Page:Lives of the apostles of Jesus Christ (1836).djvu/394



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 (H. E., 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,'—([Greek: panu smikros ton noun].) 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 Int. N. T., 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, (H. E., V. 8.) "Matthew published among the Hebrews his gospel, written in their own language, ([Greek: tê idia autôn dialektô],) 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, (H. E., 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 language, &c." The term, "tradition," ([Greek: paradosis],) 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 authori