fore the admirers of Griesbach can be permitted, with any show of reason, to claim for his edition the title with which it has been lately, and somewhat boldly, decorated, as the Standard Greek Text. And this brings us back to the point from which

we set out.

As we trust that our readers are now able, after all that we have said, to form some opinion of the merits of Griesbach's New Testament, and of the justice of its claim, at present, to the foregoing title, there will be less need for us to use many words in dismissing the publication last mentioned on our list. What good purpose it is designed for, or can be made to answer, we are at a loss to discover, except one, to which we shall presently advert. And, in the view of that, we could have wished that the editor had adopted some method of pointing out to the reader the particular passages in which it differs from the common authorized English version. It would then have enabled every one to discover at a glance the whole amount of Griesbach's alterations of the text, which now are likely to pass unnoticed. We have not gone through the needless labour of examining all those passages throughout; and therefore are not able to say with what degree of fidelity the alterations have been in general incorporated in the English text. Though we have, indeed, noticed occasionally some slight liberties taken with the common version, beyond what the exigency of the case required, of these we do not mean to complain. But we think it necessary to advert to one instance of the kind, of some importance on account of its doctrinal bearing. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, Chap. i. 8. Griesbach has chosen to change the punctuation, by omitting a comma, though he has not altered a word of the text. On this ground his Boston editor thinks proper to alter the common version, which reads thus, "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever," to the following, "But unto the Son, he saith, God is thy throne forever and ever." Now to set this matter in its true light, we have only to make three remarks. 1, The punctuation of the Greek Testament is of no manner of authority, because it was anciently written without any divisions of the kind, or even any spaces between words. Consequently it must be governed by, and not govern, the sense. 2, This passage is a quotation from the Greek version of the Septuagint, Psalm. xliv. 6. (Eng. Bible. Psa. xlv. 6.) But the Septuagint every where uses the nominative, & @sos, for the vocative, as in the present instance; and the phrase, "God is thy throne," &c. is a violent construction, which as Wetstein, himself observes, is unknown in Scripture. 3, The same form, eos, occurs

again in Heb. x. 7. in a quotation from the LXX. Psa. xxxix. 8. (Eng. Bib. Ps. xl. 8.) in which place it is rendered by the editor, "O God," in the vocative. We may now leave it to our readers to draw the inference.

As we have not yet said any thing concerning the result of Griesbach's labours in the correction of the New Testament, and the extent or number of the alterations which he has made in the received text, it may be proper to add a few words on that subject before we conclude. We have, at the cost of some labour, gone through the whole of his emendations; and we find that they amount (omitting such as are purely orthographical, as AaBid for Aavid,) great and small, in the whole of the New Testament, to the number of 1600; or, if we exclude the Revelation, where they are most numerous, to 1156. Out of these, however, we have been able to discover, in the whole New Testament, only 478; or, excluding the Revelation, 368, which in the slightest degree affect the phraseology, or can be made perceptible in an English translation. Now, if we deduct from these again, the great mass of such as are wholly insignificant, or merely synonymous, the number which really alter the sense will be found to be surprisingly small; and of such as have any bearing, however remote, on any point of faith or morals, still smaller. Of this last description Mr. Nolan has noted only fourteen, in five of which, strange to say, Griesbach does not differ from the received text. But to come to the point, there are, in fact, but three passages, which we have already referred to, of any real importance in reference to doctrine, in which he has felt himself authorized to change the common reading. This, then, is the sum of all his labour, and of that of all his predecessors in the same field of criticism. This is the result of the hundred thousand various readings (be the number what it may,) which have been collected from every quarter, against the received text of the New Testament. And now we would submit to our readers whether this is not a triumphant result? Triumphant in establishing on an impregnable basis the integrity of our common Scripture, and of the faith which we have built upon it. And yet this result, astonishing and gratifying as it must be deemed, receives still an accession of splendour, when we add, as we are bound to do, that even these few laurels which criticism has plucked from the received text of the New Testament, are not uncontested, and may perhaps still be reclaimed. Not only do Dr. Laurence and Mr. Nolan protest against Griesbach's decision in the case, and maintain a vigorous defence of the important texts in question, but it must be

added that, in respect at least to the two former, Acts xx. 28, and 1 Tim. iii. 16, that decision is not only unsustained, but has been actually reversed by the greater number, we believe, of succeeding editors. Even under these circumstances, however, we are far from any wish or intention to impeach, in the smallest degree, Griesbach's integrity, or his fidelity as a critic. If he erred in the conclusions at which he arrived, we would willingly set down that error to the account of human fallibility, and ascribe it either to the insensible influence of a bias, from which no man can claim entire exemption, or to the fallacy of the critical system which he followed. We would not stain his well-earned fame with one breath of suspicion. But even allowing him all that he claims on the points in questioneven surrendering to him the passages which he has impeached—we conceive that the lustre of the christian Scriptures will suffer not a shade of diminution, or the integrity of the christian doctrine experience the smallest detriment. The doctrines inculcated or implied in these verses, are not involved in their fate. Whatever is taught in them, is taught elsewhere in the sacred volume. If it even were not so-if these were their sole stay and support—we should still say from our hearts, fiat justitia, ruat cœlum! Let truth prevail, let the consequence be what it may. But we are happy to have it in our power to produce here the unambiguous testimony of Griesbach himself, on this point; and in putting it on record in our pages, we conceive that we cannot offer a more agreeable conclusion to our readers, or a more honourable tribute to the memory of that distinguished man, now gone to his account.*

"It may seem to some persons," says he, "that I have detracted somewhat from one important doctrine-that which relates to the real divinity of Jesus Christ-not only by the rejection from the text of that celebrated passage, 1 John v. 7, but by likewise bringing into doubt the common reading in 1 Tim. iii. 16, and Acts xx. 28. Wherefore, to remove as far as I can all unjust suspicions, and to take away from evil disposed persons all occasion of calumny, in the first place, I publicly profess, and call God to witness, that I entertain no doubt of the truth of that doctrine. And, indeed, so numerous and so clear are the arguments and the places of Scripture, by which the true deity of Christ is vindicated, that I can scarcely comprehend in what manner-the divine authority of the sacred Scripture being granted, and the just rules of interpretation admitted this doctrine can by any one be called in question. In particular, that passage, 1 John i. 1, 2, 3, is so clear, and free from all ex

* Griesbach died in 1812, at the age of 67.

ception, that it can never be overthrown, or taken away from the defenders of the truth, by the daring attempts of either interpreters or critics.*

"Interim uni tamen dogmati, eique palmario, doctrina scilicet de vera Jesu Christi divinitate, nonnihil a me detractum esse videri posset nonnullis, qui non solum locum istum celebratissimum 1 Joh. v. 7, e textu ejecturn, verum etiam lectionem vulgarem loci 1 Tim. iii. 16, (ut et Act. xx. 28.) dubitationi subjectam et lectorum arbitrio permissam, invenient. Quare ut iniquas suspiciones omnes, quantum in me est, amoliar, et hominibus malevolis calumniandi ansam præripiam, primum publice profiteor atque Deum testor, neutiquam me de veritate istius dogmatis dubitare. Atque sunt profecto tam multa et luculenta argumenta et Scripturæ loca, quibus vera Deitas Christo vindicatur, ut ego quidem intelligere vix possem, quomodo, concessa Scripturæ sacræ divina auctoritate, et admissis justis interpretandi regulis, dogma hoc in dubium a quoquam vocari possit. In primis locus ille Joh. i. 1, 2, 3, tam perspicuus est atque omnibus exceptionibus major ut neque interpretum neque criticorum audacibus conatibus unquam everti atque veritatis defensoribus eripi possit."-Præf. in Epist. 1775, cited in Dr. Laurence's Remarks, ch. 1.

ERRATA.

Page 454, line 12-for "a record is not," read " can a record be said to," &c.

INDEX

TO THE

SIXTH VOLUME

THE SOUTHERN REVIEW.'