* A later date for Papias’ work is too readily assumed. Eusebius (// Ziii. 37) reckons him in ‘the first line of succession (διαδοχήν) from the apostles,’ through whose writings the tradi- tion of apostolic teaching lived on. He then names Tguauus and Clement as cases, and proceeds at once to Papias. The next book opens with Trajan’s latter years, later than which Ἐπ: does not seem to place Papias’ work ; while Polyearp he names after Justin.
+ Euseb. does not necessarily give us the extracts in the order in which they .came in Papias’ preface, The statement, “M., then, in Hebrew speech compiled the Logia: but as for their interpretation, each did as best he could,’ may well have
t | led up to the reference to his own ‘interpretations.’
Φ Comp. Ireneus, ναι, of men in his own day, ῥᾳδιουργοῦντες τα λόγια Kupiou, ἐξηγηταὶ κακτὶ τῶν καλῶς εἰρημένων υἱνόμενοι
“or huer's Sona
MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF
of authorized interpretations of the Logia in detail (αὐτά). So had it been at first, so was it still; while the need, in an age of wild speculation, was greater than ever.
Zahn and others find Papias’ emphasis to lie on the Semitic form of Matthew's work. ut then we should expect this to be brought out by a contrast, ‘in Greek,’ in the antithetical clause. In its absence the quotation seems motived by Papias’ main idea of right ‘interpretation’ (ἡρμήνευσε follows immediately on συνεγράψατο). Farther, for Papias’ use of ‘interpret,’ his reference to his own ‘interpretations * (ἑρμηνεῖαι) outweighs his use of ἑρμηνευτής in another context, where he is citing another's words. Finally, according to Zahn’s view, Papias should go on to say iow a Greek edition of the Aramaic Mt finally arose. But, to judge by Eus.’s silence, he did nothing of the kind. He knew a Greek Mt; he knew of Aramaic Logia current in Matthew's name; and he assumed the Greek Gospel to be a version of an original Aramaic writing by the apostle.
Thus, according to Papias’ own personal belief, Matthew had indeed written down the Logia. But he had left no written interpretation of their meaning. ‘The result was a divergence of views as to the Lord’s teachings which Papias deplores, and which he seeks to rectify by aid of traditions which had reached him from Matthew and other disciples of the Lord.
So far, then, external evidence to the connexion of Matthew with our Greek Gospel is slender. Papias implies, no doubt, that the apostle wrote, and that in Aramaic. But what he is asserting is neither the one nor the other, but rather the fact that the Matthean JZogia were at first left to chance interpretation. As to Papias’ implication that Matthew actually wrote out in Aramaic the Sayings of the Lord, its worth is doubtful. Against it stands the weighty witness of St. Luke (1!*), who seems to know of no narrative of the matters on which Christian faith had assured hold drawn ap by an eye-witness. The force of this can hardly be turned by saying that his word διήγησις suggests narrative, rather than a collection of Sayings.* To say the least, St. Luke would surely have con- structed his careful paragraph otherwise had he known of—much more intended to use—a writing by an apostle embodying Christ’s own sayings.
The strange divergence of the Logian elements in Mt and Lk respectively seems inconsistent with a common written basis. Thus, if one still suspects eth tradition to lie behind Papias’ reference to Matthew as having written the Logia, it must be conceded that Lk at least had not access to it. And even as to our Mt, it seems easier to suppose that it incorporates the composite catechesis of a locality, than that it blends so much
ure local tradition with the written Logiu of Matthew (see iii. 2) ete. below). The meagreness of the historic setting of the Logia common to Mt and Lk may be gauged from Mt 112-=Lk T1835 1 (12-16. 21,
Before leaving St. Luke, however, one may remark that he also uses much matter which, as found also in Mt, may well go back to the Apostle Matthew in some form; only, he seems to have found it for the most part already in its present historical setting (e.g. in Lk 91-184). This setting differs widely from that in which the like sayings occur in Mt. But no early work, such as Luke’s ‘special source,’ would have departed far from a setting provided in an apostle’s work. Hence the Apostle Matthew did not give the Logia such a setting: and it has to be seen whether even the Logia themselves as used by our first evangelist owed their exact form to an apostle at all, rather than to oral tradition starting from Matthew's teaching. For that Matthew had some hand in shaping the Logia in question seems certain from the mere fact that to him, quite an obscure apostle, tradition uniformly and in all circles assigns our first Gospel. On the other hand, the variety of Gospels which in the 2nd cent. claimed to represent the Apostle Matthew—our Mt and the two forms of the ‘Gospel according to the He-
* In Sir 6 διήγησις θεία is parallel to παροιμίαι συνέσεως ;
OE in 919 we get πᾶσα diny. σὸν ἐν νόμῳ ὙΨίστον. Cf. Eus. 4K . 30, 12-14