11. Mr. Richardson e. "The Gospel according to the He"brews was (as we may learn from Epiphanius and Jérome) "the Gospel of St. Matthew in Hebrew, but with several in 66 terpolations and additions of their own, though without "making any alterations in what they found in the authentic "copies before.-The Ebionites corrupted the Gospel of Mat"thew in several more particulars than the Nazarenes, who "only added some historical passages from tradition, several "of which might be true, and if not pretending to be wrote by "St. Matthew, ought not to be called spurious, or a forgery." 12. Dr. Millf has borrowed his sentiments of this Gospel from Dr. Grabe, viz. "that it was not at all the same with the "true Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew, but made before it by 66 some Jewish Christians at Jerusalem." Only there seems this difference, that as Dr. Grabe imagines it to have been abused by the Nazarenes afterwards, Dr. Mill supposes not only this, but several erroneous and heterodox things to have been in it at its first writing. 13. Dr. Whitby 8, attempting to prove that St. Matthew's Gospel was originally wrote in Greek, and not in Hebrew, concludes concerning this Gospel of the Hebrews, "That it was "not the true authentic Gospel of St. Matthew; that it was "not a copy of St. Matthew's Gospel free from interpolations "and additions, but St. Matthew's Gospel translated out of "Greek into Hebrew, with the same liberty as the Chaldee pa"raphrases of the Old Testament, viz. with the addition of se"veral things from tradition; which version the primitive "Christians, who were ignorant of that language, finding in "their hands, they from the likeness of the thing, and the pre"tensions of the Jews, might think it an original, written for "their use." 14. Mr. Fabritiush censures Mr. Toland, for his having too highly extolled this apocryphal Gospel, as well as for the whole design of his Nazarenus; and a little after adds i; by all the fragments of this Gospel it is evident, that "it was very diffe"rent from the canonical one of Matthew." • Canon Vindicated, p. 69, &c. h Cod. Apocr. Nov. Test. tom. 3. p. 541 i P. 546. 15. Mr. Le Clerck is of the same opinion with Dr. Whitby, as above. 66 16. Dr. Mangey, speaking of the Nazarenes, observes, that 66 they used not the Gospel of St. Matthew, but a particular Gospel of their own:" and in another place afterwards m, "They pretended, in order to gain better terms from the other "believers, to use an Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew," (which, by the way, probably caused the erroneous opinion of that Gospel being originally wrote in Hebrew,) but this was a false pretence; "for the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which they "followed, was very different from ours of St. Matthew, as appears not only by the remaining fragments of it, but from "the testimony of Jerome, who affirms that he translated it "both into Greek and Latin.They submitted not to the "received writings of the apostles, but followed a chimerical forged Gospel of their own." 66 66 Thus I have collected the most considerable opinions, if not all of any value, that have been published by later writers, concerning the Gospel of the Hebrews. CHAP. XXVII. The Gospel of the Nazarenes highly esteemed by many writers, because they imagined it was cited by the primitive Christians in their writings. This proved to be a mistake. No Christian writer of the first four centuries has cited or appealed to this Gospel, believing it to be of any authority. A notorious inadvertency of many learned men, whereby they supposed that Papias cited it. A character of Papias. No version made of the Nazarene Gospel before that of Jerome. Another mistake of Jerome and other learned men, in supposing that Ignatius used this Gospel. HAVING given so large an account in the preceding chapter of the sentiments of learned men concerning the Gospel of the Nazarenes, I proceed here to consider the real value and authority of it. I design not to enter into any large criticism upon k Dissert. III. annexed to his Harm. of the Gospel. 1 Remarks on Nazarenus, c. 6. p. 35. m Ibid. chap. 8. p. 58, 59. these various opinions, nor yet to interpose my own; my business being not so much to do this, as to set forth its true authority. I proceed therefore in the method which I proposed; viz. to shew, III. That the Gospel of the Nazarenes was never received by any primitive writer as canonical, neither cited nor appealed to, as of any authority, by any one writer of the first four centuries. I am very sensible, that I here am about to oppose the sentiments of many learned men, who have unwarily been betrayed into an extravagant opinion of this Gospel, by a groundless presumption, that the fathers have cited it, without a due inquiry into the matter. Thus the learned Sixtus Senensis says, it was "received by the most ancient fathers among other sacred scrip"tures, for the edification of the church." See above, Chap. XXVI. No. II. Baronius and Simon judge it "for the same "reason preferable to our present Greek copies of St. Matthew. "The most ancient ecclesiastical writers (says Simon n) have "cited it as the true Gospel of St. Matthew." Dr. Grabe was for the same reason induced to his high opinion of it, viz. “be"cause he thought it was cited by Papias, Hegesippus, Igna"tius, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, and others, even for the "confirmation of the great articles of religion"." But no one has been so extravagantly positive, and unpardonably mistaken in this matter, as Mr. Toland P, who tells us, "It was read in "the Christian churches for three hundred years, not rejected "by Origen and Eusebius, but alleged as a true Gospel by "Papias, Ignatius, Clemens Alexandrinus, Justin Martyr, He"gesippus, and others." This therefore being the main foundation of this Gospel's credit, will require a more critical inquiry; and this I shall attempt by shewing, that not one of these fathers received it with any authority, but almost every one expressly rejected it as apocryphal. The first is Papias, who is generally esteemed by all those who have wrote on these subjects to have made use of the Gospel of the Hebrews. Thus thought the learned archbishop Usher 9; thus Dr. Grabe, Fabritius, bishop Pearsont, and others. Father Simon and Toland are more egregiously mistaken; the former asserts ", "That Papias, who lived with the "disciples of the apostles, saith, that the history of the woman "accused of many sins before our Saviour" is to be read in the Gospel that was called according to the Hebrews; the latter*, that "Papias alleges it as a true Gospel." But in this these writers are all plainly mistaken; for there can be nothing more evident, than that they did not rightly consider the words of Eusebius, which are the foundation of their opinion; he mentions indeed such a history as expounded by Papias, but then adds in his own words y, "It is contained in the Gospel of the "Hebrews;" and does not so much as "intimate that Papias "took it thence." Nothing therefore seems more probable, than that this history was related by Papias, not out of any book, but as what he had received by tradition. To confirm which I observe, 1. That he is called by Irenæus 2, "a disciple of St. John, a "friend of Polycarp, and an ancient author," and consequently might be very likely to receive many true accounts and histories of our Saviour, which are not in our present Gospels, such as his master St. John speaks of, chap. xxi. 25. 66 2. Papias himself declares a, “that he received his accounts " of Christianity from those τῶν ἐκείνοις γνωρίμων, who were intimately acquainted with the apostles, and that these ac"counts, which he thus received from the older Christians, and "had committed to memory, he would insert in his books." 3. Add to this what he further says b, that "he was very so❝licitous to be informed of every thing he could by tradition, "and spared no pains to know what the apostles had said and "preached, valuing such information (as he says) more than "what was written in books." From all this it is manifest, not only that Papias did not cite the Nazarene Gospel, but that he related this history of the woman accused before Christ, only as a fact that he had heard, or received by tradition. I might add here, that Papias cannot be supposed to have made use of this Hebrew Gospel, because he did not understand the language in which it was written, as it seems not unreasonable to conclude from his being bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, where every one knows the Hebrew could not be understood. It may indeed be objected, that Papias made use of a Greek version, and so could make his citation thence; and accordingly I observe, that father Simon supposes, that our Greek version, as he calls it, of St. Matthew, and many others, were made out of this Hebrew Gospel very early, even before the Nazarene interpolations. But in this he is mistaken; it being much more probable, no Greek version was made of this Nazarene Gospel before Jerome's time; which, as it will be of some importance in the following controversy, I shall endeavour to support by the following remarks, viz. First, There is not the least intimation in all antiquity of any such version before that made by Jerome. Secondly, Had there been one made before Jerome's, there seems to have been no reason for his being made, at least it is probable he would have mentioned it as an imperfect translation; as he usually does in other cases, where he speaks of his own translations. Thirdly, It is probable enough, the Jewish Christians would be cautious to prevent their Gospel being made public: as their forefathers were of the books of the Old Testament, who, if I mistake not, kept an anniversary day of humiliation on account of the LXX. Version being made. And hence Jerome intimatese, that the Nazarenes at Beroa favoured him, when they allowed him to take a copy of it. Mr. Fabritius therefore too hastily censured Jerome for making a translation of a book already translated; which, says he, Origen and others read before in Greek f; for as I think it at least probable from what is said, that there was no version of it made before Jerome's, so it does not appear, that either Origen or others read it in Greek, Crit. Hist. of the New Test. part 1. c. 7. p. 67. a Ibid. c. 9. p. 78. e Above, chap. 25. n. 13. f Cod. Apocryph. Nor. Test. t. 1. p. 365. |