jj_bluekuthuk
Mon, 18 Dec 2006 23:04:24 -0800
sebagai bahan study si ikontol dan item, nih sy copy paste dr http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/Matt.html Original Language of Matthew's Gospel? Much is made by Protestants of the fact that in Matt. 16:18 there are two Greek words used for rock (petros and petra).The following is evidence for a Hebrew origin of Matthew's Gospel.It is taken from a work by Rev. Daniel McCarthy, "The Gospel of St. Matthew, with notes, critical and explanatory" (Duffy & Sons, Dublin, 1877; Burns & Oates, London, 1877), pp. xi-xv. IN WHAT LANGUAGE? - This is the great question, which decides nearly all the others, as to time, place, object, &c. According to the unanimous voice of tradition, St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic, the vernacular language of the Jews of Palestine at the time. On this point down to the Reformation not the least doubt was ever expressed. Since then "many critics, and those especially Protestants, have maintained that the Gospel was originally written in Greek." So Alford, who adds fairly that "our conclusion must be in accordance with the testimony of the early Church, *unanimous as it is*, and derived from so many independent sources, that the Gospel was originally written in Hebrew. "The ancient Church is unanimous on the subject." "On the language of the First Gospel ancient historical testimony is unanimous in declaring that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew."- Davidson on N. T., i, 3. "If any statement of the ancients can lay claim to our confidence as being primitive, universal, and never contested, it is this- that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the *Hebrew* language."- Thiersch. Versuch der Herstell, s. 193 (quoted by Dr. W. Lee, on Inspiration, Appendix M.). - Among the early authorities for a Hebrew original are: Papias, the disciple of John and companion of Polycarp: "Matthew wrote the divine oracles in the Hebrew dialect, and each one interpreted them as best he could" (ap. Eus. H. E. iii. 39). St. Irenaeus: "But Matthew, among the Jews, produced a written record of the Gospel in their own dialect" (Adv. Haeres. iii. 1). Eusebius, H. E. v. 19, writes thus: "Pantaenus is said to have gone even to the Indies, and found there, among those who acknowledged Christ, the Gospel of Matthew which had reached them before his arrival. These believers Bartholomew the Apostle had instructed in the Christian faith, and left with them the book of Matthew, written in Hebrew, and it was preserved among them down to the time named." St. Jerome repeats the same story of Pantaenus ( de Viris Illus. c. 36): "Pantaenus went to India, and found that Bartholomew, one of the Twelve Apostles, had preached there the Gospel of Jesus Christ, according to Matthew, which, written in Hebrew, he brought back with him to Alexandria." Origen: "The first Gospel was written by him who was formerly a publican, but afterwards Matthew the Apostle of Jesus Christ, who delivered it to converts from Judaism, and composed it in the Hebrew language."- Eus. H. E. vi. 25. Eusebius, H. E. iii. 24, expresses his own views, thus: "Matthew, having first preached to the Jews, when about to go to other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his writings." St. Jerome (de Viris Illust. c. iii.): "Matthew, who was also called Levi, and became an Apostle from being a publican, was the first to write in Palestine for Jewish converts the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew. But who translated it into Greek is not known. Further, the Hebrew original is preserved in the library of Caesarea. I had myself an opportunity granted me by the Nazareans of Beroea of using that volume and copying it." See also Comm. in Matt. xii. 13; contra Pelag. iii. 2; St. Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. c. iii.; St. Gregory N., Carm. 33; St. Augustine, de Consensu Evang. i. 4; ii. 128, &c. Further testimony is useless on a point which is not and cannot be questioned; every early writer that speaks of Matthew's Gospel says it was written in Hebrew. Down to the time of Erasmus there was no second opinion on the subject.... The "via media", that St. Matthew wrote first in Hebrew and then translated into Greek...has met with little favour, and seems to have been devised for the purpose of saving the credit of the present Greek text; for if that was not approved by some Apostle, whence has it authority, or how is it proved to be the written Word of God? Of the *Greek* interpreter we know nothing, and how can we know that he rendered the original faithfully? I shall now notice very briefly the chief arguments urged against a Hebrew original... Obj. #1: It cannot be proved that any ancient writer saw the Hebrew original (Erasm. in Matt. viii. 23). Ans. #1: Then is set aside entirely the story of St. Pantaenus, recorded by Eusebius, and confirmed by St. Jerome. Ans. #2: The loss of the Hebrew original is easily accounted for: our adversaries hold that a Greek version was made very soon after the first publication of the book in Hebrew. If so, the Hebrew original was of little use to the great body of converts outside Palestine, and all the books of the Jewish Christians were lost, we may well suppose, in the destruction of Jerusalem. Have we not other sacred books, the originals of which are not extant? Obj. #2: The entire story of a Hebrew original rests ultimately on the single testimony of Papias, who was, according to Eusebius, a man of very *little mind*. Ans. #1: Papias professes "to have received the declarations of the Apostles from those that were in company with them." It is a very grave matter to question his statement without ground. He is condemned by Eusebius, not for mistaking the early traditions of the Church, but for drawing unsound inferences from the apostolic narrations. In the very chapter where Eusebius calls Papias a man of very little mind, because he supported the millennium, he quotes his authority as decisive for the authenticity of the Gospels of Mark and Matthew. Ans. #2: There is no reason whatever for the statement that the other Fathers followed Papias blindly. He is not cited by even one of them as his authority. St. Irenaeus never names him as the source of his information. Origen appeals in the most solemn way to tradition: "As I have understood from tradition respecting the Four Gospels, which are the only undisputed ones in the whole Church of God throughout the world, the first is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who, having published it for the Jewish Councils, wrote it in Hebrew."- Eus. H. E. vi. 25. Obj. #3: Greek was universally known throughout the East after the conquests of Alexander the Great. If Matthew wrote in Greek the mass of the people understood him; if he wrote in Hebrew he lost all influence with the nobler part of his readers. Ans.: It is far more likely that the Jewish converts in Palestine, for whom specially St. Matthew wrote, were not familiar with Greek. Hence, St. Paul addressed the Jews of Jerusalem in the vernacular Syro-Chaldaic, and they heard him more willingly on that account. (Acts, xxi. 40; xxii. 2). In our Lord's time we find the Jews forming new names- as Haceldama, Bethesda- from Hebrew, not from Greek. Josephus says, in his preface to the Jewish Antiquities, that he put off the writing of that work on account of the difficulty he found in expressing his thoughts in Greek. What then are we to think of the mass of the people? Obj. #4: St. Mark confessedly wrote in Greek, and his style and even words are the same as Matthew's; from the Greek text of Matthew, as it exists, all the ancient versions, the Latin, Syriac (not the Cureton), Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian, were formed; and the quotations from the Old Testament are taken from the Septuagint, which surely would not be the case if the Gospel were written in Hebrew. Ans.: The alleged similarity of style is easily explained; for the synoptic Gospels are necessarily like in substance, and to some extent in form, because of the Hebrew idioms, which are common to all. Suppose that the Greek translation of Matthew was known to Mark, or that Mark's Gospel was known to the translator of Matthew, would not that explain the likeness between the two records? The early versions were naturally made from the language most generally known. The Cureton-Syriac version, recently brought to light, is admitted not to be formed on our Greek text of St. Matthew. The early versions would be naturally made also from an authentic copy in the language most generally known. As to the quotations from O. T. ....more than half the quotations differ in some respect from the Septuagint. See Patrizzi's able analysis of these passages [Francisci Xaverii Patritti, DE EVANGELIIS). He reckons in all forty-six quotations from O. T. in the First Gospel. Of these some give the sense, or contain mere allusions to the O. T. About fifteen differ from both Hebrew and Septuagint. Twelve agree with both. Six or seven differ from the Hebrew and agree with Septuagint. Four come nearer to the Hebrew than to the Septuagint. Hence, sixteen texts agree with Hebrew, and eighteen with Septuagint. But even if all the quotations agreed with *Hebrew*, we could not prove from that fact conclusively, that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew; for, though writing in Greek, he might have translated literally from Hebrew, when quoting the O. T. Much less could we prove conclusively that he wrote in Greek; for , if all the citations agreed with the Septuagint, the Greek interpreter would naturally cite an approved translation, such as the Septuagint, which was familiar to his readers. Thus the arguments for a Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic original of St. Matthew's Gospel are, the testimony of the early Fathers, and the received and undisputed tradition of the Church down to the time of Erasmus; the arguments against it are negative or purely subjective.