The Original Form of Matthew’s Gospel

     Papias of Hierapolis (ca. 60-140?) reported: “Matthew composed his history in the Hebrew dialect, and everyone translated it as he was able” (as quoted by Eusebius [ca. 263-339], Eccl. Hist. 3.39.16; translated by C. F. Cruse). An alternate translation is offered by W. J. Harrington: “Matthew, in Aramaic, grouped in order the sayings, and each translated them according to his ability” (Explaining the Gospels 40-41). This idea of the original composition of Matthew’s Gospel in the language of the Hebrew people was also propagated by Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1-2), Origen (cf. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6.25.4), Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. 3.24.6; cf. 5.10.3), John Chrysostom (Hom. Matt. 1.7), and Jerome (Epist. 20.5). 

     This statement, however, is not as simple as the above English translations suggest. Does sunetazeto suggest this was something Matthew purportedly “composed,” “collected,” “compiled,” or “arranged”? What is meant by ta logia: “history,” “sayings,” “oracles,” “gospel”? What is intended by Hebraidi (“Hebrew,” “Aramaic,” “Semitic,” “Jewish-Christian”)¹ dialektō (“dialect,” “language,” “style,” “literary form”)? Does hērmēneusen mean this was something “translated,” “interpreted,” or “transmitted”?

     Perhaps ta logia is used by Papias in reference to the sayings/teachings of the apostles about the words and deeds of Jesus, i.e., the substance of Matthew’s Gospel. Compare Papias’ previous statement regarding Mark: “… being the interpreter of Peter whatsoever he recorded he wrote with great accuracy … he was in company with Peter, who gave him such instruction as was necessary” (quoted by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.39.15). Alternatively, if ta logia is limited to “the sayings” of Jesus, it is interesting to note that in Matthew’s Gospel the Lord’s sayings are arranged in five long discourses (with no such arrangement in Mark or Luke).

     Since the Greek of Matthew does not read like a translation and no early Hebrew or Aramaic text of the Gospel has ever been found,² how is Papias’ allusion to Hebraidi dialektō to be understood? Suggestions include the following:

o   The canonical Matthew was possibly based on a Greek translation of the Semitic original (W. J. Harrington, Explaining the Gospels 41-42).

o   Matthew could have constructed his Gospel around an Aramaic collection of the Lord’s teachings (F. F. Bruce, The NT Documents 34-38).

o   Matthew’s Gospel may have been written in the Greek language with a Semitic style or form, i.e., according to Semitic linguistic patterns (R. H. Gundry, Matthew 619-20).

o   Perhaps Papias (and later writers influenced by him) simply made a mistake, confusing Matthew’s Gospel with an Aramaic narrative³ or making a misguided assumption based on the Jewish context of the early Christian movement (D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo, An Introduction to the NT 146).

Conclusion:

     At the end of the day, we know the Gospel according to Matthew has been preserved through the centuries in the Greek language of the New Testament. Any questions, concerns, or debates about an alleged earlier form or similar writings do not detract from the inspired truth it conveys.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ “The author here, doubtless means the Syro-Chaldaic, which sometimes Scripture and primitive writers called Hebrew” (C. F. Cruse, Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History 436 n. 8; cf. W. J. Harrington, Explaining the Gospels 180 n. 2). Cf. John 5:2; Acts 1:19; 21:40; 22:2.

     ² This does not count medieval Hebrew forms of Matthew that appear to be translations from the Greek (see R. E. Brown, An Introduction to the NT 210). The numerous OT quotations in Matthew’s Gospel reflect more than one text-form, i.e., LXX, translations from a Semitic original, and other less conventional compositions. This suggests someone knowledgeable of and writing in Greek but acquainted with Semitic languages (cf. D. A. Caron and D. J. Moo, An Introduction to the NT 143-44; D. Guthrie, NT Introduction 21-22).

     ³ A work known as “the Gospel according to the Hebrews,” which circulated among Jewish-Christian groups in Transjordan and Egypt (see Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.25.5; 3.27.4), apparently bore some affinity to Matthew’s Gospel (see Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.1.1; Jerome, Matt. 1, 2, 4; On Illustrious Men 2; Micah 7.6; Epiphanius, Panarion 29.9.4; 30.3.7; Origin, Matt. 19; cf. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.24.6; 5.10.3; 6.25.4). Jerome’s allusions to “the Gospel of the Nazarenes” may have been in reference to the same work (cf. On Illustrious Men 3; Isa. 30; Ezek. 6; 16.3; Against Pelagius 3.2) or possibly even to an Aramaic translation of Matthew’s Gospel. In disputes between orthodox Pharisees and Jewish Christians around the turn of the 2nd century, discussions focused on Christian writings referred to as Euangelion, which F. F. Bruce suggests “was most probably an Aramaic form of the Gospel according to Matthew, the favourite Gospel of the Jewish Christians in Palestine and the adjoining territory” (NT Documents 104).

Related Posts: Authorship of NT Gospels, Matthew's Audience

Image credit: http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2012/western-manuscripts-miniatures/lot.20.html

Hebrew

     The first time the word “Hebrew” (Heb. Ibri’; Greek Hebraios) occurs in scripture, it is applied to Abram (Genesis 14:13). It is then employed as a designation for his descendants through Isaac and Jacob (Genesis 40:15) and also for their language (2 Kings 18:26). This term is most often used to distinguish the Israelite people from other nations (Exodus 1:19; 2:11; 1 Samuel 4:9; etc.), and also applies to the Jews of Palestine in contrast to Greek-speaking Jews (Acts 6:1).¹    

     The origin of the name is uncertain. It may have been derived from one of Abraham’s ancestors, Eber (Genesis 11:16). Those who came to be known as the Hebrews descended from Shem, who is called “the father of all the children of Eber” (Genesis 10:21). Another possibility is that Ibri’ is linked to a similar noun meaning “the region or country beyond,” referring to Abraham’s former homeland beyond the Euphrates (Joshua 24:2-3). It has also been suggested that the word is derived from a verb meaning “passing through” and came to describe Abraham and his descendants as sojourners (cf. Hebrews 11:13).

     The name “Israel” (Heb. Yisraêl’; Greek Israêl) means “Prince of God” and was first given to Jacob (Genesis 32:28; 35:10), then later used to designate Jacob’s descendants (Joshua 3:17). When the nation divided, the northern kingdom was called Israel in contrast to the southern kingdom of Judah (1 Kings 15:9). After the Babylonian exile, the united kingdom again carried the name Israel (Ezra 6:16). The word “Jew” (Heb. Yehudi’; Greek Ioudaios) is a form of the name Judah and was first applied to those of the separate kingdom of Judah (2 Kings 16:6; 25:25 KJV). During the Babylonian captivity and onward the name was extended to all the Israelites (cf. Esther 2:5; 3:4; 5:13; Ezra 4:12; etc.).

     While the ancient Jews adopted the Phoenician script in writing the Hebrew language, around the time of King David it developed into Paleo-Hebrew and was eventually replaced with the Aramaic script from which the modern Hebrew alphabet is derived. The Old Testament (also known as the Hebrew Bible) was originally written in Hebrew, except the Aramaic sections of Ezra (4:8–6:18; 7:12-26) and Daniel (2:4b–7:28). Following the Babylonian exile, Aramaic had replaced Hebrew as the everyday vernacular of the Palestinian Jews.²

     The earliest recorded words of God are in the Hebrew tongue. The LORD employed this language to communicate to Moses and the ancient prophets, who in turn used it to proclaim the divine message both orally and in written form. Jesus read and understood Hebrew (Luke 4:16-21); it was the sacred language of the synagogues where he regularly worshiped and taught (Matthew 4:23; 9:35; cf. Acts 15:21). In fact, the smallest stroke of the smallest letter of the Hebrew scriptures was important to him (Matthew 5:18).³

     Not everyone has to master the Hebrew language to understand the Old Testament, but somebody does! Let us be thankful for the scholars, the tools, the translations, and the resources that enable us to gain insight into the word of God in every language through which it has been conveyed.

-- Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ The designation “Hellenist” (Greek Hellênistês) is similar to the words Hellênos (“Greek person”) and Hellênikos (“Greek language”), and generally refers to a Jew who settled in another country and adopted the Greek language and culture (cf. Acts 6:1; 9:29). It is sometimes rendered “Grecian” (KJV).

     ² See Aramaic. Of the ancient Semitic languages, both Hebrew and Aramaic would be included among the Northwest Semitic languages, along with Amorite, Syriac, Canaanite, Ugaritic, Moabite, Ammonite, and Edomite. The East Semitic languages would include Akkadian, Assyrian, and Babylonian. Arabic would be a South Semitic language. See Eugene H. Merrill, "Biblical Hebrew and the Semitic Languages," JETS 62.2 (2019): 251-67.

     ³ After the Jewish temple was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70, Hebrew was only used for religious literature and ceremonies until it was revived in the mid-nineteenth century as a colloquial language. Today over seven million people, mostly in Israel, speak Hebrew.

Related Posts: Aramaic, Greek NT Translated

Related articles: Dave Miller's Hebrew Vowels

Image credit: http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2005/05/11/239269/AncientHebrewText.jpg

Aramaic

     Aram, son of Shem (Genesis 10:22-23), founded the nation of Aram, which was later known as Syria. The language that developed among these people was Aramaic (Heb. אֲרָמִ֔ית or ‘Araamiyt; rendered “Syrian” in the KJV), a Semitic language closely related to Hebrew, having a similar alphabet but spoken differently (cf. 2 Kings 18:26; Isaiah 36:11). Abraham’s immediate descendants spoke Hebrew, whereas Aramaic was used by Laban, the grandson of Abraham’s brother (Genesis 31:47). A form of Aramaic came to be the common language of the Assyrians, the Babylonians, and the Persians (cf. Ezra 4:7; 2 Kings 18:17, 26), viz. East Semitic in contrast to the Northwest Semitic that developed among the Jews.

Aramaic-speaking Jews

     Prior to their exile, the soon-to-be Jewish captives were to learn the following statement in the Aramaic tongue in order to communicate it to their Babylonian captors: “The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth shall perish from the earth and from under these heavens” (Jeremiah 10:11).¹ The more capable Judean prisoners were taught to speak Aramaic (Chaldean) immediately (Daniel 1:4), and during and after the 70-years' Babylonian exile the Jews adopted the Aramaic tongue as their own. While the majority of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, large portions of Ezra (4:8–6:18; 7:12-26) and Daniel (2:4b–7:28) appear to have been written in Aramaic.²

     By the time of Christ, although Hebrew continued to be used among the rabbis in Jerusalem, Aramaic had replaced pure Hebrew as the everyday vernacular of the Palestinian Jews (cf. Acts 1:19). Jesus could read and understand Hebrew (Luke 4:16-21), but he apparently spoke Aramaic (cf. Mark 5:41; 7:34; 15:34; Acts 26:14). When Hebraisti (“the Hebrew language”) is mentioned in the New Testament, it most likely refers to Aramaic as the spoken language of the Hebrew people at this time (John 5:2; 19:13, 17, 20; Acts 21:40; 22:2; 26:14; Revelation 9:11; 16:16).

Aramaic in the New Testament

     Though written in koinē Greek, the respective Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John employ Aramaic expressions.³ Mark and John go on to translate the words into Greek, which indicates both evangelists were communicating to non-Aramaic-speaking audiences. Matthew, on the other hand, mostly leaves these words untranslated, which suggests his readers were (or at least included) Aramaic-speaking Jews.⁴ Luke, however, omits most of the Aramaic terms altogether,⁵ and his third-person reference to Aramaic as “their own language” (Acts 1:19) implies that neither he nor his readership were Aramaic speakers.

     The apostle Paul was bilingual,⁶ fluent in both Aramaic (the heart language of his ethic kinsmen) and Greek (the lingua franca of the Roman Empire) (Acts 21:37, 40; 22:2; cf. 26:14). In Paul’s extant writings, Aramaic expressions are occasionally employed (Romans 8:15; 1 Corinthians 16:22; Galatians 4:6), and he almost always refers to Peter by the Aramaic name Cephas (1 Corinthians 1:12; 3:11; 9:5; 15:5; Galatians 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14) – textual variation notwithstanding.⁷

Post-New Testament Aramaic

     Syriac, an Aramaic dialect, was the language of the inhabitants of eastern Syria and northern Mesopotamia. Not only were there Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and Mesopotamians present on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:9), the Lord’s church was well established in Syria before the mid-first century (Acts 9:19; 11:19-26; 13:1-3). According to tradition, the apostles Thomas and Thaddeus took the gospel beyond the eastern borders of the Roman empire,⁸ and under King Abgar IX (ca. 190-206) Christianity became the official religion of the Parthian kingdom. By 225 churches were established throughout the Tigris-Euphrates valley, from the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf.

     Syriac-Aramaic was the first language into which the Greek New Testament was translated, and Tatian, an Assyrian convert who studied under Justin Martyr in Rome, produced a harmony of the four Gospels known as the Diatessaron in the Syriac language (ca. 150-170). In fact, Syriac became the common language among Christians in eastern Syria, Mesopotamia, Persia, and eventually India, Mongolia, and China. The Nestorian Monument, erected in 781, commemorates the arrival of Christianity into the capital of China in 635 and contains both Syriac and Chinese inscriptions. Two Christian cemeteries in Kyrgystan, dating from the eighth to the thirteenth centuries, have inscriptions on tombstones in both Syriac and Turkish.

Conclusion

     While God is omnilingual, a variety of languages have been used through the ages to communicate and accomplish the divine will among God’s human creation. Most students of the Bible are aware of the significance of Hebrew and koinē Greek, but Aramaic has also played a crucial role. It functioned as a suitable conduit of God’s revelation and the original teachings of Christ, as well as an effective evangelistic tool among pre-Christian Jews, Jewish Christians, and later Eastern Christians. “There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance. Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me” (1 Corinthians 14:10-11).
     As we continue the monumental task of taking the gospel into all the world, may we exercise diligence in contextualizing the message and clearly communicating it so that God's will can most effectively be accomplished in the lives of all who receive it (Isaiah 55:11).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ All scripture quotations are from the NKJV.

     ² Aramaic is also the primary language of the Jewish Talmud. The Dead Sea Scrolls reveal that Jewish Aramaic was unique and related to the Hebrew script.

     ³ Matthew 5:22; 6:24; 16:17; 27:33, 46; Mark 3:17; 5:41; 7:34; 14:36; 15:22, 34; John 1:42; 20:16.

     ⁴ See Matthew's Audience, Mark's Audience, Luke's Audience, John's Audience.

     ⁵ For example, the place of Jesus’ execution is referred to by its Aramaic name Golgotha in Matthew, Mark and John, whereas Luke simply uses the Greek designation Chranion (“Skull”). Note that it was the Latin calvaria that influenced the KJV’s rendering “Calvary.” Besides Acts 1:19, Luke's only other employment of an Aramaic (Syriac) term is "mam[m]on" in his record of Jesus' speech in Luke 16:9, 11, 13.

     ⁶ Technically, with his miraculous gift of tongue-speaking (1 Corinthians 14:18), Paul would have been multilingual as circumstances necessitated. See Speaking in Tongues.
     ⁷ In the Corinthian correspondence, the Aramaic "Cephas" is used exclusively. In Galatians Paul alternates between the Aramaic and Greek names, but texts vary among the manuscripts in 1:18 and 2:7-14 ("Cephas" 1x/"Peter" 5x in NKJV vs. "Cephas" 4x/"Peter" 2x in NASB).

     ⁸ See Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 1.13.4-22; 3.1.1. The early third-century Acts of Thomas, telling of the missionary journey of Thomas to India, was written in Syriac and first circulated in Edessa before it was translated and more widely distributed.

Related Posts: Aramaic Patronymic Bar-, Greek NT Translated into English, Hebrew

Image credit: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3170/3047100194_173a99a534_o.jpg