in that case inexplicable why the one has not equally used or left unnoticed the account of the other respecting the history of the infancy of Christ. For the solution of this difficulty, I assume that St Matthew, who had written the gospel in Hebrew, prepared at a later period a Greek revision (even our canonical Matthew) of it,' and that in so doing he availed himself of the minor compilations of those diegeses that had been used by St Luke, especially Luke x. 3-9, in which section there exists the greatest similarity.

2

Differently must be explained the origin of the relation existing between the Gospel of St Mark with those of St Matthew and St Luke. For whether he has borrowed isolated portions from tradition, or from the smaller diegeses or not, yet is he in the main closely allied with St Matthew and St Luke; whenever he abandons the one he follows the other, in order to return again from the latter to the former. There is very little in the Gospel of St Mark that is not contained in the others, if we except occasional additions to some of their narratives, and two brief records of cures effected by our Redeemer. A harmony so regular cannot possibly be accidental; yet do I not venture to maintain that St Mark had both Gospels before him when he wrote his own. With respect to St Matthew this is not improbable, but as to St Luke it would be more proper to suppose that St Mark knew the section from chap. x. 3-9 only, in which especially this harmony takes place; so that St Mark may have been completed earlier, and consequently may have been adopted in the Gospel-collection earlier, than the complete Gospel of St Luke. For if St Mark had the whole Gospel of St Luke in hand, in such a case it would become inexplicable why St Mark did not likewise borrow something from the very important account of Christ's journey (Luke 9-18). With respect to the first chapters of St Matthew and St Luke, which contain the account of Christ's infancy, it may be said that St Mark has left them unused, because it was his intention to record only the official ministry of Christ.

3

1 For further information on this subject, see § 4 of this introduction. 2 Comp. Saunier über die Quellen des Marcus. Berlin 1825.—A. Knobel de origine evang. Marci. Wratislaviae 1831.

3

Comp., nevertheless, for further information on this subject, what is said on Luke ix. 51.

§ 4. ON THE GOSPEL OF ST MATTHEW.

Matthew, called Levi, the son of Alphaeus (Matt. ix. 9; Mark ii. 14), is mentioned in the inscription' as the author of the first of our four canonical Gospels, and tradition affirms that Matthew wrote a Gospel. But the question concerning the authenticity of Matthew becomes so intimately connected with the inquiry respecting the language in which it was written, that it is impossible to answer the one without answering the other. All the reports of the fathers of the church, who have given accounts concerning the Gospel of St Matthew (see my Geschichte der Evangelien, p. 19, sqq.), quite agree that St Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Syro-Chaldaic language. But with regard to the relation in which our Greek Matthew stands to the Aramaic, a mystery exists which, notwithstanding the experiments made, has up to the present moment been unexplained. Hence it is natural to suppose that the Greek Gospel is a translation of the Aramaic; yet, on a more minute examination, difficulties arise as to these views. In the first place, it would appear as though Papias (Euseb. H. E. iii. 39) contradicted the existence of a translation, since he writes concerning the Hebrew Matthew: ἠρμήνευσε δ ̓ αὐτὰ, ὡς ἦν δυνατὸς ἕκαστος, which words may be best rendered: Every individual (by his own exertion, or by the aid of others) had to interpret the Hebrew Scriptures as well as he could, because

1 Although the inscriptions of the Gospels are by no means necessarily to be interpreted as though intended to point out their originators, they may be considered, nevertheless, in a grammatical sense, as serving that purpose; it is only by comparing the tradition with it that this explanation at once becomes more possible. The term xará may also be rendered = secundum, so that the meaning of the formula would be: Gospel of Jesus, according to the manner of representation by Matthew or Mark-an explanation, which would admit the assumption that there have been other writers of the Gospels. However, the general and prevailing tradition, that cannot have originated in these inscriptions, since it is spread too far and is too old, favours the rendering of the term zará as referring to the writer, as this, indeed, occurs in 2 Macc. ii. 13. This form of expression for the genitive case was adopted, because the simple genitive could not properly be applicable here, since the Gospel is not the Gospel of the inspired writer, but that of Jesus Christ. As the verbal expression in use was εὐαγγέλιον Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, hence it could not possibly be written εὐαγγέλιον Ματθαίου, οι Μάρκου.

there existed no translation of them. We must not forget, however, that Papias, in speaking thus, refers not to his own period, but to that of John the presbyter. The passage, therefore, cannot serve as a proof, that no Greek translation of Matthew existed at the time of Papias. Our Greek Matthew, in the second place, exhibits traces of originality, that dispose us to doubt its being a mere translation. This is especially the case with the quotations from the Old Testament, which are given in a way so free and independent, as would not have been the case in a mere translator. This feature of the Greek text, together with the generally propagated tradition that St Matthew has written an Aramaic Gospel, and with the equally general reception by the church of this very Greek text as that of the authenticated Matthew, induces me to suppose, as it has already been observed, that St Matthew, after having composed the Aramaic Gospel, had produced likewise a Greek edition of it, or had it at least prepared under his direction. This Greek edition may be considered another revision or renewal of the Gospel, whereby the difference existing between our Matthew and that of the Jewish Christians, which had been remodelled after the Aramaic Gospel, thus becomes more explicable. The objection raised against this view: that any one would hardly have taken the pains to read the Aramaic original, if an authenticated Greek edition of the Gospel had existed (to which the statement of Papias leads in the above quoted passage), is sufficiently refuted by the supposition: that the Greek Matthew spread throughout the church with more slowness than the Aramaic and the other Gospels; for it was always considered as a translation, hence as being no new production, and hence too it was considered as being already contained in the earlier-spread Aramaic copy. However, with the increasing circulation of the Greek Matthew, every vestige of the Aramaic Gospel became by degrees lost, because its language rendered it inaccessible to the great portion of the people, and because its contents were to be found equally in the Greek Gospel.

The manifest view taken of the Greek Matthew in relation to the Aramaic, perfectly coincides with the historical data. In modern times, however, men have tried, for internal reasons, to deny the apostolicity of our Greek Matthew.' But according to

1 Schleiermacher, Schulz, De Wette, and Schulthess, were the first who expressed these doubts. A refutation of them has been tried by

the nature of the thing itself, argumentations such as theirs betray something that is extremely vague. With them much, if not all, depends upon the critical feeling, but more especially upon the dogmatic perception of the critic. Hence it is that the learned vary so much in their opinions; wherever the one discovers a proof against the apostolic authenticity of the Gospel of St Matthew, there the other finds a testimony in favour of it. We cannot, therefore, ascribe any importance to results arising from internal criticism, so long as they are void of historical evidences. (For further information on this subject comp. the Programms above mentioned.)

Finally, with regard to the place and time of the composition of St Matthew, little can be said about it. The Gospel of St Matthew was written, no doubt, in Palestine, and indeed in the city of Jerusalem itself, since tradition refers us to it as the scene of the ministry of St Matthew. The circumstance, too, of the Hebrew revision of the Gospel, under the name of the εὐαγγέλιον καθ' ἑβραίους, having been in use especially among the Jewish Christians, leads us to suppose that it had been composed in that place, and for its inhabitants. The Greek revision, indeed, may have originated in some other place; yet all such data are wanting as to enable us to draw more exact conclusions, and it is equally as probable that St Matthew, owing to the great and extensive use of the Greek tongue in Palestine at the time of the apostles, re-edited his Gospel in the Greek language, for the Greeks dwelling in that place. The supposition of the Greek Matthew having originated in any other country, would always become impracticable, in consequence of the absence of explanatory additions respecting the localities and usages of Palestine, such as we find them in St Mark and St Luke, which in this case would have been equally as

Heidenreich in Winer's theol. Journ., vol. 3, part 2. They were followed by Sieffert (Königsberg 1832), Klener (Göttingen 1832), Schneckenburger (Stuttgart 1834). Compare likewise Schleiermacher's Abhandlung über das Zeugniss des Papias (Stud. and Krit. Jahrg. 1832. Pt. 4), and Strauss's Review in the Berl. Jahrb. 1834. No. 91, &c. Kern (Tübingen 1834) defended the authenticity of Matthew against these attacks, yet does he approach the views of Sieffert and Klener; he moreover supposes the original work to have been retouched, and supplied with spurious additions, only he admits fewer of them. I have expressed my opinion respecting these writings and their argumentation more explicitly in the "Erlanger Oster-Programm" for the year 1835, and in the "Weihnacht's-Programm" of 1836. With regard to Sieffert's publication, comp. my Review in Tholuck's Lit. Anz. Jahrg. 1833. No. 14, &c.

necessary for St Matthew.-With regard to the period in which it was composed, all positive accounts are entirely wanting; however, the remark, made by Irenaeus (adv. haer. iii. 1), that it was written during the period of St Peter's and St Paul's preaching at Rome, may approach very near the truth. According to St Matthew xxiv., the Gospel was certainly composed before the destruction of Jerusalem, since we find its accomplishment foretold at some not very distant period; we can, therefore, hardly err if we assume the period of its composition to be between the years 60-70 after Christ.

Finally, in order to make a few remarks respecting the peculiarity of St Matthew, this, as has already been observed, becomes evident, in so much as Matthew endeavours to prove to the Jewish readers, that Jesus is the Messiah predicted by the prophets. His earnest appeal to Jewish readers appears evident from the beginning, since the genealogy of Jesus is traced only as far as Abraham, and this, moreover, is perceptible in several distinct and express declarations, (Mat. x. 6, xv. 24); again, in the evident supposition, that whatever relates to the Mosaic law, to Jewish usages and localities, is previously known. Next to this, the peculiarity of St Matthew shows also itself inasmuch as every thing relating to external form appears to him to be matter of less consequence, and of less consideration. St Matthew has presented the life of Christ under general aspects or points of view. At one time he describes him as a new law-giver, and at another as a performer of miracles, and then again as a teacher. The character of the Redeemer he shows in discourses formed partly of the elements of lectures, which appear to have been delivered at various periods. These discourses, as ch. 5-7, 10, 11, 13, 18, 23, 24, 25, are connected by means of historical introductions, but which, with this evangelist (as generally with St John), are in themselves of no importance; and hence it is that St Matthew has devoted less attention to them than to the compilation of the discourses. The writing of St Matthew, considered as a whole,

1 Schlichthorst (über das Verhältniss der drei synoptischen Evangelien, und über den Charakter des Mt. insbesondere. Göttingen, 1835,) endeavours to establish too minute a relation in the several portions of St Matthew to one another. Many of his references, it is true, are not without foundation; yet most of these references are undesigned, having originated with the spirit of the life of Jesus and its harmony, but not with the reflection of the author.