Testimonies to Matthew's Gospel

But while we know so little of the apostolical labours of the Evangelist Matthew, it is pleasing to find that the testimonies respecting the genuineness of his gospel, are so early and full. To these we will now direct our attention.

Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, who was acquainted with the apostle John, expressly mentions Matthew’s gospel; and asserts,” That he wrote the divine oracles in Hebrew.’’

Irenus, bishop of Lyons, who was born in Asia, and was acquainted with Pblycarp, the disciple of the apostle John, gives the following testimony; “Matthew, then among the Jews, wrote a gOspel in their language, while Peter and^Paul were preaching at Rome .... And after their decease, JVlark, also the disciple of Peter, delivered to us the things which had been preached by Peter; and Luke, the companion of Paul, put down in a book, the gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, who leaned on his Lord’s breast, published a gospel for the inhabitants of Asia.”

In another place he says, “The gospel of Matthew Wits deliv< re«» to the Jews.”

Origen, who was born in the second century, and wrote and flourished, in the bt-yinning of the third, has left us the following testimony, ‘According lo the traditions receivd by me, the first gospel was vlriiten by Maithew, once a pubhcau, after war s a disciple of Jesus Christ, who dvlivored it to the Jewish believers, composed in the Hebrew la guage.”

And in another place he says, ‘< Matthew wrote for the Hebrews.”

Ku>EBius, who lived about a hundred years later than Origon, informs us, that, “Mattnew having (irst preached the gnspel to the Hebrews, when about to go to other ptople, deliver<;d to them, in their ipwn language, the gospel wrii ten by himself; by that supplying the want of his presence with them, whom he was about to leave.”

In the Synopsis, which has been ascribed to Atuanasius, it is said, “Matthew wrote his gospel in the Hebrew, and published it at Jerusalem.”

Cyril of Jerusalem testifies, “That Mathew wrote in Hebrew.”

EpipHanius says the same, and adds, ‘* Matthew wrote tirsi, and Mark soon after him, bcinga follower of Peter at Rome,”

GRhG.uY Nazianzen, *<That Matthew wrotr
for the Hebrews.”

a.

Ebedjesu, the Syrian, “That Matthew, the first Evangelist, published his gospel, in Palestine, written in Hebrew. ‘^

JEEOMKjin hisCommentary on Matthew, testifies, that “The first Evangelist is Mai;thew,the Publican, surnamedLevijwho wrote his gospel inJudca,in the Hebrew language, chiefly for the Jews, who believed in Jesus, and did not join the shadow of the Law with the truth of the gospel.”

Again, in bis book of Ecclesiastical Writers, he says, “Matthew, called also Levi, of a Publican made an apostle, first of all wrote a gospel in the Hebrew language, for the sake of those in Judea who believed. By whom it was afterwards translated into Greek is uncertain.”

Chrtsostom, in his Introduction to this gospel, writes, “Matthew is said to have written his gospel at the request of the Jewish believers, who desired him to put down in writing, what he had said to them by word of mouth; and it is said, he wrote in Hebrew.”

It would be unnecessary to adduce any testimonies from later writers; but as they mention some circumstances, probably received by tradition, and not contained in the earlier testimonies, I will subjoin a few of them.

CosMAS,who lived in the sixth century, reports, that “Matthew is the first that wrote a gospel. A persecution having arisen after the stoning of Stepheli,and he having resolved to go from that place, the believers entreated him, to leave with them u written instruction; with which request he complied.”

Another author of this century, who wrote a discourse on Mattlicw, has left this testimony, “The occasion of Matthew’s writing is said to have been this, there bfing a great persecution in Palestine, so that there was danger lest the faithful should be dispersed; that they might not be without teaching, they requested Matthew to write for them an accurate history of all Christ’s words and works; that whereever they should be, they might have with them the ground of their faith.”

In the Paschal Chronicle, written in the seventh century, it is intimated, that Matthew published his gospel, about fifteen years after our Lord’s ascension.

EuTHrMius,inthe beginning of the twelfth century, says, “That this gospel was first written in the Hebrew language, for the Jewish believers, eight years after our Lord’s ascension.”

From these testimonies, it appears, that the Fathers had no certain knowledge of the exact time when Matthew wrote his gospel. Irenaus refers it to the period when Paul and Peter were preaching at Rome, but he speaks vaguely on the subject.

The writers who mention a precise timc,livedat too late a period to give testimony on this subject. But all agree, that this was the first gospel written.

Among the moderns, there is much diversity oi opinion, as might be expected, where there is little else than conjecture to guide them.

Lardner and Basnage supposed that this gospel was not written before A. D. 64.

Cave thought that it was written fifteen years after the ascension of Christ.

Jer. Jones is in favour of that opinion, which places it eight years after the ascension.

Grotius and G. J. Vossius are of the same
opinion. So also is Wetstein.

But, TiLLEMONT Carries it up to the third year after the crucifixion of our Saviour.*

Lardner and Percy have adduced arguments for a late origin of this gospel, derived from internal evidence,but they are of very inconsiderable weight.

As it is agreed that it was written before Matthew left Judea to preach the gospel in foreign parts, and as this event seems to have occurred after the persecution which was raised in Judea; against the church, it seems probable, that they are nearest the truth, who place it about eight years after the ascension of Christ; which date unites more writers in its support than any other.

Not only the date, but the original language of this gospel has been made a subject of controversy. By the testimonies already cited, it seems

* Tomline,Townson, Horne,Tovvnsend, &c. plead for an oUrly origin of this Gospel, referring it to A.D. 36, or A.D.. 3X

ISl

that there was but one opinion among; the ancients, in ref;;ar:l to this matter. VVitli one voice they inform us, that it was written in Hebrew; or in the vernacular tongue of the Jews, which in the Scriptures, and by the Christian Fathers, is called Hebrew. This lan^UMge is now called Syro-Chaldaic, or Western Aramean, but it consisted chiefly of words derived from a Hebrew origin, and was in fact, the Hebrew corrupted by a large mixture of foreign words, and by various changes in the prefixes and affixes of the words. This was the languflge in which Jesus Christ spoke, and delivered all his discourses; and which the apostles were accustomed to speak, from their childhood.

Although the Greek language was understood by all the learned in Judea, at this time, and by many of the people, yet it was not the vernacular language of the Jews, dwelling in Palestine. In a book composed for the immediate use of the churches in Judea, it was necessary, that it should be in that language which they all understood; which was neither pure Hebrew, nor Greek. The testimony of the Fathers, is therefore strengthened by a consideration of the nature fpf the case. And if it were not so, yet when the judgment of modern critics stands opposed to the universal testimony of the ancients, in reg;ard to a matter of fact, which occurred not long before their time, there ought to be no hesitation which is most deserving of credit.

There is, however, one difficulty attending this opinion, which is, that it supposes that theorrginal of this gospel is lost, and that we have nothing but a translation, which opinion would lessen its Canonical authority.

It must be confessed., that this is a consequence of a serious kind, and one which ought not to be received respecting any Canonical book, without necessity. But does this conclusion necessarily ibllow from the admission, that this gospel was originally composed in the Hebi’ew language? Might there not have been a version immediately prepared by the writer himself, or by some other person under his supermtendence? This being the first gospel, that was composed, it would naturally be in great request, with all Christians who knew of its existence, and as none but the Jewish Christians could understand it, as first published, it is exceedingly probable, that a request was made of the author to publish an edition of it in Greek also, by those who did not understand the Hebrew; or by such as were going to preach the Gospel in countries where the Greek language was in common use.

It has been considered a strong objection to the Hebrew original of this Gospel, that no person, whose writings have come dowa to us, has intimated that he had ever seen it; and from the earliest times it seems to have existed in the Greek language. But this fact is perfectly accordant Tvith the supposition now madej for, the desolation of Judea, and dispersion of the Jewish Christians, havina; fakon |>laco within a few years after the publication of Matthew’s Gospel, thi” copies of the original Hebrew would be confined to the Jewish coi’ verts, and as other Christians had copies in the Greek, of equal aut.enticity with the Hebrew, no inquiries would be made after the latter. These Jewish Christians, after their removal, dwindled away in a short time, and a large part of them became erroneous in their faith; and though ihey retained the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, they altered and corrupted it, to suit their own heretical opinions. There is reason to believe, that the Gospel of the Nazarenes was the identical Gospel of Matthew, which in process of time, was greatly mutilated and corrupted by the El)ionites. Of this Gospel much is said by the Fathers, and in the proper place we shall give some account of it.

The only remaining objection, of any weight, against the ancient opinion, is, that the Gospel according to Matthew, as we now have it, has no appearance of being a translation, but has the air and style of an original. But if the hypothesis, suggested above, be adopted, this objection also will vanish; for according to this, the Greek is an original as well as the Hebrew, it having been writt?n by Matthew himself, or by some disciple under his direction. But whether the Greek of St, Matthew; was written by himself or not, if is certain, that it was not later than the Apostolic age, and received the approbation of apostles or Apostolic men, which is sufficient to establish its authenticity.*

* The learned world have been nearly equally divided on the question, whether Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew or Greek. In favour of the former opinion, may be cited, Bellarmine, Grotius, Casaubon, Walton, Tomline, Cave, Hammond, Mill, Harwood, Owen, Campbell, A. Clarke, Simon, Tillemont, Pritius, Du Pin, Calmet, Michaelis, and others* In favour of the Greek origin of this Gospel the names are not less numerous, nor less respectable. Among these may be mentioned, Erasmus, Paraeusj Calvin, Le Clerc, Fabricius, Pfeiffer, Lightfoot, Beausobre, Basnage, Wetstem, Rumpoeus. Whitby, Edehnan, Hoffman, Moldenhawer Viser, Harles, Jones, Jortin, Lardnerp Hey, Hales, Hewlett, and others.

The two opinions were supported by a weight of argument and authority, so nearly balanced, that Dr. Townson, and a few others, have adopted a middle course, viz; the opinion stated above, that there were two originals; by which theory all difficulties are removed. The only objection is, the want of evidence. Home, and Townsend have adopted this opinion. See Home’s Introd. Vol. iv. Part h. C. ii. Sec ii. p- 287.