Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

believers in the place of the spiritual or perfect; and it is in this sense that we find the Pseudo-Barnabas distinguishing himself from the Jews -because they followed the letter, neglecting the spirit, of their lawand identifying himself with the Gentiles (not simply as Gentiles, but) as believers in Christ-i. e., as spiritual Jews. Of this he discourses at large in ss. 5 and 10, edit. Voss.

3. Nor is Mr. Jones' last objection at all more to the purpose, being grounded only upon this, that the style of this epistle is, in the main, free from Hebraisms. But now, suppose the author an Alexandrian Jew, and this argument (otherwise of some weight) makes rather for, than against me, since the famous Septuagint version (if there were nothing else) proves the Jews of that city to have wholly lost their native language.* And this brings me to my SECOND PROPOSI. TION, which was,

II. That this author makes use solely of the Septuagint version; a thing which any one who has read the epistle in the original needs not to be told. But there is one famous passage in it, which contains an absurdity so gross that no one who did not regard that version with the same reverence as the Hebrew text could possibly have fallen into it :

"Learn then, my children, concerning all richly, that Abraham, who first gave us circumcision, looking forward in the Spirit to his Son, circumcised his domestics, taking the mysteries (dóyuara, vid. Casaub. c. Bar. p. 11, Exer. xvi. 43,) of three letters; for the scripture says And Abraham circumcised of his house ten, and eight, and three hundred men.' What, then, was the knowledge given to him? Learn first of the eighteen, then of the three hundred. Now, as to ten and eight, I is ten, and H eight. You have IHσovs

He manifests, then, Jesus in two letters, (i. n.) and the cross in one, (T.) He who hath set in us the engrafted gift of instruction knoweth that none ever learned a more genuine doctrine from me than this. But I know that ye are worthy of it."

This notable piece of theology is introduced, you see, with all the

See Dr. Mangey's Præfat. in Philonem.

+ Besides that given in the text, another decisive instance is to be found in his citation of Isaiah, xlv. 1, where he reads Kupio for Kúpy-a mistake which one who knew the Hebrew could not have fallen into. Two instances of an apparent departure from the LXX have been shewn by Mr. Jones (On the Canon, vol. iii. p. 16 and 103) to arise from his taking the citations of St. Matthew and St. John as he found them in their gospels. Two others, brought by Dr. Hody, agree as little with the Hebrew as the Greek, and are obviously loose quotations from memory : the first is Esai. xxviii. 17: ὃς ἐλπίσει ἐπ' αὐτὸν, ζήσεται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα· where, however, the ancient Latin version has non confundetur, which makes it very likely that the true reading of the Greek is, οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται, which is the lection of some MSS. of the LXX. The other is from Gen. ii. 1: kai iπOLÝTEV ȧ Θεὸς ἐν ἓξ ἡμέραις τὰ ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν αὐτοῦ, καὶ συνετέλεσεν ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῷ ßôópy where, as Menardus has remarked, he has plainly mixed up the place in Exodus along with it. The late excellent Editor of the Septuagint having quoted this passage of Barnabas, and another from Theodorus, as probable evidence that some MSS. of the LXX had ißdoμy, adds, “Sed Barnabæ Epist. 45, 46, et forte 65, et Theodorus ostendunt se kry legisse literarum et similitudo facilè potuit librarios fallere—”

seriousness and solemnity of a man fully confident of the importance of the discovery which he is about to make; and he seems wholly unconscious of the complication of absurdities which it involves. I appeal to the reader, whether it is possible for any one to have made so capital a blunder, who did not regard the Greek text with all that habitual superstitious reverence for its verbal, and even literal, inspiration, which the Jews generally feel for the original Hebrew. Even with this excuse the error is so exorbitant as itself to be a sufficient proof (if it were necessary) that St. Barnabas could not be the author of such a production. But it seems less absolutely unaccountable when we recollect the romantic fables by which the Alexandrian Jews contrived to raise their version to a level with the sacred archetype.

III. His allegorical way of explaining scripture is precisely similar to that of Philo and the Alexandrian school; that Philo from whom, according to Photius, the deluge of allegory was first derived into the Christian church. The proof of this proposition, also, has been so carefully laboured by the commentators, that it would be superfluous in me to spend time in establishing it. Rosenmüller, in the second chapter of the History of the Interpreters before Origen, has put some of the most remarkable parallels in a very striking light. Or the reader may turn to so common a book as Grotius de Verit. lib. v. c. 9, adding to the passages there cited Philo Hist. Joseph. p. 360 (edit. Turneb.) and TEρì ȧTоiкías, p. 270. Or, if he wish for further satisfaction, let him consult Spencer's Prolegomena to his Treatise De Legibus Heb. Rit., Clemens Alex. Pæd. lib. ii. c. 1, and Le Clerc's elaborate Commentary on the Pentateuch, on the places cited by Barnabas.

The learned Brucker has satisfactorily traced the origin of the Gematraija, or Numerical Cabbala, (of which we have just seen so rare an example in this epistle,) to the dregs of Pythagorism, which finally settled at Alexandria. To such a source the name, which, as most learned men agree, is but the Jewish way of writing Yewμɛrpía, seems evidently to point. For as geometry-the indigenous science of Egypt-is that one which soonest and best developes the powers of arithmetic, the Egyptians were presently remarkable for their knowledge of it; and as it was the policy of that nation (all whose philosophers were priests) to involve all their learning in mystery, so this simple science was, in a short time, by means of fanciful analogies with morals and metaphysics, wrapped up (like one of their own mummies) in a fantastic robe, all covered over with strange

Philo de Vita Mosis, Lib. ii. p. 660, (Parisiis, 1640,) kabáπep ¿v0ovol@vteg πρоερητεÚоV. A little below he adds, that the LXX are to be looked on not as interpreters (ἑρμηνεῖς) ἀλλ ̓ ἱεροφάντας καὶ προφήτας. I need not add the History of Aristeas.

† Εξ οὗ, οἶμαι, καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀλληγόρικος τῆς γραφῆς ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ λόγος ἔσχεν doxny εioрvñvat. Phot. Biblioth. Cod. CV. cf. Porphyr. apud Euseb. H. E. lib. vi. c. 19.

Glassii Philol. Sacra. lib. ii. pars. 1, Tract. ii. sect. 3. But Rosenmüller (in lib. sup. cit.) seems to prefer ovμμeтpía.

figures and hieroglyphics. So Isocrates, the best informed of the Greek rhetors, tells us that, in Egypt, τοὺς νεοτέρους ἐν ̓Αστρονομίᾳ καὶ λογίσμοις, καὶ γεωμετρία διατρίβειν —ὧν τὰς δυνάμεις οἱ μὲν . .

οἱ δὲ ὡς πλειστῶς πρὸς ̓Αρετήν συλλαμβομένας ἀποφαίνειν ἐπιχείρουσι. (In laud, Busirck.)

From the Egyptians it was borrowed by the Samian philosopher, and by him made a part of his motley system, as he that is curious may see plentifully illustrated in the As PYTHAGORICUS of the laborious Meursius. From Pythagoras, again, it returned, with the last wreck of his disciples, to its native port; where, with other singularities of his school, it was adopted by the Therapeutæ † into their semi-pagan Judaism. From the synagogue it was soon transferred into the church; where, however, the use which the heretics made of it, in no long time, brought it into disrepute. "Ao de Tεvloũç-says Irenæus-οἱ τηλικαύτην θεοσεβείαν, καὶ τὸ μέγεθος τῆς ἀληθῶς ἀῤῥήτου δυναμέως, καὶ τὰς τοσαύτας οἰκονομίας τοῦ Θεοῦ, διὰ τοῦ Α καὶ Β, καὶ δι' ἀριθμῶν, οὐτῶς ψυχρῶς καὶ βεβιασμένως διασύροντες—Iren. c. Hær. lib. i. c. 13. So the author of the additions to Tertullian's Præscriptions says of Marcion and Colarbasus: "Quòd ex ordine literarum alphabeti, lusu quodam cabbalistico, multa inepta et periculosa dogmata, extruxerunt, abusi ad hoc exemplo Christi qui Apoc. i. 8, inquit, Ego sum A &." Absurdities so extravagant, that they would be almost wholly incredible, had we not unfortunately too many late examples of the same thing in the reveries of Hutchinson and Cocceius. Christian writers have, indeed, fairly beaten the Jews at their own weapons, as when they extract the name from the dimensions of the ark and Solomon's temple, with a thousand other feats. But the reader who will consult S. Epiphanius de Myss. Num. will get a better idea than I could give him of what profound sense there is in scripture arithmetic. Epiph. Opera. edit. Petav. vol. ii. p. 305.

Some

Another favourite point with the same school was, their mystical precepts concerning diet, much in the same taste as Barnabas' wonderful discourses upon the Mosaic laws on that subject. The Egyptians, like the Jews, observed a distinction of food, but, in general, for a different reason-viz., because they thought some animals too sacred to be eaten; as we may see in Herodotus, Euterpe, c. 65, and Cal

* Brucker, I find, wrote a separate dissertation, to shew that Pythagoras' Numbers were the same as Plato's Ideas. An instance of much the same arithmetical extravagance may be seen in Dr. George Cheyne's Principles of Nat. Rel. Part 2.

+ See Clerici Prolegomena ad H. E. p. 26, 27. For an account of the Numerical Cabbala see the following: Glassius ut suprà; Reuchlin de Cabbalà Judaicâ ; P. Galatinus de Arcan. Cath. Verit. lib. ii. c. 17; Hottinger, Phil. Thes. Lib. i. c. 3, s. 5, p. 437; and Gale's Court of the Gentiles, Book ii. c. 1. Reuchlin and Gale have observed the great resemblance between the Cabbala and Pythagorism; but, as might be expected, in such hands, it becomes a proof that the Greeks borrowed all their learning and wisdom from the Jews. Gale's method of proving the Talmudic Traditions Pythagorean is rather singular: "The Pharisees," says he, "call them τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, believing them to have been delivered down orally from Moses; but our Lord calls them ¿vráλμata ¿vopóñшv—i. e, of the Pythagorean Philosophers." 35

VOL. XIII.-May, 1838.

cagninus de Rebus Egypt. p. 230.* The source of this most degrading of all superstitions has been well shewn by Warburton, DL. book iv. sec. 4, to have lain in their method of hieroglyphic writing. But the practice itself, when a necessity arose for vindicating it, was, of course, defended by the Hyper-Platonic sophists of the Alexandrian school on the same principles as animal worship-that is, by saying that these brutes were considered as the SYMBOLS of intellectual entities.-See Jamblichus de Myss. sec. vii. c. 1, and Vossius de Idol. lib. iii. c. 74. But they also, like the Jews, abstained from some animals under the notion of their being polluted; the origin of which superstition, I think, was this: the whole learning of that extraordinary people was, as is well known, confined to the priesthood, who were the only practitioners of medicine in Egypt. Now these physicians prided themselves (as Diodorus tells us, Bibl. lib. i. p. 52) particularly on their skill in diætetics; and in order to induce the vulgar to observe implicitly the regimen which they ordered, they soon took advantage of their own sacred character to throw a mysterious air of religious observance over their prescriptions, representing everything which they deemed unwholesome as polluted and impure also. But when the inquisitive philosophers of Greece came to pry into these venerable secrets, it was necessary in this case, as well as the other, to invent a symbolical meaning, which should conceal the true and simple reason under the specious mask of a moral emblem. This device, also, was borrowed by Pythagoras; an explanation of whose precepts upon diet, very closely resembling our author's, may be seen in the commentary of the Alexandrian philosopher Hierocles, on the Golden Verses, p. 294, edit. Warren. When the Jews, after the great captivity, began to study their law with a more curious eye than their forefathers had generally turned upon it, they found a great deal that harmonised with, and much that went beyond, the purest dictates of that philosophy with which they had now become acquainted. But the philosophy which was so happily applied to the elucidation of the moral law, and to the explaining of many things both in it and the prophets concerning the sublimer parts of natural theology, seemed to fail altogether of affording any light to the ceremonial. And their minds being now wholly set upon speculative science, they were little disposed for that religious explanation which lay so much out of the way of their present studies, and still less inclined to acquiesce in these rites as their ancestors had done-simply because they were enjoined; and accordingly, they soon followed the tempting example of the Pythagoreans, and resolved the whole Mosaic ritual into a mass of theoretic and moral allegories. In this spirit, Philo, speaking of the distinction of clean and unclean animals, says, πρὸς τὴν ῥητὴν ἐπίσκεψιν, οὐκ οἶδα ὃν ἐχεῖ λόγον, πρὸς δὲ τῆν ὑπονοίαν ἀναγκαιότατον.-De Agric. p. 160.

IV. The first who cites this epistle is Clemens Alexandrinus; the

• The Heathens, judging of others by themselves, sometimes believed that the Jews thought the pig a sacred animal.-Plutarch, Sympos. lib. iv. quæst. 5.

next, Origen.* Both were of the school of Alexandria, and both much attached to allegorical expositions and vain philosophy. Barnabas everywhere represents his strange mysticism as the true yvos, and every one who is acquainted with their writings knows that this is the uniform language of these two fathers. The name, for instance, which Clemens all along gives to his Perfect Christian is ò áλýons YvwσTIKOS. But on this I have no room here to dilate, and can only refer the reader to the excellent note of Grotius on Matthew, xxviii. 20, and Suicer's article, in his Thesaurus, on the word yvwais.

V. In support of my fifth proposition, I observe, that the ancients generally make the Mark who was first Bishop of Alexandria the same with that John Mark who was sister's son to Barnabas, and pretend that he was ordained by that apostle, whom the Greek (chiefly Alexandrian) authorities cited by Dr. Cave in his Apostolici affirm to have come to Alexandria immediately on his departure from Rome, So important, indeed, was this thought, that the forger (an Alexandrian too) of the Recognitions of Clement was pleased to invent a very full and particular account of his arrival in that city. For we must remember that, as the pagan nations were always eager (as Livy tells us), 66 consecrare origines suas, et ad Deos referre auctores," so the Christian churches prided themselves upon being reputed of apostolical foundation; and hence it was (as the learned have observed) that any apostle who so much as visited any of them was presently set down in their catalogue of bishops; so that sometimes (as we may see in Valerius' note on Euseb. H. E. lib. iii. c. 21,) the episcopal see is filled (with a witness) by two prelates at a time. This interest, then, which the Christians of Alexandria felt in St. Barnabas may have given occasion to the ascribing to him what was looked on as so philosophical and mysterious a work; since it doubtless seemed very desirable that the founder of a church in so literary a place should himself enjoy some literary reputation. "Illud quoque," says the great Casaubon, "me vehementer movet quod videam, primis ecclesiæ temporibus, quàm plurimos extitisse, qui facinus palmarium judicabant, cælestem veritatem figmentis suis ire adjutum; quò facilius videlicet nova doctrina a gentium sapientibus admitteretur. Officiosa hæc mendacia vocabant, bono fine excogitata; quo ex fonte dubio procul orti sunt libri sexcenti, quos illa ætas et proxima viderunt ab hominibus minimè malis (nam de hæreticorum libris non loquimur) sub nomine etiam Domini Jesu et apostolorum, aliorumque sanctorum publicatos."-Exercit. 1, N. x. in Baronii App. in Annales. Not that I would absolutely determine that the person who originally wrote this epistle intended to pass it off as St. Barnabas's, any more than Novatian made his Treatise de Trinitate for the purpose of imposing

I was greatly surprised to find Mr. Faber (in the Appendix of his Apostolicity of Trinitarianism) citing Tertullian de Pudicitiâ, cap. 20, as a testimony to this epistle; because, if he had looked at the place itself, he must have seen that Tertullian is there speaking of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which he attributes to St. Barnabas. Indeed, the thing is so notorious, that one is surprised to see the learned author fall into the mistake under any circumstances.-See Usher's Preface to the Ep. Barnab. in the first vol. of Le Clerc's P. P. Apostolici.

« FöregåendeFortsätt »