On this page
- Departments (1)
-
Text (3)
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
-
REVIEW.
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
** Still pleased to praise , yet not afraid to blame . " - —Port . ^
AftT . I .- —Remarks upon the Systematical Classification of Manuscripts adopted by ( h-xeshach ' in his Edition of' the Greek Testament . By Richard Laurence , LL . D . Rector of Mersham and of Stone , in the County of Kent . Oxford : Printed at the University Press , and Sold by Parker . Sold in London b y Rivingtons . 1814 . 8 vo . pp . 135 .
WJE take for granted that those of our readers to whom this article of Review is particularly submitted are conversant with the history of the text of the New Testamen t . " No question relative to it , " says Dr . Laurence , can be considered by Christians of any
denomination as wholly unimportant . " We proceed , accordingly , without further preface , to notice the statements and the reasonings of this writer . His pamphlet is divided into five chapters ; exclusively of a copious appendix . 0 n these we shall make some
observations , in their order . The first bears for it ' s title , GriesbacJis edition of the New Testament—Effects produced hy it . i € Of all th « critical editions of the Greek text the most celebrated is that of Griesbach . X ^ peculiar feature of his system , it is well knowo , consists in the arrangement of manuscripts under certain heads « r classes . "—Pp . 1 , 2 .
We do not impugn the accuracy of this short account of Grieshach ' s edition < c of the Greek text . " So far as it goes , it contains the truth , but not the tvhole truth . What has given such high ce-Iclyity to Griesbach ' s labours in this field ? What has obtained for him the suffrages of scholars widely differing from , each other in their religious creeds ? The answer must be his superiqr impartiality , skill and diligence . He has presented the world
with a critical edition of the Greek Testament which is not indeed perfect , yet which is at once the most correct and the most compendious that the public has seen . Future editors mav , no doubt , improve on Griesbach , as Griesbilcji has improved on his predecessor * . Let not his efforts be depreciated , or overlooked , merely because Re ouy enable those who couie after
Untitled Article
( 167 ) >* .
Review.
REVIEW .
Untitled Article
him to do more . The principle , or , a * . Dr . L . pleases to call it , ' * the peculiar feature , of his system" of . Biblical 9 x 1-ticism , ** consists , " unquestionably , " in the arrangement of manuscripts under certain heads or classes . ' * -His eminence however is built on his practical application of this principle *
The systematical arrangement of manuscripts , had occurred to former cri- > tics , as a matter of theory : forGriesbach the honour was reserved of rendering it instrumental to the promotion of sacred literature . Had the author of the Remarks . &c *
before us been as intent on doing justice to Griesbach as on counteracting the supposed ' < effects which have been produced by his repeated labours In critical correction , " he would have spoken more largely of the merits of this admirable editor . But even Gries « v bach must be slightly and coldly , praised , in order that Dr . Laureno © may hasten to calumniate and insult " the Unitarians : "
" when it was known that atl author , so highly respected as Griesbachj was preparing a second edition of Ji ^ SNew Testament , expectation was upon t lx * tiptoe among those , who , conscious that the received text will not * without $ . little spraining' satisfactorily entwine with ; their favourite tenets , are always anxiously anticipating the probable chances of relief attainable by an unreserved use of flid
critical pruning knife . The Unitari&iitt not only applauded and patronised bi $ ^ undertaking , but exerted every mean 9 ru their power to carry the work with CredTtf ' through the presp , and to give it publicity . " in this country . "—Pp . 2 , 3 .
And was " expectation upon ths ' tiptoe" only among " the Unitarians , **" while Griesbach prepared his secorifl ' . ' edition ? Are " the Unitarians " efc « " clusively his admirers ? Is a fondnesi for Biblical criticism confined to them f Can none besides estimate the value
of the services of the learned editor f " Xhc Unitarians" make no such arrogant pretensions . They know indeed that sound criticisn , whether it L > c employed mi the text or on the interpretation of the New Testament :, / cannot be unfux'uurjble to truth : to sound criticism they arc therefore
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), March 2, 1817, page 167, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2462/page/39/
-