The Pulpit Commentary — Matthew — Volume 1 — Section 3

Most of these marks of an eye-witnees give us no further help towa.rds disoovering the original narrator than by showing us that he must have been among the twelve, but acoording to two of them he must have been among those three, viz. Pete:r, James, and John, who were with our Lord both in Jairus' house (Mark v. 37; Luke viii. 51) and at the Transfiguration (the Triple Tradition, Mark ix. 2). But of these three apostles there is no reason for preferring St. Jamee (though the fact of his early death is not a great difficulty), and the style and character of St. John's writing is so well known to us from the Fourth Goepel, hie Epistles, and the Apocalypse, that it is impossible to attribute the Triple Tradition to him. But St. Peter suits the phenomena in every way. He was present on all the occasions, including perhaps (John i. 41) that of the testimony of the Baptist; and no one is more likely to have recorded his words at the Transfiguration, or the words addressed to him at his denial of his Master, than himself. Fully in accordance with this is the fact that that Gospel (Mark) which keeps most exclusively to the Triple Tradition, and which most often sup- plements it by further undoubted signs of an eye-witness, is the one which has from the time of Papias onward 1 been attributed specially to the influence of St. Peter. Although, therefore, it is not a matter that admits of absolute demonstration, yet it may be ooncluded with comparative certainty that the first and chief basis of the First Gospel, what I have called the Historical Framework, is derived ultimately from this apostle.,i (2) The Discourses. This second source is much more the subject of present controversy than the first, it being very hard to determine whether the existing discourses represent a distinct source used by the composer of the First Gospel, or are merely his own arrangement of certain sayings of the Lord found by him in various connexions. § 5. It must be frankly confessed that we get no assistance upon this subject from external evidence. It has been supposed, indeed, that Papia.s ( circa A,D. 130) alludes to such a collection of the Lord's utterances both in the very name of his work (Aoy{wv KvpuiKwv "Ebfr'lcnc;) and in his state- ment that" Matthew composed TO. My,a in the Hebrew tongue" (Eusebius, • Ob. Hist.,' iii. 39) 8 ; but Bishop Lightfoot has demonstrated (' Essays on Supernatural Religion,' p. 173, sqq.) that My,a is equivalent to "Divine oracles," and that these are not to be limited to sayings only, but include just such narratives as we have in the Gospel generally. ThUB the 1 Eusebius, ' Ch. Hist.,' iii. 39. 2 For whom the Fre.mowork we.s origine.lly composed is another question. One phrase in it, "the rive1' Jorde.n" (oh, iii s·: Me.rk i. 5)-for which there seems to be no pe.re.llel in Jewish writers-suggests the.t in the form used e.s one of the sources of our Gospels (tiide infra) it we.s intended for non-Po.lestinio.n, o.nd in fa.et for Gentile, Christie.us (since e.11 Jewish Ohristie.ns would know whe.t the Jorde.n wo.s); but this is e.ltogether too slight a point upon which to build e.n argument. • Vide infra, § 14. He e.lso (if lwylow e.nd not 1'.&-,oiv be the right ree.ding) speaks of St. Peter prce.ohing with reference to the immedie.te needs of his hee.rers, e.nd not intending to givo e. consecutive record of" the Dominiosl nrafllea" (-rwv Kvpuu,oiv 71.o-yloiv).  .-1 INTRODUCTION TO