On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
idea , that the pobltias & med \ o \ n& \ bath possessing sanative power only at intervals , with tlife comraoii notion of the actual descent of an angel and the miracul 6 us character of the cures : yet in conclusion , he appears to acquiesce in the opinion , which seerns to us to admit of little doubt , that the fourth verse , from which the whole difficult ^ arises , is an interpolation , and gives , from Kuinoel , a good abstract of thd reasons against its genuinenes 3 , which make a large portion of the previous annotations useless .
In the long note on ch . viii . 1—11 , Mr . Bloomfield zealously defenq ' s the genuineness of this much disputed passage . We acknowledge the justice of many of the observations he has given from Staudliri and Kuinoel , yet we cannot help still looking on the story with somewhat more than suspicion . To the internal arguments against it , we , indeed , attach little or no importance , and we are almost inclined , as Beza seems to have been to receive it as substantially true , while we feel obliged to question its genuineness a * a
portion of St . John ' s Gospel . The few remarks we shall offer will relate t : > the evidence of manuscripts respecting the whole passage , the variety of reading ia the manuscripts which contain it , and the modes of accounting for its omission if genuine , or its insertion if spurious . Staudlin observes that the number of manuscripts which have the story is far greater than of those which omit it . This is true ; for , according to Griesbach , it is contained in 203 , omitted in 79 ; but we are not to consider all those which contain the passage as supporting its authority , for 35 which mark it with
asterisks or obeli , and 18 which insert it in other places , must rather be counted against it v which would make the numbers 150 for its genuineness , 132 against—no very important majority considering how much greater the tendency is to take in than to leave out . " A judgment must , however , " Mr . B . justly remarks , " be formed , not from the number only , but the weight and excellence of manuscripts and the consent of different recensions . " The testimony of A . and C 13 objected to , because these valuable
manuscripts are mutilated in this part of St . John ' s Gospel , and it is supposed hardly possible to decide with certainty whether or not the lost leaves contained the suspected verses . With respect to A we think if the acknowledged integrity , acuteriess and experience of Wetstein , the clear statement of Woide , and the actual inspection of the printed copy of the manuscript which enables every one to form a tolerably correct judgment , fail to produce conviction , there must be a very obstinate determination not to be
convinced ; and as the portion of C , which is here lost , is still smaller , ( only one leaf , ) we have no hesitation in saying , that every one who has attentively examined a fac-simile specimen of the manuscript will feel , that the confidence of Wetstein and Grieshach on the subject is not without reason . We ourselves have scarcely more doubt than if we had actually inspected the lost leaves of both manuscripts . As it is evident that the addition belongs to the Constantinopolitan recension from the general testimony of manuscripts
of that class , its absence from such a manuscript as L , in which Constantinopolitan readings prevail , but which has a considerable mixture of Alexandrian or Western ones , proves it to have been absent from at least one of those recensions , ( which by a comparison of other authorities is found to be '
the Alexandrian , ) whilst the blank space , shewing it to have been known to the ; Scribe , ' ^ hd perhaps implying ' that he h ^ d some inclination to insert it ' only ; agrees witfc the known ( act that his text is partly derived from Consta \ nfciqopolitan copies . ^ . * . ' . ' ., w We must recollect , ih . ^ hese inquiries , that there is no perfect standard of any ^ eiieiision of ' tlie sacred teifc and that ifriaiW taaausctf ] pts ^ liavfe a very
Untitled Article
Review . —Bhdti / kftehl ' s Recenfto Synoptlea Annotatioms ' Sacra . 599
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Aug. 2, 1827, page 599, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1799/page/47/
-