Imágenes de página


The words which, in the judgement of Grieshach, should probably, though not certainly, be expunged, are included in brackets.

R. T. signifies the received text: viz. that of the Elzevir edition 1624.

N. t. the text of archbishop Newcome. N. m. the reading of the Primate's margin. W. Mr. Wakefield's translation.

S. Professor Symonds's Observations on the Expediency of revising the present Version.

A Table of the Boots of the Kev, Testament, as they are divided by Eusebius
into those, the Authenticity of which had never been called in question, and
those, vihose Genuineness had been disputed by the early Christian Writers.
Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii.


Matthew. Romans. Philippians. 2 Timothy.

Mark. 1 Corinthians. Colossians. Titus.
Luke. 2 Corinthians. 1 Thessalonians. Philemon.
John. Galatians. 2 Thessalonians. 1 Peter. Acts. Ephesians. 1 Timothy. 1 John.


Concerning which Dr. Lardner says, "that they should be allowed to be
publicly read in Christian Assemblies, for the Edification of the People,
but not be alleged as affording alone sufficient Proof of any Doctrine."
Lardncr't Hitt. of Apostles and Evang. vol. i. p. 30.

Epistle To The Hebrews. 3 John.

Epistle Of James. Jude.

2 Peter. Revelation.
2 John.



1 A TABLE of the birth of Jesus Christ, the son of DaVid, the son of Abraham*.

2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and

3 Jacob begat Judah and his brethren; and Judah begat Phares and Zara, by Tamar; and Phares begat Hezron;

4 and Hezron begat Aram; and Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naashon; and Naashon begat Sal

5 mon; and Salmon begat Boaz, by Rahab; and Boaz 6 begat Obed, by Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; and Jesse begat king David ; and king David begat Solomon, by

7 her that had been the wife of Uriah; and Solomon begat Rehoboam; and Rehoboam begat Abijah; and Abijah

8 begat Asa; and Asa begat Jehoshaphat; and Jehoshaphat begat Jehoram; and Jehoram begat Ahaziah; and Ahaziah begat Joash; and Joash begat Amaziah; and Ama

9 ziah begat Uzziah; and Uzziah begat Jotham; and Jo

* Epiphanius says, that Ccrinthus and Carpocrates, who used the gosrx I of the Ebionites, which was probably the original gospel of Matthew, written in the Hebrew lan*ru_ige tor the use of the Jewish belicvers,argucd from the genealogy at the beginning of the gospel, that Christ was the son of Joseph, ami Mary; but that the Ebionites had taken away even the genealogy, beginning their gospel with these words: "And it came to pass in the days of Herod the king, etc. Sec Epiph. Hteres. 30. N. 13. Jones on the Canon, vol. i. pt . 2. ch. 25. It is probable, therefore, that the first six. tcen verses of this chapter are genuine: and that they were found at least in the copics of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. And, indeed, it can hardly be supposed that an author writing for the instruetion of Hebrew christians, would have omitted to trace the descent of Christ from Abraham and David, upon which they justly laid so great a stress. Archbishop Neweome adds the names in v. 8. from 1 Chron. iiL 11,12. And he suspects v. 17 to have been a marginal note aneicntly taken into the text Sce the annotations to his Harmony, sect. 9. The eighteenth verse begins a new story, which continues to the end of the second chapter. This could not have been written by the author of the genealoiry, for it contradicts his design, which was to prove that Jesus, being the son of Joseph, was the descendant of Abraham and David, whereas the design of this nam. rive is to show that Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, was not his real father. This aceount, therefore, of the miraculous coneeption of Jesus Christ, must have been wanting in the copics of Cerinthus and Carpocrates as well as in those of the Ebionites: and if the genealogy be genuine, this narrative must be spurious.

10 tham begat Ahaz ; and Ahaz begat Hezekiah ; and Hezekiah begat Manasseh; and Manasseh begat Amon; and

11 Amon begat Josiah; and Josiah begat Jehoiakim; and Jehoiakim begat Jeconiah and his brethren, about the

12 time of the going away to Babylon; and, after the going away to Babylon, Jeconiah begat Salathiel; and Sa

13 lathiel begat Zerubbabel; and Zerubbabel begat Abiud;

14 and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; and Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim

15 begat Eliud; and Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar be- 16 gat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ*.

* The remainder of this chapter, and the wltoleofthe seeond, are printed (in the Engl\sh edition) n Italies, as an intimation that they are of doubtful authority. They are indeed to be found in all the manuseripts and versions which are now extant; but from the tcutmony of Epiphanms and Jerome we areassured that they were wanting in the copies used by the Nazartnes ami Ebionites, that is, by the ancient Hebrew Christians; for whose instruction, probably, this gospel was originally written; and to whom the account of tl,e miraculous coneeption of Jesus Christ could not have been unaceeptable, if it had been found in the genuine narrative. Nor would it at all have militated against the doctrine of the proper humanity of Christ, which was universally held by the Jewish Christians, it being a fact analogous to the miraculous birth of Isaae, Samucl, and other eminent persons of the Hebrew nation. If it be true, as Luke relates, chap.iil . 53. that Jesus was entering upon his thirtieth year (see Wakefield's Translation) in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, he must have been born two years at least after the death of Herod, a circumstanee which alone invalidates the whole story. See Lardner's Works,vol- i. p. 432. It is indeed higbly improbable that no notiee should have been taken of these extraordinary events by any contemporary writer, that no expeetation should have been excited by them, mul that no allusion should have been made to them in any other passage of the sacred writings. Some of the facts have a fabulous appearanee, and the reasoning from the propheeies of the Old Testament is inconclusive. Also, if this account be true, the proper name of Jesus, aeeording to the uniform custom of the Jews, would have been Jesus of Betblchem, not Jesus of Nazareth. Our Lord in the gospels s repeatedly spoken of as the son of Joseph, without any intimation on the part of the historian that this language is incorreet. See Matt. xiii. 55. Luke iv. 23. John l . At, vi. 42. The aeeount of the miraculous coneeption of Jesus was prolmbly the fiction of some early gentile convert, who hoped, by elevating the dignity ofthe Founder, to abate the popular prejudiee against the seet. See upon this subjeet, Dr. Priestly's History of Early Opinions, vol. 4. b. lii. c. 20; Pope on the Miraculous Coneeption; Dr. Williams's Free Enquiry; Dr. Bell's Arguments for the Authenticity of the Narratives of Matthew and Luke, and Dr. Williams's Remarks; Dr. Campbell and Dr. Newcmne's Notes upon the text; Mr. Evanson's Dissonanee, clutp. i. seet, 3. chap. iii. seet. 2; Jones's Dcvelopement of Events, vol. i. p. 3M, etc.

« AnteriorContinuar »