Nevertheless a number of alleged circumstances have led Strauss and others to consider the Gospel of Matthew as an unapDstolical composition, originating perhaps at the conclusion of the first century ; while some consider it a production of the Aramrean Matthew, augmented by some additions ; others call it a historical commenta- ry of a later period, made to illustrate the collection of the sayings of Christ which Matthew had furnished (comp. SielTert, Ueher die Aechtheit undden Urspnmg des erslen Kcangdii, 1832 ; Schneckenburger, Ueher den Ur- sprung des trsten Evangelii, 1834; Schott, Ueher die Au- thenticitdt des El: Matt. 1837).
(1st.) The representations of Matthew (it is said) have not that vivid clearness whicli characterizes the narration of an eye-witness, and which we find, for in- stance, in the Gospel of John. Even Mark and Luke surpass Matthew in this respect. Compare, for exam-
ple, Matt, iv, 18 with Luke v, 1 sq. ; Matt, viii, 5 sq. with Luke vii, 1 sq. This is most striking in the his- torj' of his own call, where we should expect a clearer representation. To this it may be replied that the gift of narrating luminously is a personal ciualirtcation of which even an apostle might be destitute, and which is rarely found among the lower orders of people ; this ar- gument, therefore, has recently been given up altogether. In the history of his call to be an apostle, IMatthew has this advantage over Mark and Luke, that he relates the discourse of Christ (ix, 13) with greater complete- neiss than these evangelists. Luke relates that Matthew prepared a great banquet in his house, while IMatthew simply mentions that an entertainment took place^ be- cause the apostle coidd not well write that he himself prepared a great banquet.
(2d.) He omits some facts which every apostle cer- tainly knew. For instance, he mentions only one jour- ney of Christ to the Passover at Jerusalem, namely, the last ; and seems to be acquainted oidy with one sphere of Christ's activity, namely, Galilee. He even relates the mstances of Christ's appearing after his resurrection in such a manner that it might be understood as if he showed himself only to the women in Jerusalem, and to his disciples nowhere but in Galilee (Matt, xxvi, 32, and xxviii, 7). But an argumentum a silentio must not be urged against the evangelists. The raising of Lazarus is narrated only by John, and the raising of the youth at Nain only by Luke ; the appearance of five hundred brethren after the resurrection, which, according to the testimony of Paid (1 Cor. xv, 6), was a fact generally known, is not recorded by any of the evangelists. The apparent restriction of Christ's sphere of activity to Gal- ilee, we find also in jMark and Luke. This peculiarity arose perhaps from the circumstance that the apostles first taught in Jerusalem, Avhere it was unnecessary to relate what had happened there, but where the events which had taken place in Galilee were unknown, and required to be narrated : thus the sphere of narration may have gradually become fixed. At least it is gener- ally granted that hitherto no satisfactory explanation of this fact has been discovered. The expressions in Matt, xxvi, 32, and xxviii, 7, perhaps only indicate that the Lord appeared more frequently and for a longer pe- riod in Galilee than elsewhere. In Matt, xxviii, 16, we are told that the disciples m Galilee went up to a moun- tain, whither Christ had appointed them to come ; and, since it is not previously mentioned that any such ap- pointment had been made, the narrative of Matthew himself here leads us to conclude that Christ appeared to his disciples in Jerusalem after his resurrection.
(3d.) He relates unchronologically, and transposes events to times in which they did not happen ; for in- stance, the rejection at Nazareth, mentioned in Luke iv, 14-30, must have happened at the commencement of Christ's public career, but jNIatthew relates it as late as xiii, 53 sq. But, on the other hand, there is no reason to suppose that the evangelists intended to write a chronological biography. On the contrary, we learn from Luke i, 4, and John xx, 31, that their object was of a more practical and apologetic tendency. With the exception of John, the evangelists have grouped their communications more according to subjects than accord- ing to chronological succession. This fact is now gen- erally admitted. As to the particular event above re- ferred to, namely, the rejection of Christ at Nazareth, it appears to have occurred twice ; Luke (iv, 14-31) giv- ing the earlier, and Matthew (xiii, 53-58) the later in- stance. See Strong's Ilurmony of the Gospels, § 32, 60, and notes.
(4tli.) He embodies in one discourse several sayings of Christ which, according to Luke, were pronounced at different times (comp. Matt, v-vii, and xxiii). But if the evangelist arranges his statements according to sub- jects, and not chronologically, we must not be surprised that he connects similar sayings of Christ, inserting them in the longer discourses after analogous topics had
MATTHEW
MATTHEW
been mentioned. These discourses are not, in fact, com- piled liy the evangelist, but always form the fundament- al framework to which sometimes analogous subjects are attached. Moreover, it can be proved that several sa^•ings are more correctly placed by Matthew than by Lulvc^compare especially Matt, xxiii, 37-39 with Luke xiii, 34, 35).