صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

Says (*) Dr. Fortin: "In the time of Chrift and his Apostles the Greek was really the univerfal language. The New Testament 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. P. 224. St. Matthew ch. v. 47. 48. fays: "OTI TEλvai "OUT Οτι τελῶναι όντω ποιᾶσιν. Εσεσθε ὖν ὑμεῖς τέλειοι . . that is, be not τελῶναι, but τέλειοι. Videtur autem Matthaeus vocem río hic habuiffe, ut reλvas opponeret. Wetftein. Add to this, that reλwns and Tλos are both derived from the fame word rixos. See again, ch. vi. 16. we find an antithefis in the words ἀφανίζεσι τα 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.

I shall now propose fome obfervations relating to this point.

1. If St. Matthew did not write till about thirty years after our Lord's 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 reafons to think, his Gofpel 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 feems, 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 supposed. It is addreffed to the twelve tribes fcattered abroad. And he writes in Greek, as is allowed. Why, then, fhould not St. Matthew use the fame language?

2. There was very early a Greek Gospel of St. Matthew. It is quoted, or referred to by Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Juftin Martyr, not now to mention any others: none of whom intimate, that they made use of a translation.

very

3. Though many of the ancients fay, that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew, they seem not to have fully believed it. For they have fhewn little regard to the Hebrew edition of it. This has been particu larly fhewn in the chapters of (p) Origen, (q) Eufebius of Cefarea, and (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 Gofpel of St. Matthew any marks of a tranflation. So faid Mr. Wetstein in the paffage juft tranfcribed. 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. (*) Vol. x. p. 170... 172.

(9) Vol. viii. p. 185... 189.
(s) Vol. i. p. 244.

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, presently adds: "Who (t) afterwards tranflated him into Greek, is uncertain." And all the accounts of a translator, since 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 first 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 said by the ancients, so neither have we reason to fay it. Moreover, the fame reafons, as one may think, which would induce James to make a Greek tranflation, fhould have induced Matthew to write in Greek. Neverthelefs 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 translation of this Gospel among the works falfly afcribed to St. John.

6. Once more, I apprehend, we may difcern the origin of this opinion, that St. Matthew's Gofpel was writ in Hebrew. There was foon made a tranflation of his Greek Gospel into Hebrew. We have seen proofs, that (a) in very early days of Chriftianity there was a Hebrew Golpel. 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 (b) by many in his time the Gospel

(u) Vol. vii. p. 249.

(1) Vol. x. p. 89. (x) Quis in Græcum transfuderit, incertum eft. 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.

(5) Μετέφρασε δὲ τῦτο ἰωάννης ἀπὸ τῆς ἑβραίδω. γλώττης εἰς τὴν ἑλληνίδα, ὡς Aéyeo. 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.

(6) 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 Gofpel of Matthew.

To this Hebrew tranflation of St. Matthew's Gospel, poffibly, are owing divers things faid by the ancients: as that Matthew published his Gofpel 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 some 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 Gofpel itself, or the things contained in it.

I am also 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 some other things, taken from the other Gospels, and from tradition: So I reckon, that the Gofpel of Matthew, writ in Greek, was the Gofpel, which firft 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 Grofpel. For allowing that date of his Gofpel, which to me appears most probable, I cannot conceive the reason, 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 underfood Greek, before he was called by Chrift to be an Apostle. Whilst a Publican, he would have frequent occafions both to write and fpeak Greek. And could not discharge his office, without understanding that language.

This Hebrew Gospel may likewise have been the cause, why so many ancient Chriftian writers fay, that Matthew wrote first. 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 firft. 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. l. 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, Nazaræis varia addentibus... Primitus nihil habuit, nifi quod in Græco nunc legimus... Porro Nazarai plufcula fuis locis interferuerunt, que ab Apoftolis vel Apoftolicis viris, fando accepiffent. G. J, Voff. De Geneal. J. C. cap. ii. num. i.

(e) Ann. 60. num. 31.

СНАР.

CHAP. VI.

Óf the Time, when the Apostles left Judea, to go and preach the Gospel in

ather Countreys.

****S many ancient Chriftian writers, whom we have lately quoted, fay, that St. Matthew, having preached fome while in Judea, **** was defired by the believers there, to leave with them in wri ting, before he went away, a hiftorie 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 fay: We have not heard.'

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 againft the Montanis Moreover, fays (b) Eufebe, he relates as from tradition, that our "Saviour commanded his Apostles, not to depart from Jerufalem for the space of twelve years." Which paffage has been already cited in this (c) work..

[ocr errors]

By these two paffages Cave 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, thofe twelve years would reach to the year 45.

Befide thofe two paffages alleged by Cave, and other learned men, I Thall take notice of fome others alfo.

Origen fays in general, "That (e) when the Jews did not receive the word, the Apostles went to the Gentils.

Chryfoftom

(α) διὰ τοτό φησιν ο πέτρος, ειρηκέναι τὸν κύριον τοῖς ἀποσόλοις· Ἐὰν μὲν ἐν τις θελήσῃ τῇ ἰσραήλ μετανοήσαι [forte μετανοήσας] διὰ τὸ ὀνόματός με πισίνα ειν εις τὸν θεὸν, ἀφεθήσονται αυτῷ αιμαρτίαι. Μετὰ δώδεκα ἔτη ἐξέλθετε εἰς κόσε kov, un tas Fan Oux aμ Clem, Str. 1. 6. p. 636. Conf. Cav, H. L. T. i, • 5. et Grabe Spic. T. i. p. 67.

(b) H. E 1.5. rap. 18. p. 136. (d) Hift. Lit. T.i. p. 5. et 13.

(c) Ch. xxxi, Vol. iii. p. 16.

(ε) . . μὴ παραδεξαμένων εδαίων τὸν λόγον, ἀπεληλύθεσαν εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, Matth. T. i. p. 225. E. Huet.

VOL. II.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Chryfoftom in a homilie upon Acts xi. 19. and what follows, speaks to this purpose. 66 They heard, that Samaria had received the word, and they fent Peter and John. They heard what had happened at Anti"och, and they fent Barnabas. For (f) that was a great distance. And "it was not fit, that the Apoftles fhould go fo far as yet, left they "should have been esteemed deferters, and thought to have fled from "their own people. But it then became neceffarie for them to fe"parate, [or go from thence] when the Jews fhewed themfelves to "be incurable."

In the Pafchal Chronicle are the expreffions, speaking of Paul. "Af"terwards (g) he coming to Jerufalem with Barnabas, and finding there "Peter, and the reft of the Apostles, with James the Lord's brother, the "Apoftles fend an epiftle to Antioch in Syria, establishing their church. "And Paul and Barnabas carry the epiftle to Antioch, as, the Acts fhew. "By this it appears, that the Apostles then wrote their catholic epiftles, "before their difperfion."

Such are the paffages of ancient writers, which must be reckoned to be of fome weight.

Let us now observe the historie in the Acts. And it seems to me, there is reason to conclude, that the Apostles ftaid in Judea, till after the Council at Jerufalem, of which an account is given in the xv. chapter of that book. For St. Luke does continually speak of the Apostles, as being at Jerufalem, or near it. Acts viii. 1. And at that time, there was a great perfecution against the church, which was at Jerufalem. And they were all fcattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the Apostles. One of thofe perfons, who then left Jerufalem, was Philip, the Deacon and Evangelift: who went to Samaria, and preached Chrift unto them, and with good effect. Whereupon at ver. 14. Now when the Apostles, which were at Jerufalem, heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they fent unto them Peter and John. This needs no Comment. Here is proof, that when the reft of the difciples were fcattered abroad, Peter and John, and the other Apoftles, were still at Jerufalem.

In Acts ix. 26... 30. is St. Luke's account of Paul's coming to Jerufalem, after his converfion. Where he fays, that the difciples were afraid of him... ... But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the Apofiles. St. Paul fpeaking of the fame journey, Gal. i. 18. 19. fays: Then after three years I went up to Jerufalem, to fee Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the Apostles faw I none, fave James the Lord's brother. Here we find, that at this time, three years after his conver

fion,

(F) Πολύ γὰρ τὸ διάσημα, καὶ ἐκ ἔδει τῆς ἀποσόλας τέως χωρισθῆναι ἐκεῖθεν, ἵνα μὴ νομισθῶσιν εἶναι φυγάδες, καὶ τὰς αὐτῶν πεφευγέναι· τότε αναγκαίως χωρί ζονται, ὅτε λοιπὸν ἀνίατα ἔχειν ἐδόκει τὰ κατ' αυτές. In A. bom. 25. Tom. 9 p. 202. 203.

(3) Μετέπειτα ἐλθὼν ἐις ἱεξοσόλυμα μετὰ βαρνάβα, καὶ ἐυρῶν πέτρον καὶ τὰς λοιπες αποςόλες ἅμα ἰακώβῳ τῷ ἀδελφῳ τὸ κυρία, γράφουσιν ἐπιτολὴν ὁι ἀποσό λοι εις αντιόχειαν τῆς συρίας, θεμελιῶντες τὴν αὐτῶν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ διακονῶσι τὴν ἐπιστολὴν εἰς ἀντιόχειαν αυτός πᾶυλος καὶ Βαρνάβας, ὡς δηλέσιν αι πράξεις. Εκ τότε δείκνευται, ὅτι καὶ τὰς καθολικὰς αυτῶν ὁι αποσόλοι τότε γράφεσιν πρὸ τῆς διαστ mogas άutav. Chr. Pafch. p. 233. B. C.

« السابقةمتابعة »