Did Jerome translate the "Hebrew Matthew" into Greek?

Latin after CDLXXVI
Post Reply
User avatar
BrianB
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:14 pm

Did Jerome translate the "Hebrew Matthew" into Greek?

Post by BrianB »

I’m sure this question must have been asked (and answered) many times before, but I couldn’t find anything about it here at Textkit, or anywhere else online.

Did Jerome “translate” or just “transliterate” the unidentified Hebrew (or Aramaic) gospel? Some reputable translations go for one option, some for the other.

Whatever meaning he wished to convey, he made the same statement in two different books. In both passages, the verb is transfero.

Commentary on Matt 12:13:

In Evangelio, que utuntur Nazaraeni et Ebionitae (quid nuper in Graecum de Hebraeo sermone transtulimos, et quod vocatur a plerisque Matthaei authenticum) …

De Viris Illustribus 16:

… et proprie ad Polycarpum, commendans illi Antiochensem Ecclesiam, in qua et de Evangelio quod nuper a me translatum est, super persona Christi ponit testimonium dicens: …

https://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/ ... T.pdf.html

http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/hieronym/viris_l.htm

User avatar
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1739
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: Did Jerome translate the "Hebrew Matthew" into Greek?

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

Well, in the first example, de Hebraeo sermone, sermone means "language" and that would imply to me translation, not transliteration. In looking at both the OLD and the L&S, I don't really see a citation where transfero would be used of transliteration, although it is used for "copy" (as in copying a manuscript), but that wouldn't make a great deal of sense here.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter

Cuncta mortalia incerta...

User avatar
BrianB
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:14 pm

Re: Did Jerome translate the "Hebrew Matthew" into Greek?

Post by BrianB »

Thank you, Barry. I find your certainty reassuring. I suppose Jerome’s reason for translating it into Greek, rather than Latin, would have been to enable him to place it alongside the canonical Matthew and to compare the two meticulously and thoroughly. Does that make sense to you?

I wonder whether this “Hebrew Matthew” mentioned in De Viris 16 could be the same one as the “Gospel according to the Hebrews” that he mentions in De Viris 2 (James the Just), where he says he translated it into both Greek and Latin. It seems deeply regrettable that these translations of an apocryphal Gospel have been lost, given that such a large quantity of Jerome’s writings have survived.

[De Viris Illustribus 2]

Evangelium quoque quod appellatur secundum Hebraeos, et a me nuper in Graecum Latinumque sermonem translatum est, quo et Origenes saepe utitur, post resurrectionem Salvatoris refert: ...

User avatar
AntistesImaginificus
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2021 9:01 pm
Location: Peninsula Italica

Re: Did Jerome translate the "Hebrew Matthew" into Greek?

Post by AntistesImaginificus »

BrianB wrote: Sat Dec 12, 2020 3:16 pm Thank you, Barry. I find your certainty reassuring. I suppose Jerome’s reason for translating it into Greek, rather than Latin, would have been to enable him to place it alongside the canonical Matthew and to compare the two meticulously and thoroughly. Does that make sense to you?

I wonder whether this “Hebrew Matthew” mentioned in De Viris 16 could be the same one as the “Gospel according to the Hebrews” that he mentions in De Viris 2 (James the Just), where he says he translated it into both Greek and Latin. It seems deeply regrettable that these translations of an apocryphal Gospel have been lost, given that such a large quantity of Jerome’s writings have survived.

[De Viris Illustribus 2]

Evangelium quoque quod appellatur secundum Hebraeos, et a me nuper in Graecum Latinumque sermonem translatum est, quo et Origenes saepe utitur, post resurrectionem Salvatoris refert: ...
I think Jerome himself later on disavowed that statement, stating it was some kind of "relata refero": he was saying what everybody else what saying at the time.
We can certainly say that today's Gospel is based on previous documents. Some scholars like to speculate about a Q-source (Quelle) from which all Gospels originated (a written one, apart from the ipsissima verba of Jesus himself).
We can also say that the kind of "kerigma" we find in Matthew is the most Judaic of all Gospels, in spite of the polemical attitude of Matthew towards Judaism itself: Von Dobshütz in 1928 stated in one of his books that Matthew was probably a Jew convert. K. Stendahl is of the opinion this Gospel was born in a "bet hammidrash": a Cristian-Rabbinic school.
Hence, some people theorized Matthew is the first Gospel of all, and had been originally written in Aramaic. However, the current Gospel is not only related to Mark, but most scholars agree on the fact that Matthew had already read Mark's Gospel while he was writing.
The Bishop Papia of Hierapolis said: "Matthew gathered Jesus's loghia in a Hebrew dialect and each of them translated them (in Greek) according to their ability".
Most of the scholars nowadays don't believe there was an original Aramaic. I'm not a scholar but I think Matthew probably started from some previous documents and benefited of a rich oral tradition.
A curious detail, that suggests Matthew wrote in Greek is the fact he quotes the psalms from the LXX (the Greek translated version of the V.T), he doesn't quote the original.
Dulcis in fundo, Card. G. Ravasi (My favourite scholar for various reasons) says there's even more compelling evidence to the fact Matthew comes after Mark and the original Matthew has been written in Greek: we have words that do not exist in Aramaic: parusia, palingenesis. The grammar is very Greek as well: genitive absolute.
Take Matthew 6,16, for further evidence: there's a wordplay with fanosin and afanizousin you can't have in any other language!

I think, therefore, Matthew (unlike, say, John) is meant for the "oi iudaioi" who converted recently: the number of Judaic elements you find in this Gospel is overwhelming. However, that's not enough for concluding an Hebrew or Aramai original has ever been written.
Hominis mens discendo alitur

Post Reply