man.^926 But this does not impair his veracity or invalidate a simple historical notice. It is also said
that the universal spread of the Greek language made a Hebrew Gospel superfluous. But the Aramaic
was still the vernacular and prevailing language in Palestine (comp. Acts 21:40; 22:2) and in the
countries of the Euphrates.
There is an intrinsic probability of a Hebrew Gospel for the early stage of Christianity. And
the existence of a Hebrew Matthew rests by no means merely on Papias. It is confirmed by the
independent testimonies of most respectable fathers, as Irenaeus,^927 Pantaenus,^928 Origen,^929
Eusebius,^930 Cyril of Jerusalem,^931 Epiphanius,^932 and Jerome.^933
This Hebrew Matthew must not be identified with the Judaizing "Gospel according to the
Hebrews," the best among the apocryphal Gospels, of which in all thirty-three fragments remain.
Jerome and other fathers clearly distinguish the two. The latter was probably an adaptation of the
former to the use of the Ebionites and Nazarenes.^934 Truth always precedes heresy, as the genuine
coin precedes the counterfeit, and the real portrait the caricature. Cureton and Tregelles maintain
that the Curetonian Syriac fragment is virtually a translation of the Hebrew Matthew, and antedates
the Peshito version. But Ewald has proven that it is derived from our Greek Matthew.^935(Com. p. 23). Keim is mistaken when he asserts (I. 54) that scarcely anybody nowadays believes in a Hebrew Matthew. The
contrary opinion is defended by Meyer, Weiss, and others, and prevails among English divines.(^926) Eusebius (III. 39) calls him σφόδρα σμικρὸς τὸν νοῦν, " very narrow-minded," but on account of his millenarianism, as
the context shows. In another place he calls him a man of comprehensive learning and great knowledge of the Scriptures (III.
39: τὰ τάντα μάλιστα λογιώτατος καὶ τῆς γραφῆς εἰδήμων ).
(^927) Adv. Haer., III1, 1:ὁ μεν̀ δὴ Ματθαῖος ἐν τοῖσ Ἐβραίοις τῆ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ αὐτῶν καὶ γραφὴν ἐξήνεγκεν εὐαγγελίου, τοῦ
Πέτρου καὶ Παύλου ἐν Ῥ ώμη εὐαγγελιζομένων καὶ θεμελιούντων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. The chronological reference is so far
inaccurate, as neither Peter nor Paul were personally the founders of the church of Rome, yet it was founded through their
influence and their pupils, and consolidated by their presence and martyrdom.
(^928) He is reported by Eus., H.E. 10, to have found in India (probably in Southern Arabia) the Gospel according to Matthew in
Hebrew (Ἑβραίων γράμμασι), which had been left there by Bartholomew, one of the apostles. This testimony is certainly
independent of Papias. But it may be questioned whether a Hebrew original, or a Hebrew translation, is meant.
(^929) In Eus., H. E., VI. 25. Origen, however, drew his report of a Hebrew Matthew not from personal knowledge, but from
tradition (ὡς ἐν παραδόσει μαθών).
(^930) H. E., III. 24: Mατθαῖος μὲν γὰρ πρότερον Ἑβραίοις κηρύξας, ὡς ἔμελλε καὶ εφ ̓ ἑτέρους ἰέναι, πατρίῳ γλώττῃ γραφῇ
παραδοὺς τὸ κατ ̓ αὐτὸν εύαγγέλιον, τὸ λεῖπον τῇ αὐτοῦ παρουσίᾳ τούτοις, ἀφ’ ὧν ἐστέλλετο, διὰ τῆς · γραφῆς ἀπεπλήρου. "
M., having first preached the Gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to other nations, committed it to writing in his
native tongue, and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his book."
(^931) Catech. 14: Ματθ. ὁ γράψας τὸ εὐαγγέλιον Ἑβραΐδι γλώσσῃ.
(^932) Haer., XXX. 3; comp. LI. 5.
(^933) Praef. in Matth.; on Matt. 12:13; Dial. c Pelag., III, c. 2; De Vir. illustr., c. 2 and 3. Jerome’s testimony is somewhat
conflicting. He received a copy of the Hebrew M. from the Nazarenes in Beraea in Syria for transcription (392). But afterward
(415) he seems to have found out that the supposed Hebrew Matthew in the library of Pamphilus at Caesarea was "the Gospel
according to the Hebrews" (Evangelium juxta, or secundum Hebraeos), which he translated both into Greek and Latin (De vir.
ill., c. 2). This would have been useless, if the Hebrew Gospel had been only the original of the canonical Matthew. See Weiss,
l.c., pp. 7 sq.
(^934) The fragments of this Gospel ("quo utuntur Nazareni et Ebionitae," Jerome) were collected by Credner, Beiträge, I. 380
sqq.; Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test. extra can. rec., IV., and especially by Nicholson in the work quoted above. It is far superior to the
other apocryphal Gospels, and was so much like the Hebrew Matthew that many confounded it with the same, as Jerome observes,
ad Matth. 12:13 ("quod vocatur a plerisque Matthaei authenticum") and C. Pelag., III. 2. The Tübingen view (Baur, Schwegler,
Hilgenfeld) reverses the natural order and makes this heretical gospel the Urmatthaeus (proto-Matthew), of which our Greek
Matthew is an orthodox transformation made as late as 130; but Keim (I., 29 sqq.), Meyer (p. 19), and Weise (pp. 8 and 9) have
sufficiently refuted this hypothesis. Nicholson modifies the Tübingen theory by assuming that Matthew wrote at different times
the canonical Gospel and those portions of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which run parallel with it.
(^935) See Holtzmann, p. 269, and Ewald’s "Jahrbücher," IX. 69 sqq.
A.D. 1-100.