THE
PULPIT COMMENTARY, EDITED IlY THE
VERY REV. H. D. M. SPENCE, D.D., DEAN OP GLOUCESTER;
AND BY THE
REV. JOSEPH S, EXELL, M.A.
WITH
INTRODUCTIONS BY THE
VERY REV. F. W. FARRAR, D.D., F.R.S., DEAN OF CANTERBURY. RIGHT REV. H. COTTERILL, D.D., F.R.S.E. VERY REV. PRINCIPAL J. TULLOCH, D.D. REV. CANON G. RAWLINSON, M.A.. REV. A. PLUMMER, M.A., D.D.
NEW EDITION.
FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY LONDON AND NEW YORK 1907 FEINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWRS AND SONS, LIMITBD, LONDON AND BBCCLES.
(7Je rlrAu oflrtuulalion anti ,-ep,-oduetlon an f'Utrwd,) THE
PULPIT COMMENTARY, EDITED BT Tml
VERY REY. H. D. M. SPENCE, D.D., DEAN o-, GLOUCEIFI'D:
AND BY TBB
REY. JOSEPH S. EXELL, M.A.
ST. MATTHEW. (!Sxpos(tion BY REV. A. LUKYN WILLIAMS, M..A.., PRINCIPAL 0-, TIIB HEBREW .IIIBSIONABY OOLLEGB o-, THB LONDON SOOlllTY FOB PIIO.IIOTING OB:BIBTUNITY A.MONGST TD IEWL
111!om£lttfcs BY REV. B. C. CAFFIN, M.A., •VICAR 011' NORTIL!.LLERTON AND RUBAL DBAN; LA.TIii l'ELI,OW AND T1JTOB or WOBOESTEII COLLEGE, OUOBD.
lt1omilies b)1 1:Tatious ~utbotS. REV. PROF. W. F. ADENEY, M.A. REV. PROF. MARCUS DODS, D.D. REV. P. O. B.ARKER, M.A., LL.B. REV. J. A. MACDONALD. BEV. B. TUCK, B.A.
VOL. L
NEW EDITION,
FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY LONDON AND NEW YORK 1907 THE
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST, MATTHEW. INTRODUCTION.
Sm.nu.BY Oll' IE'l'BoDuOTiol!f. §§ 1-3. The constituent parts of the First Gospel. § 1. The Framework. § 2. The Discourses. § 3. Matter peculiar to the First GospoL §§ 4-9. These represent differfflt BO'U'l'ces. § 4. The Framework : to whom it may be traced. §§ 6-7. The Discourses. § 6. External evidence fails us. §§ 6, 7. Internal evidence. § 6. Negative: the First Gospel considered in itself. the First Gospel considered in relation to the 'l'hird. § 7. Positive, especially in re doublets. § 8. Matter peculiar to the First Gospel. § 9. These sources were probably oral §§ 10-15. The autlwrship of the present Gospel. §§ 10, 11. Preliminary inquiry apart from the question of its ori!rlnal 0 lanruage. 0 § 10. Internal evidence is purely negative. §11. External evidence, §§ 12-15. Wnat was the original language of this Gospel , § 12. Internal evidence points to a Greek original. §§ 13, 14. External evidence. § 13. A. Probability of the existence of an Aramaic Gospe\ confirmed by recent investigations. § 14. B. Direct external evidence. § 16. Solutions. § 16. Canonicity. § 17. To whom was the Gospel addressed? § 18. Place of writing. § 19. Time of writing. § 20. Life of St. Matthew. § 21. The meaning of the phrase, "the kingdom of heaven.• § 22. l'lan of the Gospel. li INTRODUCTION TO
I. THE CoNsTITOENT PARTS OF THE FmsT GosrEL. THE oonstitnent parts of the First Gospel, as it lies before us, a.re (1) the Historioe.l Fra.mework; (2) the Discourses; (3) the ma.tter peoulia.r to this GospeL It will be necessary to say e. few words a.bout each of these. § 1. (1) Tie Historical, FrameUJork. Upon comparing the First with the other two synoptio Gospels it will be seen tha.t there is running through them all a certain ontline of oommon matter, beginning with the baptism of our Lord. and tra.cing the more important events of his public life until his dea.th and resurrection, omitting, therefore, what preceded the 'baptism and what followed the resurrection. In ohe.raoter this Framework consistR of brief narratives, the connexion between which is not always apparent, and which have for their central point some ntterance of the Lord, remark- able for its importance and often also for its brevity.1 So far as this Framework is recorded in words or parts of words oommon to the three synoptist.s, it has been called by the name of" the Triple Tradition;" 2 but it mnst be noticed that this title is by its originator, Dr. E. A. Abbott,8 expressly limited to identity of language, and therefore fails to indicate fully the practical identity that often exists even when ve:rbal identity is wanting' ( cf. § 4). •• § 2. (2) The Diacour,ea. These are (a) the sermon on the mount (oh. v. 3-vii 27); (b) the commission to the disciples (eh. x. 5--42); (c) respecting John the Baptist ( eh. xi 7-19) ; ( d) against the. Pharisees 1 E.g. oh. viii. 2 : iL 2, 5, 6, 12, 1S, 17 ; iii S. 49.
• The following example will give a clear idea of what is intended :- llATT. viii 2, s. llA.B.x i 40, 41. LUKB v. 12, 19. And behold, there ea.me And there cometh to him And it came to pass, while to him a leper and wor- a leper, beseeching him, he w&& in one of the cities, be- llhipped him, aaying, Lord, and kneeling down to him; • hold, a ma.n full of leprosy: if thou wilt, thou oa.nst and s&ying unt.o him, If thou and when he saw Jesus, he make me olean. And he wilt, thou canst make me fell on his face, and besought ltnltohed forth his hand, elee.n. And being moved him, 1aying, Lord,~ thou wilt, and tuuahed him, uying, I with oompaseion, he thou c&nat make me· •olean will ; be thou ma.de clean. metehed fGrth his hand, And he stretohed forth his .bd lltraightwayhis leprOI)' and touched him, end 118.ith hand, and touohed him, Hying, was cle&.llad. unto lrim, I will; be thou I will ; be thou made olean. made clean. And straight- And. 1tra.ightwa.y the lepro11 way the leprOIIJ dep&rted departed from him. from him, and he w&& made clean. 'I'he Triple Tradition may be studied most conveniently in Mr. Bushbrooke'a' Byuop~cion' (Macmillan, 1880) : but those English readen1 who do not care about e~ctness of .det&il will perb&Jlll find BWlicient for their purpose in Abbott and Bushbrooke'a 'Oommon Trncli- tion of the Synoptic Gollpels' (Macmillan, 1884). • First in the • Encyclopredia Britannica,' edit. ix. voL L (1879). • Thus the Triple Tradition, in its narrowest 1181188, hardly takes 111 Into the narrative of the crncifi.riou ; but, DOtwithatancling aome transpositiom in Luke, the b/1,sia of the three narrativea of the cruoiflxion appea.n1 to be the same (cf. Hr. J.l'. H. Wood1' paper in 'Btudia Ilil,lica,' ii., 1890). THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO BT. MATTHEW. iii