06-03-2008, 07:43 AM
[p.101-102, Matthew]
Yet from the beginning the language in which it was written furnished a serious obstacle to the wide use and diffusion of St. Matthew???s work. The information offered by Papias that Matthew wrote in ???the Hebrew dialect??? (???????????????? ????????????????), is in fact confirmed by other early authors ??? like Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome ??? who all speak of a ???Hebrew??? or ???ancestral??? language. Almost certainly the term ???Hebrew??? here denotes Aramaic (as it does in the contemporary Flavius Josephus, Wars of the Jews, VI, 96; cf. V, 272, 361, etc.), which was generally spoken throughout Palestine at the time of St. Matthew. In any case, this original Semitic language, whether Hebrew or Aramaic, was not understood by Christians of non-Jewish origin or even by the numerous converts of the Diaspora who knew no language but Greek ???..
But the obstacle was overcome, for better or worse, in the manner mentioned by the same Papias. The ???sayings??? in their original Semitic text were taken up by various readers and catechists and ???each one then interpreted them as he was able??? (???????????????????? ?? ????????????? ?????? ???? ?????????????? ????????????????). This statement suggests the great activity which soon arose about so opportune and authoritative a text. Some catechists must have made extemporaneous oral translations of the passages they happened to need in the course of their ministry. Others probably made written translations also of certain parts, or more rarely of the whole work. And there must have been other writings too which, like the Explanation of Papias, were an illustrative exegesis rather than a simple translation. But Papias??? observation that each interpreted ???as he was able??? also shows that the good will characterizing this activity was not always accompanied by adequate knowledge, especially with regard to the language of the original, or even that into which the translation was being made ???..
But the Church, which had fostered by her authority the catechesis written in a Semitic dialect by St. Matthew, must at a certain point have extended her vigilant care also to the translations of the original text lest her official sanction be unduly invoked to recommend translations which did not deserve the honor. We do not know precisely what happened, but the results are clear and eloquent. The oral and extemporaneous translations must have grown constantly fewer as there were gradually fewer catechists able to understand the original Semitic text. The written translations, whether partial or complete, remained more or less in the background, that is, private but not official use was made of them, and so they were bound sooner or later to be lost. Only one translation was not lost and has come down to us, and that because it was officially adopted by the Church as a substitute for the too difficult Semitic text of the original, namely, the Greek text of our canonical Matthew ???..
We do not know who made this translation, nor, by his own confession, did St. Jerome even in his day. It was certainly completed a few decades after Matthew???s composition first appeared, that is, when the original Semitic was becoming constantly less usable with the diffusion of Christianity outside of Palestine. Careful comparison of the texts also indicates that the translation was completed after the appearance of the other two synoptic Gospels, for it shows the influence of their mode of expression. The translator, in fact, did not confine himself to the mere literal transfer of terms from one language to another; in addition to aiming at a certain easy and natural style (for which reason to begin with he did not confine himself to a slavish rendering), he had in view the needs of the practical catechist.
Yet from the beginning the language in which it was written furnished a serious obstacle to the wide use and diffusion of St. Matthew???s work. The information offered by Papias that Matthew wrote in ???the Hebrew dialect??? (???????????????? ????????????????), is in fact confirmed by other early authors ??? like Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome ??? who all speak of a ???Hebrew??? or ???ancestral??? language. Almost certainly the term ???Hebrew??? here denotes Aramaic (as it does in the contemporary Flavius Josephus, Wars of the Jews, VI, 96; cf. V, 272, 361, etc.), which was generally spoken throughout Palestine at the time of St. Matthew. In any case, this original Semitic language, whether Hebrew or Aramaic, was not understood by Christians of non-Jewish origin or even by the numerous converts of the Diaspora who knew no language but Greek ???..
But the obstacle was overcome, for better or worse, in the manner mentioned by the same Papias. The ???sayings??? in their original Semitic text were taken up by various readers and catechists and ???each one then interpreted them as he was able??? (???????????????????? ?? ????????????? ?????? ???? ?????????????? ????????????????). This statement suggests the great activity which soon arose about so opportune and authoritative a text. Some catechists must have made extemporaneous oral translations of the passages they happened to need in the course of their ministry. Others probably made written translations also of certain parts, or more rarely of the whole work. And there must have been other writings too which, like the Explanation of Papias, were an illustrative exegesis rather than a simple translation. But Papias??? observation that each interpreted ???as he was able??? also shows that the good will characterizing this activity was not always accompanied by adequate knowledge, especially with regard to the language of the original, or even that into which the translation was being made ???..
But the Church, which had fostered by her authority the catechesis written in a Semitic dialect by St. Matthew, must at a certain point have extended her vigilant care also to the translations of the original text lest her official sanction be unduly invoked to recommend translations which did not deserve the honor. We do not know precisely what happened, but the results are clear and eloquent. The oral and extemporaneous translations must have grown constantly fewer as there were gradually fewer catechists able to understand the original Semitic text. The written translations, whether partial or complete, remained more or less in the background, that is, private but not official use was made of them, and so they were bound sooner or later to be lost. Only one translation was not lost and has come down to us, and that because it was officially adopted by the Church as a substitute for the too difficult Semitic text of the original, namely, the Greek text of our canonical Matthew ???..
We do not know who made this translation, nor, by his own confession, did St. Jerome even in his day. It was certainly completed a few decades after Matthew???s composition first appeared, that is, when the original Semitic was becoming constantly less usable with the diffusion of Christianity outside of Palestine. Careful comparison of the texts also indicates that the translation was completed after the appearance of the other two synoptic Gospels, for it shows the influence of their mode of expression. The translator, in fact, did not confine himself to the mere literal transfer of terms from one language to another; in addition to aiming at a certain easy and natural style (for which reason to begin with he did not confine himself to a slavish rendering), he had in view the needs of the practical catechist.