Ephraem the Syrian ( oirca A.D. 360) tells 118, "Matthew wrote the Gospel in Hebrew, and it was afterwards translated into Greek." 1 Cyril of Jerusalem ( oiroa A.D. 370) says, "Matthew, who wrote the Gospel, wrote it in the Hebrew tongue." • Two witnesses, however, give much more detailed accounts. Epiphanius ( circa A.D. 380), in describing the sect of the Nazarenes, says that they had the Gospel of St. Matthew complete written in Hebrew without, perhaps, the genealogy. He had, therefore, apparently not himself seen it, but he knew enough of it to compare it favourably with a Hebrew Gospel used by the Ebionites, whioh was corrupted and mutilated.' Jerome, however (circa A.D. 890), goes much further. He not only accepts the common view that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew,• but he says that a copy of it in Hebrew was still preserved in the library at Cresarea, and even that he himself had transcribed the Hebrew Gospel with the leave of the Namrenes who lived at Bercea in Syria (Aleppo), and who used that Gospel' Yet the very details which Jerome gives show that the Hebrew Gospel which he translated could not have been the original of our Matthew. Why, indeed, translate it at all if a translation, in our sense of the word. already existed ? For he gives us no hint that his aim was only to improve the ordinary translation. But his words show that the book which he tra11Blated was, in fact, very different to our Matthew, and was a complete copy of what has come down to us only in fragments, the so- called ' Gospel according to the Hebrews.' 8 What the relation of the original Hebrew work of St. Matthew (if there was one) was to this is not our immediate subject. Jerome's words are in reality, notwithstanding the first impression that they give, against the theory of a Hebrew original of our Matthew, for they suggest that the mistake made by him as to the identity of the work may have been made by others before him. Whether or not this was the case we have no means of finally deciding. The other statements fall into two groups-the statement about Pantmnus, and those of the remaining witnesses BB quoted. That about Pantmnus is very curious, but what basis of truth underlies it we cannot say. He seems to have found a Hebrew Gospel in some place that he visited which was inhabited by a.large Jewish population-perhaps the south of Axabia, where 1 In Moesi.nger'a edition of the Di&teu&ron, p. 286: tmU Reach, 'Agre.pha,' p. 271. • MaT6aios 6 -ypmj,as 'TO da-y-yl>..,011 'E/Jpata, -y~tTtl"!I 'TOV'TO (-ypa,j,u, (' Ce.tech.,' 14). • See Dr. Salmon's ' Introduction,' p. 168, edit. 1888. • "De novo nuno loquor testa.mento, quod GrlBC1llll esae non dubium eat, exoepto 11.po&tolb Mattheo, qui primua in Jud1B11, eve.ngelium Christi Hebrmis literiB edidit" (' Ep. ad Dam.,' A.D. 383: Wordsw. and White'a edition of the Vulgate, p. 2). "Primua omniun. M11.ttheua eat publiea.nua cognomento Levi, qui evangelium in Jud.8!a hebreo &ennone edidit, ob eorum vel maxima c&11118,m qui in Jesum credidere.nt ex Jud.8!iB et neque.que.m legiB umbra auccedente eve.ngelii veritatem aene.be.nt " (' Prol in Oomm.,' WordBw. e.nd White, p. 12). • Salmon, p. 168, edit. 1888. • Comp. Bi.shop lightfoot ou Ignatius, ' Bmyrn.,' § 3. THE GOSPEL AOOORDING TO BT. MATTHEW. xvii
was the Jewish kingdom of Yemen, or lees probably the Malabar coast of India proper, where Jews have lived from time immemorial. But that this Goepel represented the original form of our present Matthew ie just suoh an e..BBertion ae might be expected to grow out of the report of bis finding some Hebrew Goepel there, when joined with the current belief in the Hebrew original of the First Gospel. The statement that St. Bartholomew brought it there may rest upon some be.sis of fact, but ie probably due to an earlier legend which has not come down to us. § 15. The other statements, if they are independent, and there is no sufficient reason for supposing that they are all ultimately due to Papias, are more important, and oannot easily be disposed of. The question is- How are we to interpret their united evidence in view of the probability already expressed, that our Gospel is not a translation, and that we must attribute it in some way to St. Matthew? Three solutions of the difficult} have been put forward. The first is that St.. Matthew composed, or caused to be composed,1 a col- lection of the Lord's utterances, and that this was used by the author of the First Goepel, the name Matthew being applied to this latter Gospel also, because eo important a part of it had in reality proceeded from that apostle. On this theory it will be observed that the term "Logia" used by Papias receives a sense more restricted than usage warrants; also that the later testimonies to the Hebrew original of the First Gospel will be due to a facile enlargement of what are, according to the theory, the true facts of the case. They state that St. Matthew composed a whole Gospel in Hebrew, although, in fact, he only composed the Utterances. The seoond solution is that St. Matthew composed a Hebrew Gospel which has entirely perished, and afterwards himself published our Greek Gospel. But the objections to this are twofold. His Hebrew Gospel could not have been represented very oloeely by the present Greek text ( vide 1111,pra, § 12), and the idea of a version of it put forth by authority is quite opposed to Papias' testimony. In Papias' time our First Gospel was evi- dently accepted, but in earlier times, as he tells us, each translated the Hebrew as he was able-a process which would have been wholly unneces- sary if this second solution of the difficulties had been the true one. 9 The third is that the belief in a Hebrew original is nothing more than a mistake. Papias and later authors knew personally and for a fact only the First Gospel in its present form, and considered that St. Matthew was • Cf. especially Mr. A. Wrigbt's • Composition of the Four Goepele,' p. 67. It should be observed that this ie not intended to exclllde the pOIISi.bility of his finding existing materials current in the Church. St. Matthew may only have edited a collection of the Lord'a utterances that had been growing up among Ara.ma.io-epeaking ChriBtiane. • Tregelles strongly insists (Smith's • Dictionary of the Bible,' iii. 1623, aqq.) that we must aocept the statements of Pa.piae and other Fa.there, and believe that (1) St. Matthew wrote tile present Goepel in "Hebrew;" (2) some ont1 (not St. Matthew) tmnsl11tetl it, and the translation received apostolic sanction. But Tregelles wrote tlii.s before the inter• rela.tion of the eynoptio Goepole wae ae cloa.rly perceived ae it is now, xviil INTRODUOTION TO