and later, there certainly were enough of such persons, as those just mentioned, ftill living, to record his words and works, and more, who were willing, and defirous to read written hiftories of him, than before: and also more to transcribe and copy out those hiftories for their own use, and for the use and benefit of others, than in any preceding time. V. It remains, that we confider, in what language this Gospel was writ: because many of the ancients, whofe tefti- It's Original monies have been lately recited, though they allow the other Language. Gospels to have been writ in Greek, have delivered it as their opinion, that this Gospel was writ in Hebrew. Of this I have already spoken feveral times, particularly, in the chapter of (b) Papias, and in the chapter of (i) Origen, and (k) of Eufebius of Gefarea where alfo the opinions of divers learned moderns were alleged, who think, it was writ in Greek. To them I now add (1) Le Clerc, who has an argument upon this head, proper to be confulted by those who have leifure, but too long to be inferted here: and his learned fucceffor Mr. Wetstein, who fays: "Here (m) we are of opinion, that the Fathers "do not fo properly bear teftimonie, as deliver their own conjecture: "which needs not to be admitted, if it be not supported by good reasons, "or may be refuted by probable arguments. Suppofing, and taking it "for granted, that Matthew wrote for the Jews in Judea, they conclud"ed, that he wrote in Hebrew. But there is no weight in that reafon. "The Greek language was at that time much used throughout the whole "Roman Empire, and particularly in Judea. Papias, who first ad"vanced this opinion, was a weak and credulous man. Nor are there " in our Greek Gospel any marks of it's being a translation from another "language. Mr. Jones (n) has a long argument, well deferving to be read, shewing, that this Gofpel was originally writ in Greek. Mr. Bafnage (o) is of the fame fide, and, and has argued exceeding well for it. I fhould tranfcribe him, if I had room. As I have not, I refer to him. (b) Vol. i. p. 243. 244. (i) Vol. iii. p. 403... 408. Says (1) Diff. iii. De iv. Evangeliis. (k) Vol. viii. p. 184... 189. (m) Neque tam facile affentimur fententiae eorundem Patrum ftatuentium, Matthaeum fcripfiffe Hebraice, hoc eft, Syriace, five Chaldaice, quâ linguâ tunc temporis Judaei in Palaeftina utebantur. . . Exiftimamus enim Patres hic jam non teftimonium dicere, fed conjecturam fuam in medium proferre, non admittendam, fi aut idoneis rationibus non fit fulta, aut verofimilibus argumentis refutari poffit Quod enim putant neceffe fuiffe ut Hebraeis fcribens Hebraice fcriberet, verum non eft: cum conftet eo tempore linguam Graecam per totum Imperium Romanum, et in Judaea praefertim, in ufu fuiffe.... Videntur ergo vetutiffimi Patres, et inter eos Papias, homo fimplex et credu lus, re non explorata, inani Nazaraeorum ja&tantiae fidem habuiffe... Nul lum fane in noftro Matthaeo reperitur indicium, unde colligi poffit, ex alia in aliam linguam fuiffe converfam. Plurima vero aliud fuadent. Wetftein. N. T. Tom. i. p. 224. (n) See his Vindication of the former part of St, Matthew's Gospel ch. 17.... 19. p. 18c... 186. (0) Ann. 64, n. xiii, Says (*) Dr. Fortin: "In the time of Chrift and his Apoftles the Greek, was really the univerfal language. The New Teftament is a proof of it, if proof were wanting. And this is one reafon amongst many others, why St. Matthew probably wrote his Gospel in Greek. See Wetftein's N. T. p. 224. St. Matthew ch. v. 47. 48. fays: "OT Tελwas "outw ποιᾶσιν. Εσεσθε ἂν ὑμεῖς τέλειοι . . that is, be not τελῶναι, but τέλειοι. Videtur autem Matthaeus vocem río hic habuiffe, ut rehvas opponeret. Wetftein. Add to this, that reλvns and Téλeos are both derived from the fame word ríos. See again, ch. vi. 16. we find an antithefis in the words ἀφανίζεσι τά πρόσωπα, ὅπως φάνωσι. Eleganter dicitur: Tegunt faciem, ut appareant, &c. Wetstein. And many others of the fame sentiment might be mentioned, who are men of great learning and good judgment. after our Lord's I fhall now propofe fome obfervations relating to this point. 1. If St. Matthew did not write till about thirty years afcenfion, we must be led to think, he would use the Greek language. That he did not write fooner, I fuppofe to have been fhewn to be very probable. If indeed there were good reasons to think, his Gospel was writ within the space of eight years after Chrift's afcenfion, we might well conclude, that he wrote in Hebrew. But, to me it seems, that we may be fully fatisfied, that Matthew did not write within that space, nor fo foon as fifteen years after our Lord's afcenfion, nor till fome good while afterwards. St. James, refiding at Jerufalem, writes an epiftle about the year of Chrift 60. as is fuppofed. It is addreffled to the twelve tribes fcattered abroad. And he writes in Greek, as is allowed. Why, then, fhould not St. Matthew ufe the fame language? 2. There was very early a Greek Gofpel of St. Matthew. It is quoted, or referred to by Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, not now to mention any others: none of whom intimate, that they made ufe of a tranflation. Matthew wrote in HeFor they have fhewn This has been particuEufebius of Cefarea, and 3. Though many of the ancients fay, that St. brew, they feem not to have fully believed it. very little regard to the Hebrew edition of it. larly fhewn in the chapters of (p) Origen, (q) (r) Jerome, the moft likely of any of the ancients to make use of that edition, if they had been perfuaded, that it was authentic and original. 4. There are not in our Greek Gospel of St. Matthew any marks of a tranflation. So faid Mr. Wetstein in the paffage just transcribed. And this obfervation was before made by us in the chapter of (s) Papias. 5. There is no where any probable account, who tranflated this Gofpel into Greek. No particular tranflator was mentioned by Papias, as may be concluded from the accounts given of his books by Eufebe. Nor is any tranflator of this Gospel named by Irenaeus, Eufebe, or any of the writers (*) See his Difcourfes concerning the Chriftian Religion. p. 176. note (o) the third edition. (p) Vol. iii. p. 403... 408. (r) Vol. x. p. 170... 172. (9) Vòl. viii. p. 185. . . 189. · writers of the first three centuries, that are come down to us. Nor is there any reason to think, that he was named in any other forafmuch as no notice is taken of him by Eufebe, or Jerome, who faw many writings of ancients now loft, both catholics and heretics. Jerome having faid, that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, prefently adds: "Who (4) afterwards translated him into Greek, is uncertain." And all the accounts of a translator, fince given, are too late to be credited, and are likewise very improbable. In the Synopfis afcribed to Athanafius, but not writ till long after his time, it is faid, "That (u) Matthew's Gofpel was tranflated into Greek by James, the firft Bishop of Jerufalem." Which is very improbable. It would be more reasonable to imagine, that he tranflated it out of Greek into Hebrew. But as that is not faid by the ancients, fo neither have we reason to say it. Moreover, the fame reafons, as one may think, which would induce James to make a Greek tranflation, should have induced Matthew to write in Greek. Neverthe lefs Dr. Mill (x) has pitched upon that perfon for the tranflator, and formed an argument thereupon. Which only ferves to fhew, that there is nothing, for which fomething may not be faid by thofe, who indulge themselves in fuppofitions, without ground. Theophylact informs us, that (y) in his time it was faid, that John tranflated this Gospel into Greek. But it was only a common report. And indeed it could be no more. However, out of a regard to fuch reports and teftimonies, Mr. Lampe (z) has very properly reckoned a tranilation of this Gospel among the works falfly afcribed to St. John. 6. Once more, I apprehend, we may discern the origin of this opinion, that St. Matthew's Gospel was writ in Hebrew. There was foon made a translation of his Greek Gospel into Hebrew. We have seen proofs, that (a) in very early days of Chriftianity there was a Hebrew Gofpel. And many, not examining it particularly, nor indeed being able to do it, for want of understanding the language, imagined, that it was firft writ in Hebrew. Jerome exprefsly tells us, that (6) by many in his time the Gospel (u) Vol. vii. p. 249. (1) Vol. x. p. 89. (x) Quis in Græcum transfuderit, incertum est. Papius de hoc nihil ab Ariftione aut Joanne prefbytero accepit, aut tradidit. Auctor Synopfeos S Scripturæ Jacobo fratri Domini diferte adfcribit hanc verfionem. Theophylactus, ex fama duntaxat, Joanni Evangelifta. Ego ad priorem illam fententiam, feu magis verifimilem, accedo. Satis enim probabile eft, Evangelium in Hebræorum ufum linguâ ipforum patriâ primum exaratum, ab ipforum Epifcopo primario Jacobo, Epifcopo Hierofolymitano, in fermonem Græcum, per provincias, in quas difperfi erant ex gente ifta plurimi, Judæis pariter ac aliis in ufu familiari, tranflatum fuiffe, &c. Proleg. num. 66. (γ) Μετέφρασε δὲ τῦτο ἰωάννης ἀπὸ τῆς ἑβραίδω. γλώττης εἰς τὴν ἑλληνίδα, ὡς alysoi. Theoph. Pr. in Matth. p. 2. D. (x) Matthæi Evangelium Græce a Joanne Evangelifta verfum effe, refert Eutychius Tom. i. Annalium p. 328. et Nicetas præfatione ad Catenam in Matthæum. Lampe Prolegom. in Joan. l. i. cap. 7. num. 31. (a) See ch. xiv. Vol. i. p. 320. 321. (b) In Evangelio, quo utuntur Nazareni et Ebionitæ, quod nuper in Græcum de Hebræo fermone tranftulimus, et quod vocatur a plerifque Matthæi authenticum. Hier, in Matth. cap. xii. T. 4. P. i. p. 47. In Gospel according to the Hebrews was reckoned the true and authentic To this Hebrew tranflation of St. Matthew's Gospel, poffibly, are owing divers things faid by the ancients: as that Matthew published his Gospel at Jerufalem, or in Judea, for the Jewish believers, and at their request, before he went abroad to other people. I fay, I do fufpect the truth of these, and fome other like things, faid of St. Matthew, and his Gofpel. All which may have had their rife from the Hebrew edition of his Gospel, which they imagined to be the original. For I think, that St. Matthew's, and all the other Gofpels were writ, and intended, for believers of all nations. His Gofpel was writ for the Jews, but not for them only, but for Gentils alfo: as manifeftly appears from the Gospel itself, or the things contained in it. I am alfo ready to fay, with (c) Mr. Bafnage, that I do not know where it was published, whether in Judea, or fomewhere elfe. But as I think, the Nazaren Gospel to be St. Matthew's Gospel tranflated from Greek, with (d) the addition of fome other things, taken from the other Gofpels, and from tradition: So I reckon, that the Gospel of Matthew, writ in Greek, was the Gospel, which first came into their hands, and which they gladly received, and made ufe of. I fay again, the notion of St. Matthew's writing in Hebrew, probably, had it's rife from the Hebrew edition of his Gofpel. For allowing that date of his Gospel, which to me appears moft probable, I cannot conceive the reafon, why Matthew fhould write in Hebrew any more than any of the other Evangelifts. For it may be reckoned highly probable, or even certain, that he underftood Greek, before he was called by Chrift to be an Apoftle. Whilft a Publican, he would have frequent occafions both to write and speak Greek. And could not discharge his office, without understanding that language. This Hebrew Gofpel may likewise have been the cause, why so many ancient Christian writers fay, that Matthew wrote firft. This may be true. But I do not think, it was faid upon the ground of any certain knowledge, or good information. I apprehend it not to be eafie to fay, which Gofpel was firft writ. For all the first three Gofpels were writ about the fame time. And St. Luke's, for any thing that I know, may have been writ first. Which (e) was the opinion of Mr. Bafnage. In Evangelio, juxta Hebræos... quo utuntur ufque hodie Nazareni, fecundum Apoftolos, five ut plerique juxta Matthæum. Adv. Pelag. 1. 3. fub in T. 4. p. 533. (c) Annum tamen perinde atque locum, ubi a Matthæo conditum eft, in incerto effe, faciles patimur. Ann. 64, num. xii. (d) Diftinguendum enim inter hoc Evangelium, quale initio fuit, et illud, quale paullatim fiebat, Nazarais varia addentibus... Primitus nihil habuit, nifi quod in Græco nunc legimus... Porro Nazaræi plufcula fuis locis interferuerunt, que ab Apoftolis vel Apoftolicis viris, fando accepiffent. G. J. Vol. De Geneal. J. C. cap. ii. num. i. (e) Ann. 60 num. 31. 1 СНАР. CHAP. VI. Of the Time, when the Apostles left Judea, to go and preach the Gospel in other Countreys: ****S many ancient Chriftian writers, whom we have lately quoted, A fay, that St. Matthew, having preached fome while in Judea, was defired by the believers there, to leave with them in writing, before he went away, a historie of what he had taught by word of mouth this may not be an improper place to inquire, how long it was after the afcenfion of Jefus, before Matthew, and the other Apoftles, left Judea, to go abroad into foreign countreys. And first of all, we will obferve fome remarkable paffages of ancient writers, relating to this matter. And then, fecondly, we will confider what light the book of the Acts may afford upon this fubject. Clement of Alexandria, about 194. quotes from a work, entitled the Preaching of Peter, this paffage: "Therefore (a) Peter fays, that the "Lord faid to the Apoftles: If any Ifraelite will repent, and believe "in God through my name, his fins fhall be forgiven. After twelve years go ye out into the world, that none may say: We have not "heard.' ર The next paffage is that of Apollonius, undoubtedly, in part contemporarie with Clement, and placed by Cave at the year 192. by me at 211. as near the time of his writing against the Montanists: « Moreover, fays (b) Eufebe, he relates as from tradition, that our "Saviour commanded his Apoftles, not to depart from Jerufalem for "the space of twelve years.' Which paffage has been already cited in this (c) work. By these two paffages Gave was induced to think, that (d) for twelve years after Chrift's afcenfion the Apostles did not depart from the neighborhood of Jerufalem. Suppofing our Saviour to have been crucified, and to have afcended to heaven in the year 29. of the vulgar æra, which was a common opinion of the ancients, these twelve years ended in the year 41. Suppofing those great events to have happened in the year 33* which is a common opinion of learned moderns, those twelve years would reach to the year 45. Befide thofe two paffages alleged by Cave, and other learned men, I fhall take notice of fome others also. Origen fays in general, “That (e) when the Jews did not receive the word, the Apoftles went to the Gentils. Chryfoftom (α) Διὰ τῦτό φησιν ὁ πέτρος, ειρηκέναι τὸν κύριον τοῖς ἀποτόλοις· Εἂν μὲν ἔν τὶς θελήσῃ τὸ ἰσραὴλ μετανοήσαι [forte μετανοήσας] διὰ τῷ ὀνόματός με πισίνα ειν εις τὸν θεὸν, ἀφεθήσονται αυτῷ ἀιμαρτίαι. Μετὰ δώδεκα ἔτη ἐξέλθετε εἰς κόσα Mor, un vis fin' Ovx пxéτaμer Clem. Str. 1. 6. p. 636. Conf. Cav. H. L. T. i, 5. et Grabe Spic. T. i. p. 67. (b) H. E. 15. cap. 18. p. 136. (d) Hift. Lit. T. i. p. 5. et 13. (c) Ch. xxxi, Vol. iii. p. 16. (ε) . . μὴ παραδεξαμένων καθαίων τὸν λόγον, ἀπεληλύθισαν εις τὰ ἔθνη, τη Matth. T. i. p. 225. E. Huet. VOL. II. D |