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
to the people who had just been fed , but to those frith whose sentiments the apostles had become acquainted on their recent mission ; observing that , according to John , ( eh . vi . 1 , ) the multitude who had just been fed were so far from thinking him Elias , or John the Baptist , or one of the ancient prophets , that they wished to make him a king , a plain proof that they believed him to be the Messiah . He proceeds also to question even the existence of more than one miraculous feeding , supposing the second to have originated
from Matthew ' s having before him two accounts of the same transaction . Admitting this , however , what shall we make of Matt . xvi . 9 , 10 , where our Lord expressly alludes to a separate feeding of the 4000 and of the 5000 ? It is one thing to allow that different evangelists have related the same thing with slight variations , and to abandon as arbitrary the proceeding adopted by the older harmonists , who repeated events at pleasure , to-avoid the appearance of contradiction ; it is another to suppose that an apostle could
be misled by documents respecting an event which he must have remembered , and could impute words to his Master , which he can never have uttered , had only one feeding taken place . T * hiB is not the only instance from which we infer that Dr . S ., though he speaks of Matthew as an evangelist , entertains some views which he has not clearly stated respecting the composition of his Gospel in ks present form .
Tftdrd division , from ix . 51 , to xix . 48 . The different character of this portion must be obvious to every reader ; and , as here all appearance of a common document is lost , from the absence of all similarity between Luke and the other evangelists , modem critics have considered this as agnomology or collection of our Lord's discourses , pending at ch . xviii . 14 ;) which Luke having found , inserted in his book as it was . Schleiermacher controverts this opinion , p . 167 , observing that it contains too many facts for a gnomology ;
and he proceeds , agreeably to the plan which he has hitherto pursued , to separate it into what he regards as its original elements . The first opinion which would i&uggest itself , he thinks , is that of a journal of our Saviour ' s last visit to Jerusalem , with which ch . ix . 51 begins , not every where , indeed , marking his progress from town to town , but introducing many things which occurred on die way , without specification of time or place . To this , however , he admits that an obvious objection occurs from the circumstance , that
the beginning relates to a departure from Galilee , and that at the last Passoover , as we know from John , Christ did not come from Galilee to Jerusalem : and he endeavours to explain this , by supposing that portions of two journals have been here combined by some one who was not aware that another stay at Jerusalem had intervened between the departure from Galilee and the last Passover . Luke , he thinks , found these two journals already so united , and inserted them in this state into his work . He observes , that in this portion the appellation of kvoie is given to our Lord , instead of iin ^ drcx , or MdtricakE ' , which prevails in the preceding part . The distribution of these words in
the Gospels is attended with some ourious phenomena . The use of ^ tg-dr ^ is peculiar to the Gospel of Luke , and with one exception ( ch . xvii . 13 ) to the earlier division of it ; while in the Gospel of John , moU is the ordinary compellation of our Saviour , and he is never addressed with foMwahe , ( we except , of course , the passages in which it is subjoined as an interpretation , ch . i . 39 , xx . 16 , ) but in the narrative of the woman taken in adultery . This seems to point at a later origin of that part of Luke ' s Gospel in which the title kv $ U prevails , when Kvfloq , having become the appellation of our Lord among his followers , as we see in the book of Acts , would naturally be substituted in the accounts ef his ministry . Many things are
Untitled Article
42 Review . ' —Schleierthachers Critical Essay on the Gospel of St . Luke .
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Jan. 2, 1827, page 42, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1792/page/42/
-