plicable if that tradition were accepted as embodying an indubitable truth. Impressed at times, as would appear, by the striking evidence of originality which the Gospel itself contains, the Fathers express themselves as if they had never heard it was a translation; and then, again, falling under the influence of the prevailing tradition, they write as if they did not regard our present Greek Gospel as an original, while at the same time they continue to quote it as inspired and authoritative Scripture.

It is almost needless to devote any attention to the statements of later writers,' but for special reasons we must glance for a moment at the position occupied by Jerome in this controversy. And here we find "confusion worse confounded." At one time Jerome writes as if he had actually seen the long-hidden Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew. He says (De Viris Illus. 3): "Ipsum Hebraicum habetur usque hodie in Cæsariensi bibliothecâ, quam Pamphilus martyro studiosissime confecit. Mihi quoque a Nazaræis qui in Berœâ urbe Syriæ hoc volumine utuntur, describendi facultas fuit." But again he says (Comm. in Matt. ii.): "In Evangelio quo utuntur Nazaræi et Ebionitæ, quod nuper in Græcum de Hebræo sermone transtulimus, et quod vocatur a plerisque Matthæi authenticum." And as the latest testimony which he bears on this subject, he says (Adv. Pel. iii.) respecting this same Gospel that was in use among the Nazarenes, that it was entitled "Secundum Apostolos, sive ut plerique autumant juxta Matthæum."

1 The words of Dionysius Bar Salibi, a Syrian bishop of the twelfth century, to which such an importance has sometimes been attached, will be found noticed in the following chapter.

Now, without entering at any length into the consideration of these and other passages in Jerome, it is plain that the longer that Father investigated the subject, the more doubtful he became as to the claims of the Gospel of the Hebrews to be regarded as the original work of the Apostle Matthew. He found that the canonical Greek Gospel and the existing Hebrew one varied very materially in a multitude of passages. So great, indeed, was the diversity between them, that Jerome thought it worth his trouble to translate the Ebionite Gospel into Greek.' This one fact demonstrates the essential difference which must have existed between the pretended Hebrew original of Matthew and the Greek Gospel which has always gone under his name. And the accounts which have been transmitted to us of that Hebrew Gospel, as well as the specimens which have been preserved of its contents, prove that it would be an abuse of language in any sense to identify it with our existing Gospel of St. Matthew. It both wanted much which was found in the Greek, and contained much which that does not possess. As an example of its omissions, it is sufficient to state, on the authority of Epiphanius, that (in some copies at least) the first two chapters were entirely wanting; as an example of the additions which it contained, I may give the following, which Jerome quotes from

1

Among other very just remarks which Baur makes in reference to the relation of our canonical Gospel to the Gospel of the Hebrews, he rightly asks respecting Jerome how, on the supposition of the two Gospels being substantially identical, he should have resolved "das Hebräer-Evangelium in das Griechische zu übersetzen, wenn doch unser griechisches Matthäus - Evangelium selbst schon eine Uebersetzung des Hebräer-Evangeliums war?"—Evangelien, p. 575.

it, respecting our Lord's baptism; "Factum est autem, quam ascendisset Dominus de aquâ, descendit fons omnis Spiritus Sancti et requievit super eum ac dixit ei; Filius in omnibus prophetis expectabam te, ut venires et requiescerem in te, tu es enim requies mea, tu es filius meus primogenitus, qui regnas in sempiternum." With all these differences there were, no doubt, many passages common to both the Greek and Hebrew Gospels; but whether we judge from the quotations out of the Hebrew document which have been preserved by ancient writers, or by the fact of Jerome having taken the trouble to translate it, we must hold that it was an essentially different work from our existing Greek Gospel of St. Matthew.' The mere existence, however, of this corrupt Hebrew Gospel served to fortify the tradition, already prevalent in the Church, that St. Matthew wrote originally in that language. The Jewish sectaries in Palestine eagerly took advantage of the existing tradition to claim for their heretical Gospel the distinction of being the original work of the apostle; and they succeeded in persuading some of the Fathers that such was its real character. Epiphanius was completely deceived; and Jerome also was so for a time. But this latter Father, as we have seen, became more and more uncertain as to the claims of the Ebionite Gospel, the longer his attention was directed to the subject; and in his latest written works, virtually retracts the testimony he had borne as to its identity with the original of St. Matthew, and

1 See the passages of the Hebrew Gospel which have been preserved in ancient writers collected in the Quellensammlung of J. Kirchhofer, p. 448, etc.; or the English reader may consult Dr. Davidson's Introduction, i. 17-29.

leaves that opinion to rest on the authority of others.1

We have found, then, that one great source, at least, of the confusion which pervades antiquity with respect to the original language of St. Matthew's Gospel is to be found in a statement of the doubtless worthy, but weak and gossiping Papias. And when we remember that that Father was unacquainted with Hebrew, as well as notably deficient in judgment, we can easily conceive how the mistake may have originated. He, no doubt, heard it stated that St. Matthew wrote in Palestine, with a special reference to the natives of that country; and how naturally would such a man conclude that the apostle must therefore have written in the Hebrew tongue! The apparent propriety of that language rather than Greek being employed in addressing such leaders, led even Jerome, as we have seen, to assert, in opposition to the most certain evidence, the Hebrew original of the Epistle

1 Credner (Einl. § 45) thus writes respecting the view which Jerome at last adopted with regard to the Gospel of the Hebrews: "Hieronymus, welcher, wie andere Gelebrte damaliger Zeit, in demselben den Grundtext zu unserem Matthäus suchte, erklärte nach jahrelanger Bekanntschaft, Prüfung und Uebersetzung desselben zuletzt (im Jahre 415), 'In evangelio juxta Hebræos, quod Judaico quidem sermone sed Hebraicis literis scriptum est, quo utuntur usque hodie Nazareni, secundum apostolos, sive, ut plerique autumant, juxta Matthæum, quod et,' etc. Diese letze Erklärung des Hieronymus steht als entscheidend über allen frühern. Hieronymus fand den Urtext zu unserem Matthaus in diesem Ev. nicht." Yet the upholders of the Hebrew original are in the habit of asserting, on the ground principally of the statements made by Jerome, that St. Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was still extant in the early part of the fifth century, interpolated indeed, but still in existence. — Edin. Review, ut sup. p. 184. Dr. Cureton goes still farther, and maintains of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, that "there seems to be evidence to prove that it was in existence down to the time of Epiphanius and Jerome in its genuine as well as in an extended and interpolated form."-Syriac Gospels, p. 77.

to the Hebrews. And shall we wonder, then, to find such a man as Papias falling into a similar error? Having, perhaps, just stated' that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel particularly for the benefit of his Jewish countrymen, he adds, almost as a matter of course, that he did so "in the Hebrew dialect." He wrote for the Hebrews: THEREFORE in Hebrew-is the kind of syllogism which has prevailed in the Church even down to the present day. How erroneous is the reasoning it involves, has been evinced in the previous chapters of this work; but it was implicitly accepted by many of the Fathers, and its admission furnishes a sufficient explanation of the statements respecting the original language of the first Gospel and of the Epistle to the Hebrews which have descended to us from antiquity.

Let it then be carefully noted that we thus seem to have got at the root of all that error and confusion which have prevailed respecting the original language of St. Matthew's Gospel. The πрôтоv eûdos conπρῶτον ψεῦδος nected with the subject had respect to what was deemed the prevailing speech in Palestine. Hebrew was supposed to have been the tongue then employed by the Jews, and from this it was inferred that a Gospel written for their special benefit would be composed in that language. It has been to me interesting and gratifying to find that some of the older writers on the subject have clearly indicated this mistake, though far from perceiving (I may be permitted humbly to say) the numerous and conclu

2

The connective particle μè ou seems to point to some previous statement which had been made on the subject.

2 Paulus expressly puts the fallacy respecting St. Matthew's Gospel as follows: "Er schreib den Hebräern, also Hebräisch ;" see his