« FöregåendeFortsätt »
works the disputed passage might be discovered. Fortunately our enquiries were not distracted by a wide and interminable: search. The remains of Ptolemy are collected in the fragınents of the Gnostics, published by Massuet and Grabe * ; but neither index nor marginal reference, in their collections, makes the least allusion to the disputed clause of St. Matthew. In the Epistle to Flora, p. 319. ed. Bened. the passage of Isaiah which has been quoted by the Evangelist is indeed cited ; and herein lies: the pretext on which the critic deemed bimself authorised to appeal to the testimony of Ptolemy. But the express reference of that writer to the prophet, and total silence respecting the evangelist very fully evince of how little value his evidence is to those who depend on his testimony. The Benedictine cditors accordingly insert in their margin, Esai. xxix. 13. but make no allusion to Matt. sv. 8.; the only passage in question.
The next authority quoted is Clemens Alexandrinus; and from Wetstein's note, as well as the Symbolæ Criticæ, Vol. II.
285. we cannot err in deciding, that the reference of Dr. Griesbaclı is made to Strom. Lib. II. Vol. I. p. 461. ed. Potter. Here again the context of the disputed passage is quoted; but no reference made to prophet or evangelist, from which we can determine whether the quotation was drawn from Isaiah, St. Mark, or St. Matthew. In the lower margin of Archbishop Potter's edition we accordingly find a triple reference to Es. xxix. 13. Matt. xv. 8. Mark vii. 6. in which Dr. Griesbachy probably felt himself authorized to make choice of that which best answered his purpose. We, however, find in his collection of texts from Clement and Origen, the passage before us 'referred to St. Mark as well as St. Matthew 7: this reference will. sufficiently reveal what dependence he really placed on Clement's authority.
The vext witness cited in evidence, is the disciple of Clement, the indefatigable Origen; and here we were again directed to the particular part of his works, by the unerring authority of the Symbolæ Criticæ, Vol. II. p. 285. A cursory glance at the passage, we will not deny, seemed to furnish a testimony more to the purpose, ihan we hitherto discovered; as an allusion is made to ihe text of St. Matthew. But on a nearer inspection, our first opinion was quickly abandoned: on a cross examination we found, to our no small satisfaction and surprize, that Origen transformed himself mito a witness in favour of the passage dis. carded on his authority. He unquestiouably ascribes the dis. puted clause to our Lord, for which he could have no possible
* Append. S. Iren. p. 349. ed. Bened. Grab. Spic. Patr. Tom, I. p. 74. ed. Oxon. † Conf. Symbb. Critt. Tom. II. pp. 285. 344.
authority but St. Matthew * ; bis testimony consequently proves nothing, if it does not evince, that the contested passage was
* Orig. Comm. in Matt. § 11. Tom. III. p. 422. c.
Mera ταύτας όλας τας παρα Ιεδαίους των πρεσβυτέρων παραδόσεις από των προφητικών [ο Σωτήρ] βελόμενος απιλέγξει λόγων, παρέθετο εηίον από το Ησαίε, όπερ αύταις λέξεσιν έτως έχει και είπε κύριος, έβγίζει μοι ο λαός έτος έν τω στόμαίι αυτών, και τα εξής. και προείπομέν γε ότι κ αυταίς λέξεσιν ανέγραψεν ο Ματθαίος το προφητικόν The tenor of the sense, not less than the train of Origen's reasoning (comp. § 10. p. 491. b. sqq.) requires that ο Σωτήρ should be taken to govern βελόμενος ; in this view, the phrase é Então Tapébito gntör ato To Houie, is opposed to ανέγραψαν ο Ματθαίος το προφητικόν. We now ask, τυλhers Origen could have learned, that "the words of the prophet,” which he quotes, ifyibet mos is Tw clouarı attw, were "opposed” by our Lord “ to the Jewish traditions," unless in the Gospel of St. Matthew ? On the first view of this passage we were inclined to believe, that the latter part of the prophecy had fallen from the text of Origen, absorbed by the phrase rj ta ifño: as it more fully jus. tifies the critic's remark, that St. Matthew had not quoted the prophet ipsis verbis. But, on more mature deliberation, we abandon this opinion; as there is not only some difference, even in the clause which Origen quotes, between the Prophet and Evangelist, but that difference which justifies his declaration, that he had remarked it. Not to insist on the omission of rejtim Kógios, analo, gous to 'JTN 708', the phrase. Twolópati attwo Toñi xoiazoi of St. Matthew does not express, aitais aígioi, the phrase roowar 192 of the Prophet; the force of the prepositive a, as Origen has remarked, and that also of the subjunctive 1, which is analogous to avrē, not being rendered by the Evangelist. Accordingly Origen quotes the phrase with the proposition év; and it is accord. ingly rendered in the Greek Version of the LXX. iv tự olópati cite sy èv toho nebliot. This view of the subject is confirmed by Origen's context, vid. infr. p. 400. n. *. And in this view it was regarded by the Palestine reviser, who has rejected this phrase from the Septuagint, obviously on Origen's authority: vid. infr. p. 412. n. *. We will now put one or two questions to those who regard Origen's testimony in a different view from that which we have given of it, and follow Erasmus, Mills, and Griesbach, in supposing the disputed clause an interpolation in the Evangelist. If this passage has been thus inserted in St. Matthew, from whence has it been adopted ? If from the original Herrero by whom has it been inserted. If from, the Greek version, how comes the phrase to be altered ? If at ail from Isaiah, how comes it to be adopted against the authority of Origen, as they understand it? If the objector, on the other hand, feel disposed to put his interrogatory; how then has the preposition been omitted by the Evangelist, and the disputed clause. suppressed by his transcribers ?-How obvious is the reply! The
found in the evangelist. And this conclusion is abundantly confirmed by his context; be there represents the contested passage as opposed to the Jeu's, who did not believe in Jesus *; but this is certainly no where done, unless in those copies of St. Matthew which conform to the Vulgate edition. In Origen's testi. mony we consequently tind an authority, so little in favour of the Corrected Text, that it may be fairly cited against it.
From the Greek Fathers we now pass to the Latin ; in estimating whose authority we shall follow the references of Sabatier, from whom they have been obviously cited in a string by his epitomiser. The first evidence quoted is that of Tertullian; a reference being made, by Sabatier to Lib. IV. adv. Marc. p. 712. a.
On an inspection of several editions, we could find nothing to answer this reference. After an examination of Pamelius's edition, who has distinguished the scripture refer. ences by a different type, we could discover nothing to justify the allegation of the fourth book against Marcion, but two passages t, which appeared holly beside the purpose of those who wished to wrest Tertullian's authority agaiust the received text. In both he is not only silent respecting St. Matthew ; but expressly refers to “ the prophet” Isaiah. We accordingly find, that the index of scripture authorities, made by Ingelmontius, possesses no reference to the evangelist ; and that not only it, but the margin of every edition which we consulted, ascribes the alleged passages to Isaial instead of St. Matthew.
The testimony of Cyprian, which is next cited, was easily
Evangelist, having plenary authority to render the sense, rather than exhibit the worus, of the Prophet, altered the phrase, in changing the Hebrew into a Greek idiom. And the reviser of the Palestine text suppressed the clause from the same superficial view of Origen's authority, which probably induced St. Jerome, and certainly induced Dr. Griesbach to expunge it: for that he did suppress it may be absolutely demonstrated; vid. infr. p. 412.
Orig. ubi supr. p. 493. d.-ε μόνον τοίς μη ειδόσιν, άλλα και τους επαγγελoμένοις ειδέναι γράμματα, τότε είπεν ο Κύριος μόνο το στόματι εγγίζειν τον λαον των Ιεδαίων τω Θεώ, και τοις χείλεσι τιμάν αυτόν φησι, διότι « η καρδία αυτών’ δια την εις τον ΙΗΣΟΥΝ απιστίαν * πόρρω έστιν από Κυρίε,’ Here we have not only abundant proof that Origen considered the disputed clause, έβγίζει μοι το στόματι και Tois xsidoos opposed by our Lord to the Jews; but the adoption of this phrase by him, in place of εν τω στόματι και εν τοις χείλεσι, puts it out of dispute, that he quotes the passage, not from Isaiah, but in the very words of St, Matthew.
+ Vid. Tert. adv. Marc. Lib. IV. cap. xii. xvii. pp. 507. h. 511. h. ed. Pam. 1617.
found by Sabatier's reference to Ep. Isviii. p. 118. which our first attempt discovered in the Benedictine edition. But though we found the text of Isaiah quoted, and the authority of some “ Gospel" alleged, we have still to complaini
, that no mention was made of St. Matthew. And that we are not singular in pronouncing, that the alleged testimony contains nothing at all to the purpose, we may appeal to very adequate authority. In the margin of the Oxford and Benedictine editions, we find a reference merely to Mare, vii. 6: the learned editors of those works were therefore as dull as ourselves in apprehending, how the quotation should be necessarily referred to St. Matthew.
The reference of Sabatier to St. Hilary directed us to Tract, in Ps. cxlviii. col. 590. a: the testimony of the prophet was thus easily found in the Benedictine edition. The margin now, for the first time, presented us with a reference to Matt. xv. 8. but at this we were not startled, as we were perfectly aware, that the reference was made to the Vulgate of Jerome. On casting our eye from the margin to the text, we accordingly found, that no better authority existed for the preference thus given to Matt. xv. 8. above Mar. vii. 6. Is. xxix. 13. than may be extracted from the words,“ dictum est.” After making this discovery, we gave ourselves little further trouble about the evi, dence of the good bishop of Poictou.
The conclusion was not very different to which we were led, on an inspection of the testimony of Ambrose; to which we may add that of his companion Ambrosiaster. In the variety of passages to which we were directed in Ps. cxvii, Tom. I. col. 1212. d. Lib. de Virg. Tom II. col. 244. a. Ep. xli. 960. d. and which were easily found in the Benedictine edition, we could discover no graver reason for the reverend editors' caprice, in giving the alleged passage to Is. xxix. 13. in one place, and to Matt. xv. 8. in another, than exists in the phrases,“ Dixit Dominus," " Domious ait,"_" dictum est. Our search in Ambrosiaster was even more fruitless. In p. 61. of the Benedictine edition of his works, to which we were referred by Sabatier, an opposition marked between the words of God in the Prophet, and of our Lord in the Gospel, clearly took away the disputed clause from St. Matthew, and appropriated it to Isaiah ; and conformably to this representation we found the testimony of the former wholly disregarded in the editors' margin, while a reference was expressly made to the latter.
It must be needless to prosecute investigation beyond this point. Whether as much accuracy has been used in adducing the testimony of St Jerome, as in quoting that of his predecessors, we are not much concerned in enquiring. The peculiar seading of his own version reuders it probable that in one at Jeast of the two places referred to in his works, he may support the correction which Dr. Griesbach has made in his edition. But how unwarrantably this correction has been inade, must be apparent from the meagre list of manuscripts, which has been cited in its justification ; one only of the Egyptian and four of the Palestine text justifying the critic's temerity. And let it be observed, in the last place, that the testimony of the Versions cited ultimately resolves itself into that of those editions of the original; as they bear internal evidance of having been inade from the text of Egypt, or Palestine : the Syriac only excepted, wbich has obviously suffered in the present instance, as in many others, by the influence of the Palestine edition *
* The farther we prosecute our enquiries into this curious and interesting subject the more we are convinced, that when the ob. vious errors of transcribers are excepted, there is no various reading of any importance, of which in process of time a satisfactory ac. count may not be rendered. A genuine copy of the Palestine ciation of Isaiah existed in the Codex Marchalianus; but with respect to the passage before us, we are informed by the collator of thut us, ap. Walt. Bibll. Polyglott. Tom. VI. tr. XII. p. 126. “Es. xxix. 13. ev tū clóutti aita tai èv] desiderantur hæc omnia in Codice MI.” On the subject of that Codex we are again informed, Ibid. p. 123. “ M. notat Marchali vitustissimum, ex Abbatis Apollinarii exemplari descriptum, quod Apollinarius cum Origenis Peraplis in Bibliotheca Cusariensi, et cum Tetraplis et aliis exemplaribus contulerat." Whatever contest may be raised about the phrase ir tū olóp.zoo aitê xzà év, forming part of St. Matthew's text, there is not a shadow of doubt that it forms part of Isuzinh's. Here, therefore, the corrupter of the sacred text is detected in the very act. For, here we liave not only an evidence that the revisers of the Palestine text expunged passages in that edition; but an irresistible proof, that they expunged the very clause in question. Will it be any longer doubted, that they, who would thus blot out in the text of Isaiah, would also blot out in the text of
Matthew; more especially as they apparently possessed Origen's sanction for making the latter emendation? Let us now suppose, that the Syriac translator, whom we conceive to have been a Christian, and who must have known Greek, as it is the language that he turned into Syriac, did not happen to know Hebrew, as this was a language which was almost exclusively confined to the Jews ;-let us even suppose, that one of his earliest transcribers, being no better linguist, and having met Origen's observation on the passage of St, Matthew before us, wished to verify it by the text of Isaiah, but on turning to one of the copies of the Septuagint current in Pa. lestine, as the only copies within his reach, found this clause ab, sent from the text of the prophet; we put the question to the