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

    sonment of John before the baptism of Jesus , yet do not those circumstances prove that it originally formed part of a memoir relating exclusively to John , or part of any separate memoir at all ; for it is in entire accordance with the " order" which Luke observes from the beginning , bringing up the histories of John and Jesus alternately to a certain period . Thus in ch . i . 5—25 , he treats of the promise to and conception by the mother of John .

    Then from 26—38 the promise to and conception by the mother of Jesus . In the next place , John ' s history is again taken up , his birth and circumcision mentioned , and that "he was in the deserts until the day of his shewing to Israel . " Then the history of Jesus is again adverted to , and his birth and

    circumcision related , as well as a brief account of his early years , and that he increased in wisdom and stature . Having again for a time dropped the history of Jesus , he reverts once more to that of John , resuming it where it had been discontinued , viz . his manifestation to Israel , and carrying it on to the period of John ' s imprisonment ; when the history of Jesus is again recurred to , and continued to the end .

    Now here are not less than five breaks in the histories of Jesus and John : and Luke's mentioning the imprisonment of John before the baptism of Jesus , is no more evidence of its having originally been a memoir relating to John exclusively , than doth the circumstance of John ' s history being brought up to the period of his manifestation before even the birth of Jesus is mentioned , constitute ( as the Doctor contends it does ) proof of an originally independent narrative ; and in refutation of the latter notion , the reasoning of

    the Reviewer is unanswerable * It may , however , be inquired further—If the first chapter of Luke formed of itself originally an independent narrative , as Dr . S . asserts , pray whose history is it that it purports to relate ? If the history of John , does the reader think that it would have said nothing of his receiving the command of God whilst in the wilderness ; nothing of his subsequent preaching ; of his baptism ; of his imprisonment ; of his decapitation ? Would it nave stopped short at his birth ; adding only a general statement that the child grew , waxed strong , and was in the deserts ? If too , as alleged , the separate narrative ended there , and was unconnected

    with any other , whence the necessity or utility of mentioning at ail Mary's salutation to Elizabeth , or the prophecies of Elizabeth , of Mary , or of Zacharias concerning Christ ? If the supposition be , that it was originally an independent narrative relating to Jesus , surely his biographer would at the least have gone so far as to introduce him into the world . Why , credulity itself would not tolerate so absurd an idea as that any person writing another ' s history would relate events comparatively insignificant , many of them too having no connexion with it as an independent narrative , ana yet altogether omit all those grand and momentous facts and incidents for which

    the life under consideration was so remarkably distinguished . But , on the other hand , assuming that the chapter in question was written , not with the view of forming a separate and independent narrative as Dr . S . fancies , but , on the contrary , that it was originally framed as an introduction to , and as only intended to form the leading portion of , the more important part of the

    all-important history which was to follow ; why then , the whole contents of that chapter are ( if the writer may be allowed to use the figure ] in perfect keeping with the other parts of the Evangelist ' s performance , and favour the opinion that the design , composition , and execution of the whole is by one and the same master . But Dr . Schleiermacher doth not content himself with merely denying that St . Luke was the original author of the work Which bears his name , but he endeavours to detract from the historical cre-

    Untitled Article

    8 t . Luke ' s Gospel A 73

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), March 2, 1827, page 173, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1794/page/13/