Imagens das páginas


The words which, in the judgement of Griesbach, 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.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]



[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

A Table of the Books of the New Testament, as they are divided by Eusebius

into those, the Authenticity of which had never been called in question, and
those, whose Genuineness had been disputed by the early Christian Writers.
Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii.







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.”
Lardner's Hist. of Apostles and Evang. col. i. p. 30.


2 John.

3 John.,





A TABLE of the birth of Jesus Christ, the son of Da

VID, 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 Sal5 mon; and Salmon begat Boaz, by Rahab; and Boaz 6 begat Obed, by Ruth; and Obed begat Jessé ; and Jessé

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 Aha

ziah begat Joash ; and Joash begat Amaziah ; and Ama9 ziah begat Uzziah ; and Uzziah begat Jotham ; and Jo

• Epiphanius says, that Cerinthus and Carpocrates, who used the gospel of the Ebionites, which was probably the original gospel of Matthew, written in the Hebrew language for the use of the Jewish believers, argued from the genealogy at the beginning of the gospel, that Christ was the son of Joseph, and 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. See Epiph. Hæres. 30. N. 13. Jones oa the Canon, vol, i, pt. 2. ch. 25. It is probable, therefore, that the first six. teen verses of this chapter are genuine; and that they were found at least in the copies of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. And, indeed, it can hardly be supposed that an author writing for the instruction of Hebrew christians, would have omitted to trace the descent of Chnst from Abraham and David, upon which they justly laid so great a stress. Arch. bishop Newcome adds the names in v. 8. from 1 Chron. iii. 11, 12. And he suspects V. 17 to have been a marginal note anciently taken into the text. See 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 genealogs, 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 narrative is to show that Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, was not his real father. This account, therefore, of the miraculous conception of Jesus Christ, must have been wanting in the copies of Cerinthus and Carpocrates as well as in those of the Ebionites : and ir the genealogy be genuine, this narrative must be spurious.

[ocr errors]

10 tham begat Ahaz; and Ahaz begat Hezekiah ; and Heze

kiah 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 go

ing away to Babylon, Jeconiah begat Salathiel ; and Sa13 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 be16 gat Matthan ; and Matthan begat Jacob; and Jacob be

gat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born JESUS, who is called Christ*.

* The remainder of this chapter, and the whole of the second, are printed (in the Enge Ish edition) n Italics, as an intimation that they are of doubtful authority. They are in. deed to be found in all the manuscripts and versions which are now extant; but from the tesitmony of Epiphanius and Jerome we are assured that they were wanting in the copies used by the Nazarenes and Ebionites, that is, by the ancient Hebrew Christians; for wijose instruction, probably, this gospel was originally written; and to whom the account of the miraculous conception of Jesus Christ could not have been unacceptable, 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 Isaac, Samuel, and other eminent persons of the Hebrew nation. If it be true, as Luke relates, chap. iii. 23. 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 circumstance which alone invalidates the whole story. See Lardner's Works, vol. i. p. 432. It is indeed highly improbable that no notice should have been taken of these extraordinary events by any contemporary writer, that no expectation should have been excited by them, and that no allusion should have been made to them in

passage of the sacred writings. Some of the facts have a fabulous appearance, and the reasoning from the prophecies of the Old Testament is incon. clusive. Also, if this account be true, the proper name of Jesus, according to the unitorin custom of the Jews, would have been Jesus of Bethlehem, not Jesus of Nazareth. Our Lord in the gospels s repeatedly spoken of as the son of Joseph, without any inti. ination on the part of the historian that this language is incorrect. See Matt. xiji. 55. Luke iv, 23. John i. 45. vi. 42. The account of the miraculous conception of Jesus was probably the fiction of some early gentile convert, who hoped, by elevating the dignity of the Founder, to abate the popular prejudice against the sect. See upon this subject, Dr. Priestly's History of Early Opinions, vol. 4. b. jü. c. 20; Pope on the Miraculous Conception; 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. Newcome's Notes upon the text; Mr. Evanson's Dissonance, chap. i. sect. 3. chap. jii. sect. 2; Jones's Developement of Events, vol. i. p. 365, etc.

any other

« AnteriorContinuar »