Supernatural Religion Volume I Part 37

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 worship,(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 authorship 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.

Our Greek Gospel, however, being an independent original Greek text, there is no ground whatever for ascribing it even indirectly to Matthew at all, the whole evidence of antiquity being emphatically opposed, and the Gospel itself laying no claim, to such authorship.

One or other of these alternatives must be adopted for our first Gospel, and either is absolutely fatal to its direct Apostolic origin. Neither as a translation from the Hebrew nor as an original Greek text can it claim Apostolic authority. This has been so well recognized, if not admitted, that some writers, with greater zeal than discretion, have devised fanciful theories to obviate the difficulty. These maintain that Matthew himself wrote both in Hebrew and in Greek,(1) or at least that the translation was made during his own lifetime and under his own eye,(2) and so on. There is not, however, a particle of evidence for any of these a.s.sertions, which

{481}

are merely the arbitrary and groundless conjectures of embarra.s.sed apologists.

It is manifest that upon this evidence both those who a.s.sert the Hebrew original of Matthew's work and those who maintain that our Gospel is not a translation but an original Greek composition, should logically deny its apostolicity. We need not say that this is not done, and that for dogmatic and other foregone conclusions many profess belief in the Apostolic authorship of the Gospel, although in doing so they wilfully ignore the facts, and in many cases merely claim a substantial but not absolute Apostolic origin for the work.(1) A much greater number of the most able and learned critics, however, both from external and internal evidence deny the Apostolic origin of our first Canonical Gospel.(3)

{482}

There is another fact to which we may briefly refer, which from another side shows that the work of Matthew

{483}

with which Papias was acquainted was different from our Gospel. In a fragment from the fourth book of his lost work which is preserved to us by Oec.u.menius and Theophylact, Papias relates the circ.u.mstances of the death of Judas Iscariot in a manner which is in contradiction to the account in the first Gospel. In Matthew xxvii. 5, the death of the traitor is thus related: "And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed and went and hanged himself."(1) The narrative in Papias is as follows: "Judas walked about in this world a great example of impiety; for his body having swollen so that, on an occasion, when a waggon was moving on its way, he could not pa.s.s it, he was crushed by the waggon and his bowels gushed out."(2) Theophylact, in connection with this pa.s.sage, adds other details also apparently taken from the work of Papias, as for instance that, from his excessive corpulency, the eyes of Judas were so swollen that they could not see, and so sunk in his head that they could not be perceived even by the aid of the optical instruments of physicians; and that the rest of his body was covered with running sores and maggots, and so on in the manner of the early Christian ages, whose imagination conjured up the wildest "special

{484}

providences" to punish the enemies of the faith.(1) As Papias expressly states that he eagerly inquired what the Apostles, and amongst them what Matthew, said, we may conclude that he would not have deliberately contradicted the account given by that Apostle had he been acquainted with any work attributed to him which contained it.(2)

It has been argued, from some very remote and imaginary resemblance between the pa.s.sage from the preface to the work of Papias quoted by Eusebius with the prologue to Luke, that Papias was acquainted with that Gospel;(3) but nothing could be more groundless than such a conclusion based upon such evidence, and there is not a word in our fragments of Papias which warrants such an a.s.sertion.(4) Eusebius, who never fails to state what the Fathers say about the works of the New Testament, does not mention that Papias knew either the third or fourth Gospels. Is it possible to suppose that if Papias had been acquainted with those Gospels he would not have asked for information about them from the Presbyters, or that Eusebius would not have recorded it as he did that regarding the works ascribed to Matthew and Mark? Eusebius states, however, that Papias "made use of testimonies from the first Epistle of John and, likewise, from that of Peter."(5) As Eusebius,

{485}

however, does not quote the pa.s.sages from Papias, we must remain in doubt whether he did not, as elsewhere, a.s.sume from some similarity of wording that the pa.s.sages were quotations from these Epistles, whilst in reality they might not be. Andrew, a Cappadocian bishop of the fifth century, mentions that Papias, amongst others of the Fathers, considered the Apocalypse inspired.(1) No reference is made to this by Eusebius, but although from his Millenarian tendencies it is very probable that Papias regarded the Apocalypse with peculiar veneration as a prophetic book, this evidence is too vague and isolated to be of much value.

We find, however, that Papias, like Hegesippus and others of the Fathers, was acquainted with the Gospel according to the Hebrews.(2) Eusebius says: "He (Papias) has likewise related another history of a woman accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews."(3) This is generally believed to be the episode inserted in the later MSS. of the fourth Gospel, viii.

1--11.

Whatever books Papias knew, however, it is certain, from his own express declaration, that he ascribed little importance to them, and preferred tradition as a more beneficial source of information regarding evangelical history. "For I held that what was to be derived from

{486}

books," he says, "did not so profit me as that from the living and abiding voice."(1) If, therefore, it could even have been shown that Papias was acquainted with any of our Canonical Gospels, it must at the same time have been admitted that he did not recognize them as authoritative doc.u.ments. It is manifest from the evidence adduced, however, that Papias did not know our Gospels. It is not possible that he could have found it better to inquire "what John or Matthew, or what any other of the disciples of the Lord... say" if he had known of Gospels such as ours, and believed them to have been actually written by those Apostles, deliberately telling him what they had to say. The work of Matthew which he mentions being, however, a mere collection of discourses of Jesus, he might naturally inquire what the Apostle(2) himself said of the history and teaching of the Master. The evidence of Papias is in every respect most important. He is the first writer who mentions that Matthew and Mark were believed to have written any works at all; but whilst he shows that he does not accord any canonical authority even to the works attributed to them, his description of those works and his general testimony comes with crushing force against the pretensions made on behalf of our Gospels to Apostolic origin and authenticity.

2 We may merely remark that Papias does not call the Matthew who wrote the[--Greek--] an Apostle. In this pa.s.sage he speaks of the Apostle, but he does not distinctly identify him with the Matthew of the other pa.s.sage.

END OF VOL. I.