully engaged. Two other difficulties exist also in China, which do not exist in America or in England; one is the difficulty of communication between the different parts of China in which the revisers are stationed, and the other is that caused by the fact that missionaries here are all living in a strange land and are looking sooner or later to leave it on furlough for twelve or eighteen months at a time. Let any one consider what would be involved in the work of circulating manuscripts, and corrections of manuscripts, and corrections of corrections, amongst * Dr. Mateer thinks that Mr. John's version is "largely a reproduction of the Mandarin in Easy Wen Li." I would undertake to fill a good many pages of the Recorder with examples showing that the two versions differ widely in many very im. portant passages. That the Peking Mandarin New Testament itself needs a very thorough revision is to my mind one of the strongest arguments against accepting any version in easy wăn that is simply a reproduction of this very valuable, but far from satisfactory, book. No such versiou will permanently satisfy the wants of the missionary body. The present is an opportunity for making proper use of the many excellencies of the Peking Version, without at the same time perpetuating its blemishes, which are not few.

even half a dozen revisers scattered all about the Chinese Empire, and he will see at once that either a committee for revision must be abandoned, or that it must work on altogether different lines from But those on which the English Revision Committees worked. need a Committee work on the lines of the English Revision Committees? I do not myself see the necessity for its doing so ; but if it does not work in this way, there seem to me to be only two other ways that it could practically work in, with any prospect of a satisfactory result. One would be, to portion out the work of revision to individuals, assigning some books of the Bible to one man, some to another and so on, and then combining these separate works between the same covers, to call the whole the work of a committee. The other plan would be for a small committee, who in the main approved of an existing version, to take that version in hand, each of the members of the Committee beforehand declaring himself willing and able to devote the necessary time to going carefully through the entire work, and to submit their criticisms to the judgment of their fellow workers. This is not the place to elaborate a scheme by which such a Committee could satisfactorily carry on its labours, but I am convinced that such a scheme is possible, and that in this way the very best version possible under the circumstances, and the version most likely to command the confidence of the missionary body in general, might be produced. Dr. Mateer says that a work done by one man will be certain to be coloured by his individuality. Perhaps so; but is it not better for a version of the Scriptures to be coloured by one individuality, and translated in one style, than that it should be coloured by three or four different individualities, and show traces of three or four different styles? The Peking Mandarin Version was done by a Committee, but how? Different books were-according to one plan which I have already alluded to as a possible plan for a Committee to go upon-entrusted for translation to different individuals, and though I presume that the whole work was submitted to each member of the Committee before it finally received the imprimature of the whole Committee and was published, yet the Peking Version bears most clearly and unmistakably traces of the work of different translators, whose differences of style are as marked in translation, as they would be if these translators had been writing original essays in their own language.

The practical conclusion to which I come is this, that Bishop Moule's suggestion should be so far adopted as that Mr. John's version should be accepted provisionally, while to meet the not unreasonable objection of Dr. Mateer to constituting Mr. John sole

judge of what criticisms on his work should be accepted, a Committee should be nominated to suggest, receive, and decide upon the merits of criticisms upon the work as it stands, and with power to make such alterations in it as they think fit. I do not for a moment ignore the work of Bishop Burdon and Dr. Blodget, but I must confess that considering Mr. John's version was in print and widely circulated before it was even known that Bishop Burdon and Dr. Blodget were working upon a similar version, I think it is-to say the least-more reasonable that these gentlemen should be asked to join Mr. John in improving his work, than that he should be asked to ignore the fact that his work is already published and has already met with a most flattering reception, and join them in a work in which if they had wished for his assistance, they would probably have asked it some time ago. With regard to the proposal that a committee should be appointed to begin the work de novo and without accepting any one version to make use of all existing versions, it will seem to most persons, I think, as being impracticable; but I trust that those missionaries who-other things being equal-would prefer to have a version that was from first to last the work of a Committee, may see that on the whole the scheme which I have now proposed is more likely to yield satisfactory results than any other.

In conclusion, in order to make my paper as practical as possible, I would venture to say something of the way in which a Committee should be constituted. Who has a right to appoint such a Committee? I answer that if the accredited representatives of the three great Bible Societies could agree after due consultation with the leading protestant missionaries in China, to nominate a Committee, that nomination would at once commend itself to all persons concerned. I have spoken of a small Committee. I think that in this matter at all events seven would be the perfect number, but perhaps with only five members, the work would be simplified. Dr. Mateer suggests that a Committee if appointed should have upon it an equal number of American and English missionaries, with one German as umpire. I agree with him in thinking that this would be the right proportion so far as nationalities are concerned, but on what principle the German brother is to be asked to act as "umpire,” I cannot imagine! Are the American and English members of the Committee to form themselves into two bands and each to struggle with the other over the version, calling in a missionary of another nationality at last to say which party has got the best of it? Or are they to be regarded as fellow workers in ar undertaking with which nationality has nothing to do? If the

former, I should think they had better not meet at all. If the latter, I presume the divisions of opinion will not go by nationality, but will turn on points of scholarship, when it may be found that one Englishman and two Americans differ from two Englishmen and one American. Under such circumstances I hardly know why the casting vote should lie with the German, missionary, unless he was acknowledged to be the best scholar of the company! No; the proper person to give a casting vote would be the person who is most interested in the labours of the Committee, and who is most responsible for the work viz., Mr. John, for of course I assume that he would be on the Committee. A Committee wisely selected, with three Americans, three Englishmen and one German would not fail to command the respect and confidence of missionaries in general.

Under existing circumstances, the natural and courteous thing would appear to be to send invitations in the first place to Bishop Burdon and Dr. Blodget, but this might safely be left to the agents of the Bible Societies if they were to undertake to nominate a Committee; of course all who joined the Committee would do so on the understanding that their work was to revise the version in their hands, where they considered it to need revision, and not to substitute something else for this version.

I have said nothing as to the merits of the version itself, but I may be permitted in closing to express my conviction, that in giving us this version Mr. John has rendered a service to the cause of Christ in China which will be more and more recognized as time passes on, and as the version comes to be more thoroughly known. I desire however to see the work submitted to a careful examination on the part of a Committee in order that what is capable of improvement may be improved, and what cannot be improved may receive the seal of the Committee's approval.

I may be allowed to add a postscript to the foregoing article to say firstly, that when I wrote it I had not seen Mr. John's article which appeared in the last number of The Recorder. What I have written is my own independent opinion uninfluenced by any opinion which Mr. John has expressed. Secondly, more than a month after this article was out of my hands, I learned that a document has been drawn up in the North and signed by many of the missionaries there, urging that a 'Union Version' should be at once commenced,― presumably to supersede this version and to become the version for China. Considering the great amount of time and labour that has been spent on this version, and considering further Mr. John's