Volume I Part 37 (1/2)

recognized the ”Gospel according to the Hebrews,” continues: ”As in very truth we can affirm that Matthew alone in the New Testament set forth and proclaimed the Gospel in the Hebrew language and in Hebrew characters;”(1) and elsewhere he states that ”Matthew wrote the Gospel in Hebrew.”(2) The same tradition is repeated by Chrysostom,(3) Augustine,(4) and others.

Whilst the testimony of the Fathers was thus unanimous as to the fact that the Gospel ascribed to Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, no question ever seems to have arisen in their minds as to the character of the Greek version; much less was any examination made with the view of testing the accuracy of the translation. ”Such inquiries were not in the spirit of Christian learned men generally of that time,”(5) as Tischendorf remarks in connection with the belief current in the early Church, and afterwards shared by Jerome, that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was the original of the Greek Gospel according to Matthew.

The first who directly refers to the point, frankly confessing the total ignorance which generally prevailed, was Jerome. He states: ”Matthew, who was also called Levi, who from a publican became an Apostle, was the first who wrote a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in Hebrew language and letters, on account of those from amongst the circ.u.mcision who had believed; but who afterwards translated it into Greek is not

{474}

sufficiently certain.”(1) It was only at a much later period, when doubt began to arise, that the translation was wildly ascribed to the Apostles John, James, and others.(3)

The expression in Papias that ”everyone interpreted them (the [--Greek--]) as he was able” [--Greek--] has been variously interpreted by different critics, like the rest of the account. Schleier-macher explained the [--Greek--] as translation by enlargement: Matthew merely collected the Xoyta ([--Greek--]), and everyone added the explanatory circ.u.mstances of time and occasion as best he could.(3) This view, however, has not been largely adopted. Others consider that the expression refers to the interpretation which was given on reading it at the public meetings of Christians for wors.h.i.+p,(4) but there can be no doubt that, coming after the statement that the work was written in the Hebrew dialect, [--Greek--]

can only mean simple translation.(5) Some maintain that the pa.s.sage infers the existence of many written translations, amongst which very probably was ours;(6) whilst others affirm that the phrase merely signifies that as there was no recognized

{475}

translation, each one who had but an imperfect knowledge of the language, yet wished to read the work, translated the Hebrew for himself orally as best he could.(1) Some consider that Papias or the Presbyter use the verb in the past tense, [--Greek--], as contrasting the time when it was necessary for each to interpret as best he could with the period when, from the existence of a recognized translation, it was no longer necessary for them to do so;(2) whilst others deny that any written translation of an authentic character was known to Papias at all.(3) Now the words in Papias are merely: ”Matthew composed the Xoyta in the Hebrew dialect,(4) and everyone interpreted them as he was able.” The statement is perfectly simple and direct, and it is at least quite clear that it conveys the fact that when the work was composed, translation was requisite, and as each one translated ”as he was able,” that no recognized translation existed to which all might have recourse. There is no contrast either necessarily or, we think, probably implied in the use of the past tense. The composition of the Xoyta being of course referred to in the

4 In connection with this it may be of interest to remember that, in the account of his conversion and the vision which he saw on his way to Damascus which Paul gives to King Agrippa in the Acts of the Apostles, he states that Jesus spoke to him ”in the Hebrew dialect” [--Greek--], Acts xxvi.

14.

{476}

past tense, the same tense is simply continued in completing the sentence. The purpose is obviously to convey the fact that the work was composed in the Hebrew language. But even if it be taken that Papias intentionally uses the past tense in reference to the time when translations did not exist, nothing is gained, Papias may have known of many translations, but there is absolutely not a syllable which warrants the conclusion that Papias was acquainted with an authentic Greek version, although it is possible that he may have known of the existence of some Greek translations of no authority. The words used, however, imply that, if he did, he had no respect for any of them.

Thus the account of Papias, supported by the perfectly unanimous testimony of the Fathers, declares that the work composed by Matthew was written in the Hebrew or Aramaic dialect. The only evidence which a.s.serts that Matthew wrote any work at all, distinctly a.s.serts that he wrote it in Hebrew. It is quite impossible to separate the statement of the authors.h.i.+p from the language. The two points are so indissolubly united that they stand or fall together. If it be denied that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, it cannot be a.s.serted that he wrote at all. It is therefore perfectly certain from this testimony that Matthew cannot be declared the direct author of the Greek canonical Gospel bearing his name.(1) At the very best it can only be a translation, by an unknown hand, of a work the original of which was early lost. None of the earlier Fathers ever ventured a conjecture as to how, when, or by whom the translation was effected. Jerome explicitly states that the translator of the work was unknown. The

{477}

deduction is clear: our Greek Gospel, in so far as it is a.s.sociated with Matthew at all, cannot at the utmost be more than a translation, but as the work of an unknown translator, there cannot, in the absence of the original, or of satisfactory testimony of its accuracy, bo any a.s.surance that the translation faithfully renders the work of Matthew, or accurately conveys the sense of the original. All its Apostolical authority is gone. Even Michaelis long ago recognized this: ”If the original text of Matthew be lost, and we have nothing but a Greek translation: then, frankly, we cannot ascribe any divine inspiration to the words: yea, it is possible that in various places the true meaning of the Apostle has been missed by the translator.”(1) This was felt and argued by the Manicheans in the fourth century,(2) and by the Anabaptists at the time of the Reformation.(3) A wide argument might be opened out as to the dependence of the other two Gospels on this unauthenticated work.

The dilemma, however, is not yet complete. It was early remarked that our first Canonical Gospel bore no real marks of being a translation at all, but is evidently an original independent Greek work. Even men like Erasmus, Calvin, Cajctan, and Oecolampadius, began to deny the statement that our Gospels showed any traces of Hebrew origin, and the researches of later scholars have so fully confirmed their doubts that few now maintain the primitive belief in a translation. We do not propose here to enter fully into this argument. It is sufficient to say that the great majority of competent critics declare that our first Canonical Gospel is no translation, but an

{478}

original Greek text;(1) whilst of those who consider that they find traces of translation and of Hebrew origin,

{479}

some barely deny the independent originality of the Greek Gospel, and few a.s.sert more than substantial agreement with the original, with more or less variation and addition often of a very decided character.(1) The case, therefore, stands thus: The whole of the evidence which warrants our believing that Matthew wrote any

{480}

work at all, distinctly, invariably, and emphatically a.s.serts that he wrote that work in Hebrew or Aramaic; a Greek Gospel, therefore, as connected with Matthew, can only be a translation by an unknown hand, whose accuracy we have not, and never have had, the means of verifying.