IV. Original Language. — While there is absolutely nothing in the Gospel itself to lead us to imagine that it is a translation, and, on the contrary, everj'thing fa- vors the view that in the present (ireek text, with its perpetual verbal corresi)ondence with the other synop- tists, we have the original ccimiiosition of the author himself; yet the unanimous testimony of all antiquity affirms that INIatthew wrote his (Jospel in Ifeh-eiv, i. e. the Aramaic or Syro-Chaldee dialect,\which was the vernacular tongue of the then iuliabitants of Palestine. The internal evidence, therefore, is at variance with the
external, and it is by no means easy to adjust the claims of the two.
1. External Evidence. — The unanimity of all ancient authorities as to the Hebrew origin of this Gospel is complete. In the words of the late canon Cureton {Syr- iac Recension, p. Ixxxiii), " no fact relating to the his- tory of the Gospels is more fully and satisfactorily es- tablished. From the days of the apostles down to the end of the 4th centurj', every Avriter who had occasion to refer to this matter has testified the same thing. Papias, Irenaeus, Panttenus, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Jerome, all with one consent affirm this. Such a chain of historical evidence appears to be amply sufficient to establish the fact that IVIatthew wrote his Gospel originally in the Hebrew dialect of that time, for the benefit of Jews who understood and spoke the language." To look at the evidence more particularly — (1.) The earliest witness is Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, in Phrygia, in the beginning of the 2d century; a hearer of the apostle, or more probably of the presbyter John, and a companion of Polycarp (Iren^us, Ilmr. V, 33,4). Eusebius describes him (//. E. iii, 36) as "a man of the widest general information, and well acquainted with the Scriptures" {avrjp ra. irch'Ta on fiaXiffra Xoytwraroe Kai ypacpijg ildiji-iiov); and, though in another iilace he depreciates his intellectual power {(T(p6cpa (TjMKpijQ wv Tui> voi'V, 11. E. ill, 39), this unfa- vorable view seems chiefly to ha^'e reference to his mil- lennarian views (comp. Irenjeus, //«??■. v, 33, 3), and can hardly invalidate his testimony on a matter of fact. Papias says, it would seem on the authority of John the Presbyter, "Matthew compiled his Gospel (or 'the ora- cles') in the Hebrew dialect ; while each interpreted them according to his ability" (MarSmoc; fih> ovv 'EjipaiSi SiaXtKrqj tu Xoyia avreypaipaTO : t)p/j.ijvev(Te S' avru (j)Q (/!-' Svvaroc^ iKaaToc). In estimating the value of this testimony, two important points have to be considered — the meaning of the term Xoyia, and wheth- er Papias is speaking of the present or the past. On the latter point there can be little doubt. His use of the aorist, y'lp^uji'tixre, not (pi.u]v(vii, evidently shows that the state of things to which he or his original au- thority referred had passed away, and that individual translation was no longer necessarJ^ It would seem, therefore, to foUoAv, that " an authorized Greek repre- sentative of the Hebrew Matthew" had come into use " in the generation after the apostles" (Westcott, Introd. p. 207, note). The signification of Xoyto has been much controverted. Schleiermacher {Stud. u. Krit. 1832, p. 735) was the first to explain the term of a supposed " collection of discourses" which is held to have been the basis that, by gradual modification and interpola- tion, was transformed into the existing Gospel (Meyei-, Comm. i, 13). This view has found wide acceptance, and has been strenuously maintained by Lachmann {Stud, u. Krit. 1835), Meyer, De Wette, Credner, Wieseler, B. Crusius, Ewald, Renan, etc., but has been controverted by Liicke {Stud. u. Krit. 1833), Hug, Ebrard, Bauer, De- litzsch,Hilgenfeld, Thiersch, Alford, Westcott, etc. But \uyta, in the N. T., signifies the ivhole revelation made, by God, rather than the mere words in which that rev- elation is contained (x\.cts vii, 38 ; Rom. iii, 2 ; Heb. v, 12 ; 1 Pet, iv, 11) ; and, as has been convincingly shown by Hug and Ebrard, the patristic use of the word con- firms the opinion that, as used by Papias, both in this passage and in the title of his own work {Xoyitov Kvpi- aiciov t^i'iyrjaic), it implies a combined record of facts and discourses corresponding to the later use of the word gospel. (2.) The next witness is Irenseus, who, as quoted by Eusebius (//. E. v, 8), says that " Matthew among the Hebrews published also a written Gospel in their own language" (rjy ii:ia avrCov hak'iKTo/). Hug and others have attempted to invalidate this testimony, as a mere repetition of that of Papias, whose disciple, accord- ing to Jerome, Irenreus was ; but we may safely accept it as independent evidence. (3.) Pantienus, the next witness, cannot be considered as strengthening the case
MATTHEW
890
MATTHEW