« AnteriorContinuar »
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.
επηγαγε διαμαρτυρομαι ενωσιον του θεου και κυριου ημών Ιησου Χριστου, και των εκλεκτων αγγελων, ένα ταυτα φυλαξης χωρις προκριματος, μηδεν ποιων κατα προσ. κλισιν· και φρικτως παραγγελλει λοιπον ου γαρ επειδη Τιμοθεος ην, το τεκνον το αγαπητον, κδεσθη ο γαρ περι εαυτου μη αισχυνθεις ειπείν, φοβουμαι μηπως αλλοις κηρυξας, αυτος αδοκιμος γενωμαι, πολλα μαλλον περι Τιμοθεου ουκ αν δεσθη, ουδε ήσχυνθη, αλλα τον μεν πατερα, και τον υιον καλως παραλαμβανει εις μαρτυρίαν τους μεντοι εκλεκτους αγγέλους τινος ένεκεν; απο πολλης επιεικειας 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,
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 us express as Chrysostom. .
Διαμαρτυρομαι ενώπιον του θεου. Ορα σφοδρότητα. ου γαρ επειδη Τιμοθεος ην, παραιτείται, αλλα διαμαρτυρεται, το εαυτου ασφαλιζομενος, ει τι των μη δεονίων γενηται. τι δηποτε δε τον πατερα, και τον υιον καλεσας μαρτυρας, και τους αγγέλους συγκεκληκεν; οτι και αυτοι της κρισεως, 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 θεου, και κυριου Ιησου Χριστου, και των εκλεκτων αγγελων. Διαλεχθεις περι πολλων των ανωτέρω, νυν ότι πέρι κρισεως είπε, διαμαρτυρεται αυτον και λιαν φρικτως. Ου γαρ επειδη Τιμοθεος ην, γδεσθη, αλλ' ασφαλισατο αυτον. Ει γαρ περι εαυτου ελεγε, μηπως αλλοις κηρυξας, αυτος αδοκιμος γενωμαι: πολλα μαλλον περι Τιμοθεου ουκ αν δεσθη. Καλει δε μαρτυρα και τον πατερα, και τον υιον, ώς αν εν τη μελλουση ημερα ευαπολογητος και, ει τι γενοιτο παρα το δεον, ως παραγγειλας. Τους δε αγγελους τινος ένεκεν και κ. τ. λ. (Theoph. in loc.
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 κυριου?
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 Ecamen Var. Lect. Necessar. vol. ii. p. 867. Græc. Test, and Marsh's Michaelis, vol. ii.
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 xuplov. 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 xuglov, 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 tise the words του Θεου και κυριου, when those words occur ordinarily in other parts of their writings?
Why Sir, unfortunately I am obliged to say, that I believe those words, or any form of them (as, ο Θεος και κυριος, τω Θεω και κυριω, &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. Χ. p. 83.) Αυτοις επονομαζόμενοι, αλλ' ουχι τα Χριστω και ΤΩΙ Θεω. Again (vol. x. p. 230.)-Ανoντoις δηλη και διαφορα, ει και η αυτη ρησις επι του Θεου, και TOY Χριστου, και ημων ειρηται. In Theophylact (in Epistolas p. 7.) Απο γουν του Θεου πατρος, και TOY κυριου ημών Ιησου Χριστου. In Oecumenius (vol. i. p. 537.) Βουλ.. εται δε δηλονότι, ώσπερ ο Κυριος, και ο Θεος.
We have besides, more rarely in Chrysostom, but often enough in the two others, such forms as these applied invariably to one person. Την διδασκαλίας του θεου και σωτηρος ημων κοσμείν εν πασι; (Chrysost. vol. xi. p. 757.) Του κυριου και θεου ήμων και θεωρια εστιν; (Τheoph. in Evangel. p. 396.) Εδογματισε γαρ ότι ο κυριος και θεος νμων ουκ ανέλαβε την του ανθρωπου φυσιν τελειαν, νγουν σωμα μετα ψυχης λογικης (Ibid. p. 566.) Και ως παροντων των αγαθων, ούτω χαιρειν, και δοξαζειν τον επαγγει