History of the Christian Church, Volume I: Apostolic Christianity. A.D. 1-100.

in the second century, if not before, it was an acknowledged authority in the church. The Gospel

of John also indirectly presupposes, by its numerous emissions, the existence of all the Synoptical

Gospels.

The Hebrew Matthew.

Next we hear of a Hebrew Matthew from Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, "a hearer of John

and a companion of Polycarp."^921 He collected from apostles and their disciples a variety of apostolic

traditions in his "Exposition of Oracles of the Lord," in five books (λογίων κυριακῶν ἐξήγησις].In

a fragment of this lost work preserved by Eusebius, he says distinctly that "Matthew composed the

oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew tongue, and everyone interpreted them as best he could."^922

Unfortunately the Hebrew Matthew, if it ever existed, has disappeared, and consequently

there is much difference of opinion about this famous passage, both as regards the proper meaning

of "oracles" (λογία) and the truth of the whole report.

1. The "oracles" are understood by some to mean only the discourses of our Lord;^923 by
   others to include also the narrative portions.^924 But in any case the Hebrew Matthew must have
   been chiefly an orderly collection of discourses. This agrees best with the natural and usual meaning
   of Logia, and the actual preponderance of the doctrinal element in our canonical Matthew) as
   compared with our Mark. A parte potiori fit denominatio.


2. The report of a Hebrew original has been set aside altogether as a sheer mistake of Papias,
   who confounded it with the Ebionite "Gospel according to the Hebrews," known to us from a
   number of fragments.^925 It is said that Papias was a credulous and weak-minded, though pious

(^921) Euseb., H. E., III. 39: Ἰωάννου μὲν ἀκουστής,Πολυκάρπου δὲ ἑταῖρος γεγονώς.. Whether this " John" is the apostle or the
mysterious " Presbyter John," is a matter of dispute which will be discussed in the second volume in the section on Papias.
Eusebius himself clearly distinguishes two Johns. The date of Papias must be set back several years with that of Polycarp, his "
companion," who suffered martyrdom in 155 (not 164). The Chronicon Paschale which represents Papias as martyred at
Pergamum about the same time, mistook ΠΑΠΥΛΟΣ in Eusebius, H. E., IV. 15 (at the close), for ΠΑΠΙΑΣ. See Lightfoot, "
Contemp. Review" for August, 1875, p. 381 sqq.
(^922) Eus., Hist. Eccl., III. 39: Ματθαῖος μὲν οὗν Ἑβραίδι διαλεκ́τῳ τὰ λόγια συνατάξατο (or, according to the reading of
Heinichen, I. 150, συναγράψατο), ἠρμήνευσε δ’ αὐτὰ ὡς ἥν δυνατὸς ἕκαστος. This testimony has been thoroughly discussed
by Schleiermacher (in the "Studien und Kritiken," 1832), Holtzmann (Synopt. Evang., 248 sqq.), Weizsäcker (Untersuchungen
üb. d. ev. Gesch., 27 sqq.). Ewald (Jahrbücher, VI., 55 sqq.), Zahn (in "Stud. u. Kritiken," 1866, 649 sqq.), Steitz (ibid., 1868,
63 sqq.), Keim (Gesch. Jesu v. Naz., I., 56 sqq.), Meyer (Com. Evang. Matth., 6th ed. (1876), 4 sqq.), Lightfoot (in "Contemp.
Review" for August, 1875, pp. 396-403), and Weiss (Das Matthäusevang., 1876, 1 sqq.).
(^923) So Schleiermacher who first critically examined this passage (1832), Schneckenbarger (1834), Lachmann (1835), Credner,
Wieseler. Ewald, Reuss, Weizsäcker, Holtzmann, Meyer (p. 11). It is supposed that Matthew’s Hebrew Gospel was similar to
the lost work of Papias, with this difference that the former was simply a collection (σύνταξις or συγγραφή), the latter an
interpretation (ἐξήγησις), of the Lord’s discourses (τῶν λογίων κυριακῶν).
(^924) So Lücke (1833), Kern, Hug, Harless, Anger, Bleek, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Lange, Ebrard, Thiersch, Keim, Zahn, Lightfoot,
Thomson, Keil, Weiss (but the last with a limitation to a meagre thread of narrative). The chief arguments are: 1, that all early
writers, from Irenaeus onward, who speak of a Hebrew Matthew mean a regular Gospel corresponding to our Greek Matthew;
2, the parallel passage of Papias concerning the Gospel of Mark (Eus., III. 39), where apparently "the Lord’s discourses" (λόγοι
κυριακοί) includes actions as well as words. τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἥ λεχθέντα ἥ πραχθέντα. But it is said somewhat disparagingly,
that Mark (as compared with Matthew) did not give "an orderly arrangement of the Lord’s words" (οὐχ ὥσπερ σύνταξιν τῶν
κυριακῶν ποιούμενος λόγων). The wider meaning of λογία is supported by Rom. 3:1, where τὰ λογία τοῦ θεοῦ, with which
the Jews were intrusted, includes the whole Old Testament Scriptures; and Hebr. 5:12, " the first principles of the oracles of
God". (τὰ στοιχεῖα –ϊτῆ–ͅϊς ἀρχῆς τῶν λογιων τοῦ θεοῦ). Lightfoot quotes also passages from Philo, Clement of Rome, Polycarp,
and Origen (l.c., p. 400 sq.).
(^925) So Wetstein, Hug, De Wette, Bleek, Ewald, Ritschl, Holtzmann, Keim, Delitzsch, Keil. Some of these writers assume that
the Gospel according to the Hebrews was an Ebionite translation and recension of the Greek Matthew. So Delitzsch and Keil
A.D. 1-100.