In mentioning the Hebrew as the original language of the gospel
of Matthew, it should be noticed, that the dialect spoken by the
Jews of the time of Christ and his apostles, was by no means the
language in which the Old Testament was written, and which is
commonly meant by this name at present. The true ancient Hebrew
had long before become a dead language, as truly so as it is now,
and as much unknown to the mass of the people, as the Latin is
in Italy, or the Anglo-Saxon in England. Yet the language was
still called “the _Hebrew_,” as appears from several passages
in the New Testament, where the Hebrew is spoken of as the
vernacular language of the Jews of Palestine. It seems proper
therefore, to designate the later Hebrew by the same name
which is applied to it by those who spoke it, and this is
still among modern writers the term used for it; but of late,
some, especially Hug and his commentator, Wait, have introduced
the name “Aramaic,” as a distinctive title of this dialect,
deriving this term from _Aram_, the original name of Syria,
and the regions around, in all which was spoken in the time of
Christ, this or a similar dialect. This term however, is quite
unnecessary; and I therefore prefer to use here the common
name, as above limited, because it is the one used in the New
Testament, and is the one in familiar use, not only with common
readers, but, as far as I know, with the majority of Biblical
critics.
Though the evidence that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, is
apparently of the most uniform, weighty and decisive character,
there have been many among the learned, within the three last
centuries, who have denied it, and have brought the best of
their learning and ability to prove that the Greek gospel of
Matthew, which is now in the New Testament, is the original
production of his pen; and so skilfully has this modern view
been maintained, that this has already been made one of the
most doubtful questions in the history of the canon. In Germany
more particularly, (but not entirely,) this notion has, during
the last century, been strongly supported by many who do not
like the idea, that we are in possession only of a translation
of this most important record of sacred history, and that the
original is now lost forever. Those who have more particularly
distinguished themselves on this side of the controversy, are
Maius, Schroeder, Masch and Hug, but the great majority of
critics still support the old view.
The earliest evidence for the _Hebrew_ original of Matthew’s
gospel, is Papias of Hierapolis, (as early as A. D. 140,) not
long after the times of the apostles, and acquainted with many
who knew them personally. Eusebius (Church History, III. 39,)
quotes the words of Papias, (of which the original is now lost,)
which are exactly translated here:――“Matthew therefore wrote the
divine words in the Hebrew language; and every one translated
them as he could.” By which it appears that in the time of
Papias there was no universally acknowledged translation of
Matthew’s gospel; but that every one was still left to his own
private discretion, in giving the meaning in Greek from the
original Hebrew. The value of Papias’s testimony on any point
connected with the history of the apostles, may be best learned
from his own simple and honest account of his opportunities and
efforts to inquire into their history; (as recorded by Eusebius
in a former part of the same chapter.) “If any person who had
ever been acquainted with the elders, came into my company, I
inquired of them the words of the elders;――what Andrew and Peter
said?――what Thomas, and James, and John, and Matthew, and the
other disciples of the Lord used to say?”――All this shows an
inquiring, zealous mind, faithful in particulars, and ready
in improving opportunities for acquiring historical knowledge.
Yet because in another part of the works of Eusebius, he is
characterized as rather enthusiastic, and very weak in judgment,
more particularly in respect to doctrines, some moderns have
attempted to set aside his testimony, as worth nothing on this
simple historical point, the decision of which, from the direct
personal witness of those who had seen Matthew and read his
original gospel, needed no more judgment than for a man to
remember his own name. The argument offered to discredit Papias,
is this:――“He believed in a bodily reign of the Messiah on the
earth, during the whole period of the millennium, and for this
and some similar errors, is pronounced by Eusebius, ‘a man
of very weak judgment,’――(πανυ σμικρος τον νουν.) Therefore,
he could not have known in what language Matthew wrote.”
The objection certainly is worth something against a man
who made such errors as Papias, in questions where any nice
discrimination is necessary, but in a simple effort of a
ready memory, he is as good a witness as though he had the
discrimination of a modern skeptical critic. (In Michaelis’s
Introduction to the New Testament, vol. III. c. iv. § 4, is a
full discussion of Papias’s character and testimony, and the
objections to them.)
The second witness is Irenaeus, (A. D. 160,) who, however,
coupling his testimony with a demonstrated falsehood, destroys
the value which might be otherwise put upon a statement so
ancient as his. His words are quoted by Eusebius, (Church
History, V. 8.) “Matthew published among the Hebrews his gospel,
written in _their own_ language, (τῃ ιδιᾳ αυτων διαλεκτῳ,) while
Peter and Paul were preaching Christ at Rome, and laying the
foundations of the church.” This latter circumstance is no great
help to the story, after what has been proved on this point in
the notes on Peter’s life; but the critics do not pretend to
attack it on this ground. They urge against it, that as Irenaeus
had a great regard for Papias, and took some facts on his word,
he probably took this also from him, with no other authority,――a
_guess_, which only wants proof, to make it a very tolerable
argument. Let Irenaeus go for what he is worth; there are enough
without him.
The third witness is Pantaenus of Alexandria, already quoted
in the note on Nathanael’s life, (p. 363,) as having found this
Hebrew gospel still in use, in that language, among the Jews of
Arabia-Felix, towards the end of the second century.
The fourth witness is Origen, (A. D. 230,) whose words on
this point are preserved only in a quotation made by Eusebius,
(Church History, VI. 25,) who thus gives them from Origen’s
commentary on Matthew. “As I have learned by tradition
concerning the four gospels, which alone are received without
dispute by the church of God under heaven: the first was written
by Matthew, once a tax-gatherer, afterwards an apostle of Jesus
Christ, who published it for the benefit of the Jewish converts,
having composed it in the HEBREW language, &c.” The term,
“_tradition_,” (παραδοσις,) here evidently means something more
than floating, unauthorized information, coming merely by vague
hearsay; for to this source only he refers all his knowledge
of the fact, that “the gospel was written by Matthew;” so that,
in fact, we have as good authority in this place, for believing
that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, as we have that he wrote at all.
The other circumstances specified, also show clearly, that he
did not derive all his information on this point from Papias,
as some have urged; because this account gives facts which that
earlier Father did not mention,――as that it was written first,
and that it was intended for the benefit of the Jewish converts.
Later authorities, such as Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem,
Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzus, and others, might be quoted
in detail, to the same effect; but this general statement is
sufficient for this place. The scholar of course, will refer to
the works on critical theology for detailed abstracts of these,
as well as the former writers. Michaelis is very full, both in
extracts and discussions. Hug also gives a minute account of the
evidence, with the view of refuting it.
The testimony of Jerome [A. D. 395,] is however, so full
and explicit, and so valuable from his character as a Hebrew
scholar, that it may well be esteemed of higher importance
to the question, than that of some earlier writers. His words
are,――“Matthew composed his gospel in _Hebrew letters and words_,
but it is not very well known who afterwards translated it.
Moreover, the very Hebrew original itself is preserved even to
this day, in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus,
most industriously collected. I also had the opportunity of
copying [describendi] this book by means of the Nazareans
in Beroea, a city of Syria, who use this book.” [Jerome De
scriptoribus ecclesiasticis. Vita Matthew.] Another passage
from the same author is valuable testimony to the same
purpose,――“Matthew wrote his gospel _in the Hebrew language_,
principally for the sake of those Jews who believed in Jesus.”
Now these testimonies, though coming from an authority so
late, are of the highest value when his means of learning the
truth are considered. By his own statement it appears that he
_had actually seen and examined_ the original Hebrew gospel of
Matthew, or what was considered to be such, as preserved in the
valuable collections of ♦Pamphilus, at a place within the region
for which it was first written. It has been urged that Jerome
confounded the “gospel according to the Hebrews,” an apocryphal
book, with the true original of Matthew. But this is disproved,
from the circumstance that Jerome himself translated this
apocryphal gospel from the Hebrew into Latin, while he says that
the translator of Matthew was unknown.
♦ “Pamphilius” replaced with “Pamphilus”
In addition to these authorities from the Fathers, may be
quoted the statements appended to the ancient Syriac and Arabic
versions, which distinctly declare that Matthew wrote in Hebrew.
This was also the opinion of all the learned Syrians.
The great argument with which all this evidence is met, (besides
discrediting the witnesses,) is that Matthew _ought_ to have
written in Greek, and therefore _did_. (Matthaeus Graece
scribere _debuit_. Schubert. Diss. § 24.) This sounds very
strangely; that, without any direct ancient testimony to support
the assertion, but a great number of distinct assertions against
it from the very earliest Fathers, moderns should now pronounce
themselves better judges of what Matthew _ought_ to do, than
those who were so near to his time, and were so well acquainted
with his design, and all the circumstances under which it was
executed. Yet, strangely as it sounds, an argument of even this
presumptuous aspect, demands the most respectful consideration,
more especially from those who have had frequent occasion, on
other points, to notice the very contemptible character of the
“testimony of the Fathers.” It should be noticed however, that,
in this case, the argument does not rest on a mere floating
tradition, like many other mooted points in early Christian
history, but in most of the witnesses, is referred to direct
personal knowledge of the facts, and, in some cases, to actual
inspection of the original.
It is proper to notice the reasons for thinking that Matthew
_ought_ to have written in Greek, which have influenced such
minds as those of Erasmus, Beza, Ittig, Leusden, Spanheim,
LeClerc, Semler, Hug and others, and which have had a decisive
weight with such wonderfully deep Hebrew scholars, as Wagenseil,
Lightfoot, John _Henry_ Michaelis, and Reland. The amount of
the argument is, mainly, that the Greek was then so widely and
commonly spoken even in Palestine, as to be the most desirable
language for the evangelist to use in preserving for the benefit
of his own countrymen, the record of the life of Christ. The
particulars of the highly elaborate and learned arguments, on
which this assertion has been rested, have filled volumes, nor
can even an abstract be allowed here; but a simple reference
to common facts will do something to show to common readers,
the prominent objections to the notion of a Greek original. It
is perfectly agreed that the Hebrew was the ordinary language
spoken by Christ, in his teachings, and in all his usual
intercourse with the people around him. That this language was
that in which the Jews also commonly wrote and read at that
time, as far as they were able to do either, in any language, is
equally plain. In spite of all that Grecian and Roman conquests
could do, the Jews were still a distinct and peculiar people;
nor is there any reason whatever to suppose that they were
any less so in language, than they were in dress, manners,
and general character. He, therefore, who desired to write
anything for the benefit of the Jews, as a nation, would insure
it altogether the best attention from them, if it came in a
form most accordant with their national feelings. They would
naturally be the first persons whose salvation would be an
object to the apostolic writers, as to the apostolic preachers,
and the feelings of the writer himself, being in some degree
influenced by love of his own countrymen, he would aim first
at the direct spiritual benefit of those who were his kindred
according to the flesh. Among all the historical writings of the
New Testament, that there should be not one originally composed
in the language of the people among whom the Savior arose, with
whom he lived, talked and labored, and for whom he died, would
be very strange. The fact that a gospel in the Hebrew language
was considered absolutely indispensable for the benefit of
the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, is rendered perfectly
incontestable by the circumstance that those apocryphal gospels
which were in common use among the heretical denominations of
that region, were _all in Hebrew_; and the common argument, that
the Hebrew gospel spoken of by the Fathers was translated into
Hebrew from Matthew’s Greek, is itself an evidence that it was
absolutely indispensable that the Jews should be addressed in
writing, in that language alone. The objection, that the Hebrew
original of Matthew was lost so soon, is easily answered by
the fact, that the Jews were, in the course of the few first
centuries, driven out of the land of their Fathers so completely,
as to destroy the occasion for any such gospel in their language;
for wherever they went, they soon made the dialect of the
country in which they lived, their only medium of communication,
written or spoken.
Fabricius may be advantageously consulted by the scholar for
a condensed view of the question of the original language of
Matthew’s gospel, and his references to authorities, ancient and
modern, are numerous and valuable, besides those appended by his
editors.――The most complete argument ever made out in defense
of a Greek original, is that by Hug, in his Introduction, whose
history of the progress of Grecian influence and language in
Syria and Palestine, is both interesting and valuable on its own
account, though made the inefficient instrument of supporting an
error. He is very ably met by his English translator, Wait, in
the introduction to the first volume. A very strong defense of
a Greek original of Matthew, is also found in a little quarto
pamphlet, containing a thesis of a Goettingen student, on taking
his degree in theology, in 1810. (Diss. Crit. Exeg. in serm.
Matt. &c. Auct. Frid. Gul. Schubert.)