Be not righteous overmuch, neither make thyself overwise. - SolomonLetter 8 - THE NEW VERSION I remember once to have obtained a note purporting to be on the Bank of the United States. It had a fine appearance. The printing and the paper were excellent, and the writing was done in a very clear style. But the very first judge I presented it to, pronounced it a counterfeit. We compared it with an old one, which my friend said he knew to be genuine, because it had the appearance of going through a number of hands, and, must have been guaranteed good by all of them. By a superficial examination, both notes might have been considered genuine, but by holding them up to the light, there was a stamp, peculiar to genuine notes of the bank, discoverable in the paper of the old note, which was not in the new. This settled the matter - it was a counterfeit.
I have a book before me, excellently bound, labelled "LIVING ORACLES." The paper and printing are of the first order. Its language is quite after the modern fashion, (I speak technically.) In a Word, it is Mr. Campbell's third edition of his New Testament. And I think if you will attentively examine it, you will pronounce it as palpable a counterfeit as was ever imposed upon the community. It can never pass into many hands, for none except a Campbellite will ever receive it as genuine. Any one would be wrong in so doing. The fact is, it is defective in a material point - it does not set down rightly the true amount . No one but win be a loser in receiving it.
But to be more serious. I do not recollect ever to have seen the scriptures so perverted, so mutilated, to support a person's creed. Mr. Campbell had published his views to the world in his other writings and to sustain them, publishes what he is pleased to term a translation of the New Testament. His object must be apparent to every reader. No one who will receive it as a correct translation, but must embrace every peculiarity to be found in his writing. They stand too conspicuous to escape the most superficial observation. "A wayfaring man, though a fool," may perceive them.
We are told that this is a translation of Doctors George Campbell, James McKnight, and Philip Doddridge. It may be true, for aught I know, that a greater part of the conjunctions, prepositions, adverbs, and other unimportant matters, were translated by these individuals: but if you will attentively examine the prefaces, appendixes, notes critical and explanatory, &c., embodied in the book, you will discover that all the important matters came under the special supervision of Mr. Alexander Campbell, "printer and publisher, Bethany, Brooke county, Va." These doctors are but puppets, and he the wire-worker. At one time he was making George Campbell yield to Doddridge, and Doddridge to McKnight, and than Campbell, giant-like, compels the other two to succumb to his superior prowess. Now we behold the trio marching amicably together; anon, they start up with opposing fronts, and, in martial style, do war of words. But here, the master spirit interposes, and cuts short the contest by vanquishing all three. In order to prepare our minds the better to appreciate his labors, Mr. Alexander Campbell tells us in his preface that "there is a degree of clumsiness and verbosity in Doddridge, that subjected his writings to severe retrenchments," and to the polish, I presume, of his own classic pen. "There are several awkward and rather barbarous phrases," he tells us, in McKnight, "which seem to have been selected, rather because they differed from the common version, than on account of their own intrinsic worth. His punctuation," he continues, "and his supplements, are, in many instances, fanciful; and the latitude he has given to some Greek participles is not sufficiently warranted by the authority of Lexicographers and Grammarians." Aye, and Dr. Campbell had to undergo a purgation of "provincialiama,"so great an aversion has Mr. Alexander Campbell of Bethany, Brooke county, Va. To every thing that does not come up to the standard of his own refined taste. So, by retrenching Doddridge, clipping the wings of McKnight's fancy, and purifying Dr. Campbell, he has made this Babel speak one language - his own. The wren perched on the back of the eagle. (I use his own figure,) maneuvered so dexterously, as to make the noble bird soar toward heaven, or stoop to earth, as best suited its caprice or convenience.
To give a few specimens of Mr. A. Campbell's manner of dealing with these translators, we have only to examine his notes, &c. In the book we often find the word "immersion." He tells us that Drs. Campbell and McKnight only occasionally render it so; and Doddridge, I presume, never. But out of his great love to uniformity, what they have sometimes done, he has always done. He pursues a similar course with the word "congregation," substituting it instead of church, in every place where it occurs in the common version. He says, that "although Campbell and Doddridge do not always render it, they give us the best reasons why it should; and therefore, in his judgment, whatever they might have thought upon the subject, not only they, but McKnight also, should not sometimes, but always have translated "ekklesia," "congregation," and he accordingly writes it for them. Again he informs us that he has always given us "Dr. Campbell's translation of metanea and metanola in the books which he did not translate;" and hence, although Doddridge and McKnight rendered them by repent and repentance, yet, since Dr. Campbell prefers reform and reformation and as this translation accords best with Mr. A. Campbell's views, therefore he sets them down in the body of the work, as translations of Doddridge and McKnight. By thus mutilating his translators, he has made the book, a nondescript production. Who is responsible for the translation? Drs. Campbell, McKnight and Doddridge? No; could spirits disembodied revisit this world, at such a suggestion, the studies of these eminent individuals would rise and blush. It is the entire work of no one person, or set of persons, but the labor of many marred by a master hand, to suit his own utopian schemes. Where he could not torture their translations to his purpose by the aid of his own fruitful reason, he has gathered from others some favorite scraps to supply the deficiency. He has inter-mixed in the works of these Doctors, some translations of his own, and some that he has taken from other authors, as might best subserve his purposes. Think you, that in doing this, he does unto others as he would have them do unto him?
[New paragraph - bottom of page, the next five lines are blurred and cannot be transcribed.]
. . . base our faith. He has given testimony to the facts; and hence we give his writings the proper title." So your creed may read, but I must beg leave to dissent. If the Savior designed, by the selecting of his apostles, to make them witnesses for such a purpose, I think an attachment should have been taken out for some of them, for they have not all testified. There are others that should have been taken here to bear testimony. Why have we not [seen] the depositions of Andrew, Simon Peter's brother; of Philip and Bartholomew; of Thomas; of James, the son of Alpheus; and Lebbeus Thaddeus? These were appointed witnesses, and we should have had their depositions. But we have not a syllable of their writings. Indeed, but two, Matthew and John, of the whole dozen witnesses, have given any like formal testimony - have related the facts in full of the miracles, &c. to the jurors of modern days.
It appears to me rather absurd to call a man a witness that is relating things of which he has no personal knowledge. We are not authorized, from any thing recorded in the scriptures, that Mark and Luke were eye-witnesses of the facts concerning which you say they give testimony. Luke assures us in his first chapter, that he records the facts as related to him by others; and we have no doubt such was the case with Mark. Two of the witnesses are testifying then to things they never witnessed! And so might we say of the others. Matthew, for example, according to you, is a witness to testify of the transfiguration of the Savior, which only Peter, James, and John witnessed! This is something entirely out of the ordinary way of giving testimony - to testify from heresay [sic]! I had thought this was not considered testimony.
I wish to be distinctly understood. I doubt not the truth of every word to be found in the New Testament: it is only the reformed idea of there being none but historical faith - faith founded upon the testimony of witnesses, that I am, at present, examining. If the apostles were chosen to give testimony to what they saw and heard, they would have handed down to us their depositions either jointly or singly. This they have not done. But what have we got? Under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, we have all the Messiah did for our salvation: and the commandments and ordinances he has left for our observance. The glad tidings are related of those that were afar off, being brought nigh by the blood of the Savior - of the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world, that he, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, has come; that he has died to bring in everlasting salvation, and has ransomed us from the power of sin and grave. This good news is recorded by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Then how justly may we say, "The gospel (good news, glad tidings) according to (or, as written) by Matthew, Marie, Luke, and John."
========= [From the Tennessee Baptist, August 4, 1855, p. 1. Transcribed and formatted by Jim Duvall.]
More on John L. Waller
Baptist History Homepage