3. WAS THE FIRST GOSPEL ORIGINALLY ARAMAIC?
(1) Meaning of "Hebrew."—By "the Hebrew dialect," Papias no doubt means Aramaic rather than what we call Hebrew. The term "Hebrew" was applied to both of the two closely related languages. Compare Acts 21:40. It is exceedingly unlikely that a Gospel would have been written in Hebrew; for before the time of Christ that had ceased to be the living language of Palestine. What Papias asserts, then, is that Matthew wrote in Aramaic.
(2) "Everyone Translated Them as He Was Able."—Papias asserts further that everyone translated the oracles as he was able. These words may be interpreted in various ways. Perhaps they mean that every man who used the original of Matthew had to translate it for himself; or perhaps that the Gospel was translated orally in the churches, as the Jews translated the Hebrew Old Testament into Aramaic in the synagogues; or perhaps that a number of written translations of the Gospel were made. At any rate Papias seems to imply that the condition which he here describes had come to an end when he wrote. Some one Greek form of the Gospel had gained general acceptance; the time when everyone translated as he was able was at an end.
(3) Value of the Tradition.—The tradition of an Aramaic original of Matthew is not preserved merely by Papias, but appears in a considerable number of early writers. How far the other writers are independent of Papias is a disputed question. The tradition may be variously estimated. Some have supposed that it is entirely correct—that our Greek Gospel of Matthew is a translation, by Matthew himself or by some one else, of an Aramaic work: others have supposed that the tradition is altogether false—for example, that an Aramaic translation of the Greek Gospel was mistaken for an original from which the Greek Gospel had been translated: others hold intermediate views—for example, that one of the sources of our Greek Gospel was written in Aramaic. An important objection to the view that there was an Aramaic original of Matthew is that the Greek Gospel looks more like an original Greek work than like a translation. The tradition of the Aramaic Matthew places before us one of the unsolved problems of New Testament criticism.
One thing is certain—the language of the Gospel of Matthew, like that of the other Gospels, has a strong Aramaic coloring. This, however, does not require the hypothesis that our Matthew was translated from an Aramaic original. Undoubtedly, however our Greek Matthew was written, there was a time in the early days of the Church when the tradition of the life of Christ was carried on chiefly or wholly in the Aramaic language. The words of Jesus, at any rate, as they appear in our Gospels, have at some time or other undergone translation; for Jesus taught in Aramaic. The Aramaic coloring of the Gospels is one of the evidences of their trustworthiness. Though written in Greek, they are evidently rooted deep in the original Palestinian soil.
4. DATE
The date of the Gospel cannot be determined with accuracy. Some indication, however, is afforded by the assertion of Irenæus, of the latter part of the second century, that Matthew published his Gospel while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome. Even if this assertion should prove not to be absolutely correct, it would exhibit an early tradition for the years between about A. D. 60 and 70 as the date of the Gospel. This tradition is confirmed by the widespread view among early writers that Matthew was written before Mark; for Mark is now generally admitted to have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70. There is really no serious objection to the traditional dating of Matthew. It was probably written in the sixties of the first century, and probably, as tradition says, in Palestine.
There are traces of the use of the Gospel in writers of the early half of the second century. On the other hand, there is no clear indication that it was used by any New Testament writer. The absence of citations from our Gospels in the epistles of Paul would tend to indicate that in the very earliest period the gospel tradition was carried on by word of mouth rather than by books.
5. THE APOSTLE MATTHEW
In the four lists of the apostles, Matt. 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:13-16; Acts 1:13, Matthew is designated by the bare name, except in his own Gospel, where he appears as "Matthew the publican." In Matt. 9:9, his call is narrated. In the parallel passages in Mark and Luke, Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27,28, the name of the publican who was called is given only as "Levi." Without the Gospel of Matthew we should not have been able to identify Levi and Matthew. Evidently the apostle had two names, as was the case with so many others of the persons mentioned in the New Testament. After his call, Matthew made a great feast for Jesus. Luke 5:29; compare Mark 2:15. Matthew himself, alone among the Synoptists, does not even make it perfectly clear that it was he in whose house Jesus sat at meat. The peculiarities of the First Gospel in what is said about Matthew become significant when the authorship is known. Of course of themselves they would be quite insufficient to indicate who the author was. The assertion by early writers that Matthew wrote the Gospel, was based not upon indications in the Gospel itself, but upon independent tradition.