118-25 has been claimed as late because the idea of virgin- birth is 'quite foreign to Judaism.' As a matter of fact this idea is thoroughly Eastern (as well as Western), and must have been familiar to every Palestinian Jew who had read theSeptua- gint. And in other respects the narrative is Jewish through- out. The occurrence of the word ixxX-^iriv. (1619 igi?) and the Baptismal Formula (28is*) have been said to betray late date. But there is no possible reason why a Jewish Christian writing about the year a.ij. 70 should not have vised ixxX'/imx to repre- sent whatever Aramaic word was originally uttered ; and if the Triune name in v.i" is not a later gloss, it may well have been used by a Palestinian Christian who was contemporary with St. Paul (cf. 1 Co 12^, 2 Co IS'-*, and 1 P 1^, 1 Jn 333. 24).
3. The Sources. — If, then, we take the year
A.D. 70 as an approximate date for the composi- tion of the Gospel, there remain tiie questions of its .sources, its author, and its historical value. The facts about the sources are these : —
(1) Tiie editor iias borrowed tiie greater part of tlie Second Gospel, and has made it the framework of his narrative. He has altered the order of Mk 1-7^'' in order to group tiie material under subject- heads. He has greatly expanded tiie discourses. He makes omissions and alterations in piirases re- lating to the Person of Christ, omitting especially expressions wliioh attribute to Him inability, or de-
* At least the Mosaic Law was to be binding upon them.
MATTHEW (GOSPEL)
MATTHEW (GOSPEL)
147
sire for information, and terms of human emotion ; and makes a series of somewhat simOar changes in clauses relating to the Apostles. For the details of his editorial revision of the Second Gospel, see art. Mark (Gospel), and the Com. on ' Matthew " in ICC, pp. xiii-xl.
(2) The Gospel contains, besides this Markan material, a good deal of matter, almost entirely sayings, which is found also in substance in the Third Gospel. It is generally supposed that this was borrowed bj" the two Evangelists from a com- mon source, viz. a collection of Gospel material compUed by the Apostle Matthew, and referred to by Papias (Ens. HE ill. xxxix.).
The present writer has elsewhere attempted to prove that, so far as St. Luke goes, this is not a very probable theory. Besides these sayings which he has in commou with St. Luke, the editor of the First Gospel has also a number of sayings found only in his Gospel. The probability is that he borrowed these peculiar sayings, and most of those common to him and to St. Luke, from the Apostolic collection of sayings mentioned by Papias. If so, it is not very likely that St. Luke had also seen this collection. Rather material from it had passed into some of the many souices which he had used (Lk P), and were boiTowed by him from them. See ' Matthew,' I.e. pp. xli-lxii. Thus Mt.'s second source was the Matthiean iog-iVr or collection of discourses.
(3) What remains of the Gospel, when we have put aside the matter Iwrrowed from Mk. and the sayings drawn from the Login, consists of a num- ber of narrative traditions. These deal with Christ's Birth and Infancy (chs. 1. 2|, with a few incidents connected with St. Peter (14^"^i 17*^"^), and with some details connected with Christ's trial and Resurrection (27'-'^'- ^^- -■•■ ^ ^^^-^^ *--^ 28'^-'*). They were all drawn, it may be supposed, from current Palestinian Christian tradition.
(4) Lastly, a n\imber of quotations of a peculiar type, which are introduced by a special formula
/p-.'. 23 OS- 6- 15- !'• 18. 23 4I4-I6 glT \2'^'''^ 13*^ 21"'' ' 27®)
were dra^\-n from a catena or list of OT Messianic passages, which had already been translated into Greek when the editor borrowed them.
4. The Author. — Now, who was the writer who thus welded together the Second Gospel, the Matthsean Logia, a number of Palestinian tra- ditions, and a series of OT quotations, into our present Gospel ? From the end of the 2nd cent, the work has been ascribed to St. Matthew. But there are the following difficulties in this ascrip- tion :
(1) The same writers who attribute our Gospel to St. Matthew state that he wrote it in Hebrew or Aramaic. Now it is clear that our Gosjjel was com- posed in Greek, and is based upon Greek sources. This is certain so far a-s the material drawn from the Second Gospel is concerned, and prol>able for the sayings drawn from the Mattha^an Login.
(2) It does not seem very probable that the Apostle Matthew should have written a Gosi>el from second-hand materials. The work lacks that freshness of presentation which we should expect from an eye-witness of many of the events.
How then explain the ascription of the Gospel to him ? Because the book, in a sense in which the statement is not true of St. Luke's Gospel, is based directly upon the collection of sayings compiled by the Apostle. We must, therefore, suppose that the author was an otherwise unknown Jewish Christian of Palestine, who about the year A.D. 7(K compiled his Gospel, using as his framework the Second Gospel, but boiTowing largely from the Matthfean Logia, and inserting also some Pales- tinian traditions \vith which he was familiar. The Gospel, as it left his hand, represents the concep-