Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

he feels that there is no need of explanation on his part. Of this we must concede him to have been a proper judge.

With these internal evidences in view, that Matthew must have intended his Gospel for readers abroad as well as those in Palestine, we should join the consideration of the state of the Jewish nation when he wrote. In all probability his Gospel was written about A. D. 60, when Jewish believers were to be found in all the neighbouring countries, in Egypt, and throughout Asia Minor and Greece. Why should he think of limiting his efforts to propagate a knowledge of Christianity merely to Jews who spoke the Hebrew language?

That Matthew himself was acquainted with the Greek, would follow almost with certainty from the office which he held. Nearly all public officers were chosen from those who could communicate with their fellow men by the use of the Greek language. It was the general medium of official communication. It was at that day, what the French now is, and has for a long time been, in many countries on the continent of Europe.

§ 5. Was not the Gospel according to the Hebrews itself a TRANSLATION from the Greek Original of Matthew, with interpolations and alterations?

That this Gospel stood related in some respects to Matthew, is agreed on all hands. Matthew appears to have been its original basis. But that in transcribing, or in translating, it had received many changes, is perfectly clear from the extracts that we have from it, as given us by the Christian fathers. How can these changes be accounted for? Or is it our canonical Gospel which has been changed, while the Jewish one remained true to its original archetype? The internal evidence in respect to this question is overwhelming, and entirely satisfactory. The puerile passages in the Gospels according to the Hebrews, which have been exhibited in the preceding pages, shew how entirely incongruous they are with the whole tenor of all the canonical Gospels, and speak for themselves, to the entire conviction of the reader, that they arose from other sources than those of truly evangelical authors.

Besides this, there is, in the few fragments that we meet with in Jerome who translated the Jewish Gospel, and whose testimony can be depended on with respect to the matter before us there is evidence somewhat striking, that the Nazarene Gospel was rather a translation than an original.

In our canonical Matthew 23: 35, we have mention of a Zechariah, the son of Barachias, slain between the temple and the altar.' This passage has greatly perplexed all commentators, ancient and modern. The difficulty arises from the supposition, that the Zechariah here mentioned, is the one whose martyrdom is recorded in 2 Chron. 24: 20, 21, and who is there called the son of Jehoiada. Now this difficulty is removed by the Hebrew Gospel; for, as Jerome testifies in his Commentary on Matthew 23: 25, that Gospel read the son of Jehoiada. Sapit interpretem-is what seems obvious in this case. The supposition would be quite improbable, that a translator of Matthew from the Hebrew into Greek would introduce the difficulty in question, by inserting vioù Bagayiov instead of the son of Jehoiada. Every probability seems to be on the other side. The translator from Greek into Hebrew got rid of the difficulty, by making what he supposed to be a requisite correction of his text, and writing the son of Jehoiada instead of Barachias.

בַּר

Again Βαραββάν (Acc. case from Βαραββᾶς) is mentioned in Matthew 27: 16. Jerome says (Comm. in loc.), that he found in the Hebrew Gospel, filius magistri eorum as the correspondent to this proper name. Now here is evidently a mistake on the part of an interpreter, respecting the etymology of the word Bapaßßav. He supposed it to stand for in, Βαραββᾶν. i. e. the son of their master or teacher; whereas the plain and proper etymology is NEN, son of our father. Here we may clearly say: Sapit interpretem. If, on the other hand, our Greek Matthew were translated from the Hebrew Gospel, how should the interpreter have fallen upon Baoaßßãs (a proper name) as the equivalent rendering of in 2, i. e. filius magistri eorum?

My own impression, from comparing the specimens transmitted to us by the fathers, in regard to the Gospel according to the Hebrews, is, that this Gospel is plainly and clearly a secondary work, a mere compilation from the Greek Matthew, with very many interpolations and changes of the original modes of expression, translated into Hebrew for the use of Jewish Churches, and translated after the Jewish converts had separated from the church catholic, and were desirous of something in the way of Scripture which would serve as a rallyingpoint for their party. Nothing can be more certain than that the Gospel in question Judaizes. It was composed, or rather

compiled, then, by some Judaizing teacher or writer, who took Matthew for his basis, because he was thought to have said nothing which would bring into particular disrepute a zeal for the ceremonial law of Moses, and because he was long conversant with the Palestine converts, after the death of Jesus.

One thing, at all events, is quite certain; and this is of great consequence in the matter before us. It is certain, that all the knowledge we have of the ancient Hebrew Gospel, is such as obliges us to believe, that it was a spurious Gospel, filled with interpolations, some of which are so weak and silly as to furnish conclusive evidence from their very nature, that they belong to no genuine Gospel. It is certain that the earliest notices we have of the state of this Gospel, all conspire to force upon our minds the same conclusion.

As we know, then, but of one Hebrew Gospel among the ancients, (some small differences probably existed between that of the Ebionites and Nazarenes, and yet Epiphanius and Jerome expressly declare that the Gospel of both sects was substantially the same), and as we do know for certainty that this was palpably an adulterated, interpolated, and sectarian Gospel-why should we persist in maintaining that the original Gospel of Matthew was Hebrew? That such report was common among the fathers, I fully acknowledge. But I have shown how this could easily be transmitted, as it was, and yet, under the circumstances in which they were, neither their integrity or veracity be impeached, even when we withhold our credit from their testimony. Only two of them were capable of examining a Hebrew Gospel, and those two have given us extracts which show at once that such Gospel was a spurious one; and in addition to this they have explicitly told us, that they do not regard that Gospel as of any binding authority. Then the amount of all we know of the Gospel under examination is to its discredit; and when also the amount of testimomony in this respect is very considerable, comprising many passages especially in Epiphanius and Jerome, so that we have somewhat ample means of judging; why should we affirm, in the face of all this, that there was a Hebrew Gospel entitled to more credit than our canonical Matthew? For such must be the case, if our Matthew is but a translation from a Hebrew Original. The incongruity of such conclusions with such testimony and such facts-is palpable, when the matter is seriously and fully examined.

$6. Conclusion.

It is some years since I began to suspect the common mode of reasoning in respect to a Hebrew original of Matthew; although the confidence reposed in it appeared to be so unwavering on the part of many writers. Every-fresh investigation has served to increase my doubts; and they are now so strong, that I am forced to regard the assumption of a Hebrew original as improbable in itself, and as altogether incapable of being established by satisfactory proof.

We may, on an impartial review of the whole case, say truly, that there are difficulties on both sides of the question. How can we dispose of the declarations of the Fathers? This is one difficulty. I have endeavoured to shew how we can dispose of them, with entire respect to their integrity, and without impeachment of their understanding. What Papias said at an early period, passed current afterwards; not simply on his authority, but on the ground that it was countenanced or supported by the testimony of the Judaizing Christians. Irenaeus, who cherished a high respect for Papias, received his views, we can hardly doubt, from that writer, in respect to a Hebrew Matthew. If Eusebius did not the same, still we can easily account for his speaking as he does, on the ground of tradition and of reports derived from the Nazarenes and Ebionites. And so in the case of others. Most plainly and palpably the great body of the fathers, in this case, are hors du combat as to any ability to testify from personal knowledge or examination. Such as had ability to examine, renounced the authority of the Hebrew Gospel; and these same fathers have given us extracts enough from it to show, that they did this with good and sufficient reason. In a word, all the testimony derived from actual knowledge of the Gospel in Hebrew, does nothing but show that it was a spurious, interpolated Gospel; in many respects, indeed, having a resemblance to our Matthew, in many others differing widely and even offensively from him. Is it not time for critics to cease from eulogizing and defending such a Gospel?

On the other hand, the facts adduced in the preceding pages can never be well accounted for, on the supposition of a genuine Hebrew original extant in the 2nd, 3d, and 4th centuries. They are incompatible with such a state of things; and therefore such a state is incredible. The facts cannot be denied. VOL. XII. No. 31.

23

They are not matters of conjecture or uncertainty. The internal state of the Gospel itself proclaims, that the writer had foreigners in his eye when he composed it. How can a Hebrew original be admitted under such circumstances, and in spite of all these difficulties? I cannot deem it probable; I must believe, that our canonical Matthew came from the hands of its author as it now is, with the exception of some slight variations in its readings occasionally, which are not of sufficient importance to affect in any degree worth naming the question before us.

I cannot even go with Bengel, who, moved by some of the difficulties that I have suggested, says: "Quid obstat, quo minus idem [Matthaeus] Graece eundem librum eodem exemplo scripserit?" He means to say, that it is not improbable that Matthew wrote his Gospel originally, both in Greek and Hebrew, on the same exemplar; so that both Jews and Greeks could avail themselves of it. Of the like opinion was Dr. Townson of England; and Guerike of Halle has also recently published similar views. But there is no example of any thing like this, in respect to the Old Testament or the New. The books of Ezra and Daniel, a mixture of Chaldee and Hebrew, still never exhibit the same matter in both languages.

The Epistle to the Hebrews even, was not written in Hebrew. The labour would have been superfluous.

Doubtless the three critics above mentioned were moved with the difficulties attending the supposition of an exclusive Hebrew original, on the one hand, and on the other they do not seem to have been satisfied how the testimony of the fathers could be disposed of without impeaching their credit. Hence they made a conjecture which seemed to reconcile both opinions in relation to our subject. It is possible they may be in the right. Yet when we consider, that all the testimony we have of a Hebrew original goes to prove this to have been a spurious and interpolated Matthew, why need we be anxious in regard to this testimony? It shows indeed that there was, quite early, a so called Hebrew Gospel κατὰ Ματθαῖον; it shews that the Nazarenes and Ebionites claimed this as coming from the apostle Matthew; but all this may be admitted, and yet an original Hebrew Gospel actually written by this apostle, be very reasonably doubted. The origin of a Greek version, from an unknown author, and at an unknown time—a version of such a book as this buried in such inexplicable obscurity,

« AnteriorContinuar »