BIBLICAL ABBREVIATIONS.

To the Editor of

"THE CHINESE RECORDER.” DEAR SIR: By a strange coincidence I was at the point of mailing you the substance of what follows on the above subject when the April RECORDER came to hand with Mr. Luce's new list of abbreviations.

In working on a book of Bible Reading Outlines containing several thousand Scripture references, I followed the first table of abbreviations for the names of the books of the Bible I ran across, being under the impression that all such lists. were the same, only to find afterwards that there are more than half a dozen different systems in use. I had practically decided to revise the work and follow the table of abbreviations given in the Mandarin Reference Testament issued by the B. and F. B. S. as probably being the system most used and therefore the one most likely to become standard, hoping also that Bishop Schereschewsky's new Mandarin Reference Bible would practically settle the matter by following the same system. I was therefore the more disappointed on receiving the latter recently to find that instead of contributing towards uniformity it adds to the confusion by following a new system of its own, in which it introduces changes in four places where all the other systems are In addition to in agreement ! these two there is another used by the Wên-li Reference Testament (B. and F. B. S., Ed 303), making the third system followed by the Bible Societies themselves!

If the Chinese religious literature in my possession is fairly

Thus achi

may mean either Malor Matthew;拉 either Ezra or Malachi;撒前 either I Samuel or I Thessalonians; either Song of Solomon or James;

either Song of Solomon or Colossians; either Ezra or Esther; either Ezekiel or Colossians: either John or Job! To us these differences are confusing enough, even though we usually have a very fair idea from the context which book is intended, but to the majority of the Chinese they are simply bewildering, especially if several books (Reference Bible, Commentary, Bible Dictionary, Con

cordance, etc., each employing its own system) are studied side by side. To say the least it requires considerable mental effort to remember which is which, the necessity for which would be wholly obviated by uniformity.

On the other hand, the narrow limits within which these differences are found, furnish a strong argreement in favor of entire uniformity, for at the outside they concern only 30 out of the 66 books of the Bible-less than one-half-and this number would be reduced to 22–one-third–if we include the books concerning

which all would be agreed were a uniform system of transliteration used (viz., Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Micah, Nahum, Haggai, Galatians and Philemon).

This last fact calls attention to the lamentable want of agreement concerning the names of the books of the Bible themselves. For instance, the New Mandarin Reference Bible differs from the ordinary Bible (B. and F. B. S., Ed. 394) in its manner of writing Job, Song of Solomon, Amos, Obadiah, Matthew, Mark, Romans, Galatians, Thessalonians, and Philemon; while the "Conference Commentary on the New Testament ’’ (see its list of abbreviations) again differs from both of these in its way of writing Exodus, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Daniel, Hosea, Amos, Obadiah, Micah, Nahum, Haggai, Malachi, and Philemon; and where these three do happen to agree concerning Zephaniah, Mr. Luce's list gives a different way of writing it.

be.

Surely this ought not so to

If a uniform way of writing the names of the books of the Bible and a standard system of abbreviation were agreed upon, there would be no fear of misunderstanding, and therefore no further need of writing or printing the names in full as is done at present in 80 per cent. of the books that give references. It would doubtless surprise us if it were known how much valuable time, labor, and space would thus be economized in the aggregate. Even the pages now devoted to the abbreviation tables might in time be omitted without loss from all publications except the Bible.

In these days of federation and union, when revised versions, reference Bibles, a concordance,

and all kinds of Christian literature are pouring in an ever increasing stream from the presses, and when revival fires are burning more and more brightly in all sections of the empire, creating a new love for, and giving a new impetus to, the study of God's Word, even these details of uniform names for the books of the Bible and a standard system of abbreviation are worthy of serious attention and should not be difficult of attainment.

I am glad that an effort in this direction is being made, and earnestly hope that it may be crowned with success, but would like to ask if the approval of the various Bible, Tract, and Christian Literature Societies has been sought and obtained? If not, it seems a pity that the proposed new system, notwithstanding the support of which it is already assured, has not been held in abeyance a little longer until these societies, at least, had also fallen into line and the translation committees had made what changes they saw fit in the names of the books of the O. T., for, as Mr. Luce himself says most truly: "The perfection of the list is not so important as the agreement on some ONE list by those constantly using abbreviations," which principle also holds good regarding the names for the books of the Bible. It certainly would be a mistake to add another system of abbreviation without reasonable guarantees of its really becoming the standard. That uniformity in these matters may soon be attained, is the earnest hope of Sincerely yours,

F. C. H. DREYER.

PING-YANG FU.

BIBLE TRANSLATION.

To the Editor of

"THE CHINESE RECORDER.”

DEAR SIR: of the New Testament, Kuan Hua translation, is to be commended in one thing. It gives a full and accurate translation to the words "from the dead" in various passages referring to the resurrection of Christ. This is a thing of no small importance, and yet it is a thing in which many versions are sadly defective. Take for instance Cor. XV, 12, Now if Christ be preached that He rose (or has been raised) from the dead; for " rose from the dead," the Delegates' Version has simply, returned to life. The new Easy Wên-li Version improves on this with 由死中見起. But this seems a rather vague way of saying, "raised from the dead." Yet it faithfully reproduces the passive form of the verb in the original. 由死者中見起 would have been an explicit rendering of the EK Vεkpwv, from the dead, of the original, yet the does not make smooth reading. The Peking Mandarin Version reads thus, and Dr. Griffith John's Version has these same words, 死裏復活, while the Foochow Colloquial tersely renders it ✯ 又復活(the 双 here stands for a colloquial word). In all these cases the word refers to a

The Union Version

state, or to the persons who are in that state; or may it loosely be taken either of the persons or of their condition? Or may it more loosely combine the two without attempting to explicitly indicate either one? But the new Union Mandarin Version has 從死裏復活了. This does not reproduce the passive form of the verb has been

raised, but it does express unequivocally the thought of the original, Christ raised out from (among) the dead.

In Mark vi, 14, exactly the same expression in the original is rendered in the Revised Version, "Is risen from the dead," but in the 16th verse the revised text omits the "from the dead and has only "He is risen." Had the Revised Version followed its more accurate rendering in I Cor. xv, 12, how would it sound to read in Mk. vi, 16, "He has been raised?" Grain and cattle are raised on farms, and. in rustic speech, even folks are raised there. No; the revisers did well to use the more elegant and technical phrase "is risen " in Mark. It was only a matter of quoting Herod, and the exact phase of thought in his mind was not important. Yet the use by him of the passive voice was a tacit recognition of the hand of God in the matter.

But Paul the Apostle had certain definite views in regard to the resurrection of Christ, as did the other Apostles, which find expression in such words as "The God of our fathers raised

up Jesus, whom ye slew;" 'Him that raised up Jesus from the dead:" "Now the God of peace that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus.” Hence the revisers when they translated by the full form of the passive voice in I Cor. xv, 12, did rightly in thus preserving the harmony between this passage and all the Apostolic writings.

As to the use of for prophet, it is not really accurate, but if there is a more appropriate term current in the Chinese language, will some one please tell us what it is? In the Greek classics a prophet is the interpreter of the gods, one who ex