The third argument against an Aramaic, or Hebrew, original for Matthew is that it does not read like translation Greek. Admittedly this is a somewhat subjective argument, but it is not without its merits. Let me give an illustration. C. S. Lewis wrote a book titled The Literary Impact of the Authorized Version. In that work, he examines the idea that the Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible had a great impact on English literature in the 17th and following centuries. The idea that the KJV had such an impact was widespread when Lewis wrote the book, and you will still see occasional assertions regarding its truthfulness. However, Lewis concludes that such an impact is more imagined than real; that English literature of the last three hundred years does not, in fact, read like the KJV. Anyone who is familiar with the KJV should be able to pick up English literature of the last three hundred years and see that Lewis is right. One need only read Jonathan Swift, Daniel Defoe, Jane Austen, Walter Scott, or any number of other English authors to see the truth of Lewis’s conclusion. Though I don’t recall that Lewis makes the point in this way, it is largely due to the fact that the KJV is translation English, not compositional English, and reflects more Hebrew and Greek style than it does English. For the interested student, I would recommend Gerald Hammond’s "English Translations of the Bible," in The Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. Robert Alter and Frank Kermode (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987), 647-67. He gives a careful analysis regarding how the KJV (and other English versions) approach their task, and concludes that the KJV is very good at giving the reader a real "feel" for how the Hebrew (and Greek) original reads.
All of this is to make the point that a translation from language A into language B reads differently from a work composed originally in language B. When someone who is familiar with literature that is composed in Greek reads the Gospel of Matthew, it simply does not read like a work translated from a Semitic original. It reads like a work composed in Greek, though perhaps written by someone thoroughly ingrained with Semitic thought patterns. Thus, for example, the frequent use of kai (and) is not something you would usually find in Greek composition, but it clearly reflects the standard use of the so-called vav-consecutive that is characteristic of not only the Old Testament, but of Hebrew literature in general.
I mentioned last time that the early church fathers in general seemed to hold to the idea that Matthew was originally composed in Aramaic (or Hebrew). The evidence for this is as follows. Iranaeus, in Against Heresies 3.1.1 says, "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church." Eusebius quotes this in Ecclesiastical History 5.8.2. Eusebius also quotes Origen to the same effect in Ecclesiastical History 6.25.3-6. Eusebius adds his own assertion to that effect in 3.24.5-6 saying, "Matthew had first preached to Hebrews, and when he was on the point of going to others he transmitted in writing in his native language the Gospel according to himself." Other citations may be found conveniently organized in R. T. France, Matthew—Evangelist and Teacher, 60-63.
In our next column we will attempt to draw together all these considerations and come to some useful conclusions about the origins of the Gospel according to Matthew.
Copyright Statement
'Aramaic Thoughts' Copyright 2024© Benjamin Shaw. 'Aramaic Thoughts' articles may be reproduced in whole under the following provisions: 1) A proper credit must be given to the author at the end of each story, along with a link to https://www.studylight.org/language-studies/aramaic-thoughts.html 2) 'Aramaic Thoughts' content may not be arranged or "mirrored" as a competitive online service.