1. Some critics, admitting the apostolic antiquity of a part of the Gospel, apply to Matthew, as they do to Luke, the gratuitous supposition of a later editor or compiler, who, by augmenting and altering the earlier document, produced our present Gospel. Hilgenfeld (p. 106) endeavors to separate the older from the newer work, and includes much historical matter in the for- mer ; since Schleiermacher, several critics, misinterpret- ing the Xoyia of Papias, consider the older document to have been a collection of "discourses" only. We are asked to believe that in the 2d centurj^, for two or more of the Gospels, new works, differing from them both in matter and compass, were substituted for the old, and that about the end of the 2d century our present Gos- pels were adopted by authority to the exclusion of all others, and that henceforth the copies of the older works entirely disappeared, and have escaped the keenest research ever since. Eichhorn's notion is that " the Church" sanctioned the four canonical books, and by its authority gave them exclusive currency ; but there ex- isted at that time no means for convening a council, and if such a body could have met and decided, it would not have been able to force on the churches books dis- crepant from the older copies to which they had long been accustomed, without discussion, protest, and resist- ance (see Norton, Genuineness, chap.i). That there was no such resistance or protest we have ample evidence. IrenaBus knows the four Gospels only {Hcer. i-ii, chap. i). Tatian, who died A.D. 170, composed a Gospel harmony, lost to us, under the name of Diatessaron (Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iv, 29). Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, about 168, wrote a commentary on the Gospels (Jerome, Ad A Ifjasiam, and Be Vir. ill.). Clement of Alexandria (flourished about 189) knew the four Gospels, and dis- tinguished between them and the uncanonical gospel according to the Egyptians, Tertullian (born about 160) knew the four Gospels, and was called on to vindi- cate the text of one of them against the corruptions of Marcion. See Luke. Origen (born 185) calls the four Gospels the four elements of the Christian faith ; and it appears that his copy of Matthew contained the gene- alogy {Comm. in Joan.). Passages from Matthew are quoted by Justin IMartyr, by the author of the letter to Diognetus (see in Otto's Justin Martyr, vol. ii), by Hegesippus, Irenjeus, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Clement, Tertullian, and Origen, It is not merely from the matter, but the manner of the quotations, from the calm appeal as to a settled authority, from the absence of all hints of doubt, that we regard it as proved that the book we possess had not been the subject of any sudden change. Was there no heretic to throw back with double force against Tertullian the charge of alter- ation which he brings against Marcion ? Was there no orthodox Church or member of a Church to complain that, instead of the Matthew and the Luke that had been taught to them and their fathers, other and differ- ent writings were now imposed on themV Neither the one nor the other appears.
The citations of Justin Martyr, very important for this subject, have been thought to indicate a source dif- ferent from the Gospels which we now possess; and by the word uTroj^n'i)jio^nviiaTa (memoirs), he has been supposed to indicate that lost work. We have not space here to show that the remains referred to are the Gos- pels which we possess, and not any one book; and that though Justin quotes the Gospels very loosely, so that his words often bear but a slight resemblance to the original, the same is true of his quotations from the
MATTHEW
896
MATTHEW
Septuasjint. He transposes words, brings separate pas- sages together, attributes the words of one prophet to another, and even quotes the Pentateuch for facts not recorded in it. Many of the quotations from the Sep- tuajtjint are indeed precise, but these are chiefly in the Dialogue with Trypho, where, reasoning with a Jew on the O. T., he does not trust his memory, but considts the text. This question is disposed of in Norton's Genuine- ness, vol. i, and in Hug's Einleitwig.
2. The genuineness of the first two chapters has been called in question, but on no sufficient grounds. See Meyer's note. Comment, i, 65, who adduces as arguments for their genuineness, that — (1.) they are found in all MSS. and ancient versions, and are quoted by the fa- thers of the 2d and 3d centuries, Irenseus, Clem. Alex., etc., and are referred to by Celsus (Orig. C. Cels. i, 38 ; ii, 32). (2.) The facts they record are perfectly in keep- ing with a Gospel written for Jewish Christians. (3.) The opening of chap, iii, tv ci raig ijfx. Ik., refers back, by its construction, to the close of chap, ii ; and iv, 13 would be unintelligible without ii, 23. (4.) There is no difference between the diction and constructions and those in the other parts of the Gospel.
The opponents of these two chapters rest chiefly on tneir alleged absence from the Gospel of the Hebrews in use among the Ebionites (Epiphanius, Ucei: xxx, 13). But Epiphanius describes that book as " incomplete, adulterated, and mutilated;" and as the Ebionites re- garded Jesus simply as the human Messiah co-ordinate with Adam and Moses, the absence of the two chapters may readily be accounted for on doctrinal grounds. The same explanation may be given for the alleged absence from the Diatessaron of Tatian of these chapters, and the corresponding parts of Luke containing the geneal- ogy, and all the other passages which show that the Lord was born of the seed of David " according to the flesh" (Theoiioret, Hcer. fab. i, 20). The case must be a weak one which requires us to appeal to acknowledged heretics for the correction of our canon. The supposed discrepancy between the opening chapters of Matthew and Luke, which has led even professor Norton to fol- low Strauss, Paulus, Schleiermacher, etc., in rejecting them, has been abundantly discussed in all recent com- mentaries, and by Wieseler (^Synopsis), Neander {Life of Christ), Mill {Pantheism), Kern {Ursprimg d. Ev. Mat.), etc., as well as in the various answers to Strauss. It is sufficient here to note the following points in reply : (1.) Such questions are by no means confined to these chap- ters, but are found in places of which the apostolic ori- gin is admitted. (2.) The treatment of Luke's Gospel by Marcion suggests how the Jewish Christians dropped out of their version an account which they would not accept. (3.) Prof. Norton stands alone, among those who object to the two chapters, in assigning the gene- alogy to the same author as the rest of the chapters (Hilgenfeld, p. 4G, 47). (4.) The difficulties in the har- mony are all reconcilable, and the day has passed, it may be hoped, when a passage can be struck out, against all the MSS. and the testimony of early writers, for sub- jective impressions about its contents.