On this page
-
Text (2)
-
Untitled Article
-
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
that Jesus was really the son of Joseph , not only appeals to the register of Jesus ' s birth , but actually produces that register in attestation of the fact , thus tracing his genealogy in the line of Joseph . To suppose that Luke
intimates that Jesus was not the son of Joseph , while at the same breath he produces the register in which he is stated to be the son of Joseph , and recorded as such , would imply such a degree of carelessness about truth and consistence , or such a confusion of intellect as would render him unworthy
of credit on any subject whatever . I he clause & <; Evofju ^ ero , rendered , " as was supposed / ' should be translated , as he was registered conformably to law or to custom . For the origin of the verb is vo ^ o <; 9 a law ; and the primary and even the usual acceptation of it is to enact a law , introduce a custom ,
act conformably to custom , and the like . I do not indeed deny that vo ^ C ^ co may often mean to think or even to suppose . The context is the just clue to its meaning wherever it occurs : and in connexion with the genealogy of Jesus , it cannot be diverted from its natural signification without the
grossest perversion . The Evangelist is not content with asserting on his own authority that Jesus was really the son of Joseph , he is not content with producing the register to prove the same thing , but he also produces the testimony of the
best judges of the fact , namely , that of the people of Nazareth . < c And all bore him testimony ; and they wondered at the words , though gracious , which dropped from his lips , saying , Is not this the son of Joseph ? " Chap . iv . 22 . It is clear from the sequel , as well as from the parallel places in Matthew and Mark , that the wonder here mentioned proceeded not from admiration but from resentment and
indignation . The Evangelist says that they bore testimony to Jesus . And what was this testimony ? He cites the testimony meant in their own words : " Is not this the son of
Joseph v » And that this testimony might l > ts deemed decisive as the testimony of men who knew Jhe truth , and who had no bias to say any thing in his favour , Luke asserts , verse 1 ( 5 , that Jesus had been brought up in the midst of them . If we take a view of this brief argu-
Untitled Article
ment we obtain the surprising fact that Luke , who is supposed to have written an account of the miraculous birth of Jesus , does in reality contradict it as a falsehood . He asserts that he begins his Gospel with the word of God which
came to John the Baptist , and he defines the period of that event with unexampled precision ; he demonstrates the whole scheme to be a fiction , by shewing that Jesus was not really born till after the death of Herod the
Great ; he asserts , in a language the most positive and unequivocal , that Jesus was the son of Joseph , and confirms this as a fact by the register of his birth , and the testimony of the
people of Nazareth . It follows then , that the two chapters containing this cunningly-devised fable were inserted in the Gospel of Luke after his death ; and hereafter I will demonstrate , with an evidence that cannot be resisted ,
that they were copied from a spurious Gospel , now known as the Gospel of Mary , written originally by the very men whom Luke opposed . J . JONES . P . S . A writer in the last Number ,
( p . 208 , ) while broadly insinuating that I seek to mislead the public by forgery and interpolation , advises me not to deal unfairly with the authors I animadvert upon . I should be hurt at this charge if made by a man whose
assertion has any pretensions to credit . It would be a waste of time to reply to any part of his puerile and scurrilous effusion . And I merely take the liberty to advise him , in return , to leave such discussions to those whose contributions may be found more conducive to the interests of truth and the credit of the Monthly Repository .
Untitled Article
SEE that some of our weaker I brethren are endeavouring to revive the puerile and miserable logomachy about the meaning of the word
Unitarian . With them , How we apples swim , is a favourite maxim ; and provided that the numbers are kept up , the quality of their associates who are floated in the same tide is a consideration of little moment . Now-a-dmjs * as i * Allow me to observe , that it is surprising that Paley and other good writers
Untitled Article
Ambiguity in modern Use of the word " Unitarian / 9 279
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), May 2, 1821, page 279, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2500/page/23/
-