# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1851 08 05_S196
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

196

sentence than from this, that he is in complete ignorance of the fact that there are such proofs, namely proofs of probability, in abundance for the highest antiquity of the canonical Gospels, since even in the writings of the apostolic fathers (that is, the immediate disciples of the apostles), as Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Ignatius and Polycarp, passages are cited as "words of the of the Lord" which are found in St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke and St. John, e.g. Gospel of Matt. 16, 26; 18, 16; 19, 12; 20, 16; Gospel of Luke 6, 36; Gospel of John 3, 8, etc. Such proofs of probability we could also have used, but we do not confound them with proofs of certainty — a distinction which Mr. S., despite his "sound logic," seems not to have grasped, — nor would we use the former, since the latter were at our disposal.

We had said "the first church father who, as is well known, mentions the so-called Gospel of Thomas is Origen. The word as is well known seems to have aroused Mr. S's indignation in a quite special degree. Although we must leave the reason of it undecided, this much is certain, that Mr. S., in venting his indignation over that word, again appears as the old man, as was to be expected. In order to exploit the word as is well known to the full; the great Thinker, who of late, since the dear Church-Fathers have become a little distasteful to him, has begun to talk and boast much of "sound logic," applies the logical knife. But unluckily for him it goes with him as an author as it goes with a tailor or cobbler who has run away from his master before his apprenticeship was out, and who still knows, to be sure, how one sets knife or shears to cut something out, but who, when it comes to the cutting, does not cut to fit, but cuts wrong. Mr. S. says, namely: As is well known can mean only: either: as is known to all, or at least to many readers of the Lutheraner; or: so far as is known to the writer of the article alone, and indeed independently of the researches of others. And from this he draws a conclusion to either historical falsifications, or "a dreadfully pale boast" on our part (let the kind reader not be surprised at Mr. S's lackey-style); but the conclusion, even if it were otherwise correct, is worth nothing, because Mr. S. has botched the whole matter from the outset and has not considered that there is yet a second or, and that the word as is well known may have yet a third meaning, namely: so far as is known among those who have occupied themselves with the sciences concerned, especially the Introduction to the N. T. This was precisely the sense in which it was used by us. The writer of this had no doubt that there is no earlier church father who mentions the so-called Gospel of Thomas than Origen, because he found none indicated among learned investigators who speak of the so-called Gospel of Thomas. Since this, however, is not yet an absolute proof of the impossibility that the so-called Gospel of Thomas is mentioned by an earlier church father than Origen; the writer of this also did not wish to assert such absolute impossibility, as indeed no sensible man will do, but merely to say just so much as could be said in accordance with the truth. In our word as is well known there lay, therefore: There are all indications that Mr. S. is talking wind-bag nonsense when he asserts that the so-called Gospel of Thomas is mentioned by an earlier church father than Origen; and as the result has now plainly shown, the indications have not deceived.

Mr. S. has therefore, in the expression of his indignation over the innocent word as is well known, given only a specimen of how, to a weak or neglected understanding, even the logical shears of Either-Or avail nothing.

Mr. S. then expresses himself on the other point in our proof which he will not allow to stand, namely that the Gospel of St. Matthew is already thought of by Papias.

Mr. S. remarks that Papias says not merely that Matthew wrote a Gospel, but that he wrote a Gospel in the Hebrew language. Since, however, the Gospel of St. Matthew lies before us in the Greek language, and bears the stamp of originality, the Gospel of which Papias speaks cannot be the one which is found in the N. T.; the passage therefore proves nothing. Further, we had omitted in our citation the words "in the Hebrew language," in order thus to give the passage the appearance of speaking of something of which it does not speak, and had thereby at the same time made ourselves guilty of "a historical falsification."

Herewith Mr. S. shows that he is a half-knower, and that half-knowing is worse than ignorance.

For although Papias says that Matthew wrote a Gospel in the Hebrew language, since the passage in question in Papias reads in full "Matthew wrote a Gospel in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted it as well as he could"; yet there lies, quite beyond doubt, in the same what we had taken from it, namely that Papias mentions our Gospel of St. Matthew, the one which we have in the N. T. To a half-knower, that is, one who knows something and is in ignorance of other things, this is of course a Bohemian village.

The matter, however, hangs together thus. The church fathers Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome do report, to be sure, that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew language. Now, however, the passages which are cited from the Gospel of Matthew, as well by these named church fathers as by others contemporary with them, as Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and others — whether they name Matthew expressly, or the circumstances show that the citation is from his Gospel — are such as are found in our Gospel of St. Matthew, that is, in the originally Greek one. For example Irenaeus "against Heretics" 3, 11, 8: Matthew proclaims His (the Lord's) descent according to the flesh, in that he says "this is the book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." "Compare Matt. 1, 1. Eusebius, Church History 3, 24." Matthew indicates, after the fasting of forty days and after the temptation which followed it, the time at which what he relates took place, thereby, that he says "Now when He (the Lord) heard that John was cast into prison, he departed from Judea into the land of Galilee." Compare Matt. Chap. 4, 1 — 12. Tertullian de carne Christi c. 22. Matthew himself, the so faithful witness of the Gospel, as he was a follower of the Lord, begins for no other reason than to teach us the descent of Christ according to the flesh, thus first: "This is the book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." Compare Matt. 1, 1, etc. Further we meet, as has already been remarked above on another occasion, passages in the writings of the apostolic fathers which stand in our Gospel of St. Matthew, e.g. in Barnabas, Matt. 20, 16 and 22, 14, etc.

From this it follows directly that there was originally a Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew, and one in Greek, both of which proceeded from the apostle St. Matthew. As to the relation of the one to the other, the passage in Papias makes it probable that Matthew first wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew language, and that it was afterwards translated into Greek; and Jerome says expressly, after he has reported that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew language, "it is not settled who translated the same afterwards into Greek." At the same time the Gospel of St. Matthew does not bear the stamp of a real translation, but rather that of the writing of an independent author, as is noticeable in particular in the citations from the O. T. (but not, as that hare-heart says, in plays upon words, with which it is supposed to be "larded," since only one such occurs in the Greek Matthew.) In view of these circumstances some scholars have now held that the Greek Gospel of St. Matthew is the original writing, and the Hebrew the translation; others the reverse, that the Hebrew is the original writing and the Greek the translation, while still others are of the opinion that both are to be regarded as original writings, in that Matthew first wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew language, but afterwards also set it down in the Greek language. However it may be with this; that is, whether the Greek Gospel of St. Matthew be a translation or an original writing, it has nevertheless the apostle St. Matthew for its author, and deserves in the proper sense of the word the name Gospel of St. Matthew. Concerning this all conscientious and sensible investigators