From what we know of the Apostle Matthew there is nothing in the above conclusions which would render impossible an authorship of the Gospel by him. But when we come to external evidence, we find a well-supported tradition, which can be traced back to Papias (c.100 A.D.), a reputed disciple of the Apostle John. to the effect that Alatthew wrote in Hebrew (Aramaic). (See Eusebins, Hist. Eccles.. iii. 39.) The term, however. which Pa pias to designate this writing. Logia, is subject to considerable debate. It is used in many different meanings, so that there is serious doubt as to whether it can be identified with the general term Euangelion, used to designate the Gospels which we have. As a result the following questions present them selves: (1) What was the nature of this tradi tional Hebrew writing of Matthew? Was. it a collection of sayings of Jesus. with more or less narrative additions, or was it a full narrative Gospel. approximating. at least, such as we have in the New Testament? (2) What was the ori gin of our canonical Natthew? \Vas it a second Gospel writing by Matthew, more or less de veloped out of this first one of his, or was it an independent Gospel writing by a later non-Apos tolic hand elaborated from the original Matthew writing: or is it not, after all. to be considered
a first-hand Greek composition, but a transla tion from this Hebrew writing which Matthew originally produced? Advocates are found for the view implied in each of these questions, though the general attitude of criticism to-day may be considered as favorable to the following position: (1) l.ogiu was a collection of 'Sayings of Jesus.' originally written in Aramaic by the Apostle Matthew, but (mining finally through outside translation into the Greek form in which it was mused by Matthew and Luke. (2) The canonical Matthew is an original Greek writing by a later non-Apostolic hand, more or less developed from the Matthew Logia, and composed not far from A.D. 70.