Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

και ότι δοξασθήσεται υπο των ἁγιων ὁρώντων αυτον εν τη πατρωα δοξη θεον παντων, και κριτην προκαθεζόμενον. (P. 191.)

6. Οπως ενδοξασθη το όνομα του κυρίου ἡμων Ιησου Χριστ του εν ύμιν, και ύμεις εν αυτῷ]. Εαν ταυτα τα προειρη μενα γένηται ὑμιν, φησιν, ενδοξασθησεται και εν τῷ βίῳ τούτῳ το όνομα του κυρίου εν ὑμῖν, ὅταν γαρ ιδωσιν ὑμας ὑπομενοντας παντα πειρασμον ὑπερ της εις τον δεσποτην αγάπης, πως ουκ εσται τουτο δοξα αυτῷ, ὅτι οὕτως αγαθος εστιν, ώστε ὑπερ αυλου αποθνησκειν τους δουλους; και ότι ουτω δυνατος, ὥστε ὑμας νευρώσαι προς την υπομονην; αλλά και ὑμεις εν αυτῷ, ὅτι οὕτω πιστοι ευρέθητε ώστε παντα πασχειν δόξα γαρ δουλου, το πιστον ευρεθήναι τῷ δεσποτη. Και άλλως δε ἡ δια Χριστον θλίψις, δοξαν ότι λαμπρους μαλλον ποιεί, κει μεν εις θανατον παραδιδομένους, κρειτα τους δε θανατου δεικνυμένους.

Κατα την χάριν του θεου ήμων και κυρίου Ιησου Χριστου.] Και αυτο τουτο, φησι, του θεου εστι, και ουχ ἡμέτερον, αλλα χαρις αυτου, το δοξάζεσθαι, φημί, και αυτόν εν ημιν, ότι ουδεν αυτου προτιμώμεν, ὡς γλυκύτερου παντων, και μας εν αυτῷ, ὅτι δυναμιν παρ' αυτου λαμβανομεν ὑπομε νειν παντας τους πειρασμούς. Ερωτώμεν δε ύμας, &c, (Theophylact. Comment. in loc. p. 723.)

I shall merely remark, with respect to these commentators, that it is no argument against us, that they are not more explicit. For, if we had had them only to rely upon in our preceding Letter, we should have fared no better than we do here. Not one of the Commentaries

conveys

conveys the meaning of the words εν τη βασιλεια του Χριστου και Θεου.

7. In the collections which I have made on this text, from the Latin Fathers, there is nothing worthy of particular notice. However, as I wish to avoid the imputation of omitting any thing which may be thought of the least consequence towards ascertaining the meaning of the passages in question, I shall transcribe them into the second number of the Appendix.

I am, Sir, &c.

LETTER

LETTER IV.

SIR,

OF

your next example (1 Tim. v. 21) I can produce fourteen quotations from Greek writers, and as many, at least, from the Latin. Yet, not in one instance is the passage explained as you interpret it: some of them determine nothing either way, while the greater part correspond strictly in meaning with our English translation. The matter, however, is not immediately to be given up in despair.

For, of these writers, all the Latin, and the Greek too, with a few exceptions, follow either the reading, του Θεού, και Ιησου Χριστού, or, του Θεού, και Χρίστου InGoU; and therefore their altered interpretation is, in fact, Ιησού; so far from affording any argument against your theory, that it is rather, in some degree, a confirmation of it. The instances will then all come under the general exception, where the second noun is a proper name.

It may be said, indeed, that if we adopt either of these readings of the Fathers, we fight against ourselves, and effectually disable the passage from the possibility of being produced as a testimony to the Divinity of our SaviNo doubt. And, if either of them can be shewn

our.

to

to be the true reading, who would not adopt it? Only, the proof will not depend merely upon the citations of the Fathers. Recourse must also be had to manuscripts and versions. But, to undertake this, would be remote from our object: which is not to establish, or overthrow, any reading of the sacred text, but merely to bring forward the interpretations of ancient writers*.

The Greek passages in which one of the two abovementioned readings is found, are the following:

(1) Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromat. lib. 1. p. 318.

66

*Notwithstanding what is said here, it cannot be supposed that we feel unconcerned with respect to the reading in this passage. The following is Wetstein's note on the word upoυ: Omittunt, A. (Codex Alexandr.) D. (Cod. Claromont.) a primâ manu. F. (Cod. Augiens.) G. (Cod. Boernerian) 17. (Cod. Colbert.) 31. (Cod. J. Covelli.) Versio Vulg. Copt.-Clemens. Basilius de Sp. Sancto 13. Ethic. 70. Athanasius ad Serap. de Sp. Sanct. Theodoretus. Lucifer 5. Hilarius, Pelagius, probante J. Millio proleg. 638. J. A. Bengelio." To the above, Griesbach adds the Æthiopic Version, Hilarius Pictaviensis, and Sedulius. It is to be observed however, that all the Vienna manuscripts, collated by Prof. Alter (in number 8, besides a copy of the Slavonic version) excepting one, which passes immediately from Tov ov to και των εκλεκτων αγγέλων, contain the word nugov; i. e. he mentions no other instance where that word is omitted. And this is the case also with all the Moscow manuscripts, collated by Matthæi (in number 16). I speak here only of the Greek copies; for each of them has besides, one copy of the Latin version, both of which omit the Domino. But do not the Vienna MSS. as well as the Moscow, for the most part, belong to the Recensio Byzantina?

[blocks in formation]

(2) Athanasius, Epist. 1. ad Serapion, vol. 1. p. 659.

(3) Again same Epist. p. 663.

(4) Basil Magn. de Spiritu Sancto, c. 13, vol. iii. P. 24.

(5) Again, Moral. vol. ii. p. 305.

(6) Theodoret. in loc. vol. iii. p. 485.

(7) Again, vol. iii. p. 1041.

(8) Martinus Papa. Epist. 5. Concil. Collect. vol. iii. p. 645.

(9) Euthymius Zigabenus, Panoplia Dogmatica, vol. ii. fol. 1, the passage of Athanasius, the same as the second example.

(10) Again, vol. ii. fol. 6, the passage of Basil, example 4th above. And,

(11) Antipater Bostrensis adversus infamem Originem, apud Damasceni Sacra Parallela, vol. ii. p. 771, reads, του Θεού, και ΤΟΥ κυρίου Ιησου Χριστού: which equally precludes us from looking for any assistance from his testimony.

Of these examples, the 1st, 5th, 7th and 11th, give no explanation of the words του Θεου και Ιησου Χρίστου;

the

« AnteriorContinuar »