Gospel of Matthew...what language?

[GandalfTheWhite]

What’s the Church’s official position on the language of the Gospel of Matthew? Does she say it’s Aramaic or is she ‘neutral’?

If it’s the first, where can I read more about the arguments?

Thanks a lot!

 

[Fidelis]

What’s the Church’s official position on the language of the Gospel of Matthew? Does she say it’s Aramaic or is she ‘neutral’?

If it’s the first, where can I read more about the arguments?

Thanks a lot!

As I often point out, the Church doesn’t have an “official” position on every single solitary thing. In the areas of biblical scholarship especially, Catholics have a lot of freedom, as long as something doesn’t contradict, undermine or deny Church teaching.

Having said that, scholars see internal evidence in Matthew for an Aramaic original. Also, the Early Church Fathers state that Matthew’s Gospel was based on an Aramaic or “Hebrew” original.

Catholic Answers has this reply:

**Q: Is there any truth to the claim that Matthew’s Gospel was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, not Greek? A Fundamentalist I know, who insists Matthew wrote originally in Greek, argues that there’s no evidence in favor of the idea that his Gospel was written first in Aramaic, because there’s no extant Aramaic original. **

**A: **This peculiar argument against the long-standing belief that Aramaic (or Hebrew) was the language in which Matthew originally composed his Gospel was first raised in the sixteenth century by the Dutch theologian and patristics scholar Desiderius Erasmus. He reasoned that, since there is no evidence of an Aramaic or Hebrew original of Matthew’s Gospel, it is futile to argue that the work originally appeared in Aramaic and was subsequently translated into Greek (as most patristics scholars hold).

This is not really much of an argument. It is an argument from silence and can be used just as effectively against the idea that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek, since there are likewise no extant originals of the Gospel in Greek. After all, the earliest manuscripts we have of any of the books of the New Testament are in Greek, yet not a single manuscript is an original. They’re all copies. From the mere fact of Greek manuscripts we can’t conclude that the originals must have been written in Greek yes, there may be a presumption of that, but not actually a proof.

Your Fundamentalist friend is wrong to assert there is no evidence to support the idea of an Aramaic original. In fact, the evidence is quite to the contrary. Since we have no autographs of this or any other New Testament book, it’s wise to look at what the early Church had to say on the subject. Catholic apologists, theologians, and Scripture scholars of the second through fifth centuries provide us with a wealth of information on this subject.

Around 180 Irenaeus of Lyons wrote that “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia” (Against Heresies 3:1:1).

Fifty years earlier Papias, bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor, wrote, “Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could” (Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 3:39]).

Sometime after 244 the Scripture scholar Origen wrote, “Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language” (Commentaries on Matthew [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 6:25]).

Eusebius himself declared that “Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews, and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue [Aramaic], so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote” (History of the Church 3:24 [inter 300-325]).
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9304qq.asp

 

[buffalo]

Here is a great read:

** The Gospels are Historical**

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Hi Gandalf, I am assuming that you are debating the Matthew 16 rock text.

Fitzmyer, purposed the aramaic kepha kepha reading in a few books,

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Aramaic Kepha’ and Peter’s name in the New Testament,” Text and Interpretation: Studies in the New Testament presented to Matthew Black, ed. Ernest Best and R. McL. Wilson

To Advance the Gospel: New Testament Studies (The Biblical Resource Series) by Joseph A. Fitzmyer

But later in Queries & Comments," Biblical Archaeology Review 19.3 [1993], 70 fitzmyer refutes the kepha kepha reading based on the fact that it does not account for the greek play on words.

Personally, I think Jesus likely taught in Hebrew,

The question of authenticity assumes an altogether special aspect in regard to the First Gospel. The early Christian writers assert that St. Matthew wrote a Gospel in Hebrew; this Hebrew Gospel has, however, entirely disappeared, and the Gospel which we have, and from which ecclesiastical writers borrow quotations as coming from the Gospel of Matthew, is in Greek.

newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm

Read this article to find which fathers wrote on the language question of Matthew, but as you check each reference in the fathers themselves, the case is up in the air if Matthew wrote in Hebrew, Aramaic or whatever.
newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm

Your best case from your perspective, would be to go the Fathers themselves to see how they interpreted Matthew 16 rock passage.

Some of the Fathers, saw the rock as Christ, others as Peter, and so on.

For example the The Shepherd of Hermas (Book III, Similitude 9) CHAPTER XII makes the rock that the church is built on Jesus as the Son of God,

“First of all, sir,” I said, “explain this to me: What is the meaning of the rock and the gate?” “This rock,” he answered, “and this gate are the Son of God.”

newadvent.org/fathers/0201309.htm

On second thought you are better off asking them to explain

Ephesians 2:20 (King James Version)
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

 

[MrS]

For example the The Shepherd of Hermas (Book III, Similitude 9) CHAPTER XII makes the rock that the church is built on Jesus as the Son of God,

;

Hey Dan… how are you…

Shepherd of Hermas… guess we know now why it was not part of the inerrant canon of Scripture, huh

.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

I am experiecing the tiredness, weakness and hot flashes of radiation treatment. I am not comprehending a whole lot at this point.

 

[MrS]

I am experiecing the tiredness, weakness and hot flashes of radiation treatment. I am not comprehending a whole lot at this point.

You are in our prayers… let me know when you are ready for Starbucks