, 1875-05-30

EQ10e [QeN III E1Q1AIAIQE hAU O4A GAA5pkuEos 3Ne
il p7ophesying The future purposes Of the Deity:
Peter Ees not inspired when bo dissembled and
Psul had to repro>e him Paul and BaInAbAs
wcre not lnep,red when they disputed about
John. Inspiration waa not Alwayn with the DIS
ciples: it was not given when unnecessary. Tne
ceneaiosies could Be- written without inspiration,
therefor. it was not given. This would apply ~
we'll 10 The eenealogy in the Book OF Chroni-
cses, which Ezra doubtless compiled largely
from Samuel the Kings, and thu Pentateuch,
previous to which they we're PROBABLY hauded
down ia traditions Tho merely historical po:-
tions of the Old Testament are not necessarily
inspired But it requi1ed inspirstion for Moaes
to H1ite Is in Deuteronomy. xV1i1.. 1b-l9; Tor Ua
rid Il tie Twenty y-secopd and seseutv-aecood
Psalms, and Isaiah in Isaiah u, and In the fifty
toird chapter, for instance, because theY @ a!e
81 prophecies. Instances There inspiration may
he claimed to afect action are glEcn in Ace ILL.,. Z;
Acts, T., 30-33; Acle. xvii, 81. WHARF it Affect
expedition msy BE- found in Acts, IL The illus
tration Of the tlree names omitted from IN 2h~
ntract il rot the point as the fault Is in tho
traascyibers aud not In Matthew. Ihe authority
is ir tue original, not in the translation.
adrnit '.W'a" definition Of tbs word s'hos,
snt thxt "Ehile instead OF 'as" 10 4 forced
Translation, but claim that, havaug tha mind OF
the writer in the first chapter. it IL one OF the
cases ~he1a tho violence il allowable - s'vhiio -
would s:ern to better express his mind IA
was allowed Will kns1er my exposition By In
Gliding t'of JOSEPH" in tbs pa1eathesia. Ex-
cept tLis be done, rs was allowed might quail
ifs the whole geoealog1 as veil I'd the first
lame. Property pointed it uouid read being
ths ron {.s WAS allowed Of joseph) Of Hel," etc.
When I wzote OF 4 Hebtsisu7. alluded to
Luke's Own. Although writing In = language n
which ha could use the word "'huionoa," erAnd-
CON- Is readily as "a hu1os, son, Jet beloneng to
People who we're accustomed to call al their
descendanta ''soDs," 1t naturally occurred to
Tim 10 write the same way, and thus it would
have been as proper for him to say Jesua son Of
Matthat, Jesus son OF Ieyi. etc~, 1s Jesus aon Of
He'll, or, Is he frequently doea, son OF David" !"
! cannot find the word grandson in other the
Hebrew OF Greek Scriptures Verse II Of Mat
thew. l.. being marginal gloss, proves nothing
except that ths pious monk who first Trose it
on the edge OF bis manuscript lfron uhence it
became Incorporated into later ouen) VAS not =
good kithmeticiAn.
Iy quotation from the Talmud is ct second
hand. Dr.. Burton FAYE in his critical notes,
q Some have thought that Hell Was the father
OF Mary. go it IL said in the Talmud-"
Granville Penn WHO spent thirty years upon hh
New Covenant md his critical Annota1lpns there
to, saws: According to the recei7ed traditions Of
the Jews, incorporated into their Talmud (which
national testimony tha1e ia no ground or reason
whaterer for calling in question: sincs few gen.
ealogcA facts IRE 30 we'll 4ttested}. He'll Was
tho father Of Mary ; and according to the Jewleh
;Aw ftiation vas not to be referred to the fe-
male, but to the male stock (Numbsrs. XVII,
l-8> for which Cause out Lord III ssid to be *stou
Eli "-ot He'll the word son is therefore to be
understood With the latitude prescribed by that
Law. and ~ intending grandson; as in : still
more extended senss He is called son OF David,
eon Of Abraham, in Matthew. l.. /.
1hs geaera'ly prevailing impression Of this
xeuteuce rests wholly on tho yitiated reading OF
the junior texta. For ~ (Eide Burson's notes)
1t pIh4n that the article to in every instance
but TO thAt which precedcs, and means the son
Of and yo do find *stou JnEenh.H 80 fhAt