(2.) We think that Mr. Westcott — to whom the study of the Gospels owes so much — has pointed out the road to a still better solution. Not that the difficulties which beset this matter can be regarded as cleared up, or the question finally and satisfactorily settled, but a mode of reconciling the inconsistency between testimony and fiict has been indicated, which, if pursued, maj^, we think, lead to a decision. " It has been shown," says Mr. Westcott {Introd. p. 208, note), "that the oral Gos- pel probably existed from the first both in Aramaic and in Greek, and in this way a preparation for a fresh rep- resentative of the Hebrew Gospel was at once found. The parts of the Aramaic oral Gospels which were adopted by Matthew already existed in the Greek coun- terpart. The change was not so much a version as a substitution ; and frequent coincidence with common parts of INIark and Luke, which were derived from the same oral Greek Gospel, was a necessary consequence. Yet it may have happened that, as long as the Hebrew and Greek churches were in close connection, perhaps till the destruction of Jerusalem, no authoritative Greek Gospel of Matthew — i. e. such a version of the Greek oral Gospel as would exactly answer to Matthew's ver- sion of the Aramaic — was committed to writing. When, however, the separation between the two sections grew more marked, the Greek Gospel was v/ritten, not indeed as a translation, but as a representation of the original, as a Greek oral counterpart was already current." This theorv of the origin of the Greek Gospel, it appears to us, meets the facts of the case, and satisfies its require- ments more fully than any other. We have seen above that the language of Papias indicates that, even in his day, the Gospel of Matthew existed substantially in Greek, and its universal diffusion and general authority in the earliest ages of the Church prove that its compo- sition cannot be placed much after the times of the apostles. May it not have been then that the two — the Aramaic and the Greek Gospel — existed for some time in their most important portions as an old tradition side by side — that the Aramaic was the first to be com- mitted to writing, and gained a wide though temporary circulation among the Hebrew Christians of Syria and Palestine? that when, as would soon be the case, the want of a Greek Gospel for the use of the Hellenistic .Jews was felt, this also was published in its written form, either by Matthew himself (as is maintained by Thiersch, Olshausen, and Lee), or by those to whom, from constant repetition, the main portions were famil- iar; perhaps under the apostle's eye, and with the vir- tual, if not the f<irmal sanction of the Church at Jeru- salem ? As it supplied a need widely felt by the Gentile Christians, it would at once obtain currency, and as the Gentile Church rapidly extended her borders, while that of the Jewish believers was continually becoming con- fined within narrower limits, this Greek Gospel would speedily sujiplant its Hebrew predecessor, and thus fur- nish a fresh and most striking example of what Mr. Westcott, in his excellent work on The Jiible in the Church (Introd. p. viii), calls "that doctrine of a divine providence separating (as it were) and preserving spe- cial books for the perpetual instruction of the Church, which is the true correlative and comjilement of every sound and reverend theory of inspiration." No other hypothesis, as Dr. Lee has satisfactorily shown ■{Inspu: of II. iSc. Appendix 1\[), than the Greek (Jospcl being cither .actually or substantially the [iroductlon of IMat- thew himself, " accounts for tlic profound silence of an- cient writers respecting the translation ... or for the absence of the least trace of anv other Greek translation
of the Hebrew original." The hj-potheses which assign the translation to Barnabas (Isid. Hispal., CAron.p. 272), John (Theophyl., Euthym. Zigab.), Mark (Greswell), Luke and Paul conjointly (Anastas. Sinaita), or James the brother of our Lord (Syn. Sao: Scr. apud Athanas. ii, 202), are mere arbitrary assertions without any foun- dation in early tradition. The last named is tlie most ingenious, as we may reasonably suppose that the bishop of Jerusalem would feel solicitude for the spiritual wants of the Hellenistic Christians of that citj'.
Those who desire to pursue the investigation of this subject wiU find ample materials for doing so in the In- troductions of Hug, De Wette, Credner, etc.; Marsh's Michaelis, vol. iii, pt. i, where the patristic authorities are fully discussed ; and they will be found, for the most part, in Kirchhofer, Quellensammlunff, where will also be found the passages referring to the Gospel of the He- brews, p. 448 ; also in most of the commentaries. The following have written monographs on this point : Sonn- tag (Altorf, 1696), Schroder (Viteb. 1699, 1702), Masch (HaUe, 1755), AVilUams (Lond. 1790), Elaner (F. ad V, 1791), Buslaw (Vratisl. 1826), Stuart {Bill. Repos. 1838), Harless (Erlang. 1841, also 1842, the latter tr. in Bibl. Repos. 1844), Tregelles (Kitto's Journ. 1850, and sepa- rateh'), Alexander (ibid. 1850), Roberts (Lond. 1864). ]\Iore general discussions may be found in Lardner's Credibility, vol. v; Reuss's Gesch. d. Kanon; Tregelles on The Ori(jincd Languac/e of St. Matthew ; Rev. A. Rob- erts's Discussions on the Gospels ; the commentaries of Olshausen, Meyer, Alford, Wetstein, Kuinol, Fritzsche, Lange, etc. ; and the works on the Gospels of Norton (Credibility), Westcott, Baur, Gieseler (Entstehmig), Hil- genfeld, etc. ; Cureton's Syrictc Recension, Preface ; and Dr. W. Lee on Inspiration, Appendix M; Jeremiah Jones's Vindication of St. Matthew ; Ewald, Die drei Erst. Ev. ; and Jah-biich d. Bibl. Wissensch. 1848^9.