On this page
- Departments (1)
-
Text (4)
-
Untitled Article
-
BIBLICAL CRITICISM.
-
Untitled Article
-
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
though not so greatl y * preponderating against © sou ; and accordingly you will see , that in the small and abridged edition , printed by Griesbach at Leipsic , and reprinted in America in 1806 , although he still rejects © ecu from the text , yet he prefixes to it the sign , which he uses to shew that there is a good deal to be said in its favour .
In the London reprint of 1810 , of the large edition , the Editors very properly endeavoured to insert all the Addenda from Birch ( published in Griesbach ' s Appendix ) into their proper places in the notes , but they forgot that , in this instance , by so doingy without any notice to the reader , they
made the note self-contradictory j in one place stating , that the . Vatican read © sou , in another , that no MS , of any value did so . This last statement , the Improved Version has copied , but it is important that it should not be put quite so strongly in the next edition .
It is to be hoped , care will be taken ( in the reprint , which 1 understand is now in progress in London , of the large edition of Griesbach ) , to rectify the bad arrangement of this note . It
should be left as it stood originally , and the additional matter subjoined in a distinct form , that the reader may be easily aware of the circumstance , and draw his own conclusion , as to the difference which the new
evidence adduced forms , in the case that can be made in favour of < &eov . There will be no occasion to add the note from Birch , which Griesbach ha * quoted , stating the grounds for his asserting the Vatican reading to be © sea , because if they will get the MS *
itself examined as I have done , they will be able to state the fact positively from their own knowledge .. 1 he MS * is not now so easy of access , having been removed with tlie rest of the spoils of Europe to its old abode in the Vatican Library at Rome . OBSCURUS .
Untitled Article
( SSI )
Biblical Criticism.
BIBLICAL CRITICISM .
Untitled Article
On a Mistake in the Improved Version . Sir , Mar . 3 , 1818 . TH ERE is a considerable error in a critical note of the Improved Version upon a passage of great importance , which ought , at any rate , not to have found its way into the last edition . I take the liberty of
correcting it here , because it might , perhaps , impeach the fairness of Unitarian criticism if it passed unnoticed . On Acts xx . 28 , the anuotator observes , " the received text reads * God / upon the authority of no MS . of note or value / ' Now , Sir , it so
happens * that the Vatican , which is perhaps the MS . of the greatest value , reads © sov , ns vtcQuld have appeared to the annotator , if he had consulted the very important appendix subjoined by Griesbach to his second
edition , or had carefully read the note as it stands in the London edition , blundering as it is and self-contradictory , owing not so much to the oversight of that great scholar , as of his English editors .
The case stands thus : Griesbach , in publishing his first volume containing the Gospels , had the assistance of Professor Birch's Collations from the Vatican and other MSS . ( alluded
to in the Introduction to the Improved Version , p . xiii . ) from which work he quotes all his readings of that important MS . The Acts of the Apostles , as he relates in his Preface to the
second volume , were printed off before he got a sight of the Professor ' s Collations of that part of the New Testament , and he , therefore , wrote the note in question , without any relation to , and indeed -without any knowledge of what the Vatican reading was , and in that state he makes the assertion
which the Improved Ver&ion has copied , that no MS . of value was in favour of the received text . He added , however , an Appendix to the second volume , as he observes in the Preface , containing the Collations from Birch , relating to the Acts , and in that , the Vatican B . and two other
MSS . are described as reading © sou . This alters the case very materially , it ml ] be observed , though it still , I imagine , leaves the evidence greatly ,
Untitled Article
f- , ' . Ckichester , Feb . 4 , 181 a * WAS highly gratified by the abU I explanation which your excellent Correspondent W * JL ha $ given in
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), May 2, 1818, page 331, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2476/page/43/
-