BROOKLYN, N.Y., OCTOBER 31ST, 1942
BROOKLYN, N.Y., OCTOBER 31ST, 1942
Messrs. F. Ide, Andrew Beattie, Ernest Ghinn.
Beloved Brethren, — Your letter of the 8th instant was duly received and I thank you for it. I appreciate the pains you took in replying to my letter of September 1st. I am assured you will abide by your decision to leave the revision of the New York magazine in the hands of the authors of the articles, Mr. Parker serving as editor. This decision being in accord with principles governing printed ministry, which hitherto [p. 292] have been observed among the saints will, I believe, have the approval of brethren generally and will promote the mutual good feelings which God blesses. Your rights and responsibilities as publishers will undoubtedly be freely owned by all who take part in the service of ministering the truth in printed form.
But while writing the above my conscience is by no means satisfied by your reply to the part of my letter which refers to the past — what is shown as extended revisions by ——— of articles for publication without the knowledge of those directly responsible for them; and what is more serious, alterations made in those articles contrary to the truth as held by the author of them.
Another matter of grave importance is that ——— states in a cable and letter to me that the alterations and deletions were made in the magazine to save paper and that other MSS. were not so treated; whereas the copy of the book ‘The Second Established’, just received, shows that this is not true, for it has proportionately a much greater number of changes than appear in the magazine. ——— wrote me of one of the changes, but said nothing of the general revision of the MSS. he was making. But I am writing now not of the character of his revision but of the fact that he cabled that he did not make it — that is, that he did not make extensive alterations in such MSS. as the book mentioned represents. His cable of September 24th reads, ‘The many changes monthly manuscript solely due necessary deletion over matter for pages available ... other manuscripts never so treated as printing pages not limited’. With the help of J.T. Jr. , I have made careful examination of three readings on Job and I find that an average of 141 changes in each reading have been made, and by general observation I can see that all the other articles in the book have been subjected to the same proportionate changes. Because the original paper used in the Notes on Job was heavy and the revisions extensive, I had copies made on light paper which I sent to Kingston, so that as possessing the original MSS., I am able to compare them with the book.
As regards the changes made in the booklet ‘Names of Divine Persons’, while making due allowance for the feebleness of memory, it is morally impossible for me to accept ———’s explanation of the matter as given by you. That the two changes if made in the same paragraph of the copy he sent [p. 293] could have escaped my eye is utterly unlikely. Whether they were made in pencil or ink I would surely notice them, especially as going over for a second edition a paper which had been severely attacked. And if I did notice them, I would certainly have deleted them as contrary to the standard translations of the passage of scripture involved, which I always accepted as right. The truth is, as I definitely remember, ——— sent me a copy of the booklet without any proposed changes, and I made what few alterations I thought needful and returned the booklet.
I think it right to say here that in commending his view of Ephesians 1: 22, ——— wrote Mr. Parker to look at page 23 of ‘Names of Divine Persons’ as affording proof that I agreed with him. ——— added that I had gone over the booklet very carefully because of the opposition it had encountered. He also directed Mr. Parker to October, 1941 number of the New York magazine, to obtain the same proof, but what he had in mind was my statement in that number which he (Mr. ——— ) had altered, as stated in my letter of September 1st. In letters to ——— I suggested twice that ——— in making the changes in question may have thought I agreed with him as to Ephesians 1: 22, but I subsequently cancelled this, as my conscience does not now admit that our brother could have this thought, for having searched, I cannot find any foundation on which to base it; on the contrary I have found much to negate it. I have always accepted the rendering of the passage in the New Translation and the Authorised Versions, and I am getting ready for the press Notes of Readings at Indianapolis of last November in which comments based on them are included. At that time I knew nothing of the view ——— advances. I have no wish to discredit ——— , but I most certainly believe he should own and repudiate the manifest wrong doings that I have furnished proof of in my communications to him and to you; also that the roots of which they are the fruits should be searched out and judged. As to yourselves, the word comes to me “the glory of kings is to search out a thing” (Proverbs 25: 2).
Concerning the number of the magazine in which the eighty changes were made, it was that of October, 1941, not August, 1942. Mr. Parker made some of the alterations in this as he has done in all numbers, but he and I made due allowance for these and calculated with practical accuracy, as we believe, that the eighty were in addition to those he made [p. 294] I note that you are getting out a new issue of ‘Names of Divine Persons’ and have scrapped what stock you had of those changed, ‘in deference to your wishes’, as you say. I value the spirit expressed in this, but please note that I did not express any such wishes. Those remaining in the New York Depot are being corrected by pasters. For the benefit of those who have copies of the second edition a notice of the correction could be inserted in a number of the New York magazines — if the trustees agree.
Since receiving your letter I have been to Council Bluffs to attend the annual meetings there. There were about two hundred visitors and the Lord gave a good and profitable season. We considered at the readings ‘The Children of God’. In the previous week I attended similar meetings at Toronto where we had as our subject for five readings, the Spirit acting sovereignly as seen in the book of the Acts, and to be apprehended objectively as a divine Person.
I have on hand a considerable quantity of Notes of special meetings and I am revising them with the hope that they may be helpful to the saints as circulated. Some are being circulated in typewritten form. A sister in Winnipeg, Miss Prince, is getting out two hundred each of the five readings of the special meetings there last May. The readings on Headship at Indianapolis I am preparing to send to you.
With love in Christ to you all, I am,
Affectionately yours in Him,
James Taylor.
P S. — Referring again to the alterations made in the readings on Job, the careful examination shows about 140 changes in each reading, and a cursory observation of the other articles in the book, ‘The Second Established’, indicates the same proportion for each. As said above the book was received recently, and yet ———— wrote and cabled me as quoted above, and in his letter to me of September 26th he writes. ‘As far as other MSS. are concerned, no such need of reducing them arises, and therefore the alterations are negligible’. Surely in this statement truthfulness is overlooked.
You can see by the facts I give that the book just received was subjected to a full revision by ——— . This was wholly unnecessary, and must have involved considerable expense of time. If a manuscript sent to the Depot for publication requires [p. 295] so much attention it should be returned to the author with the comment that revision is not properly the responsibility of a publishing house. I had an understanding with ——— to adjust any verbal errors or omissions, but I did not intend any such alterations as appear in this book. To expect him to make regular revisions of my papers would be unfair to the Depot. — J.T.