first authoritative account of our Saviour's life published to the world, yet, as I suppose that it contains matter taken from the original of the second Gospel, we must so far consider it posterior to Mark. According to Eusebius, "Matthew, after having first proclaimed the Gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going to other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his writings."H. E., l. 3, c. 24.

Other ancient writers state that this Gospel was written upon the dispersion of the apostles by persecution, when, for the reasons stated by Eusebius, a written account became necessary. This account of its origin, which is probable in itself, is not contradicted either by external or internal evidence. From the numerous allusions to Jewish Scripture and the fulfilment of prophecy, it is obvious that it was especially meant for Jewish readers. The earliest account is that of Papias, as quoted by Eusebius, H. E., iii. 39: "Matthew wrote the Gospel in the Hebrew tongue, which every one translated as he was able." The sense here is apparently incomplete, and what is wanting would probably inform us that those to whom the Hebrew was a foreign language, were obliged to translate it as they best could, till the Greek version was supplied.* The words of Papias imply, at all events, that a translation was requisite.

There is much patristic evidence to prove that Matthew wrote originally in Hebrew, but it by no means follows that he did not also write in Greek; indeed, the objects he had in view could not have been accomplished unless he had done so, for the circumstances of Judea with respect to language were precisely the same as those of Ireland at the present day, and just as one portion of

* I find Professor Thiersch has arrived at a similar conclusion. According to Dr Davidson, he supplies the ellipse thus:-"Till he himself published the Greek copy, which is read throughout the whole church as his Gospel;" but Dr Davidson, whilst he admits that the quotation from Papias has a fragmentary appearance, calls this "an arbitrary assumption drawn from the air."-Introd. to N. T. i. 51. I do not think so. The extract from Papias points to a desideratum which could only be supplied by a Greek Gospel, and which was supplied by the present Greek Gospel before Papias wrote.

the Irish understand what is written in their native language (Taтpi yoon), but do not understand English, so another portion understand English, but not Irish. It is necessary, if we wish to communicate the Gospel to the Irish, that it should be in two languages; so also it was in Palestine at the time of the first publication of the Gospels. Every notice we have of the language spoken by our Lord shows that it was Hebrew-see Mark, v. 41, vii. 34, xv. 34, and Acts, xxvi. 14. But he was not understood at Jerusalem, Mark, xv. 35. The mob at Jerusalem were surprised to hear themselves addressed in Hebrew, Acts, xxii. 2; and the captain of the guard did not suppose that St Paul could speak Greek (xxi. 37). In the inscription on the cross, we have the language of the dominant power, and of the two classes of the inhabitants. The case of Josephus, the contemporary and fellow-countryman of Matthew, is one in point: he tells us, in his preface to his History of the Jewish Wars, that he had formerly written it in their native tongue (Tarpiq) for the use of the barbarians-i. e., those who did not understand Greek; and now turned it into Greek (Ελλάδι γλώσσῃ μεταβαλών) for those who did.

The strongest proof of the originality of St Matthew's Greek Gospel-applying the term originality to it as I would to the History of Josephus-is the use that is made of it by St Luke; for no writer of accurate research, such as St Luke claims to be, and unquestionably is, will have recourse to a translation when he understands and has access to the original.

I do not lay much stress upon the ignorance of Jerome as to this point; his evidence is exceedingly confused, and not easily reconcilable with his necessary knowledge of the Greek Gospel. Eusebius appears to have considered the Greek version as Matthew's own, for whilst he states that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, he quotes his Greek translation of a passage in the 78th Psalm, v. 35, as oikeią ékdóσe, "his own rendering or edition," contrasting it with the same passage as given in the Septuagint. Professor Hug, who does not admit that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, explains the contradiction in Eusebius by supposing that as a historian he

adhered to his authorities, but as a philologist and biblical investigator he formed a different opinion. On the other hand, Dr Davidson, who does not believe that Matthew wrote in Greek, whilst he admits that, if Hug's translation of the above passage from Eusebius be correct, "the conclusion is unavoidable that the apostle wrote in Greek," says "that the term doois does not signify translation-it denotes recension.

I must demur to this sense of the word. By "recension" I understand a revision of the same translation, rather than a different and independent translation; but Eusebius is speaking of different translations. What Hug says is undeniable, that Matthew does depart from the Seventy, who render the passage in question, Psalm lxxviii. 2, płéy§oμai „pobλýμaτa åñ3¿pxîs—“ I will utter dark sayings of old;" but by Matthew it is rendered thus, épeúĝoμai κεκρυμμένα ἀπὸ καταβολῆς, xiii. 35—“I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world." The meaning is the same, although every word in the Greek is different; and unquestionably the circumstance of Matthew being a Hebrew, and consequently acquainted with the language, does account for his using a translation of his own. I give the whole passage:-vì

66

τοῦ φθέγξομαι προβλήματα ἀπ' ἀρχῆς Ἑβραῖος ὤν ὁ Ματθαῖος, οἰκείᾳ ἐκδόσει κέχρηται ἐιπών épeúžoμai kerpvμμéva ảñò karabʊλîs, which Dr Davidson paraphrases thus -" Matthew, being a Hebrew, uses that recension of the Old Testament text which was current in his native land, and had the Hebrew words to which ερεύξομαι κεκρυμμένα, κ. τ. λ., and not φθέγξομαι, K. T. A., corresponds" (vol. i. p. 12); but which (vol. i. p. 12); but which I would translate thus-" Instead of 'I will proclaim from the beginning,' Matthew, being a Hebrew, uses a rendering of his own, I will utter things concealed from the foundation,""&c.

I see, therefore, no contradiction in the supposition that St Matthew wrote his Gospel in both languages; and when I see an author who could not be mistaken, and who professes to write upon the authority of eyewitnesses, making use of the Greek Gospel, I conclude that it is by the original author of that Gospel. At all events, the Greek Gospel existed before St Luke wrote, and was used by him as an authority.

Before proceeding to point out the peculiar conditions in the agreements which subsist between the Gospel of Matthew and the other Gospels, it will be proper to direct our attention to those characteristic peculiarities in his style of composition by which these conditions are affected.

In his narrative he is the most concise of the historical writers of the New Testament; in the discourses of our Lord the fullest. He appears to have condensed the narration, in order to give the very words of our Lord, and at the same time to confine his work within such limits as would insure an extended circulation-a precaution necessary when transcription was the only mode of multiplying copies. But although his narrative is concise, it is singularly clear and explicit. An author writing with the first intention does not think of giving explanation of circumstances which are perfectly well known to himself. He frequently uses the pronoun where a reader may be ignorant, or uncertain as to the implied antecedent. Thus where Mark, translating literally the account of the miracle of Christ walking on the sea, says, "when they were come out of the ship, straightway they knew him"-écуvóνtes dutòv, vi. 54—but does not tell us who it was who "knew him." Matthew, in the corresponding passage, clears up the ambiguity, by adding, that it was "the people of the place" “who knew him”ἐπιγνόντες αυτὸν δι ἄνδρες τοῦ τόπου ἐκείνου, xiv. 35. In Section xviii. we have an excellent exemplification of the historical style of Matthew, contrasted with the autoptical style of St Mark, where, although not one-third of the length of Mark, Matthew gives not only everything historically essential, but adds important matter, and clears up ambiguity.-See Section xviii. p. 32, and Notes thereupon, p. 277.

Having already explained the nature of the connection between Matthew and Luke, I now proceed to that which subsists between Matthew and Mark, which is well exemplified in the above-cited section. It is, in short, that which subsists between history and memoir. We can always account for the phenomena of agreement between the two evangelists, by supposing that Matthew

made use of the original Hebrew of Mark; but we cannot, if we suppose that Mark made use of the Gospel of Matthew.

Whenever we find matter, in one of two writers, connected in the same manner as Matthew and Mark are, the question to be determined is, Is this matter an addition, on the part of the author in whose work it occurs, or is it an omission in that from which it is wanting? Now, I apprehend that the rule to be followed, in such a question, depends upon the importance, or want of importance, of the passages in question When I speak of want of importance in passages in Scripture, I desire not to be misunderstood. It is merely in a historical sense that I am speaking; for the most trifling circumstantial details are of the very last consequence in all investigations like the present. Like the straws which indicate the direction of the stream, they indicate that the stream of history flows from Mark to Matthew, not from Matthew to Mark. In the section already alluded to, xviii. p. 32, we are told, in Mark's account, that a small boat (λápov) was ordered to be in attendance, but no use was made of it;—we are told of the different places from whence the multitudes came. Now, none of these circumstances could be taken or inferred from Matthew's account, nor are they such as a subsequent historian would think of adding, but they are such as a subsequent historian would naturally omit. On the other hand, there is matter in Matthew's account which no historian following Matthew would omit. There is an ambiguity in Mark's account, or at least a want of explanation, which Schleiermacher characterises thus" Christ withdraws, one does not know why.' Now Matthew, by the single word "yous," xii. 15, supplies the explanation. So also, where Mark tells us that many were cured, Matthew tells us that all were cured. I conclude, therefore, that Matthew is the subsequent historian.

*

Schleiermacher, in arguing against the probability of there being any very early written accounts of the transactions of our Lord