On this page
- Text (3)
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.
December 4 9 1820 . Notes on a few Passages in the New Testament . MATT . i . ii . A summary of Griesbach s * observations concerning the authenticity of these chap- *
ters , may not be unacceptable to a particular class of readers . ( 1 ) No testimonies of ancient writers can be adduced which ought to throw a doubt on the first and second
chapters of this evangelist . We meet with them in all those Greek MSS . which are entire : they exist in every ancient version which is not mutilated ; nor can it be proved that they have been introduced into these translations
at a later period , and by another hand . The Codex Ebnerianus f does not furnish an exception : both chapters are contained in that MS ., which merely follows the earlier codices in the arrangement of the sections and the titles : " " in omnibus , auotauot the titles ; in omnibusquotquot
, Kz $ cL \ a . i < i ) v notatione et rtrXoiq instruct ! sunt , codicibus , Matthaei KztyoLhauoov A seu primum inscribitur ire pi tuv fjuxyew , et incipit Matth . ii . 1 . Similiter Marci * £ > . A , titulum prae se ferens , nspi re SpLifAWityfAepa , inchoat Marc i . 29 , &c—Quin in epistolis quoque
plerisque eadem est tm KEfpaXataw ratio . Primum , v . c , epistolae ad Romajios K £ ( f > aXa . ioy incipit Rom . i . 18 . —Sic accidisse videtur ut primae libri cuiusque particulae in enumerandis KetpaXaioiq mentio fieret nulla . Ex quibus omnibus patet , Novi Testamenti librorum paene omnium initia fore resecanda , si
earn sacn contextus partem , quae primum Ka ( pccXc ^ iQv antecedit , in yo 0 cia <; suspicionem adducere fas esset . " Dr . Williams t has in vain appealed against these chapters to the Latin MSS .: in all of tjiem , the whole of the introductory narrative occurs . , J #
* Comment . Critic , in Text . Grac . N , T . Partic . ii . 4 *^( 55 : ' [¦ ' t Michaelis * Ihtrod . to N . T . ( Ma&li ) H . 257 , 25 S ( l 793 }^ x X " Free Inquiry into the Authenticity of the Fii ^ t flnd ? Second Chapters cff St . Matthew's Gospel . Edit . 2 , Ldnd . 1789 /* Griesbach , >
some , it is true , we find the genb ^ logy detached from the ^ &tdity V btkt '* tfief separation is arbitrary - 'tffkd '' xtijyrtit ranted . Ai ? t * i ^ feiid ^ of the sevdnf& ^ ktll
verse of the first chapter the Hatteiaa MS . marked 1775 , ami of tl ^ e ^ W the 6 th or 7 th centurjr , exM | itS ;" iite words , Geneftlogia huc 1 tsqitieir \ ktii-PIT fcVANGELItTM SECtrrtDUM 5 MAt ^ -
th ^ um . These * sentences , howeydr ^ are not placed in the text : nor \^ ere they written by the original transcriber ; they stand in the margin , and were Hie addition of some later possessor or copyist . * Latin MSS . ; of the 10 th ,
1 lth or 12 th century ^ may * also be , produced in which the' genealogy is , in like manner , distinguished from the narration . To these , nevertheless , we oppose the evidence of fkr old ^ riuid better codices , both in the Latin tongue and in other languages . The utmost ,
indeed , which the MSS . alleged by the objector can prove is , that in the middle ages some individuals existed who looked on the genealogy not as belonging to the history , but in the light of an appendix , or rather an introduction
to it . Now the suspicion indulged by these men does not affect the authenticity of much the larger portion of the chapters , or even intimate the spuriousness of the genealogy , b $ t
merely aims at separating it from the ' body of the history ; in consequence & £ this pedigree * ( as they supposed ) not having been drawn up by the evangelisft himself , though he judged fit to adopt it , by way of preface to his naftative . '
( 2 ) Further : These chapter ^ cannot be fairly arraigned by any thirty that we know of the gospel accoriJrfig t 6 the Hebrews or of that of the Ntiato ^ renes or Ebionites . It is far from
beinff certain that the genealogy and * the history of our Lord ' s miraculous birth were originally wanting ^ in , all 6 f them : nor can Matthew's Gospel b $ . so conneeted with them as ' to ' make it
probable that whatever irf liot found m those apocryphal wprKs ^ WAfe ^ dd passed in silence by our EvdtitelistJ " '' ( 3 ) Equally irrelevant , ittwAt ) vi 6 ^ are the conjectures of ^ j ^ fe'ijktoptf men in favour df the e ^ st ^^< # iin original gospiel , ^ t ^ ihm ^ l ^^ fr 6 which Matthevv' ;^ Mttrk ^ iaiid ! iJUk ^ e \ Hx&&
• ' €€ Vide St / nlbojas nostras criticus . torn . I . p * 309 / Oriesbach ,
Notes ton hfew Passages in the New T ^ ttameni . 7 # 5
cations : subjects that justly rank with others on which tnen should think correctly . : ;¦ ^ ¦;• ' . ¦ . • , J . P .
VOL . XV . 4 Y
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Dec. 2, 1820, page 705, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2495/page/17/