last edition of his Greek Testament, "an edition of unrivalled excellence and importance, the publication of which will constitute a memorable era in the history of Scripture criticism," we naturally turn to Griesbach for the authority of this bold step, but in vain; for there the doubtful pages (as they are denominated) appear in the genuine text without the slightest hint of their supposed illegitimacy. Indeed one of his invariable rules in the regulation of his corrections very properly was, nil mutetur è conjectura nil sine testium, nempe codicum, versionum, Patrum, auctoritate." Perhaps then it may be said, that the translators themselves, who certainly seem to speak of ancient manuscripts, and other documents of the kind with much familiarity, may have had the good fortune to discover what escaped the search of the indefatigable Griesbach. But here again we are foiled; for a note informs us, that these passages are certainly to be found in all the manuscripts and versions, which are now extant." Upon what possible principle then can it be, that they are thus pilloried, and exposed in an English translation to popular contempt and fury? When we recollect that they contain an account of the miraculous conception of our Saviour, and that Priestley, with others of the "clear and discriminating" class of writers, "who of late years have diffused so much light over the obscurities of the sacred Scriptures," have thought proper to reject them, we cannot be long at a loss to divine the principle and the motive but as a decision is not passed against their authenticity without some show of argument in the notes, the best, it is to be presumed, which Unitarian reading can supply, and as the question itself is one of considerable importance, I shall be the more particular in my remarks upon this subject. The portion or St. Matthew's Gospel which is thus stig *Introduction, p. 23. † Prolegomena, p. 83. matized, consists of the whole of the two first chapters, with the single exception of the Genealogy at the com mencement. days of Herod N. 13. Jones It is probable The critical authority adduced for the retention of the Genealogy, and the rejection of the remainder of these two chapters, is stated in the following terms: "Epiphanius says, that Cerinthus and Carpocrates, who used the Gospel of the Ebionites, which was probably the original Gospel of Matthew, written in the Hebrew language for the use of the Jewish believers, argued from the Genealogy at the beginning of the Gospel, that Christ was the son of Joseph and Mary; but that the Ebionites had taken away even the Genealogy, beginning their Gospel with these words; And it came to pass in the the king &c.' See Epiph. Hæres. 30. on the Canon, vol. i. part ii. chap. 25. therefore that the first sixteen verses of this chapter are genuine; and that they were found at least in the copies of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. The remainder of this chapter, and the whole of the second, are printed in Italics, as an intimation that they are of doubtful authority. They are indeed to be found in all the manuscripts and versions which are extant; but from the testimony of Epiphanius and Jerome we are assured, that they were wanting in the copies used by the Nazarenes and Ebionites, that is, by the ancient Hebrew Christians, for whose instruction probably this Gospel was originally written, and to whom the account of the miraculous conception of Jesus Christ could not have been unacceptable, if it had been found in the genuine narrative.”* Before I proceed to the examination of the authorities cited, it will be proper to notice an ambiguous assertion occurring in the first paragraph, viz. that the Gospel of the Ebionites was the original Gospel of Matthew, written *New Version, p. 1, 2. in the Hebrew language for the use of the Jewish believers." If this assertion be intended to convey the simple persuasion of the translators themselves, it will rest on no solid basis, and consequently require no particular refutation but if they applied it to Epiphanius, an application which seems to arise from the natural connexion of the whole, it may be necessary to remark, that they certainly attribute to the Father an opinion the very reverse of that which he maintained. The words of Epiphanius are these: Εν τῷ γεν παρ' αυτοις Ευαγγελιῳ κατα Ματθαιον ονομαζομένῳ, εχ ὅλῳ δε πληρεςατῳ, αλλα νενοθευμένω και ηκρωτηριασμένῳ, Εβραϊκον δε τ8το καλεσι, εμφερεται, &c. * This is thus translated by Jones, to whom also reference is made, most probably for the convenience of the mere English reader. "In that Gospel which they (i. e. the Ebionites) have called the Gospel according to St. Matthew, which is not entire and perfect, but corrupted and curtailed, and which they call the Hebrew Gospel, it is written &c." Now is it not hence apparent, that Epiphanius, instead of considering it as "the original Gospel of Matthew, written in the Hebrew language for the use of the Jewish believers," pointedly stigmatized it as an imperfect spurious, (vsvodsuμevy illegitimatized,) mutilated copy? But the translators perhaps, as I before observed, might have intended to take the responsibility of the assertion solely upon themselves; in which case I will only remind them, that they adopt the very opinion of the celebrated Toland which "the learned" Jeremiah Jones, as they justly describe a favourite author, (Introduction, P. 7.) formerly reprobated in the strongest terms.t * Hæres. 30. §. 13. † Toland, it seems, not only maintained that the Gospel of the Ebionites was the original Gospel of St. Matthew, and that both the Ebionites and Nazarenes were the true ancient Hebrew Christians; but that the forged Acts of the Apostles, which the Ebionites also used, were a portion of genuine Scripture. After giving Epiphanius's ac If I understand the ground of their argument in this case correctly, it is precisely this. We are assured by Epiphanius and Jerome, that the two first chapters of St. Matthew's Gospel were wanting in a Gospel supposed to be count of the latter production, Jeremiah Jones adds the following severe reflections: "Part of this fragment is produced by Mr. Toland, in his Original Plan or Scheme of Christianity according to the Ebionites, both in Greek and English; nor is it strange that a person of Mr. Toland's profession should grace his Scheme with a passage so much to his purpose, I mean, of abolishing the doctrines of Christianity, which are agreed upon by all Christians, and introducing his most ridiculous and impious Scheme of Nazarene, or Jewish, or Ebionite, or Mahometan, or (which is the undoubted truth) of no Christianity at all. Did Mr. Toland and his friends, in these their vile attacks upon so excellent and divine a constitution, not quibble, and juggle, and prevaricate, as they upon all occasions do, in their citations out of the old records of Christianity, (a crime which they are ever forward to charge upon others, who are much more clear of it,) I should excuse myself and the reader from the trouble of any remarks upon them, leaving them to their slavish infidelity; but when I observe a person ransacking and mustering together all the silly trumpery of the ancient heretics, grossly misrepresenting the books he cites, only with design to gratify a bigoted humour against the Christian religion, I am obliged, by my regards to the profession I make of the name of Jesus, to lay open such vile imposture. Of this I have given several instances already from Mr. Toland's books. The passage I am now upon out of Epiphanius furnishes me with another. He would persuade us the Ebionites or Nazarenes (a most ridiculous sort of heretics, who scarcely deserved the name of Christians, as I shall shew hereafter) were the only true and genuine Christians, consequently their books must be the truest and most genuine accounts of the Christian affairs; and so, for instance, must these Acts, which we are now discussing; because it so much vilifies St. Paul, and exposes his doctrine. But, as Dr. Mangey has justly remarked, this is most insupportable impudence in him, to cite as genuine a wretched forgery of the Ebionites. One can scarce tell whether his intention of vilifying St. Paul, or the method he useth to do it, be the more detestable; this sorry unbelieving Critic governs his skill by his wicked principles, and has no other way to judge of spurious and genuine books, than by their opposition to Christianity." Jones on the Canonical Authority of the New Testa that of St. Matthew, used by the Nazarenes and Ebionites, that is, by those who are conjectured to have been the ancient Hebrew Christians, and for whose instruction St. Matthew's Gospel is also conjectured to have been written the whole two chapters therefore are prima facie to be rejected; but Epiphanius asserts, that Cerinthus and Carpocrates, who used the same Gospel, admitted the Genealogy at the commencement, which the Ebionites had taken away therefore the Genealogy alone is to be retained, and the remainder of the two chapters to be rejected. * I shall not undertake to refute the illogical reasoning manifested in the conduct of this argument, because it is in itself sufficiently obvious, and has already been exposed ;* nor enter into an unnecessary discussion respecting the proper principle upon which the Genealogy is to be admitted, satisfied that it is on both sides declared to be genuine; but confine myself to the critical statements upon which the rejection of the remainder of these chapters is grounded. We are assured, the authors of this work observe, both by Epiphanius and Jerome, that the two first chapters were wanting in the Hebrew Gospel used by the Nazarenes and Ebionites. When I found them in the introduction, p. 14. describing the celebrated Ephrem, who lived in the fourth century, as a writer of some note in the sixth, I began to ment, Part IÌ. Chap. 17. It may indeed be observed, that the language of this passage is disgraced by an immoderate asperity, and that the opinion contained in it is unsupported by authority; to both of which remarks I fully accede; only subjoining with regard to the latter point, that although the opinion be unsupported here, it is very sufficiently proved in other parts of the work, and that, if it rested solely upon the credit of the assertor, still, as being the opinion of the learned Jeremiah Jones, it would be entitled to at least as much respect as the opposite opinion of the authors of the New Version. Nare's Remarks on this Version, p. 5, 6. |