American Empire: A Very Brief History of Our Imperialism

Opening Quote

"The history of the United States shows that in spite of the varying trend of the foreign policy of succeeding administrations, this Government has interposed or intervened in the affairs of other states with remarkable regularity, and it may be anticipated that the same general procedure will be followed in the future." (- U.S. Marine Corps, Small Wars Manual, 1940)

Entering Where Angels Fear to Tread

I realize at the outset, that my title is likely going to cause a few of my readers consternation. However I do not use it simply to inflame reaction but because I genuinely believe it is an accurate representation of US history.

As I begin I want to confess that it never ceases to amaze me how grossly uninformed Americans (Christian or otherwise) are of their own history and that handmaiden to it geography.  Apparently many children have been "left behind." We see the "evidence" in test in which Americans identify Australia as Russia! We laugh when David Letterman or Jay Leno ask people walking down the street such difficult questions as: who did the United States gain its independence from and what is celebrated on the "Fourth of July" - only to learn that it was from the Canadians!! And not a clue what is celebrated on "Independence Day!" Or we have watched on YouTube the beautiful South Carolina gal explain why Americans cannot even find America on a world map, if not then go here Miss Teen USA 2007. People so uniformed may get upset because they adhere to half truths and manufacture a mythic past that controls their present - a most dangerous procedure. I advance apologies to them at the be

Perhaps the most powerful myth is that America - the United States - is a peace loving country and has only reluctantly either gone to war or used its military might with great hesitation and never has imposed its will on sovereign states in an imperialistic fashion.  This is a gross misrepresentation of our history but one that is unbelievably believed even by folks who should know better. We learn what might be called the Great Wars version of American military power presented in most public high schools. In this version we learn the USA has engaged in

1) War of Independence
2) War of 1812
3) Mexican War
4) Civil War
5) Spanish-American War
6) WW I
7) WW II
8) Korean War
9) Vietnam

And now Gulf Wars 1 & 2. But this is only the tip of the iceberg above the water.  The Marine Corps Small Wars Manual in 1940 knew a far different reality.  My dear reader did you know that between 1800 and 1934 that the United States Marines engaged in over 180 landings abroad? Yes 180! This is amazing considering that originally the Founding Fathers did not see fit to create a standing army nor navy!

I recently finished The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power by Max Boot. This book, published in 2002, won  "Book of the Year" awards from various entities (Washington Post, LA Times, et) and the 2003 "General Wallace M Greene" award for Marine Corps history.  Boot is a very conservative, and proud, exponent of American power and exceptionalism.  Yet this is a great book in spite of the fact that he thinks diplomacy is best done behind a 16" naval gun.  Boot confesses his own ignorance before he began to write this book, "most of these actions were terra incognita to me" (p. xv).  Boot divides the history of America's "Savage Wars of Peace" into three eras: 1) Commercial Power [1790s-1890s]; 2) Great Power [1898-1941]; 3) Super Power [1941-Present]. Boot even describes American policy in the Pacific with the terms "Empire Emerging" but this is not a lament in Boot but something for which to be proud.  Boot ultimately writes to defend what he calls the "Pax Americana." Most of the material in Boot's book I was already aware of yet it remains a stimulating read for those who have a mythic understanding of our supposed peaceful heritage.

This post should not be seen as an "attack" upon America at all. Rather it is an honest coming to terms with reality and embracing the ironic contradictions that have made up the history of the USA.  It is also a call to humbler status in light of the demands of the Kingdom of God. What follows is an overview of our Empire and how we achieved that status some comes from Boot and others from my own research.  I will be making reference to other sources that I have read that go into much more detail on a given point or episode. 

Emergence of the American Empire

I believe our sanitized memories is the first thing that lets us perpetuate the myth of our being a so called Christian nation or the myth of a peaceful one.  I did not point this out before but this blog grew out of a discussion with a beloved friend who had a very different perspective than I do (or did) and insisted I was guilty of an evil known as "revisionism."  One after the other example though came the reply "I did not know that" or "I never heard of that."  Thus our "sanitized" memories that hurt us in our present.

1) The Monroe Doctrine adopted in 1823 has been the basis for much mischief in Latin America by the United States.   We even almost went to war with Britain in 1895 because of it. I can only be brief here but I learned none of this in high school ...On the basis of the Monroe Doctrine the United States has sent troops to and occupied the following nations: Mexico (1914); Haiti (1915); Dominican Republic (1916); Mexico (1916 - nine more times btw after that); Cuba (1917) and Panama (1918) ... and I will briefly expand ... 

a) between 1856 and 1902 the US forces landed in Panama 13x.  At the time Panama was part of Columbia. In 1902 Panama with US "help" became the Republic of Panama and signed away a ten mile zone that became the Panama Canal

b) Nicaragua has experience US military landings in 1893 and significant occupation from 1926 to 1933.

c) The United States became the "Lords of Hispaniola" from 1915 to 1934.  The US occupied Haiti outright in a bloody conflict from 1915 to 1934 and the Dominican Republic from 1916 to 1924.  For the blatant, bloody imperialistic and even racist policy in Haiti see Schmidt's work based largely on Army archives, The United States Occupation of Haiti, 1915-1934.

2)  Doctrine of Manifest Destiny.  This is nothing, if we are honest, but imperialism.  In the name of this "Destiny" the United States slaughtered thousands of native Americans, forcefully moved them from their land, broke hundreds of treaties.  The "Trail of Tears"  and Indian Territory being "indian territory" until the grass no longer grows and the sun no longer shines ... well the grass is still growing and the sun is still shining.  As far back as the 1880s Helen Jackson wrote a moving account of our national disgrace in "A Century of Dishonor"  or Dee Brown's Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. 

3) The War with Mexico, 1848.  This was pure aggression on the part of the United States.  The proud naturalized citizen, Alexander Campbell vocally condemned this war of territorial expansion, preservation of slavery, and aggression.  Manifest Destiny in action again.  Campbell's protests can be read here among other places (Address on War). Future General Ulysses S. Grant described this as a "wicked war" and regretted he did not have the courage to resign over it.  For a great look at this not so small war see Amy Greenberg's A Wicked War: Polk, Clay, Lincoln, and the U. S. Invasion of Mexico. American troops entering Mexico City has hardly been limited to that war btw. 

4) The Pacific Ocean is an American Ocean. The United States has pushed its weight around in the Pacific nearly from the beginning. The ink was barely dry at Appomattox and the US outright annexed an island in the middle of Pacific most had never heard of, Midway Island (1867).

a) Korea. In 1871, Rear Admiral John Rogers set out to Korea in search of a deal that could not be refused in the manner that Perry had done in Japan in 1853.  The Koreans took umbrage at the US interference and the mission ended in a bloody affair and ill will from the Koreans towards the US for a long time.

b) Samoa. I loved maps as a kid. I still do. I recall wondering how in the world some of these little islands so far away from my little world in Alabama became "U.S. Territories."  One was Samoa!  Samoa is a chain of islands located about half-way between Hawaii and Australia.  In the 19th century European powers were busy expanding their empires and the US got in on the act. Samoa was contested by British, Germans and the Americans.  The US wanted Samoa as a base for the Pacific Squadron. The "natives" were caught between these powers who literally fought a bush war of sorts. In 1889 Britain, Germany and the USA signed a treaty and divided Samoa up but the skirmishes continued till the end of the century. This was for all intents and purposes an outright annexation as happened with Midway. The Germans did not leave Samoa till World War II and the US retains control of the islands to the present.  It was about this time that Congressman Fernando Wood declared "The Pacific Ocean is an American Ocean!"  Even Boot comments on this Samoan affair in these words "Normally this practice is known as imperialism, even though Americans, belonging to a country born of a revolt against an empire, are sensitive about applying this term to their own conduct" (p. 66).  I would add most simply do not know about it at all.

5) The Spanish-American War, 1898.  This war gave us the racist phrase "White Man's Burden."  As a result of the War the USA literally had territories (i.e. colonies???) around the globe: Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippians and other smaller islands that were ceded to the United States.  In 1899 the phrase White Man's Burden was introduced to justify the burden of white america to bring civilization to the barbarian world.  

6) The American-Philippino War, 1899-1913.  The American-Philippino War was an outgrowth of the war with Spain. The Philippians did not want to be colonies of the USA any more than the did Spain.  On Feb 4, 1899 natives "rebelled" against the United States.  Over a hundred thousand US soldiers would participate in this conflict. Most historians estimate the civilian loss of life in this incredibly bloody war near one million and yet your average American has never heard of it!! Though the War was "officially" brought to an end on JULY 4!!!! 1902 (anyone else see an irony with with that!??) armed conflict persisted until 1913 and flared up from time to time until the Japanese invasion.    One enduring, and famous, weapon came out of this conflict.  The legendary 1911 Colt .45 was developed by the US Army in response to bush fighting in the Philippines. President William McKinley said of the fate of the Philippines "I am not ashamed to tell you, gentlemen, that I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night. And one night late it came to me this way ... that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos and uplift them and civilize and Christianize them, and by God's grace do the best we could by them, as our own fellowmen for whom Christ also died."  The irony drips ...

7) Russia 1918-1920. One war I never heard of - and I considered myself well read in American military adventures - was the disaster of our military "intervention" in Russia from 1918 to 1920.  This was by all counts a bizarre act of American imperialism. Interestingly enough I learned of this episode from a RUSSIAN back in 1992!!!  I didnt believe him when he told me of the American invasion of Russia - but unbelievably it is true.  The whole stupid war and the ripple affect it continued to have in the Soviet Union and the development of the "Cold War" is chronicled definitively in Robert J. Maddox's The Unknown War with Russia: Wilson's Siberian Intervention.
and in David Foglesong's meticulously researched America's Secret War Against Bolshevism: U.S. Intervention in the Russian Civil War, 1917-1920.  

8) The annexation of Hawaii.  The Kingdom of Hawaii was a sovereign nation but after the Civil War the kingdom became important to American business interests.  In 1887 American planters engineered a revolution of sorts to overthrow the government.  They succeeded but had a set back.  Stephen Dole pushed for the annexation of the islands by the USA and the islands were declared a protectorate in 1893 but was not complete until it was seen that Hawaii was of strategic importance in the War with Spain in 1898.  The islanders had no wish for this but ... by the way the annexation was never officially ratified legally rather what happened was a simple majority vote in Congress was used to legalize the ploy.  In 1900 Hawaii was declared a territory with Dole as governor.  The military played a bloodless role in this affair but imperialism it was and is.  Here is a link to the Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii.

I could go on but the US has been engaged in more war than any other modern nation I can think of.   Most of our little wars have been over money -- determined by big business.  This is a cold hard fact.  This is true of the United States assassination Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953 of Iran over oil ... it is impossible to truly understand the events in Iran in the last half century without some knowledge of this American perpetuated murder. This single event as much as anything as convinced the Arab world that the US is both hypocritical and imperialistic -- one wonders if they are wrong.

Concluding Empire Thoughts

How should we react to the incredibly and by necessity selective history of American imperialism? Boot in his conclusion decides "one final bit of advice, based on the lessons of history. In deploying American power, decisionmakers [sic] should be less apologetic, less hesitant, less humble" We should not be afraid to use force to "enlarge the empire of liberty" (p.352).  That is quite a concluding thought to an often insightful book. But I think it is the wrong conclusion. As Boot freely admits that none of these "small wars" were fought for "humanitarian reasons" but largely economic or enhancing our strategic position in the world (p.340).

When we look at American history we realize that it is actually the exception rather than the rule that the US is not at war with someone somewhere.  Now I do not believe that the USA is necessarily the evil Empire that some claim but it is hardly deniable that we have a long history of taking what belonged to others and imposing a life in which they did not choose.  Nor do I believe that we should suddenly look at those in military uniform as imperialists because they are not.  The Marine Corps Small Wars Manual quoted at the top of this blog reveals what is at stake - the military is nothing but the big club the politicians use to get what they want.  The military simply tries to be prepared for what policy makers decide. What we have learned is that politicians have frequently in our history allowed themselves to be influenced by money. In all of these small wars - with huge consequences to this day - the words of David Lipscomb ring true, "The rich use war to make more money. And it is the poor who will kill and be killed."

I think we who claim to be Christian need to have a chastened view of our nation's real role in the history of the modern world. In view of that history I have a hard time embracing many of the myths we Americans have allowed to continue to drive an imperialistic foreign policy.  Does taking off the Rose Colored Glasses mean one is no longer able to say they love their country?? I do not think so ...

Read More

Words Easy to Understand: The Restoration Movement and the King James Version

"In Words Easy to Be Understood"[1]

As we move further into the twenty-first century it is interesting to note some of the changes in perspectives that have occurred among "us" over the last two hundred years. One particular shift is quite a radical one, at least in some quarters. It is a shift from call for radical revision of the 1611 King James Version, or its total replacement, to irrational defenses of the King James as the only true Bible. It is a shift from demands for contemporary vernacular translation based on the most up to date critical Greek & Hebrew texts to retreat to the Textus Receptus. This reorientation became most visible with such giant luminaries as Foy E. Wallace Jr., one of the most influential men among Churches of Christ[2]. Wallace published a massive tome with the intimidating title A Review of the New Versions: Consisting of an Exposure of the Multiple New Translations in which he sets up the KJV as supreme and rabidly attacks all modern translations - including the ASV[3].

In the Introduction to Wallace's work, George DeHoff praises the KJV as brightening the "Golden Age of Literature"[4] and dares to say "the King James Translation of the Bible brought the church to us. It was the translation of the Restoration Movement." Wallace goes further in his own Preface to say that the KJV was the Bible of the Movement. He claims the KJV was the Bible for Campbell, Franklin, Harding, Lipscomb and then pointedly says "the statement that the King James Version was not the Bible of the Restoration is a stupid statement"[5]. I plan on exploring that "stupid statement" in some detail, are DeHoff and Wallace correct in their claim?

Alexander Campbell and the Search for Clear English

By the time Alexander Campbell immigrated to America, European civilization had occupied the land for over 200 years. In that time a plethora of translations had been made available to the reader. French Bibles and Luther's German Bible were available and read in North America [6]. In the British colonial period the first English Bible in America was the Geneva Bible[7]. Yet by Campbell's arrival the common version of the people was the King James Version.

The young Campbell was, however, quite dissatisfied with the "Authorized Version"[8]. Early in his reforming and publishing career, Campbell began calling for a revision or the outright replacement of the common version. For Campbell, reforming the church was historically linked to God's word being put afresh in the vernacular of the common people. He wrote in his journal, the Christian Baptist, "it is a remarkable coincidence in history of all the reformers from Popery, that they all gave of the scriptures in the vernacular tongue of the people whom they labored to reform"[9]. In four brief articles Campbell sketched out the history of the English Bible from "Wickliffe" through Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, the Bishop's Bible and finally the King James Version[10].

Reformation, according to Campbell, simply could not take place because the KJV was no longer in the clear language of the people and it contained many translation errors. Citing James MacKnight as his authority, Campbell argued the KJV frequently departed from the Hebrew to follow the Septuagint or the Vulgate in the "Old Testament. The Common Version had too many "Latinisms" to be intelligible to the ordinary reader and, interestingly enough, it was too "literal" in translating Hebrew and Greek idioms. He declared that the translators allowed the King's notions of "predestination, election, witchcraft, familiar spirits" to influence their work of translating. Many passages, Campbell said, were simply mistranslated and finally the division of verses into individual paragraphs severely hampered following the flow of thought for the ordinary reader [11]. The only way to remedy "those evils" in the KJV "so long and so justly complained of," was to issue a new translation of the New Testament[12]. This is exactly what Alexander Campbell proposed to do using the works of "Doctors Campbell, MacKnight and Doddridge" as a base and revised in the light of Johann Jakob Griesbach's critical Greek New Testament.

The New Version: Living Oracles

On April 19, 1826, Campbell announced to his readers that the new version, that is The Sacred Writings of the Apostles and Evangelists of Jesus Christ, Commonly Styled the New Testament, translated from the original Greek by George Campbell, James MacKnight, and Philip Doddridge, Doctors of the Church of Scotland, with prefaces to the historical and epistolary books with an appendix, Buffaloe, Brooke, Co., Virginia, Printed and Published by Alexander Cammpbell, 1826 was now available[13]. This version became known simply as "The Living Oracles" though to my knowledge this title never actually appeared on the title page until the Fourth Edition in 1835[14].

In his General Preface to the Sacred Writings, Campbell gave an apology for this new translation. His argument consists of two parts: English has changed since 1611 and the KJV is not only hard to understand in places but also simply wrong in many. Campbell's language argument is that living language is like clothing fashions "at one time current and fashionable" and then "awkward and obsolete"[15]. The first example he gives drives home the point with clarity. Referring to 2 Corinthians 8.3 "we do you to wit," Campbell says "this was, no doubt, a correct and intelligible rendering ... to the people of that day; but to us it is as unintelligible as the Greek original"[16]. Then he lists more examples such as "conversation," "double-minded," "prevent," among many more and more that could be listed but he refrains.

In his second argument, Campbell addressed the long noted reality that the KJV was anything but a perfect translation. He cites the special influence of Theodore Beza [17] upon the 1611 translators giving the version a clear "sectarian" character [18]. His final argument is from the advance in biblical studies especially the knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. He notes that special character of NT Greek, with the LXX influence, has the "body of Greek but the soul of Hebrew" as he correctly put it. The translators of 1611 did not recognize this aspect of New Testament Greek and approached the subject as a classical scholar might. Some may say the translations are literally correct but, according to Campbell, "the King's translators have frequently erred in attempting to be, what some would call literally correct. They have not given the meaning in some passages, where they have given a literal translation"[19]. Campbell ended by arguing that Christians now have a more accurate Greek text from which to translate than was available in 1611.

The version by Campbell was a daring enterprise for the day. The Sacred Writings has been called the "first modern translation" [20] because of its dependence on the critical Greek text and its move toward current modern English. Because Campbell intended to maximize readability and comprehension the text of the new version was divided into paragraphs which omitted verse numbers except at the beginning of the paragraph [21].

The shift to current English in the Living Oracles can readily be seen in passages like Philippians 3.20 where the KJV reads "our conversation is in heaven" but Campbell rendered it "but we are citizens of heaven." Romans 14.1 in the KJV reads "but not to doubtful disputations" and Campbell translates "without regard to differences of opinions." Campbell avoided special ecclesiastical words in his version. One looks in vain for "church" or "baptize" instead we read "congregation" and "immerse." "Repent" becomes "reform" and "hell" becomes "hades." In the first edition Campbell rendered parakletos as "Monitor" but rejects this in the second edition using the term "Advocate departing from the KJV's "Comforter." Campbell thus anticipated twentieth century versions in his translation: the RSV reads "Counselor," NEB reads "Advocate," the Jerusalem Bible reads "Advocate," the NIV reads "Counselor," and the NRSV reads "Advocate."

Just as with many twentieth century translations that depend upon the critical Greek text, it was Campbell's commitment to textual criticism that embroiled him in bitter controversy. He rejected the "Received Text" as inferior asserting that "Griesbach's Greek Testament is the most correct in christendom"[22]. This commitment to presenting the authentic wording of the text in translation led Campbell to print many passages in italics that Griesbach regarded as doubtful. These doubtful texts range from a single word to entire passages, including John 7.53-8.11[23]. Passages omitted from the Living Oracles were the Doxology at the end of the Lord's Prayer (Mt 6.13, KJV); the Ethiopian's confession (Acts 8.37, KJV); the phrase "through his blood" in Colossians 1.14 and the Three Heavenly Witnesses in 1 John 5.7[24]. Ultimately three hundred and fifty seven readings were relegated to the table of "Spurious Readings."

Campbell's rejection of the reading theos in favor of Lord in Acts 20.28 brought charges of denying the deity of Christ, Unitarianism and Socianism. An anonymous "Friend of Truth" wrote to Campbell that "this has long been viewed as a powerful text in opposition to those who deny the proper divinity of Christ ... I am sorry that Mr. Campbell makes the change." The Friend of Truth insinuates that Campbell may be guilty of Unitarianism himself![25] Campbell defends the the reading of Lord on the basis of Griesbach and an appeal to Irenaeus. For Campbell, the Friend of Truth, did not want to deal with the textual evidence for the reading so he had to resort to casting aspirations upon Campbell's orthodoxy. Our pioneer Bible reviser writes pointedly,

"For although I am as firmly convinced of the proper divinity of the Saviour of the world, that he is literally and as truly the Son of God as the Son of Man, as ever John Calvin was, I would not do as this 'Friend of Truth' insinuates I ought have done, made the text bend to suit my views" [26]

Campbell argued there was nothing to fear from new translations. "The weak minded only are afraid of new translations" he wrote. New versions do not add to or take away any cardinal truth of Christianity nor threaten Christians by producing heterodoxy. Rather he told the readers of the Christian Baptist that "the illiterate have stronger faith who read many translations, than the same class who have read but one"[27]. One "weak minded" person actually acquired a copy of the Living Oracles and then proceeded to literally burn it after he compared it to the "common version" or the King James Version [28]. Another congregation had teachers who refused to read the new version because it was not "the word of God"[29]. Campbell responded with tongue firmly planted in his cheek to these misguided disciples:

"Your teacher was certainly right, and you should all passively submit to his determination. For the common version is the word of God, but the new one is not. The reason I will tell you. The common version was made by forty-nine persons authorized by the king, and paid for their trouble by the king, and when their work was published the king ordered it to be read as the word of God in the public assemblies and in families, to the exclusion of every other version ... You see there are two things necessary to constitute any translation the word of God; first that it be authorized by a king and his court; and again, that it be finished by forty-nine persons ... by such arguments as these my dear sir, we prove the common version to be the word of God and the new to be the word of man. If any man has any better arguments than these to offer, we shall cordially thank him for them" [30]

Alexander Campbell believed these disciples to be badly mistaken to think that only the King James Version was the word of God. Surely such people, Campbell argued, just had not thought through their argument. He asked them, if the KJV is truly the only word of God then "have the French, the Spanish, the Germans, and all the nations of Europe, save the English, no Word of God?" Then the Translator states "I would thank some of those ignorant declaimers to tell us where the Word of God was before the reign of king [sic] James!" [31] He goes on in bold language "taken as a whole, it [KJV] has outlived its day at least one century, and like a superannuated man, has failed to be as lucid and communicative as in its prime" [32].

C. K. Thomas in his extensive study of Campbell's Living Oracles prepared a chart comparing it with the RSV showing its decided tendency towards current English [33]. I have edited the chart to include the NIV for contemporary comparison. (I am trying to figure out how to insert this table ...)

(Chart to be here later)

The chart clearly demonstrates movement to modern and intelligible speech.

Reception of the Living Oracles Among Disciples

The Living Oracles clearly reveal Alexander Campbell's fundamental attitude toward the King James Version. His work was welcomed among those in the Restoration Movement going through six editions from Campbell's press and reprinted numerous times after that. Two episodes may be noted to show how popular this translation was among the Disciples of Christ. The famous preacher "Raccoon" John Smith was called to give an account of his preaching before the Baptists Association Meeting at Cane Spring in 1827. Smith was charged with breaking three tenants of the Baptist tradition. I will list only one pertinent to our point here. The charge reads,

1. That, while it is the custom of Baptists to use the the Word of God King James translation, he [Smith] had, on two or three occasions in public, and often privately in his family, read from Alexander Campbell's translation. [34]

John Smith's response to the charges was "I plead guilty." When Smith was allowed to defend himself he addressed a certain elder who had declared the King's version to be the only word of God and asked him if he really meant it. Williams narrates the story,

"Yes,' said the elder bravely, 'I said so, and I still say it.' 'How long, my brother,' said Smith, 'has it been since the king made his translation?'
'I don't know,' said the elder, defiantly ignorant. 'Was it not about two hundred and twenty years ago?' Smith asked of the clerk, who, perhaps had read more than his brethren.
'I believe it has been about that time,' he replied.
'Then is it not a pity,' continued Smith, that the apostles left the world and the Church without any Word of God for fifteen hundred years? For, as these intelligent citizens around me know, they wrote Greek, without the least knowledge of the language into which King James, fifteen hundred years afterward, had their writings translated! But if nothing is the Word of God but the King's version, do you not brethren pity the Dutch, who have not that version, and who could not read one word of it, if they had it'"[35]

The incident involving 'Raccoon' John Smith provides some insight into how widespread the use of Campbell's new version was. It also helps us understand the official censure of the Baptists in the Appomattox Decrees. The Decrees were aimed at stifling the influence of Campbell's reforming ideas among them. So prevalent was Campbell's version among disciples and apparently some non-reforming churches that it is singled out for mention in the Decrees. It reads, "Resolved, That it be recommended to all churches in this Association, not to countenance the new translation of the New Testament"[36]. The string of evidence we have examined so far shows that DeHoff's and Wallace's conclusion is nothing but rhetoric. The King James Version was not the Bible of the early Stone-Campbell Movement rather it was what became known as the Living Oracles [37]. This was recognized by David Lipscomb who wrote in 1890 these words,

"it is a mistake that the reformation was based upon it [KJV]. Alexander Campbell rejected it, adopted MacKnight and Doddridge's and did more to bring about the late revision [the RV of 1881] than any other man on earth" [38].

The American Bible Union Years

Throughout the 1830s, Campbell defended his new version from attacks, especially those of O. Jennings. These articles explored the proper understanding of faith in Ephesians 2.8[39], the proper translation of ekklesia [40], and the proper rendering for baptizo [41]. The series ends with Campbell discussion the proper translation and the textual variants of Acts 20.28 and Titus 2.13[42].

In 1835, Campbell continued his quest for a readable and accurate English Bible in a series of articles exploring "Mistranslations" in the King James Version. It was Campbell's opinion that the KJV provided many opportunities for skeptics to attack "the inspired authors"[43] of the Scriptures when the fault was really the 1611 translators who mistranslated the text. Focusing on the first book of the Hebrew Bible, Genesis, Campbell lists a number of mistranslations that had given skeptics much delight. I will highlight two of them. Genesis 1.6 in the KJV reads "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." The King's translators followed the Latin Vulgate and not the Hebrew argued Campbell. The Hebrew rakeea properly means "the expanse or space." The modern philosophists, as Campbell calls them, laugh at the false teaching of this verse in Genesis 1 of the King James Version. But Moses, Campbell declares, teaches "the true wisdom, saying, 'And God said, Let there be an expanse [or space or atmosphere]in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters"[44]. It is worthy of note that the NIV reads "Let there be an expanse between the waters ..." confirming Campbell's linguistic skill.

Another passage that has been extensively used in our debate tradition, Genesis 6.14, comes under Campbell's microscope. The Genesis text reads in the KJV, "Make thee an ark of gopher wood." This is not even translation Campbell exclaimed! It is simply the Hebrew word in English letters [45]. The Septuagint rendered it as "squared timber" (not any particular type of wood at all!). The Hebrew gopher meant simply "cypress." God had told Noah to use a broadly defined family of trees, cypress trees, and that is exactly what ancient shipbuilders used according to Campbell[46]. Again it is worthy of note that the NIV renders the word exactly as Campbell suggested in 1835, "make yourself an ark of cypress wood." These are just a few of Campbell's many examples from Genesis that he believed warranted a fresh translation of the Hebrew Bible into English.

Walter Scott threw his weight behind the plea for a new version of the Bible too. Looking at the history of "Old Testament" translation pointing out some of the new versions by Pagninus that were "extremely literal, and by this means, are rude, barbarous and often obscure" [47]. Others however are not even based upon the Hebrew, he argues, but on Latin.

Scott pointed out that 200 years of learning had passed since the KJV was received off the press and regardless of its merits, knowledge has in fact progressed and surpassed the state of the question in 1611.

"In all respects of biblical criticism, much has been developed and redeemed with that period [i.e.1611-1832]. The Original languages, the languages kindred to them, are now much better understood than in the days of King James. Manuscripts and editions are better known and more numerous ... The Scriptures themselves in all circumstances of scope, design, occasion, doctrine, morals, manners and customs are better comprehended" than in 1611[48].

Scott proposes to do for the "Old Testament" what Campbell had done for the New Testament. He proposed that Christians should avail themselves to the best of modern scholarship as represented in Kennecott, Michaelis, Horsley, Lowth, and other scholars for a new version of the Hebrew Scriptures. Robert Lowth's Isaiah, Horsely's Hosea and others should be bound in a single volume for a new Old Testament[49]. A new version was simply imperative for American readers [50].

The Stone-Campbell Movement's involvement with the American Bible Union and the Association for Revision throughout the 1850s is another giant piece of the puzzle of restoration attitudes towards the King James Version. Sadly this part of "our" story is frequently not even mentioned in standard histories[51]. The ABU was the result of a fracture in the American Bible Society over supporting Adonirum Judson's translation into Burmese. Judson's version rendered "baptism" as "immerse" causing discord in that body. When the American and Foreign Bible Society was formed the following resolution was adopted:

"Resolved, That it is not the province and duty of the American and Foreign Bible Society, to attempt on their own part, or to procure from others, a revision of the commonly received English version of the Sacred Scriptures" [52]

This resolution led to the immediate resignation of Spencer Cone, the President, and the withdrawal of many delegates; these men then formed the American Bible Union. The ABU stated in its constitution that its main object was to "procure and circulate the most faithful versions of the Sacred Scriptures in all language throughout the world." This included English. During decade of the 1850s[53] the Millennial Harbinger carried numerous articles calling for the revision of the King James Version and reports on the work of the Bible Union[54].

From time to time notices were published of Scripture portions that had been revised and had become available. Campbell, for example, wrote excitedly about Dr. Conant's new version of Job. He wrote "We recommend it as a specimen to our readers and to the world, as an INCONTROVERTIBLE argument in FAVOR of the value and IMPORTANCE of the New Version" [55]. S. E. Shepherd published a note on the revision of 1 Peter 2.13-14, a passage that bears the mark of royal influence in the King's version designed to make it favor the "supremacy of the king" [56].

In the summer of 1857 a revision of the Epistle to the Hebrews was issued and carries this remark from Campbell, "we pronounce it to be a careful, learned, and greatly improved version of the second greatest epistle to be written by the greatest Apostle" [57]. Campbell shows his concern for accuracy and understandability in his review of this revision. He argues that diatheke should be rendered institution rather than covenant or testament. "Institution" says Campbell is the "most appropriate and representative in our vernacular" [58]

The Restoration Movement did more than talk about revision in the decade of 1850-1860 rather they led the way hands on. Representatives of the SCM were heavily involved with whomever would join them in the cause of revision - especially Progressive Baptists. Both Tolbert Fanning, President of Franklin College and founder of the Gospel Advocate and B.F. Hall were signers of the Constitution of the American Bible Union[59]. Alexander Campbell, James Shannon, John T. Johnson, Philip S. Fall, James Challen, and Tolbert Fanning all served as Vice-Presidents ... this is a list that reads like a Who's Who in the Stone-Campbell Movement! Walter Scott was a manager and Ben Franklin addressed the ABU in 1854 [60]. Jacob Creath, Jr was one of the many famous preachers in the SCM who became a field agent for the Bible Revision Association [61].

James Challen addressed the 1852 Bible Revision Convention held in Memphis on the subject "The Necessity of a New Version and the Means of Procuring It." Challen argued that the need for a new and better translation, "one that will express the mind of the spirit with more perspicuity and force, with greater accuracy and precision" simply could not be denied[62]. For this famous Cincinnati preacher, God's Providence was involved in the work of the Bible Union. He told his fellow delegates,

"The origin and existence of the American Bible Union is a providential one. Such a society as this has never before existed ... It has not sprung into existence by chance. It is the offspring of him who said, 'Let there be light, and light was.' As God is seen in history, I see his hand in the several steps, which originated this blessed institution."

Why was the Union so blessed? Because it refused to allow the standard of authority to be anything but the Greek and Hebrew originals. He asserted that all versions should be measured by and conformed to them - not the King James Version [63]. Challen repeats a theme that has been visible many times in this study, the Bible should be understandable and in plain contemporary English. He waxes eloquent upon this theme,

"The Bible translated,' is our motto, not the Bible hid in the past, buried in the tomb of an obsolete, and forgotten language, but the Bible trembling all over with the spirit of life; the Bible full of eyes before and behind, like the living creatures in the Apocalypse. And as the ocean reflects the image of the sky with all its brilliant jewelry, so to a world shrouded in darkness, the lights of the spiritual firmament may be mirrored forth by true and faithful translations of the oracles of God" [64]

However there was considerable opposition to the work of the ABU among the Baptists but there is not a trace of it from Disciple writings of the period. The Amity-Street Baptist Church in New York City opposed the revision on the grounds that the KJV was already the best translation in the world. Rev. Williams, the author of the church's letter to the ABU, also censures the group for allowing Alexander Campbell and other SCM leaders to be involved - people guilty of heterodoxy [65].

A. C. Coxe published an Apology for the Common English Bible in 1857 in response to the interest in revision. His argument in favor of the KJV revolve largely around emotions and appeal to style. He writes

"even the antiquated words of the English Bible will never become obsolete, while they are preserved in the amber of its purity ... He who would rub off those graceful marks of age which adorn our version, vulgarizes and debases that venerable dignity with which the first ideas of religion came to the youthful mind and heart from the old and hoary Bible." [66]

Coxe goes on to argue that revision would destroy trust in the Bible as God's word [67]. He even opposed the American Bible Society's effort to simply eliminate divergent readings and spelling errors that had long been noted in the King James Version. He writes,

"Why is it necessary to spell ERROUR without the U, which belongs to it by every law of etymology, seeing our Latin comes to us through the Normans? Why is it necessary to modernize the antique spellings which one loves occasionally to meet, amid the leaves of his Bible, and which the humblest reader is willing to see there, though not in his newspaper?"

These minor modernizations and corrections are, he charges, "changes in the sacred text"[68].

The Stone-Campbell Movement rejected this type of "logic." F. M. Carmak confronted the kind of argument made by Coxe head one. He wrote in the Gospel Advocate about the love of the style of the KJV,

"This sacred regard for the phraseology of the old version arises from a superstitious reverence for things that are old; hence it is too often the case, I fear, that the professed friend of the Volume of Truth looks upon it as a relic of antiquity, like some quaint old Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Norman ballad, than as the living word of God, adapted to the moral and spiritual wants of the present age" [69]

Carmak states that this desire to keep the style of the Bible antiquated actually hinders the growth of spirituality in young people. "Why is there," here asks, "so little interest manifested by the young in reading the Bible? Is it not attributable, in part at least, to its style? Its haths and its doths, its ye's and its eths, give it a heavy lifeless style, and cause aversion to the reading of the best of books" [70]

Robert Richardson responded to the idea that new versions will cause doubt towards the Bible or create division. He argued instead of Bible study suffering from revision it will be enhanced. "Lovers of Divine Truth," Richardson wrote, "will delight to find in the clearer language of the new version, the solution of many difficulties which have been created by the obscurities and imperfections of the common translation." Multitudes who previously had no desire to study will not do so with the arrival of the new version[71].

Restoration involvement with the ABU culminated with Alexander Campbell's revision of the Acts of the Apostles. Campbell having addressed the convention on at least four occasions regarding various aspects of Bible translation into the vernacular [72] published his revision in 1858. Campbell's revision retains much of the vigor of the Living Oracles. Campbell retained the reading "Lord" in Acts 20.28 giving his reasoning in his Notes [73].

From the Civil War to the Dawn of the New Century

While Campbell was in his golden years and America was torn apart by a bloody conflict, many disciples still continued to dream of a current speech translation. Henry T. Anderson was one such dreamer. Anderson was a scholarly preacher from Harrodsburg, KY and he published a fresh translation of the NT. He says in his Preface that he made his translation with no thought to the phraseology of the KJV. He did not feel bound by Greek structures but wished to express the "sense of the Original" in "good English" [74]. The New Testament is printed in paragraphs with good spacing between the lines. Moses Lard states the volume was "one of the most elegant and appropriate in appearance we have ever seen" [75]. There are no footnotes of any kind however page 568 lists current values for money. Anderson's version was excitedly received by leading lights of the day being praised by Robert Milligan, J. W. McGarvey and Ben Franklin. David Lipscomb used Anderson's version along with the Living Oracles, the Bible Union Version along with the KJV during his family devotionals [76].

Lard gave Anderson's Translation a lengthy review in which Ben Franklin thought he was overly critical [77]. Indeed Lard does pretty much focus upon minor points in his review such as the rendering of hades, paraclete and Anderson's retention of some "verbal fossils." What is important for our purposes is that Lard praises Anderson for understanding proper translation theory in that,

"the sense of the sacred text should be expressed in the fewest English words that adequately convey it to mind. These words, let me add, should be arranged with no reference to the order of words in the original. The usages of the English and modes of English thought alone should determine the form the English sentence should take."

Put into practice this principle aims for simplicity in translation,

"Anderson has certainly aimed at simplicity in his translation; and we are glad to say he has, in the main, succeeded well. Still in very many passages we think it decidedly at fault in this respect. We should always prefer two or three or even more simple easy words to one learned or unfamiliar one, in making a translation" [78].

Anderson's version aimed at being a completely fresh and modern language New Testament. Lard's minimal quarrel with Anderson is that it was not simple and modern enough.

Lard published a lengthy article in 1864 on the subject of "Translations and Revisions." The article is really about translation theory and is, perhaps, the only only article in the 19th century written within the Stone-Campbell Movement on translation theory. Lard greatly criticizes the translation rule of the ABU that directs that translation be done with "corresponding words and phrases." This rule, apparently adopted by the 1611 translators too, leads to all manner of false readings. Lard says "whether the sense of a sentence in one language shall be translated by corresponding words and phrases of another is a circumstance which can never in the least enhance the excellency of a translation, but may very seriously injure it" [79]. Too literal a rendering of one language into another obscures meaning rather than enhances it. Exactitude in translation is the goal, but that means the sense of the original being understood in the receptor language [80].

Many translators, however, follow this rule of corresponding words and phrases to the detriment of the common English reader. Lard censures these translators, including those of 1611,

"The practice of some translators literally stuffing their translations until every sentence on the like a bloated thing can not be too severely reprehended. With such every kai, and de, and men and ho must have some corresponding representative. Thus the ease and perspicuity of the English are lost in clumsy attempts to make it walk on Grecian stilts" [81].

The SCM continued to seek replacement for the KJV. Charles Louis Loos announced in the Millennial Harbinger the planned major revision of the KJV in England. Loos writes this has been Restoration Movement's plea from its beginning, now "we have many reasons to rejoice." The revision will not be as thorough as the SCM had advocated but "it doubtless will be a great improvement" [82].

James Lillie wrote on the need for "Bible Revision" and spared the 1611 KJV the usual flattering statements. To Lillie the translators were really hirelings and falsifiers of God's word. He accuses them of being "stealers" of another man's labor - William Tyndale and claimed it as their own [83].

W. K. Pendleton, in 1870, published excerpts from R. C. Trenche's On The Authorized Version of the New Testament concerning the necessary distinctions that are hidden in the KJV. In this short article, Trench demonstrates in numerous passages that the 1611 translators had mistranslated the text [84].

When the Revised Version was finally published in 1881 it was hailed by leading thinkers in the RM as the best ever. J. W. McGarvey told preachers in 1883 that they were on dangerous ground if they continued using the 1611 King James Version. He proclaimed,

"...we must by all means use the best version. The Canterbury revision of the English Bible should now totally supplant the King James version, not only because it is a great improvement as a version, but because it is the only representative in English of the corrected Greek text. A man is not safe venturing upon exegesis of a single passage by the aid of the old version until he shall have compared it carefully with the new; and rather than be continually making these comparisons, it is better to at once adopt the new into exclusive use" [85]

Many preachers followed McGarvey's advice. James A. Harding in his great debate with J.B. Moody in 1888 on Christian Baptism frequently refers to the RV in his arguments. Harding within a few years adopted the RV/ASV into exclusive use in his writings. He writes in The Way,

"I can most heartily advise all who are interested in Bible study to get the 'American Revised Version' and read it. I believe it to be the best translation of the Holy Scriptures ever made into the English tongue. The quotations made by the editor in his articles in The Way are from this version" [86].

Conclusions from our Survey

With the dawn of the twentieth century and James A. Harding I bring this essay to a close. Looking back however we see from the first articles by Alexander Campbell in the Christian Baptist to The Way there has been a consistent voice in the Stone-Campbell Movement. That voice was united in declaring the King James Version as an inadequate translation in need of drastic revision or complete replacement with a fresh translation. Many "denominationalists" opposed revision of the KJV. They published books, articles and even eventually destroyed a good thing in the American Bible Union.

Yet the most striking fact to emerge from my study of the many journals and many articles that have not been referred to due to space is this: there is not a single defense of the King James Version written by a member of the Stone-Campbell Movement whether "liberal" or "conservative" in the nineteenth century! From the Millennial Harbinger, to the Evangelist, to Lard's Quarterly, to the Christian Record, to the Gospel Advocate, the Way, the Protestant Unionist, and the Christian Standard there is not one single article written protesting the revision and/or replacement of the King James Version on the basis of modern critical Greek texts or putting it into into "Words Easy to Be Understood." I think this is a significant fact.

The very first article I have located defending the King James Version as the best version was published by David Lipscomb Jr (a nephew not the son of DL) in the January 7, 1926 Gospel Advocate. Lipscomb's argument runs counter to the entire nineteenth century heritage he received including the opinions of the one whose name he bears. He argued that the KJV was superior to the ASV on stylistic grounds. Then he argues that no one ever thought to revise or update "Hamlet" or "Julius Caesar," so why should the English Bible be tampered with? He closes his article by saying "If any one contemplates sending me a Bible as a New Year's present, let it be the Authorized Version, the one that has been for three hundred years satisfactory to people of all classes"[87]. But our study has shown it has not! And David Lipscomb Jr did not go unanswered. Our heritage has rather shouted "Give us the Bible in words easy to understand."


Notes:

[1] The phrase "in words easy to be understood" comes from a speech by James Shannon at the Bible Revision Convention in 1852. These words of Shannon encapsulate the almost unanimous voice of the 19th century Stone-Campbell restoration movement's demand to have an accurate, clear and understandable English Bible. See "The Importance of Procuring a Pure Version of the Scriptures," in Proceedings of the Bible Revision Convention, Memphis, Tennessee, April 2, 1852 (Louisville: Hall and Brothers, 1852), 48.

[2] Richard T. Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 160-166.

[3] A Review of the New Versions, 3rd edition (Fort Worth: Foy E. Wallace Jr. Publications, 1973, 1976).

[4] ibid., XV. It is not infrequent to hear writers attribute to the KJV with having a great impact upon the English literary tradition. C. S. Lewis does not agree with George DeHoff however. He writes of that the KJV "as a strict literary influence" is far less than supposed. See C. S. Lewis, The Literary Impact of the Authorized Version (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963), 26.

[5] Wallace, p. XXV.

[6] P. Marion Simms, The Bible in America: Versions That Have Played Their Part in Making the Republic (New York: Wilison-Crickson, 1936), 65, 68ff. Simms notes that the first printed Bible in America was Eliots Indian Bible printed in 1663 (pp. 189-192) and the first Bible printed in a European language was the Saur German Bible in 1743 (pp. 120-125).

[7] ibid., 89-90.

[8] Alexander Campbell, "King James Instructions to the Translators of the Bible - With extracts and remarks," Christian Baptist 2 (1 November 1824), 104-105. All references to the Christian Baptist: Seven Volumes in One, ed. Alexander Campbell and Revised by D. S. Burnett.

[9] Alexander Campbell, "History of the English Bible, No. 1" Christian Baptist 7 (7 February 1825), 130.

[10] Alexander Campbell, History of the English Bible, No 2-4," CB 2 (7 March 1825), 136; CB 9 (4 April 1825), 66-67; CB 2 (6 June 1825), 160-161. It is fascinating to see that in Campbell's article on Tyndale he asserts that Tyndale did not translate from Greek but from Latin into English, "Tyndale translated, as Wickliffe before him, from the Vulgate Latin and not from the Greek." "History of the English Bible, No. 2" CB 2 (7 March 1825), 136. Campbell even if he had never seen a Tyndale NT was familiar with John Lewis' A Complete History of the Several Translations of the Holy Bible and New Testament into English, 3rd (London: W. Baynes, 54, Paternoster Row, 1818). Lewis reprints Tyndale's Prologue to Matthew on p. 81, "I have looked over againe now with all diligence and compared it unto the Greke ..." Campbell seems to have been dependent upon James MacKnight who asserted Tyndale did not know Greek, "it is commonly said that Tindale [sic] made his translation of the New Testament from the Greek; but no such thing is said in any of the editions published by himself or Joye," MacKnight, Epistles (Grand Rapids: Baker Reprint, n.d) Vol. 1, pp. 13-14.

[11] Alexander Campbell, "History of the English Bible, No. 4," CB 2 (6 June 1825), 82.

[12] ibid., 161.

[13] Title Page

[14] See C. K. Thomas, Alexander Campbell and his New Version (St. Louis: Bethany Press, 1958), 19.

[15] Campbell used the term "Living Oracles" in the General Preface, p. iii.

[16] ibid., iv.

[17] The influence of Theodore Beza has been noted by 20th century historians as well. See the thorough work by Irena Dorota Backus, The Reformed Roots of the English New Testament: The Influence of Theodore Beza on the English New Testament (Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1980). She shows convincingly for this influence of Beza especially through the 1602 Bishop's Bible printed by Robert Baker.

[18] Campbell, General Preface, pp. v-vii. One of the major "shifts" on this point is that 19th century restoration leaders did not hesitate to identify the "sectarian" qualities of the KJV whereas today many simply deny they exist!

[19] ibid, vii.

[20] Edward J. Goodspeed, Problems of New Testament Translation as quoted in Frank Pack, "Alexander Campbell the Scholar," Restoration Quarterly 30 (1988), 128.

[21] The Third Edition of the "Family Testament," included verse numeration in the margin for the sake of reference, Alexander Campbell, "Historical Sketch and Progress of the New Translation," Millennial Harbinger (June 1832), 270.

[22] Alexander Campbell, NO Title, CB (5 March 1827), 318. The scholarly instincts of Campbell are clearly seen in his commitment to Griesbach's text. Bruce Metzger writes "The importance of Griesbach for New Testament textual criticism can scarcely be overstated. For the first time in Germany a scholar ventured to abandon the Textus Receptus ..." The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 2nd (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), 121.

[23] In the Third Edition Campbell appears to have stopped using italics, cf. Alexander Campbell and His New Version, pp. 38, 53. The use of italics to indicate doubtful readings anticipates the RSV printing of John 7.53ff and Mk 16.9-20 in an italicized footnote. Campbell, after the Third Edition, put these spurious readings in an Appendix at the end of the Volume.

[24] It is interesting to note that Foy Wallace in his Review of Modern Versions heavily criticizes the RSV for changing and deleting God's word in each of the places just listed except 1 John 5.7. In reference to the Doxology, Wallace's final climatic argument for retaining it is the "king's translators" had all the manuscripts needed to be "sufficient for plenary translation" ... whatever that may be (p. 328). On Col 1.14 Wallace says "through his blood has been cast out without even a marginal note." Wallace asserts this reading is "word for word in the interlinear, and it is evidently in the manuscripts which produced our Bible ... there is no reason for expunging it by the later versions" (pp. 447f). It is true that this reading is in Stephen's Text of 1550 which reads dia tou aimato autou, The Englishman's Greek New Testament Giving Stephen's Text of 1550 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970). Greisbach's text reads en ho echomen tan apolutrosin, tan aphesin town amarpon, with a footnote explaining the omission "through his blood" was due to mss evidence. The modern critical text omits the reading without a footnote.

[25] A Friend of Truth, CB 4 (6 November 1826), 286.

[26] Alexander Campbell, "A Refutation of the Foregoing Misrepresentations," CB 4 (6 November 1826), 287.

[27] Alexander Campbell, "The New Translation," CB 4 (2 April 1827), 68

[28] Cited in Thomas, Campbell and His New Version, p. 70

[29] Candidus, CB 4 (7 May 1827), 345

[30] Alexander Campbell, "Reply to the Foregoing Letter," CB 4 (7 May 1827), 345-346.

[31] Alexander Campbell, "The Word of God," CB 6 (6 April 1829), 540

[32] ibid

[33] Thomas, Campbell and His New Version, 41-42.

[34] John Augustus Williams, The Life of Elder John Smith (Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1956), 146.

[35]ibid., 150-151.

[36] "The Appomattox Decrees," Millennial Harbinger 1 (7 June 1830), 261

[37] The Living Oracles was the better choice. Marion Simms while characterizing Campbell's version as a "sectarian" translation and calling it an "immersion version" still passes on high praise for the Living Oracles.
"Campbell was a man of scholarly attainments, and it was the unsatisfactory character of the King James Version that chiefly inspired his effort to provide a better text, and while at it he translated baptizo as he interpreted it. This was unquestionably the best New Testament in use at the time" The Bible in America, p. 249.

[38] David Lipscomb, "The Two Translations," Gospel Advocate 32 (9 April 1890), 231

[39] Alexander Campbell, New Version Defended and O. Jennings, D.D. Exposed, No. 1," Millennial Harbinger (September 1832), 455-459.

[40] Alexander Campbell, "The New Version Defended and O. Jennings, D.D. Exposed, No.2," Millennial Harbinger (October 1832), 505-508

[41] Alexander Campbell, "The New Version Defended and O. Jennings, D.D. Exposed, No. 3," Millennial Harbinger (November 1832), 534-537.

[42] Alexander Campbell, "The New Version Defended, No. 6," Millennial Harbinger (May 1834), 204-208 and "New Version Defended, No.7," Millennial Harbinger (June 1834), 274-277. These two articles again reveal Campbell's courage to follow what he believes to be the evidence regardless of the charges of heterodoxy.

[43] Alexander Campbell, "Mistranslations, No.1," Millennial Harbinger (February 1835), 49.

[44] ibid

[45] Alexander Campbell, "Mistranslations, No. 3," Millennial Harbinger (April 1835), 150

[46] ibid

[47] Walter Scott, "A Plea for a New Version of the Old Testament Scriptures," Evangelist (6 August 1832), 170f.

[48] ibid., 172

[49] ibid.

[50]Walter Scott, "A Plea for a New Version of the Old Testament Scriptures, No. 2," Evangelist (3 September 1832), 193-198; "A Plea for a New Version of the Scriptures, No. 3," Evangelist (3 December 1832), 274-277. Scott includes a sample of current Jewish translation of the Hebrew in his No.3, p. 276.

[51] Donald Jackson, The Place of the American Bible Union in the History of the Restoration Movement, Unpublished Guided Research Paper, Harding Graduate School of Religion, 1979. Jackson's work is an excellent place to begin for information on the Disciples involvement in the ABU.

[52] "Origin and Progress of American Bible Societies," Millennial Harbinger (May 1858), 280

[53] C. L. Loos writing in 1870 recognizes this decade as full of agitation for revision of the King James Version. He writes, "after the high wind of excitement of the subject of Bible revision that passed over us from 1850-1860, a calm followed," Millennial Harbinger (November 1870), 617. The primary reason for the "calm" was the unsatisfactory course the ABU itself took with its revision ... and the Civil War.

[54] It is curious that Barton Stone's journal, the Christian Messenger never carried any articles dealing directly with versions. This is true over the life of the journal (1826-1844).

[55] Alexander Campbell, "The Translation of the Book of Job - By Dr Conant," Millennial Harbinger (February 1857), 112

[56] S. E. Shepherd, "I Peter II:13-14," Millennial Harbinger (January 1857), 43

[57] Alexander Campbell, "The Epistle to the Hebrews Revised," Millennial Harbinger (July 1857), 389

[58] ibid., 391

[59] See Proceedings of the Bible Revision Convention held at Memphis, TN, April 2, 1852 (Louisville: Hull and Brothers, 1852), 8

[60] Proceedings of the Bible Revision Convention held at Nashville, April 7, 8 & 10, 1854 (Louisville: Hull and Brothers, 1854). Franklin's address is not recorded in the Proceedings but is said to have given "an exceedingly able address in favor of our enterprise," p. 19.

[61] Jacob Creath, Jr, "Mr James Taylor, the Common Version and the 24,000 Errors, No. 1," Millennial Harbinger (January 1858), 32-34.

[62] Proceedings 1852, p. 23

[63] ibid., 27

[64] James Challen, "Address of Elder James Challen," The Bible Union Quarterly, No. 7 (February 1852), 318

[65] "Correspondence Between the American Bible Union and Rev. William R. Williams, D. D.," The Bible Union Quarterly, No. 9 (August 1852), 357-367

[66] A. C. Coxe, An Apology for the Common English Bible (Baltimore: Joseph Robinson, 1857), 8-9.

[67] ibid., 15

[68] ibid., 31, 34. A more recent writer within the Churches of Christ makes a similar argument regarding modern language versions. He writes, "Each student who is at all familiar with the new Bibles would expect to have this challenging danger point out somewhere in a study like this. On a scale never before imagined,' the Bible reader is confronted with, 'A TOTALLY DIFFERENT TYPE OF LANGUAGE." The writer further asserts that if it doesn't sound like the Bible then it is "not the Bible." Robert R. Taylor, Challenging Dangers of Modern Versions (n.p. n.d.), 49, his emphasis.

[69] F. M. Carmak, "Bible Revision," Gospel Advocate (April 1857), 102.

[70] ibid., 104

[71] Robert Richardson, "The Revision Movement," Millennial Harbinger (February 1857), 84

[72] Campbell addressed the Bible Union on Oct 3, 1850 on the subject "Improved Version of the Bible," Millennial Harbinger (October 1850), 553-586; again in 1851, "The History of the English Bible, An Address by Alexander Campbell," The Bible Union Quarterly, No. 3, (November 1851), 118-152; again in 1852 on "The Importance of a Pure Version of the Christian Scriptures," Millennial Harbinger (January 1852), 5-42, and "Address by A. Campbell," Proceedings of the Bible Revision Convention, 1852, pp. 134-159.

[73] Alexander Campbell, Acts of the Apostles translated from the Greek, on the Basis of the Common English Version with Notes by Alexander Campbell (New York: American Bible Union, 1858), 138. Campbell shows himself to be aware of, and makes use of, the best scholarship of his day, including German critics in English translation. For more on the context of Campbell see Thomas H. Olbricht, "Alexander Campbell in the Context of American Biblical Studies, 1810-1874," Restoration Quarterly 33 (1991): 13-28.

[74] H. T. Anderson, "Dedication and Preface," to The New Testament translated from the Original Greek. The title page is missing but a date of March 1864 appears in the Preface.

[75] Moses Lard, "H. T. Anderson's Translation," Lard's Quarterly 2 (January 1865), 178

[76] Robert Hooper, Crying in the Wilderness: Being a Biography of David Lipscomb (Nashville: David Lipscomb College, 1979), 176

[77] Ben Franklin, "Lard's Notice of the New Translation," Lards Quarterly 2 (April 1865), 318-322

[78] Moses Lard, "H. T. Anderson's Translation," pp. 190, 191.

[79] Moses Lard, "Translations and Revisions," Lard's Quarterly 2 (October 1864), 79.

[80] ibid., 81

[81] ibid., 83. One hundred and seven years after Lard, J. W. Roberts subjected the "Principle of Literalness as a Criterion of Bible Translation" to a shorter critique than Lard but comes to similar conclusions. Such a theory is "literary checkers." Restoration Quarterly 14 (1971), 155-167.

[82] C. L. L. "Revision of the English Scriptures," Millennial Harbinger (July 1866), 367

[83] James Lillie, "Bible Revision," The Christian Quarterly (July 1874), 337-359.

[84] "Real Distinctions Effaced in the Common Version," Millennial Harbinger (September 1870), 527-531

[85] J. W. McGarvey, "Preachers' Methods," in The Missouri Christian Lectures, Independence, MO, July 1883 (Rosemead, CA: Old Paths Book Club, 1955), 93

[86] James A. Harding, "Scraps," The Way (1 October 1899), 1

[87] David Lipscomb, Jr. "Which Version of the Bible is Best?" Gospel Advocate (7 January 1926), 3-4.

Read More

Alexander Campbell - "Hermeneutier" of the Word - Rough Thoughts

Intro
Alexander Campbell was uniquely qualified to be the leading reformer of the nineteenth century through both education and experience. I want to explore the cultural and educational forces that had a direct influence on his understanding of the vital matter of reading and interpreting the Scriptures. My investigation will look more closely on the role of Inductive Philosophy with the understanding that Campbell claimed to be eclectic. "I am no special advocate of the old philosophy or of the new. I choose rather, so far as their congruity will admit to be eclectic." [1]

We will examine, briefly, where and when these philosophies influenced Campbell's thinking by looking at training received under his father, Thomas, and at the University of Glasgow. Then I want to trace how he developed and used these ideas and hopefully be able to appreciate his contributions to the Stone-Campbell Movement.

Early Life and Training

Alexander grew to manhood in Northern Ireland, a country riven with strife and rebellion. This setting provided a hands on laboratory for learning lessons about freedom and toleration in both religious and civic arenas. He was born into a family abounding in love and deeply devoted to learning, with a rich heritage from both Highland Scot and French Huguenot.

The first decade of his life had been one of Ireland's most troubled in memory. He was ten when the Irish Rebellion came to a tragic end in 1798. This period produced an incident he would never forget. His father, Thomas, was preaching when some Welsh horsemen rode up and surrounded the church building being certain they had stumbled upon a band of rebels. Thomas began to pray the words of the forthy-sixth Psalm as the captain stood in the aisle. The captain bowed his head until the close of the prayer and quietly left [2].

Thomas required members of his household the daily memorization of Scripture to be recited at the evening hour of prayer [3]. In early school work, Alexander was not an impressive student so his parents withdrew him. But after a short time he announced his intention of becoming "one of the best scholars in the kingdom" so father Thomas began to tutor him [4]. In preparation for the university Alexander received a thorough baptism in the liberal arts. He began to study Greek and Latin. To his memory bank of Scripture he added classics like Homer, Horace, Shakespeare, Milton, Young, Pope and Addison. His special favorite was the witty Dr. Johnson and the romantic cadences of Ossian. By the time he was fourteen he could quote the whole of Paradise Lost and most of Aesop's Fables ... in French!

At age fourteen he made his first independent religious inquiry. With the death of three brothers and sisters, he reasoned on the "tenant of elect and non-elect infants." He would describe this forty years later "there is nothing more repulsive in the human mind than the doctrine of infant damnation. It was the first item of Calvinistic faith at which my infant soul revolted" [5].

In 1804 Thomas moved his family to Rich hill where he opened an academy. Alexander, age sixteen, was proficient enough to become an instructor. At this point his father introduced him to the works of John Locke and the future Reformer began one of his most exciting intellectual adventures. He read Letters on Toleration and drank in Locke's concepts of religious liberty and toleration [6]. In Essays Concerning Human Understanding and in Locke's empirical philosophy, a world of experiment, observation and reason, the young thinker found the basis of his method. Richardson notes "He advanced in age and learned greatly to admire the character and works of Locke, whose 'Letters on Toleration' seem to have made a lasting impression on him and to have fixed his ideas of religious and civil liberty. The 'Essay on Human Understanding,' he appears to have thoroughly studied under the direction of his father" [7]. Later Campbell would call John Locke "the Christian Philosopher" [8]. It will be shown that Campbell's basic epistemological position comes directly from Locke.

When Alexander was nineteen, his father set out to America and the following year the family was to join him. But by the means of a shipwreck, Alexander and the rest of the family were stranded, providentially, in Glasgow Scotland. Upon his mother's suggestion, he entered the university.

Alexander at Glasgow

The University of Glasgow was nearly three hundred and fifty years old when Alexander arrived being founded in the fifteenth century by Pope Nicholas V. It as in the midst of an intellectual renaissance being a brilliant period in literature, philosophy, commerce, economic and social science as well as religious. The faculty outstripped those of Oxford and Cambridge with such luminaries as Adam Smith, Thomas Reid, and George Jardine drawing students from all over Europe.

Skepticism and rationalism, espoused by David Hume, was rampant in England and the continent but Scotland stood as a stronghold of faith. The teachers were more or less successful in relating the principles of inductive reasoning to the Christian faith, while other universities were sacrificing either one or the other [9].

Campbell, already imbued with Locke, was thrust into this atmosphere and this would effect his thinking for the rest of his life. Alexander received training in "Scottish Realism" and Baconian induction under George Jardine, a close friend and student of Thomas Reid. His course in logic was divided into three parts: 1) explanation of the methods of improving faculties of knowledge; 2) focus on improving faculties of taste; 3) was directed to improving rhetoric.

Jardine argued that the faculties of the mind could be studied by the Baconian Method. Jardine's division of the faculties of the mind followed Locke very closely indicating that the Realists were Lockeans. The powers of knowledge were 1) the simple faculties were sensation and ideas acquired by perception, attention, reflection and abstraction; 2) the sensations and ideas which were preserved by memory and imagination; and 3) the complex powers were agreements, disagreements, and relations among ideas discerned by judgement and reasoning. He argued, with Locke, that the imagination cannot create new knowledge, but that it depends on experiences in the past [10].

The most important aspect of Campbell's training was in the Bacanonian interpretation of the history of logic. There are two forms of logic according to Jardine, natural logic and artificial logic. Natural logic means improving the powers of judging and reasoning without the assistance of general rules.

People learn more from artificial logic though than with natural logic. Artificial logic is "the art of training the faculties of man by the discipline of rules and precepts, instructions and example." This method according to Reid and Jardine did away with the need for "necessary inference." The concept of inference refers to syllogistic reasoning or drawing conclusions in a deductive manner. This method of reasoning was employed in the Westminster Confession of Faith and was rejected by Campbell but later both he and other Restoration leaders incorporated it into their hermeneutic [11].

In 1803, Jardine had Francis Bacon's Novum Organon reprinted and used it as one of his text books. Bacon wrote of "the idols of the mind" or those fallacies that stem from tradition and faulty thinking that blind people to "facts." "Idols of the tribe" stem from the slow mind that is satisfied and too lazy to think, and that accepts only traditions. "Idols of the Cave" relates to the habituated mind that finds security in the way it has believed and acted; it wants things kept simple, even if erroneous, so that preconceptions are kept intact. "Idols of the Market Place" are the pet words and phrases that are invented that shade one's view of reality; it specialized in blurred, indistinct meanings. "Idols of the Theater" are fanciful theories and exotic philosophies that only confuse people of the real facts [12].

Campbell believed he found such fallacies in the various sectarian creeds and theological speculations that only hindered one's effort to understand the "facts" of the Bible. He was impressed with Bacon's definition of a fact as "something said" or "something done." Campbell adopted this as his own definition [13].

Alexander Campbell learned his lessons well. Thirty-two years later at the founding of his own institution of higher education, Bethany College, he followed Jardine's history of logic and philosophy. He condemned Scholastic and Aristotelian philosophy for its lack discovery and useless speculation. "It was," Campbell said, "reserved for Francis Bacon ... to strike out a new path to science." This ushered in new discoveries "of the greatest importance" and represented a "solemn league and covenant between philosophy and common sense" [14]. Of course this is "common sense" as defined by Scottish philosophers. The covenant between this common sense and philosophy represents a synthesis between Locke and Bacon/Reid.

1) They have mutually pledged themselves always to reason from what they do know to what they do not know.

2) That they will always and only employ the five senses in ascertaining sensible facts; and receive the testimony of any two or more of them as infallible, when it can be shown that they are in good health and circumstances to ascertain the facts in question.

3) That the internal sense of consciousness will always be regarded as a faithful and competent witness of the mental and moral facts of the inner man, as the five external senses are of the material and external facts and events are of the outward man.

4) That they will never form a science or build a system either on hypotheses or a priori reasoning.

5) That they will never affirm anything to be a law of nature which has not been ascertained by the observation and classification of facts, and of such a number and character as to leave no doubt of the universality of the facts and the principles developed in them.

6) That they will always receive the testimony of other persons who simply declare that they had seen, heard, or learned from their own experience when that testimony is free from suspicion of fraud or fiction.

7) That the assent to every proposition shall always be proportioned to the evidence in favor of its truth and certainty. [15]

Campbell believed that "all men of true sense and education" would surely agree to this marriage between philosophy and common sense and would be lead by it "in every discussion of any question properly scientific" [16].

Campbell in America

When Campbell came to America, he found it much like Ireland and Scotland. Both suffered from religious division and were under the sway of the Baconian ideal of realism. Campbell, with his background in Locke and Bacon soon found a his niche.

Most historians have observed that from about 1800 through at least 1860 America was dominated by Scottish realism, especially in the South. Philosophy, science, and religion used it as defense against Hume's skepticism and similar ideas from Germany. It was first introduced by John Witherspoon at the College of New Jersey in 1769. After 1800 realists texts and thought had been introduced into most schools [17].

American theologians quickly adopted this "inductive method" as a means of promoting and defending theology. Their overriding concerns were with the examination of evidence, a focus upon "facts" and the systematic classification of those "facts."

These theologians were marked by four principal elements: 1) enthusiasm for natural science; 2) scrupulous empiricism built upon realist confidence in the senses; 3) deep suspicion of abstract thought and insistence of an inductive accumulation of "facts;" and 4) a celebration of "Lord Bacon" as founder of the inductive method [18]. These characteristics clearly mark Campbell and the American Restoration Movement ... our first college was even named Bacon College!

Some have questioned the links between Campbell and the Scottish Philosophy but the evidence is so overwhelming it would foolish to deny it. In his famous debate with Robert Owen, Campbell often appeals to "Lord Bacon" as the man who "laid down the foundation for correct reasoning." He cites the five aphorisims and asserted he would "make the principles of inductive philosophy my rule and guide in the investigation." Campbell demonstrated a revulsion for speculation and insisted upon the "facts" in true Baconian fashion [19].

One might here and say this is not biblical interpretation. This is true, partially. But as will be seen, Campbell used this method in everything ... including biblical study. For Campbell, the facts of nature and facts of revelation are to be studied using the same method. One inductively gathers the facts, then through reason extracts the truths contained within them. Campbell adopted this method for the sake of unity. "Great unanimity has obtained in some of the sciences in consequence of the adoption of certain rules of analysis and synthesis; for all who work by the same rules, come to the same conclusions and it may be possible that in this divine science of religion. There may yet be a very great degree of unanimity of sentiment and uniformity of practice amongst all it's friends" [20]. Bacon wanted to tear down dead medieval scholasticism and Campbell wanted to tear down creeds that hindered unity.

Campbell, in his in depth study of Christian baptism, used the inductive method to produce his results. He said "the doctrine of the Bible, on a particular subject of inquiry, can be clearly and satisfactorily ascertained only by a full induction of that which is found in it upon the subject. When the induction is perfect and complete and fully comprehended on any one point, we never can have any more divine light upon that subject. This is our method of learning and of teaching what the Holy Spirit taught on any given subject" [21].

Alexander Campbell's New Hermeneutic

The American Revolution created vast changes in North America. People were rebellious to the idea of authority - religious or political. People demanded a "new" or a populist hermeneutic [22]. The Baconian method or commonly styled the "common sense method" was the new hermeneutic for the people.

When Campbell finished his tour of England, he was pleased to quote a British Baptist regarding the latter's evaluation of himself. "This is the first time that I have ever heard the Bible expounded and Christianity set fourth in the true Baconian method according to the inductive philosophy" [23].

Baconianism grants the feeling of certainty to the conclusions one reaches. The method leads to a pragmatic approach to the Scriptures that, at times, produced a haughtiness in our relations with other seekers of the Lord. Induction, culturally speaking, was well suited for American readers of the Bible for we have a habit of respecting no one beyond ourselves. Richard Lints has noted well the irony of the inductive Bible hermeneutic ... the illusion of reading only the Bible while setting ourselves up as the real authority.

"The inductive Bible study approach may encourage individuals to read the Bible as they never have before, but it will also encourage them to read the text according to their own subjective interests. The Bible becomes captive to the whims of the individual freed from external constraints, and in such a situation the individual can imagine the text to say whatever he or she wants it to say. If our central concern in approaching the text is how it makes us feel or what it seems to be saying to us, then the church is doomed to having as many interpretations of the text as their are interpreters. In banishing all mediators between the Bible and ourselves, we have let the Scriptures be ensnared in a web of subjectivism. Having rejected the aid of the community of interpreters throughout the history of Christendom, we have not succeeded in returning to the primitive gospel; we have simply managed to plunge ourselves back to the biases of our own individual situations" [24].

Interpreters like Alexander Campbell, and his heirs in the Stone-Campbell Movement, were part of a larger cultural tide than we often imagine in Churches of Christ. This is especially true on the matter of hermeneutics. Campbell proposed a New Hermeneutic that was quite in line with the wider cultural current within the United States. It seemingly gave power to the people, it seemingly produced sure results on a number of burning spiritual issues of the day, it seemingly made the Bible alone the authority for all religious questions.

But the New Hermeneutic failed! The use of this method failed to allow Campbell to address urgent moral (doctrinal??) issues like slavery [25]. It failed to produce healthy teaching on the Holy Spirit. And most of all the hermeneutic failed to produce the continuity and consistency that Campbell was seeking for the unity of the church. Indeed Lints words quoted above have been demonstrated time and again and division rather than unity has resulted ... time and again.

This does not mean that Campbell was always wrong. I do not believe he was. What it means is that sometimes Campbell's theological grasp was better than the hermeneutic which he used so frequently to seek common ground. Perhaps that last statement is actually a clue ... Campbell sought common ground and sometimes his heirs have sought exclusive ground.


Notes

[1] Alexander Campbell, "Introductory Lecture," Introductory Addresses Delivered at the Organization of Bethany College, November 2, 1841 (Bethany, VA, 1841), 72

[2] Alexander Campbell, Memoirs of Elder Thomas Campbell, together with a Brief Memoir of Mrs. Jane Campbell (Cincinnati: H. S. Bosworth, 1861), 296-297.

[3] ibid., pp.23, 265-267, 271-272.

[4] Robert Richardson, Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, 2 Vols. (Cincinnati: Standard Publishing), Vol 1, p. 354.

[5] A Debate Between Rev. A. Campbell and Rev. N. L. Rice (Lexington: A. T. Skillman & Son, 1844), 674.

[6] Campbell would reprint the entire text of Letters on Toleration in the Millennial Harbinger during the year 1844.

[7] Richardson, Memoirs Vol 1, pp. 33-34.

[8] Alexander Campbell, Popular Lectures and Addresses (Old Paths Book Club), 104.

[9] For Campbell at Glasgow see, Lester McAlister, Alexander Campbell at Glasgow University, 1808-1809 (Nashville: Disciples of Christ Historical Society, 1971) and Eva Jean Wrather, "Alexander Campbell's 'Beau Ideal':The Making of a Reformer,' Restoration Quarterly 30 (1988), 75-83.

[10] See Michael Casey, "The Origins of the Hermeneutics for the Churches of Christ, Part Two: The Philosophical Background," Restoration Quarterly 31 (1989): 193-206.

[11] ibid., 202

[12] Fredrick Copleston, A History of Philosophy vol 3 (Garden City, NY: Image Books 1963), 103ff. For an interesting discussion of the "Idols of the Mind" see Emil Brehier, The Seventeenth Century: Philosophy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938), 31ff.

[13] Alexander Campbell, "The Confirmation of Testimony," Millennial Harbinger (January 1830), 9.

[14] A. Campbell, "Introductory Lecture," 64.

[15] ibid., 65f.

[16] ibid., 65. Of special interest is Campbell's essays "On Logic," on the "Socratic Method," and "On the Syllogism," in Campbell at Glasgow, 1808-1809, 35, 58, 72.

[17] Sydney E. Ahlstrom, "The Scottish Philosophy and American Theology," Church History 24 (1955): 257-272.

[18] C. Leonard Allen, "Baconianism and the Bible in the Disciples of Christ: James Sanford Lamar and 'The Organon of Scripture,'" Church History 55 (1986): 65-80.

[19] A. Campbell and R. Owen, Debate on the Evidences of Christianity, containing an examination of the "social system" and all systems of skepticism of ancient and modern times (Nashville, TN: McQuiddy Printing) vol 2, 248-249, 4-6, 13-24.

[20] Alexander Campbell, "Principles of Interpretation, Millennial Harbinger (January 1846), 13-24

[21] Alexander Campbell, Christian Baptism, with it's Antecedents and Consequences (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1951), 184-185.

[22] Nathan Hatch has traced this out clearly in "The Demand for a Theology of the People," Journal of American History 67 (1980): 545-567. See George Marsden's essay "Everyone One's Own Interpreter? The Bible, Science, and Authority in Mid-Nineteenth-Century America," The Bible in America: Essays in Cultural History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), eds Nathan O. Hatch & Mark A. Noll.

[23] Alexander Campbell, "Preface,"Millennial Harbinger (1848), 4-5.

[24] Richard Lints, The Fabric of Theology: A Prolegomenon to Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 93.

[25] See D. Newell Williams perceptive study "Disciples Biblical Interpretation and the Fugitive Slave Law: Ovid Butler vs. Alexander Campbell," Encounter 59 (1998): 3-22. For the wider setting see Mark A. Noll, The Civil War as a Theological Crisis (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006).

Read More