On this page

• Text (2)

  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.

  • 

    Untitled Article

  • 

    Untitled Article

• 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

    the hypothesis first proposed b y Eichhorn and introduced with modifications to the English public by Dr . Marsh—that there existed , prior to the composition of any of our canonical gospel ? , a document containing the principal facts of our Lord ' s life and ministry—that in passing through various hands it had received additions and had undergone translations from its original Aramaic into Greek , and that the coincidences of qur gospels are to be ascribed to the writers' using materials substantially the same , their discre-r

    pancies to their possessing copies more or less enriched by subsequent additions , or to the * variations in phraseology which must exist in the translation of the same original by different hands . This subject underwent a long and angry discussion in England soon after the publication of Marsh ' s Michaelis , and since that time appears to have slept in peace . The orthodox regarded with horror the suggestion that our gospels should have owed their origin to an assemblage of anonymous fragments , while those who form

    their judgments rather from the evidence than the supposed consequences of an opinion , have , perhaps , generally assented to the apparent plausibility of the hypothesis , without rigidly examining it in all its bearings . The translator has very clearly stated some objections to it , and Schleiermacher directs the reader ' s attention to ' them from time to time as they arise in the course of his Essay . In Germany , the controversy has gone on to the present time , and although neither the hypothesis of Eichhorn , nor any of those

    which have been proposed in its stead , has been supported with evidence amounting to any thing like certainty , many valuable results have been obtained from the accurate and extensive researches into Christian antiquities which learned men have instituted in the hope of solving the problem . The translator , who appears most accurately acquainted with the theological literature of Germany , goes on to state the opinions of Gratz and Bertholdt , who have considerably modified Eichhorn ' s hypothesis ; of Hug , who has

    returned to the ancient opinion that the evangelists copied each other , and of Gieseler , who supposes an oral gospel , arising out of the united teaching of the apostles during their joint residence at Jerusalem , afterwards variously adapted by them to the respective objects of their separate preaching . We regret that our limits will not allow us to do more than refer the reader to this very interesting part of the book . Such was the state of the controversy

    respecting the origin of the three first gospels , when Schleiermacher , not satisfied with the result of any of these inquiries , and believing their fundamental assumption of a common document to be erroneous , undertook the examination of the Gospel of Luke , in order to discover what internal marks it contained of the manner in which its materials had been procured and combined . The work of which we are now to give an analysis is the result of this investigation . He thinks , that he discovers in this gospel evident traces that Luke has only arranged a number of documents previously

    existing , in which detached events were recorded and discourses preserved , adding little of his own , except the introductory verses , and here and there a connecting particle or phrase . Two other objects are also kept in view throughout the Essay— % o shew that the chronology and connexion of Luke are generally preferable to those of Matthew , and to point out those phenomena which are inconsistent with IJictjhorn ' s hypothesis of a common document . We shall confine ourselves to the two first points . He thus endeavours to render probable the existence of these detached documents :

    " The first source [ of Christian history ] was a reasonable and natural desire on the part of those who had believed in Jesus , without having had a know-

    Untitled Article

    Rsmew * rv- $ chleierm (* eher * s Critical Essay on the Gospel of St . Luke . 35

    Untitled Article

    1 ) 2

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Jan. 2, 1827, page 35, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1792/page/35/