Matthew

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

[1] [2]

[3] [4]

[5] [6]

[7] [8]

[15]

[16]

INTRODUCTION

THE author of this Gospel was a publican or

tax gatherer, residing at Capernaum, on the western shore of the Sea of

Galilee. As to his identity with the "Levi" of the second and third

Gospels, and other particulars, see on

Mt 9:9.

Hardly anything is known of his apostolic labors. That, after preaching

to his countrymen in Palestine, he went to the East, is the general

testimony of antiquity; but the precise scene or scenes of his ministry

cannot be determined. That he died a natural death may be concluded

from the belief of the best-informed of the Fathers--that of the

apostles only three, James the Greater, Peter, and Paul, suffered

martyrdom. That the first Gospel was written by this apostle is the

testimony of all antiquity.

For the date of this Gospel we have only internal evidence, and

that far from decisive. Accordingly, opinion is much divided. That it

was the first issued of all the Gospels was universally believed.

Hence, although in the order of the Gospels, those by the two apostles

were placed first in the oldest manuscripts of the Old Latin

version, while in all the Greek manuscripts, with scarcely an

exception, the order is the same as in our Bibles, the Gospel according

to Matthew is in every case placed first. And as this Gospel is

of all the four the one which bears the most evident marks of having

been prepared and constructed with a special view to the Jews--who

certainly first required a written Gospel, and would be the first to

make use of it--there can be no doubt that it was issued before any of

the others. That it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem is

equally certain; for as HUG observes

[Introduction to the New Testament, p. 316, FOSDICK'S translation], when he reports our Lord's

prophecy of that awful event, on coming to the warning about "the

abomination of desolation" which they should "see standing in the holy

place," he interposes (contrary to his invariable practice, which is to

relate without remark) a call to his readers to read

intelligently--"Whoso readeth, let him understand"

(Mt 24:15)

--a call to attend to the divine signal for flight which could be

intended only for those who lived before the event. But how long before

that event this Gospel was written is not so clear. Some internal

evidences seem to imply a very early date. Since the Jewish Christians

were, for five or six years, exposed to persecution from their own

countrymen--until the Jews, being persecuted by the Romans, had to look

to themselves--it is not likely (it is argued) that they should be left

so long without some written Gospel to reassure and sustain them, and

Matthew's Gospel was eminently fitted for that purpose. But the digests

to which Luke refers in his Introduction (see on

Lu 1:1)

would be sufficient for a time, especially as the living voice of the

"eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word" was yet sounding abroad.

Other considerations in favor of a very early date--such as the tender

way in which the author seems studiously to speak of Herod Antipas, as

if still reigning, and his writing of Pilate apparently as if still in

power--seem to have no foundation in fact, and cannot therefore be made

the ground of reasoning as to the date of this Gospel. Its Hebraic

structure and hue, though they prove, as we think, that this Gospel

must have been published at a period considerably anterior to the

destruction of Jerusalem, are no evidence in favor of so early a date

as A.D. 37 or 38--according to some of the

Fathers, and, of the moderns, TILLEMONT, TOWNSON, OWEN, BIRKS, TREGELLES. On the other hand,

the date suggested by the statement of IRENÆUS [Against Heresies, 3.1], that

Matthew put forth his Gospel while Peter and Paul were at Rome

preaching and founding the Church--or after A.D.

60--though probably the majority of critics are in favor of it, would

seem rather too late, especially as the second and third Gospels, which

were doubtless published, as well as this one, before the destruction

of Jerusalem, had still to be issued. Certainly, such statements as the

following, "Wherefore that field is called the field of blood unto

this day"

(Mt 27:8);

"And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this

day"

(Mt 28:15),

bespeak a date considerably later than the events recorded. We incline,

therefore, to a date intermediate between the earlier and the later

dates assigned to this Gospel, without pretending to greater

precision.

We have adverted to the strikingly Jewish character and coloring of

this Gospel. The facts which it selects, the points to which it gives

prominence, the cast of thought and phraseology, all bespeak the Jewish

point of view from which it was written and to which it was

directed. This has been noticed from the beginning, and is universally

acknowledged. It is of the greatest consequence to the right

interpretation of it; but the tendency among some even of the best of

the Germans to infer, from this special design of the first Gospel, a

certain laxity on the part of the Evangelist in the treatment of his

facts, must be guarded against.

But by far the most interesting and important point connected with

this Gospel is the language in which it was written. It is believed

written in what is loosely called Hebrew, but more correctly

Aramaic, or Syro-Chaldaic, the native tongue of the country at

the time of our Lord; and that the Greek Matthew which we now

possess is a translation of that work, either by the Evangelist himself

or some unknown hand. The evidence on which this opinion is grounded

is wholly external, but it has been deemed conclusive by

GROTIUS,

MICHAELIS (and his translator),

MARSH,

TOWNSON,

CAMPBELL,

OLSHAUSEN,

CRESWELL,

MEYER,

EBRARD,

LANGE,

DAVIDSON,

CURETON,

TREGELLES,

WEBSTER

and WILKINSON, &c. The evidence referred to cannot

be given here, but will be found, with remarks on its unsatisfactory

character, in the Introduction to the Gospels prefixed to our

larger Commentary, pp. 28-31.

But how stand the facts as to our Greek Gospel? We have not a tittle

of historical evidence that it is a translation, either by Matthew

himself or anyone else. All antiquity refers to it as the work of

Matthew the publican and apostle, just as the other Gospels are

ascribed to their respective authors. This Greek Gospel was from the

first received by the Church as an integral part of the one quadriform

Gospel. And while the Fathers often advert to the two Gospels which

we have from apostles, and the two which we have from men not

apostles--in order to show that as that of Mark leans so entirely on

Peter, and that of Luke on Paul, these are really no less apostolical

than the other two--though we attach less weight to this circumstance

than they did, we cannot but think it striking that, in thus speaking,

they never drop a hint that the full apostolic authority of the Greek

Matthew had ever been questioned on the ground of its not being the

original. Further, not a trace can be discovered in this Gospel itself

of its being a translation. MICHAELIS

tried to detect, and fancied that

he had succeeded in detecting, one or two such. Other Germans since,

and DAVIDSON and

CURETON among ourselves, have made the same attempt.

But the entire failure of all such attempts is now generally admitted,

and candid advocates of a Hebrew original are quite ready to own that

none such are to be found, and that but for external testimony no one

would have imagined that the Greek was not the original. This they

regard as showing how perfectly the translation has been executed; but

those who know best what translating from one language into another is

will be the readiest to own that this is tantamount to giving up the

question. This Gospel proclaims its own originality in a number of

striking points; such as its manner of quoting from the Old Testament,

and its phraseology in some peculiar cases. But the close

verbal coincidences of our Greek Matthew with the next two Gospels

must not be quite passed over. There are but two possible ways of

explaining this. Either the translator, sacrificing verbal fidelity in

his version, intentionally conformed certain parts of his author's work

to the second and third Gospels--in which case it can hardly be called

Matthew's Gospel at all--or our Greek Matthew is itself the

original.

Moved by these considerations, some advocates of a Hebrew original

have adopted the theory of a double original; the external testimony,

they think, requiring us to believe in a Hebrew original, while

internal evidence is decisive in favor of the originality of the Greek.

This theory is espoused by GUERICKS,

OLSHAUSEN,

THIERSCH,

TOWNSON,

TREGELLES, &c. But, besides that this looks too like an artificial

theory, invented to solve a difficulty, it is utterly void of

historical support. There is not a vestige of testimony to support it

in Christian antiquity. This ought to be decisive against it.

It remains, then, that our Greek Matthew is the original of that

Gospel, and that no other original ever existed. It is greatly to the

credit of Dean ALFORD, that after maintaining, in the first edition of

his Greek Testament the theory of a Hebrew original, he thus

expresses himself in the second and subsequent editions: "On the whole,

then, I find myself constrained to abandon the view maintained in my

first edition, and to adopt that of a Greek original."

One argument has been adduced on the other side, on which not a little

reliance has been placed; but the determination of the main question

does not, in our opinion, depend upon the point which it raises. It has

been very confidently affirmed that the Greek language was not

sufficiently understood by the Jews of Palestine when Matthew published

his Gospel to make it at all probable that he would write a Gospel, for

their benefit in the first instance, in that language. Now, as this

merely alleges the improbability of a Greek original, it is

enough to place against it the evidence already adduced, which is

positive, in favor of the sole originality of our Greek Matthew.

It is indeed a question how far the Greek language was

understood in Palestine at the time referred to. But we advise the

reader not to be drawn into that question as essential to the

settlement of the other one. It is an element in it, no doubt, but not

an essential element. There are extremes on both sides of it. The old

idea, that our Lord hardly ever spoke anything but

Syro-Chaldaic, is now pretty nearly exploded. Many, however,

will not go the length, on the other side, of HUG

(in his Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 326, &c.) and

ROBERTS ("Discussions of the Gospels," &c., pp.

25, &c.). For ourselves, though we believe that our Lord, in all the

more public scenes of His ministry, spoke in Greek, all we think

it necessary here to say is that there is no ground to believe that

Greek was so little understood in Palestine as to make it

improbable that Matthew would write his Gospel exclusively in that

language--so improbable as to outweigh the evidence that he did so. And

when we think of the number of digests or short narratives of the

principal facts of our Lord's history which we know from Luke

(Lu 1:1-4)

were floating about for some time before he wrote his Gospel, of which

he speaks by no means disrespectfully, and nearly all of which would be

in the mother tongue, we can have no doubt that the Jewish Christians

and the Jews of Palestine generally would have from the first reliable

written matter sufficient to supply every necessary requirement until

the publican-apostle should leisurely draw up the first of the four

Gospels in a language to them not a strange tongue, while to the rest

of the world it was the language in which the entire quadriform

Gospel was to be for all time enshrined. The following among others

hold to this view of the sole originality of the Greek Matthew:

ERASMUS, CALVIN, BEZA, LIGHTFOOT, WETSTEIN, LARDNER, HUG, FRITZSCHE, CREDNER, DE WETTE, STUART, DA COSTA, FAIRBAIRN, ROBERTS.

On two other questions regarding this Gospel it would have been

desirable to say something, had not our available space been already

exhausted: The characteristics, both in language and matter, by which

it is distinguished from the other three, and its

relation to the second and third Gospels. On the latter of these

topics--whether one or more of the Evangelists made use of the

materials of the other Gospels, and, if so, which of the Evangelists

drew from which--the opinions are just as numerous as the possibilities

of the case, every conceivable way of it having one or more who plead

for it. The most popular opinion until recently--and perhaps the most

popular still--is that the second Evangelist availed himself more or

less of the materials of the first Gospel, and the third of the

materials of both the first and second Gospels. Here we can but state

our own belief, that each of the first three Evangelists wrote

independently of both the others; while the fourth, familiar with the

first three, wrote to supplement them, and, even where he travels along

the same line, wrote quite independently of them. This judgment we

express, with all deference for those who think otherwise, as the

result of a close study of each of the Gospels in immediate

juxtaposition and comparison with the others. On the former of the two

topics noticed, the linguistic peculiarities of each of the Gospels

have been handled most closely and ably by CREDNER

[Einleitung (Introduction to the New Testament)], of whose

results a good summary

will be found in DAVIDSON'S

Introduction to the New Testament. The

other peculiarities of the Gospels have been most felicitously and

beautifully brought out by

DA

COSTA in his Four Witnesses, to which

we must simply refer the reader, though it contains a few things in

which we cannot concur.