There are turns of language which have the stamp of an original Greek idiom and could not have come in through translation.

But, without going into this question as to the original language of the first Gospel, a shorter method will be to ask whether it can have been an original document at all?
The work to which Papias referred clearly was such, but the very same investigation which shows that our present St.Mark was not original, tells with increased force against St.Matthew.When a document exists dealing with the same subject-matter as two other documents, and those two other documents agree together and differ from it on as many as 944 separate points, there can be little doubt that in the great majority of those points it has deviated from the original, and that it is therefore secondary in character.

It is both secondary and secondary on a lower stage than St.Mark: it has preserved the features of the original with a less amount of accuracy.

The points of the triple synopsis on which Matthew fails to receive verification are in all 944; those on which Mark fails to receive verification 334; or, in other words, the inaccuracies of Matthew are to those of Mark nearly as three to one.

In the case of Luke the proportion is still greater-- as much as five to one.
This is but a tithe of the arguments which show that the first Gospel is a secondary composition.