(8) Alltheoriesof Mt must be both problematic and complex. Zahn’s theory of an ‘apologetic’ Aramaic * Gospel by the Apostle Matthew, c. 62 a.p., turned into Greek, ὁ. 85, is too simple for the phenomena. The prevalent ‘two document’ hypothesis, with the use of special oral traditions, comes far nearer the truth. But it may be doubted whether the second or Logian document is needed to account for Mt’s divergences from Mk ; and whether the differ- ences as well as similarities of the Legian element in Mt and Lk are not best explained by a common Gr. Logian type of catechesis+ behind both. In favour of such a ‘ one document’ hypothesis may be alleged the Logian quotations in the Didaché, per- haps also in the first Ep. of Clement and the Oxy- rhynchan fragment, as seeming to reflect local cate- chesis rather than either Mt or Lk. It would be some time before a written gospel superseded traditional local usage as the prime factor in forming the Logian equipment of Christians. It is in Ignatius, then, that we seem first to have good evidence of Mt as an influence at work (e.g. ad Eph. 19). But not even then did oral tradition cease to operate. To its reaction on the written text we owe in large part early secondary readings, such as those mis- named ‘ Western’: and from it, especially in its later stages, come those Logia known as Agrapha.
Literature.—The following aims at indicating only the more representative works of earlier times, with a rather fuller cita- tion of those since 1880,
Text.—In checking the witness of the MSS and VSS, we have, besides the fragments of Tatian’s Diatessaron (in Hamlyn Hill, The Earliest Life of Christ, pp. 333-877), which are common to the four Gospels, a epee aid in the 3rd cent. papyrus of Mt 11:39 (Grenfell and Hunt, Oryrhynchus Papyri, i. pp. 4-7). This au ΡΟΣ not only the usual reading in 118, but also the ‘Neutral’ type of text resting on NB.
* We can merely note the weighty witness of Dalman (Die Worte Jesu, 1898) against the directly Aramaic antecedents of our Gospel-material. The Hebraisms of our Gospels he traces chietly to LX. X influence on their writers.
+ The absence of all historical trace of such a revered writing as an Ur-Matthdus would have been, is rendered doubly inex- plicable if it be granted that it was ever current in Greek. Here is the one strong point of Zahn’s theory over against the
two document’ theory of Weiss and others. ἢ
MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF
OriGinaL Lancuace.—There is a special treatise by Gla, Die Oviginalsprache des Mt, Paderborn, 1887. But the most authoritative atise glen in relation to the whole subject of the Semitic basis of the Synoptics is that in Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, Ba. i., Leipzig, 1898. There, as also in Zahn’s Hinleitung in d. NT, BA. ii., will be found the earlier history of the subject.
RELATION TO THE GosPEL oF THE Hesrews.—Hilgenfeld, V7 extra Canon. receptum, 1884 ; Nicholson, Gospel according to the Hebrews (1879); Handmann, Hebrderevangelium (1888), in TU vy. ὃ (with good Geschichte der Kritik); Resch, Agrapha {1559}, in 7'U'y. 4, p. 822 ff. ; Zahn, Gesch. des NT’ Kanons, ii. 642 ἢ ; Harnack, Chronologie, Bd. i. 625 ff. Hilgenfeld’s thesis, ‘hat in the original Nazarene Heb. Ev, [=the Heb. Matt., i.e. Pa- a qeuia is to be sought the Archimedean point of the whole
ospel problem, has met with little support (yet see McGiffert’s note on Eusebius, iii, 27). It is largely another case of ignotum per iqnotius. Thus Nicholson falls back on the rather effete view that Mt wrote both in Greek and Hebrew (=the Heb. Εν... Handmann and Resch agree in denying the identity of the ed. Fv. with the supposed ΕΝ Matt. The former makes it a second source of our Synopties, alongside ‘ Ur-Markus,’ and perhaps eyen what Papias meant by the ZLogia; the latter emphasizes its apocryphal features (even in its original form), and makes it dependent on our Matthew. Harnack, here in
rinciple agreeing with Zahn, takes a middle position, making t originally a sort of cousin of our Jfait., each being an enlarged edition of the Matthwan Zogia. Only Harnack differs from Zahn in making both recensions of about the same date (not long after 70). Finally, J. Armitage Robinson, in Axpos. 5th Ser. v. (1897) 194-200, discusses three of the fragments of the Heb. Ev, in such a way as to traverse the main conclusion of these two scholars,
Commentaries.—Patristic and Medieval : Origen (in Greek for 13°°-22%, in Latin to 27), Chrysostom (91 Homilies, ed. Field, 3 vols. 1839), Hilary of Poitiers (ed. Oberthiir, tom. vii.), Jerome, Augustine (on parts), Bede, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus (ed. C. F. Matthwi, 1792, a valuable work), Thomas Aquinas. To these may be added Cramer’s Catenw grac. patrum in NT, tom. i. 1844.
Reformation and Post-Reformation.—Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Beza; the Roman Catholics Maldonatus (1596; Eng, tr. Hodges, 1894), Jansen and Cornelius a Lapide; Grotius, Calovius, Hammond, le Clerc, Olearius (1713), J. C. Wolf (Curae Philolog, et Crit. 1733), Bengel, J. J. Wetstein (NT grec. 1751), H. E. G. Paulus (1800), Campbell (18078), Kuinoel, Fritzsche (1826), Bland (Cambridge, 1828), Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Ewald, Meyer, Alford, Patritius (R.C.), Bleek, Mori- son, M‘Olellan, Keil, Lange, Schaff and Riddle, Schanz (R.C., 1879), Nicholson, Knabenbauer (R.C.), Nésgen (1886, 18972), Broadus (Philad. 1887), Holtzmann (/andkom. 1889, 1892*), Kiibel ( Breg.-Hom. Handb, 1889), Meyer-Weiss (18905, 1598%), Maclaren (1892), A. B. Bruce (ρον, Greek Test. vol. i.).