[913] Comp. Matt. 15:2 with Mark 7:3, 4. The translation of the exclamation on the cross, Matt. 27:46, is intended for Greek Jews,

[913] Comp. Matt. 15:2 with Mark 7:3, 4. The translation of the exclamation on the cross, Matt. 27:46, is intended for Greek Jews,

[914] By Godet, Studies on the New Testament, p. 23.

[915] hina (or hopos)plerothe to rethen, ortote eplerothe to rethen. This formula occurs twelve times in Matthew (1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17, 13:35; 21:4; 26:56; 27:9, 35), six times in John, but nowhere in Luke nor in Mark; for Mark 15:28 (kai eplerothe he graphe k. t. l.) in the text. rec. is spurious and probably inserted from Luke 22:37.

[916] Comp. Matt. 2:1-12; 8:11, 12; 11:21; 12:41; 15:21-28; Matt. 23 and 24; 28:19, 20.

[917] For a full analysis see the critical monograph of Weiss, and Lange's Matth., pp. 43-46. Keim, who builds his Geschichte Jesu--the ablest and least objectionable of the purely critical biographies of Christ,--chiefly on Matthew, praises its plan as sorgfältig, einfach und einleuchtend, durchsichtig und sehr wohl durchgeführt (I. 52). He divides it into two chief sections: the entry upon the public ministry with the Bussruf and Reichspredigt (4:17: apo tote erxato ho Iesous kerussein, k. t. l.), and the entry upon the path of death with the Leidensruf and the Zukunftspredigt (Matt16:21: apo tote erxato ho Ies., k. t. l.). He also finds an ingenious symmetry of numbers in the collocation of 10 miracles, 8 [7] beatitudes, 7 woes, 4 and 3 parables, 3 temptations, etc.

[918] For particulars on the style of Matthew and the other Evangelists see my Companion to the Study of the Greek Testament (third ed., 1888), pp. 43 sqq.

[919] See my book on the Didache (N. York, third ed., 1889), pp. 61-88.

[920] Ep. Barn., c. 4, at the close:prosechomen, mepote, hos gegraptai, polloi kletoi, oligoi de eklektoi heurethomen. Since the discovery of the entire Greek text of this Epistle in the Codex Sinaiticus (1859), where it follows the Apocalypse, there can be no doubt any more about the formula gegraptai(scriptum est). The other passage quoted in Matt. 5 is from Matt. 9:13: ouk helthen kalesai dikaious alla hamartolous. The Ep. of Barnabas dates from the close of the first or the beginning of the second century. Some place it as early as a.d. 70, others an late as 120. The Didache is older.

[921] Euseb., H. E., III. 39: Ioannou men akoustes,Polukarpou de hetairos gegonos.. Whether this " John" is the apostle or the mysterious " Presbyter John," is a matter of dispute which will be discussed in the second volume in the section on Papias. Eusebius himself clearly distinguishes two Johns. The date of Papias must be set back several years with that of Polycarp, his " companion," who suffered martyrdom in 155 (not 164). The Chronicon Paschale which represents Papias as martyred at Pergamum about the same time, mistook PAPULOS in Eusebius, H. E., IV. 15 (at the close), for PAPIAS. See Lightfoot, " Contemp. Review" for August, 1875, p. 381 sqq.

[922] Eus., Hist. Eccl., III. 39: Matthaios men houn Hebraidi dialek'to ta logia sunataxato (or, according to the reading of Heinichen, I. 150, sunagrapsato), ermeneuse d' auta hos hen dunatos hekastos . This testimony has been thoroughly discussed by Schleiermacher (in the "Studien und Kritiken," 1832), Holtzmann (Synopt. Evang., 248 sqq.), Weizsäcker (Untersuchungen üb. d. ev. Gesch., 27 sqq.). Ewald (Jahrbücher, VI., 55 sqq.), Zahn (in "Stud. u. Kritiken," 1866, 649 sqq.), Steitz (ibid., 1868, 63 sqq.), Keim (Gesch. Jesu v. Naz., I., 56 sqq.), Meyer (Com. Evang. Matth., 6th ed. (1876), 4 sqq.), Lightfoot (in "Contemp. Review" for August, 1875, pp. 396-403), and Weiss (Das Matthäusevang., 1876, 1 sqq.).

[923] So Schleiermacher who first critically examined this passage (1832), Schneckenbarger (1834), Lachmann (1835), Credner, Wieseler. Ewald, Reuss, Weizsäcker, Holtzmann, Meyer (p. 11). It is supposed that Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was similar to the lost work of Papias, with this difference that the former was simply a collection (suntaxis or sungraphe), the latter an interpretation (exegesis), of the Lord's discourses (ton logion kuriakon).

[924] So Lücke (1833), Kern, Hug, Harless, Anger, Bleek, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Lange, Ebrard, Thiersch, Keim, Zahn, Lightfoot, Thomson, Keil, Weiss (but the last with a limitation to a meagre thread of narrative). The chief arguments are: 1, that all early writers, from Irenaeus onward, who speak of a Hebrew Matthew mean a regular Gospel corresponding to our Greek Matthew; 2, the parallel passage of Papias concerning the Gospel of Mark (Eus., III. 39), where apparently "the Lord's discourses" (logoi kuriakoi) includes actions as well as words. ta hupo tou Christou he lechthenta he prachthenta. But it is said somewhat disparagingly, that Mark (as compared with Matthew) did not give "an orderly arrangement of the Lord's words" (ouch hosper suntaxin ton kuriakon poioumenos logon). The wider meaning of logia is supported by Rom. 3:1, where ta logia tou theou, with which the Jews were intrusted, includes the whole Old Testament Scriptures; and Hebr. 5:12, " the first principles of the oracles of God". (ta stoicheia -ite-is arches ton logion tou theou). Lightfoot quotes also passages from Philo, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Origen (l.c., p. 400 sq.).

[925] So Wetstein, Hug, De Wette, Bleek, Ewald, Ritschl, Holtzmann, Keim, Delitzsch, Keil. Some of these writers assume that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was an Ebionite translation and recension of the Greek Matthew. So Delitzsch and Keil (Com. p. 23). Keim is mistaken when he asserts (I. 54) that scarcely anybody nowadays believes in a Hebrew Matthew. The contrary opinion is defended by Meyer, Weiss, and others, and prevails among English divines.

[926] Eusebius (III. 39) calls him sphodra smikros ton noun, " very narrow-minded," but on account of his millenarianism, as the context shows. In another place he calls him a man of comprehensive learning and great knowledge of the Scriptures (III. 39: ta tanta malista logiotatos kai tes graphes eidemon ).

[927] Adv. Haer., III1, 1: ho men` de Matthaios en tois Ebraiois te idia dialekto auton kai graphen exenenken euangeliou, tou Petrou kai Paulou en Rh ome euangelizomenon kai themeliounton ten ekklesian. The chronological reference is so far inaccurate, as neither Peter nor Paul were personally the founders of the church of Rome, yet it was founded through their influence and their pupils, and consolidated by their presence and martyrdom.

[928] He is reported by Eus., H.E. 10, to have found in India (probably in Southern Arabia) the Gospel according to Matthew in Hebrew (Hebraion grammasi), which had been left there by Bartholomew, one of the apostles. This testimony is certainly independent of Papias. But it may be questioned whether a Hebrew original, or a Hebrew translation, is meant.

[929] In Eus., H. E., VI. 25. Origen, however, drew his report of a Hebrew Matthew not from personal knowledge, but from tradition (hos en paradosei mathon).

[930] H. E., III. 24: Matthaios men gar proteron Hebraiois keruxas, hos emelle kai eph heterous ienai, patrio glotte graphe paradous to kat auton euangelion, to leipon te autou parousia toutois, aph' hon estelleto, dia tes ; graphes apeplerou. " M., having first preached the Gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his book."

[931] Catech. 14: Matth. ho grapsas to euangelion Hebraidi glosse.

[932] Haer., XXX. 3; comp. LI. 5.

[933] Praef. in Matth.; on Matt. 12:13; Dial. c Pelag., III, c. 2; De Vir. illustr., c. 2 and 3. Jerome's testimony is somewhat conflicting. He received a copy of the Hebrew M. from the Nazarenes in Beraea in Syria for transcription (392). But afterward (415) he seems to have found out that the supposed Hebrew Matthew in the library of Pamphilus at Caesarea was "the Gospel according to the Hebrews" (Evangelium juxta, or secundum Hebraeos), which he translated both into Greek and Latin (De vir. ill., c. 2). This would have been useless, if the Hebrew Gospel had been only the original of the canonical Matthew. See Weiss, l.c., pp. 7 sq.

[934] The fragments of this Gospel ("quo utuntur Nazareni et Ebionitae," Jerome) were collected by Credner, Beiträge, I. 380 sqq.; Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test. extra can. rec., IV., and especially by Nicholson in the work quoted above. It is far superior to the other apocryphal Gospels, and was so much like the Hebrew Matthew that many confounded it with the same, as Jerome observes, ad Matth. 12:13 ("quod vocatur a plerisque Matthaei authenticum") and C. Pelag., III. 2. The Tübingen view (Baur, Schwegler, Hilgenfeld) reverses the natural order and makes this heretical gospel the Urmatthaeus (proto-Matthew), of which our Greek Matthew is an orthodox transformation made as late as 130; but Keim (I., 29 sqq.), Meyer (p. 19), and Weise (pp. 8 and 9) have sufficiently refuted this hypothesis. Nicholson modifies the Tübingen theory by assuming that Matthew wrote at different times the canonical Gospel and those portions of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which run parallel with it.

[935] See Holtzmann, p. 269, and Ewald's "Jahrbücher," IX. 69 sqq.

[936] So Meyer (p. 12, against Holtzmann), and Lightfoot (p. 397 against the author of "Supern. Rel."). Schleiermacher was wrong in referring hermeneuse to narrative additions.

[937] Matt. 21:41: kakous kakos apolesei, pessimos pessime (or malos male) perdet. The E. Revision reproduces the paronomasis (which is obliterated in the E. V.) thus: "He will miserably destroy those miserable men." Other plays on words: Petros and petra, 16:18; battologein and polulogia , 6:7; aphanizousin hopos phanosi, "they make their faces unappearable (disfigure them), that they may appear,"6:16; comp. 24:7. Weiss derives the originality of the Greek Matthew from the use of the Greek Mark; but this would not account for these and similar passages.

[938] Jerome first observed that Matthew follows not Septuaginta translatorum auctoritatem, sed Hebraicam (De vir. illustr., c. 3). Credner and Bleek brought out this important difference more fully, and Holtzmann (Die Syn. Evang., p. 259), Ritschl, Köstlin, Keim (I., 59 sqq), Meyer (p. 9), and Weiss (p. 44) confirm it. But Hilgenfeld and Keim unnecessarily see in this fact an indication of a later editor, who exists only in their critical fancy.

[939] Jerome acknowledges the uncertainty of the translator, De vir. ill., c. 3: Quis postea in Graecum transtulerit [the Hebrew Matthew], non satis certum est." It has been variously traced to James, the brother of the Lord Synops. Pseudo-Athan.), to a disciple of Matthew, or to another disciple.

[940] So Bengel, Guericke, Schott, Olshausen, Thiersch.

[941] Meyer and Weiss regard the reports of the resurrection of the dead at the crucifixion and the story of the watch, Matt. 27:52, 62-66, as post-apostolic legends; but the former is not more difficult than the resurrection of Lazarus, and the latter has all the marks of intrinsic probability. Meyer also gratuitously assumes that Matthew must be corrected from John on the date of the crucifixion; but there is no real contradiction between the Synoptic and the Johannean date. See p. 133. Meyer's opinion is that Matthew wrote only a Hebrew collection of the discourses of our Lord, that an unknown hand at an early date added the narrative portions, and another anonymous writer, before the year 70, made the Greek translation which was universally and justly, as far as substance is concerned, regarded as Matthew's work (pp. 14, 23). But these are an pure conjectures.