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

    ing Griesbach , and Wfakefield , under these circumstances , as evidence that the ^ Ethiopic version furnishes no support whatever to tbe common reading . His next reason for retaining the common printed reading is not a little curious ; It is , " tbe

    variation between tbe Syriac and Coptic versions . " In the note on Acts xvi . 7 ? this critic had affirmed that the united authority of the Syriac , iEthjopic , and Coptic versions is to him irresistible . Now , the variation of two

    of them , if not of the three , becomes equally irresistible . I would allqw something to their agreement * if the suspicion be not founded that their authority is one and aipgle , an . cjtha . t it is , at all events , but a slight authority , whether single or double or . treble . But from their variation I should draw

    a , very opposite conclusion from that , which Mr . Wakefield has de < - duced . I should conclude that tbe original Greek employed a vjrojd which might naturally give j-j se ^ to the variation , which the

    MogjJ , Xty W * Lord , would easily have jdone , but the word < 3 > £ Qf fpLtylf surely never could . This W 4 II appear more obvjotisly from ttxe ; jnaturt : of the variation pleaded . " The former , ( the Syriac

    version ) has the church of the ^ jsssiAW , and tbe latter , ( the Coptic ) the church of the Loud /' J / xvpiQS _ i \ ad been the Greek of

    4 ^ 5 copies which these translators y # ed ,. ibis variation is indubitably ac ^ oju njte d fo r ; but ® eq $ could Qffyep have beep in their te * t , at lr /

    1 W& Wh \ ^ ^ ° ) " * K % flfcrffeb'W ^ - AVXt- ^ f 6 ^ Mfifef ^ ^^/ h ^^ r ^ im may t > e questioned . But what w $ Mr . \ Yat « fi « ld ? * Tbis want

    Untitled Article

    of uniformity excites in me a s ! i ? qng ^ suspicion of ( interpolation , in consequence of * t ) ie peculiar sentiments of the translators * or

    the authors of those manuscripts which they followed /* Can such a critic be justly allowed * th $ praise of judgment ? What is thef natural inference ? Not surely that those translators or author *

    had delicate Unitarian consciences which induced them to reject such a word as ® eofy and to adopt such an inoffenswe . and choice word as 7 tvpio $ . No proof whatever ^ an be given of such a ; bia ^ 4 on # h «

    minds of these ancient translators , whatever might be $ aid of modern * ungodly text-cprr ^ upt ^ rs ^ f Thi $ variation woa | d r h ^ v ^ ^ bevv ^ a , ! c one glance * ' , to iUov eyeys JDf ? a ttvtfi

    cruic , what was . the . p ^ o pabJ e- tex | from \? hich they * translated vthi ^ f passage . They qa ^ npt bp > sai f l Xo vary , one from vtjie other ,. g ^ ay ^ than might be expected when the same original was to be rendered

    into two independent lapg ^ agies . They both vary . JVQ Ub t ^ e -fR . T <* but the greater variation ^ the $ Ie # *' siah , gives all possible ^ weigtitito the inference that &eof * VHi » s fiot the text used , and when £ ompajL > ed together , both almost ^ esisti ^ biy prove t ^ at the reading w $ * KUplO $ . c ,, .. . . .

    Such were the reasons t ^ thad sufficient power tq command the mind of . Mr . Wakefield ; reasons , in one instance . not founded JU > any thing but mUtake , i ^ not i g * norance ; and ' u ^ ^^ ' jc ^ F- . ^ stance , totally ^ e ^ o ] k ^ jf . by \ kf very pjremis ^ 69 ^ icj ^ & M e # JfflWt To setUe a ^ teftt ^ hU n ^^ ^ mS ^

    recur to '|^ itea | l « ^ m ^ m * 3 ff igy * & ^ f ^^ M ^ Wi f ever we may think of nis Ability to render the text which h # may

    Untitled Article

    ^ 94 Observations on Mr . fffWkefitfd ' * * TraH * tati&h ofActrxx . * g ^

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), June 2, 1813, page 394, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2429/page/38/