J. V. BARTLET. **MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF.—
i, External Evidence of Authorship, ete. ii. Internal Data and Characteristics.
(a) OT Quotations.
(δ) Chs. 1-2.
(c) The Sources:
(1) The Zogia : (a) Sermon on the Mount ; (8) the Disciple Discourse, ch. 10; (y) the Parables of ch. 18; (6) the Discourse in ch. 18; (e) the later Parables.
(2) Mt’s relation to Mk.
(αὐ The setting of the Sermon on the Mount.
(e) Artificial grouping in chs. 5-9.
(7) Modifications in the narrative of the Passion and the Resurrection.
(9) Eschatological standpoint and date.
(rh) The Genealogy.
iii. Conclusions :
(1) Mt used the Petrine memoirs written by Mk.
(2) Mt and Lk probably did not use in common a Logia document.
(8) The Logia as found in our Mt are largely coloured by the life of the Palestinian Church.
(4) Their nucleus is the common Apostolic didactic tradition, but with the special impress of Matthew.
(5) Matthew is only indirectly the author of our Mt.
(6) Mt was written to establish a true Messianic ideal.
(7) It was probably written in S. Syria, and certainly by a Jew: its standpoint.
(8) Concluding remarks.
Literature.
i, EXTERNAL EVIDENCE OF AUTHORSHIP, ETC. —Referring the reader to the article GOSPELS for the outlines of the Synoptic problem, we have here to investigate the specific features and origin of the Gospel which bears the name of Matthew. fven were the title in our oldest authorities, ‘ According to Matthew’ (κατὰ Ma@@aiov), to be held original, it need not imply more than that this written Gospel contains the substance of the oral Gospel as taught by Matthew. Nor is the matter earried much further by the words of Papias (Eus. HE iii. 39), that ‘ Matthew, then, in Hebrew speech compiled the Logia ; while they were inter- preted by each man according to his ability.’ For (1) it may be taken as proved that our Mt is not a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic ; (2) it is im- probable that the Logia or ‘Oracles’ of the Lord, giving all due latitude to the term /ogion, included anything like as much narrative as does our Mt; (8) tradition is apt to transform indirect into direc authorship. Matthew’s connexion, then. even with
* Conuriaht, 100. by Chav
MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF
the first collection of Christ’s sayings (Logia) may
| have been simply that of their guarantor in the
region in which they were reduced to writing, just as Mark’s Gospel might have been called ‘ accord- ing to Peter,’ or ‘Peter’s memoirs’ (ἀπομνημονεύματα) —to use the actual words of Justin. If it was a disciple of Matthew, corresponding to John Mark, who actually redacted the oral instruction in question, it would best fit what we know of the literary habits of the first generation; and the difference would be little more than formal.
The external evidence as to a written Gospel by Matthew resolves itself into the witness of Papias (c. 110-125) ;* for upon him later writers depend for all save traditions too vague to be trusted in such a case. Various views, however, are taken of Papias’ meaning. The only safe mode of approach is through a careful study of his motive in referring to Matthew at all. Eusebius, to whom we owe our quotations, begins by saying that Papias compiled five books of ‘ Exposition of Say- ings of the Lord’ (λογία Κυριακῶν ἐξηγήσεως). He then challenges Irenzeus’ statement that Papias had been a hearer of John the apostle; and to prove his point quotes Papias’ preface to his work. From this we gather that, in order to vouch for the truth of his expositions of the above Sayings (διαβεβαιούμενος ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἀλήθειαν, he subjoined to his own interpretations (ταῖς ἑρμηνείαις) a number of primitive traditions, carefully gathered from ‘the Elders,’ and of which he had taken speciai note (ὅσα ποτὲ παρὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων [7.e. men of the former, here the first, generation] καλῶς ἔμαθον x. καλῶς ἐμνημόνευσα). He was anxious, that is, to show that his views of the Gospel, unlike those ot many who were glib in giving their opinions on the subject, were formed under the influence ot first-hand traditions, running back, as he believed, to the Lord Himself. ‘These, moreover, were sup- plemented by the best sort of second-hand inquiry, made of companions of the first witnesses, ἦε. certain apostles now dead, but also of two apos- tolic men, Aristion and John the Elder, personal disciples of the Lord still alive in his youth. From these sources he had got his best understand- ing of the Lord’s deep sayings, namely, from oral tradition continued in living men, and not from books (i.e. probably written gospels, rather than exegetical writings of any kind).
His whole interest, then, is in the true inter- pretation of certain sayings of the Lord, embody- ing the genuine Gospel. But he wishes also to make clear to his readers the source whence came the Logia or Sayings themselves on which he commented.t He has found, he seems to say, Matthew’s collection of these Zogia preferable to any other. For as an ordered body (σύνταξις) of the Lord’s Sayings,—with which alone his comments had to do,—Mark’s Gospel was not its equal. But, after all, Matthew had compiled these Sayings in Aramaic before Papias’ own day; and at that time each man had had to interpret them as best he could, 1.6. for the most part without the rare advantages to which Papias could appeal in his own case.t In a word, his call to write his ‘ Ex- positions’ lay in the absence of any written body