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”