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
his parents went to Jerusalem every year & £ the feast of the passover $ and when he was twelve years old they went up to Jerusalem , after the custom of the feast . ' The writer here represents Jesus when he was forty
days old as being carried by his parents from Nazareth , their own city , up to Jerusalem , and returning to Nazareth , and from thence , annually , for twelve successive years , going up to Jerusalem to the passover - and in chap . iv . 14 , 16 , Luke tells us that
Jesus returned from the wilderness into Galilee , and he came to Nazareth , where he had been brouyht up . " We have here therefore , the whole of the life of Jesus , for the first twelve years , accounted for as spent with his parents at Nazareth , leaving no possible period for the flight into Egypt j
whereas the writer of the story in Matthew states , that he was born at Bethlehem , that from thence they went into Egypt , and continued there till after the death of Herod , who sought his life . Now two stories , so inconsistent with each other , cannot possibly be , both of them , true .
I might add , that if the massacre of the children of Bethlehem bv the direction of Herod had been a fact , it is extremely improbable that neither Joseph us , who wrote the Life of Herod , nor any other contemporary writer should mention so remarkable a circumstance .
With respect to historic fact . If it be sufficiently ascertained , as I think it is , by incontrovertible testimony , that Jesus was not born till after the death of Herod , then the whole of the stories related in the two first chap ^ ters of Matthew must be false and spurious .
Again , the birth of Jesus with the circumstances attending it , as recorded in the beginning of Matthew ' s Gospel , are inconsistent with the language of the New Testament , which represents Jesus a * being of ' Nazareth
hut never of Bethlehem . He is called Jesus of Nazareth about twenty times \ n the New Testament . Peter on the day of Pentecost , speaking as the Holy Spirit gave him utterance , calls him Jesus of Nazareth . The angels at hjs sepulchre call him Jesus of Nazareth . He calls himself so when he
appeared to Paul as he was going to Damascus ; and his apostles wrought * si * miraeiet * in the name of Jena of
Untitled Article
Nazareth . Had Jesus been indeed born at Bethlehem is it possible that the sacred writers should so invariably speak of him as being of Nazareth ? From any thing recorded in the New Testament it does not appear that Jesus
himself , his apostles , or his historians knew any thing of his miraculous conception and birth at Bethlehem ; there is not any where in the preaching or letters of the apostles the most distant allusion to them ; and this is
the more extraordinary if they were attended with such singular circumstances , and were the fulfilment of prophecies respecting him , as they are said to be by the writer of the two first chapters of Matthew ' s Gospel .
It is true , the Jews seem to have had a tradition amongst them , that the Christ was to come out of Betb-Iehem , and bis enemies , who disputed his claims , are represented as « aying , John vii . 41 , 42 , " Shall dhrist come out of Galilee > Hath
not the scripture said , * That Christ cometh of the seed of David , and out of the town of Bethlehem where David was ?'" And in another place , " Out of Galilee ariseth no prophet-Can any good thing come out of Nazareth ? " Is it not strange , if Jesus and his historians knew that he was
born at Bethlehem , that they should in no instance have corrected this mistaken idea , that he was a Galilean , and refuted the argument founded on it to prove that he could not
be the Christ , by stating , that in fact he was not of Nazareth in Galilee ; but that he did indeed come out of Ifetkleliem ? On the contrary , they every where assert , that he was of Nazareth .
The above passage , 1 believe , is the only one in the New Testament in which Bethlehem is so much as mentioned , excepting those in the beginning of Matthew and Luke where it repeatedly occurs . But
Fourthly . This matter is put beyond all possible doubt , if Mr . Jones is right ( as I think he is ) , in his trans ? lation of Luke iii . 23 , — - " And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age , being ( really ) as he was
thought to be , the son of Jo $ e , pjh . " I shall not transcribe his criticisms on the construction of the Greek of ( his passage , but only the conclusion he draws from them , "It is therefore a
Untitled Article
Mr . Marsom on . the Pre-existence of Jesus Christ . 77
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Feb. 2, 1816, page 77, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2449/page/13/
-