« AnteriorContinuar »
και ότι δοξασθήσεται υπο των αγιων ορωντων αυτον εν τη πατρωα δοξη θεον παντων, και κριτην προκαθεζομενον. (P. 191.)
6. 'Οπως ενδοξασθή το ονομα του κυρίου ημών Ιησου Χριστου εν υμιν, και υμεις εν αυτω]. Εαν ταυτα τα προειρημενα γενηται υμιν, φησιν, ενδοξασθήσεται και εν τω βιω τουτο το ονομα του κυρίου εν υμιν, όταν γαρ ιδωσιν υμας υπομένοντας παντα πειρασμον υπερ της εις τον δεσποτης αγαπης, πως ουκ εσται τουτο δοξα αυτω, οτι ούτως αγαθος εστιν, ωστε υπερ αυλου αποθνησκειν τους δουλους; και ότι ουτω δυνατος, ώστε μας νευρωσαι προς την υπομονην και αλλα και μεις εν αυτω, ότι ουτω πιστοι ευρεθησε ώστε παντα πασχειν δοξα γαρ δουλου, το πιστον ευρεθηναι το δεσποτη. Και αλλως δε και δια Χριστον θλιψις, δοξα: ότι λαμπρους μαλλον ποιει, αει μεν εις θανατον παραδιδομενους, κρειτ, τους δε θανατου δεικνυμένους.
Κατα την χάριν του θεου ήμων και κυριου Ιησου Χριστου.] Και αυτο τουτο, φησι, του θεου εστι, και ουχ ημετερον, αλλα χαρις αυτου, το δοξαζεσθαι, φημι, και αυτον εν ημιν, ότι ουδεν αυτου προτιμώμεν, ως γλυκυτερου παντων, και μας εν αυτω, οτι δυναμιν παρ' αυτου λαμβανομεν υπομένειν παντας τους πειρασμους. Ερωτωμεν δε υμας, &c, (Theophylact. Comment. in loc. p. 723.)
I shall merely remark, with respect to these commen, tators, 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 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.
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 Θεου, και Ιησου Χριστου, or, του Θεου, και Χριστου Invou; and therefore their altered interpretation is, in fact, 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 effečtually disable the passage from the possibility of being produced as a testimony to the Divinity of our Saviour. No doubt. And, if either of them can be shewn
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, aný 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.
* 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 rupsov : “ 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 tou sou to και των εκλεκτων αγγελων, , contain the word xugrov; 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, lelong to the Recensio Byzantina?
(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.
(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.
(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, ex. ample 4th above. And,
(11) Antipater Bostrensis adversus infamem Originem, apud Damasceni Sacra Parallela, vol. ii. p. 771, reads, του Θεου, και TOY κυριου Ιησου Χριστου: 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 Θεού και Ιησου Χριστου;