Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

repeated in the third (Origen) and in the fourth (Eusebius), to the effect that the first Gospel was written by Matthew, the toll gatherer and Apostle, in Hebrew. The necessary inference must be that our canonical Gospel is a translation of the original Apostolic work.

This tradition (and inference) is, however, directly contradicted by the testimony of the first Gospel itself, for that work clearly shows itself to be a compilation by someone who has interwoven material from another source or other sources into the framework of the second Gospel. This renders it difficult to suppose that the book in its present form is the work of the Apostle Matthew. It is indeed not impossible, but it is very improbable, that an Apostle should rely upon the work of another for the entire framework of his narrative. If he did so, he certainly composed his work in Greek, not in Hebrew, for the first Gospel has largely embodied the Greek phraseology of the second Gospel. It is inconceivable that the compiler should have rendered Mk.'s Greek into Hebrew, and that this should have afterwards been retranslated into Greek so closely resembling its Marcan original.

It would therefore seem that if the five passages quoted above represent a uniform tradition, the only course open to us is to assert that tradition has here gone astray. Our first Gospel was not originally written in Hebrew, nor is it likely that in its present form it is the work of an Apostle. But such a direct negative only forces us to examine more closely the facts at issue. The main points are these:

(1) From the end of the second century it has been believed that our first Gospel was the work of the Apostle Matthew, who wrote it in "Hebrew." How did it come to bear his name?

(2) According to the tradition represented by Papias, Matthew composed rà λóyia in "Hebrew."

In the first place, it is clear that whilst the description rà λóyia need not necessarily exclude narrative material, it is admirably qualified to describe a book containing sayings, discourses, and parables. If there is corroborative evidence, we may reasonably suppose that S. Matthew's Hebrew work was of this description.

Secondly, our first Gospel contains some 411 verses, being about two-fifths of the whole book, which consists of sayings, some of them in small groups, others forming part of long discourses or of parables. These sayings are in large part characterised by common features. See above, p. liv f.

Now, if we assume that the compiler of the first Gospel drew these sayings from the Apostolic work or from a Greek translation of it, we have at once an explanation of the following facts:

(1) That our first Gospel has been ascribed to Matthew from the end of the second century. On the one hand, an anonymous Gospel based on S. Mark's Gospel and on the Matthæan Logia was in use in the Church. It might, of course, have been called after its compiler. But there would be an irresistible tendency to find for it Apostolic sanction; and the tradition as represented by Papias, that the Logia, which formed so large a part of it, were drawn from a work of the Apostle Matthew, would naturally suggest the name of that Apostle as a sanction for the importance ascribed to the first Gospel. To have called it after its other and chief source, S. Mark's Gospel, would have led to confusion, since the second Gospel was also in common use.

(2) That the Church writers from the second century onwards speak of the first Gospel as having been written in "Hebrew." This is quite simply explained as an after consequence of the transference of the name Matthew from the original Apostolic work to the canonical Gospel. It was traditional knowledge that Matthew had written an Evangelic work in Hebrew, and this statement easily became attached to the first Gospel. If there seems to be a measure of unreality about such a statement as applied to the first Gospel, the fault must lie at the door of those who first transferred the name Matthew from the primary to the secondary work. Yet what could they do? They wanted a name for the first Gospel. The compiler was either unknown, or, if known, a man of second rank in the Church. The book embodied much of the Apostle's work, and it would be a pity to allow his name as an authority for the Church's records to pass into oblivion. And so the first Gospel became the work of the Apostle. But S. Matthew, as all men knew, had written in "Hebrew." And so wherever the first Gospel became known as his work, the statement that he had written in Hebrew followed his name, and was attached to the Gospel.

The canonical Gospel was not the only work ascribed to the Apostle Matthew in the second century. The Jewish Christian sect of the Nazarenes possessed a Gospel, which is referred to by second and third century writers as the Gospel according to the Hebrews. I give below some of the references to it. Lists of quotations from it may be seen in Preuschen's Antilegomena, or Nestle's Novi Testamenti Supplementum, or (in German) in Hennecke's Neutestamentliche Apokryphen. For critical discussions of the questions connected with the Gospel, see Zahn, Gesch. des Kanons, ii. 642 ff., or Adeney in the Hibbert Journal, Oct. 1904.

1. Ignatius (Hieronymus, De Vir. Illus. 16):

Ignatius-scripsit-ad Smyrnæos-in qua et de evangelio, quod nuper a me translatum est, super persona Christi ponit testimonium dicens "Ego vero et post resurrectionem in carne eum vidi et credo

quia sit; et quando venit ad Petrum et ad eos qui cum Petro erant dixit eis: Ecce palpate me et videte, qui non sum dæmonium incorporale. Et statim tetigerunt eum et crediderunt." Cf. Ignatius, Ad Smyrn. iii. 1. 2. Jerome himself ascribes the expression "incorporale dæmonium" to the Gospel "quod Hebræorum lectitant Nazaræi," Comm. in Isaiah, pref. to Bk xviii. Origen, De Princip. 1, procem. 8, says that the expression "non sum dæmonium incorporeum" came from the book called Petri Doctrina.

2. Hegesippus (Eusebius, H. E. iv. 22):

ἔκ τε τοῦ καθ ̓ Ἑβραίους εὐαγγελίου καὶ τοῦ Συριακοῦ καὶ ἰδίως ἐκ τῆς Ἑβραίδος διαλέκτου τινὰ τίθησιν.

3. Papias (Eusebius, H. E. iii. 39):

ἐκτέθειται δὲ καὶ ἄλλην ἱστοριὰν περὶ γυναικὸς ἐπὶ πολλαῖς ἁμαρτίαις διαβληθείσης ἐπὶ τοῦ κυρίου, ἦν τὸ καθ ̓ Ἑβραίους εὐαγγελίον περιέχει.

Eusebius does not here assert that Papias quoted from the Gospel according to the Hebrews.

4. Irenæus, Adv. Hær. i. 26. 2:

Solo autem eo quod est secundum Matthæum evangelio utuntur (Ebionæi), et apostolum Paulum recusant, apostatem eum legis dicentes.

5. (a) Origen, Comment. in Joh. vol. ii. 6 (Paris, 1759, vol. iv. 63). ἐὰν δὲ προσίεταί τις τὸ καθ ̓ Ἑβραίους εὐαγγέλιον.

(b) Origen, Comment, in Mt. vol. xv. 14 (Paris, 1740, vol. iii. 671). Scriptum est in evangelio quodam, quod dicitur secundum Hebræos, si tamen placet alicui suscipere illud, non ad auctoritatem, sed ad manifestationem propositæ quæstionis.

6. Clement Alex., Stromata, ii. 9:

ᾗ κἂν τῷ καθ ̓ Ἑβραίους εὐαγγελίῳγέγραπται. 7. (a) Eusebius, H. E. iii. 25:

Ηδη δ' ἐν τούτοις τινὲς καὶ τὸ καθ' Ἑβραίους εὐαγγέλιον κατέλεξαν, ᾧ μάλιστα Εβραίων οἱ τὸν Χριστὸν παραδεξάμενοι χαίρουσι.

(b) Eusebius, H. E. iii. 27:

εὐαγγέλιῳ δὲ μόνῳ τῷ καθ ̓ Ἑβραίους λεγομένῳ χρώμενοι, τῶν λοιπῶν σμικρὸν ἐποιοῦντο λόγον.

8. (a) Jerome, De Vir. Illus. 3:

Mihi

Porro ipsum Hebraicum habetur usque hodie in Cæsariensi bibliotheca, quam Pamphilus martyr studiosissime confecit. quoque a Nazareis, qui in Berœa urbe Syriæ hoc volumine utuntur, describendi facultas fuit.

(b) Jerome, Contra Pelag. iii. 2:

In Evangelio juxta Hebræos, quod Chaldaico quidem Syroque Sermone, sed Hebraicis literis scriptum est, quo utuntur usque hodie Nazaræni, secundum apostolos sive, ut plerique autumant, juxta Matthæum, quod et in Cæsariensi habetur bibliotheca, narrat historia, etc.

(c) Jerome, Comment. in Is 112: Evangelium quod Hebræo sermone

Nazaræi.

(d) Jerome, Comment. in Mic 77:

conscriptum legunt

Evangelium "quod secundum Hebræos editum nuper transtulimus."

(e) Jerome, Comment. in Is 409:

Evangelium "quod juxta Hebræos scriptum Nazaræi lecti

tant."

(f) Jerome, Comment. in Ezech 1613:

"In evangelio quoque Hebræorum, quod lectitant Nazaræi.” (g) Jerome, Comment. in Mt 1218:

In evangelio quo utuntur Nazaræni et Ebionitæ, quod nuper in Græcum de Hebræo sermone transtulimus, et quod vocatur a plerisque Matthæi authenticum, etc.

(h) Jerome, Ep. 20. 5:

Denique Matthæus, qui evangelium Hebræo sermone conscripsit, ita posuit: Osanna barrama.

(i) Jerome, Comment. in Mt 2335:

In evangelio quo utuntur Nazaræni, etc.

(j) Jerome, De Vir. Illus. 2:

"Evangelium quoque, quod appellatur Secundum Hebræos et a me nuper in Græcum Latinumque sermonem translatum est, quo et Origenes sæpe utitur," etc.

It will have been seen that Papias and the Gospel had a narrative in common; but it does not, of course, follow that Papias had seen the Gospel. Ignatius has a saying which was also contained in the Gospel. Hegesippus quoted from it. Irenæus speaks of it as in use among the Ebionites; but he probably uses Ebionites loosely as a general term for the Jewish Christians of Palestine. It was, as Jerome many times states, the Gospel of the Nazarenes, whilst the Ebionites had another Gospel (Epiphanius, Hares. xxx. 3. 13). Jerome saw the Gospel at Bercea, and says that there was a copy in the library at Cæsarea. He translated it into Latin and into Greek, and not infrequently (some eighteen times) quotes from it in his writings. The extant fragments of it are too scanty to admit of positive judgements, but it is unlikely that there was any dependence of our canonical Gospel upon the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or vice versa. All that can be said is, that from the beginning of the second century the Jewish Christian Nazarenes had a Gospel which they ascribed to Matthew, and which was written in the Aramaic language and in Hebrew letters. It may have been ascribed to Matthew for the same reason that caused his name to be connected with our canonical Gospel, viz., the fact that one main source for its material was that Apostle's col lection of sayings of Christ.

THE DATE.

The data furnished by the Gospel itself seem best satisfied if we suppose that its author compiled it within a period of a few years before or after the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. An earlier date does not seem possible, in view of the fact that the compiler had S. Mark's Gospel before him.

The writer's forecast of history is clear and unmistakable. The coming of the Son of Man, whom he clearly identifies with the crucified Christ, would be the first stage in a series of events, comprising the gathering of the elect and the final judgement, which together would form a terminus to the present dispensation of the world's history. Compare the following:

243 "What is the sign of Thy coming, and of the consummation of the age?"

2430 "They shall see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of heaven," etc.

2531 "When the Son of Man shall come in His glory, then shail He sit on the throne of His glory, and all nations shall be gathered before Him."

This coming and the consummation of the age lay in the near future. Compare the following:

1023 "Ye shall not finish the cities of Israel, till the Son of Man be come."

1628 "There are some of those who stand here, who shall not taste of death, until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

2434 "This generation shall not pass away, until all these things come to pass."

But it could be still further defined, for it was to take place "immediately after the tribulation of those days," 2429; and this tribulation is clearly to the writer the distress which would accompany the downfall of Jerusalem; cf. 242.8 "There shall not be left a stone upon a stone.-When shall these things be, and what shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the consummation of the age?"

It is true that the writer anticipates a previous preaching of the goodness of the kingdom in all the world to all nations, 2414; but he makes it clear that in his opinion this could be accomplished before the great tribulation of the final overthrow of the Jewish nation; cf. 2414. "then shall come the end. When, therefore, ye see (the approaching fall of the city)," etc. It is probable that he saw in the apostolic preaching in the West, culminating in the arrival of S. Paul at Rome, an ample fulfilment of this "preaching in all the world (oikovμévŋ) for a testimony to all nations."

« ÎnapoiContinuă »