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
** readily convertible to party purposes " than any of those hypotheses which have been maintained or invented for the sake of upholding , in almost every point , the integrity of the received text . In an age of Biblical criticism , false theories on this subject will soon experience the fate which they
deserve . This pamphlet of Dr . Laurence ' s , would have been improved by the omission of the first chapter , which does little credit to his candour and discernment . The greater part of the
second , is more relevant to the design avowed in his title page , and treats of the following : topics , Origin of GriesbaclCs theory . IBengcL Semlcr . Mumber of Classes . Remarks upon their limitation to three . Inadequacy of the tesult . It thus opens :
" The critical talents of Gnesbach have long ranked high in the estimation of the public ; and an implicit confidence seems to be placed in the rectitude of his judg-• meixt and in the accuracy of his
stateittents . If I do not however mistake the character of the man from his writings , he Is himself the last to claim infallibility in the one case , or impeccability in the ether . He certainly may be , and I believe he is , what Dr . Marsh denominates
him * * -the most consummate critic that ever undertook an edition of the New Testament . ' * But his perfection will still only be relative , upon a comparison with the merits of bis predecessors in the same arduous department . Complete exemption from error either ia hypothesis or in collation is surely what the vainest &t verbal critics will scarcely venture to rfcteate . "
Afterpremising that infallibility cmd impeccability have never , as far as our knowledge extends , been claimed for Griesbach , we request our readers to keep in mind this attestation , by the Remarker , to the modest pretensions and unrivalled ' skillrof . the Professor . The acknowledgmeut indeed seems to be almost
extorted from Or . Laurence , whose aim is evidently to depreciate , rather than to raise , Griesbach in the estimation of the public . Vet he eouJd not decently oppose the opinion of siO exquisite a judge of these matters is ; the present Bishop of Llandaff . jiVJtU apparent reluctance therefore * MfchtteRV ' Introd . &c . Vol . tl . p . 62 t .
Untitled Article
he adopts it is Ms 6 wii , ittip jnim £ ~ diateiy has the gb ^> dx } e ss to adrooiiish us that Griesbacb ' s perfection ' will still be nothing more than refaliu ^ . All human perfection is so : if then
Dr : JL . ' s observation convey any pertinent and appropriate meaning , it imports that the Professor is not , in point of time , the first editoT of * th £ text of the Greek Testament , thai
his merits , be they , in other views , what they may , are not original and novel . How this intimation agreed with the statement , in p . 6 , concerning ' * every novel mode of ascertaining the validity of a reading , ' * Dr . ' Laurence has not judged proper to e * t * plain .
Against Griesbach he does not prefer the accusation ** of permitting his theological prejudices to influence his criticism ; " nor does he say of him that lie was " the vainest of vei ^ bal critics . * ' Both these charges he seems to level against Wetstein , whose name however , hotwithstands
ing his faults , is entitled to great honour among the Editors of the New Testament . It were incorrect to pronounce of him and 6 f pengel that they were unbiassed by attachment td their respective doctrinal systems ^ Nothing is nrore to be desired- than that the characters of the interpreter of the Bible and of the critical editor
of it ' s text should be uniformly separated . Wetstein Woofd ' hslv © better consulted his useful ness and credit , by this discrimination . Yet his merits have shone forth wrth a brighter lustre in proportion as his claims on
our gratitude hav $ been rigorously and impartially investigated : and Marsh in nis annotations on MichaeKs , has , with the candour and knowledge of a true scholar , done justice to the calumniated fame of the Remonin
strants' Professor : ^ kecti * re $ > % too , he attests the accuracy and faithfulness of this ettiinently sagacious and learned person . The principal object , nevertheless , of Dr . Lawrence in mentioning Betiffel and Weistein , appears to be that he might direct our attention to f % the materials With which Gries&ach erected the superstructure of his critical
aysf MicbaMJlia * I fit rod . &c , VoUiI . > M—865 . ' - ; X Pfert Ii . ^ p . tft » -ffS ' .
Untitled Article
i ^ O Review . —Zatit&tce an Gr&sBdcVs Creek Testm&H . V
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), March 2, 1817, page 170, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2462/page/42/
-