- ty 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 ecclesiast. Vita Matt.] 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 Pamphilius, 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.
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
