Hence many critics are led to suppose that the strictly Judaizing Christians made a translation of St. Matthew, which they endeavored to bring into harmony with their own opinions and leg ends. Nevertheless Jerome's statement respect ing the second Gospel to the Hebrews may be taken as a confirmation of the account of Papias, that Matthew wrote his gosnel in Hebrew. If this be the fact, the question must arise whether our Greek Matthew is a correct translation of the Hebrew. The words of Papias seem to imply that in his days there was no Greek translation in existence.
<4) Account of Papias Questioned. This has induced many critics to question his account, and to suppose that the original text was Greek. Such is the opinion of Erasmus, CEcolampadius, Calvin, Beza, Lardner, Guerike, Harless, and others.
The authority of Papias has been deemed to be overthrown by the character given of him by Eusebius, according to whose statement he was 'of a very little mind.' Guerike considers also as rather incredible the addition, that "everybody interpreted that gospel according to his ability." Papias, indeed, proves himself very credulous, by reporting, according to Eusebius, 'many rather fabulous things;' but this does not authorize us to reject his testimony in a mere matter of fact, for the perception of which no extraordinary abil ities were required, especially as his account of this fact agrees with the statement of Jerome.
It is by no means improbable, that after sev eral inaccurate and imperfect translations of the Aramxan original came into circulation, Matthew himself was prompted by this circumstance to publish a Greek translation, or to have his gos pel translated under his own supervision. It is very likely that this Greek translation did not soon come into general circulation, so that Papias may have remained ignorant of its existence. It may also be, and nothing prevents us from sup posing, that Papias, being acquainted with our Greek gospel, spoke, in the passage referred to, of those events only which came to pass soon after the publication of the Aramman original. We, at least, rather prefer to confess ourselves unable to solve the objections, than to question the direct testimony of Papias; especially since that testi mony is supported by other ancient authorities: (1) By Origen (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vi, 25).
(2) By the Alexandrian Catechist Pantxnus, who, according to Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. v, to), having, in the latter half of the second century, gone on a missionary expedition to India, found there some Chritians who possessed the Gospel of St. Matthew in Hebrew. (3) By Iremeus
(Adv. Hor. 1) and Eusebius (Hist. Eccles.
v, 8).
To this it has been objected, that Origen and Irenmus probably only repeated the statement of Papias; but it is unlikely that a man of so nuich learning as Origen should have had no other au thority for his account ; and the statement of Pant2enus, at least, is quite independent of that of Papias. It ought also to be considered that Mat thew was not so much known in ecclesiastical antiquity that any partisanship could have prompted writers to forge books in his name.
(5) External Proof of Genuineness. On summing up what we have stated, it appears that the external testimonies clearly prove the genuineness of the Gospel of St. Matthew. The authenticity indeed of this gospel is as well sup ported as that of any work of classical antiquity. It can also be proved that it was early in use among Christians, and that the apostolical Fa thers, at the end of the first century, ascribed to it a canonical authority (see Polycarp, Epist. c. ii. 7; Ignatius, Ad Snzyrn. c. vi; Ad Rom. c. vi; Clemens Romanus, Epist. c. xlvi; Barnabas, Epist. c. iv).
3. Internal Arguments Against. But the ex ternal arguments against the authenticity of this gospel are less important than the doubts which have been started from a consideration of its internal qua] ities.
(1) The Claim That lYfatthew Lacks Clear ness. The representations of Matthew (it is said) have not that vivid clearness which char acterizes the narration of an eye-witness, and which we find, for inqance, in Gospel of John. Even Mark and Luke surpass Matthew in this respect. Compare, for example, Matt. iv:18 with Luke v:1, sq.; Matt. viii :5, sq., with Luke vii sq. This is most striking in the history of his own call, where we should expect a clearer rep resentation.
(2) Omissions. He omits some facts which every apostle certainly knew. For instance, he mentions only one journey of Christ to the pass over at Jerusalem, namely, the last; and seems to be acquainted only with one sphere of Christ's activity, namely, Galilee. He even relates the instances of Christ's appearing after his resurrec tion in such a manner that it might be under stood as if he showed himself only to the women in Jerusalem, and to his disciples, nowhere but in Galilee (Matt. xxvi :32 and xxviii :7).