(5th.) He falls, it is asserted, into positive errors. In ch. i and ii he seems not to know that the real dwelling- place of the parents of Jesus was at Nazareth, and that their abode at Bethlehem was only temporary (compare Matt, ii, 1, 22, 23 with Luke ii, 4, 39). According, to SLirk xi, 20, 21, the fig-tree withered on the day after it was cursed ; but according to ]Matt. xxi, 19, it withered immediately. According to IMatt. xxi, 12, Christ puri- fied the Temple immediatel}' after his entrance into Je- rusalem ; but according to Mark he on that day went out to Bethany, and purified the Temple on the day fol- lowing (Mark xi, 11-15). Matthew says (xxi, 7) that Christ rode on a she-ass and on a colt, which is impossi- ble ; the other Gospels speak only of a she-ass. But it depends entirely upon the mode of interpretation wheth- er such positive errors as are alleged to exist are really chargeable on the evangelist. The difference, for in- stance, between the narrative of the birth of Christ, as severally recorded by Matthew and Luke, may easily be solved without questioning the correctness of either, if we suppose that each of them narrates what he knows from his individual sources of information. The histon,- of Christ's childhood given in Luke leads us to conclude that it was derived from the acquaintances of Mary, while the statements in Matthew seem to be derived from the friends of Joseph. As to the transaction re- corded in Matt, xxi, 18-22, and Mark xi, 11, 15, 20, 21, it appears that INIark describes what occurred most accurately; and yet there is nothing in Matthew's account really inconsistent with the true order of events.
On the other hand, some of the most beautifid and most important sayings of our Lord, the historical credi- bility of which no sceptic can attack, have been pre- served by Matthew alone (Matt, xi, 28-30 ; xvi, 16-19 ; xxviii, 20 ; compare also xi, 2-21 ; xii, 3-6, 25-29 ; xvii, 12, 25, 26 ; xxvi, 13). Above all, the Sermon on the Mount, although containing some things apparently not coincident in time (for instance, the Lord's prayer), is yet far more complete and systematic than the compar- atively meagre report of Luke, It may also be proved that in many particulars the reports of several discourses in Matthew are more exact than in the other evangel- ists, as may be seen by comparing Matt, xxiii with the various parallel passages in Luke. See, generally, Kern, Ufher den Urspritng cks Evangelii Matthcei (Tubingen, 1834) ; Olshausen, I)7-ei Programme, 1835 ; and the two Lucubrations of Harles, 1840 and 1843.
II. Timv. and Place of its Composition. — There is little in the (Jospel itself to throw any light on the date of its composition. In xxvii, 7, 8 ; xxviii, 15, we have evi- dences of a date some years subsequent to the resurrec- tion ; but these may well be additions of a later hand, and prove nothing as to the age of the substance of the Gospel. Little trust can be placed in the dates given by some late writers — e. g. Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabcnus, Eusebius's Chron., eight years after the As- cension ; Niccph., Callist., and the Chron, PascJi., A. I). 45. The only early testimony is that of Iren.TJUs {Hcvr. iii, 1, \\. 174), that it was written " when I'eter and Paul were iireacliing in Kome, and founiling the Church." This would bring it down to about A.D. 03 — probably some\\hat earlier, as this is the latest date assigned for Luke's (iospel; and we have the authority of a tradition, accepted by Origen. for the ])riority of that of JLatthew {iv TzapaConti fiacwv .... ori^TpCoTOv //h' y'iypaiTTCH TO Kara rov TTort Tt\(0V7iv va-tfwv ff n—oar. I. \f). MnrjaTor, Eusebius. //. A', vi. 25). On the supposition of a Hebrew original, we may presume that that w(juld have been written the first of all the Gospels, or soon
after the Ascension — i. e. about A.D. 31; and then the present Greek edition may have been issued not much later, or shortly before Matthew's removal from Ju- diea, i. e. about A.D. 47. Tillemont maintains A.D. 33 ; Townson, A.D. 37 ; Owen and Tomline, A.D. 38 ; David- son, Introd. N. Test., inclines to A.D. 41-43 ; while. Hug, Eichhorn,Credner, Bertholdt, etc., identifying "Zacha- rias the son of Barachias" (xxiii, 35) with Zacharias the son of Baruch, whose murder is recorded by Josephus ( War, iv, 6, 4), place its composition shortly after the fall of Jerusalem, a theory which is rejected by De Wette and Meyer, and may safely be dismissed as im- tenable.
With regard to the place, there is no difference of opinion. All ancient authorities agree that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Palestine, and this has been as unanimously received by modern critics.
III. For what Readers u-as ii Wiitfcn ? — The concur- rent testimony of the early Church that Matthew drew up his Gospel for the benefit of the Jewish Christians of Palestine (rolig anb 'lovca'ifffxov iriUTtvaaai, Orig. ap, Eusebius, H.K vi, 25), has been accepted without ques- tion, and may be regarded as a settled point. The state- ment of Eusebius is that, " having previously preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to others also, he committed to writing in his native tongue his Gos- pel (7-6 Kar aiiTov tvayyeXiov), and so filled up by his writing that which was lacking of his presence to those whonirhe was departing from" (Eusebius, //. E. iii, 24). The testimony of Jerome, frequently repeated, is to the same effect (^Preef. ad Matt. ; Be Vir. III. ; Comm. in Hos. xi). The passages quoted and referred to above, it is true, have reference to the supposed Aramaic orig- inal, and not to the present Greek Gospel. But what- ever conclusion may be arrived at on the perplexed question of the origin of the existing Gospel, Jlr. West- cott has shown {Inti-od. to Gospels, p. 208) that " there is no sufficient reason to depart from the unhesitating habit of the earliest writers who notice the subject, in practicallj' identifying the revised version with the original text," so that whatever has been stated of the purpose or characteristics of the one may unhesitatingly be regarded as applicable to the other also.