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

    On the whole the account of Luke is preferred to that of Matthew , From eh . xxiii . 50—xxiv . 43 or 44 , is supposed to be another narrative , of which , from the fulness of the account given of the walk to Eramaus , Cleopas , or his companion , may have been the author . Dr . S . thus sums up his Essay : " When I review the investigation which has thus been earned on step by step , and sum up the whole , it seems to me that though several of the details

    may be more or less open to objection , still the main position is firmly established , that Luke ia tins paart of his work is neither an independent writer , nor lias made a compilation from works which extended over the whole course Of the life of Jesus . For we meet with too many isolated pieces which have no relation to the rest , and the character of the several parts is too different to admit of either supposition . He is from beginning to end no more than the compiler and arranger of documents which he found in existence , and which he allows to pass unaltered through his hands . His merit in this capacity is

    twofold : first , that of the arrangement ; this however is the slighter of the two . For as he found much already connected , not only is the correctness of his arrangement dependent on his predecessors , and much may be assigned to a wrong place without fault of his , but also the arrangement was by this rendered much easier than if he had found all the parts separate . But the far greater merit is this , that he has admitted scarcely any pieces but what are peculiarly genuine and good ; for this was certainly . not the effect of accident , but the fruit of a judiciously instituted investigation , and a well-weighed choice . " —Pp . 313 , 314 .

    We have devoted so large a space to this work , because we regard it as one of the most able and original which has appeared in this department of biblical criticism for a long time . The author , we think , has , in most instances , succeeded in vindicating the order and connexion of Luke ' s Gospel , where he differs from Matthew and Mark ; and this alone is of the highest importance for the evidences of Christianity and the interpretation of the New Testament . As it is evident that no art of the harmonist can every where reconcile the evangelists to each other , it becomes a question of the highest interest to

    determine which of them is to be followed , and this can only be done b y such a close investigation as Schleiermacher has instituted * His object is very different from that of the late Mr . Evanson in his Dissonance ; he does not set up Luke to the exclusion of the others , but follows him where he appears the preferable guide . Some of his speculations partake of the startling boldness which characterizes the German school of criticism ; as his

    suggestion , that the account of the bloody sweat may have been derived from early Christian hymns , in which the trials of our Saviour had been embellished with angelic apparitions ( p . 301 ) , and the doubt expressed ( p . 304 ) as to the rending of the veil of the temple . His general results , however , tend greatly to confirm the fidelity and accuracy of the Evangelist , and his language respecting the character and authority of our Lord is uniformly in the highest degree reverent .

    We have already ventured incidentally to offer our opinion of some of the arguments by which Dr . S . endeavours to establish his second position , that the Gospel of Luke is composed of documents previously existing in a written form , which the Evangelist has only arranged , so that , except the introductory verses , and here and there a connecting phrase , the whole book contains nothing of his own composition . To prove this , it is necessary to distinguish between the p henomena which would be found in a gospel composed of traditionary accounts , obtained orally from those who had been present at the events , and reduced into writing from their words , and those which would be found in a compilation of documents previously written—for this last is an

    Untitled Article

    Review . <—Schleiermacher * s Critical Essay on the Gospel &f Sl Luke . 47

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Jan. 2, 1827, page 47, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1792/page/47/