The Pulpit Commentary — Matthew — Volume 1 — Section 8

Language,' eto., p. 816, edit. 1888. • E.g. eh. vi. 16; xxi. 41. It is true that these are not absolutely conolll8:ive, for paronomasia in one language may sometimes be repeated in another, and translators occasionally even make them where they do not ooour in the original (Eph. ii. 9, 10; J as. i. 6, Authorized Version; Ps. o:uxil. 4, 5, Prayer-book Version), but their presence adds weight to other arguments, • Oh. x.xvii. 46, and perhaps oh. i. 28. • Oh. xxvii. 15; xxviii. 15. • Yet cf. § 17. • Delitzsoh ('The Hebrew New Testament of the British and Foreign Bible Sooiety,' p. 80: 1883) plee.ds ha.rd for the origine.l Bemitio Gospel having been written, not in Aramaic proper, but in Hebrew, on the ground that this we.a still the holy languag--the language of the temple-worehip, of synagogal and domestic prayer, of all the formule.s of benediction, of the discussions between the representatives of the traditional law. He also says that il a work were written in Aramaic it would be able to obtain a less wide circulation than one written in Hebrew, for Aramaio we.a only known in Palestine, but Hebrew more or less by all Jews. Yet he can hardly be right. Hebrew was so little known among the common JdATTIIEW. b  xiv INTRODUCITION 'l'O - - - - ---------·------------- cover traocs of an Aramaic Gol!pel underlying those that we now have, and forming the background to the thoughts of writers of other parts of the New Testament. It is evident that if the Aramaic language will account for th~ variations in individual words existing in parallel narratives, then the vera caa,a of such variations lies in an Aramaic original being variously translated. By far the most satisfa.otory and convincing attempt is that made by Professor Man,hall, in the E:r,poaiwr for 1890 and 1891. Though several of his examples are far-fehihed. or require too much change in the Aramaic words before these were translated into Greek, yet a few appear to be highly proba.ble.1 It may, however, be doubted whether even those results that have been obtained necessitate an Aramaic writing. The differences are generally, if not al ways, explicable by sound rather than by eight, and suggest an oral rather than a documentary origin. § 14. (3) That, however, St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew (Aramaic), the early Church seems to have held as certain. The testimony is eo important that it must be quoted at length. Papias ( circa £.D. 130): " So then Matthew composed the ore.oles in the Hebrew language, and ea.eh one interpreted them as he we.a able." 2 people the.t the lessons from the Bible were translated verse by verse into Ammaio (of. the rererenoes in Bchiirer, II. ii 81, not.as 189, 140); and we have no reason to suppose, but quit.a the contrary, that the Jewish Christia.us (i.e. those in Pe.lestme, for whom, if for e.ny one, St. Matthew wrote his A.re.me.ic Gospel) belonged for the most part to other than the lowest cl.asses. Dr. Roberts(' Greek the Language,' et.o.) and Dr. T. K. Abbott(' Essays') have proved that Greek W&B much more widely known in Pe.leetine than has been usually supposed, but Josephus' testimony(' Age.ins1; Apion,' i 9) the.the had to lee.m Greek in Rome, and that (' Bell. J ud.,' Preface) he wrote hi& ' W&r11 of the J ewe ' origine.lly in Amme.ic, seems to show conclusively that Are.me.io was the mother tongue of Pe.lestinie.n Jews. n~sides, Delitzsoh's argument that e. writing in Hebrew would have had wider circula- tion is hardly to the point. We know too little of St. Mo.ttbew's e.im in writing it (if he did write it) to be able to a.ffinn that he int.ended H for those who were outside Pe.lestine, The very fact that we have so little direct evidence of it.s existence tends to show that it origine.lly had bnt & small circulation. It should be observed that the Aro.me.ic spoken in Pe.lestme was substantially the.t pre- eerved in po.rt& of the books of Ezra and Daniel, and in the Targums and the Jeruse.lem Te.lmud. Professor Me.rsh.&ll (flide infra) thinks that the Be.me.rite.n dialect of it we.s that which was used for the original Semitic Gospel On the dialects of Western Are.mo.io, of. e8JJOOially Ke.utZBOh, 'Gre.mme.tik des Biblisoh-A.re.mii.ischen.,' § 5; the late Dr. W. Wright's 'Comparative Grammar of the Bemilio Languages,' p. 16; and Mr. Bevo.n's 'Daniel,' p. 88 (1892). On the possibility that the Epistle of St. James was originally written in Aramaic, see Bi.shop J. Wordsworth, in' Studia Biblico.,' i. 150. 1 Among these are eh. ix. 2, 8 (aee also eh. i. 42, note). Resch (' Agmpha,' 1890) has much in the same direction, but he is hindered by trying to 11.nd an origine.l Hebrew tk.xt, not an .A.r&ma.ic, and his eu.mples are seldom more than synonyms, ud not real diff'erencee which are explice.ble by an original Shemitic term, The value of his work liet1 in his :L.rge collection of early Ch.riatie.n quotations of the Lord's words, C&I10nical or other- wiae. ' M111r6<Uor /LfP oi.. 'E/1pa,'13, aw.AJ""" 'l'lt M')-UI O'llllt')lp~,j,<&'l'O, 1/PP.-fi,,,uO'f 5~ (1~'14 &, i,, 31JJ1<&'Tbf i1taaTo• (Eusebiwi, 'Oh. Hi.8t.,' ili. 89, Heinichen).  THE GC'BPEL ACCORDING TO BT. MATTHEW. IV