On this page
as from a common source . Should we even allow that such a document was in being , and that it had no such materials as are contained in these chapters , still it by no means follows that they did not proceed from the pen of the Evangelist . For if any other individual could make this addition to
the primitive gospel , why might it not have been made by Matthew ? ( 4 ) No argument , moreover , can be deduced , against the chapters , from Mark's silence . Granting that he availed himself of the Gospel of
Matthew , in framing * his own , he , neverthethew , in framing his own , he , nevertheless , is not its epitomist : he contented himself with selecting from it what suited his purpose ; omitting every thing besides , as , for example , the Sermon on the Mount .
( 5 ) Luke was in the same situation . Between his introductory chapters and those of Matthew there are variations , and even apparent discrepancies . The probability is , that he used a former
and more concise edition , as we may term it , of his predecessor ' s gospel . ^ ( 6 ) That there are many and great difficulties in these chapters , cannot be denied . But this circumstance is no
sufficient reason for calling their authenticity in question . In the introduction to this Gospel we have nothing which Matthew could not have written . Although from the nature of the case , lie could not be an eye-witness of the events here recorded , pr even receive
his knowledge of them from those who were either the spectators or the su bjects of the transactions , he might still derive his information from unexceptionable sources . Some obscurity would , at the same time , attend the narrative , as the consequence of the interval between the date of the facts
and th $ t of their being thus committed to writing . ( 7 ) The objections of Faust us the Manichtean it cannot be important specifically tp potiee : they regard the ( jUticultitfs to which w $ ., jMpffe just adverted , and , in particular , the genealogy * Mf ^ Mph , he wishes to separate from tlie ^ tory .
n j ^ -Sftehri ? hen , antfjso feeble , being t ^ e argument s brought against the introduction to MatrfievyrjV Gospel , we do not hesitate in receiving these chapters as authentic . . ( 9 ) We have now onl y to inquire , whether the Evangelist himself col *
leeted , from unexceptionable witnesses , the events recorded in this portion of his history , or found it already reduced to Writing , and judged it worthy of bopg prefixed to his narrative ? Our opinion ' is , that th&e are sufficient
indications of the two first chapters both of Matthew and of Luke having proceeded respectively from those authors ; the style and manner corresponding in eacn case to the severally acknowledged characteristics of the two Evangelists .
As Luke ' s histories are distinguished by the relation of angelic appearances * by the frequent occurrence at concise speeches from some of the principal personages , and by occasional ffebraisms , sb in Matthew ' s introductory chapters we see presumptions that the author of them is no other than the
author of the body of the narration . This Evangelist is remarkable for pretty numerous appeals to the prophecies of the Old 'testament : and these are often alleged through the whole of his Gospel . It further seems to have been
his fixed persuasion that the Deity not seldom interposes by dreams to admonish men what they should do , or to warn them of what they should avoid . Matthew , accordingly , ' relates that the wife of Pilate endeavoured , in the
following manner , to prevent the governor from condemning Jesus to death : * have thou nothing to do with that just man \ for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him / * The phrase KAT * ONAP is employed by no other writer in the New Testament : nor does it ever occur in the LXX ; we meet with it however in Matthew ' s Gospel six
timed . It is probable that both this Evangelist and Luke prefixed the genealogy to their Gospels , as they received it from the family of Joseph or of Mary . The errors of it are therefore attributable not' to these historians , but to the unknown authors of the document .
Mom ' Ufce first agjes attempts hate been made to reconcile the dissonances in the pedigrees , the a ^ thentkatv of which , ileWrtHeless , was hot brought in 4 juestton , Ta their existence in the respective narratives of Matthew and of
? Matt , xxvii . | 9 . GriesbtM * shears that there is irf just reason far deputing the authenticity of this verse *
706 Notes an nfew Pa ssages in the Netfr Testament .
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Dec. 2, 1820, page 706, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2495/page/18/