« السابقةمتابعة »
EXPLANATION OF MARKS AND ABBREVIATIONS.
The words which, in the judgement of Griesbach, should probably, though not certainly, be expunged, are included in brackets.
R. T. signifies the received text: viz. that of the Elzevir edition 1624.
N. t. the text of archbishop Newcome.
N. m. the reading of the Primate's margin.
W. Mr. Wakefield's translation.
S. Professor Symonds's Observations on the Expediency of revising the present Version.
A Table of the Books of the New Testament, as they are divided by Eusebius
Concerning which Dr. Lardner says, "that they should be allowed to be
EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
EPISTLE OF JAMES.
TABLE of the birth of JESUS CHRIST, the son of DAVID, the son of ABRAHAM*.
ABRAHAM begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and 3 Jacob begat Judah and his brethren; and Judah begat Phares and Zara, by Tamar; and Phares begat Hezron; 4 and Hezron begat Aram; and Aram begat Aminadab;
and Aminadab begat Naashon; and Naashon begat Sal5 mon; and Salmon begat Boaz, by Rahab; and Boaz 6 begat Obed, by Ruth; and Obed begat Jessé; and Jessé begat king DAVID; and king DAVID begat Solomon, by 7 her that had been the wife of Uriah; and Solomon begat Rehoboam; and Rehoboam begat Abijah; and Abijah 8 begat Asa; and Asa begat Jehoshaphat; and Jehoshaphat begat Jehoram; and Jehoram begat Ahaziah; and Ahaziah begat Joash; and Joash begat Amaziah; and Ama9 ziah begat Uzziah; and Uzziah begat Jotham; and Jo
• Epiphanius says, that Cerinthus and Carpocrates, who used the gospel of the Ebionites, which was probably the original gospel of Matthew, written in the Hebrew language for the use of the Jewish believers, argued from the genealogy at the beginning of the gospel, that Christ was the son of Joseph and Mary; but that the Ebionites had taken away even the genealogy, beginning their gospel with these words: "And it came to pass in the days of Herod the king, etc. See Epiph. Hæres. 30. N. 13. Jones on the Canon, vol, i. pt. 2. ch. 25. It is probable, therefore, that the first sixteen verses of this chapter are genuine; and that they were found at least in the copies of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. And, indeed, it can hardly be supposed that an author writing for the instruction of Hebrew christians, would have omitted to trace the descent of Christ from Abraham and David, upon which they justly laid so great a stress. Archbishop Newcome adds the names in v. 8. from 1 Chron. iii. 11, 12. And he suspects v. 17 to have been a marginal note anciently taken into the text. See the annotations to his Harmony, seet. 9. The eighteenth verse begins a new story, which continues to the end of the second chapter. This could not have been written by the author of the genealogy, for it contradicts his design, which was to prove that Jesus, being the son of Joseph, was the descendant of Abraham and David, whereas the design of this narrative is to show that Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, was not his real father. This account, therefore, of the miraculous conception of Jesus Christ, must have been wanting in the copies of Cerinthus and Carpocrates as well as in those of the Ebionites: and if the genealogy be genuine, this narrative must be spurious.
10 tham begat Ahaz; and Ahaz begat Hezekiah; and Hezekiah begat Manasseh; and Manasseh begat Amon; and 11 Amon begat Josiah; and Josiah begat Jehoiakim; and Jehoiakim begat Jeconiah and his brethren, about the 12 time of the going away to Babylon; and, after the go
ing away to Babylon, Jeconiah begat Salathiel; and Sa13 lathiel begat Zerubbabel; and Zerubbabel begat Abiud ; 14 and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; and
Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim 15 begat Eliud; and Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar be16 gat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born JESUS, who is called CHRIST*.
* The remainder of this chapter, and the whole of the second, are printed (in the EngIsh edition) n Italics, as an intimation that they are of doubtful authority. They are indeed to be found in all the manuscripts and versions which are now extant; but from the tesitmony of Epiphanius and Jerome we are assured that they were wanting in the copies used by the Nazarenes and Ebionites, that is, by the ancient Hebrew Christians; for whose instruction, probably, this gospel was originally written; and to whom the ac count of the miraculous conception of Jesus Christ could not have been unacceptable, if it had been found in the genuine narrative. Nor would it at all have militated against the doctrine of the proper humanity of Christ, which was universally held by the Jewish Christians, it being a fact analogous to the miraculous birth of Isaac, Samuel, and other eminent persons of the Hebrew nation. If it be true, as Luke relates, chap. iii. 23. that Jesus was entering upon his thirtieth year (see Wakefield's Translation) in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, he must have been born two years at least after the death of Herod, a circumstance which alone invalidates the whole story. See Lardner's Works, vol. i. p. 432. It is indeed highly improbable that no notice should have been taken of these extraordinary events by any contemporary writer, that no expectation should have been excited by them, and that no allusion should have been made to them in any other passage of the sacred writings. Some of the facts have a fabulous appearance, and the reasoning from the prophecies of the Old Testament is inconclusive. Also, if this account be true, the proper name of Jesus, according to the uniform custom of the Jews, would have been Jesus of Bethlehem, not Jesus of Nazareth. Our Lord in the gospels s repeatedly spoken of as the son of Joseph, without any intimation on the part of the historian that this language is incorrect. See Matt. xiii. 55. Luke iv. 23. John i. 45. vi. 42. The account of the miraculous conception of Jesus was probably the fiction of some early gentile convert, who hoped, by elevating the dignity of the Founder, to abate the popular prejudice against the seet. See upon this subject, Dr. Priestly's History of Early Opinions, vol. 4. b. iii. c. 20; Pope on the Miraculous Conception; Dr. Williams's Free Enquiry; Dr. Bell's Arguments for the Authenticity of the Narratives of Matthew and Luke, and Dr. Williams's Remarks; Dr. Campbell and Dr. Newcome's Notes upon the text; Mr. Evanson's Dissonance, chap. i. sect. 3. chap. iii. sect. 2; Jones's Developement of Events, vol. i. p. 365, etc.