תמונות בעמוד

Says (*) Dr. Jortin: "In the time of Christ and his Apostles the Greek was really the universal language. The New Testament is a proof of it, if proof were wanting. And this is one reason amongst many others, why St. Matthew probably wrote his Gospel in Greek. See Weta stein's N. T. p. 224. St. Matthew ch. v. 47. 48. says: "Ott Tidavær őuta ποιέσιν. Εσεσθε εν υμείς τέλειοι .. that is, be not tedūras, but térelos. Videtur autem Matthacus vocem téac.o. hic habuisse, ut tiháværs opponeret. Wetfein. Add to this, that thúins and témerns are both derived from the fame word téroso See again, ch. vi. 16. we find an antithesis in the words eqayisyon tá spóowia, özws Garwo. Eleganter dicitur : Tegunt faciem, ut appareant, &c. Wetstein. .

And many others of the same sentiment might be mentioned, who are men of great learning and good judgment.

I shall now propose some observations relating to this point.

1. If St. Matthew did not write till about thirty years after our Lord's ascension, we must be led to think, he would use the Greek language. That he did not write sooner, I suppose to have been shewn to be very probable. If indeed there were good reasons to think, his Gospel was writ within the space of eight years after Christ's ascension, we might well conclude, that he wrote in Hebrew. But, to me it seems, that we may be fully satisfied, that Matthew did not write within that space, nor to soon as fifteen years after our Lord's ascension, nor till some good while afterwards. St. James, residing at Jerusalem, writes an epiftle about the year of Christ 6o. as is supposed. It is addressed to the twelve tribes scattered abroad. And he writes in Greek, as is allowed. Why, then, should not St. Matthew use the same language?

2. There was very early a Greek Gospel 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 use of a translation.

3. Though many of the ancients say, that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew, they seem not to have fully believed it. For they have shewn very little regard to the Hebrew edition of it. This has been particularly shewn in the chapters of () Origen, (9) Eusebius of Cesarea, and (r) Jerome, the most likely of any of the ancients to make use of that edition, if they had been persuaded, that it was authentic and original.

4. 'There are not in our Greek Gospel of St. Matthew any marks of a translation. So faid Mr. Wetstein in the passage just transcribed. And this observation was before made by us in the chapter of (s) Papias.

5. There is no where any probable account, who translated this Gofpel into Greck. No particular translator was mentioned by Papias, as may be concluded from the accounts given of his books by Eusebe. Nor is any translator of this Gospel named by Irenaeus, Eufebe, or any of the


(*) See his Discourses concerning the Chriflian Religion. p. 176. note), the Edition, (P) Vol.iii. p. 403.

(9) Vol. viü. p. 185. i ir (r) Vol. 4. p. 170... 172.

(5) Vol. i. p. 244

. 408.

writers of the first three centuries, that are come down to
there any reason to think, that he was named in any one
as no notice is taken of him by Eusebe, or Jerome, who
tings of ancients now loft, both catholics and heretics.
said, that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, presently adds: “T
wards translated him into Greek, is uncertain.” Asia
of a translator, fince given, are too late to be credited ani za
very improbable. In the Synopsis ascribed to Arbat: IE TO
till long after his time, it is said, “ That (1) JL-
translated into Greek by James, the first Bishop of yes'
is very improbable. It would be more reasonable to me me
translated it out of Greek into Hebrew. But as that is
ancients, so neither have we reason to say it. Moreove te
sons, as one may think, which would induce James : IT
translation, should have induced Matthew to write in Ger
less, Dr. Mill (x) has pitched upon that person for :
formed an argument thereupon. Which only serves to her..
is nothing, for which something may not be said by som
themselves with suppositions, without ground. Terms
that (y) in his time it was said, that John translate ti
Greek. But it was only a common report. And inosi:
more. However, out of a regard to such reports 2010 mar
Lampe (7) has very properly reckoned a translation or Insu
the works fallly ascribed to St. John.

6. Once more, I apprehend, we may discern the go
that St. Matthew's Gospel was writ in Hebrew. T:
translation of his Greek Gospel into Hebrew. We
(a) in very early days of Christianity there was a gry
many, not examining it particularly, nor indeed :
want of understanding the language, imagined, ti
Hebrew. Jerome expressly tells us, that (b)

(1) Vol. x. p. 89.

(u) Vol.si ) Quis in Græcum transfuderit, incertum er Ariftione aut Joanne presbytero accepit, aut tr Scripturæ Jacobo fratri Domini diserte adfcriba lactus, ex fama duntaxat, Joanni Evangeliste. tiam, feu magis verifimilem, accedo. Satis : in Hebræorum ufum lingua ipsorum patria

? Episcopo primario Jacobo, Episcopo Hierok. per provincias, in quas difperfi erant ex gener aliis in usu familiari, translatam fuife, &c. Po

(3) Μετέφρασε δε τετο ιωαννης από της έστω και yoti. Theoph. Pr. in Matth. p. 2. D.

(z) Mats Evangelium Græce a JozessEutychiv

Annalium, R. 328. et, Matth?


Loan. h. i, a {a

aus, e
xii. T.

[ocr errors]


Gospel according to the Hebrews was reckoned the true and authentie Gospel of Matthew.

To this Hebrew translation of St. Matthew's Gospel, possibly, are owing divers things said by the ancients : as that Matthew published his Gospel at Jerusalem, of in Judea, for the Jewish believers, and at their request, before he went abroad to other people. I say, I do suspect the truth of these, and some other like things, laid of St. Matthew, and his Gospel. All which may have had their rise 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 Gospels were writ, and intended, for believers of all nations. His Gospel was writ for the Jews, but not for them only, but for Gentils also: as manifestly appears from the Gospel itself, or the things contained in it.

I am also ready to say, with (c) Mr. Basnage, that I do not know where it was published, whether in Judea, or somewhere else. But as I think, the Nazaren Gospel to be St. Matthew's Gospel translated from Greek, with (d) the addition of some other things, taken from the other Gospels, and from tradition: fo 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 use of. I say again, the notion of St. Matthew's writing in Hebrew, probably, had it's rise from the Hebrew edition of his Gospel. For allowing that date of his Gospel, which to me appears most probable, I cannot conceive the reason, why Matthew should write in Hebrew any more than any of the other Evangelists. For it may be reckoned highly probable, or even certain, that he underItood Greek, before he was called by Christ to be an Apostle. Whilst 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 Gospel may likewise have been the cause, why so many ancient Christian writers say, that Matthew wrote first. This may

be true. But I do not think it was said upon the ground of any certain knowledge, or good information. I apprehend it not to be easie to say, which Gospel was first writ. For all the first three Gospels were writ about the same time. And St. Luke's, for any thing that I know, may have been writ first. Which (e) was the opinion of Mr, Bafrage.

In Evangelio, juxta Hebræos... quo utuntur usque hodie Nazareni, fecundum Apostolos, live ut plerique juxta Matthæum. Adv. Pelag. l. 3. sub in T.4. P. 533

(c) Annum tamen perinde atque locum, ubi a Matthæo conditum est, in incerto esse, faciles patimur. Ann. 64. num. xii.

(d) Diftinguendum enim inter hoc Evangelium, quale initio fuit, & illud, quale paullatim fiebat, Nazaræis varia addentibus. . ; Primitus nihil habuit, nifi quod in Græco nunc legimus. . . Porro Nazarei pluscula suis locis interferuerunt, quæ ab Apoftolis vel Apoftolicis viris, fando accepiffent. G. J. Vol. De Geneal. 7. C. cap. ii. num. i. (e) Ann. 60. num. 3i,

c H A P.

[ocr errors]

CH A P.. VI.

сн Of the Time, when the Apostles left Judea, to go and preach the Gopel in

other Countreys.


u heard."

S many ancient Christian writers, whom we have lately quoted,

say, that St. Matthew, having preached some while in Yudca, was desired by the believers there, to leave with them in writing, before be went away, a historie of what he had taught by word of mouth : this may not be an improper place to enquire, how long it was after the ascenfion of Jesus, before Matthew, and the other Apostles, left Judea, to go abroad into foreign countreys,

And first of all, we will observe some remarkable passages of ancient writers, relating to this matter. And then, secondly, we will consider what light the book of the Acts may afford upon this subject.

Clement of Alexandria, about 194. quotes from a work, entitied the Preaching of Peter, this passage: “Therefore (a) Peter says, that the “Lord said to the Apoftles: If any Ifraelite will repent, and believe " in God through my name, his fins shall be forgiven. After twelve years go ye out into the world, that none may say: We have not

The next passage is that of Apollonius, undoubtedly, in part contemporarie with Clement, and placed by Cave at the year 192. by me at 215. as near the time of his writing against the Montanists.

Moreover, says (6) Eusebe, he relates as from tradition, that our “ Saviour commanded his Apostles, not to depart from Jerufalem for " the space of twelve years.” Which passage has been already cited in this (c) work.

By these two passages Cave was induced to think, that (d) for twelve years after Christ's ascension the Apostles did not depart from the neighborhood of Jerusalem. Supposing our Saviour to have been cracified, and to have ascended 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. Supposing 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.

Beside those two passages alleged by Cave, and other learned men, I hall take notice of some others also.

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

Cbryfoftom (α) Δια τετό φησιν και πέτρος, ειρηκέναι τον κύριες τους αποστόλοις· Εαν μεν εν τις θελήση το Ισραήλ μετανοήσαι [forte μεταονήσας] δια τα ονόματός με πισίνο 10 εις τον θεόν, αφεθήσονταν αυτό αιμαρτίαι. Μετα δώδεκα έτη εξέλθετε εις κόσHei, un tos ivan. Oux sxecayev. Clem. Str. 1.6.p.636. Confi Cav. H. L.T.1. p. so & Grabe Spic. T.i. p.67; (6) H. E. l. 5. cap. 18. p. 136. (c) Ch. xxxi. Vol. iii.p. 16. (d) Hif. Lit. T.i. p. 5. et 13. (1) ..μη παραδεξαμένων εδάνων τον λόγον, άπεληλύθεσαν εις τι θνη. Ιπ Matth

. T. 1. p. 225. E. Huet. VOL. II.

Ꭰ ;

Chryfoftom in a homilie upon Acts xi. 19. and what follows, speaks to this purpose. « They heard, that Samaria had received the word, and “they sent Peter and John. They heard what had happened at Antioch, and they fent Barnabas. For (f) that was a great distance. And “ it was not fit, that the Apostles should go so far as yet, left they « should have been esteemed deserters, and thought to have Aed from « their own people. But it then became necessarie for them to re“parate, [or go from thence] when the Jews shewed themselves to be 6 incurable.”

In the Paschal Chronicle are the expressions, speaking of Paul. Af« terwards (8) he coming to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and finding there « Peter, and the rest of the Apostles, with James the Lord's brother, the « Apostles send an epistle to Antioch in Syria, establishing their church. “ And Paul and Barnabas carry the epistle to Antioch, as the Acts fhew. “ By this it appears, that the Apostles then wrote their catholic epistles, « before their dispersion.”

Such are the passages of ancient writers, which must be reckoned to be of some weight.

Let us now observe the historie in the Acts. And it seems to me, there is reason to conclude, that the Apostles staid in Judea, till after the Council at Jerusalem, 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 Jerusalem, or 'near it. Acts viii. 1.

Acts viii. 1. And at that time, there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem. And they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the Apostles. One of those perfons, who then left Jerusalem, was Philip, the Deacon and Evangelift : who went to Samaria, and preached Christ unto them, and with good effect. Whereupon at ver. 14. Now when the Apostles, which were at Jerusalem, heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John. This needs no Comment. Here is proof, that when the rest of the disciples were scattered abroad, Peter and John, and the other Apostles, were still at feo rusalem.

In Acts ix. 26 ... 30. is St. Luke's account of Paul's coming to 'ferusalem, after his conversion. Where he says, that the disciples were

. . But Barnabas took him and brought him to the ApoÁles

. St. Paul speaking of the same journey, Gal. i. 18. 19. says: Then after three years I went ip to Jerusalem, to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the Apostles faw 1 none, fave James the Lord's brother. Here we find, that at this time, three years after his conver


[ocr errors]

(f) Πολύ γαρ το διάσημα, και εκ έδει τές αποσύλες τέως χωρισθήναι εκείθεν, ένα μη νομισθώσιν είναι φυγαδες, και πως αυτών σεφευγέναι» τότε αναγκαίως χωρίς ζονται, ότε λοιπόν ανίατα έχειν εδοκει τα κατ' αυτές. Ιn Am. hom. 25. Τom. 9p. 202. 203

(g) Μετέπειτα ελθών εις Ιεροσόλυμα μετα βαρνάβα, και ευρων Πέτρου και της λοιπές αποσύλες άμα Ιακώβω τώ αδελφω τα κυρίε, γράφουσιν επιστολήν οι αποσόλοι εις αντιόχειαν της συρίας, θεμελιώντας την αυτών εκκλησίαν, και διακονεσι την επιςολήν εις αντιόχειαν αυτός παυλος και Βαρνάβας, ώς δηλώσιν αι πράξεις. Εκ τοτε δείκνυται, ότι και τας καθολικας αυτών οι αποδόλοι τότε γράφεσιν προ της διασ Ticãs artūs. Chr. Pafch. p. 233. B. C.

« הקודםהמשך »