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

    VSWim W&y , eft ** Sfe Reinarker thus H ^ HSftiiW M . P »«? K ?» - ^ » Mrg ^ h « j ^ arophlet ^^ , jj ^ dettyil qf notorious and Wqu ^ atiofjcd factsi "It is admitted tfuit-. the first . writer , who pointed out the utility o / a" technical " classification of MSS . was BengeL" Again , $ t That Bengel indeed was the original projector of the system alluded to , Griesbach himself was too candid

    either lo deny or to conceal . * ' Nor ivas Bengel his " only predecessor in the same path . The immediate author of apparently the precise plan adopted by him w , as Semler , one from , whose public instructions he professes to have derived njuch useful information , and whose

    writings-he held in the highest esteem ; perhaps the more so , because that adventurous critic was certaiuly never suspected of treading in the beaten track of preconceived opinion . "Pp . 14 , 15 .

    After Griesbach ' s frank and ingenuous acknowledgments of his obligations t © former writers on the text of the New Testament , \ ve needed " ghost" to ass tare us that this illustrious man neither was nor claimed to be an unaided labourer in the field of criticism . Dr \ . Laurence ' s purpose however is to wound the fan > e of Griesbach

    through the side of Semler ; and hence Sernler is brought before us with some parade and much injustice . '• That adventurous critic , " says the Remarker , € wa-s never suspected of treading in the beaten track of preconceived opipion , " Jbr whkch reason ^ as he is pleased to conjecture , Gricshadi held his writings

    \ n the higher esteem ! This insidious censure , too , the nigrcs succus loliginis , falls from the pen qi a man who had hefore spoken of Grieshach's ** patient frauds" ( g ) , and admitted that he was a most consummate critic" ( 8 ) , and who afterwards ( 30 ) declares , " Few

    writers express themselves more dispassionately than Griesbach , or more remarkably unite modesty of statement with confidence in opinion . " And is it probable that an author possessing these Qualities would be lightly enauoouWl with an ** adveivturxHjs critic , "

    solely because he is adventurous , and -delights to leave the beaten road ? Dr . Laurence confutes himself , and , in his fceai to detract from Griesbach ' s estahUsbe < j . and weJJ-earned re £ utati , 6 n , is guilty of inconsistencies . TSor shpuM trie memory of fce , mler r ^ e treated with contempt or ¦ his name pronounced

    Untitled Article

    lfc $ wv ) . **~ LauTenc * on { fcizshyctt ^ &reek Testament . , *?!

    Untitled Article

    with ^ ^ pe ^ er . Knowledge , virtue ami human happiness owe much to writers whose aim has been the detection an # exposure of error , \ vherever it was found . Of Semler ' s excellent service 3 in Biblical criticism no man who is in any degree acquainted with the study

    can be ignorant . To his learning , correctness and sagacity , an honourable testimony is borne by Marsh : ? and it is no mean praise that his inquiries afforded solid assistance to Griesbach ' s critical researches . We should be

    happy if some Correspondent of the Monthly llcpository would favour us with a memoir of the life and writings of Semler : our knowledge of them is imperfect ; hut we perceive that , in the

    preface to his Apparatus ad liberalein Novi Testamenti interpretationem * he asserts the principles of a consistent Protestant , and solemnly disclaims selfconfidence and a love of novelty * - — nulli levitati aut temerilali meoe olsecuttis .

    The present censor - of Gnesbach objects that this editor ( 20 ) " confines himself solely to the triple division c ^ f an Alexandrine , a Western , and a Byzantine , text , " while ( . 18 ) " he admits the propriety of a tnore extended division . "

    Now the obvious reply is that Griesbach has done what he could , and has done it well : he has accomplished all that his materials enabled nim to accomplish . In laying before the world the result of his examination into the oldest and most important of ( hs

    * ' editions ** of the Greek text , he has enabled us to ascertain this text witji far greater precision than was before attainable . " No man , " according ro Michaeiis ,-f has deserved , so highly of the public in regard to the arrangement of the manuscripts of the Greek

    Testilhent under theit respective editions , as Griesbach . * ' Michaelis however wsis of opinion J " that there have existed four principal editions : the Western , or that formerly nsed in countries where

    * He calls him ( Michaelis' In trod . &C . Vol . II . p . 639 ) " the immortal Semler " and -a " great critic and divine , " and says that he " made more . discoreries ia Sacred criticism , and ecclesiastical history , thyi the envy of his cod temporaries has been willing to admit . " And ttt |» . 75 » be speaks of Semler ' s " moderation » nd impartiality . " f - + Introd . 6 oc . II . 176 . ? 16 .

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), March 2, 1817, page 171, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2462/page/43/