On this page

• Text (1)

  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.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• 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

    mixed text , became , in writing tb ^ m the Scribes eompared more ancient ( idpies of different recensions , and inclined sometimes to one , sometimes to the-otbbh according to the dictates of no vdry enlightened critical judgment . The general disposition being much . more to add than to take away , ( of course we do not refer to instances which may be explained as the effects of accident , } we judge of the testimony of any particular recension , -rather from those . copies which steadily omit what is found in other recensions * than

    from those which introduce what may be supposed to be taken from copies of a different recension . If a passage be marked in any copy with asterisks or obeli , it is clear that the Scribe was acquainted With ana had a respect for manuscripts which omitted it ; and if , whilst the great body of manuscripts following a certain recension , contain a passage , it is thus marked in several copies which are remarkable for a mixture of the readings of a different recension , we of course conclude that the passage was not

    contained in that other recension . Now , this is exactly the case with the story of the adultress : it is found generally in the Constantinopolitan manuscripts , but it is either omitted or marked with various signs or doubt , or inserted merely as a supplement at the end of the gospel , m a considerable number of those manuscripts which are most remarkable for a sprinkling of Alexandrian readings ; of course we conclude , that the story was not found in die manuscripts of the Alexandrian recension , which , in a case of this kind ,

    is a strong presumption against genuineness . Respecting the extraordinary variety of readings in the passage itself , we are told by Mr . Bloomfield , ( fromlStaudlin , ) that " those who maintain that it is spurious can no more account for this circumstance than those who defend its authenticity . " This seems to us to be a mistake . Alt tfho have

    remarked the variety of readings as important in the argument , must' have done so on the same ground—a belief that the original of the story must nave existed in some other language , and that the different modes of expressing in Greek precisely the same idea , are so many different translations ; take , as an example , the first words , vii . 53 :

    K < £ * eirogevdv } £ xa < rrof iiq rbv ofato avrov inogEv&ytTGtv ditvjXOtv toi " &cc dif ^ KBov rhv r 6 % ov —or the closing ones , iropevov kou / z / ujxtTi deprave t ?> Xonrbv

    vteaye dnb tZv vpv A passage which appears , in different copies , full of such variations as these , wul hardly be believed to be in its original language ; and the doubt which appears to have existed as to the proper place of inserting it , whether in its . usual place , or after Luke xxi ., greatly favours the idea of its being an addition fftftri ebrafc other source . —We know of none more probable mm fhie Go ^ ei pj t ^^ Sr ^ . . i t . We acknowledge that an apprehension of the possible injurious tendency of the passage might account For im suppression and lessen the authority of lectiohatia against it ; but if this Were the cause of its omiflwon "we Bliould hantty find ft absent from ^ me of the oldest and best manuscripts ; aiwL ? 1 1

    < * m ™ $ » mw ^ wwHBFt t ? J ? pt ^ ^ IS WEErcL w * * W ^ J * ^ imitSMX g ^ nejally dh > ulattod Watt beliftved , and which , ni ^ We b 0 wi tmeum

    Untitled Article

    66 ^ Review . — -Btoomfield ' * Htceft&o Synoptic * Annotation * Sabra .

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Aug. 2, 1827, page 600, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1799/page/48/