On this page

• Text (1)

  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

• 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

    point ; etee , why assign an event , which Jesu 3 himself had never disclosed to his disciples , far less mentioned as the motive of his going up to Jerusalem ? Fourth c&vision , ch . xx . 1 , to the end . Chapters xx . and xxi . are considered by Dr . S . as having formed ori g inally an independent whole , chiefly on the ground that the write * who had already said , ch . xix . 47 , that our Saviour » v Maavav to ko $ y \^ kpoLv h v § isp $ 9 would there have added , r «? & £ ro to

    mT «^ l % e § x 6 ( A . ev ( 0 <; tyU ^ eno «** opo <; iteifSv , and not have , given us this information separately , ( ch . xxi . 37 , 38 , ) and without any reference to his former statement . This criticism we should hardly have expected from so great a philologer ; for to tcaF jfAspav , ( day b y day , ) could stand in no contrast with rac , Be vukt «< > ( at night ) ; and if any one will read the two passages with their respective contexts , he will see that , in ch . xix . 47 , it was the Evangelists object to inform us , that though our Saviour was to be found day after day teaching in the Temple , ( as he himself urges ,

    ch . xxii . 52 , ) and the pnestsand scribes had the greatest wish to apprehend him , they durst not do it , from the attachment of the people . How irrelevant here would have been the mention of his nightly lodging-place ! Again , Dr . S . thinks that the celebration of the passover , which was the main object of the whole journey , must have been mentioned before ch . xxii . 1 , by an author who had written continuously from ch . xviii . 14 . If ,

    however , we are right in our explanation of ch . ix . 5 l , the author had already announced a still remoter object of the journey of Jesus , his dvak ^ i ^ and the passover is only incidentally mentioned in ch . xxii . 1 , m connexion with the machinations of the priests ; for £ < £ oj 3 ovvto Tbv \* 6 v ( ch . xxii . 2 ) evidently refers , not to a fear which withheld them from aggression as before , but a fear which urged them to immediate measures , lest the popularity of Jesus with the vast multitude about to be assembled at the passover , should tead to some decisive movement in his favour . There is , therefore , no

    reason , as far as this goes , for detaching these two chapters . In commenting npon the predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem in the two evangelists , ( Luke xxi . 5—36 ; Matt . xxiv . 4—xxv . 46 , ) he givqs the preference to Luke , on the ground that Matthew has connected with the destruction of Jerusalem ( which is evidently the subject of all that precedes ) a passage , ch . xxv . 31—46 , referring to a very different topic—meaning , we presume , the final judgment . Of course those who believe that this passage also relates to the destruction of Jerusalem , will find in this an argument of the superior fulness

    and accuracy of Matthew ' s report . At ch . xxii . 1 , begins another separate narrative , extending to ch . xxiii . 49 , and of which the subject was the apprehension , trial and crucifixion of Jesus , the manner in which the women who accompanied the body to the tomb are mentioned , ( ver . 55 , ) shewing , according to our author , that this verse was not written by the same person

    who had alread y told us ( ver . 49 ) , that the women had come-from Galilee , since he woula not certainly so soon have repeated his information , or at least would have referred to them as having been already mentioned . Even in this , which he supposes the compiler of our gospel to have found already united into one narrative , he distinguishes the portions , ch » xxii . 1—» -6 , 24—38 , as originally distinct from the rest , both because they are much more crowded and abrupt , and because the same writer , who had spoken of Judas ,

    ch . xxii . 3 , would not have thought it necessary to introduce him ( ver . 47 ) as an unknown person to the reader . With much ingenuity he then pro * ceeds to analyze the narrative in Luke , and to point out where it has proceeded Irom an eye-witness ^ and , where from intelligence at second hand .

    Untitled Article

    46 Review . ^ -Schleiermacher * s Critical Essay an the Gospel of St , Luke .

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Jan. 2, 1827, page 46, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1792/page/46/