ページの画像
PDF
ePub

been

old:

b

Antidicomarianita, who denied the perpetual virginity of Mary, he fays, Jofeph was very old when he married Mary, and had many years a widower; that he was the brother of Cleophas, the fon of Fames, furnamed Panther; that he had his first wife of the tribe of Judah, and by her fix children, viz. four fons and two daughters. His eldeft fon was James, furnamed Oblias That he begat him when he was about forty years : after him he had another fon named Jofe, then Simeon and Judas, and then his two daughters Mary and Salome: after his wife's death he continued many years a widower, and about fourfcore years old married Mary. Befides Epiphanius, feveral other of the Greek Fathers have given into this fame opinion, viz. Hilary, Chryfoftome, Cyrill, Euthymius, Theophylact, Oecumenius, and generally, as Bishop Pearson says *, all the Latin Fathers till Ambrofe, and the Greeks afterwards; from all which it is very evident, that the account of Joseph's age and family, which is in the Gospel of the Birth of Mary, and the Protevangelion of James, met with a very general credit among the antient Chriftians.

I might add here, that the learned annalist Cardinal Baronius, in his surprising apologies for the Virgin Mary (though he reject both these Apocryphal Gofpels), cites many of the Fathers as giving credit to its accounts, and particularly as to that of her being brought at three years of age to the Temple, and devoted to its fervice (Evang. Mar. c. 4. 6. Protevang. Jacob. c. 7.), and that he continued there eleven years. He says it is teftified by Euodius, Gregory Nyffene, Damascene, Germanus Bishop of Conftantinople, Andreas Cretenfis, George Bishop of Nicomedia, and others. See Apparat. ad Annal. Num. 48. and Cafaubon's Reflections upon this Exercit. I. contr. Baron. ad eund. Numer.

á Hæref. 78. Antidic. §. 7.
b Oblias] This I also obferve is
faid to be his furname in that Frag-
ment of Hegefippus's Commenta-
ries, which is preferved in Eusebi-
us's Hift. Eccl. lib. 2. c. 23.

Epiph. Hæref. 78. §. 8.
In Matth. í.

e On the Creed, p. 175. Art. III.

f

See a Collection of the Fathers Opinions on this Head in Sixtus Senenf. Biblioth. Sanct. 1. 6. p. 455. Annot: 64. and in Valefius Annot. in Eufeb. Hiftor. Eccl. 1. 2. c. I.

CHAP.

CHAP. XVIII.

Mary feems referred to.

Another place in the Works of Epiphanius, where the Gospel of The Author of the Gospel of Mary, and the Protevangelion of James, was a Jew. This proved by feveral Arguments.

OBS.

Ons. IX. BES

ESIDES the former places cited out of Epiphanius, there are two more in his works, which feem to have plain reference, the one to the Protevangelion, the other to the Gospel of the Birth of Mary, and the Protevangelion. The places I mean are thofe in his Ancoratus, Vol. II. c. 60. and Orat. de Laudib. Virg. Mar. Vol. II. p. 292. In the first we read, that Joseph being an antient widower, and having fix children, viz. four fons, and two daughters, Κατ' ανάγκην τῶν κλήρων βαλλομένων επί χήρες καὶ ἀγάμες καθ ̓ ἑκατὴν φυλὴν εἰς τὰς ἀπὸ νας παρθένες, διὰ τὸ ἀφιερωθῆναι ἐν τῷ μαῷ τὰς πρωτοτόκες παῖδας, ἄρξενάς τε καὶ θηλείας, ἔλαβε κατὰ κλῆρον τὴν ἁγίαν παρθένον Μαρίαν, i. e. when lots were caft for the widowers, and unmarried perfons of every tribe, that fo it might be determined who should take the virgins which were in the Temple (for it was the custom that the first-born of both sexes fhould be devoted to the Temple-fervice), he (viz. Jofeph) was obliged by the neceffity of the lot to take the holy Virgin Mary, &c. This is exactly agreeable to what we read in the Protevangelion, c. 9. and the Gospel of Mary, c. 7, 8. Only 1 obferve, that whereas the Protevangelion and Gospel of Mary contradict each other as to the perfons fummoned, they being according to the former only widowers, and according to the latter all unmarried perfons (fee Obf. VI. above), Epiphanius agrees with the latter. In the other place of Epiphanius we read, that Joachim and Anna were the names of the father and mo¬ ther of the Virgin; that Joachim retired into the wilderness, and there prayed for issue; Mary retired into the garden, and put up the fame petitions, and were both answered in the birth of Mary. All which is in the Protevangelion, c. 1, 2, 3, 4. and

for

for the most part in the Gofpel of the Birth of Mary, c. 2, 3, &c. a

OBS. X. The Gospel of the Birth of Mary, and the Protevangelion, were the compofure of fome Jew, or Hellenist. I affert this equally of both, because I make no doubt they were originally one and the fame compofure; which in process of time underwent so many alterations, interpolations, and additions, that they seem almost two different and diftinct works. But of this more hereafter. I conjecture it was the compofure of fome Jew, or Hellenift; and this feems to me probable from the following reasons.

1. Because of the several Hebraifms that are visible and ap-. parent therein. Every one, who is acquainted with the orientals, particularly with Hebrew and Chaldee, will easily observe, that there are many Hebraisms in our Saviour's dif courfes, and the other writings of the New Teftament; I mean, that the phraseology or idiom of innumerable paffages in those writings is Hebrew, or Chaldee, though the words are Greek. The reafon of which (as I have above fhewn b) is the utter impoffibility a man is under of avoiding the peculiarities of his native language, though he write in another. He cannot but conceive, and range his ideas in his old accustomed manner, and by virtue of that will, notwithstanding all his caution and care to avoid it, place his words in the fame order. Thus the Apostles being Jews, though they wrote in Greek, frequently expreffed themselves in the Hebrew dialect, and these expres fions we call Hebraisms, and this language Hellenistick ; and of this fort I observe there are many inftances in the books we have now under confideration, fuch as in the Gospel of Mary there are feveral inftances remaining, notwithstanding it is a tranflation, as that Chap. III. in the speech of the Angel to Joachim, "Videns vidit (Dominus) pudorem tuum,” The

I am fenfible this oration, afribed to Epiphanius, is fufpected to be Spurious by Rivet, Critic. Sacr. 1. 3. c. 29. Dr. Cave Hift. Liter. Vol. I. p. 186. and others, but I will not here enter into any dispute

concerning it.

b Vol. I. Par. I. Chap. XIII. Prop. XIV. p. 81.

See Father Sim. Crit. Hift. of the New Teft. Par. II. c. 27, 28.

Lord

Lord hath furely feen, or particularly regarded, your reproach ; which conduplication of the verb is a moft known way of Speaking in Hebrew, to make the thing spoken more certain and emphatical; of which there are a thousand inftances in the Hebrew Bible (fee Glafs. Gram. Sacr. Lib. 3. Tract. 3. Can. 37. p. 628.), and feveral in the New Teftament. So Act. vii. 34. we have the very fame words which are in this Gospel, 'I do for that, Exod. iii. 7. '' I have furely feen. Another plain Hebraism in the Gofpel of the Birth of Mary, is that in the fame fpeech of the Angel, speaking of Mary, "Omne immundum neque manducabit, neque bibet ;" which, according to the meaning of the Hebrew idiom, and the unquestionable meaning of the place, I tranflate, she shall neither eat nor drink any thing which is unclean; but, if it were not a Hebraism, and were to be taken according to the Latin idiom, it must be rendered, fhe fhall not eat nor drink every thing which is unclean: but this form of speaking is common in the Jewish language, and it is a trite obfervation in Grammar, that a negative particle, fuch as 5 &c. after

i. e. as it is in this inftance, non after omnis fignifies the fame as nullus, i. e. univerfal negative, though. every one knows in Latin and Greek this does not obtain, but is quite otherwise. He who has a mind to see inftances of fuch Hebraifms, may find in Glaffius Gram. Sacr. Lib. 3. Tract. 5. Can. 19. feveral both out of the Old and New Teftament.

As to the Protevangelion, it is fo full of Hebraisms almost n every Chapter, that I can fcarce believe any one, who is at

[blocks in formation]

all acquainted with the Hebrew language and idiom, but will presently acknowledge it to be the composure of fome Helleniftick Jew. The inftances are fo frequent, that to make a collection of them would be almoft to transcribe the whole book, and fo very plain, that I suppose any impartial reader. will judge it impoffible for any one to imitate. The learned. Henry Stephens, who very weakly conjectured that the Protevangelion was made by Poftellus himself, who first published it, undertakes to prove to any one skilful in these things, that the Hebraifms are all counterfeit, and only imitations of the Hebrew idiom; but it is evident he would have been no more able to perform his undertaking, than he was right in his conjecture concerning the original of it, which will appear by what I fhall presently observe to be without any foundation, and has accordingly been rejected by all learned men. I conclude then, that the ftyle of the book demonftrates the author of it to have been either a Jew, or Hellenift. I might further argue this from the great knowledge the author appears to have had of the fewifb cuftoms, which manifeftly fhews itself in every page. The whole contexture of the work is accommodated to the Jewish rites, and there is fuch a perpetual allufion to them, as inconteftably proves the author to have been more acquainted with them, than the Chriftians ordinarily were, or indeed than any perfon can be fuppofed to be, who was not educated in the Jewish religion.

1

2. The story in the Protevangelion of James, concerning the death of Zacharias, the father of John the Baptift, feems to be borrowed from the Talmud, or the Talmudick account of the circumftances of the death of Zacharias, the fon of Jehoiada, 2 Chron. xxiv. 20, &c. whence I conclude the author was a Jew. To make this obfervation appear juft, I shall first collect fome circumftances in the death of Zacharias, which are related in the Protevangelion, and then fhew how probable it is that they were borrowed or taken out of the Talmud. Those I refer to are the indelible impreffion made upon the ftones by the blood of Zacharias, or rather the petrifaction of his blood, and the voice from heaven which said, Zacharias is murdered, and his blood shall not be wiped away till an avenger

of his

blood

« 前へ次へ »