Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

the rest interpret them of two persons, the Father, and the Son.

Now, the fact being, with respect to the reading in these passages, such as I have mentioned, it would be an useless piece of labour to go on to transcribe them. They are no longer any part of our materials. Besides, I am in haste to lay before you the remaining citations on this verse; as they present the only exceptions which I have found to your theory, and the only difficulty by which my researches have been perplexed and encumbered.

1. The first example is from the Homily on this passage, by St. Chrysostom.

επηγάγει διαμαρτυρομαι ενώπιον του θεου και κυριου ήμων Ιησου Χριστου, και των εκλεκτων αγγελων, ἵνα ταυτα φύλαξης χωρις προκρίματος, μηδεν ποιων κατα προσ κλισιν και φρικτως παραγγέλλει λοιπον ου γαρ επειδη Τιμόθεος ην, το τεκνον το αγαπητον, ηδεσθη ὁ γαρ περι ἑαυτου μη αισχυνθεις ειπειν, φοβούμαι μηπως άλλοις και ρυξας, αυτος αδοκιμος γενώμαι, πολλῳ μαλλον περί Τιμο θεου ουκ αν ήδεσθη, ουδε ησχύνθη, αλλα τον μεν πατέρα, και τον υἱον καλως παραλαμβάνει εις μαρτυριαν τους μεν τοι εκλεκτους αγγέλους τινος ένεκεν; απο πολλης επιει κειας επει και Μωυσης, κ. τ. α. (Vol. xi. p. 642.)

Here, Sir, we have your reading, and yet an interpretation directly contradictory to your's,

[blocks in formation]

2. Again, in the Scholia of Damascenus, vol. ii p. 265, the text bears the same form: but however, without any comment on any part of the passage.

3. The Commentary of Oecumenius is again as express as Chrysostom.

Διαμαρτυρομαι ενωπιον του θεου. Ορα σφοδρότητα. οι γαρ επειδη Τιμοθεος ην, παραιτείται, αλλα διαμαρτύρεται, το ἑαυτου ασφαλιζομενος, εί τι των μη δεονίων γενηται. τι δηποτε δε τον πατέρα, και τον υἱον καλεσας μαρτυρας, και τους αγγέλους συγκεκληκεν; ὅτι και αυτοι της κρίσεως, κ. τ. λ. (Vol. ii. p. 241.) Here however, the text does not occur in the body of the comment; but it stands, in the form which I have mentioned, at the head of the chapter.

4. And lastly, Theophylact is as express as Oecumenius.

Διαμαρτυρομαι ενώπιον του θεού, και κυρίου Ιησου Χριστ του, και των εκλεκτων αγγελων. Διαλεχθεις περί πολλών των ανωτέρω, νυν ότι πέρι κρίσεως είπε, διαμαρτύρεται αυτ του και λιαν Φρικτως. Ου γαρ επειδη Τιμόθεος ην, ήδεσθή, αλλ' ησφαλίσατο αυτον. Ει γαρ περι ἑαυτου ελεγε, μήπως άλλοις κηρύξας, αυτός αδόκιμος γενώμαι: πολλῳ μαλλον περί Τιμοθέου ουκ αν ηδεσθη. Καλει δε μάρτυρα και τον πατέρα, και τον υἱον, ώς αν εν τη μελλουση ήμερα ευαπολογητος ή, ει τι γενοιτο παρα το δεον, ὡς παραγγείλας. Τους δε αγγελους τινος ένεκεν ; κ. τ. λ. (Theoph. in loc. Ρ. 781.

Such

Such then is the difficulty; and I must own, that I cannot furnish a satisfactory solution of it.

A few remarks however may be suggested.

The first enquiry doubtless must be, Is it certain that these writers really had the word nugiou?

And here, it is worth our while to remark, that it can. not be shewn from the context, the surest testimony of the reading of a commentator's manuscript, that any one of them had that word. It is true, we read it in our printed editions; but then we know, that continued Commentaries, such as these of which we speak, have often been very carelessly edited, with respect to the original text; and in that part, a common edition of the New Testament has frequently been followed by the printer, rather than the readings of his manuscript*.

It is desirable, therefore, to have had it in our power, to have consulted the best manuscripts of Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Oecumenius.

On which account, it would be wrong were I to neg-. lect mentioning, that Matthæi, in his Greek Testament,

* See Wetstein's Prolegomena, p. 77. (205 Semler's edition) p. 78. (208 Semler) and also his Animadversiones ad Examen Var. Lect. Necessar. vol. ii. p. 867. Græc. Test, and Marsh's Michaelis, vol. ii. P: 371.

has

has made use of two MSS. of Chrysostom, one of Theophylact, and one of Oecumenius, on this Epistle, and he does not say that any one of them omits the xugiou. Also the manuscript of St. Paul's Epistles, in the library of the University of Cambridge, marked 27 in the second part of Wetstein's Greek Testament, has the same reading, and the Scholium agrees, almost word for word, with that in Oecumenius.

At the same time, I may be allowed to observe, that, if I mistake not, no manuscript of the New Testament has been found to contain the word nugou, which is not considerably younger than the days of Chrysostom.

The next enquiry, in agitating this difficulty, would naturally be, Whether these writers have quoted this verse any where else; and if so, what is the reading, and what the interpretation?

But, unfortunately, the verse does not occur again, that I can find, in Chrysostom, nor in the Commentary of Oecumenius, nor in those of the works of Theophylact which I have had the opportunity of examining, viz. the Commentaries on the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and St. Paul's Epistles; his own Letters; the Institutio Regia, and a few shorter pieces,

But at least one may learn in what sense they explain, or themselves use the words του Θεού και κυριου, when those words occur ordinarily in other parts of their writ ings?

Why

Why Sir, unfortunately I am obliged to say, that I believe those words, or any form of them (as, ὁ Θεος και κύριος, τῷ Θεῷ και κυρίῳ, &c.) do not occur a second time, (unless I have sought in vain) in Oecumenius, nor more than once, if once, in those works of Theophylact which I have mentioned; and even for Chrysostom, though it is a hard thing to speak safely of four words out of twelve huge folio volumes, yet I think that not more than one such passage can be produced from the whole of his writings.

We have in all the three such forms as the following, in speaking of the two Persons: viz. in Chrysostom (vol. x. p. 83.) Αυτοις επονομαζόμενοι, αλλ' ουχι τῷ Χριστῷ και ΤΩΙ Θεῳ. Again (vol. x. p. 230.)Ανοήτοις δηλη η διάφορα, ει και η αυτη ρήσις επι του Θεού, και ΤΟΥ Χριστ του, και ήμων ειρηται. In Theophylact (in Epistolas p. 7.) Απο γουν του Θεού πατρός, και του κυρίου ήμων Ιησου Χρίστου. In Oecumenius (vol. i. p. 537.) Βουλεται δε δηλονότι, ὥσπερ ὁ Κύριος, και ὁ Θεός.

We have besides, more rarely in Chrysostom, but often enough in the two others, such forms as these applied invariably to one person. Την διδασκαλίαν του θεου και σωτήρος ήμων κοσμειν εν πατι; (Chrysost. vol. xi. p. 757.) Του κυρίου και θεου ημων ἡ θεωρία εστιν; (Theoph. in Evangel. p. 396.) Εδογμάτισε γαρ ὅτι ὁ κύριος και θεος όμων ουκ ανέλαβε την του ανθρωπου φυσιν τελείαν, ηγουν σώμα με τα ψυχής λογικής (Ibid. p. 566.) Και ως παροντων των αγαθών, οὕτω χαίρειν, και δοξάζειν τον επαγγει

λαμένου

« AnteriorContinuar »