Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

For though St. Matthew (as well as St. Mark, and perhaps all the facred writers of the New Teftament) was more immediately influenced by fome particular occafion to write; yet there can be no doubt but that he would write his Gospel, fo that it might be of the moft extenfive usefulness. It is hard to fuppofe him under the conduct of divine inspiration, and not fuppofe him to write fo, as his Gospel fhould be most ufeful and beneficial to the world; and if fo, then it was neceffary he should write in Greek. The Hebrew language was then but very little known and ufed, in comparison of what the Greek was. Nay the Latin, the language of the empire, was not at that time, when St. Matthew wrote, near so much in use as the Greek: the Greek language is read in all nations, but the Latin is confined within very narrow limits, fays Cicero. Hence it is obfervable, that St. Paul, though he wrote to the Jews or Hebrews, yet, for the more extensive usefulness of that infpired Epiftle, wrote in Greek. And fo alfo did St. Peter and St. James, although their Epistles were immediately defigned for, and directed to, the Jews.

2. Our prefent Greek copy of St. Matthew is not a translation out of Hebrew, because the fuppofing it to be so, makes its authority very precarious and uncertain. This argument is founded upon the fuppofition of this (as well as other hiftorical books) being wrote by the influences and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Now the fuppofing it a tranflation, is inconfiftent with that authority, and efteem, which every inspired book does neceffarily demand. This is evident, because we have not the leaft evidence of the infpiration of the tranflator, nor the least reafon to conclude the tranflation is juft. The Fathers, who were impofed upon to believe it originally wrote in Hebrew, found themfelves under a neceffity of imputing the tranfiation to fome infpired perfon, though they can by no means agree who the perfon was. The Author of the Synopfis which goes under Athanafius's name, fays; It was tranflated by James, the brother of our Lord, according to the

2 Græca leguntur in omnibus fere gentibus, Latina fuis finibus,

exiguis fane, continentur. Orat. pro Arch. Poct. §. 23. flesh.

[ocr errors]

flesh. Theophylact attributes it to St. John the Evangelist, according to the tradition that was current in his time. Anaftafius Sinaita fays it was done by St. Luke and St. Paul jointly. Nicephorus ascribes it to Barnabas. Such was the diverfity of opinions among the antients in this matter; but in this they all agree, that it was neceffary it should be done by an inspired perfon. So alfo the more modern writers, especially the Proteftants, who believe it a tranflation (though few, I think, except Dr. Mille pretend to fix the person), all find it neceffary to conclude it done by an inspired perfon. So Cafaubon and many others; but the truth is, they have no juft foundation for faying fo: Jerome honeftly confeffes, it was very uncertain, who tranflated it out of Hebrew into Greek and if fo, it is impoffible it should have equal authority with the other books. For all we know to the contrary, it may be a very falfe and corrupt tranflation; it may be done by a person no way qualified for fuch a work; and does not this now make its authority dubious and uncertain? For my part I freely own, if I believed it to be a tranflation made by a perfon I know nothing of, I could not yield it that fame respect, and have that fame value for it, as the other parts of the facred writings. The Papifts, who are always endeavouring to leffen the authority of the Scriptures, that fo they might make them depend upon their church for their authority, were very well aware of this; and hence there is not, I think, above one or two of them (viz. Cajetan, and Erafmus, if he be to be called a Papift), but have fallen in with the common error of the Fathers. Baronius, Father Simon, Du Pin, and the

[blocks in formation]

reft of the Popish writers, have been of this opinion, and being fo, have not failed to draw the confequence I am now speaking of, from it, viz. that our present Greek copies are of very dubious authority. "I affirm it," fays Baronius," that "the authority of the Greek text is very uncertain, unless we "had the original Hebrew to compare with it." The learned Cafaubon in his anfwer to Baronius (though he believed St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew) was very unwilling to allow the Cardinal's confequence; "If," fays he," the Greek "text of this Gofpel depends upon the Hebrew, then this "Gospel, as we have it now, is of no authority;" and adds a little after; "then the faith of the true Catholick Church muft ❝ depend upon the faith or credit of Hereticks (he means the "Roman Church), which God forbid "." To this Father Simon answers, heartily efpoufing the cause of Baronius, and says in so many words; "There is nothing, but the authority " of the church alone, that gives authority to this Version, and "that can oblige us to prefer it before the Hebrew or Chal"daick copy of the Nazarenes." However Cafaubon and other Protestants may feem to fhuffle off, and elude these confequences, they seem to be inevitable. Hence it was justly remarked by Mr. L'Enfant in his letter to Le Clerc ; " It 66 appears to me very probable, that St. Matthew wrote his "Gospel in Greek, as the other Apoftles did, and with the "fame defign. For I can think of nothing that founds more "like a Papist, than to talk of the work of an Apostle tranf"lated into Greek, by I do not know who, nor I do not know "how." As we would therefore avoid this confequence of

a Dico, quod Græcus textus cujus fidei fit, nifi collato cum Hebreo originali, affirmare non poffumus. Apud Cafaubon. Exercit. c. 16. §. 115.

b Si auctoritas Græci textus pendet ab Hebraico textu; quum Hebræa dudum perierint, neque ufquam extent hodie; fequitur neceffario, nullum hodie ejus Evangelii debere effe pondus, nullam auctoritatem—Adde quod hæc fententia fidem Catholicæ Ecclefie fa

cit pendere (nefas dictu) ab hæreticorum fide. Cafaub. ibid.

Critic. Hift. of the New Teft. Par. 1. c. 9.

d

Il me paroit fort vraifemblable, que St. Matthieu écrivit fon Evangile en Grec, comme les autres, et dans le même deffein. Car je ne trouve rien, qui ait plus l'air d'un Romain, qu'une Verfion Gréque d'un ouvrage d'un Apôtre, faite par je ne fais qui, ni comment. Biblioth. Choifie, tom. 16. Art. 5. p. 292.

making the authority of this Gospel uncertain, we must conclude it not to be a translation. I would only add further on this head, that not only the Papifts, but the Jews, and other enemies of Christianity, will be very likely to improve this affertion to the difhonour of this Gofpel, fo far as to make them reject as uncertain one of the most valuable parts of facred Hiftory. This is not only what might be reasonably expected, but what has been really matter of fact. So the learned Jew, with whom Limborch disputes, argues against this Gospel; "They fay," fays he, " that Matthew wrote in "Hebrew, but the original is loft; afterwards his Gospel ap❝peared in Greek, but no body knows who tranflated it .

3. St. Matthew's Gospel was not wrote originally in Hebrew, but in Greek; because, if fo, the original Gospel is entirely loft, which cannot be supposed. If it was wrote in Hebrew, it is very certain that which we now have in that language under St. Matthew's name, is not it. For this was first published by Munfter, and he owns he received it from the Jews tattered, torn, and very imperfect, and that he himself added what he thought necessary: so that it is very strange, that Quinquarboreus, in his preface to this Hebrew Gospel, fhould imagine it to be the very fame Gospel which St. Matthew wrote, although he had obferved what Munster faid. I need not be at the pains to confute this opinion: it is evidently a Verfion of our present Greek; it has here and there a few words added, and fometimes a few omitted; yet it is (as far as I have obferved) a pretty good Verfion, though I dare affirm it is but a late one. If St. Matthew therefore wrote in Hebrew, the original is loft; but this cannot be supposed, without alfo fuppofing the firft Chriftians and primitive churches guilty of unpardonable negligence. Is it likely a treasure of so much value, would be no more regarded? If it

a Vid. Sixt. Senenf. 1. 7. de Evang. Matth. Hæref.

b Matthæus fertur Hebraico idiomate fcripfiffe; fed quod, eo autographo deperdito, Græco fermone poftea translatum apparuit, ab incerto autore ea lingua donatum.

Limborch. de Verit. Chrift. Relig. quæf. 4. num. 8.

Quod autem hoc ipfum fit Evangelium, quod D. Matthæus Hebraice fcripfit, ambigere quis poffit. Edit. Parif. A. D. 1551.

was

was wrote in Hebrew, it was wrote for the Jews, and the Jews were not wont to be fo careless of their facred books. The Bishop and Church at Jerufalem would, no doubt, have fafely preferved a book fo valuable." Surely," fays Chamier," the negligence of the Univerfal Church, or even the "Church at Jerufalem, would not be fo great as to let the "original of St. Matthew be loft, that there is not the least " of it to be found; nay that it should not only now be not

extant, but even utterly unknown in the second century." There were, no doubt, copies of this Gofpel taken as foon as it was published, and spread among the Jews every where; and is it likely that all thefe copies fhould be fo entirely loft? This is hard to be conceived, and therefore it is very improbable that St. Matthew wrote firft in Hebrew.

CHAP. XX.

Though St. Matthew's Gospel be fuppofed a Tranflation out of Hebrew, yet it was not for that Reafon more liable to Diftocation or Disorder.

A

S it is probable, that our prefent Greek copies of St.
Matthew are not a tranflation out of Hebrew; fo

2. It is certain that if they were, they would not have been at all upon that account more liable to the confufion and diforder Mr. Whifton fuppofes. I confefs I am not able to guess, how the tranflation (fuppofing it to be fo) could any way influence, or occafion thefe diflocations. It were to be wifhed that Mr. Whiston had told us, how the tranflating it could have had this bad influence, or that he had produced one fingle inftance of any one book in the world, that has thus suffered by its being tranflated. Of the vaft number of Versions, that have

a Non fuiffe tantam five Ecclefiæ Univerfalis, five etiam Hierofolymitanæ, negligentiam, ut ejus EdiVOL. III.

U

tionis nullum fit omnino veftigium confervatum, &c. Panftrat. Cathol. 1. 11. c. 8. §. 8.

been

« AnteriorContinuar »