RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Blatins Matthew
graph copy of Matthew with the remains of Barnabas, nor a suggestion that eastern Gospels have been thought, contrary to fact, to build upon a Hebrew original. Eusebius reports {Hist, eccl., V., x. 3) that Pantsenus, an early apostle to India, found among the Christians a copy of Matthew in Hebrew which had been left by the Apostle Bartholomew and preserved for about a century. Jerome reports (De vir. ill., iii.) that in 392-393 a.d. in the library of Pamphilus at Caesarea there was a copy of the original Hebrew text, and that he had a rescript of another copy which the Nazarenes of Berea had lent him. But this can be pressed no further than that Pantsenus is a witness for the existence of a Gospel in Hebrew letters held to be the Hebrew Matthew, while the Gospel referred to by Jerome is doubtless the Gospel according to the Hebrews so often mentioned by him, reported by Eusebius as used by Hegesippus (Hist, eccl., IV., xxii. 8) and referred to by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Epiphanius (cf. Zahn, Kanon, ii. 2, pp. 642-723), which diverged widely from the canonical Matthew. Jerome describes this as written " in the Chaldaic and Syriac language but in Hebrew letters," and as the only Gospel used by the Christians of Palestine who spoke Hebrew. It is probable that the Gospel used by the Nazarenes was that by Matthew, that they used this alone and not the fourfold Gospel was due to poverty, and that in accordance with the naivete' of the times they " corrected " it to suit their own doctrinal tendencies. But as a sure witness to the original Hebrew Matthew the Gospel of the Hebrews is not available.
Since the Reformation belief in a Hebrew Matthew has been badly shaken. The originality of the Greek was a fundamental proposition with the Reformers. A reaction against this dogmatic assertion came in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when emphasis was laid 2. Criticism upon indications of translation in the versus Greek and attempts were made to re- Tradition, construct the Aramaic basis. These attempts were destined to failure for two reasons: (1) the canonical Gospel in its present form can not be the work of an apostle like Matthew who was an eye and ear witness of Jesus, since legend, misunderstanding, and irrelevancy are too prominent; (2) it is too closely dependent upon Mark not merely in choice of matter and arrangement but in verbal detail. Conservative criticism has sought to minimize the weight of these two sets of facts by supposing that the translator of the Hebrew Matthew had the Gospel of Mark before him and was influenced by it in his translation. But the identity of the present Matthew with the assumed Hebrew is no longer maintained, a "relationship " simply is asserted, and this, unfortunately, is no easier to establish than identity. Truly, many foolish arguments against the apostolicity of Matthew have been advanced which it is not necessary to refute, particularly those drawn from comparison with the Fourth Gospel and from the first two chapters and the story of the temptation. But many of the additions to the Synoptic story of the passion bear the marks of invention which
in some cases can be traced to a tendency to shift the weight of blame for Christ's death, and other episodes are suspicious, such as the opening of the graves (xxvii. 52-53). Similarly, such passages as xii. 40 are hardly to be attributed to a disciple, and a clear exposition of the consciousness of Jesus might be looked for from an apostle.
The relation between Matthew and Mark is totally destructive of tradition. Under the Tubingen hypothesis that Mark was a condensation from Matthew and Luke, both sources of Mark were carried back to apostolic origination. Since that hypothesis has been given up, those who hold the priority of Matthew over Mark do it at the expense of the tradition respecting both, while 3. The Zahn supposes that Mark, the disciple
Sources, of Peter, writing in Greek slavishly used the Hebrew Matthew, while the translator of the latter in turn used the Greek Mark. But comparison of Matthew and Mark and of Luke and Mark show that Mark is the earlier, since Matthew and Luke introduce corrections and explanations. On the other hand, passages show independent treatment by Matthew, as in chap, xiii., where Matthew, though following the thread of the Marcan chain of parables, makes additions. If Matthew, therefore, appears as the work of an author comparatively distant from the events he narrates and also dependent upon Mark for form and content, it can no longer be ascribed to the Apostle Matthew writing in Hebrew. Still, the Papias tradition may have a kernel of fact. For while Matthew is in great part parallel to Mark, it contains large and important portions not derived from the second Gospel. Such are chaps, i.-ii., v.-vii., x., parts of xxiii.-xxv., many of the parables, and bits of history like viii. 5-13; and in these matters Matthew is often in company with Luke. But since this close relationship between Matthew and Luke is limited to definite sections while in other parts the relation of dependence is out of the question, the solution can not be reached by the hypothesis of combination between Matthew and Luke, and there is left the supposition that these two Gospels employed another source besides Mark. It is the misfortune of the two-document theory that it has been bound up with a perverted explanation of Papias and with the supposed tradition that Matthew wrote only the words (logia) of Jesus. In fact, it is one of the surest results of a criticism unencumbered by tradition and using internal evidences that it brings into use a lost writing which deals with the words of Jesus. That there were in existence collections of logia is shown by the Oxyrhynchus fragments (cf. B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt, Logia Jesu, London, 1897). The usage of Paul (I Thess. iv. 15) and of the Gospels themselves in not always giving the historical framework of individual sayings or in differing in the historical setting supports the hypothesis of a logia source, and it is clear from comparison of Matthew and Luke that this source had formulas of introduction which both Gospels have employed. This document may have contained many things which it is now impossible to prove were in it. It can not be decided whether Mark employed it; it is improbable, however, that
Matthew
Matthew of Westminster