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
that @ £ « is supported by those venerable versions , the Vulgate and Syriac Posterior , but forgets to tells us that the Sahidic , Coptic and Armenian read Kvpfe ( the Ethiopic is ambiguous ) , and the old Syriac Xpi ^ -s , so that the weight of the oriental versions ( so important in such an inquiry ) is against him . He rests on the evidence of Chrysostom , Basil , Athanasius , Epiphanius , and Ambrosius , but does not inform us that the true reading of the
passages quoted from Athanasius , Basil , and Chrysostom , is doubtful ; that in another place Chrysostom certainly quotes the text with Kvpfe ; that Athanasius denies the expression *• blood of God * ' being found in Scripture , attributing it to the Arians ; and that Chrysostom endeavours to account for the doctrine of our Saviour's deity not being taught in the book of Acts , which he need not have done if he had read 0 e £ in this place . Lastly , Mr . Bloomfield asserts , that
* ' — u Luke wrote ® b 8 , we cap account for the jre ^ din ^ s Kvpfe or Xj » r «; but if Kvpfe , what could possibly induce anyone to change it into Ses , which , considering the words in immediate connexion with it , is an uncommon expression ? Since , then , there has been wilful alteration , to whom are we to lay the charge of it i To the orthodox ? Certainly not ; for they could take no exception at it . To tlie heterodox ? Yes , surely ; since they ( i . e . the Pelagians , Nestorians , Arians , and others ) could not but see the inevitable conclusion to be drawn from it in proof of the divinity of the Lord Jesus ; and they , therefore , may be ju 6 tly suspected of having made the alteration . "
Now , did it never occur to our learned annotator , that Kvpfe being an ambiguous word , sometimes applied to the Deity and sometimes to men , very frequently to our Lord where even the most orthodox acknowledge that there is no reference to his divine nature , would naturally give rise to both the other readings as interpretations , without any supposition of fraud ? And
when the difference can be easily accounted for without accusing any of wilful corruption , is not this the most probable as well as the most candid explanation ? And if we must suppose the corruption to be wilful , would not a reference to other cases lead us to suspect the orthodox as soon as any heretics ? Or what right has our author first to take it for granted that @E 8
is the genuine reading , and then argue that the orthodox are above suspicion because they could have no wish to alter it ? Could they have had no possible wish to alter Kvpfe ? Did the change of this word into & £ & , whether wilfully made by them or not , answer no purpose of theirs ? For our parts , we are little disposed to suspect wilful corruption of the word of God in those who profess to reverence it , and to make it the standard of their
faith , we do not accuse the orthodox of any such crime , though there are in this case far better grounds for suspecting them than the heterodox ; but we feel confident that no one , whatever be his opinions , who has examined with any care the various readings of the New Testament , and understands
any thing of the principles of criticism , can fail to conclude that Griesbach has here restored the sacred text in the exercise of his usual sagacity and impartiality , and that Mr . Bloomfield ' s attempt to defend the common reading only shews how prejudice and party feeling can mislead the judgment , and render useless the erudition even of those who are best accomplished for the work of criticism .
Untitled Article
158 Bloomfield ' * Recensio Synopttca Annotations Sacra .
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), March 2, 1829, page 158, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2570/page/6/
-