Biblical commentary on the New Testament - The Christian ...

142 INTRODUCTION.
7JV dvvarbg tKuorog, ivhich each interpreted as he was ahle ; whicli
•words are best taken to mean, that every one had to try to explain
the Hebrew book as well as he could (either from his own knowl-
edge, or from that of some one else), because there was no transla-
tion of it. However, we must not overlook the fact, that Papias
says this, not of his own times, but of a time already past.* The
passage cannot, accordingly, be adduced to show, that in the time
of Papias, there was no Greek translation of Matthew in existence.
Next, our Greek text of Matthew shews traces of originality, which
render it extremely unlikely that we have in it a mere translation.
In particular, the passages from the Old Testament are quoted in a
way so free and independent, that no translator would have so
treated them.f This character of the Greek text, taken in connexion
with the universally current tradition, that Matthew wrote an
Aramaic Gospel, and with the like universal reception of this very
Greek text in the church, as the genuine Gospel, renders it probable
to me, as before observed, that Matthew, after the composition of
the Aramaic Gospel, himself prepared also a Greek edition of it, or,
at least, had it done under his authority. This Greek edition may
be regarded as another recension of the Gospel, whereby the difference
that subsists between our Gospel according to Matthew and
that of the Jewish Christians, which was a revision founded more
on the Aramaic Gospel, is more easily accounted for. With the
growing circulation of the Greek, the traces of the Aramaic Gospel
were gradually lost, because to most it was inaccessible, by rea-
son of the language, and its contents could be read as well in the
Greek Gospel.
The view, just detailed, of the relation of the Greek Gospel to
the Aramaic, agrees best with the historical data. But, very re-
cently, an attempt has been made to disprove the apostolical charac-
But, from the na-
* Sieffert (on the origin of the first canonical Gospel, p. 14, ff.) makes it probable
that these are not the words of Papias, but of the elder presbyter John. According to
this, even so early as John, must the time when each tras obliged to translate for him-
self Matthew's Aramaic Gospel have been already past.— [E.
\ True, this free mode of treatment may have sprung from the Aramaic original,
since in this, of course, the citations from the 0. T. must have been translated from Hebrew
into Aramaic.— [E.
X
Schleiermacher, Schulz, de TVette, Schulthess, were the first to utter these doubts.
Heidenreich has endeavoured to refute them in "Winer's Theol. Journ., Bd. III., H. 2.
They were followed by Siefiert (Konigsberg, 1832). Klener (Gottingen, 1832).
Schneckenburger (Stuttgart, 1834). Consult Schleiermacher's Article on the Testimony
of Papias (Stud, und Kritiken Jahrg. 1832, H. ; 4) and Strauss's Review in the Berl.
Jahrblicher, 1834, No. 91, ff.
Kern, Tiibingen, 1834, defends the genuineness of Matthew
against these attacks, still inclining to Sieffert's and Klener's views ; he also supposes a
re-touching of the original, together with spurious additions, only allowing but few such.
I have given my opmion of these works and their arguments more at length in the Er-