Greek Gospel of Matthew - A translation from Hebrew?
Skeptics claim that the Gospel of Matthew was compiled from a common source Mark and Luke derived information from designated as "document Q".
Skeptics claim that the Greek Gospel of Matthew is translated from the original Gospel of Matthew which was in Hebrew. Therefore bible believers do not have the original Gospel of Matthew, and rely only on a (being less accurate, and not devine inspired) translation.
Ancient testimony in favour of Matthew being the author is very strong.
Papias and Irenaeus in the second century, who were confirmed by Origen in the third and Eusebius in the fourth ( H.E. iii.39, v.8, vi. 25, iii. 24, v. 10 ), and some other early writers, repeat the evidence, or is in harmony with these 4.
Papias speaks of "the oracles" or "utterances" ( ta logia ) which Matthew composed; the other three speak of his "Gospel".Assuming that the two expressions are equivalent, then the testimony is uniform that the First Gospel was written in Hebrew by Matthew, the tax-collector and Apostle.
In that case the Greek Gospel which has come down to us could be a translation from this "Hebrew" original.But the First Gospel is evidently not a translation, and it is difficult to believe that it is not the work of the Apostle.
Whoever wrote it could have taken the Second Gospel (Mark) as a frame, and worked into it much material from other sources. He took the Greek phraseology of it, showing clearly that he worked in Greek.It is incredible that he translated the Greek of Mark into Hebrew, and then some one translated matthew's Hebrew back into Greek that is resulted in very different Greek.
And it is not likely that the Apostle Matthew, with first-hand knowledge of his own, would take the Gospel of another, and that other not an Apostle, as the framework of his own Gospel.
Very possibly the Logia of Papias should not be interpreted as meaning the whole of the First Gospel, but only one of its elements, viz. a collection of facts respecting Jesus Christ, chiefly consisting of His utterances, and the circumstances in which they were spoken.
The expression, Ta Logia, would fitly describe a document largely made up of discourses and parables. That such a document is one main element in both the First and the Third Gospels, may be regarded as certain, and it may have been written originally in Hebrew by Matthew.An explanation from Liberals could read like this:
The unknown constructor of the First Gospel took the Gospel of Mark and fitted on to it the contents of this collection of Utterances, together with other material of his own gathering, producing a work he named after the main element other than Mark he used in its construction, a translation of Matthew's collection of utterances.Papias gave us no hint of an unknown constructor. The Apostles being closest to Christ should have first hand knowledge for their compilation. There should be no need for one apostle to use the name of another in his compilation if the collection of utterances are from the apostles. Being closest to Christ Matthew, Mark and Luke could have gathered identical information, but still use records of one another for comparison, double-checking and refinement.
Matthew might not have written his gospel in Hebrew letters, or completely in the Hebrew tongue; the parts of his gospel that are not discourse/utterances were written in Greek, requiring Hebrew speakers to interpret his narrative with their knowledge of jewish Greek.
In this way we get an explanation of the statement of Papias, that " Matthew composed the Utterances in Hebrew, and each man interpreted them as he was able. "
An element of interpretation is needed. Interpretation is not necessary for Hebrew speakers if the gospel is composed in their language completely.
It was known that Matthew had written a Gospel of some kind in Hebrew: the First Gospel, as known to Irenaeus, was called "according to Matthew"; and hence the natural inference that it had been written in Hebrew.
In this view we also get an explanation of the later and less accurate statements of Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius, which seem to refer to our First Gospel as a whole.
There was a Gospel according to the Hebrews, which Jerome had translated into Greek and Latin, and from which he makes quotations.
A Jewish Christian sect called Nazarenes used this Gospel, and said that it was by Matthew. It was Aramaic, written in Hebrew characters. We do not know enough of it to be certain; but it also may have contained a good many of the Utterances collected by Matthew, and for this reason may have been attributed as a whole to him. It seems to have been very inferior to our First Gospel, and this would lead to its being allowed to perish. ( Hastings' DB. extra vol. pp.338f. )
Anachronism in Luke? || The 4 Gospels from the beginning || A Failed Prophesy on Tyre? ||
Photography || Photo Gallery || Portrait Gallery || Architecture ||
Design Consultancy || Preacher || Herbalist || Cool Sites ||