Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

the latter is the cafe in the matter now under confideration, as will appear by what follows.

2. Though we suppose it a mistake that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, it was almost impoffible that a great number of the fathers should not fall into it. Although it was originally wrote in Greek, it had been very strange if many of the Fathers had not believed it to be wrote in Hebrew. However like a paradox this may feem, I doubt not but to make it appear very probable by the following obfer

vations.

Obf. I. That the Nazarenes or Ebionites, two very early fects among the Chriftians, had a Gofpel which they made. ufe of, called The Gofpel according to the Hebrews2. Though they were certainly two different fects (and not the fame perfons, as Mr. Toland, according to his old way of blundering, would have them to be "), yet the difference between their Gofpels was not very great: fome difference it feems there was, for the Gospel of the Nazarenes was most full and entire in Hebrew, but the Gospel of the Ebionites was adulterated and imperfect, if Epiphanius be to be credited in this matter; but according to Jerome, they seem to have been the fame Gofpel, for he speaks of the Gospel of the Nazarenes and Ebionites as one, which, fays he, I tranflated into Greek.

[blocks in formation]

T 2

Gofpel according to the Hebrews; and S. 13. he fpeaks thus of it Ἐν τῷ γῦν παρ' αὐτοῖς Εὐαγγελίῳ κατὰ Ματθαῖον ὀνομαζομένῳ, οὐχ ὅλῳ δὲ πληρεςάτῳ, ἀλλὰ νενοθευμένῳ καὶ ἠκρωτηριασμένῳ, Εβραϊκὸν δὲ τεTo naλčow, &c. i. e. in the Gospel which the Ebionites ufe, called the Gospel according to St. Matthew, not entire, but imperfect and corrupted.

In Evangelio, quo utuntur Nazareni et Ebionitæ, quod nuper in Græcum de Hebræo Sermone tranftulimus. Comment. in Matth. 1. 2. c. 12.

2. This

2. This their Gospel was wrote in Hebrew, or rather, that which was then the language of the Jews, Syriack or SyroChaldaick. This is evident from the paffages in Jerome and Epiphanius juft cited. The former of whom tells us in another place," that there was a Hebrew copy even in his time "in the library at Cæfarea ;" and adds, " that he himself had "the liberty granted him by the Nazarenes that lived at Be"rea, to transcribe their copy." It is thought by fome that the Hebrew copy, which was at Cæfarea, was judged by Jerome to be St. Matthew's own manuscript; but there is not any foundation for this opinion in that Father's words a.

3. This Hebrew Gospel, which the Nazarenes and Ebionites made use of, they believed, and confequently declared, to be the true Gospel, which St. Matthew wrote. This is evident by their putting fo great a value upon it, as to reject all the others, and to make use only of this. Hence Eufebius tells us," that thofe Jews, who had received the faith of "Chrift, were extremely fond of this Gospel according to "the Hebrews." By thefe Jews it is impoffible (as Valefius has obferved) to understand any but the Nazarenes and Ebi

onites.

4. This opinion, which the Nazarenes and Ebionites had of their Gospel, prevailed fo far, as to be believed by a great many, if not by most. Jerome exprefsly tells us, that, in his time, it was believed by most to be the true and authentick Gospel of Matthew. And Eufebius tells us, that it was acknowledged to be a genuine book, by moft in his time, and that it was rejected only by fome. His words are;

[blocks in formation]

"Among these, viz.

[blocks in formation]

"the fpurious books, fome place the Gospel according to the "Hebrews." His ufing the word TVs, and faying they were only fome, who looked upon this Gospel as fpurious and Apocryphal, is a plain intimation, that a great many believed it to be genuine. It is not at all ftrange, that the Nazarenes should endeavour to perfuade the world, that their Gospel was the true one; and fhould gain credit with those, who were not able to contradict them.

ours.

5. This current and commonly received opinion was most certainly falfe. Here I must take it for granted, that our present Greek copies are authentick and true, I mean only fo far as to contain all that St. Matthew wrote; and if fo, it is certain the Gospels of the Nazarenes and Ebionites were spurious, for they contain a great many idle fables, which are not in These interpolations or additions are in part collected by Grotius, Father Simon, and others; but very fully, and fet down at large, by the learned and laborious Fabricius, in his useful book, intitled, Codex Apocryphus Novi Teftamenti, &c. d Any one, who will be at the pains to confult the places referred to, will foon perceive, that the Gospel of St. Matthew according to the Hebrews, which the Nazarenes and Ebionites made use of, was very different from our present Gofpel of St. Matthew. The fame may be undeniably proved from Jerome's tranflating it into Greek; had it been the fame, or had there been only fome little difference between this Hebrew Gofpel, and the true Greek copies, which were received into the Canon of the Church, it had been very abfurd for Jerome to have tranflated it out of the Hebrew into Greek, as he says he did. Now from the foregoing obfervations it is very easy to perceive, how it came to pass that fo many of the antient Fathers were imposed upon, and made to believe that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. There was a Gospel in the world, which went under St. Matthew's

2

Ἤδη δ ̓ ἐν τυτοῖς (fc. νόθοις) τινες καὶ τὸ καθ ̓ Εβραίες Εὐαγγέ λιον κατέλεξαν. Loc. jam cit. Τίνες, i. e. a paucis quibufdam. Vid. Millii Proleg. in N. T. §. 40,

b In Titul. Matth.

c Critic. Hift. of the New Teft. par. 1. c. 7. p. 68, &c. Du Pin, vol. 2. c. 2. §. 3. From p. 356 to p. 371.

T 3

name,

name, wrote in Hebrew, and declared by thofe, who used it, to be the original of St. Matthew; the credulous multitude believed as the Nazarenes did, and fo the mistake was spread in the world. It is not poffible but the Nazarenes would gain credit with fome; nay it has been proved, that the generality did believe it; and therefore it can be no wonder, that fo many have afferted it.

CHA P. XVIII.

The Fathers fell into the Miftake that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew, because none of them, except Origen, Jerome, and Epiphanius, underflood that Language. They were, upon that Account, unable to compare the Gospel of the Nazarenes with their own Greek Copies, and discover its Spuriousness. This confirmed by a Remark, that none of the Fathers, who affert St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew, have cited the Gospel of the Nazarenes, except the three mentioned, who understood that Language. The Reasons affigned, why they (Epiphanius, Jerome, and Origen) fell into the fame Mistake. Papias, the first Christian Writer who afferts this, was a very fabulous and credulous Perfon, yet was followed by many of the Fathers in his Miftakes (as Eufebius obferves), by reaJon of his Antiquity. His Teftimony in this Matter proved by one part of it to be falfe.

I

T will very much add to the probability of the foregoing account, that of all thofe Fathers, who have fallen into this mistake, there were none that were able to prove it to be so, except Origen, Epiphanius, and Jerome. They did not any of them understand the Hebrew language, and consequently not being able to compare the Gospel of the Nazarenes with their own Greek copies, could not perceive its interpolations and additions, and fo were under a fort of neceffity of believing the common report. Had they been able to have read

this Hebrew Gospel, and fo to have perceived the difference between it and their own, they would certainly have rejected it, as not agreeable to St. Matthew's original, and confequently have loft the foundation of their opinion, that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew.

To fupport this, I have made the following remark, viz. That not one of all thofe Fathers, who have afferted the Gospel of St. Matthew to be originally wrote in Hebrew, have made any use of the Gospel of the Nazarenes in their writings, except the three above-mentioned, who understood Hebrew. There is not the least evidence that either Papias, Irenæus, Eufebius, Auftin, Chryfoftom, Cyril, or Theophylact, ever saw, or made ufe of, this Gofpel. It is not so much as once referred to in all their writings. This could only be, because they did not understand the language in which it was written: had they understood Hebrew, no doubt some of them would have ufed it, as well as thofe three Fathers who did. Indeed it has been thought by feveral learned men, that Papias made ufe of this Gofpel, and cited the ftory of the adulterous woman out of it. So Father Simon; " Papias faith, that the hiftory of "the woman, who was accused of many fins before our Sa"viour, is to be read in the Gospel that was called According "to the Hebrews." But this is a very great mistake, which this and other learned men are fallen into, for want of carefully obferving Eufebius's words; he does not fay that Papias took this out of the Gospel according to the Hebrews; but that this ftory was among Papias's works, and then adds in his own words, that this hiftory is in that Gofpel. From whence it does not follow, that he, any more than Papias, had read this Gospel. If then none of thofe, who affert St. Matthew to have wrote in Hebrew, did understand Hebrew, and if none of them did fee the Gospel of the Nazarenes; no wonder they fell in with the common report of the Nazarenes, that their Gospel was the true original one of St. Matthew. Thus I

a The ground of my 'afferting this, is Fabricius's collection of the fragments of it, among which there

is not one cited out of any of those Fathers.

T 4

Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. 1. 3. c, 29. have

« AnteriorContinuar »