for the Hebrew original much ; though, as far as it goes, his evidence is definite enough. His story, as reported by Eiiscbius, is that " he is said to have gone to the In- dians (probably in the south of Arabia), where it is re- ported that the Gospel of Matthew had preceded him among some who had there acknowledged Christ, to whom it is said the apostle Bartholomew had preached, and had left with them the writing of Matthew in He- brew letters {'EjSpaiwv ypafi^aai rt)v tov MarSraiov KaToXtlipai ypa(priv), and that it was preserved to the time mentioned." Jerome tells the same tale, with the atldition that Pantrenus brought back this Hebrew Gos- pel with him {De fir. III. 36). No works of Panttenus iiave been preserved, and we have no means of confirm- ing or refuting the tale, which has somewliat of a mj'th- ical air, and is related as a mere story (XkyeTai, Xoyog tupsiv avTov), even by Eusebius. (4.) The testimony of Origen has already been referred to. It is equally definite with those quoted above on the fact that the Gospel was " published for Jewish believers, and com- posed in Hebrew letters" (tKCfCojKura ahrb toXq airb 'lovcdidfiov Tnarivaaai, ypaii{.iacnv 'El3paiKol(; avvTS- Tciyfiivov, Eusebius, //. E. vi, 25). There is no reason for questioning the independence of Origen's evidence, or for tracing it back to Papias. He clearly states what ■was the belief of the Church at that time, and without a doubt as to its correctness. (For a refutation of the objections brought against it by Masch and Hug, etc., see Marsh's Michaelis, iv, 128, 135 sq.) (5.) We have already given the testimony of Eusebius (//. E. iii, 24), to -which may be added a passage {ad Marin, qucesf. ii, p. 941) in which he ascribes the words otpt tuv aafi- (itirov to the translator (7rap« tov ipfnivtvaavrog ti]v ypacptiv) , adding, " For the evangelist jMatthew delivered his Gospel in the Hebrew tongue." This is very impor- tant evidence as to the belief of Eusebius, which was cleai'ly that of the Church generaU}', that the Gospel was originally composed in Hebrew. (6.) Epiphanius (//(??-. xxix, 9, p. 124) states the same fact without the shadow of a doubt, adding that Jlattbew was the only evangelist who wrote ' E/jpoVori Kai ' EjipdiicdiQ ypafifjia- aiv. The value of his evidence, however, is impaired by his identification of the Hebrew original with that employed bj^ the Nazarenes and Ebionites, by whom he asserts it was still preserved (iri <jixj'Cirai). (7.) The same observation may also be made concerning the tes- timony of Jerome, whose references to this subject are very frequent, and who is the only one of the fathers that appears to have actually seen the supposed Hebrew archetype (P?-cef. ad Matt. ; De Vir. III. 3 and 36 ; in Qitai. Ec. ad Danuiwcvf. ; Ep. Dam. de Osanna ; Ep. ad llcdih. qutest. viii ; Coimn. in IIos. xi). A perusal of these passages shows that there was a book preserved in the library collected by Pamphilus at Cffisarea, which was supposed to be the Ilebrew original {^Hpsvm Ilehra- icum'), and was as such transcribed and translated into Greek and Latin by Jerome, about A.D. 392, from a copy obtained from the Nazarenes at the Syrian city of Beroja. Afterwards, about A.D. 398 (C'oinm. in Jfatf. xii, 13), he speaks more doul)tfully of it, "quod vocatur a plerisque Jlatt. authenticum." Later on, A.D. 415 (Contr. Pelag. iii, 1), he modifies his opinion still further, and describes the book used by the Nazarenes, and preserved in the library at Caesarea, as " Ev.juxta Ilebrajos. . . . secun- diuii Apostolos, si\-e ut pk'ri(/tie aiitiimant juxta Mat- tliii'um" (comj). Kdinh. Rev. July, 1851, p. 39 ; De Wette, Eiul. \\ 100). While, then, we may safely accept Jerome as an additional witness to the belief of the early Church tliat Matthew's (iospel was originally composed in He- I)rew (Aramaic), which he mentions as something uni- versally recognised without a hint of a doul)t. we may reasonably question whether the book he transkitcd had any sound claims to be cousiLlpred the genuine work of iMatthew. and whether Jerome liiniself did not ultimate- ly discover his mistake, though he shrunk from opeidy confessing it. AVe may remark, in cuntirmatiou of this, that unless the Aramaic book had differed considerably
from the Greek Gospel, Jerome would hardly have taken the trouble to translate it ; and that while, whenever he refers to Matthew, he cites it according to the present text, he never quotes the Nazarene Gospel as a work of canonical authority, but only in such terms as "quo ufuntur Nazareni," " quod lectitant Nazar.Ti," " quod juxta Heb. Nazar. Icgere consueverunt," and still more doubtingly, " qui crediderit evanyelio, quod secundum He- braBos editum nuper transtulimus;" language inconsist- ent with his having regarded it as canonical Scripture. (8) The statements of later writers, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Augustine, Gregory Nazianzen, etc., merely echo the same testimony, and need not be more particularly referred to.
An impartial survey of the above evidence leads to the conclusion that, in the face of so many independent witnesses, we should be violating the first principles of historical criticism if we refused to accept the fact that Jlatthew wrote his Gospel originally in Hebrew. But whether this original was ever seen by Jerome or Epi- phanius is more than questionable.