Doddridge.

MC.KNIGHT.

A. CAMPBELL.

in this we groan, ear- heavens. But yet in this For indeed in this we nestly desiring to be tent we groan, earnestly groan, earnestly desiring clothed upon with our desiring to go perma- to be invested with our house which is from hea- nently into an habita- heavenly mansion. And ven; since, being so tion, which is heavenly. surely, being thus inclothed upon, we shall And surely, if we go in, vested, we shall not be not be found naked. For we shall not be found found naked. For inwe that are in this taber destitute. But yet we deed we that are in this nacle do groan, being who are in the tent tabernacle do groan, beburdened; not for that groan, being burdened; ing burdened; not that we would be uncloth- not because we desire to we desire to be divested, ed, but clothed upon, go out, but to go per- but invested, that morthat what is mortal may manently in, that what tality may be swallowed be swallowed up of life. is mortal may be swal- up of life. 2 Cor. v. 1-4. lowed up of life.

In his rendering of this passage Mr. Campbell has materially departed from both his guides, but without effecting, we think, any great improvement in the phraseology, or indicating the existence of a clear view of the meaning of the passage in his own mind. As to his emendations generally, although we are far from pretending to have separated them all from the mass into which they are thrown, our impression is, that they do not add much in any way to the value of the book. We have not met with any which have struck us forcibly. We have noticed an unwarrantable freedom in the second chapter of the epistle to the Romans, where he actually removes the sixteenth verse, and places it immediately after the thirteenth; thus violently breaking up the structure of the passage, and, in our judgment, distorting the sense.

We must now say a word respecting the plan on which the work before us has been constructed-the plan, we mean, of blending together the several translations, and incorporating with them the emendations of the editor.

As to the former of these, it is obvious, that, as Doddridge translated the whole New Testament, Campbell the gospels, and Mc.Knight the epistles, the editor has before him two translations of the gospels, namely, Doddridge's and Campbell's; and two of the epistles, namely, Doddridge's_and Mc.Knight's. His translation of the former is neither Doddridge's nor Campbell's, but a compound of the two; and, in like manner, his translation of the epistles is neither Doddridge's nor Mc. Knight's, but a compound of the two. We are aware that it may be pleaded, for the adoption of such a method, that it was desirable to combine the valuable materials of both. We are not very sure, however, that the plea is valid. The three translations are as different from one another as almost any performances of the class can be, and are but very slenderly adapted for combination. Those who are acquainted

with Doddridge and Campbell will readily admit this, as to phraseology; but, with respect to Doddridge and Mc. Knight, in the epistles, there is a wide diversity, not in language only, but in sentiment. However, if we were to have a melange compounded of such various ingredients, we think some means should have been afforded us of tracing the respective authors. The value to be attached to a rendering is graduated by the confidence we place in the author of it. We know, for example, the respective characteristics of the divines now in question-the extreme caution and high evangelical sentiment of Doddridge; the freely modernized phraseology of Campbell; the adventurous criticism and Pelagian leaven of Mc.Knight; and it is material that, when we meet with a deviation from the authorized version which seems important, we should know whose it is, that the character of the author may aid us in judging of the criticism. So, at least, it appears to us. Certainly, we should be far from reposing the same confidence in a suggestion of Mc. Knight, that we should yield to one of Doddridge. Now the editor has furnished us no clue of the kind we want. In the gospels we cannot tell whether we are reading Doddridge or Campbell; in the epistles we cannot tell whether we are reading Doddridge or Mc. Knight. We think this a serious disadvantage.

An objection of the same kind applies, and, in one respect, still more strongly, to the emendations' which have been introduced by the editor himself. We say nothing, at present, concerning the nature of these emendations; but we think it should have been known which they are. Alexander Campbell, of Bethany, in the United States, may be as eminent a biblical scholar and critic as George Campbell, of Aberdeen, in the realm of Scotland; but, until the last ten years, he has been unknown to fame, and the sense of the learned world has hardly yet been so clearly expressed on his labors, as to give him a passport to equal confidence. In reading the edition of the New Testament before us, we should like to know, we confess, not only whether we are reading Doddridge, Mc. Knight, or George Campbell, but also whether we are reading Alexander Campbell. The feelings associated with the last name in our minds, are quite distinct enough to render the means of such discrimination far from immaterial. None such, however, are afforded. The various emendations' are interlarded in the text without any intimation. It may be said, that the editor thus modestly resigns the credit of them to others; but how do we know, or how does he know, that either of the great critics under whose joint names he shelters himself, would have adopted his renderings? He makes us read them as though they proceeded from either Doddridge, Campbell, or Mc. Knight

VOL. IX.

3 A

when, in fact, they proceed from neither, and when, by possibility, they would have been rejected by all.

That it would have been some trouble to obviate this objection we admit; but we cannot allow that it would have given more trouble than an editor preparing such a book should have cheerfully taken. In the gospels and epistles he has taken, as was natural and inevitable, one translation as the basis, adopting alterations from another, and introducing emendations of his own. Why could he not have told us, respecting the gospels for instance, that he had generally adopted Dr. Campbell, and that his own emendations and Doddridge's would be found marked A. C. and D. respectively? Such a plan would, in our judgment, have materially increased

the value of his labor.

Something of this sort was the more necessary, inasmuch as there is no other obvious means of knowing how numerous, important, or extensive the emendations of the editor are, or how far the introduction of them may modify the allegation, that the translation is that of Campbell, Mc. Knight, and Doddridge. Now we do not profess to have entered at any very great length into the investigation necessary to determine this point. Upon a glance, however, it is evident, that the emendations are pretty numerous; and we find that, in the controversy to which the book has given rise on the other side of the water, Mr. Campbell has stated that, in the translation, he has altered the language of Drs. Campbell, Mc. Knight, and Doddridge, about three thousand times. Now these three thousand emendations must be very trivial indeed, if they do not involve some important changes; and it is clearly possible-such, indeed, is the fact that they may affect the interpretation of critical passages, and the management of existing controversies. The editor should certainly have taken, in the most explicit manner, the responsibility of such changes; and should not have left himself open to the charge of wishing to insinuate his own sentiments under the names of greater men. An editor so circumstanced as Mr. Alexander Campbell, is the very last who should have been guilty of this indiscretion.

Besides those which we have already noticed, there is another feature of the work before us, not indeed an absolute novelty, on which we must remark; we mean the modification of the Greek text. Of this, in the abstract, we are far from complaining. The text of the New Testament, like that of all ancient writings, is difficult of determination. In a large number of manuscript copies, no two are perfectly coincident; the most approved text is derived from a comparison of the whole; and, from time to time, with newly discovered materials, fresh comparisons have been made, giving occasion, as is

hoped, to nearer approximations to absolute verity. Beyond all price are the labors of the men who have devoted themselves to this department of biblical learning, and far is the work from being as yet perfected. That the text from which the authorized version was made is perfect, nobody now imagines. It is, of course, the duty of every translator to adopt the purest text available at the time, the only thing necessary being, that he should acquaint the public what text he has adopted, and by what authorities he has been guided in his choice. In this matter Mr. Campbell fails. Neither in his title-page nor in his preface, does he say anything about an alteration of the text; nor would you suppose, by reading the whole book, that he had deviated in a single instance from the received text, until you come to the appendix, which exhibits a long list of spurious readings, extracted from Griesbach. From this it appears that he has made numerous alterations. Yet it cannot be said he has adopted Griesbach's text; he has rather incorporated into the received text a considerable number of the changes proposed by that critic. But he assigns no reason, either for adopting so many alterations, or for not adopting more. He does not even make his translation tally with his list; for, after having included phrases among spurious readings, he actually inserts, either intentionally or carelessly, the condemned words in their usual place. Nor does he attempt to make his criticisms tally with his translation; for there are many words proposed to be added by Griesbach, and some of these Mr. Campbell introduces into his version, while, nevertheless, he not only gives no list of these, but he does not even state the fact that Griesbach makes any such suggestions at all. We do not know how to express approbation of such a mode of proceeding. It seems to us unscholar-like and superficial in the extreme; indicating very little fitness in Mr. Campbell for so responsible a work as editing the sacred oracles, and not at all adapted to engage the confidence of reflecting and considerate readers.

We think also, that, while the text itself should have been more carefully determined, the deviations from the received text should have been indicated in the version. A skilful editor might easily have devised modes of effecting this which would not have encumbered the page, and which would have promptly rendered to the reader the very important service, of showing him the difference between the text of the authorized version and that employed by Mr. Campbell.

Of the execution of the work generally we cannot speak with commendation. It bears more marks of haste and carelessness than would be creditable in any case, and enough to be seriously discreditable to an edition of the sacred Scriptures. For example, in the appendix the word Jesus is stated to be

omitted from John i. 44. Upon looking to the passage, we find that the verse named never contained the word Jesus, but that the omission is, in fact, made from verse 43. This may be supposed to have been an error of the press; but it is not. On turning to Griesbach, we find the omission both marked as belonging to the 44th verse, and in that verse actually made, the verses in that chapter being numbered differently by Griesbach from the English. The case then is, that Mr. Campbell adopted his reference from Griesbach, but did not take the pains to see that it corresponded with his own version. Some of the notes under the head of Apostolic Words and Phrases, appear to us to indicate a similar carelessness. For instance, the note on the word Hades concludes in the following manner: See note on Acts ii. 27, p. 154.' We have endeavored to trace this reference without any success. There is no note on Acts ii. 27, neither does that passage occur at page 154. Indeed, there is not a single note to the text throughout. And, in the absence of all means of explanation, we can only conjecture that the entire note has been hastily extracted from some book, without care having been taken to separate from it inapplicable references. A similar fault occurs immediately below, on the word Hell, and is of frequent recurrence. We cannot resist the conviction-unfeignedly sorry as we are to entertain it that Mr. Campbell has enacted the critic too much in the style of the American back-woods-man. He really seems to us to have run down the margin of some edition of Griesbach, and to have extracted valuable notes from learned works, with an eye and pen too much in a hurry to enable him to accomplish anything of permanent value, in so high a department of learning as the critical editing of the sacred Scriptures.

It is a minor fault, although far from an immaterial one, and resulting, we fear, from the same prevailing carelessness, that typographical errors abound, especially in the spelling of Greek words. Mr. Campbell has given us these in English letters, a plan of which we do not complain, but he should have been correct in his orthography. Instead of this we have amenos, as the Greek for wind, instead of anemos; evangelium for euangelion: angellos for angelos; dieaiama for dikaioma; dinaiotp for dikaiosis; and something so unintelligible to us in the following instance, that we shall quote with extraordinary care. 'Ambassadors of Christ, Ilzeopepus (from presbeuo, to go upon, or perform an embassy).' Appendix, p. 12. Typographical errors in plain English can, for the most part, be corrected by the reader; but it is an aggravation of the mischief in the case before us, that the English reader, for whom, of course, these morsels of Greek learning are intended, cannot make the necessary corrections. He must take everything as