Response to NOBTS review: The language of Matthew and the use of the dative of respect for contrast

One reason that scholars tend to discount the testimony of the earliest church fathers concerning Matthean priority is due to the apparent claim that Matthew’s Gospel was written in Hebrew (or Aramaic). For example, Irenaeus is commonly translated as stating that “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.”¹ This is an odd assertion, given that “there is little extant evidence of a non-Greek version of our Matthew. … Furthermore, if Irenaeus is here explaining the origins of a Hebrew version of Matthew, which is on a par with the Greek versions of the other Gospels, then nowhere does he explain where, when, and from whom the Greek version of Matthew was produced. For these reasons, what are we to make of Irenaeus’s statement?”²

In A Trustworthy Gospel: Arguments for an Early Date for Matthew’s Gospel, I propose that Irenaeus—in speaking of the origins of the Gospel of Matthew of which he is familiar—should instead be translated as “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews, in a language contrasting with their own.”³ My contention is that the dative forms in tē idia autōn dialectō should be treated as datives of reference/respect, in which a contrast is being asserted between the language of the Gospel and the language of the Hebrews. Accordingly, Irenaeus’ point is that “Matthew published in Greek, a language which was not the native language of the Hebrews.”⁴

MacGregor objects to this approach, with the following:

Regarding tē idia autōn dialectō, there is to my knowledge no other instance where a dative of respect means “contrasting with” as opposed to “corresponding to,” which is how Daniel Wallace understands his proffered renderings “with reference to, concerning, about, in regard to.”⁵

This is an accurate representation of Wallace.⁶ However in Trustworthy Gospel, after Wallace is cited I then go on to cite the older BDF lexicon, which “characterizes the ‘dative of respect’ as being ‘appropriate when contrast is involved either in the text or in the mind’.”⁷ This is followed by a discussion of the contrastive sense which exists within several NT passages which offer Greek translations for Aramaic words. Accordingly, I do encourage the present reader to walk through the argument, as presented in the book.

Again, key to my novel proposition is the understanding that the dative of respect assumes conceptual distance or remoteness between the thing being described and the noun in the dative, while establishing a relationship between them. Whether contrast is necessarily present seems to depend on whose definition of “dative of respect” is employed. Nonetheless, Nigel Turner echoes BDF’s assessment: “The dative of respect … is especially used when contrast is involved.⁸ Citing BDF, Lexham similarly states that a dative of respect references an object “for the sake of comparison, often in an abstract sense.”⁹ Hence, if this BDF and Turner concept of the dative of respect is accepted as viable, then the traditional translation of “in their own language” warrants a reassessment, as it does not convey any sense of remoteness, contrast, or comparison.

For those readers who might be struggling with this proposed 180 degree reversal relative to the traditional approach for interpreting tē idia autōn dialectō—effectively shifting from “in their own language” to “not in their own language”—consider the datives of advantage and disadvantage, whereby a given dative can have opposite meanings depending on the context.¹⁰ This flexibility of the dative for conveying opposite for/against meanings is akin to the confusion which Wallace highlights, which can occur between the dative of reference/respect and the dative of sphere, wherein “the resulting ideas frequently have the opposite meaning.”¹¹ Context is critical.

Admittedly, most identified instances of the dative of respect within the biblical text have only a very mild contrastive sense in referring to the object or concept of concern, if any. Yet, there are instances where this contrastive sense appears more pronounced. Following are several NT passages, in addition to those provided in the book, which can be understood as employing the dative of respect to convey a contrastive sense.

In Hebrews 5:11, the author complains that “you have become dull of hearing” (ESV). However, the ESV’s rendering involves a bit of smoothing of the underlying “νωθροὶ γεγόνατε ταῖς ἀκοαῖς.” Allen views the ἀκοαῖς as “a dative of respect … [which] probably contrasts the readers’ state with what has just been said about Jesus in Heb 5:7–10, where concepts of ‘hearing’ and ‘obedience’ occur.”¹² Moo also characterizes ἀκοαῖς as “a dative of respect” and refers to Turner’s Syntax for understanding this usage of the dative.¹³ A more wooden translation would be “you have become dull with respect to your hearing” or, to bring out the contrastive sense, I suggest: “you have become dull in contrast to hearing.”

In 3 John 12, Demetrius is introduced “in the dative case, likely a dative of respect or reference,” according to Jobes, as: “‘regarding Demetrius.'”¹⁴ Jobes notes that “this [introduction of Demetrius] does not follow the convention in extant letters of introduction, where the name of the person being introduced is given in the nominative case.”¹⁵ However, commentators often note the obvious contrast which is being developed, with Demetrius being introduced as one who has a good testimony and should be imitated, as opposed to the evil Diotrephes.¹⁶ While the contrastive aspect of the dative is not acknowledged by commentators, it offers a natural explanation for the use of the dative in the flow of the letter when introducing Demetrius, in the sense of “in contrast to Demetrius” and so on.

In 2 Corinthians 7:11, as Paul applauds the zeal of those who had been grieved by his prior letter, to the point of repentance, he then declares: “At every point you have proved yourself innocent in the matter” (ESV). As in Hebrews 5:11, the phrase ends with an adjective, followed by an equative verb, and then an article and noun in the dative: ἁγνοὺς εἶναι τῷ πράγματι. Harris identifies the article as “anaphoric, [referring back to] ‘that well-known matter under discussion,’ and the dative is a dative of respect.”¹⁷ While the ESV translation is preferred, the implied contrastive sense could be more strongly illustrated if the passage was translated as: “you have proved yourself innocent in contrast to this [grievous] matter.”

In Hebrews 8:12, Jeremiah 31:34 is paraphrased, as the Lord declares that “I will be merciful toward their iniquities.” To emphasize the contrastive sense, the ἵλεως ἔσομαι ταῖς ἀδικίαις αὐτῶν might have instead been translated as “I will be merciful in contrast with their iniquities.”

I’d like to close on a note of humility. It is always risky to propose something novel, especially a radically new translation of a familiar passage. I welcome Dr. MacGregor’s critique and other challenges which may come. We’ll see how well this reinterpretation of Irenaeus stands up to such, with regard to Matthew’s original language.

1. Irenaeus, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, vol. 1 (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature, 1885), 414. ↩︎
2. Daniel B. Moore, A Trustworthy Gospel: Arguments for an Early Date for Matthew’s Gospel (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2024), 30. ↩︎
3. Moore, 32. ↩︎
4. Ibid. ↩︎
5. See https://atrustworthygospel.com/review-of-a-trustworthy-gospel-nobts-journal-of-baptist-theology-ministry/. Kirk MacGregor, “Review of ‘A Trustworthy Gospel: Arguments for an Early Date of Matthew’s Gospel,’” Journal for Baptist Theology & Ministry 21, no. 2 (Fall 2024): 337–40, https://www.nobts.edu/baptist-center-theology/journals/journals/jbtm21b.pdf. ↩︎
6. And I am certainly not brash enough to attempt to nuance how Dr. Wallace’s words might best be understood in this debate! Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 145. ↩︎
7. F. Blass and A. DeBrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. Robert W. Funk (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 105–106. As quoted in Moore, 31. ↩︎
8. Nigel Turner, Syntax, vol. 3, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963), 220. ↩︎
9. Albert L. Lukaszewski, ed., “Dative of Respect,” in The Lexham Syntactic Greek New Testament Glossary (Lexham Press, 2007). ↩︎
10. Wallace, 142–144. ↩︎
11. Wallace, 145. ↩︎
12. David L. Allen, Hebrews, New American Commentary (Nashville: B & H Publishing Group, 2010), 335. ↩︎
13. Douglas J. Moo, Hebrews, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2024), 273, 273n11, ProQuest Ebook Central. ↩︎
14. Karen H. Jobes, 1, 2, and 3 John (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 329. ↩︎
15. Ibid. ↩︎
16. For example, Judith Lieu and Jennifer K. Cox, I, II & III John: A Commentary (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 279, ProQuest Ebook Central; John MacArthur, 1, 2, 3 John, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2007), 259; Gerald Bray, ed., James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament XI (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 242. ↩︎
17. Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 544. The dative of respect determination echoes Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek: Illustrated by Examples, trans. Joseph Smith (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Intituto Biblico, 1963), 19. ↩︎