* The reader is requested by the author to understand, and bear in mind, that it is not at all intended by any of the observations contained in this chapter on the histories of the four evangelists, to reflect upon, or to disparage, the characters of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, under whose names they go; because he believes, and thinks it is proved in this chapter, that the real authors of these histories were very different persons from the Apostles of Jesus; and that, in fact, the accounts were not written till the middle of the second century, about a hundred year’s after the supposed authors of them were dead.  Of course, none of the observations contained in the chapter relative to these histories, ware considered, or intended, to apply to any of the twelve apostles, who were not men who could make such mistakes as will be pointed out.  These mistakes belong entirely to the authors who have assumed their names.—­E.

* That the pretended Gospel of Matthew was not written by Matthew, or by an, inhabitant of Palestine, may also be inferred, I think, from the blundering attempts of the author of it to give the meaning of some expressions uttered by Jesus, and used by the Jews, in the language of the country, which was the Syro Chaldaic; and which the real Matthew could hardly be ignorant of.  For instance, he says that Golgotha signifies—­“the place of a skull.”  Matthew xxvii. 33.  Now, this is not true, for Golgotha, or as it should have been written, Golgoltha, does not signify “the place of a skull,” but simply “a skull.”  The Gospels according to Mark, and John, are guilty of the same mistake, and thus betray the same marks of Gentilism.  Again, the pretended Matthew says, that Jesus cried on the cross, “Eli Eli lama, sabackthani,” which he says meant, “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew xxvii. 46.) If the reader will look at what Michaelis, in his introduction to the New Testament, says upon this subject, he will find the real Syro Chaldaic expression which must have been used by Jesus, to be so different from the one given by the supposed Matthew, that he will, (and the observation is not meant as a disparagement to the real Matthew, who certainly had no hand in the imposition of the Gospel covered with his name) I suspect be inclined to believe, that this pretended Matthew’s knowledge of the vulgar language of the Jews, used in Christ’s time, must have been about upon a par with the honest sailor’s knowledge of French; who assured his countrymen, on his return home, that the French called a horse a shovel and a hat a chopper!—­E.

* See Addenda, No. 2.

* The author had prepared, in order to subjoin in this place, an examination of the Mosaic Code, and a development of its principles, which he thinks would have satisfied the reader of the truth of what he has said in the last paragraph.  But as it would have too much increased the bulk of the volume, it has been omitted.  It is an institution however curious enough to be the subject of an interesting discussion, which he should be happy to see from the hands of one able to do it justice.—­E.