I had the privilege of working on both the 1973 edition of Divine Principle and consulting on the 1996 new translation, known as Exposition of the Divine Principle (EDP). Here, I offer some recollections and confessions, with a view toward giving our community some information for our reflection.
Prior to 1973, most of us in the USA used Dr. Young Oon Kim’s “Red Book” titled Divine Principle and Its Application, or the blue study guide that complemented it. A smaller number used Sang Ik Choi’s Principles of Education. As part of his late 1971 push to unify the groups that had formed around the various Korean missionaries, Rev. Sun Myung Moon ordered the translation into English of the official Korean version of Divine Principle, Wolli Kangron. This task was given to Mrs. Won Pok Choi. She later told me she had to finish this work in great haste, over a period of 40 days, at the Soo Taek Rhee training center.
Sometime in 1972, Mrs. Choi’s text arrived in Washington, DC. Each chapter was given to a different editor, living in various centers, and we did not have a style sheet to guide us. Editors were relatively inexperienced and used various standards of punctuation and capitalization. In addition, there were lots of new terms.
Dr. Kim’s book was relatively short and did not use terms like “foundation of substance,” “foundation to receive the messiah,” or even “internal character and external form.” So in some chapters of Mrs. Choi’s translation, “foundation of substance” was rendered as “substantial foundation” or even “foundation of heart.” I myself changed “time-identity” to “time-indemnity” until I realized my error.
Editors agonized over whether Moses led the course of “restoration of Canaan” or “restoration into Canaan.” We also wondered how strict we should be about retaining “therefore,” instead of “thus” or “so.” Adding to the angst of the editors was the fact we had been instructed to stick closely to Mrs. Choi’s translation rather than risking a change in meaning. This meant avoiding changes in sentence structure and length.
In early 1973, Louise Berry (Strait) was given the painstaking task of bringing together the highly inconsistent work of the various editors. As the deadline threatened, I was brought in to finish the task, come hell or high water. Coordinating a staff of about a half a dozen, I decided it would be impossible to unify the disparate editorial standards in time and settled for achieving consistency within chapters instead. That is why, if you read a first edition of the “Black Book,” you may notice that “National Course of Restoration” is capitalized in one chapter but not in another, or that “world-wide” is hyphenated here, but not there, for example.
I recall long hours burning the midnight oil in the basement of Varnum House. As we were finally about to go to press, Father arrived for a brief stay at Upshur House, a short walk away. Hearing there were problems with editing, he demanded that it be absolutely flawless. However, we were already at the “blueline” (proof) stage, meaning that photographic negatives had already been produced in preparation for burning lithographic printing plates. Very few changes are normally allowed at this point, because each change needs to separately photographed and carefully “stripped in” by the printers.
So, we had to pull several “all-nighters,” trying our best to weed out any errors we could catch. We found hundreds of them, and if you look carefully at a first edition, you may be able to discern where some of them are (a word or phrase that has been stripped in may appear slightly lighter or bolder than the surrounding type). The most embarrassing flaw for me personally was one that nearly crept into the chapter on Moses’ course. It stated that after Moses led them through the Red Sea, “God drowned all the pursing Israelites,” rather than the pursuing Egyptians. Louise recalls a printer’s proof in which the title page read “DEVINE PINCIPLE”!
What, no Korean?
It was during these final stages of the editorial process that Father called me to Upshur House and gave me a remarkable instruction. I had been at Varnum House, working on the bluelines, when Dr. Kim called me on the phone and told me to come right away to Upshur and bring the bluelines of the final chapter. I hurried over to find her and Father Moon in the front sitting room. I spread the blueline on the coffee table, and Dr. Kim found the section Father wanted to discuss. She pointed to three or four paragraphs. Father then drew lines through them and said to me, “These paragraphs, take out!” This was the section that explains that Korean must be the language of the unified world.
We finally went to press, and the Black Book appeared in early summer 1973. It was far from flawless. It was also very hard for the reader to get through. And so, even before the first edition was distributed, we began working on a second.
Here, a note of clarification is in order. There were only two editions of Mrs. Choi’s translation, both published in 1973. The first edition was printed only once, a thick black book of 643 pages. There were many printings of the second edition, some brown, some black; some hardcover, some paperback. However, for some reason, each new printing of the second edition was called a new “edition” on its title page. The only differences between these printings had to do with the size of the type, color of the cover (black or brown), kind of paper used, and whether the book was paperback or hardcover. They should have been called “printings,” not “editions.” (I own a “second edition” black hardcover version published in 1973, which is indeed a second edition. But I also own a “fifth edition” brown paperback version of this book published in 1977. In reality, this “fifth edition” is the fourth printing of the second edition! Readers who own any “edition” of Mrs. Choi’s translation other than the 643-page first edition can presume it is the second edition. As far as I know, second editions are always 536 pages long.)
The second edition was compiled by a three-person editing team consisting of Ron O’Keefe, Felice Walton (Hart) and myself, during the summer of 1973. We worked at Belvedere, in an office on the second floor of Carriage House, above the room where Father used to speak to trainees. I still have the first edition I used in this process, complete with editing marks. After we finished our work on Part I of this edition, Ron continued on his own to complete Part II.
For this edition, our instructions were less strict than with the first edition. We were allowed to rework sentences and change idiomatic expressions. Although most readers still find this version of DP to be “tough sledding,” it is certainly an easier read than the first edition.
The second edition team was fortunate to have both Mrs. Choi and Rev. Young Whi Kim available for occasional consultation that summer. Mrs. Choi was often at Belvedere with True Father, and Rev. Kim, who had just published his own DP lecture manual, was leading the 100-day Belvedere training session. Ever humble, Mrs. Choi apologized more than once for her “poor translation,” which was completed in such haste.
Neither Mrs. Choi nor Rev. Kim was slavishly devoted to the Korean text. If the team found what we thought was an error, they were open to discussing it and occasionally authorized changes. They also agreed that the section which Father had omitted from the first edition, regarding Korean as the future world language, should also be omitted from the second edition.
Another change, directed by Rev. Kim, had to do with description of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil: Did it symbolize immature Eve or perfect Eve? The first edition stated this tree symbolizes “Eve in perfection.” However, Rev. Kim reported he had discussed this issue with Father Moon, and that Father had authorized him to teach instead that it symbolized simply “Eve” or “woman,” implying that the goodness or evil of her character had not yet been determined. Thus, the second edition contains the following:
“…When we find in the Garden of Eden a tree symbolizing [first ed.: perfect] manhood, we know there must be another tree symbolizing [first ed.: perfect] womanhood. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which was described as standing with the Tree of Life (Gen. 2:9), was thus the symbol of Eve.”
The second edition not only omits the adjective “perfect” to describe Eve here, but substantially rewrites the last sentence, which, in the first edition reads as follows:
“The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which was described as standing with the Tree of Life (Genesis 2:9), was the symbol of ‘womanhood having fulfilled the ideal of creation,’ the symbol of Eve in perfection.”
Between 1973 and 1996, the second edition Black Book was the standard English DP text, but most new members were introduced to the Principle through lectures. At least two manuals were created by Rev. Young Whi Kim for this purpose. There was also a six-volume Divine Principle Home Study Course published by HSA headquarters. Later, Father Moon instructed that a series of two-hour, four-hour and eight-hour lectures be created, with accompanying texts.
The author with three different editions of the Divine Principle book.
Outline of the Principle, Level 4 became the more-or-less standard text used in the USA during the early-to-mid 1980s. Published in 1980, this book was written by Rev. C.H. Kwak, based on Wolli Kangron, “to help readers understand The Principle and to be used as a lecture outline.” The title “Level 4” seems to be based on its relation to the two-hour, four-hour and eight-hour lecture booklets.
An expanded “Level 5” version was nearing completion in 1986, with substantial input from Western Unificationist scholars. I worked on it part-time for one quarter while a student at UTS. The project was scrapped when Father Moon declared that Wolli Kangron must remain the standard. He then ordered a new translation of that text, which was published in 1996. I was disappointed by this decision, because I believe the DP, being “a textbook teaching the truth” rather than the Truth itself, needs many new expressions.
Exposition of the Principle
My work on the 1996 translation, Exposition of the Divine Principle, was relatively minor. I gave feedback on a draft of the text and recall a couple of formal discussions with the editors in New York. There is no doubt in my mind that the 1996 translation represents an improvement over Mrs. Choi’s earlier version, and I suspect she agreed.
I have not done a systematic comparison of the two translations, but a few things stand out. First, EDP represents not only a new translation but also includes several substantive changes. One notable change is the use of new biblical proof-texts to replace some of the old ones, which were considered weak by readers with experience in biblical studies.
For example, in the original Wolli Kangron, the following quote from St. Paul is used to support the idea that Jesus did not come to die: “… for if they [the rulers of the age] had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory.” But, in context, Paul is actually arguing in favor of the predestination of the Cross, which he considered to be God’s plan from the beginning.
To compare: the 1973 second edition of DP says,
“…we can see that Jesus’ crucifixion was the result of the ignorance and disbelief of the Jewish people and was not God’s predestination to fulfill the whole purpose of Jesus’ coming as the Messiah. I Corinthians 2:8 says, ‘None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.’ This should be sufficient proof.”
But the 1996 EDP says,
“we can deduce that Jesus’ death on the cross was the unfortunate outcome of the ignorance and disbelief of the people of his day; it was not necessary for the complete fulfillment of his mission as the Messiah. This is well illustrated by Jesus’ last words on the cross: ‘Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.’” (Luke 23:34)
The above comparison of the 1973 and 1996 versions also points up another important contribution of the new version. It softened DP’s approach to the question of Jewish responsibility for the crucifixion. Thus, where the 1973 version speaks of the “ignorance and disbelief of the Jewish people,” the 1996 version speaks of “the ignorance and disbelief of the people of his day.” Several other examples of this softening can be found elsewhere in the 1996 text.
Regarding the two previously mentioned substantive changes Father Moon had authorized, both of them were rejected by the EDP editing team. Thus, Exposition of the Divine Principle includes the paragraphs affirming that Korean will be the language of the unified world. And, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil — which for 23 years had symbolized immature Eve — once again “represents the ideal woman, perfected Eve.”
No doubt there are many additional differences between EDP and the earlier translation which are worth investigating, and I’m sure readers will comment on some they have noticed.
It should be noted Divine Principle is not currently one of the three core scriptures in the era of Cheon Il Guk; moreover, True Mother Moon intriguingly stated in March that “In the future, the Divine Principle will need many updates. What I mean is that theories from the Completed Testament Age do not suffice.” Perhaps she is alluding to the possibility of a major 21st century revision of the original Korean edition of DP.
I consider myself very fortunate to have worked on the editing of several English editions of DP, as well as on various publications of Rev. Moon’s words. This experience has given me first-hand insight into the experience of both ancient and modern scribes dealing with sacred scripture. I hope to discuss with colleagues and readers the various issues and problems we face in approaching this process.♦
Dan Fefferman (UTS Class of 1986) is a member of the UTS Board of Trustees and President of the International Coalition for Religious Freedom. He is also the composer of several well-known Unificationist holy songs.