the author of it, but they knew also that there wae a Hebrew Goapel in existence, and that thie WM, rightly ~r wrongly, re-ported to be written by St. Matthew. They 8.l!l!umed the accuracy of the report, and'suppo11ed that it must have been the original form of the Firet Goepel. But their a&mmption wu mieta.ken. If so, it is natural for us to go a step further, and identify this Hebrew Gospel with the 'Gospel according to the Hebreweti so that the mistake of Papiae and the others will be practically identical with that of Epiphanine and Jerome. It must be observed, however, that of the writers quoted above, Origen and Eusebiue were well acquainted with the• Goepel according to the Hebrews,' and that they did not think of identifying this with the original of Matthew. Further, it is clear that they had never seen the Hebrew original of the First Gospel, notwith- standing that they fully believed that it once existed. They may, there- fore, have been only reproducing the Church's opinion of their time, without any independent reasons for their belief. Thie third solution is certainly the most free from diffi<iu.ltiel!,
V. 0A.NONICITY, ·J.t,J
§ 16. It has been abundantly shown, even by the paseages already adduced for other purposes, that this Gospel was unanimously accepted in the early Church. Probably also it is the very earliest of all: the New Testament writings that is quoted as ScriptnrE!, for the •Epistle QfBarnabae' (placed by Bishop Lightfoot 2 during the rei~ of V eepasian, A.n, 70-79) distinctly refers to it in this way, introducing a q~otation from it (elf. xxii. 14) by the phrase, "88 it is written." 8 l The. Gospel e.ooording to the Hebrews' has only come down to·us'in :frB'g:ments which
ba.ve been preserved in Greek or Latin writers for the strangeness of _their: teaching, so that we have but a very impe:rfect knowledge of its general contents. T_h~ impres~i~n which the fragments give is the.t they are distinctly later than our sober canonical Gospels. The fre.gment.s are collected most conveniently in Bishop Westcott'& • Introduction,~ .Appendix D ; Nicholson's • Goapel according to the Hebrews' (1879); and He.ndmann's • Das Hebrii.er- Evangelium' (Leipzig, 1888)- ' ... ;i: • Compare the Appendix publiBhed in 'Clement of Rome' (ii. 509, edit.1890). ,The date at whioh Bishop Lightfoot wrote this fragment, for it is hardly more, was, says the editor, e.ppa.rently before the publication of Gebhardt e.nd He.me.ck's.edition of Barnabe.s (1878). Perhaps it was written in view of the accompwhment of his proIDise me.de in 1875, referred to in the next note. •• • • OpotTlx,r~iu• µ:f,run &.s -yrypar'rtu 1r0Mol KAf/'rOl l,J\.l-yo, Ii~ /1<Af1<'rol dpe8wµf" (' Bam.,' § iv.). Bishop Lightfoot ('Essays,' p. 177; cf. e.lso his 'Clement,' i.10, edit. 1890) writes as follows of this reference and another in § v. to Luke v. 13 (Me.tt. ix'. l;J, only in the Received Text) :- •• ' "The Gospel of St. Matthew is twice quoted in the' Epistle of Barne.bas' [§§ 4, 5]; and .in the first pa888.ge the quotation is introduced by the common formula of BOripture.l refer, ence, • as it is written.' To what contortions· onr author [the author of 'Bupeme.ture.l Religion'] pute his argument, when dealing with that epistle, in the ve.in attempt to escape the grip of hard fact, I shall have occasion to show when the proper time comes. At present it is soflicient to say that the only ground for refusing to accept Bt. Matthew as the ilUurce of these two quotations, which a.re found there, ls the assumption that Bt. Matthew THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW. xix
VI. To WHOM wAs THE GOSPEL FIRST ADDRESSED ? § 17, Evidently, from its whole· tone, Jewish Christiane were chiefly thought of, but the fact that Gentile Christiane seem to have been included (of. § 12) points to the communities addressed being not limited to those in Palestine, It is true that eh. xxiv. 26, "the wilder- ness" and" the tombs," and perhaps also eh. xxiv. 20 (for we may suppose that the Palestinian Jews observed the sabbath more strictly than those exposed to Gentile influences) suggest rather Palestinian readers ( cf. also oh. x. 41, note), but, first, these verses are in a Discourse, and there- fore probably belong to the sources rather than to the Gospel itself; and, secondly, with the close intercourse between the Jews of Palestine and those of the Dispersion, whatever was said specially to the former would be of the deepest interest and importance also to the latter.
VII. THE PLACE OF WRITING, § 18. Thie can be only conjectured, for the evidence is at most but negative. If the Goepel was, like the Epistle of St. Jamee ( J as. i. 1), written for Jewish Christiane of the Dispersion, there is no reason to suggest Palestine rather than any other country, save that Palestine would naturally be the home to which St. Matthew would return when oppor- tunity offered. It should be observed that the phrase, "that land," in eh. ix. 26, 31, excludes Galilee or perhaps Northern Palestine. There seems nothing to forbid the supposition that H was written in Jerusalem.
VIII. THE TIME OF WRITING, § 19. Thie also can only be conjectured. If the date assigned to the • Epistle of Barnabas' (flide supra,§ 16) be right, and if his quotation can be fully acor..,pted as showing that this Gospel was already in existence, we have ae an inferior limit the year 79 A,D, But in both particulars so much doubt exists that not much dependence can be placed upon this argument. Such others as there are give us no great exactness, but suggest an inferior limit of about the same date. 'fhe First Gospel, as well as the Second and could not at this early date be regarded e.s 'Scripture.' In other words, it is a petitio pr1 ncipii." B. Weiss ('Introd. New Test.,' i. 36, Hodder e.nd Stoughton, 1887) appeo.rs to think that the author of the epistle did not quote the saying as frow Mo.tthew, but ns from the Old Testament, by an error of memory (cf. o.lso Bishop Westcott, ' Cu non,' p. 62, edit. 1881 ). For Weise rejecte the common rationalistic opinion tbut he took it from 4 Esdr. ,iii. 3 (of. Do.vidson, 'Introd.,' i. 368). With this quotation by 'Bame.ho.a' may be cow pared two pasengee in' 2 Clem.,'§ ii. (A.D. 130-150), where the words," I came not to cull the righteous, but sinners" (!\fork ii. 17, or pe!'ho.ps eh. ix. 13), are introduced by the formula, h,pa. -ypa.,P~ 'A-'-yE,, and § xiii., where the eo.ying found in Luke vi. 32, 35 is introduced by 11.i-y« d flE0r, marking it 11s ono of -ra. 11.&-y,a. nii 8Eoii referred to only fivo lines before (~-ide Dishop Lightfoot, in loc.). xl INTRODUCTION TO