Papias says that everybody "interpreted" the Hebrew Matthew as well as he could. He refers
no doubt to the use of the Gospel in public discourses before Greek hearers, not to a number of
written translations of which we know nothing. The past tense (ἠρμήνευσε) moreover seems to
imply that such necessity existed no longer at the time when he wrote; in other words, that the
authentic Greek Matthew had since appeared and superseded the Aramaic predecessor which was
probably less complete.^936 Papias accordingly is an indirect witness of the Greek Matthew in his
own age; that is, the early part of the second century (about a.d. 130). At all events the Greek
Matthew was in public use even before that time, as is evident from the, quotations in the Didache,
and the Epistle of Barnabas (which were written before 120, probably before 100).
The Greek Matthew.
The Greek Matthew, as we have it now, is not a close translation from the Hebrew and bears
the marks of an original composition. This appears from genuine Greek words and phrases to which
there is no parallel in Hebrew, as the truly classical "Those wretches he will wretchedly destroy,"^937
and from the discrimination in Old Testament quotations which are freely taken from the Septuagint
in the course of the narrative, but conformed to the Hebrew when they convey Messianic prophecies,
and are introduced by the solemn formula: "that there might be fulfilled," or "then was fulfilled."^938
If then we credit the well nigh unanimous tradition of the ancient church concerning a prior
Hebrew Matthew, we must either ascribe the Greek Matthew to some unknown translator who took
certain liberties with the original,^939 or, what seems most probable, we must assume that Matthew
himself at different periods of his life wrote his Gospel first in Hebrew in Palestine, and afterward
in Greek.^940 In doing so, he would not literally translate his own book, but like other historians
freely reproduce and improve it. Josephus did the same with his history of the Jewish war, of which
only the Greek remains. When the Greek Matthew once was current in the church, it naturally
superseded the Hebrew, especially if it was more complete.
Objections are raised to Matthew’s authorship of the first canonical Gospel, from real or
supposed inaccuracies in the narrative, but they are at best very trifling and easily explained by the
fact that Matthew paid most attention to the words of Christ, and probably had a better memory
for thoughts than for facts.^941(^936) So Meyer (p. 12, against Holtzmann), and Lightfoot (p. 397 against the author of "Supern. Rel."). Schleiermacher was
wrong in referring ἡρμήνευσε to narrative additions.
(^937) Matt. 21:41: κακούς κακῶς ἀπολέσει, pessimos pessime (or malos male) perdet. The E. Revision reproduces the paronomasis
(which is obliterated in the E. V.) thus: "He will miserably destroy those miserable men." Other plays on words: Πέτρος and
πέτρα, 16:18; βαττολογεῖν and πολυλογία , 6:7; ἀφανίζουσιν ὅπως φανῶσι, "they make their faces unappearable (disfigure
them), that they may appear,"6:16; comp. 24:7. Weiss derives the originality of the Greek Matthew from the use of the Greek
Mark; but this would not account for these and similar passages.
(^938) Jerome first observed that Matthew follows not Septuaginta translatorum auctoritatem, sed Hebraicam (De vir. illustr., c.
3). Credner and Bleek brought out this important difference more fully, and Holtzmann (Die Syn. Evang., p. 259), Ritschl,
Köstlin, Keim (I., 59 sqq), Meyer (p. 9), and Weiss (p. 44) confirm it. But Hilgenfeld and Keim unnecessarily see in this fact an
indication of a later editor, who exists only in their critical fancy.
(^939) Jerome acknowledges the uncertainty of the translator, De vir. ill., c. 3: Quis postea in Graecum transtulerit [the Hebrew
Matthew], non satis certum est." It has been variously traced to James, the brother of the Lord Synops. Pseudo-Athan.), to a
disciple of Matthew, or to another disciple.
(^940) So Bengel, Guericke, Schott, Olshausen, Thiersch.
(^941) Meyer and Weiss regard the reports of the resurrection of the dead at the crucifixion and the story of the watch, Matt. 27:52,
62-66, as post-apostolic legends; but the former is not more difficult than the resurrection of Lazarus, and the latter has all the
marks of intrinsic probability. Meyer also gratuitously assumes that Matthew must be corrected from John on the date of the
crucifixion; but there is no real contradiction between the Synoptic and the Johannean date. See p. 133. Meyer’s opinion is that
A.D. 1-100.