Was the Original Gospel of Matthew Written in Aramaic or Hebrew?

The question of whether the original Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic or Hebrew has been a subject of scholarly debate for centuries. This article delves into the historical tradition, manuscript evidence, and linguistic features that have influenced this debate, providing insights into the composition of one of the most beloved books of the New Testament.

Historical Tradition and Early Church Fathers

Early church fathers provided the first hints of an Aramaic or Hebrew origin for the Gospel of Matthew. Papias, who lived around 130 AD, and later writers such as Irenaeus and Origen mentioned that Matthew may have written his Gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic. These claims were based on the understanding that Matthew's primary audience was Jewish, and therefore, he may have composed his text in a Semitic language.

Manuscript Evidence

In contrast to historical tradition, there is a notable lack of surviving manuscripts of a Hebrew or Aramaic version of Matthew. The earliest complete manuscripts we have date back to the second century and are in Greek. Despite this scarcity, the manuscript evidence has still played a crucial role in shaping the debate. Some scholars argue that the Gospel of Matthew exhibits Semitic linguistic features and idioms, which could suggest it was translated from an earlier Hebrew or Aramaic text.

Theories of Composition

Theories of composition add another layer of complexity to this debate. Some propose that Matthew used a combination of oral traditions and possibly earlier written sources, which could have included Semitic texts. This theory could explain the Gospel's Jewish themes and perspectives. Other scholars suggest that these linguistic features can be attributed to the author's background and the cultural context of the time.

Michael Rood's Comparative Analysis

In recent years, the work of researcher Michael Rood has shed further light on this debate. He found that the presence of words like 'which being interpreted' in Matthew 1:16 might be better understood in their original Aramaic or Hebrew form, potentially clarifying and correcting what we have today. For instance, in the example provided from Mark 15:22 and Matthew 27:33, and John 19:17, the phrase 'which is being interpreted' in Greek can take on different meanings in the original languages, and Rood's translations offer new perspectives.

Rood's CKJV Chronological Gospels, a publication that took over 25 years to complete, is a testament to his dedication and rigorous research. This work highlights the importance of considering the original languages when studying the New Testament, particularly in texts like the Gospel of Matthew.

Implications for Believers

For believers, the debate over the original language of the Gospel of Matthew might seem daunting, especially when it comes to doctrine. However, it is important to remember that many translations of the Bible exist, and these translations inherently possess a degree of interpretation. The key is not to cling to the idea of a single original writing but to trust in the Word of God as a whole.

Paul's words in Romans 14:5, 'One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind,' serve as a poignant reminder that while these differences might be significant to some, others may find them less so. The essential message remains the same: trust in the Son of God and His Word.

While the exact original language of the Gospel of Matthew remains a mystery, the research and translations of scholars like Michael Rood provide valuable insights. These efforts remind us that the process of understanding and interpreting the Bible is ongoing, and we should approach it with an open mind and a steadfast faith.