at which the painter died, and the numerous and splendid works which he left behind him. The acme of excellence in modern needlework has been reached, it seems, by our own countrywoman, Miss Linwood; who has carried it to such perfection, that it is difficult to distinguish her performances from painting. One of her pieces occupied her for ten years; and for another she has been offered three thousand guineas, and has refused them. This extraordinary artist has now attained to fifteen years beyond the full age of man, and her eyesight no longer serves her. Lady Wilton predicts a brilliant era for needlework from the importation of the Berlin wools and patterns. The former she states are only dyed in Berlin; being manufactured at Gotha. There is room in this branch of art, according to her ladyship, for genius, even the genius of a painter to exert itself; and as we have full confidence in the capabilities of our fair countrywomen, we hope to see her prediction verified. We presume that this volume is her ladyship's first production, as her style, though generally good, is scarcely that of a practised writer. There are some errors in the work apparently of carelessness; and others which we fear must come under the graver denomination of errors of taste. Her work is interesting and improving; there is somewhat too much of extraneous matter introduced to make up the book, but even that matter is entertaining, sometimes curious, and therefore there is no very strong objection to it. The very nature of the work, so proper for and characteristic of, a female, would cover in our eyes a multitude of faults. We should be sorry to hurt the feelings of an apparently amiable, and certainly accomplished woman; and we have spoken as we have because we like her work, and would wish to see it more perfect than it is. As a further proof of our good intentions, we would take the liberty, with all respect and courtesy to hint, that if ladies would eschew fine writing, they would be much finer writers. Art. VI. The Sacred Writings of the Apostles and Evangelists of Jesus Christ, commonly styled the New Testament, translated from the Original Greek by Doctors George Campbell, James Mc. Knight, and Philip Doddridge. With Prefaces, carious Emendations, and an Appendix. By ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, of Bethany, United States. From the Fourth American Edition. London: 1838. AS S the revelation of his will is among the greatest benefits which God has conferred upon men, so translators of the scriptures are among the greatest benefactors of their kind. God has spoken to men in the language of one people; but it was with an intention that all people should understand him, and it is of the utmost importance that all people should understand him. Towards this end he has done nothing by supernatural means. Deeming the exercise of the human mind. adapted to this work, he has left it in the hands of men; and the labor of a translator intervenes, as a necessary and inestimable step, between the existence of a revelation from heaven and the knowledge of its import by the various tribes of men. Nor is the translation of the Scriptures once into every language, either by a single hand or a single set of hands, all that is to be desired. Without taking the extreme case (which, however, is far removed from impossibility) of gross incompetency or palpable unfaithfulness, it will be enough to say, that every translation must be imperfect; and, consequently, the mind of God must be imperfectly known to all persons in whose language only a single translation of it exists. The advantage of becoming fully acquainted with the divine will, otherwise than by reading it in the original tongues, lies exclusively in having several translations of it; by means of which you have the knowledge and skill of several persons employed for your instruction, and may compare the renderings of one with those of another. If, as we think, there is great value in such an advantage, it furnishes a strong reason for multiplying translations of the Scriptures. The allegation that such a state of things would produce perplexity, we take to be altogether untrue. Were there in the booksellers' shops a hundred different translations of the bible (just as with as great a variety of articles of any other kind), their relative value would soon be ascertained, and the best would command the market. Every translation is thrown into the midst of a community, who, in some of its component parts, either are at the time, or soon will be, able to judge of its merits. Even on mere literary performances the republic of letters has kept a sharp eye, so that no one has been able to foist upon the_reading world a false translation of Homer, Herodotus, or Xenophon; nor is the public in any degree embarrassed-on the contrary, they are assisted-by the existence of several translations of these ancient authors. However translations of the Scriptures might be multiplied, each would undergo a rigorous examination, by which its excellencies and defects would be effectually known, its errors corrected, its unfaithfulness rebuked; while each would contribute something of value to the general amount of biblical knowledge. Even with the few translations of it which we have into the English language, we could scarcely name an employment more edifying to a reflecting reader of the Scriptures, than, with the several works before him, to compare the one with the other. That the exercise of thought thus generated in the reader's mind will be free and independent is true, and it is for this reason that we like it. We are far from wishing that any person who reads the Scriptures in a translation should look upon that translation as the very word of God. To do so would be to attach divine authority to the sentiments of a writer, who, as human, must be fallible; and to sentiments which must, more or less, differ, in various ways, from the mind of God. Great mischief must result from such a process. Look, for example, at the exclusive confidence-we might say the superstitious reverence-with which the people of this country have been led to regard what is known as the authorized version, a confidence which it is reckoned by some persons so dangerous to shake; to what a multitude of mistakes, and artifices not a few, are the millions of Great Britain attaching the authority of everlasting truth! No. Let every translation of the Scriptures be looked on with grateful jealousy; gratefully as a help towards attaining the mind of God in his word, so far as we may find the author is worthy, but with jealousy, as nothing more than a help, and certainly no oracle. The hold which the mistranslations of the authorized version have on the minds of men, gives to some ecclesiastical errors a tenacity of life almost indestructible. And we wish the case altered by no other version from authority. To our minds, there is nothing so wholesome as individual effort in this department. Let us have the Bible as translated by single men, or, which is the same thing, by men in voluntary and unofficial association, out of whose labors we may extract all that is of sterling value, and, without ceremony, throw the rest into the fire. As many of these as you please. The more the better. On the general ground we have stated, we hail the appearance of Mr. Campbell and the volume before us; a volume got up in a style so neat, portable, and economical, that we cannot wonder if it should have a large circulation. If, upon examination, we find it worthy of commendation, we shall be happy to facilitate its progress; but, of course, in a matter so very serious, it will become us to be serious also. A translator of the Holy Scriptures takes upon himself a most solemn responsibility. He may not only fail of doing the great good he must be supposed to aim at, but, either ignorantly or wilfully, he may do great harm; and the watchfulness exercised over his operations, therefore, should be of the most searching description. Critics are, in a great measure, the guardians of the public against literary imposition; and, if our past labors have earned any measure of public confidence, we shall endeavor in this matter not to betray the trust. On no occasion can we have a deeper sense of our own responsibility. 6 Mr. Campbell does not profess to give to the world a new translation of the New Testament. He exhibits these sacred writings as translated by Drs. Campbell, Mc. Knight, and Doddridge, various emendations' only being added by himself. To a great extent the volume before us is thus withdrawn from criticism; inasmuch as the labors of the learned persons named have been long before the public, and fully stamped with its appreciation of their respective values. It would be preposterous now to criticize them anew. Nor, in so far as the book on our table consists of a republication of the translations of Drs. Campbell, Mc.Knight, and Doddridge, can it be said to constitute a new work at all; since the New Testament, containing the gospels according to Dr. Campbell, the epistles according to Dr. Mc.Knight, and the Acts and Revelations according to Dr. Doddridge, was published in England some years ago, and met, we believe, with general acceptance. What is new in the volume, so far as the translation is concerned, lies, first, in the blending of the translations referred to; and, secondly, in the further mingling of emendations on them all. It may be proper to show in what proportion the translation of the New Testament now before us, is the production of the three eminent men under whose name Mr. Campbell has ushered it into the world, and how far it is his own. The gospels appear to us to be taken principally, we might say almost entirely, from Dr. Campbell. We quote a few verses at hazard as a sample. DR. CAMPBELL. These men took the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen rollers with the spices, which is the Jewish manner of embalming. Now in the place where he was crucified was a garden, and in the garden a new monument, wherein no one had ever yet been laid. There they deposited Jesus on account of the Jewish preparation, the monument being near. John xix. 40-42. Then they took the These men took the body of Jesus, and body of Jesus, and swathed it up in linen, wound it in linen rollers, with the spices, accord- with the spices, which ing to the Jewish custom is the Jewish manner of of burying. Now in the embalming. Now in the place where he was cru- place where he was crucified was a garden, and cified was a garden, and in the garden a new se- in the garden a new pulchre, in which no tomb, in which no one man was ever yet laid. had ever yet been laid. There laid they Jesus There they deposited therefore, because of the Jesus, on account of the Jewish preparation day, Jewish preparation, the for the sepulchre was tomb being near. near at hand. Here Mr. Campbell evidently follows his illustrious namesake; and, throughout the gospels, this is almost a matter of necessity, inasmuch as Doddridge's translation is a harmony of the four Evangelists, from which it is not easy, perhaps not possible, to make out a direct translation of any one of them. The principal difference between the two Campbells-our coupling the names does not imply an equal estimate of the men-lies in the translation of the word uvnuɛtov, which the one has rendered monument, and the other, with better judgment, tomb. But will Mr. Campbell tell us why, in the very next verse which follows our quotation, he has rendered the same word, not tomb, but sepulchre? Dr. Campbell consistently renders it monument, as before; and we see no reason why our editor also should not have exhibited a similar consistency. In the epistles there is a greater mixture of Doddridge and Mc.Knight, than there is of Doddridge and Campbell, in the gospels. We give, as an example, a short passage from the first chapter of Ephesians. DODDRIDGE. Blessed be the God Blessed be the God Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ; according as he has elected us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unblameable in his sight; having, in love, formerly marked us out for adoption through Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his favor, with which he has highly favored us in the beloved. and Father of our Lord and Father of our Lord through love: who hath This, it will be seen, is much nearer to Mc.Knight than Doddridge, and so much the worse; but it is far from being wholly compounded of the two. In connecting the phrase in love with an unaccustomed clause of the sentence, we perceive that the editor follows Griesbach's punctuation, decidedly to a disadvantage. We give another specimen. For we know that, if Because we know, our earthly house of this that, when our earthly tabernacle were dissolv- house, which is a tent, ed, we have a building is destroyed, we have a of God, an house not building from God, an made with hands, eter- house not made with nal in the heavens. And hands, eternal in the A. CAMPBELL. For we know that, if the earthly house of this our tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, everlasting in the heavens. |