ABSTRACT
If, by independent methods, such as an examination of manuscripts, the spuriousness of this chapter could now be shown, this would verify the faculty of criticism which has already objected to its contents; thus it would justly urge us to apply similar criticism to other passages. The genealogy of the nominal father of Jesus in Luke is inconsistent with that in Matthew, in spite of the flagrant dishonesty with which divines seek to deny this; and neither Evangelist gives the genealogy of Mary, which alone is wanted. The well-known prophet Zechariah was indeed son of Berechiah, but he was not last of the martyrs, if, indeed, he was martyred at all. The Gospel of John alone gave an adequate account of him; the other three, though often erroneous, had clear marks of simplicity, and in so far confirmed the general belief in the supernatural character and works of Jesus.
