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
cpfitt ) $ i ( ntaU (* tt to ajbsQj \\\ & truth which wjjj - , sai #% tile ;; yEfrbljc ^ l . Critic . 9 ^ ^^ T / 9 » n > 94 «; . of . Edging of tl ^ ^ g e ^ tj d ^ e f ^ i ijy / pf ir ^ u scripts , i ^ io ^ sjgfo ^ of 4 > y , tj ^ fte ^ arker ., i A ( }^ e . ^ diupps ^ * p wjadi ; l ^ r . JU refers , 141 phs -ahov ^ quotation , ? coa $ ist of * , written ipQrp i&s { and , we cunclude , f | O ^/ th ^ , f ^ pt of iiis using the word tmnsorib ^ kt t £ va t h $ , speaks : of > ueh ) , he ; , has merely varied his statement , }\
a ^ cl < st x , illustrated it . On tlic other ha $ tj , if , he have in view printed •'^ editions of the ^ me work * " the two cases are not quite parallel ; the differ , e ^ t readings of successive iiupressioi > £ ; of a volume neither equalling in iruuihjer ; those of ancieut manusciipts rior being i-mpu table to exactly the same . causes . Under wliat edition v ^ e should rank a copy of a printed
book—what date we should assign to it — -rmay be determined sometimes negatively and sometimes positively . We shall give an examp le of each UijethocI ^ taken , from English translations 6 £ the -Bible . Archbishop Laud is $ 3 i < jL to feave fined the company of SfcatiQMers ^ intjie court of Star-chainbeiy . ibr their inadvertent oinisMon of tlie wdrd . jso / in one of the ten
commandznents . Here a single and cunous Circumstance enables us to ascertain whether' or not copies of tkilt- impression of the Scriptures circulate among us ? AncuHer old editicrn presents a peculiarity in the versioH of a clause in the third chapter 01 . Gehiesis ; which peculiarit ; y
characi ^ fi $ e $ that specific impression , and fi # s eVei \ bestowed on it a name . ^ ncient ^ li ^ nuiBcripts . qC the Greek t < eXt po far , resemble such printed editions as these that we can- in some ipeasure distinguish them b y importaut hxternql niarks , which obviate th < 5 : r Qi 0 ici 4 lty of judging whether *' . a copy .- has been transcribed ' . ' frmn
Qne of t ^ epi , ' * A { previous discrimination of . test ' s , thai have various aJiades ofr d ^ tereqc ^ . ^ vyould seem to be imprjactfc ^ e ui the exten t which Dr . Lavu-ence'hqLtL contejaitplaced . . We qp . ^ v ari : i v ^ . a , t s h » s third chapter , of which the contents „ are , Cxirsbactis
^^ ^' \ c ^^^^ J ^ m . \] S [ o sU * n < tard Uxt . / Prin&p le * $ f cledification . JaUac&W- ' 2 i 2 # ccw&cy q £ hh vatqulapums . Corrected statement . ^? r" ^ TtTe var& > ufi ' x > r ^ adings of a mftnu-8 C ^ I |^ ^ ^ ife ^ r ^ hlf ^ iieAki ^^ * " fii It's departure from the received text , toi ^ ht
Untitled Article
RtmifWi . ^ - ^ L ^ urence" oat Griesi'ach ' s Greek Testam&h r . 2 ^ 0
Untitled Article
afford the surest basis for , a cln $$ \ f * ' * $ tiQiP 9 were the received to be considered as the standardJea ; ty with . which ali manuscripts generally accorded , but frtfifia * which they occasionally , aud ouly occ ^ sionally , deviated . " 29 , 30 .
In otber words , w ere it ' s correctness—it ' s title to be the received and standard text—assumed ; a postulatwn which , we might have thought , , a Jiibiical Critic of the nineteenth century would hardly ask us to . admit ! 4 < Upou this supposition , '? adils Dr . L » . ( i the character of snch occasional deviations would seem to form the sole object of investigation . "
^ Hie sqle object of Griesbach ' s labours was the discovery of the ancient text——the formation of one more accurate than any winch preceding critical editors had given to the world . Ta have made the received text his standard , would have been incongruous with his design f for he would thus have bestowed on that text a d > &- * tinction to which , in the-judgment .-of the best scholars , it cannot substantiate it ' s claim .
* ' But . Griesbach / ' continues tl * e " Remarker , i ( allows tlie existence of no stundui'd text , and argues that the received , as principally conformable ^ cith the Byzantine , is the worst of the three . When therefore he stepped out of ' fhe path troddeit by preceding critics , ftfewi annihilated the credit of the receive ** text as a coniraori standard , evrti assJert- *
ing it ' s inferiority to every other , on £ bt he not likewise to hare departed ffvn » their accustomed uiode of solely con-tern * - plating in manuscripts their . variaticnis from this ; because the object of bi& rt&eapch simply japp <* ars to have been , not the c / taractei : of particular deviation * front untf individual text , but the get ^ eral 00 ittcifletides of a manuscript with one te : ct above another 7 ** 1 b .
Griesbach ' s " object of research , " was A TEXiP FORMED OF THE BK £ T READINGS OF THE BEST MANUSCRIPTS : and it were difficult to shew l } ow ije Cf > ulcl hjvtr executed his design more conveniently , impartially and effectually than l > v taking the , reached text asr hia . basis ,
andviaoticin ^ wily ih ^ e nurwe . 'mein <* na * hie « f ' tbrf- deviations . Prom it . . 'rhis ; w « i >< pr « fisinei is ihe cotuse » almost m ^ riabiy '" - ptivsiied -by resY ) eft ^ bKf philological editors of the Crreek aad ' Latia classics . Of the inforioiitv of
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), April 2, 1817, page 239, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2463/page/47/
-