The Gospel (that is, good tidings) means a book containing the good tidings of our salvation by Jesus Christ.
St. Mark in his Gospel presupposes that of St. Matthew, and supplies what is omitted therein. St. Luke supplies what is omitted by both the former: St. John what is omitted by all the three. St. Matthew particularly points out the fulfilling of the prophecies for the conviction of the Jews. St. Mark wrote a short compendium, and yet added many remarkable circumstances omitted by St. Matthew, particularly with regard to the apostles, immediately after they were called. St. Luke treated principally of the office of Christ, and mostly in a historical manner. St. John refuted those who denied his Godhead: each choosing to treat more largely on those things, which most suited the time when, and the persons to whom, he wrote.
The Gospel according to St. Matthew contains
I. The birth of Christ, and what presently followed it:— a. His genealogy Chap Matthew 1:1-17
b. His birth 18-25
c. The coming of the wise men Matthew 2:1-12 d. His flight into Egypt, and return 13-23 II. II. The introduction
c. His temptation and victory Matthew 4:1-11 III. The actions and words by which Jesus proved he was the Christ a. At Capernaum 12-16 Where we may observe
1. His preaching 17
2. Calling Andrew and Peter, James and John 18-22
3. Preaching and healing, with a great concourse of people 23-25
4. The rich man drawing back, and hence 16-22 Of the salvation of the rich 23-26 Of the reward of following Christ 27-30 Of the last and the first Matthew 20:1-16
5. The prediction itself 17-19
6. The request of James and John; humility enjoined 20-28
7. The two blind men cured 29-34 V.
V. Transactions at Jerusalem before his passion a. Sunday His royal entry into Jerusalem Matthew 21:1-11 His purging the temple 12-17
b. Monday The barren fig tree 18-22
c. Tuesday, transactions In the temple
1. The chief priests and elders confuted By a question concerning John's baptism 23-27 By the parables Of the two sons 28-32 Of the vineyard 33-44
2. Seek to lay hands on him 45-46
3. The parable of the marriage feast Matthew 22:1-14
4. He is questioned, concerning paying tribute 15-22 The resurrection 23-33 The great commandment 34-40
5. Christ's question concerning David's Lord 41-46 Caution concerning the scribes and Pharisees Matthew 23:1-12 Severe reproof of them 13-36 and of Jerusalem 37-39 Out of the temple:
1. His discourse of the destruction of Jerusalem, and the end of the world Matthew 24:1-51
2. The ten virgins, the talents; the last judgment Matthew 25:1-46
VI. His passion and resurrection
A. His passion, death, and burial Matthew 26:1-2 a. Wednesday His prediction Matthew 26:1-2 The consultation of the chief priests and elders 3-5 Judas bargains to betray him 6-16
b. Thursday
1. In the day time
The passover prepared 17-19
2. In the evening
The traitor discovered 20-25
The Lord's Supper 26-29
3. In the night
1. Jesus foretells the cowardice of the apostles 33-35
2. Is in agony 36-46
3. Is apprehended, reproves Peter and the multitude; is forsaken of all 47-56
4. Is led to Caiaphas, falsely accused, owns himself the Son of God, is condemned, derided 57-68
4. Pilate, though warned by his wife, condemns him 15-26
5. He is mocked and led forth 27-32
The third hour
The vinegar and gall: the crucifixion; his garments divided; the inscription on the cross; the two robbers; blasphemies 33-44 From the sixth to the ninth hour
The darkness, his last agony 45-49
2. His death 50
The veil rent, and a great earthquake 51-53
The centurion wonders; the women behold 54-56
3. His burial 57-61
d. Saturday The sepulchre secured 62-66
B. His resurrection
1. Testified to the women by an angel Matthew 28:1-8 By our Lord himself 9-10
2. Denied by his adversaries 11-15
3. Proved to his apostles 16-20
Adam Clarke
Preface to the Gospel of St. Matthew
CLA_MAT.PDF, source PDF p. 3
Editorial note: Source collation note — paragraph 2: “the time of christ, η παλαια διαθηκη, the old covenant; which”; “is in the greek η καινη διαθηκη, which we translate the”. paragraph 10: “master’s return, replied:- ω γερον, out~ ar”. paragraph 11: “out~ οδυσσευς ετι οικον ελευσεται. Ib. v. 266.”; “out~ οδυσσευς ετι οικον ελευσεται. ib. v. 266”. paragraph 14: “ευαγγελιονÈ δωρον (source keys requiring collation: euaggelionÈ)”. paragraph 18: “the sense of supplication, επι τοσαυταις πραξεσιν ευαγγελια μεν δις ηδη tequkamen-“relative to these”. source PDF page 3: “the time of Christ, η παλαια διαθηκη OLD COVENANT; which”. source PDF page 6: “master’s return, replied:- ω γερον ουτ͂ αρ͂ εγων ευαγγελιος τοδε τισω ουτ͂ οδυσσευς ετι οικον ελευσεται Ib. v. 266. Old”. source PDF page 7: “gives the following comment: ευαγγελιονÈ δωρον υπερ αγαθης ευαγγελιας “Euangelion signifies the reward (source keys requiring collation: euaggelionÈ)”; “the sense of supplication επι τοσαυταις πραξεσιν ευαγγελια μεν δις ηδη τεθυκαμεν -“relative to these”. Compared with CLA_MAT.PDF PDF p. 3, CLA_MAT.PDF PDF p. 6, CLA_MAT.PDF PDF p. 7. The source-font or layout comparison does not securely establish every letter, mark or local sequence in these passages. The original source pages remain necessary for details not established by the bounded corrections below. Additional-source visual collation: the independent 1846 Clarke New Testament, vol. I (New York: G. Lane & C. B. Tippett), establishes these bounded repairs: paragraph 10, scan leaf n83: “out~” → “ουτ’”; “ar~” → “αρ’”; “ευαγγελιος” → “ευαγγελιον” | paragraph 11, scan leaf n83: “out~” → “ουτ’”. The cited scan confirms the listed letters and elision marks. This is not a full accent-by-accent transcription or a certification of other words, references, or layout in the passages covered by this note; the remaining source-reading qualifications are retained. CLA_MAT.PDF, PDF page 3; CLA_MAT.PDF, PDF page 6; CLA_MAT.PDF, PDF page 7; Independent Clarke NT vol. I, 1846, scan leaf n83.
PREFACE TO THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW
THE general title of this latter collection of sacred books, which, as well as the former, all Christians acknowledge to have been given by immediate inspiration from God, is in the Greek η καινη διαθηκη, which we translate THE NEW TESTAMENT: but which should rather be translated THE NEW COVENANT; or, if it were lawful to use a periphrasis, the New Covenant, including a Testamentary Declaration and Bequest: for this is precisely the meaning of this system of justice, holiness, goodness, and truth. St. Paul, 2 Corinthians 3:14, calls the sacred books before the time of Christ, η παλαια διαθηκη, THE OLD COVENANT; which is a very proper and descriptive title of the grand subject of those books. This apostle evidently considers the Old Testaments and the New, as two covenants, Galatians 4:24; and, if comparing these two together, he calls one παλαιαν διαθηκην, the old covenant, the other καινην, the new; one πρωτην, the first, the other νεαν, that which is recent; in opposition to the old covenant, which was to terminate in the new, he calls this κρειττανα, better, more excellent, Hebrews 7:22; 8:6; and αιωνιον, everlasting, Hebrews 13:20, because it is never to be changed, nor terminate in any other; and to endure endlessly itself. The word covenant, from con together, and venio, I come, signifies a contract or agreement made between two parties; to fulfil the conditions of which, they are mutually bound. The old covenant, in its essential parts, was very simple. I WILL BE YOUR GOD. YE SHALL BE MY PEOPLE-the spirit of which was never changed. The people were to take Jehovah as the sole object of their religious worship; put their whole trust and confidence in him; serve him in his own way, according to the prescribed forms which he should lay before them. This was their part. On his side, God was to accept them as his people, give them his Spirit to guide them, his mercy to pardon them, his providence to support them, and his grace to preserve them unto eternal life. But all this was connected with the strict observance of a great variety of rites and ceremonies, at once expressive of the holiness of God, the purity of the Divine justice, and the exceeding sinfulness and utter helpless state of man. A great part of the four latter books of Moses is employed in prescribing and illustrating these rites and ceremonies; and what is called the new covenant is the complement and perfection of the whole.
The word διαθηκη, from δια and τιθημι, I lay down, signifies not only a covenant agreement, but also that disposal which a man makes of his secular matters during his life, which is to take place after his death. It answers to the Hebrew ברית berith, from בר bar, to purify, because, in making covenants, a sacrifice was usually offered to God, for the purification of the contracting parties; and hence the word ברית berith is frequently used to express not only the covenant itself, but also the sacrifice offered on the occasion. See below under GOSPEL; and see the notes on Genesis 6:18; 15:18; Exodus 29:45; Leviticus 26:15; and Deuteronomy 29:12, where every thing relative to this subject is minutely considered.
The term new covenant, as used here, seems to mean that grand plan of agreement or reconciliation which God made between himself and mankind, by the death of Jesus Christ; in consequence of which, all those who truly repent, and unfeignedly believe in the great atoning sacrifice, are purified from their sins, and united to God. Christ is called της διαθηκης καινης μεσιτης, the Mediator of the new covenant, Hebrews 9:15. And referring to the ratification of this new covenant or agreement, by means of his own death, in the celebration of his last supper, Christ calls the cup, το ποτεριον η καινη διαθηκη εν τω αιματι μον, this cup is the new covenant in my blood: i.e. an emblem or representation of the new covenant ratified by his blood. See Luke 22:20. And from these expressions, and their obvious meaning, the whole Christian Scriptures have obtained this title, THE NEW TESTAMENT, OR COVENANT, OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST.
Those writings, and the grand subject of them, which, previously to the New Testament times, were termed simply THE covenant; were, after the incarnation, called the OLD covenant, as we have already seen, to distinguish them from the Christian Scriptures, and their grand subject, which were called the NEW covenant; not so much because it was a new agreement, but rather a renewal of the old, in which the spirit, object, and design of that primitive covenant were more clearly and fully manifested. The particular title to each of the four following books, in most Greek MSS. and printed editions, is ευαγγελιον κατα
ματθαιονμαρκονλουκανιοαννην, which we translate, the Gospel according to Matthew-Mark-Luke-John; i.e. the gospel or history of our blessed Lord, as written and transmitted to posterity by each of these writers. Our word GOSPEL, which should be always written godspel, or godespel, comes from the Anglo-Saxon, and is compounded of [Anglo-Saxon], good, and [Anglo-Saxon] history, narrative, doctrine, mystery, or secret; and was applied by our ancestors to signify the revelation of that glorious system of truth, which had been, in a great measure, hidden or kept secret from the foundation of the world. Among Saxon scholars, the word GOSPEL has been variously explained. Mr. Somner, who writes it [Anglo-Saxon], explains it thus, Sermo Dei mysticus; Dei historia. “The mystic word of God; the history of God, or God’s history.” But he supposes that it may be compounded of [Anglo-Saxon] good, and [Anglo-Saxon], a message; and very properly observes, that [Anglo-Saxon] signifies, not only to preach, or proclaim the Gospel; but also to foretell, or predict; to prophesy, to divine: and in this latter sense the word [Anglo-Saxon] spell was anciently used among us, and still signifies an incantation, or a charm; which implies a peculiar collocation and repetition of certain words, which were supposed to produce supernatural effects by means of spiritual influence or agency; which agency was always attracted and excited by such words, through some supposed correspondency between the words, and the spiritual agency to be employed. The word, in this sense, occurs in King Alfred’s Saxon translation of Boethius, De Consolatione Philosophiæ, chap. 38. [Anglo-Saxon], Then deceitful men began to practise incantations. It is possible that our ancestors gave this title to the preaching of Christ crucified, from observing the astonishing effects produced by it, in changing the hearts and lives of sinners. And very innocently might they denominate the pure powerful preaching of the death and resurrection of Christ, God’s charm: that wonderful word, which, accompanied with the demonstration and power of the Holy Ghost, produced such miraculous effects among men.
As the word [Anglo-Saxon] spellian signifies to teach or instruct, hence our word to spell, i.e. to teach a person, by uniting vowels and consonants, to enunciate words; and thus learn to read. And hence the book out of which the first rudiments of language are learned is termed a spelling book, exactly answering to the [Anglo-Saxon] spell-book of our ancestors, which signified a book of homilies, or plain discourses, for the instruction of the common people. We may See Clarke’s note on “Genesis 1:1”) that [Anglo-Saxon] among our ancestors, not only signified GOD, the supreme Being; but also good or goodness, which is his nature: [Anglo-Saxon] godspell, therefore, is not only God’s history, doctrine, or plan of teaching; but also the good history, the good doctrine; and hence [Anglo-Saxon] to preach or proclaim this doctrine; [Anglo-Saxon] the sermons that contained the rudiments of it, for the instruction of men; and [Anglo-Saxon] spel-boda, the orator, messenger, or ambassador, that announced it.
The Greek word ευαγγελιον, from ευ good, and αγγελια a message, signifies good news, or glad tidings in general; and is evidently intended to point out, in this place, the good message or the glad tidings of great joy which God has sent to all mankind, preaching peace and reconciliation by Christ Jesus, who is Lord of all: proclaiming that he, as the promised Messiah, has, by the grace of God, tasted death for every man-for he has died for their offences, and risen again for their justification; and that, through his grace, every sinner under the whole heaven, may turn to God, and find mercy. This is good news, glad tidings, a joyful message; and it is such to all mankind, as in it every human spirit is interested. It is used in this sense by Achilles Tatius, lib. v. c. 12, ταυτα ακαυσας ο σατυρος, προστρεχει προς την μελιττην ευαγγελια φερων: Having heard these things, Satyrus ran to Melitta, bringing the good news. But, besides this general meaning, the word ευαγγελιον, has other acceptations in the New Testament, and in the Greek writers, which may be consulted here with great propriety and effect.
1. It signifies the reward given to those who brought good news. Thus Homer represents the disguised Ulysses claiming a reward ευαγγελιον, a vest and mantle, should he verify to Eumeus the glad tidings of his master’s safety. ευαγγελιον δε μοι εστω. Let me have a reward for my good news. Odyss. xiv. v. 152.
To which Eumeus, who despaired of his master’s return, replied:- ω γερον, ουτ’ αρ’ εγων ευαγγελιον τοδε τισω,
ουτ’ οδυσσευς ετι οικον ελευσεται. Ib. v. 266.
Old friend! nor cloake nor vest thy gladsome news
Will ever earn: Ulysses comes no more! COWPER.
And on the word, as thus used, Eustathius gives the following comment: ευαγγελιονÈ δωρον υπερ αγαθης ευαγγελιας. “Euangelion signifies the reward given for bringing good news.”
St. Chrysostom, in his sixth Homily on the Acts, gives this as a common meaning of the word. “The Gospel is this: Thou shalt receive good things: as men are accustomed in their common conversation to say to each other, τι μοι των ευαγγελιων; What reward wilt thou give me for my good news? &c.” It is used in the same sense by the Septuagint. 2 Samuel 4:10. When one told me, saying, Behold, Saul is dead, thinking to have brought good tidings, I took him and slew him in Ziglag, who thought ω εδει με δουναι ευαγγελια, that I would have given him A REWARD for his tidings. CICERO uses it in the same sense; see his epistles to Atticus, lib.
2. ep. 3. O suaves epistolas tuas uno tempore mihi datas duas: quibus ευαγγελια quæ reddam nescio, deberi quidem, plane fateor. “O, how delightful are your epistles! two of which I have received at one time, for which I know not what recompense to make: but, that I am your debtor, I candidly confess.”
2. It is used also to signify the prayers, thanksgivings, and sacrifices offered on the arrival of good news. So Aristophanes, μοι δοκειευαγγελια θυειν, εκατον βους, τη θεω, I think I should SACRIFICE A HECATOMB to the goddess for this intelligence, ARISTOPH. in Equit. v. 653.
ISOCRATES (Areopag. initio) is supposed to use the word in the sense of supplication, επι τοσαυταις πραξεσιν ευαγγελια μεν δις ηδη tequkamen-“relative to these transactions, we have purposed to make supplication twice.” Xenophon uses it to denote a eucharistic offering made on account of receiving good news. εθυε τα ευαγγελια. See Hist. Gr. i. 6, 27. It seems to be used in a similar sense by the Septuagint in 2 Samuel 18:20, 27.
Other examples might be produced in which the word is used in all the above senses; but these may be deemed sufficient. I would not have been so copious, had not a certain great man denied that the word had the above meanings.
3. However illustrative the above acceptations of ευαγγελιον, among the Greek writers, may be of the word in relation to the great doctrine of the new covenant; yet, among the sacred writers, it is restricted to express the glad tidings of the coming of the Messiah, for the reasons mentioned above. See Luke 2:10.
4. The whole doctrine of Jesus Christ, comprised in the history of his incarnation, preaching, miracles, sufferings, death, resurrection, ascension, and the mission of the Holy Spirit, by which salvation was procured for a lost world, is expressed by the word ευαγγελιον, as well as by the general title; καινη διαθηκη. Romans 1:1, 3, 9; Matthew 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; Mark 1:14. But the sacred writers use it with a variety of epithets which it may be necessary to mention.
1st, It is sometimes termed, The Gospel of God concerning his Son. Romans 1:1, 3.
2dly, The Gospel of the Son of God. Romans 1:9. 3dly, The Gospel of the kingdom of God. Matthew 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; Mark 1:14.
7. But in Galatians 1:6, 8, 9, the word ευαγγελιον seems to mean any new doctrine, whether true or false.
Many MSS. have το κατα ματθαιον αγιον ευαγγελιον, which is generally rendered, The Gospel according to SAINT Matthew. But the word αγιον, saint, or holy, should be here applied to the Gospel, with which it properly agrees; and then the title would run, The holy Gospel according to Matthew; that is, the account of this holy dispensation according to the narrative composed by Matthew, an eye witness of all the transactions he relates. But anciently the word holy was neither applied to the narrative nor to the narrator, the title being simply, The Gospel according to Matthew, and so of the others.
Some Account of Matthew the Evangelist.
CLA_MAT.PDF, source PDF p. 10
SOME ACCOUNT OF MATTHEW THE
EVANGELIST.
MATTHEW, supposed to be the same who is also called Levi, son of Alpheus, was by birth a Jew. As to his office, he appears to have been a tax-gatherer, under the Romans. He was a native of Galilee, as the rest of Christ’s apostles were; but of what city in that country, or of which tribe of the people of Israel, is not known.
As he sat at the custom house, by the seaside, in or near the city of Capernaum, Jesus called him; and as soon as he could make up his accompts with those by whom he had been employed and intrusted, he became a willing, faithful disciple of Christ. After this, St. Mark tells us, he made an entertainment in his own house, where Christ and several of his disciples were present, together with many tax-gatherers, and others, of no very respectable character, in the sight of the Pharisees. It is probable that Matthew took this occasion of calling together his relatives and acquaintances, that he might take a friendly farewell of them; and give them the opportunity of seeing and hearing that Divine Person, whose words he had already found to be spirit and life to his own soul, and to whose service he had now solemnly dedicated himself.
He was placed by our Lord in the number of his apostles, and continued with him during his life. After the ascension of Christ, he was at Jerusalem, and received the Holy Ghost with the rest of the disciples on the day of pentecost.
Matthew, with Andrew, Peter, and the two sons of Zebedee, are the only disciples whose call is particularly mentioned. It is uncertain when, where, or how he died. There does not appear to be any clear evidence, in the writings of the primitive fathers, that he suffered martyrdom. St. Matthew’s gospel is generally allowed to be the most ancient part of the writings of the New Covenant. Many modern critics contend that it was written about the year of our Lord 61, or between this and 65. Others, that it was written so early as 41, or about the eighth year after the ascension; and this is supported by the subscriptions at the end of this gospel in many MSS.; but it must be observed, that all these MSS. are posterior to the 10th century. Michaelis has adopted a middle way, which carries much of the appearance of probability with it, viz.: that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew about the 8th year after the ascension of our Lord, or A. D. 41; and that the translation of it into Greek was made about A. D. 61, or later. Whether this gospel were written originally in Hebrew or Greek, is a question by which the most eminent critics have been greatly puzzled and divided. The balance, however, is clearly in favour of a Hebrew original. The present Greek text was doubtless published at a very early period; who the translator was, cannot, at this distance of time, be determined; probably it was the evangelist himself.
As Matthew was one of the twelve disciples, his history is an account of what he heard and saw, being a constant attendant on our blessed Lord. This consideration, of itself, would prove that, allowing him only to be a man of integrity, he would make no mistakes in his narrative. Add to this, the influence and superintendence of the Holy Spirit, under which he constantly acted, and which our Lord had promised to his disciples, to guide them into all truth, and bring what soever he had spoken to them, into remembrance, John 14:26. These two considerations stamp the narrative with the utmost degree of credibility.
Advertisement.
CLA_MAT.PDF, source PDF p. 12
ADVERTISEMENT.
IT may be necessary to say a few words in explanation of the different ERAS introduced at the commencement of the gospels. 1. By the Usherian year of the World, the reader is to understand the chronological computation of Archbishop Usher; who supposed that 4000 years exactly had elapsed from the creation of the world till the birth of Christ. 2. The Alexandrian era is that chronological computation which was used by the people of Alexandria; who began their reckoning 5502 before the vulgar year of Christ 1. 3. The Antiochian era is a correction of the preceding, in the 4th century, by Pandorus, an Egyptian monk, and used by the people of Antioch; it differs only from the Alexandrian by subtracting ten years. 4. The Constantinopolitan era is that still in use in the Greek Church, which reckons 5508 before the year 1 of the Incarnation, according to the vulgar era. 5. The Julian Period is a factitious era, conceived by Joseph Scaliger, to facilitate the reduction of the years of any given epoch to that of another. This Period is the result of the Lunar and Solar Cycles, and the Indictions, multiplied by each other. Thus: multiply 19 the Lunar Cycle, by 28 the Solar Cycle, and the product will be 532; multiply this sum by 15, the Cycle of the Indictions, and you will have 7980 years, which constitute the Julian Period. The first year of the vulgar era is placed in the 4714th year of the Julian Period: whence it follows, that to find any year of our Lord in this period, 4713 years must be added to that year: e. g., to find the year of this period, answering to the present year of our Lord 1812, add 4713, and you will have 6525, which is the year of the Julian Period sought. 6. The era of the Seleucidæ, sometimes improperly called the era of Alexander, commenced 12 years after the death of Alexander the Great, 312 before the Incarnation, according to the vulgar reckoning, and was properly the first year of the Syro-Macedonian empire. 7. By the year before the vulgar era of Christ, is meant that correct chronological reckoning which showed that the vulgar or common reckoning of the A. D. or year of our Lord, is deficient not less than four years: so that the present year, 1812, should be, according to strict chronological precision, 1816. 8. The mode of computing by Olympiads derived its origin from the institution of the Olympic Games, which were celebrated every four years, for five successive days, at the time of the first full moon, after the summer’s solstice. They were held on the banks of the river Alpheus, near Olympia, a city of Elis, from which they derived their name. The first Olympiad commenced 776 before the Incarnation of our Lord. It need scarcely be added, that each Olympiad consists of four years; hence the first, second, third, or fourth year of any particular Olympiad. 9. The year of the building of Rome is an important era among the Roman historians: it commenced 753 years before the birth of Christ. 10. The year of Augustus, or years after the battle of Actium, is the computation of time from the commencement of the Roman EMPIRE, which took place after the battle of Actium, 27 years before our Lord: from this time Augustus became sole governor. 11. The Cycles introduced require little explanation. The Solar Cycle is a revolution consisting of 28 years; the Lunar Cycle of 19; and the Paschal Cycle or Dionysian Period, is compounded of both, thus: The Solar Cycle of 28, and the Lunar of 19, multiplied by each other, produce 532, which constitutes a third Cycle, called the Paschal Cycle, because in that period the Christian Passover, or Easter, a moveable feast, has gone through all possible variations, and the Solar and Lunar Cycles, Dominical Letters, Paschal term, Epacts, New Moons, &c., &c., all recommence exactly 532 years before. 12. The Cæsarean era of Antioch was a monument which the city of Antioch erected to the honour of Julius Cæsar, in commemoration of his victory at Pharsalia. This was obtained 48 years before the commencement of the Christian era. 13. The Spanish era: this was kept in commemoration of the entire subduction of Spain, by Augustus Cæsar, which took place in the year of Rome 715, or 39 years before the vulgar era of Christ. 14. The Julian era, or as it is sometimes called, the era of Julius Cæsar: this had for its foundation the reformation of the Roman Calendar by Julius Cæsar: and the change was made 45 years before the birth of Christ. Other eras might have been noticed, but those mentioned above were judged to be the most important.
For farther particulars relative to the history of the gospels, see the GENERAL PREFACE to the NEW TESTAMENT.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW
-Usherian year of the World, 4000.
-Alexandrian year of the World, 5498.
-Antiochian year of the World, 5488.
-Constantinopolitan Æra of the World, 5504.
-Year of the Julian Period, 4709.
-Æra of the Seleucidæ, 308.
-Year before the vulgar Æra of Christ, 5.
-Year of the CXCIII. Olympiad, 4.
-Year of the building of Rome, 749.
-Year of the Emperor Augustus, i.e. from the battle of Actium, 26. -Consuls, Augustus XII. and Lucius Cornelius Sulla.
-Year of the Paschal Cycle or Dionysian Period, 530.
-Year of the Solar Cycle, 5.
-Year of the Lunar Cycle, 13.
-Dominical Letters, B A.
Joseph Benson
Preface
BEN_VOL6.PDF, source PDF p. 24
GOSPEL OF SAINT MATTHEW.
PREFACE
Although the word ευαγγελιον, here rendered “gospel,” from ευ, “good,” and αγγελια, “a message,” properly denotes “good news, or glad tidings,” and in many parts of the epistles signifies the whole doctrine of Christ, or of the New Covenant, in contradistinction to that of the dispensation of Moses, or the Old Covenant; yet when applied to the narratives written by the four evangelists, the expression properly means the history of the incarnation and life, doctrine and miracles, humiliation and exaltation, sufferings and glory of the Messiah, the Son of God. The reason why this history is termed “good news, or glad tidings,” is because it really contains such, yea, the best news and most joyful tidings that ever reached any human ear; for surely no tidings can be better, or more calculated to give joy to a sinful and guilty world, exposed to the wrath of God, and liable to suffer the vengeance of eternal fire, than that the Son of God, the brightness of the Father’s glory and the express image of his person, the Maker and Lord of all things, and the final Judge of men and angels, came into the world to seek and save lost sinners. Hence, when the angel announced his birth to the shepherds, as is recorded Luke 2:10, his words were, Ιδου, ευαγγελιζομαι υμιν χαραν μεγαλην, ητις εσται παντι τω λαω, “Behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.” As to the English, or rather Saxon word, “gospel,” it seems originally to mean no more than “God’s spell,” or “God’s word,” and therefore is a very imperfect translation of the Greek expression. Now the history of these good tidings, which is first offered to our consideration in this volume, termed the New Testament, or New Covenant, is that composed by St. Matthew. Of him we know no more than what we learn in the four gospels, which is very little. He was the son of one Alpheus, and was also called Levi, Mark 2:14. He was of Jewish original, as both his names manifest, and probably of Galilee, as the rest of Christ’s apostles were; but of what city in Galilee, and of which of the tribes of Israel, is not known. Before he was called to be a disciple of Christ, he was a publican, or tax-gatherer to the Romans, an office of bad repute among the Jews, on account of the covetousness and oppressive exactions of those who managed it. St. Matthew’s office is thought to have consisted in collecting the customs imposed on all merchandise that came by the sea of Galilee, and the tribute required from passengers who went by water. And here it was that Christ found him sitting at the receipt of custom, when he first called him to be his disciple. Matthew immediately obeyed the call, and followed Jesus, although, it is probable, not statedly till he had made up and settled his accounts with those by whom he was employed. Living at Capernaum, a place where Christ frequently resided, Matthew might probably both have heard him preach and witnessed the performance of some of his miracles before this his call. Some time, but it seems not long, after this, according to the account given by both Mark and Luke, he entertained Christ and his disciples at a great dinner at his own house, whither he invited his friends and acquaintances, with many of his own profession, intending, probably, not only to take a friendly farewell of them, but to give them an opportunity of seeing and hearing that heavenly Teacher whose doctrine he had found to be the power of God to his salvation. He was soon chosen by Christ to be one of his apostles, (see Matthew 10:3,) and sent, with the other eleven, during the time of Christ’s ministry on earth, to preach to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, in different parts of Judea. And they accordingly went through the towns and villages “preaching the gospel, and healing everywhere,” Matthew 10:6; Luke 9:2-6. Matthew continued to be associated with the other apostles till after our Lord’s ascension, and the day of pentecost following; on which day, doubtless, he received the Holy Ghost with the rest of the disciples, or, as it is expressed Luke 24:49, was “endued with power from on high.” From this time, it seems, for at least eight, if not more years, he preached to the Jews in Judea, and the parts adjacent. Afterward, according to the tradition of the church, he devoted his labours to the propagation of the gospel among the heathen: travelling into Ethiopia, or Abyssinia, and making that country the scene of his apostolical labours; and there, it is said, he sealed the truth with his blood. But of this there is no clear evidence in any of the writings of the primitive fathers, nor that he suffered martyrdom, as some have asserted, in Persia, or elsewhere. Indeed we have no certain information when, where, or how he died.
As to the time when this gospel was composed, it has not been precisely ascertained by the learned. Some have thought it was written as early as A.D. 41, or about the eighth year after Christ’s ascension. Others, and especially some modern critics, have contended that it was not written till about the year 61, or between that and 65. All antiquity, however, seems agreed in the opinion that it was the first gospel that was published; “and in a case of this kind,” says Dr. Campbell, “I should not think it prudent, unless for very strong reasons, to dissent from their verdict. Of the few Christian writers of the first century whose works yet remain, there are in Barnabas, a companion of Paul, Clement of Rome, and Hermas, clear references to some passages of this history. For though the evangelist is not named, and his words are not formally quoted, the attentive reader must be sensible that the author had read the gospel which has uniformly been ascribed to Matthew, and that on some occasions he plainly alludes to it. Very early in the second century, Ignatius, in those epistles which are generally acknowledged to be genuine, and Polycarp, of whom we have no more but a single letter remaining, have manifest allusions to different parts of this gospel. The writers above named are those who are denominated ‘apostolic fathers,’ because they were contemporary with the apostles, and had been their disciples. Their testimony, therefore, serves to show not only their knowledge of this book, but the great and general estimation wherein it was held from the beginning.”
It has been a matter of much debate among the learned, whether this gospel was originally composed in Greek or in Hebrew. But Dr. Campbell seems to have satisfactorily proved it was first written in the latter language. “The first person,” says he, “upon record, who has named Matthew as the writer of this gospel, is Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, in Cesarea, who is said to have been a companion of Polycarp, and a hearer of John. Concerning Matthew, that venerable ancient affirms, that ‘he wrote his gospel in the Hebrew tongue, (Εβραιδι διαλεκτω,) which every one interpreted as he was able.’ See Euseb. Hist. Eccl., lib. 3. cap. 39.” Here we have Papias’s testimony, not only that Matthew was the writer of this gospel, but that he wrote it in Hebrew. “The former of these testimonies,” says Dr. Campbell, “has never, as far as I know, been controverted. On the contrary, it has been confirmed, and is still supported by all subsequent Christian authors who have touched the subject; and the latter, that this evangelist wrote his gospel in Hebrew, had a concurrence equally uniform of all succeeding writers in the church for about 1400 years.” In the last two centuries, however, this point has been strongly contested, particularly by Erasmus, Cardinal Cajetan, Whitby, and several others. “The next authority,” which may be brought, “is that of Irenæus, bishop of Lyons, in Gaul, who in his youth had been a disciple of Polycarp. He says, in the only book of his extant, that ‘Matthew among the Hebrews wrote a gospel in their own language, (τη ιδια διαλεκτο αυτων,) while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel at Rome, and founding the church there.’ Euseb. Hist., lib. 5. cap. 8. And in a fragment of the same author, which Grabe and others have published, it is said, ‘The gospel according to Matthew was written to the Jews, for they earnestly desired a Messiah of the posterity of David. Matthew, in order to satisfy them on this point, began his gospel with the genealogy of Jesus.’ The third witness to be adduced is Origen, who flourished in the former part of the third century. Eusebius, in a chapter wherein he especially treats of Origen’s account of the sacred canon, (Hist., lib. 6. cap. 25,) quotes him as saying, ‘As I have learned by tradition concerning the four gospels, which alone are received, without dispute, by the whole church of God under heaven; the first was written by Matthew, once a publican, afterward an apostle of Jesus Christ, who delivered it to the Jewish believers, composed in the Hebrew language, γραμμασιν Εβραικοις συντεταγμενον.’ In another place (Comment. in Johan.) he says, ‘We begin with Matthew, who, according to tradition, wrote first, publishing his gospel to the Hebrews, or the believers who were of the circumcision.’ Again, ‘Matthew, writing for the Hebrews, who expected him who was to descend from Abraham and David, says, The lineage of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham.’” “It would be endless,” says Dr. Campbell, “to bring authorities. Jerome, Augustine, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Eusebius, and many others, all attest the same thing, and attest it in such a manner as shows that they knew it to be uncontroverted, and judged it to be incontrovertible. ‘But,’ say some modern disputants, ‘all the witnesses you can produce in support of this fact may, for aught we know, be reducible to one. Irenæus, perhaps, had his information only from Papias, and Origen from Papias and Irenæus, and so of all the rest downward, how numerous soever; so that the whole evidence may be at bottom no more than the testimony of Papias!’ But is the positive evidence of witnesses, delivered as of a well-known fact, to be overturned by a mere supposition, a ‘perhaps?’ For that the case was really as they suppose, no shadow of evidence is pretended. Papias is not quoted on this article by Irenæus, nor is his name mentioned, or his testimony referred to. Nor is the testimony of either urged by Origen. As to Irenæus, from the early period in which he lived, he had advantages for information little inferior to those of Papias, having been in his younger years well acquainted with Polycarp, the disciple of the Apostle John. Had there then subsisted any account, or opinion, contradictory to the account given by Papias, Irenæus must certainly have known it, and would probably have mentioned it, either to confirm or to confute it. As the matter stands, we have here a perfect unanimity of the witnesses, not a single contradictory voice; no mention is there, either from those fathers or from any other ancient writer, that ever another account of this matter had been heard of in the church. Shall we then admit a mere modern hypothesis to overturn the foundations of all historic evidence?
“Let it be observed, Papias, in the words quoted from him, attested two things; that Matthew wrote the gospel ascribed to him, and that he wrote it in Hebrew. These two points rest on the same bottom, and are equally, as matters of fact, the subjects of testimony. As to both, the authority of Papias has been equally supported by succeeding authors, and by the concurrent voice of antiquity. Now there has not any thing been advanced to invalidate his testimony, in regard to the latter of these, that may not with equal justice be urged to invalidate his testimony in regard to the former. This may be extended also to other points; for that Mark was the writer of the gospel commonly ascribed to him, rests ultimately on the same authority. How arbitrary then is it, where the evidence is the same, and exposed to the same objections, to admit the one without hesitation, and to reject the other! — I shall conclude the argument with observing, that the truth of the report, that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, is the only plausible account that can be given of the rise of that report. Certain it is, that all the prejudices of the times, particularly among the Greek Christians, were unfavourable to such an opinion. Soon after the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem, the Hebrew Church, distinguished by the name of ‘Nazarene,’ visibly declined every day; the attachment which many of them still retained to the ceremonies of the law; in like manner, the errors of the Ebionites, and other divisions, which arose among them, made them soon be looked upon by the Gentile churches as but half-Christian at the most. That an advantage of this kind would have been so readily conceded to them by the Greeks, in opposition to all their own prejudices, can be attributed only to their full conviction of the fact. “Having said so much on the external evidence, I shall add but a few words to show, that the account of this matter given by the earliest ecclesiastical writers, is not so destitute as some may think of internal probability. In every thing that concerned the introduction of the new dispensation, a particular attention was for some time shown, and the preference, before every other nation, given to the Jews. Our Lord’s ministry upon the earth was among them only. In the mission of the apostles, during his own life, they were expressly prohibited from going to the Gentiles, or so much as entering any city of the Samaritans, Matthew 10:5; and when, after our Lord’s resurrection, the apostolical commission was greatly enlarged, being extended to all nations throughout the world, still a sort of precedency was reserved for God’s ancient people, and they were commanded to ‘begin’ preaching ‘at Jerusalem,’ Luke 24:46, 47. The orders then given were punctually executed. The apostles remained some time in Jerusalem, preaching and performing miracles in the name of the Lord Jesus with wonderful success. See also Acts 13:26. And even after the disciples began to spread their Master’s doctrine through the neighbouring regions, we know, that till the illumination they received in the affair of Cornelius, which was several years after, they confined their teaching to their countrymen the Jews. And even after that memorable event, wherever the apostles came, they appear first to have repaired to the synagogue, if there was a synagogue in the place, and to have addressed themselves to those of the circumcision, and afterward to the Gentiles:” see Acts 13:46; where this matter is set in the strongest light. “Have we not then reason to conclude from the express order, as well as from the example, of our Lord, and from the uniform practice of his disciples, that it was suitable to the will of Providence, in this dispensation of grace, that every advantage should be first offered to the Jews, especially the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and that the gospel which had been first delivered to them by word, both by our Lord himself and by his apostles, should be also first presented to them in writing, in that very dialect in which many of the readers, at the time of the publication, might remember to have heard the same sacred truths, as they came from the mouth of Him who spake as never man spake, the great Oracle of the Father, the interpreter of God?” This dialect, or language, it must be observed, was not what we commonly call Hebrew, or the language of the Old Testament; for this was not then spoken either in Palestine, or anywhere else, being understood only by the learned. But it was what Jerome very properly calls Syro-Chaldaic, having an affinity to both the Syrian and Chaldean language, though much more to the latter than the former. It was, in short, the language which the Jews brought with them from Babylon after the captivity, blended with that of the people whom they found in the land at their return, and in the neighbouring regions. It is this which is invariably called Hebrew in the New Testament. It is true, this merciful dispensation of God to the Jewish Christians, in giving them the first written gospel in their own language, was, in effect, soon frustrated by their defection; but this is only of a piece with what happened in regard to all the other advantages which the Jews enjoyed. “The sacred deposite was first corrupted among them, and afterward it disappeared; for that ‘the gospel according to the Hebrews,’ used by the Nazarenes, (to which, as the original, Jerome sometimes had recourse, and which, he tells us, he had translated into Greek and Latin,) and that the gospel also used by the Ebionites, were, though greatly vitiated and interpolated, the remains of Matthew’s original, will hardly bear a reasonable doubt. Their loss of this gospel proved the prelude to the extinction of that church. But we have reason to be thankful, that what was most valuable in the work is not lost to the Christian community. The version we have in Greek is written with much evangelical simplicity, entirely in the idiom and manner of the apostles.” “And I freely acknowledge,” adds Dr. Campbell, “that if the Hebrew gospel were still extant, such as it was in the days of Jerome, or even of Origen, we should have much more reason to confide in the authenticity of the common Greek translation, than in that of an original, wherewith such unbounded freedoms have been taken.” This translation was undoubtedly made and published at a very early period; but who the translator was we have no knowledge, nor is it likely that, at this distance of time, it should be determined: probably it was the evangelist himself.
St. Matthew appears to be distinguished from the other evangelists: I. By more frequently referring to the prophecies of the Old Testament, and pointing out their fulfilment in Christ, for the conviction of the Jews: and, II. By recording more of our Lord’s parables than are mentioned by the others. He begins his history with an account of the genealogy of Christ; which, agreeably to the custom of the Jews, and to prove Christ’s title to the kingdom of Israel, he gives in the line of his supposed father Joseph, whom he shows to be legally descended from Abraham through David. He then bears witness to his miraculous conception, and relates some circumstances concerning his birth and infancy, particularly his being visited by the wise men from the East, and his flight into Egypt and return. He gives a brief account of the ministry of John the Baptist, and its promising effects, and of the baptism and temptation of Christ, and his entrance on his public ministry. He then proceeds with the history of his miracles and discourses, till he comes to his apprehension by the Jewish rulers, his condemnation, crucifixion, death, and burial, the circumstances of all which he relates at large. He then bears witness to his resurrection, the earthquake attending it, and the appearance of a glorious angel, attesting it to the women, who had come to the sepulchre with a view to anoint his body. Of the many appearances of Christ to his disciples, Matthew only records two; namely, one to these women, and one to all the disciples collected together in Galilee. His history concludes with the important testimony borne by Christ, immediately before his ascension, to the exaltation of his human nature to the highest dignity and power; to which is subjoined his solemn charge to the apostles, and their successors in the ministry, to teach and baptize all nations, and his gracious promise that his presence should be with them to the end of the world.
Joseph Sutcliffe
The Gospel According to St. Matthew.
SUT_VOL4.PDF, source PDF p. 14
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO
ST. MATTHEW.
MATTHEW the Evangelist was a native of Galilee, and by profession a publican. He is called by St. Mark 2:14, Levi of Alpheus, that is, son of Alpheus, or of Cleophas. If so he was a relative of Christ, and must have had, as Dr. Lightfoot infers, three brothers among the twelve apostles; James, the less; Judas, called Lebbeus and Thaddeus, and Simon the Canaanite. As the Jews had many names, this is a point not clearly proved. It is not doubted but he was a hearer of John the baptist, as indeed were most of the apostles. He entered on his ministerial course by the sacrifice of his worldly profession, at the call of the Saviour. Papias, a hearer of John the evangelist, and a companion of Polycarp, says that Matthew “wrote his gospel in the Hebrew tongue, which every one interpreted as he was able,” by preaching and by expounding on his book. This testimony appears to be correct, for he never cites the version of the LXX, but takes all his quotations from the Hebrew text. But by the Hebrew we must understand, the same as is meant by St. Luke, who says, that when Paul spake in the Hebrew tongue, “they kept silence the more.” Be that as it might, he wrote for the use of the Hebrews converted to Christ, while St. Luke wrote for the Hellenists and Gentiles. Eusebius has collected the testimonies of Irenæus concerning the divine scriptures, book 5. chap. 8. Of St. Matthew’s gospel he says, it was published among the Hebrews, then called by the jews Nazarenes, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel at Rome, and founding the church in that city. There must however be a slight inaccuracy of the dates, for Matthew’s gospel was in the hands of the jews prior to St. Paul’s preaching at Rome. But as there is no dispute concerning the testimonies of Papias, Irenæus, and others; and as all agree with Origen, who says on tradition, that the four gospels were received without dispute by the whole church under heaven, we need add only, according to the testimony of Clemens of Alexandria, Strom. lib. 4., that St. Matthew was the only apostle that escaped martyrdom. Some say, that in obedience to the Lord, who had said, Acts 1:8, “Ye shall be witnesses unto me in the uttermost parts of the earth,” he travelled as far as Ethiopia, where he died at an advanced age.
Richard Watson
Introduction
WAT_EXPO.PDF, source PDF p. 5
THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW.
INTRODUCTION
THE general title to all the inspired books of the Christian Revelation, Η Καινη Διαθηκη, could not be prefixed until the writings which it contains had been collected into one volume; for an account of which, those who have written on the canon of Scripture must be consulted. It first appears in a work of Origen, and by a common metonymy was transferred from the Christian dispensation or covenant itself to the books which record it. Διαθηκη was very early rendered into Latin by testamentum, instead of pactum, “covenant,” according to Jerome’s correction of the old Italic version, and thus passed into many ancient and most of the modern versions. There is, however, reason to conclude that testamentum, in the popular language of those ages, signified a covenant as well as a testament; for not only is the covenant with Noah rendered in the Italic version by testamentum, but in Isaiah 30:1, it is used for συνθηκη, which, has no other sense than covenant.
The NEW COVENANT is the appropriate description of Christianity; for though διαθηκη signifies any disposition or arrangement in general, yet that arrangement or disposition which respected human redemption, both in the Old and New Dispensation, took the form of mutual promises, under mutual conditions, which is the true character of a covenant. This sense of the word διαθηκη, has the support of numerous passages in the New Testament, where the term occurs: and there is indeed but one, Hebrews 9:15, about which there can be any reasonable doubt; and even this, when it comes to be considered, will appear to be best interpreted in the sense of covenant. But were that solitary text excluded, the manner in which St. Paul opposes the law, which assuredly was not a testament, to the Gospel, in the phrases the Old Covenant, and the New Covenant, — the circumstance that the promises of Christ, and of our salvation through him, are expressed by the prophet by the phrase of making “a New Covenant with the house of Israel,” renders it imperative upon us to take the term διαθηκη, when considered as a general description of the whole body of Christian doctrine and promise, and of the writings which contain it, in the sense of Covenant. Some commentators, under the force of this argument, attempt to compromise the matter, and to explain διαθηκη by “a covenant, including within it a testamentary bequest;” an unnecessary, and not wholly an innoxious representation, as it somewhat eludes the real character of Christ’s death, the efficacy of which is not to be compared to that from which a testament derives its force, which is simply the death of the testator, of whatever kind, or under any circumstances; but to the efficacy of the ancient sacrifices by which the solemn covenants between God and man were typically ratified. We have nothing in the words of Christ, or of his apostles, to suggest to us the idea of our salvation and its numerous blessings being conveyed to us in any way answering to the idea of a testamentary bequest; but Christianity is the new and infinitely gracious covenant of God with mankind fully declared; in which he engages, according to the forms of the said covenant, as quoted from the prophet by St. Paul, to be merciful to our unrighteousness; to remember our sins and iniquities no more; to put his laws into our minds, and to write them in our hearts; and to be to us a God, and to regard us as his people, and therefore to treat us as such in time and in eternity. The conveyance and security of all these comprehensive blessings of redemption were not simply by the death, but by “the blood of Christ;” that is to say, by his violent, sacrificial, and propitiatory death; which voluntary submission on his part was accepted by God on our account, as his resurrection from the dead publicly demonstrated. Thus this covenant of grace was confirmed and ratified to all who should, by complying with its terms, — “repentance toward God, and faith,” or trust “in our Lord Jesus Christ,” — come personally within its provisions and promises, so as to claim the fulness of all its blessings, “grace, mercy, and peace.” The true view of the Christian system, in brief, is, that it is “the new covenant in his blood;” and the appropriate description of that collection of sacred books, which illustrate and commend it, is, “The New Covenant of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” The usual title, The New Testament, is now, however, so familiar, that it would be affectation to disuse it; but still the distinction above made ought to be kept in mind.
The literal meaning of ευαγγελιον being good news, or joyful tidings, our term Gospel, compounded of two Saxon words, which signify good tidings, expresses it with happy precision. It is now generally used for the whole dispensation of mercy through Christ, to mankind; and in this general sense we find it in several passages of the New Testament. The word has, however, a restricted use, as the title of each account of the four evangelists. There it imports the history of the birth, actions, ministry, doctrine, death, resurrection, and ascension of our Saviour; but with constant reference to the joyful import of this intelligence, and the unspeakable benefits which are thus conveyed to mankind. For the same reason the four inspired historians of our Lord are called “evangelists, publishers of good tidings; and they are four, not that many accounts of Christ, called also “gospels,” were not published even in early times, doubtless of various degrees of merit, and the most fabulous of them recording some truths which had been handed down by tradition; but these four only appeared invested with the authority of the Churches generally. Lardner has proved that no spurious or apocryphal gospels whatever were read in the assemblies of Christians when they appeared; nor admitted into the volume of Scripture; nor alleged as authority by different parties; nor noticed by the adversaries of the Christians. Up to the earliest times, however, the four gospels which we now possess are not only mentioned, but have this exclusive seal of their acknowledged inspiration put upon them, that they only were read in Churches, and they only referred to as infallible authorities in matters of controversy. Two of these were written by apostles, Matthew and John; and two by companions of the apostles, Mark and Luke, the former having been the companion of St. Peter, and the latter of St. Paul. We have, therefore, in some Greek MSS. and ancient translations an arrangement of the gospels according to the rank of these authors, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark; but in the majority of the Greek MSS., in all the old translations of Asia and Africa, and in catalogues of the canonical books, that chronological order is observed, which was most anciently and universally received, — Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. This circumstance is important, as it assists us in explaining the peculiar character and object of each gospel. Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, says, “Matthew, who at the first taught among the Jews, published his gospel when he was going to visit others. When Mark and Luke had also published their gospels, and these three had fallen into the hands of many, he, John, gave his approbation and testimony to their veracity; but something was defective in them, on which account John included in his gospel that space of time which the rest had omitted, and those parts of the history of our Saviour which occurred within it.” But long before this, in the second century, Irenæus declares that, as to this chronological succession, there was no uncertainty or difference of opinion. Whether Matthew wrote his gospel in Greek or Hebrew, not only tradition, but internal evidence, shows that it was in the first place designed for the Jews, and was therefore first published in Palestine. Mark certainly wrote for the use of Gentile converts, as appears from his adding explanations to names of places and of things which were familiar to Jews; and that he wrote at Rome, and for the use of the Latin converts in the first instance, is the best supported opinion. Luke inscribes his gospel to a Greek; and from his long connection with the Churches of Greece and Asia Minor, he wrote his gospel in that part of the world, and especially for their use. John wrote after the rest, and no doubt in Asia Minor. The very composition of his gospel shows that he had seen all the rest; and that his chief object was to supply many of the longer discourses of Christ, and to render his account the means of refuting the heresies which had recently grown up. It may here be generally remarked that the evangelists do not profess to give a complete account of all the circumstances of our Lord’s life, nor to record all his miracles and discourses. This is expressly disclaimed by John: “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book,” John 20:30. And again, “And there are also many other things which Jesus did.” The other evangelists also occasionally mention many important transactions in brief. In this, curiosity may be somewhat disappointed; but faith is edified. The manner of these writers — so simple and natural, so subdued as to their own emotions, and so far from any intention to produce effect upon the reader by so wonderful a narrative as that committed to them — has often been referred to as a strong internal proof of veracity. The absence of so many facts, conversations, and discourses from that narrative, which they were well able to supply, is a strong presumption of their inspiration. To add to the deep interest of their writings, and advance their own fame as authors, would have been strong motives to minds not under special Divine influence; and to gratify the eager desire of new Christians to know ALL the particulars possible respecting their adorable Lord, would present itself as a pious and laudable inducement to greater copiousness; but enough only is communicated to unfold the character and claims of Christ, the leading principles of his heavenly doctrine, and the evidence of his mission as it stood confirmed by stupendous miracles and accomplished prophecies. Enough is written “that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing we might have life through his name.” For the rest, the very tradition, though doubtless fondly cherished by many of the first believers, has been permitted to perish; and we are referred to that approaching state of perfect knowledge and vision when these will no doubt be among the subjects which shall be communicated by Christ to his glorified servants, or by those servants to each other.
Nor do the gospels taken together form a complete history; for although there are passages in each evangelist which do not occur in the others, they were so far from having the design of writing together one complete and consecutive history, that the same events and discourses frequently appear in each. This arose from the importance of the facts or doctrines which they each state, and generally from their connection with the evidence of our Lord’s mission. For as the gospels were at first published separately, it was necessary that each should contain sufficient to exhibit the true character of our Lord, the truths he came to declare, and the circumstances of his death and resurrection. In other respects, and subordinate to this leading design, they are modified by the particular views under which their composition was undertaken, and by that inspiration of the Holy Spirit which directed each evangelist, both as to insertions and omissions, with reference to that subsequent collection of their accounts which was to be made in the Church; that they might be read together, by Christians of succeeding times, who had not, as most of the primitive believers, though they might possess but one gospel, the opportunity of learning from some of the apostles, their companions, or their immediate successors, those farther particulars which the whole four gospels transmit to us. As to the number of evangelists, Chrysostom, in his prologue to the Homilies on Matthew, justly remarks, in answering the question, “How, then, was not one evangelist sufficient to say all?” — “Certainly, one might have sufficed; but as there are four such authors, who did not write at one and the same time, nor in the same place, who neither met together, nor acted in concert, and nevertheless speak as it were out of one mouth, hence arises a stronger proof of their credibility. But it is replied, the contrary rather took place, many passages being dissimilar. This also is a greater proof of credibility; for if they agreed minutely in all, both as to circumstance and expression, their opponents would never believe that they had not written their memoirs by agreement, or by personal understanding.” “They are clearly separate and independent historians,” says Mr. Nares, “and their close agreement in the most important circumstances of their narratives, forms a coincidence of collateral testimonies which cannot be paralleled in any other example.”
It is disputed whether the title, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SAINT MATTHEW, was originally affixed by himself. Of this we may be tolerably certain, that he did not give himself the appellation of “Saint,” however deserving of it in its highest sense. The title is indeed found differently varied in MSS.; and the probability is, that after the other gospels were published, the inscriptions were added for the sake of distinction, and to transmit the testimony of the primitive Churches as to the authors. Chrysostom, however, says that Matthew himself called his work. “The Gospel,” δια τουτο ευαγγελιον την ιστοριαν εκαλεσιν, κ. τ. λ. (Homil. I, in Matthew Præf.) The titles of each finally became, with some variations in the MSS., the Gospel κατα Ματθειον, κατα Μαρκον, &c. “So the most ancient teachers of the Church cite them, not as the gospel of Matthew, of Mark, but according to Matthew, according to Mark,” &c. (Hug’s Introduction.)
The time when St. Matthew’s gospel was published has been matter of debate among critics; some fixing it as near to the ascension of our Lord as A.D. 37, others extending it to A.D. 62, and others fixing upon several intermediate dates. The later dates rest chiefly upon an equivocal passage in Irenæus, and the more early have the reason of the case in their favour. It is much more probable that the first apostolic account of the life of our Lord should be written within a few years of his death, than that it should be so long delayed A.D. 61, or 62. Eusebius is express in fixing the time A.D. 41, in the third year of Caligula, that is, eight years after Christ’s ascension. It is true that, as a matter of evidence, this does not much affect any question; for the immediate spread of the Gospel among such multitudes in Palestine, and its metropolis, and elsewhere, can only be accounted for by the unquestionable and supernatural character of the facts on which the whole Christian system rested, and the evidence of the miracles wrought by the primitive teachers themselves; and farther, all the gospels, if fixed at the latest dates which have been assigned to them, were certainly published while a considerable number of persons were still alive, who from personal knowledge were able to affirm whether the alleged facts, so particularly stated by the evangelists as to time, place, and persons, were true relations or not. The Jews especially had every motive to sift these accounts, and transported would they have been could they have refitted them. But this was never attempted. They attributed, on the contrary, the works of Christ to Satanic agency, and continued long to do so; and thus admitted the grand facts on which Christianity was founded, by the very theory on which they accounted for them. Still many became Christians in Judea, and other countries, who could only be generally and vaguely acquainted with the public life and discourses of their Redeemer; persons brought to faith and salvation by the impression of the miracles of the apostles, the convincing native energy of truth, and the secret influences of grace upon their hearts, for whose confirmation in faith, and the holy comfort of the Gospel, that history of Christ, that exhibition of his doctrine, that powerful impression of his whole extraordinary character, which every single gospel contains, was essential. The gospels were books to be read in their assemblies, as being placed upon a level with the sacred books of the Old Testament by their inspiration, and as being also the key to law and the prophets; and copies were rapidly multiplied to be the light of every Christian family, to afford counsel, comfort, and the subject of hallowing meditations, to individuals in their walks through life. All these present strong reasons for an early composition of an authorized history of Christ, and favour, as a presumptive argument, the early dates ascribed to that of St. Matthew, which was undoubtedly the first published. Add to this, the greater number of critics agree in the opinion that it was published not later than about eight years after the ascension of our Lord.” That the gospel of St. Matthew was first and more immediately designed for the Jews in Palestine, and of course also for the same people scattered throughout the principal cities of the world, appears to be indicated both by its early date, and from its being so eminently adapted to convince the Jews of the Messiahship of Jesus, by the frequency with which it points out the fulfilment of many of their ancient prophecies in him. A still farther proof is, that this evangelist does not, like Mark, whose history was anciently called the gospel of the Gentiles, add those explanatory remarks, as to various Jewish customs, sects, and other circumstances, which were sufficiently familiar to the Jews, but wholly unintelligible to almost all other people. When Mark represents the Pharisees as complaining “that the disciples of Jesus ate κοιναις χερσιν; that is, literally, with common hands; in the supposition that his readers might not be acquainted with the Hebrew signification of the expression, he has added the explanation, that is to say, with unwashed hands, τουτ’ εστιν ανιπτοις. Still fearing that they could not thoroughly understand the ground of this complaint and the explanation of it, he clears up the matter by an observation on the customs and opinions of the Pharisees, and states that these never eat but with washed hands, imagining that they would otherwise be defiled. He explains what is called paraskeuh by the Jews, that is the Fore Sabbath, tout’ estin prosabbaton; and what korban means, as Josephus did for his Roman readers.
“Matthew recounts the same, even in the same expressions, and speaks of these and many other similar matters; but he abstains from every addition and observation for the instruction of his readers, supposing all this to be already known to them.
“Luke makes numerous observations of a geographical nature in order that his Theophilus, to whom the work was addressed, might briefly be instructed as much as possible concerning the place which was the scene of such an event.
“Matthew does not pursue a similar course. Finding it superfluous to make any observations for the purpose of throwing light upon the morals, customs, opinions, and mode of thinking, all of which might be proper, as to Palestine; he also conducts himself in the same manner with regard to the geography, and is unmindful that his narrations might be unintelligible and obscure to any person who was not acquainted with the country, neighbourhood, cities,” &c. (Hug’s Introduction, vol. ii, p. 6.)
This seems sufficiently decisive as to the Jews being the persons this evangelist had primarily in view, in writing his gospel; but the question will naturally arise, Why then did Matthew write in Greek? It has been a long disputed question whether he did not write originally in Hebrew, that is, in the dialect of Palestine, vaguely so called. Those who contend that the gospel was written originally in Greek, reply to the question, that that language was then very generally used in the civilized world, and particularly in Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, &c. This followed from the Macedonian conquests, and the establishment of Greek colonies by the successors of Alexander, as far as Babylonia, Persia, and even India. In Egypt the numerous Jews there colonized had long before required for their religious use the translation of the Old Testament into Greek, which gave rise to the Septuagint version. Antioch, Tyre, Sidon, and other places adopted the language of the conquerors; and even the Roman public edicts were in those cities ordered to be exposed in the Latin and Greek languages. The Greek language and manners prevailed in many of the cities of the Jews for several ages. Even in Rome debates in Greek were sometimes heard. Tiberius and other of the Roman emperors answered such foreign ambassadors as spake Greek in the same language. The Roman officers of rank appear to have all spoken Greek, and in many of the provinces the judges gave judgments in it; so that this was the language of the courts of law. Thus it was in Syria and Phenicia, and, as several learned men who have largely investigated this subject have shown, there is no doubt that Pilate and Festus used the Greek tongue in Judea; as neither in Josephus, nor in the New Testament, have we any hint that they made use of an interpreter. With the higher classes of Jews the Greek was a necessary branch of education; but great numbers of the common people of different ranks learned it by connection and intercourse, in a more imperfect manner, but still in a sufficient degree for the ordinary purposes of life, with the numerous foreigners, and Hellenistic Jews, who abounded in their principal cities, and flocked to Jerusalem at their festivals. Our Lord is therefore supposed, not unfrequently, to have spoken in the prevailing Greek dialect; and judging from the apparently immediate communication between Philip and “the Greeks,” that is to say, foreign Jews who did not speak the Hebræo-Aramean language of Palestine, who desired to see our Lord, the apostles also at that time were familiar with it. On this account, too, we observe that Jesus at once converses with these Greeks. As therefore a gospel written in Greek would be so largely understood even in Palestine, and when read in the assemblies of the Christians could be so easily rendered into the common tongue, for the instruction of all, a constant practice in the synagogues as to the Hebrew Scriptures, little restriction was placed upon its utility by its being composed in Greek; while its benefit would be largely extended among that still more numerous class of Jews who lived beyond the boundaries of Palestine, in every noted city and country of the Roman empire, and who, though they might in some instances understand the Hebrew of the Old Testament, in scarcely any could they know the mixed Hebrew dialect of Judea. To all these the Greek was universally vernacular. When, however, we speak of the Greek language as in use among the Jews, whether in Palestine or in distant places, the general reader needs to be informed that, as Professor Winer has observed, “in the age which succeeded Alexander the Great, the Greek language underwent an internal change of a double nature. In part, a prosaic language of books was formed, h koinh dialektov, which was built on the Attic dialect, but was intermixed with not a few provincialisms; and partly a language of popular intercourse was formed, in which the various dialects of the different Grecian tribes, heretofore separate, were more or less mingled together; while the Macedonian dialect was peculiarly prominent. The latter language constitutes the basis of the diction employed by the Seventy, the writers of the Apocrypha and of the New Testament.
“All the nations who after Alexander’s death came under Greek rulers, and gradually adopted the language of their conquerors in the common intercourse of life, particularly the Syrians and Hebrews, spoke the Greek less purely than the native Grecians, and enstamped upon it more or less of the characteristics of their respective vernacular tongues. Since now all the Jews who spoke the Greek language are commonly called Hellenists, so the dialect used by them has obtained the appellation of Hellenistic. On this account the New Testament diction has been called Hellenistic.” (Winer’s Grammar, pages 22 and 27.)
The chief difference between the classical Greek and the Hellenistic lies in the idiom: the inflections are the same, but the phrase is different. The sacred language, the Hebrew, and, in some instances, the Palestinian dialect, have each left its impress upon it. The phraseology, indeed, is often Hebrew, though the words are Greek; still it contains fewer Hebrew grammatical constructions than the Septuagint. The style of the New Testament was a circumstance, however, no doubt determined by the Holy Ghost himself, and by which we may conclude, in spite of the fastidiousness of many critics, the truth has been more fully enunciated than if the refined language of the Greek rhetors had been adopted; as at least being more simple, and for this reason more capable of nearly literal translation into the various tongues of mankind. We are always to remember that the Gospel was communicated “in words which the Holy Ghost taught,” and that the reasons for the choice must have been determined by infinite wisdom. Some of these are even obvious; as, for instance, that it affords a strong point of evidence that the language of the New Testament writers should be the language of men in the precise circumstances, and living in the precise places, which they profess. The only conclusion to which any critic could come in reading the histories of the four evangelists is, that their works, being written in Greek, yet in none of the proper dialects of that language, and with such a resemblance to the Hebrew in idiom, were written by native Jews, — by Jews, too, living before the last expulsion of that people from their ancient seats; which is just what the Christian Church has always affirmed of them. That they were plain men, too, unacquainted with even that sort of philosophy which among the higher Jews was known and studied, is equally clear from the entire absence of all allusions to it in their writings. Here nothing of human speculation appears, nothing of rhetorical art, nothing of the inventive power of genius; and the reason is given by St. Paul, that “our faith might not stand in the wisdom of man, but in the power of God.” Some very learned but mistaken men, indeed, who appear to have been scandalized at the assertion, that the Greek of the New Testament was not classical, have bent their efforts to exhibit parallel phrases taken from the most approved Greek authors, and have, in fact, in some instances, succeeded. But the point is now generally given up as of no importance; or rather, because the fair admission of the fact, as far as it goes, is to the honour of the Gospel. It is certain that the style lacks neither clearness nor strength, — two of the greatest qualities of writing; and how far it might have suffered in these respects by the trimming of the grammarian in a fastidious age, we know not. Few men of real taste would even exchange the prayers composed in the time of Elizabeth for the very same prayers cast into what is now called classical English; and not only does the style of St. Paul, for instance, rise to the fulness of perspicuity and vigour, but it has passages of elegant beauty and lofty majesty, to which no parallel can be found. The power which raised, sustained, and subdued the world with this force and majesty, could easily have conformed the idiom and construction to Greek usage and rules; but the Spirit designed not to speak independent of the men; but the men were to speak and write by the Spirit, and to preserve that appropriate dialect to which they and their countrymen were accustomed; yet so that, while their dialect preserved its distinctive character, it should yet be so under immediate control and direction, that, as their Master spake “as never man spake,” so they should write as never men wrote.
Reasons have been given above in favour of the opinion, that St. Matthew first wrote his gospel, in the Greek tongue, with which he, as a man in office, and of at least respectable education, was no doubt familiar: but it is proper also to state the opposite opinion. So uniform is the testimony of antiquity, that he wrote a Hebrew gospel, meaning thereby one in the common language of Judea, that, did not the fathers rely wholly upon the testimony of a passage from Papias only, whom they have all followed, and of whose judgment Eusebius, though he receives his testimony in this respect, speaks very lightly, this question could nat have been so warmly disputed. In the list of names ranged on each side of this controversy there is perhaps nothing to turn the scale, so high is the authority of most of them, both continental and British, in researches of this kind; but the question is, in fact, of almost no importance, since the undoubted antiquity of St. Matthew’s Greek gospel is so high as to reach to the lifetime of that apostle himself, to whom those fathers who allow that he wrote the gospel in Aramean ascribe the translation of that into Greek, or the composition of two original works. Eusebius expressly points out a passage quoted from the Psalms, in which St. Matthew, in his Greek translation, departed from the Septuagint, and rendered into Greek from his own view of the sense of the Hebrew text: and although Origen does not speak of St. Matthew’s gospel as a Greek translation of that written for the Jews in their own language, which he believed to exist, yet he speaks of the gospel which St. Matthew wrote for all classes of Christians composing the whole Church under heaven, which a work written in the Palestinian dialect could not be; and so, in fact, he gives his testimony to St. Matthew being the author of the gospel in Greek commonly received as his, and indeed never questioned from the earliest times. Several of the learned have therefore adopted the theory of two originals, alleging the consent of antiquity for the Hebrew, and evident marks of originality for the Greek. Still, however, though the latter is a conclusive argument, the former, the consent of antiquity, is not in this case sufficiently decisive, to preponderate against those weighty reasons which those have adduced who advocate but one original in Greek. That there would be unauthorized but still very interesting accounts of our Lord’s history, some longer and some shorter, written by many with honest intentions, even before Matthew wrote, is very probable; and we have strong proofs of the great antiquity of a work in the popular language, called “The Gospel according to St. Matthew,” and another, “The Gospel according to the Hebrews,” meaning the Jews in Palestine, and another, “The Gospel according to the Apostles,” if these were not varied forms of the same work, framed by the Nazaræans and Ebionites, Judaizing Christian sects, who in a short time became strongly tinctured with Gnosticism, and the perfect counterparts of those against whom St. Paul so strongly inveighs in several of his epistles. These gospels are referred to by Ignatius, Origen, Jerome, and others; and it was their very antiquity which led them probably to conclude them to be transcripts, more or less corrupted, of the supposed Matthew’s gospel according to the Hebrews, or, what is the same, the Hebrew Aramean “Gospel according to St. Matthew.” It is, however, a remarkable fact, that none of the fathers had ever seen this alleged uncorrupted gospel of St. Matthew. Its disappearance ought also to be accounted for. This has been done by some modern critics, by considering it as the consequence of the dispersion of the Jews after the taking of Jerusalem, and the disuse of their vernacular language. But this ought rather to have diffused so precious a work as an original gospel written by an apostle, and of course of equal authority with his gospel in Greek, which was universally received. Such a work ought to have been found among the faithful Hebrew Christians in various places into which they fled for shelter, under the special protection of Christ, who had warned them to escape on the first approach of the Roman armies to Jerusalem. Had such a work been required from St. Matthew, on the ground of general usefulness to the Palestinian Jewish believers, numerous copies of it must have been taken, both in Judea and in Syria; and yet “Origen obtained no trace of it; he could nowhere find any thing but the book kaq’ Ebraiouv, the value of which he left to each individual’s judgment; yet the discovery of Matthew in his original language was of no less consequence to him, as his perseverance in investigations of this nature was indefatigable. In the same manner as he laboured upon the Old Testament for the sake of restoring the Septuagint, by reference to the original text and the other existing critical aids, so also was he occupied with a recension of the New Testament. The many faults which had crept into Matthew, of which he expressly complains, were to be remedied in no more effectual way than by consulting the original text, as he had done in the Old Testament. He made, during twenty-eight years, various journeys for critical purposes; he drew many unused and forgotten manuscripts out of their obscurity, in which they would perhaps have decayed, for the sake of leaving no means unessayed to amend the Biblical text. His journeys were directed through Palestine and Syria, and at Tyre he laboriously formed his critical apparatus. In spite of these troublesome and voluntary investigations, which this scientific man made, he nowhere discovered any trace of such an original gospel of Matthew. Pamphilus, a Phenician from Barut, famed as a martyr, as the teacher of Eusebius, and, on account of his Biblical learning, as a scholar, established, for the Church at Cesarea, a library, celebrated among the ancients, to furnish books, for which he most carefully explored every direction. The treasure there provided in Biblical literature attracted Jerome, also, who made use of it to advantage. But for this collection Pamphilus had obtained no Hebrew copy of Matthew: it was only the Nazaræan book that he could procure, which Jerome, who translated it, here examined. So fruitless were the endeavours of the ancients to obtain a sight of the pretended original text of the evangelist, that its existence seems to have been a mere report, and it nowhere appears to have existed.” (Hug’s Introduction, vol. 2:58, 59.) But another subject has been largely discussed by the persevering critics of modern times, and especially in Germany; and has led to the most patient and acute investigations, which, however, as in most similar cases, have terminated by ranging those who have engaged in them on different sides. The chief benefit has been an instructive display of the different principles upon which the learned conduct such inquiries, and the eliciting of much information, which, if it does not serve the main point, is often useful in others not at first intended. The remarkable agreement among the three first evangelists, not only in facts, but in words; the use of the same expression for many verses together; the differences which then arise, and which again subside into the same exact correspondence; are circumstances which, it is supposed, can only be accounted for by assuming,
1. That each evangelist embodies many of the same oral traditions common among the immediate disciples of our Lord; or,
2. That the later evangelists saw and copied partially the writings of the preceding; or,
3. That there was one original document, from which Archetypus Evangeliorum, or wrwteuaggelion, each selected at pleasure. In this country, Bishop Marsh has adopted and largely defended this hypothesis of a common document. “Whoever,” says he, “thinks it possible that three texts so closely allied could have been formed independently of each other, may easily convince himself of the contrary by translating a page from any language, and then comparing his own version of it with any other; for he will find that, though the same in substance, they are not identically alike. The argument is strengthened, if we find three authors not only making choice of identical words in common use, but such as are unusual, and which they do not employ themselves on other occasions.” These discussions have unhappily been carried on both in Germany and England, either in entire forgetfulness, or with too little consideration, of the inspiration of the evangelists. These writers have been treated as mere human authors; and this has led to the misapplication, and, indeed, often the impertinent obtrusion, of a vast mass of acute and laboured criticism. But a reference to the original circumstances of the case will always serve to clear our way out of the labyrinths in which bold but theory-loving critics often entangle themselves and their readers. As to the public actions of Christ, they would be remembered by multitudes; but would be stated with great variety by different persons; and, through human infirmity, where there was no ill design, would often be greatly altered in their transmission from those who witnessed them, to those who did not. Many of the sayings of Christ were at the time designedly enigmatical, and could not be understood until after his ascension: and even then only by those who had received the gift of the Holy Spirit; and as for his longer discourses, human memory was so inadequate to retain them faithfully, that one of his own promises to his apostles was to send the Spirit to bring them “to remembrance.” Thus a large body of facts and conversations were floating, so to speak, for some years in the minds and discourses of his disciples, all correct as to substance, but more or less confused as to their full import and exact character, until the day of pentecost; when what had been accurately remembered was explained, what was forgotten was revived, and what was feebly apprehended was fully seized by the mind. These gifts were bestowed on many, and especially upon those who were appointed to preach the Gospel, and convert others. Every apostle, and every teacher, and no doubt many of the more immediate disciples of our Lord who had followed him from the beginning, were therefore qualified to write one of those accounts which we call a gospel; as he was qualified, by his miraculous endowments, to declare them orally: and among them the agreement in substance, and very often in words, must have been obvious; a circumstance which could only create surprise, provided the special gift and office of the Holy Spirit, to take of “the things of Jesus and show to them.” were denied or left out of the argument. From this inspiration it would not, indeed, follow that each of the apostles in his preaching should express the same truth always in exactly the same words; though, as that might in many cases be necessary for the clear enunciation of a doctrine delivered by their Lord, that would be provided for by Him under whose influence they were: and it is therefore quite probable that these primitive preachers, without any concert with each other, and in distant places, did sometimes deliver the same thing in various phrase, and sometimes in the same, as we see it done in the writings of the evangelists. So as to the oral information concerning facts in the history of our Lord, with which they furnished the new converts in different places, they would impart some more copiously and circumstantially than others, as the case of the people, and many other circumstances, seemed to require; some laying more stress upon one, some upon another, and some giving the same relation more copiously, others more curtly; still influenced in all by that Spirit which was always with them. Of this primitive preaching, so far as it related to the instruction of inquirers or new converts, before any gospel had been published, or where copies had not reached, the gospels themselves maybe considered as an exact counterpart; only with this difference, that as all the first inspired preachers were not directed to write, those who were appointed to this office were placed under special superintendence, that each writing should be fitted to answer its end as to the persons for whom it was immediately designed, as that of St. Matthew, in the first instance, for the Jews; those of Mark, the companion of St. Peter, and Luke, the companion of St. Paul, for the churches generally, but the latter rendered more copious than the former; and that of St. John, to counteract the growing Gnostic errors as to the person of Christ, and to preserve his longer discourses; while the whole, when collected and preserved, as in the intention of their divine Author they were always designed to be, should be for the benefit of the whole world, Jews and Gentiles, and be adapted to refute every species of fundamental error to the end of time. If the MATTER of the gospels be inspired, we must conclude that the FORM was determined by the same authority, but still under a rule; that while man was made use of by the Holy Spirit, the character and circumstances of the writer should be preserved, not displaced. There would be, therefore, in these writings, a substantial agreement, and there would often be an entire similarity; — a substantial agreement, because in such writings there can be nothing but truth; and this would chiefly apply to those things which they had known “accurately from the beginning,” and which were remembered by them; — and an entire similarity, as to those things which had been specially “brought to their remembrance,” because that would be done, probably, as to all the disciples at the day of pentecost, in the same words; and, if so, in the same words, or nearly so, afterward, as to those inspired to write the gospels, which words would be in the same language in which they wrote. There appears, therefore, not the least force in the circumstance of their frequent verbal agreement to impel us to either of the conclusions which has been considered inevitable; that the evangelism copied from each other; or that they each copied from a common original gospel, the Archetypus Evangeliorum, as it has been called. “I admit, indeed,” says Bishop Randolph, “of a common document; but that document was no other than the preaching of our blessed Lord himself. In looking up to him, the author of their faith and mission, and to the very words in which he was wont to dictate to them, which not only yet sounded in their ears, but were also recalled by the aid of his Holy Spirit, promised for that very purpose, they have given us their gospels, often agreeing in words, though not without much diversification, and always in sense.”
Harmonies of the gospels, or attempts to form one consecutive account out of the four in chronological order, have but ill repaid the labour bestowed upon them, because almost all harmonists have attempted too much. In different languages, they approach to near two hundred in number; and, still disappointed, one has followed another into the same field of hopeless toil. One mischievous effect has, indeed, sometimes resulted. Discrepances among the evangelists have been often complained of, when the real discrepance has not been between evangelist and evangelist, but between them and the false schemes of the harmonists themselves. As it has been remarked, the evangelists manifestly never intended, either together or separately, to give an exact and full chronological and historical account of our Lord’s life and ministry; but to state those particulars which should display his character, and show the fulfilment of prophecy in him; to record the substance of his teaching, and those events of his birth, life, death, and resurrection, which form the basis of his religion. The order of time was with them, therefore, but a secondary consideration, and, in several instances, appears to have been thought of no importance. Such a general order and succession as the case required is, however, sufficiently manifest; and by considering this, several passages derive illustration and force. This is generally within the power of every reader, as he may be easily assisted by lists of parallels. It may be useful, however, to remark that harmonies may be divided into two general classes, — those which assume that the chronological order has been observed in the gospels; and those which, allowing that this order has been more or less neglected, profess, on very different schemes, to correct the supposed irregularity.
Matthew, who had also the name of Levi, was, at an early period of our Lord’s ministry, called to follow him, as he was sitting at the receipt of custom at Capernaum, upon the sea of Galilee. This was called Christ’s “own city,” because of his most frequent residence there, after he left Nazareth, Matthew 4:13. There can be little doubt, therefore, that Matthew, who was also a resident there, had heard his preaching, knew his character, and was already a believer. On this occasion he was, however, bidden to “follow” him; the import of which command he knew was, to become, in a more formal and intimate manner, his disciple, and to continue with him in all places, as the celebrated Jewish rabbins were attended by their chosen scholars. It implied, also, his seeking more perfect instruction in Christ’s heavenly doctrine. This explains the readiness with which Matthew obeyed the call; and the joy that he felt in being admitted into the number of our Lord’s peculiar disciples, — those who were permitted to behold all his works, to hear all his conversations and discourses, and to be trained to teach his doctrines to others, — was expressed by his making a great feast for his fellow publicans, at which Jesus and his disciples attended. The publicans were odious to the stricter Jews, especially the Pharisees; not, however, let it be observed, always on account of their rapacity, though that might be chargeable upon many, but because they submitted to collect the Roman imposts, — a mark of subjection which the pride of the Pharisees affected to disown, although their country was, in fact, a Roman province. That there were respectable men among even the publicans, appears from the example of Zaccheus and Levi, or Matthew. When they classed them emphatically with “sinners,” it was therefore because they thought the office, when held by a Jew, an apostacy from, or at least an offence against, Judaism. In modern language, we should call Matthew a custom-house officer, because his office was to receive the dues paid at the port of Capernaum upon goods landed there; and that he was of the higher rank, may be gathered from his making the great feast just mentioned, at which he entertained a very large company. He was finally made one of the twelve apostles. Of his labours out of Judea we have nothing certain; but the fathers seem to agree that he left Palestine on some foreign evangelic mission.
John Wesley
Notes on the Gospel According to St. Matthew.
WES_NTN1.PDF, source PDF p. 6
NOTES ON THE GOSPEL
ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW.
The Gospel (that is, good tidings) means a book containing the good tidings of our salvation by Jesus Christ.
St. Mark in his Gospel presupposes that of St. Matthew, and supplies what is omitted therein. St. Luke supplies what is omitted by both the former: St. John what is omitted by all the three. St. Matthew particularly points out the fulfilling of the prophecies for the conviction of the Jews. St. Mark wrote a short compendium, and yet added many remarkable circumstances omitted by St. Matthew, particularly with regard to the apostles, immediately after they were called. St. Luke treated principally of the office of Christ, and mostly in a historical manner. St. John refuted those who denied his Godhead: each choosing to treat more largely on those things, which most suited the time when, and the persons to whom, he wrote.
The Gospel according to St. Matthew contains
I. The birth of Christ, and what presently followed it:— a. His genealogy Chap Matthew 1:1-17
b. His birth 18-25
c. The coming of the wise men Matthew 2:1-12 d. His flight into Egypt, and return 13-23 II. II. The introduction
a. John the Baptist Matthew 3:1-12
b. The baptism of Christ 13-17
c. His temptation and victory Matthew 4:1-11 III. The actions and words by which Jesus proved he was the Christ a. At Capernaum 12-16 Where we may observe
1. His preaching 17
2. Calling Andrew and Peter, James and John 18-22
3. Preaching and healing, with a great concourse of people 23-25
4. Sermon on the mount 5, 6, 7,
5. Healing the leper Matthew 8:1-4
6. the centurion's servant 5-13
7. Peter's mother-in-law 14-15
8. Many that were sick 16-17
b. In his journey (wherein he admonished two that offered to follow him) over the sea Here we may observe
1. His dominion over the winds and seas 18-27
2. The devils passing from the men into the swine 28-34 c. At Capernaum again Here, Matthew 9,
1. He cures the paralytic 1-8
2. Calls Matthew, and defends his conversing with publicans and sinners 9-13
3. Answers concerning fasting 14-17
4. Raises Jairus's daughter (after curing the issue of blood) 18-26
5. Gives sight to two blind men 27-31
6. Dispossesses the demoniac 32-34
7. Goes through the cities, and directs to pray for labourers 35-38
8. Sends and instructs labourers, and preaches himself Matthew 10:1; 11:1
9. Answers the message of John 2-6
10. Commends John, reproves the unbelieving cities, invites the weary 7-30
11. Defends the disciples' plucking the corn Matthew 12:1-8
12. Heals the withered hand 9-13
13. Retires from the Pharisees lying in wait 14-21
14. Cures the demoniac, while the people wonder, and the Pharisees blaspheming, are refuted 22-37
15. Reproves them that require a sign 38-45
16. Declares who are his relations, and 46-50
17. Teaches by parables Matthew 13:1-52 d. At Nazareth 53-58
e. In other places
1. Herod having killed John, doubts concerning Jesus. Jesus retiring, is sought for by the people Matthew 14:1-13
2. He heals the sick, and feeds five thousand 14-21
3. His voyage and miracles in the land of Gennesaret 22-36
4. Unwashen hands Matthew 15:1-20
5. The woman of Canaan 21-28
6. Many sick healed 29-31
7. Four thousand fed 32-38
8. Those who require a sign reproved Matthew 15:39; 16:1-4
9. The leaven of the Pharisees 5-12
IV. Predictions of his death and resurrection
a. The first prediction
1. Preparation for it by a confirmation that he is the Christ 13-20
2. The prediction itself, and reproof of Peter 21-28 b. The second prediction
1. The transfiguration, and silence enjoined Matthew 17’1-13
2. The lunatic healed 14-21
3. The prediction itself 22-23
4. The tribute paid 24-27
5. Who is greatest in Christ's kingdom Matthew 18:1-20
6. The duty of forgiving our brother 21-35
c. The third prediction
1. Jesus departs out of Galilee Matthew 19:1-2
2. Of divorce and celibacy 3-12
3. His tenderness to little children 13-15
4. The rich man drawing back, and hence 16-22 Of the salvation of the rich 23-26 Of the reward of following Christ 27-30 Of the last and the first Matthew 20:1-16
5. The prediction itself 17-19
6. The request of James and John; humility enjoined 20-28
7. The two blind men cured 29-34 V.
V. Transactions at Jerusalem before his passion a. Sunday His royal entry into Jerusalem Matthew 21:1-11 His purging the temple 12-17
b. Monday The barren fig tree 18-22
c. Tuesday, transactions In the temple
1. The chief priests and elders confuted By a question concerning John's baptism 23-27 By the parables Of the two sons 28-32 Of the vineyard 33-44
2. Seek to lay hands on him 45-46
3. The parable of the marriage feast Matthew 22:1-14
4. He is questioned, concerning paying tribute 15-22 The resurrection 23-33 The great commandment 34-40
5. Christ's question concerning David's Lord 41-46 Caution concerning the scribes and Pharisees Matthew 23:1-12 Severe reproof of them 13-36 and of Jerusalem 37-39 Out of the temple:
1. His discourse of the destruction of Jerusalem, and the end of the world Matthew 24:1-51
2. The ten virgins, the talents; the last judgment Matthew 25:1-46
VI. His passion and resurrection
A. His passion, death, and burial Matthew 26:1-2 a. Wednesday His prediction Matthew 26:1-2 The consultation of the chief priests and elders 3-5 Judas bargains to betray him 6-16
b. Thursday
1. In the day time
The passover prepared 17-19
2. In the evening
The traitor discovered 20-25
The Lord's Supper 26-29
3. In the night
1. Jesus foretells the cowardice of the apostles 33-35
2. Is in agony 36-46
3. Is apprehended, reproves Peter and the multitude; is forsaken of all 47-56
4. Is led to Caiaphas, falsely accused, owns himself the Son of God, is condemned, derided 57-68
5. Peter denies him and weeps 69-75
c. Friday
1. The height of his passion
In the morning
1. Jesus is delivered to Pilate Matthew 27:1-2
2. The death of Judas 3-10
3. Jesus's kingdom and silence 11-14
4. Pilate, though warned by his wife, condemns him 15-26
5. He is mocked and led forth 27-32
The third hour
The vinegar and gall: the crucifixion; his garments divided; the inscription on the cross; the two robbers; blasphemies 33-44 From the sixth to the ninth hour
The darkness, his last agony 45-49
2. His death 50
The veil rent, and a great earthquake 51-53
The centurion wonders; the women behold 54-56
3. His burial 57-61
d. Saturday The sepulchre secured 62-66
B. His resurrection
1. Testified to the women by an angel Matthew 28:1-8 By our Lord himself 9-10
2. Denied by his adversaries 11-15
3. Proved to his apostles 16-20
Adam Clarke
Preface to the Gospel of St. Matthew
CLA_MAT.PDF, source PDF p. 3
Editorial note: Source collation note — paragraph 2: “the time of christ, η παλαια διαθηκη, the old covenant; which”; “is in the greek η καινη διαθηκη, which we translate the”. paragraph 10: “master’s return, replied:- ω γερον, out~ ar”. paragraph 11: “out~ οδυσσευς ετι οικον ελευσεται. Ib. v. 266.”; “out~ οδυσσευς ετι οικον ελευσεται. ib. v. 266”. paragraph 14: “ευαγγελιονÈ δωρον (source keys requiring collation: euaggelionÈ)”. paragraph 18: “the sense of supplication, επι τοσαυταις πραξεσιν ευαγγελια μεν δις ηδη tequkamen-“relative to these”. source PDF page 3: “the time of Christ, η παλαια διαθηκη OLD COVENANT; which”. source PDF page 6: “master’s return, replied:- ω γερον ουτ͂ αρ͂ εγων ευαγγελιος τοδε τισω ουτ͂ οδυσσευς ετι οικον ελευσεται Ib. v. 266. Old”. source PDF page 7: “gives the following comment: ευαγγελιονÈ δωρον υπερ αγαθης ευαγγελιας “Euangelion signifies the reward (source keys requiring collation: euaggelionÈ)”; “the sense of supplication επι τοσαυταις πραξεσιν ευαγγελια μεν δις ηδη τεθυκαμεν -“relative to these”. Compared with CLA_MAT.PDF PDF p. 3, CLA_MAT.PDF PDF p. 6, CLA_MAT.PDF PDF p. 7. The source-font or layout comparison does not securely establish every letter, mark or local sequence in these passages. The original source pages remain necessary for details not established by the bounded corrections below. Additional-source visual collation: the independent 1846 Clarke New Testament, vol. I (New York: G. Lane & C. B. Tippett), establishes these bounded repairs: paragraph 10, scan leaf n83: “out~” → “ουτ’”; “ar~” → “αρ’”; “ευαγγελιος” → “ευαγγελιον” | paragraph 11, scan leaf n83: “out~” → “ουτ’”. The cited scan confirms the listed letters and elision marks. This is not a full accent-by-accent transcription or a certification of other words, references, or layout in the passages covered by this note; the remaining source-reading qualifications are retained. CLA_MAT.PDF, PDF page 3; CLA_MAT.PDF, PDF page 6; CLA_MAT.PDF, PDF page 7; Independent Clarke NT vol. I, 1846, scan leaf n83.
PREFACE TO THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW
THE general title of this latter collection of sacred books, which, as well as the former, all Christians acknowledge to have been given by immediate inspiration from God, is in the Greek η καινη διαθηκη, which we translate THE NEW TESTAMENT: but which should rather be translated THE NEW COVENANT; or, if it were lawful to use a periphrasis, the New Covenant, including a Testamentary Declaration and Bequest: for this is precisely the meaning of this system of justice, holiness, goodness, and truth. St. Paul, 2 Corinthians 3:14, calls the sacred books before the time of Christ, η παλαια διαθηκη, THE OLD COVENANT; which is a very proper and descriptive title of the grand subject of those books. This apostle evidently considers the Old Testaments and the New, as two covenants, Galatians 4:24; and, if comparing these two together, he calls one παλαιαν διαθηκην, the old covenant, the other καινην, the new; one πρωτην, the first, the other νεαν, that which is recent; in opposition to the old covenant, which was to terminate in the new, he calls this κρειττανα, better, more excellent, Hebrews 7:22; 8:6; and αιωνιον, everlasting, Hebrews 13:20, because it is never to be changed, nor terminate in any other; and to endure endlessly itself. The word covenant, from con together, and venio, I come, signifies a contract or agreement made between two parties; to fulfil the conditions of which, they are mutually bound. The old covenant, in its essential parts, was very simple. I WILL BE YOUR GOD. YE SHALL BE MY PEOPLE-the spirit of which was never changed. The people were to take Jehovah as the sole object of their religious worship; put their whole trust and confidence in him; serve him in his own way, according to the prescribed forms which he should lay before them. This was their part. On his side, God was to accept them as his people, give them his Spirit to guide them, his mercy to pardon them, his providence to support them, and his grace to preserve them unto eternal life. But all this was connected with the strict observance of a great variety of rites and ceremonies, at once expressive of the holiness of God, the purity of the Divine justice, and the exceeding sinfulness and utter helpless state of man. A great part of the four latter books of Moses is employed in prescribing and illustrating these rites and ceremonies; and what is called the new covenant is the complement and perfection of the whole.
The word διαθηκη, from δια and τιθημι, I lay down, signifies not only a covenant agreement, but also that disposal which a man makes of his secular matters during his life, which is to take place after his death. It answers to the Hebrew ברית berith, from בר bar, to purify, because, in making covenants, a sacrifice was usually offered to God, for the purification of the contracting parties; and hence the word ברית berith is frequently used to express not only the covenant itself, but also the sacrifice offered on the occasion. See below under GOSPEL; and see the notes on Genesis 6:18; 15:18; Exodus 29:45; Leviticus 26:15; and Deuteronomy 29:12, where every thing relative to this subject is minutely considered.
The term new covenant, as used here, seems to mean that grand plan of agreement or reconciliation which God made between himself and mankind, by the death of Jesus Christ; in consequence of which, all those who truly repent, and unfeignedly believe in the great atoning sacrifice, are purified from their sins, and united to God. Christ is called της διαθηκης καινης μεσιτης, the Mediator of the new covenant, Hebrews 9:15. And referring to the ratification of this new covenant or agreement, by means of his own death, in the celebration of his last supper, Christ calls the cup, το ποτεριον η καινη διαθηκη εν τω αιματι μον, this cup is the new covenant in my blood: i.e. an emblem or representation of the new covenant ratified by his blood. See Luke 22:20. And from these expressions, and their obvious meaning, the whole Christian Scriptures have obtained this title, THE NEW TESTAMENT, OR COVENANT, OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST.
Those writings, and the grand subject of them, which, previously to the New Testament times, were termed simply THE covenant; were, after the incarnation, called the OLD covenant, as we have already seen, to distinguish them from the Christian Scriptures, and their grand subject, which were called the NEW covenant; not so much because it was a new agreement, but rather a renewal of the old, in which the spirit, object, and design of that primitive covenant were more clearly and fully manifested. The particular title to each of the four following books, in most Greek MSS. and printed editions, is ευαγγελιον κατα
ματθαιονμαρκονλουκανιοαννην, which we translate, the Gospel according to Matthew-Mark-Luke-John; i.e. the gospel or history of our blessed Lord, as written and transmitted to posterity by each of these writers. Our word GOSPEL, which should be always written godspel, or godespel, comes from the Anglo-Saxon, and is compounded of [Anglo-Saxon], good, and [Anglo-Saxon] history, narrative, doctrine, mystery, or secret; and was applied by our ancestors to signify the revelation of that glorious system of truth, which had been, in a great measure, hidden or kept secret from the foundation of the world. Among Saxon scholars, the word GOSPEL has been variously explained. Mr. Somner, who writes it [Anglo-Saxon], explains it thus, Sermo Dei mysticus; Dei historia. “The mystic word of God; the history of God, or God’s history.” But he supposes that it may be compounded of [Anglo-Saxon] good, and [Anglo-Saxon], a message; and very properly observes, that [Anglo-Saxon] signifies, not only to preach, or proclaim the Gospel; but also to foretell, or predict; to prophesy, to divine: and in this latter sense the word [Anglo-Saxon] spell was anciently used among us, and still signifies an incantation, or a charm; which implies a peculiar collocation and repetition of certain words, which were supposed to produce supernatural effects by means of spiritual influence or agency; which agency was always attracted and excited by such words, through some supposed correspondency between the words, and the spiritual agency to be employed. The word, in this sense, occurs in King Alfred’s Saxon translation of Boethius, De Consolatione Philosophiæ, chap. 38. [Anglo-Saxon], Then deceitful men began to practise incantations. It is possible that our ancestors gave this title to the preaching of Christ crucified, from observing the astonishing effects produced by it, in changing the hearts and lives of sinners. And very innocently might they denominate the pure powerful preaching of the death and resurrection of Christ, God’s charm: that wonderful word, which, accompanied with the demonstration and power of the Holy Ghost, produced such miraculous effects among men.
As the word [Anglo-Saxon] spellian signifies to teach or instruct, hence our word to spell, i.e. to teach a person, by uniting vowels and consonants, to enunciate words; and thus learn to read. And hence the book out of which the first rudiments of language are learned is termed a spelling book, exactly answering to the [Anglo-Saxon] spell-book of our ancestors, which signified a book of homilies, or plain discourses, for the instruction of the common people. We may See Clarke’s note on “Genesis 1:1”) that [Anglo-Saxon] among our ancestors, not only signified GOD, the supreme Being; but also good or goodness, which is his nature: [Anglo-Saxon] godspell, therefore, is not only God’s history, doctrine, or plan of teaching; but also the good history, the good doctrine; and hence [Anglo-Saxon] to preach or proclaim this doctrine; [Anglo-Saxon] the sermons that contained the rudiments of it, for the instruction of men; and [Anglo-Saxon] spel-boda, the orator, messenger, or ambassador, that announced it.
The Greek word ευαγγελιον, from ευ good, and αγγελια a message, signifies good news, or glad tidings in general; and is evidently intended to point out, in this place, the good message or the glad tidings of great joy which God has sent to all mankind, preaching peace and reconciliation by Christ Jesus, who is Lord of all: proclaiming that he, as the promised Messiah, has, by the grace of God, tasted death for every man-for he has died for their offences, and risen again for their justification; and that, through his grace, every sinner under the whole heaven, may turn to God, and find mercy. This is good news, glad tidings, a joyful message; and it is such to all mankind, as in it every human spirit is interested. It is used in this sense by Achilles Tatius, lib. v. c. 12, ταυτα ακαυσας ο σατυρος, προστρεχει προς την μελιττην ευαγγελια φερων: Having heard these things, Satyrus ran to Melitta, bringing the good news. But, besides this general meaning, the word ευαγγελιον, has other acceptations in the New Testament, and in the Greek writers, which may be consulted here with great propriety and effect.
1. It signifies the reward given to those who brought good news. Thus Homer represents the disguised Ulysses claiming a reward ευαγγελιον, a vest and mantle, should he verify to Eumeus the glad tidings of his master’s safety. ευαγγελιον δε μοι εστω. Let me have a reward for my good news. Odyss. xiv. v. 152.
To which Eumeus, who despaired of his master’s return, replied:- ω γερον, ουτ’ αρ’ εγων ευαγγελιον τοδε τισω,
ουτ’ οδυσσευς ετι οικον ελευσεται. Ib. v. 266.
Old friend! nor cloake nor vest thy gladsome news
Will ever earn: Ulysses comes no more! COWPER.
And on the word, as thus used, Eustathius gives the following comment: ευαγγελιονÈ δωρον υπερ αγαθης ευαγγελιας. “Euangelion signifies the reward given for bringing good news.”
St. Chrysostom, in his sixth Homily on the Acts, gives this as a common meaning of the word. “The Gospel is this: Thou shalt receive good things: as men are accustomed in their common conversation to say to each other, τι μοι των ευαγγελιων; What reward wilt thou give me for my good news? &c.” It is used in the same sense by the Septuagint. 2 Samuel 4:10. When one told me, saying, Behold, Saul is dead, thinking to have brought good tidings, I took him and slew him in Ziglag, who thought ω εδει με δουναι ευαγγελια, that I would have given him A REWARD for his tidings. CICERO uses it in the same sense; see his epistles to Atticus, lib.
2. ep. 3. O suaves epistolas tuas uno tempore mihi datas duas: quibus ευαγγελια quæ reddam nescio, deberi quidem, plane fateor. “O, how delightful are your epistles! two of which I have received at one time, for which I know not what recompense to make: but, that I am your debtor, I candidly confess.”
2. It is used also to signify the prayers, thanksgivings, and sacrifices offered on the arrival of good news. So Aristophanes, μοι δοκειευαγγελια θυειν, εκατον βους, τη θεω, I think I should SACRIFICE A HECATOMB to the goddess for this intelligence, ARISTOPH. in Equit. v. 653.
ISOCRATES (Areopag. initio) is supposed to use the word in the sense of supplication, επι τοσαυταις πραξεσιν ευαγγελια μεν δις ηδη tequkamen-“relative to these transactions, we have purposed to make supplication twice.” Xenophon uses it to denote a eucharistic offering made on account of receiving good news. εθυε τα ευαγγελια. See Hist. Gr. i. 6, 27. It seems to be used in a similar sense by the Septuagint in 2 Samuel 18:20, 27.
Other examples might be produced in which the word is used in all the above senses; but these may be deemed sufficient. I would not have been so copious, had not a certain great man denied that the word had the above meanings.
3. However illustrative the above acceptations of ευαγγελιον, among the Greek writers, may be of the word in relation to the great doctrine of the new covenant; yet, among the sacred writers, it is restricted to express the glad tidings of the coming of the Messiah, for the reasons mentioned above. See Luke 2:10.
4. The whole doctrine of Jesus Christ, comprised in the history of his incarnation, preaching, miracles, sufferings, death, resurrection, ascension, and the mission of the Holy Spirit, by which salvation was procured for a lost world, is expressed by the word ευαγγελιον, as well as by the general title; καινη διαθηκη. Romans 1:1, 3, 9; Matthew 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; Mark 1:14. But the sacred writers use it with a variety of epithets which it may be necessary to mention.
1st, It is sometimes termed, The Gospel of God concerning his Son. Romans 1:1, 3.
2dly, The Gospel of the Son of God. Romans 1:9. 3dly, The Gospel of the kingdom of God. Matthew 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; Mark 1:14.
4thly, Sometimes it is simply called THE GOSPEL. Mark 13:10; Mark 16:15.
5thly, The word or doctrine (λογος) of the Gospel. Acts 15:7. 6thly, The Gospel of peace. Ephesians 6:15.
7thly, The Gospel of glory, το ευαγγελιον της δοξης. 1 Timothy 1:11.
8thly, The Gospel of salvation, το ευαγγελιον της σωτηριας Ephesians 1:13.
5. In 1 Corinthians 9:23, it means the blessings and privileges promised in the New Testament.
6. It means the public profession of the doctrine taught by Christ, Mark 8:35; 10:29; 2 Timothy 1:8; Philemon 1:13.
7. But in Galatians 1:6, 8, 9, the word ευαγγελιον seems to mean any new doctrine, whether true or false.
Many MSS. have το κατα ματθαιον αγιον ευαγγελιον, which is generally rendered, The Gospel according to SAINT Matthew. But the word αγιον, saint, or holy, should be here applied to the Gospel, with which it properly agrees; and then the title would run, The holy Gospel according to Matthew; that is, the account of this holy dispensation according to the narrative composed by Matthew, an eye witness of all the transactions he relates. But anciently the word holy was neither applied to the narrative nor to the narrator, the title being simply, The Gospel according to Matthew, and so of the others.
Some Account of Matthew the Evangelist.
CLA_MAT.PDF, source PDF p. 10
SOME ACCOUNT OF MATTHEW THE
EVANGELIST.
MATTHEW, supposed to be the same who is also called Levi, son of Alpheus, was by birth a Jew. As to his office, he appears to have been a tax-gatherer, under the Romans. He was a native of Galilee, as the rest of Christ’s apostles were; but of what city in that country, or of which tribe of the people of Israel, is not known.
As he sat at the custom house, by the seaside, in or near the city of Capernaum, Jesus called him; and as soon as he could make up his accompts with those by whom he had been employed and intrusted, he became a willing, faithful disciple of Christ. After this, St. Mark tells us, he made an entertainment in his own house, where Christ and several of his disciples were present, together with many tax-gatherers, and others, of no very respectable character, in the sight of the Pharisees. It is probable that Matthew took this occasion of calling together his relatives and acquaintances, that he might take a friendly farewell of them; and give them the opportunity of seeing and hearing that Divine Person, whose words he had already found to be spirit and life to his own soul, and to whose service he had now solemnly dedicated himself.
He was placed by our Lord in the number of his apostles, and continued with him during his life. After the ascension of Christ, he was at Jerusalem, and received the Holy Ghost with the rest of the disciples on the day of pentecost.
Matthew, with Andrew, Peter, and the two sons of Zebedee, are the only disciples whose call is particularly mentioned. It is uncertain when, where, or how he died. There does not appear to be any clear evidence, in the writings of the primitive fathers, that he suffered martyrdom. St. Matthew’s gospel is generally allowed to be the most ancient part of the writings of the New Covenant. Many modern critics contend that it was written about the year of our Lord 61, or between this and 65. Others, that it was written so early as 41, or about the eighth year after the ascension; and this is supported by the subscriptions at the end of this gospel in many MSS.; but it must be observed, that all these MSS. are posterior to the 10th century. Michaelis has adopted a middle way, which carries much of the appearance of probability with it, viz.: that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew about the 8th year after the ascension of our Lord, or A. D. 41; and that the translation of it into Greek was made about A. D. 61, or later. Whether this gospel were written originally in Hebrew or Greek, is a question by which the most eminent critics have been greatly puzzled and divided. The balance, however, is clearly in favour of a Hebrew original. The present Greek text was doubtless published at a very early period; who the translator was, cannot, at this distance of time, be determined; probably it was the evangelist himself.
As Matthew was one of the twelve disciples, his history is an account of what he heard and saw, being a constant attendant on our blessed Lord. This consideration, of itself, would prove that, allowing him only to be a man of integrity, he would make no mistakes in his narrative. Add to this, the influence and superintendence of the Holy Spirit, under which he constantly acted, and which our Lord had promised to his disciples, to guide them into all truth, and bring what soever he had spoken to them, into remembrance, John 14:26. These two considerations stamp the narrative with the utmost degree of credibility.
Advertisement.
CLA_MAT.PDF, source PDF p. 12
ADVERTISEMENT.
IT may be necessary to say a few words in explanation of the different ERAS introduced at the commencement of the gospels. 1. By the Usherian year of the World, the reader is to understand the chronological computation of Archbishop Usher; who supposed that 4000 years exactly had elapsed from the creation of the world till the birth of Christ. 2. The Alexandrian era is that chronological computation which was used by the people of Alexandria; who began their reckoning 5502 before the vulgar year of Christ 1. 3. The Antiochian era is a correction of the preceding, in the 4th century, by Pandorus, an Egyptian monk, and used by the people of Antioch; it differs only from the Alexandrian by subtracting ten years. 4. The Constantinopolitan era is that still in use in the Greek Church, which reckons 5508 before the year 1 of the Incarnation, according to the vulgar era. 5. The Julian Period is a factitious era, conceived by Joseph Scaliger, to facilitate the reduction of the years of any given epoch to that of another. This Period is the result of the Lunar and Solar Cycles, and the Indictions, multiplied by each other. Thus: multiply 19 the Lunar Cycle, by 28 the Solar Cycle, and the product will be 532; multiply this sum by 15, the Cycle of the Indictions, and you will have 7980 years, which constitute the Julian Period. The first year of the vulgar era is placed in the 4714th year of the Julian Period: whence it follows, that to find any year of our Lord in this period, 4713 years must be added to that year: e. g., to find the year of this period, answering to the present year of our Lord 1812, add 4713, and you will have 6525, which is the year of the Julian Period sought. 6. The era of the Seleucidæ, sometimes improperly called the era of Alexander, commenced 12 years after the death of Alexander the Great, 312 before the Incarnation, according to the vulgar reckoning, and was properly the first year of the Syro-Macedonian empire. 7. By the year before the vulgar era of Christ, is meant that correct chronological reckoning which showed that the vulgar or common reckoning of the A. D. or year of our Lord, is deficient not less than four years: so that the present year, 1812, should be, according to strict chronological precision, 1816. 8. The mode of computing by Olympiads derived its origin from the institution of the Olympic Games, which were celebrated every four years, for five successive days, at the time of the first full moon, after the summer’s solstice. They were held on the banks of the river Alpheus, near Olympia, a city of Elis, from which they derived their name. The first Olympiad commenced 776 before the Incarnation of our Lord. It need scarcely be added, that each Olympiad consists of four years; hence the first, second, third, or fourth year of any particular Olympiad. 9. The year of the building of Rome is an important era among the Roman historians: it commenced 753 years before the birth of Christ. 10. The year of Augustus, or years after the battle of Actium, is the computation of time from the commencement of the Roman EMPIRE, which took place after the battle of Actium, 27 years before our Lord: from this time Augustus became sole governor. 11. The Cycles introduced require little explanation. The Solar Cycle is a revolution consisting of 28 years; the Lunar Cycle of 19; and the Paschal Cycle or Dionysian Period, is compounded of both, thus: The Solar Cycle of 28, and the Lunar of 19, multiplied by each other, produce 532, which constitutes a third Cycle, called the Paschal Cycle, because in that period the Christian Passover, or Easter, a moveable feast, has gone through all possible variations, and the Solar and Lunar Cycles, Dominical Letters, Paschal term, Epacts, New Moons, &c., &c., all recommence exactly 532 years before. 12. The Cæsarean era of Antioch was a monument which the city of Antioch erected to the honour of Julius Cæsar, in commemoration of his victory at Pharsalia. This was obtained 48 years before the commencement of the Christian era. 13. The Spanish era: this was kept in commemoration of the entire subduction of Spain, by Augustus Cæsar, which took place in the year of Rome 715, or 39 years before the vulgar era of Christ. 14. The Julian era, or as it is sometimes called, the era of Julius Cæsar: this had for its foundation the reformation of the Roman Calendar by Julius Cæsar: and the change was made 45 years before the birth of Christ. Other eras might have been noticed, but those mentioned above were judged to be the most important.
For farther particulars relative to the history of the gospels, see the GENERAL PREFACE to the NEW TESTAMENT.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW
-Usherian year of the World, 4000.
-Alexandrian year of the World, 5498.
-Antiochian year of the World, 5488.
-Constantinopolitan Æra of the World, 5504.
-Year of the Julian Period, 4709.
-Æra of the Seleucidæ, 308.
-Year before the vulgar Æra of Christ, 5.
-Year of the CXCIII. Olympiad, 4.
-Year of the building of Rome, 749.
-Year of the Emperor Augustus, i.e. from the battle of Actium, 26. -Consuls, Augustus XII. and Lucius Cornelius Sulla.
-Year of the Paschal Cycle or Dionysian Period, 530.
-Year of the Solar Cycle, 5.
-Year of the Lunar Cycle, 13.
-Dominical Letters, B A.
Joseph Benson
Preface
BEN_VOL6.PDF, source PDF p. 24
GOSPEL OF SAINT MATTHEW.
PREFACE
Although the word ευαγγελιον, here rendered “gospel,” from ευ, “good,” and αγγελια, “a message,” properly denotes “good news, or glad tidings,” and in many parts of the epistles signifies the whole doctrine of Christ, or of the New Covenant, in contradistinction to that of the dispensation of Moses, or the Old Covenant; yet when applied to the narratives written by the four evangelists, the expression properly means the history of the incarnation and life, doctrine and miracles, humiliation and exaltation, sufferings and glory of the Messiah, the Son of God. The reason why this history is termed “good news, or glad tidings,” is because it really contains such, yea, the best news and most joyful tidings that ever reached any human ear; for surely no tidings can be better, or more calculated to give joy to a sinful and guilty world, exposed to the wrath of God, and liable to suffer the vengeance of eternal fire, than that the Son of God, the brightness of the Father’s glory and the express image of his person, the Maker and Lord of all things, and the final Judge of men and angels, came into the world to seek and save lost sinners. Hence, when the angel announced his birth to the shepherds, as is recorded Luke 2:10, his words were, Ιδου, ευαγγελιζομαι υμιν χαραν μεγαλην, ητις εσται παντι τω λαω, “Behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.” As to the English, or rather Saxon word, “gospel,” it seems originally to mean no more than “God’s spell,” or “God’s word,” and therefore is a very imperfect translation of the Greek expression. Now the history of these good tidings, which is first offered to our consideration in this volume, termed the New Testament, or New Covenant, is that composed by St. Matthew. Of him we know no more than what we learn in the four gospels, which is very little. He was the son of one Alpheus, and was also called Levi, Mark 2:14. He was of Jewish original, as both his names manifest, and probably of Galilee, as the rest of Christ’s apostles were; but of what city in Galilee, and of which of the tribes of Israel, is not known. Before he was called to be a disciple of Christ, he was a publican, or tax-gatherer to the Romans, an office of bad repute among the Jews, on account of the covetousness and oppressive exactions of those who managed it. St. Matthew’s office is thought to have consisted in collecting the customs imposed on all merchandise that came by the sea of Galilee, and the tribute required from passengers who went by water. And here it was that Christ found him sitting at the receipt of custom, when he first called him to be his disciple. Matthew immediately obeyed the call, and followed Jesus, although, it is probable, not statedly till he had made up and settled his accounts with those by whom he was employed. Living at Capernaum, a place where Christ frequently resided, Matthew might probably both have heard him preach and witnessed the performance of some of his miracles before this his call. Some time, but it seems not long, after this, according to the account given by both Mark and Luke, he entertained Christ and his disciples at a great dinner at his own house, whither he invited his friends and acquaintances, with many of his own profession, intending, probably, not only to take a friendly farewell of them, but to give them an opportunity of seeing and hearing that heavenly Teacher whose doctrine he had found to be the power of God to his salvation. He was soon chosen by Christ to be one of his apostles, (see Matthew 10:3,) and sent, with the other eleven, during the time of Christ’s ministry on earth, to preach to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, in different parts of Judea. And they accordingly went through the towns and villages “preaching the gospel, and healing everywhere,” Matthew 10:6; Luke 9:2-6. Matthew continued to be associated with the other apostles till after our Lord’s ascension, and the day of pentecost following; on which day, doubtless, he received the Holy Ghost with the rest of the disciples, or, as it is expressed Luke 24:49, was “endued with power from on high.” From this time, it seems, for at least eight, if not more years, he preached to the Jews in Judea, and the parts adjacent. Afterward, according to the tradition of the church, he devoted his labours to the propagation of the gospel among the heathen: travelling into Ethiopia, or Abyssinia, and making that country the scene of his apostolical labours; and there, it is said, he sealed the truth with his blood. But of this there is no clear evidence in any of the writings of the primitive fathers, nor that he suffered martyrdom, as some have asserted, in Persia, or elsewhere. Indeed we have no certain information when, where, or how he died.
As to the time when this gospel was composed, it has not been precisely ascertained by the learned. Some have thought it was written as early as A.D. 41, or about the eighth year after Christ’s ascension. Others, and especially some modern critics, have contended that it was not written till about the year 61, or between that and 65. All antiquity, however, seems agreed in the opinion that it was the first gospel that was published; “and in a case of this kind,” says Dr. Campbell, “I should not think it prudent, unless for very strong reasons, to dissent from their verdict. Of the few Christian writers of the first century whose works yet remain, there are in Barnabas, a companion of Paul, Clement of Rome, and Hermas, clear references to some passages of this history. For though the evangelist is not named, and his words are not formally quoted, the attentive reader must be sensible that the author had read the gospel which has uniformly been ascribed to Matthew, and that on some occasions he plainly alludes to it. Very early in the second century, Ignatius, in those epistles which are generally acknowledged to be genuine, and Polycarp, of whom we have no more but a single letter remaining, have manifest allusions to different parts of this gospel. The writers above named are those who are denominated ‘apostolic fathers,’ because they were contemporary with the apostles, and had been their disciples. Their testimony, therefore, serves to show not only their knowledge of this book, but the great and general estimation wherein it was held from the beginning.”
It has been a matter of much debate among the learned, whether this gospel was originally composed in Greek or in Hebrew. But Dr. Campbell seems to have satisfactorily proved it was first written in the latter language. “The first person,” says he, “upon record, who has named Matthew as the writer of this gospel, is Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, in Cesarea, who is said to have been a companion of Polycarp, and a hearer of John. Concerning Matthew, that venerable ancient affirms, that ‘he wrote his gospel in the Hebrew tongue, (Εβραιδι διαλεκτω,) which every one interpreted as he was able.’ See Euseb. Hist. Eccl., lib. 3. cap. 39.” Here we have Papias’s testimony, not only that Matthew was the writer of this gospel, but that he wrote it in Hebrew. “The former of these testimonies,” says Dr. Campbell, “has never, as far as I know, been controverted. On the contrary, it has been confirmed, and is still supported by all subsequent Christian authors who have touched the subject; and the latter, that this evangelist wrote his gospel in Hebrew, had a concurrence equally uniform of all succeeding writers in the church for about 1400 years.” In the last two centuries, however, this point has been strongly contested, particularly by Erasmus, Cardinal Cajetan, Whitby, and several others. “The next authority,” which may be brought, “is that of Irenæus, bishop of Lyons, in Gaul, who in his youth had been a disciple of Polycarp. He says, in the only book of his extant, that ‘Matthew among the Hebrews wrote a gospel in their own language, (τη ιδια διαλεκτο αυτων,) while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel at Rome, and founding the church there.’ Euseb. Hist., lib. 5. cap. 8. And in a fragment of the same author, which Grabe and others have published, it is said, ‘The gospel according to Matthew was written to the Jews, for they earnestly desired a Messiah of the posterity of David. Matthew, in order to satisfy them on this point, began his gospel with the genealogy of Jesus.’ The third witness to be adduced is Origen, who flourished in the former part of the third century. Eusebius, in a chapter wherein he especially treats of Origen’s account of the sacred canon, (Hist., lib. 6. cap. 25,) quotes him as saying, ‘As I have learned by tradition concerning the four gospels, which alone are received, without dispute, by the whole church of God under heaven; the first was written by Matthew, once a publican, afterward an apostle of Jesus Christ, who delivered it to the Jewish believers, composed in the Hebrew language, γραμμασιν Εβραικοις συντεταγμενον.’ In another place (Comment. in Johan.) he says, ‘We begin with Matthew, who, according to tradition, wrote first, publishing his gospel to the Hebrews, or the believers who were of the circumcision.’ Again, ‘Matthew, writing for the Hebrews, who expected him who was to descend from Abraham and David, says, The lineage of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham.’” “It would be endless,” says Dr. Campbell, “to bring authorities. Jerome, Augustine, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Eusebius, and many others, all attest the same thing, and attest it in such a manner as shows that they knew it to be uncontroverted, and judged it to be incontrovertible. ‘But,’ say some modern disputants, ‘all the witnesses you can produce in support of this fact may, for aught we know, be reducible to one. Irenæus, perhaps, had his information only from Papias, and Origen from Papias and Irenæus, and so of all the rest downward, how numerous soever; so that the whole evidence may be at bottom no more than the testimony of Papias!’ But is the positive evidence of witnesses, delivered as of a well-known fact, to be overturned by a mere supposition, a ‘perhaps?’ For that the case was really as they suppose, no shadow of evidence is pretended. Papias is not quoted on this article by Irenæus, nor is his name mentioned, or his testimony referred to. Nor is the testimony of either urged by Origen. As to Irenæus, from the early period in which he lived, he had advantages for information little inferior to those of Papias, having been in his younger years well acquainted with Polycarp, the disciple of the Apostle John. Had there then subsisted any account, or opinion, contradictory to the account given by Papias, Irenæus must certainly have known it, and would probably have mentioned it, either to confirm or to confute it. As the matter stands, we have here a perfect unanimity of the witnesses, not a single contradictory voice; no mention is there, either from those fathers or from any other ancient writer, that ever another account of this matter had been heard of in the church. Shall we then admit a mere modern hypothesis to overturn the foundations of all historic evidence?
“Let it be observed, Papias, in the words quoted from him, attested two things; that Matthew wrote the gospel ascribed to him, and that he wrote it in Hebrew. These two points rest on the same bottom, and are equally, as matters of fact, the subjects of testimony. As to both, the authority of Papias has been equally supported by succeeding authors, and by the concurrent voice of antiquity. Now there has not any thing been advanced to invalidate his testimony, in regard to the latter of these, that may not with equal justice be urged to invalidate his testimony in regard to the former. This may be extended also to other points; for that Mark was the writer of the gospel commonly ascribed to him, rests ultimately on the same authority. How arbitrary then is it, where the evidence is the same, and exposed to the same objections, to admit the one without hesitation, and to reject the other! — I shall conclude the argument with observing, that the truth of the report, that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, is the only plausible account that can be given of the rise of that report. Certain it is, that all the prejudices of the times, particularly among the Greek Christians, were unfavourable to such an opinion. Soon after the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem, the Hebrew Church, distinguished by the name of ‘Nazarene,’ visibly declined every day; the attachment which many of them still retained to the ceremonies of the law; in like manner, the errors of the Ebionites, and other divisions, which arose among them, made them soon be looked upon by the Gentile churches as but half-Christian at the most. That an advantage of this kind would have been so readily conceded to them by the Greeks, in opposition to all their own prejudices, can be attributed only to their full conviction of the fact. “Having said so much on the external evidence, I shall add but a few words to show, that the account of this matter given by the earliest ecclesiastical writers, is not so destitute as some may think of internal probability. In every thing that concerned the introduction of the new dispensation, a particular attention was for some time shown, and the preference, before every other nation, given to the Jews. Our Lord’s ministry upon the earth was among them only. In the mission of the apostles, during his own life, they were expressly prohibited from going to the Gentiles, or so much as entering any city of the Samaritans, Matthew 10:5; and when, after our Lord’s resurrection, the apostolical commission was greatly enlarged, being extended to all nations throughout the world, still a sort of precedency was reserved for God’s ancient people, and they were commanded to ‘begin’ preaching ‘at Jerusalem,’ Luke 24:46, 47. The orders then given were punctually executed. The apostles remained some time in Jerusalem, preaching and performing miracles in the name of the Lord Jesus with wonderful success. See also Acts 13:26. And even after the disciples began to spread their Master’s doctrine through the neighbouring regions, we know, that till the illumination they received in the affair of Cornelius, which was several years after, they confined their teaching to their countrymen the Jews. And even after that memorable event, wherever the apostles came, they appear first to have repaired to the synagogue, if there was a synagogue in the place, and to have addressed themselves to those of the circumcision, and afterward to the Gentiles:” see Acts 13:46; where this matter is set in the strongest light. “Have we not then reason to conclude from the express order, as well as from the example, of our Lord, and from the uniform practice of his disciples, that it was suitable to the will of Providence, in this dispensation of grace, that every advantage should be first offered to the Jews, especially the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and that the gospel which had been first delivered to them by word, both by our Lord himself and by his apostles, should be also first presented to them in writing, in that very dialect in which many of the readers, at the time of the publication, might remember to have heard the same sacred truths, as they came from the mouth of Him who spake as never man spake, the great Oracle of the Father, the interpreter of God?” This dialect, or language, it must be observed, was not what we commonly call Hebrew, or the language of the Old Testament; for this was not then spoken either in Palestine, or anywhere else, being understood only by the learned. But it was what Jerome very properly calls Syro-Chaldaic, having an affinity to both the Syrian and Chaldean language, though much more to the latter than the former. It was, in short, the language which the Jews brought with them from Babylon after the captivity, blended with that of the people whom they found in the land at their return, and in the neighbouring regions. It is this which is invariably called Hebrew in the New Testament. It is true, this merciful dispensation of God to the Jewish Christians, in giving them the first written gospel in their own language, was, in effect, soon frustrated by their defection; but this is only of a piece with what happened in regard to all the other advantages which the Jews enjoyed. “The sacred deposite was first corrupted among them, and afterward it disappeared; for that ‘the gospel according to the Hebrews,’ used by the Nazarenes, (to which, as the original, Jerome sometimes had recourse, and which, he tells us, he had translated into Greek and Latin,) and that the gospel also used by the Ebionites, were, though greatly vitiated and interpolated, the remains of Matthew’s original, will hardly bear a reasonable doubt. Their loss of this gospel proved the prelude to the extinction of that church. But we have reason to be thankful, that what was most valuable in the work is not lost to the Christian community. The version we have in Greek is written with much evangelical simplicity, entirely in the idiom and manner of the apostles.” “And I freely acknowledge,” adds Dr. Campbell, “that if the Hebrew gospel were still extant, such as it was in the days of Jerome, or even of Origen, we should have much more reason to confide in the authenticity of the common Greek translation, than in that of an original, wherewith such unbounded freedoms have been taken.” This translation was undoubtedly made and published at a very early period; but who the translator was we have no knowledge, nor is it likely that, at this distance of time, it should be determined: probably it was the evangelist himself.
St. Matthew appears to be distinguished from the other evangelists: I. By more frequently referring to the prophecies of the Old Testament, and pointing out their fulfilment in Christ, for the conviction of the Jews: and, II. By recording more of our Lord’s parables than are mentioned by the others. He begins his history with an account of the genealogy of Christ; which, agreeably to the custom of the Jews, and to prove Christ’s title to the kingdom of Israel, he gives in the line of his supposed father Joseph, whom he shows to be legally descended from Abraham through David. He then bears witness to his miraculous conception, and relates some circumstances concerning his birth and infancy, particularly his being visited by the wise men from the East, and his flight into Egypt and return. He gives a brief account of the ministry of John the Baptist, and its promising effects, and of the baptism and temptation of Christ, and his entrance on his public ministry. He then proceeds with the history of his miracles and discourses, till he comes to his apprehension by the Jewish rulers, his condemnation, crucifixion, death, and burial, the circumstances of all which he relates at large. He then bears witness to his resurrection, the earthquake attending it, and the appearance of a glorious angel, attesting it to the women, who had come to the sepulchre with a view to anoint his body. Of the many appearances of Christ to his disciples, Matthew only records two; namely, one to these women, and one to all the disciples collected together in Galilee. His history concludes with the important testimony borne by Christ, immediately before his ascension, to the exaltation of his human nature to the highest dignity and power; to which is subjoined his solemn charge to the apostles, and their successors in the ministry, to teach and baptize all nations, and his gracious promise that his presence should be with them to the end of the world.
Joseph Sutcliffe
The Gospel According to St. Matthew.
SUT_VOL4.PDF, source PDF p. 14
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO
ST. MATTHEW.
MATTHEW the Evangelist was a native of Galilee, and by profession a publican. He is called by St. Mark 2:14, Levi of Alpheus, that is, son of Alpheus, or of Cleophas. If so he was a relative of Christ, and must have had, as Dr. Lightfoot infers, three brothers among the twelve apostles; James, the less; Judas, called Lebbeus and Thaddeus, and Simon the Canaanite. As the Jews had many names, this is a point not clearly proved. It is not doubted but he was a hearer of John the baptist, as indeed were most of the apostles. He entered on his ministerial course by the sacrifice of his worldly profession, at the call of the Saviour. Papias, a hearer of John the evangelist, and a companion of Polycarp, says that Matthew “wrote his gospel in the Hebrew tongue, which every one interpreted as he was able,” by preaching and by expounding on his book. This testimony appears to be correct, for he never cites the version of the LXX, but takes all his quotations from the Hebrew text. But by the Hebrew we must understand, the same as is meant by St. Luke, who says, that when Paul spake in the Hebrew tongue, “they kept silence the more.” Be that as it might, he wrote for the use of the Hebrews converted to Christ, while St. Luke wrote for the Hellenists and Gentiles. Eusebius has collected the testimonies of Irenæus concerning the divine scriptures, book 5. chap. 8. Of St. Matthew’s gospel he says, it was published among the Hebrews, then called by the jews Nazarenes, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel at Rome, and founding the church in that city. There must however be a slight inaccuracy of the dates, for Matthew’s gospel was in the hands of the jews prior to St. Paul’s preaching at Rome. But as there is no dispute concerning the testimonies of Papias, Irenæus, and others; and as all agree with Origen, who says on tradition, that the four gospels were received without dispute by the whole church under heaven, we need add only, according to the testimony of Clemens of Alexandria, Strom. lib. 4., that St. Matthew was the only apostle that escaped martyrdom. Some say, that in obedience to the Lord, who had said, Acts 1:8, “Ye shall be witnesses unto me in the uttermost parts of the earth,” he travelled as far as Ethiopia, where he died at an advanced age.
Richard Watson
Introduction
WAT_EXPO.PDF, source PDF p. 5
THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW.
INTRODUCTION
THE general title to all the inspired books of the Christian Revelation, Η Καινη Διαθηκη, could not be prefixed until the writings which it contains had been collected into one volume; for an account of which, those who have written on the canon of Scripture must be consulted. It first appears in a work of Origen, and by a common metonymy was transferred from the Christian dispensation or covenant itself to the books which record it. Διαθηκη was very early rendered into Latin by testamentum, instead of pactum, “covenant,” according to Jerome’s correction of the old Italic version, and thus passed into many ancient and most of the modern versions. There is, however, reason to conclude that testamentum, in the popular language of those ages, signified a covenant as well as a testament; for not only is the covenant with Noah rendered in the Italic version by testamentum, but in Isaiah 30:1, it is used for συνθηκη, which, has no other sense than covenant.
The NEW COVENANT is the appropriate description of Christianity; for though διαθηκη signifies any disposition or arrangement in general, yet that arrangement or disposition which respected human redemption, both in the Old and New Dispensation, took the form of mutual promises, under mutual conditions, which is the true character of a covenant. This sense of the word διαθηκη, has the support of numerous passages in the New Testament, where the term occurs: and there is indeed but one, Hebrews 9:15, about which there can be any reasonable doubt; and even this, when it comes to be considered, will appear to be best interpreted in the sense of covenant. But were that solitary text excluded, the manner in which St. Paul opposes the law, which assuredly was not a testament, to the Gospel, in the phrases the Old Covenant, and the New Covenant, — the circumstance that the promises of Christ, and of our salvation through him, are expressed by the prophet by the phrase of making “a New Covenant with the house of Israel,” renders it imperative upon us to take the term διαθηκη, when considered as a general description of the whole body of Christian doctrine and promise, and of the writings which contain it, in the sense of Covenant. Some commentators, under the force of this argument, attempt to compromise the matter, and to explain διαθηκη by “a covenant, including within it a testamentary bequest;” an unnecessary, and not wholly an innoxious representation, as it somewhat eludes the real character of Christ’s death, the efficacy of which is not to be compared to that from which a testament derives its force, which is simply the death of the testator, of whatever kind, or under any circumstances; but to the efficacy of the ancient sacrifices by which the solemn covenants between God and man were typically ratified. We have nothing in the words of Christ, or of his apostles, to suggest to us the idea of our salvation and its numerous blessings being conveyed to us in any way answering to the idea of a testamentary bequest; but Christianity is the new and infinitely gracious covenant of God with mankind fully declared; in which he engages, according to the forms of the said covenant, as quoted from the prophet by St. Paul, to be merciful to our unrighteousness; to remember our sins and iniquities no more; to put his laws into our minds, and to write them in our hearts; and to be to us a God, and to regard us as his people, and therefore to treat us as such in time and in eternity. The conveyance and security of all these comprehensive blessings of redemption were not simply by the death, but by “the blood of Christ;” that is to say, by his violent, sacrificial, and propitiatory death; which voluntary submission on his part was accepted by God on our account, as his resurrection from the dead publicly demonstrated. Thus this covenant of grace was confirmed and ratified to all who should, by complying with its terms, — “repentance toward God, and faith,” or trust “in our Lord Jesus Christ,” — come personally within its provisions and promises, so as to claim the fulness of all its blessings, “grace, mercy, and peace.” The true view of the Christian system, in brief, is, that it is “the new covenant in his blood;” and the appropriate description of that collection of sacred books, which illustrate and commend it, is, “The New Covenant of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” The usual title, The New Testament, is now, however, so familiar, that it would be affectation to disuse it; but still the distinction above made ought to be kept in mind.
The literal meaning of ευαγγελιον being good news, or joyful tidings, our term Gospel, compounded of two Saxon words, which signify good tidings, expresses it with happy precision. It is now generally used for the whole dispensation of mercy through Christ, to mankind; and in this general sense we find it in several passages of the New Testament. The word has, however, a restricted use, as the title of each account of the four evangelists. There it imports the history of the birth, actions, ministry, doctrine, death, resurrection, and ascension of our Saviour; but with constant reference to the joyful import of this intelligence, and the unspeakable benefits which are thus conveyed to mankind. For the same reason the four inspired historians of our Lord are called “evangelists, publishers of good tidings; and they are four, not that many accounts of Christ, called also “gospels,” were not published even in early times, doubtless of various degrees of merit, and the most fabulous of them recording some truths which had been handed down by tradition; but these four only appeared invested with the authority of the Churches generally. Lardner has proved that no spurious or apocryphal gospels whatever were read in the assemblies of Christians when they appeared; nor admitted into the volume of Scripture; nor alleged as authority by different parties; nor noticed by the adversaries of the Christians. Up to the earliest times, however, the four gospels which we now possess are not only mentioned, but have this exclusive seal of their acknowledged inspiration put upon them, that they only were read in Churches, and they only referred to as infallible authorities in matters of controversy. Two of these were written by apostles, Matthew and John; and two by companions of the apostles, Mark and Luke, the former having been the companion of St. Peter, and the latter of St. Paul. We have, therefore, in some Greek MSS. and ancient translations an arrangement of the gospels according to the rank of these authors, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark; but in the majority of the Greek MSS., in all the old translations of Asia and Africa, and in catalogues of the canonical books, that chronological order is observed, which was most anciently and universally received, — Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. This circumstance is important, as it assists us in explaining the peculiar character and object of each gospel. Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, says, “Matthew, who at the first taught among the Jews, published his gospel when he was going to visit others. When Mark and Luke had also published their gospels, and these three had fallen into the hands of many, he, John, gave his approbation and testimony to their veracity; but something was defective in them, on which account John included in his gospel that space of time which the rest had omitted, and those parts of the history of our Saviour which occurred within it.” But long before this, in the second century, Irenæus declares that, as to this chronological succession, there was no uncertainty or difference of opinion. Whether Matthew wrote his gospel in Greek or Hebrew, not only tradition, but internal evidence, shows that it was in the first place designed for the Jews, and was therefore first published in Palestine. Mark certainly wrote for the use of Gentile converts, as appears from his adding explanations to names of places and of things which were familiar to Jews; and that he wrote at Rome, and for the use of the Latin converts in the first instance, is the best supported opinion. Luke inscribes his gospel to a Greek; and from his long connection with the Churches of Greece and Asia Minor, he wrote his gospel in that part of the world, and especially for their use. John wrote after the rest, and no doubt in Asia Minor. The very composition of his gospel shows that he had seen all the rest; and that his chief object was to supply many of the longer discourses of Christ, and to render his account the means of refuting the heresies which had recently grown up. It may here be generally remarked that the evangelists do not profess to give a complete account of all the circumstances of our Lord’s life, nor to record all his miracles and discourses. This is expressly disclaimed by John: “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book,” John 20:30. And again, “And there are also many other things which Jesus did.” The other evangelists also occasionally mention many important transactions in brief. In this, curiosity may be somewhat disappointed; but faith is edified. The manner of these writers — so simple and natural, so subdued as to their own emotions, and so far from any intention to produce effect upon the reader by so wonderful a narrative as that committed to them — has often been referred to as a strong internal proof of veracity. The absence of so many facts, conversations, and discourses from that narrative, which they were well able to supply, is a strong presumption of their inspiration. To add to the deep interest of their writings, and advance their own fame as authors, would have been strong motives to minds not under special Divine influence; and to gratify the eager desire of new Christians to know ALL the particulars possible respecting their adorable Lord, would present itself as a pious and laudable inducement to greater copiousness; but enough only is communicated to unfold the character and claims of Christ, the leading principles of his heavenly doctrine, and the evidence of his mission as it stood confirmed by stupendous miracles and accomplished prophecies. Enough is written “that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing we might have life through his name.” For the rest, the very tradition, though doubtless fondly cherished by many of the first believers, has been permitted to perish; and we are referred to that approaching state of perfect knowledge and vision when these will no doubt be among the subjects which shall be communicated by Christ to his glorified servants, or by those servants to each other.
Nor do the gospels taken together form a complete history; for although there are passages in each evangelist which do not occur in the others, they were so far from having the design of writing together one complete and consecutive history, that the same events and discourses frequently appear in each. This arose from the importance of the facts or doctrines which they each state, and generally from their connection with the evidence of our Lord’s mission. For as the gospels were at first published separately, it was necessary that each should contain sufficient to exhibit the true character of our Lord, the truths he came to declare, and the circumstances of his death and resurrection. In other respects, and subordinate to this leading design, they are modified by the particular views under which their composition was undertaken, and by that inspiration of the Holy Spirit which directed each evangelist, both as to insertions and omissions, with reference to that subsequent collection of their accounts which was to be made in the Church; that they might be read together, by Christians of succeeding times, who had not, as most of the primitive believers, though they might possess but one gospel, the opportunity of learning from some of the apostles, their companions, or their immediate successors, those farther particulars which the whole four gospels transmit to us. As to the number of evangelists, Chrysostom, in his prologue to the Homilies on Matthew, justly remarks, in answering the question, “How, then, was not one evangelist sufficient to say all?” — “Certainly, one might have sufficed; but as there are four such authors, who did not write at one and the same time, nor in the same place, who neither met together, nor acted in concert, and nevertheless speak as it were out of one mouth, hence arises a stronger proof of their credibility. But it is replied, the contrary rather took place, many passages being dissimilar. This also is a greater proof of credibility; for if they agreed minutely in all, both as to circumstance and expression, their opponents would never believe that they had not written their memoirs by agreement, or by personal understanding.” “They are clearly separate and independent historians,” says Mr. Nares, “and their close agreement in the most important circumstances of their narratives, forms a coincidence of collateral testimonies which cannot be paralleled in any other example.”
It is disputed whether the title, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SAINT MATTHEW, was originally affixed by himself. Of this we may be tolerably certain, that he did not give himself the appellation of “Saint,” however deserving of it in its highest sense. The title is indeed found differently varied in MSS.; and the probability is, that after the other gospels were published, the inscriptions were added for the sake of distinction, and to transmit the testimony of the primitive Churches as to the authors. Chrysostom, however, says that Matthew himself called his work. “The Gospel,” δια τουτο ευαγγελιον την ιστοριαν εκαλεσιν, κ. τ. λ. (Homil. I, in Matthew Præf.) The titles of each finally became, with some variations in the MSS., the Gospel κατα Ματθειον, κατα Μαρκον, &c. “So the most ancient teachers of the Church cite them, not as the gospel of Matthew, of Mark, but according to Matthew, according to Mark,” &c. (Hug’s Introduction.)
The time when St. Matthew’s gospel was published has been matter of debate among critics; some fixing it as near to the ascension of our Lord as A.D. 37, others extending it to A.D. 62, and others fixing upon several intermediate dates. The later dates rest chiefly upon an equivocal passage in Irenæus, and the more early have the reason of the case in their favour. It is much more probable that the first apostolic account of the life of our Lord should be written within a few years of his death, than that it should be so long delayed A.D. 61, or 62. Eusebius is express in fixing the time A.D. 41, in the third year of Caligula, that is, eight years after Christ’s ascension. It is true that, as a matter of evidence, this does not much affect any question; for the immediate spread of the Gospel among such multitudes in Palestine, and its metropolis, and elsewhere, can only be accounted for by the unquestionable and supernatural character of the facts on which the whole Christian system rested, and the evidence of the miracles wrought by the primitive teachers themselves; and farther, all the gospels, if fixed at the latest dates which have been assigned to them, were certainly published while a considerable number of persons were still alive, who from personal knowledge were able to affirm whether the alleged facts, so particularly stated by the evangelists as to time, place, and persons, were true relations or not. The Jews especially had every motive to sift these accounts, and transported would they have been could they have refitted them. But this was never attempted. They attributed, on the contrary, the works of Christ to Satanic agency, and continued long to do so; and thus admitted the grand facts on which Christianity was founded, by the very theory on which they accounted for them. Still many became Christians in Judea, and other countries, who could only be generally and vaguely acquainted with the public life and discourses of their Redeemer; persons brought to faith and salvation by the impression of the miracles of the apostles, the convincing native energy of truth, and the secret influences of grace upon their hearts, for whose confirmation in faith, and the holy comfort of the Gospel, that history of Christ, that exhibition of his doctrine, that powerful impression of his whole extraordinary character, which every single gospel contains, was essential. The gospels were books to be read in their assemblies, as being placed upon a level with the sacred books of the Old Testament by their inspiration, and as being also the key to law and the prophets; and copies were rapidly multiplied to be the light of every Christian family, to afford counsel, comfort, and the subject of hallowing meditations, to individuals in their walks through life. All these present strong reasons for an early composition of an authorized history of Christ, and favour, as a presumptive argument, the early dates ascribed to that of St. Matthew, which was undoubtedly the first published. Add to this, the greater number of critics agree in the opinion that it was published not later than about eight years after the ascension of our Lord.” That the gospel of St. Matthew was first and more immediately designed for the Jews in Palestine, and of course also for the same people scattered throughout the principal cities of the world, appears to be indicated both by its early date, and from its being so eminently adapted to convince the Jews of the Messiahship of Jesus, by the frequency with which it points out the fulfilment of many of their ancient prophecies in him. A still farther proof is, that this evangelist does not, like Mark, whose history was anciently called the gospel of the Gentiles, add those explanatory remarks, as to various Jewish customs, sects, and other circumstances, which were sufficiently familiar to the Jews, but wholly unintelligible to almost all other people. When Mark represents the Pharisees as complaining “that the disciples of Jesus ate κοιναις χερσιν; that is, literally, with common hands; in the supposition that his readers might not be acquainted with the Hebrew signification of the expression, he has added the explanation, that is to say, with unwashed hands, τουτ’ εστιν ανιπτοις. Still fearing that they could not thoroughly understand the ground of this complaint and the explanation of it, he clears up the matter by an observation on the customs and opinions of the Pharisees, and states that these never eat but with washed hands, imagining that they would otherwise be defiled. He explains what is called paraskeuh by the Jews, that is the Fore Sabbath, tout’ estin prosabbaton; and what korban means, as Josephus did for his Roman readers.
“Matthew recounts the same, even in the same expressions, and speaks of these and many other similar matters; but he abstains from every addition and observation for the instruction of his readers, supposing all this to be already known to them.
“Luke makes numerous observations of a geographical nature in order that his Theophilus, to whom the work was addressed, might briefly be instructed as much as possible concerning the place which was the scene of such an event.
“Matthew does not pursue a similar course. Finding it superfluous to make any observations for the purpose of throwing light upon the morals, customs, opinions, and mode of thinking, all of which might be proper, as to Palestine; he also conducts himself in the same manner with regard to the geography, and is unmindful that his narrations might be unintelligible and obscure to any person who was not acquainted with the country, neighbourhood, cities,” &c. (Hug’s Introduction, vol. ii, p. 6.)
This seems sufficiently decisive as to the Jews being the persons this evangelist had primarily in view, in writing his gospel; but the question will naturally arise, Why then did Matthew write in Greek? It has been a long disputed question whether he did not write originally in Hebrew, that is, in the dialect of Palestine, vaguely so called. Those who contend that the gospel was written originally in Greek, reply to the question, that that language was then very generally used in the civilized world, and particularly in Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, &c. This followed from the Macedonian conquests, and the establishment of Greek colonies by the successors of Alexander, as far as Babylonia, Persia, and even India. In Egypt the numerous Jews there colonized had long before required for their religious use the translation of the Old Testament into Greek, which gave rise to the Septuagint version. Antioch, Tyre, Sidon, and other places adopted the language of the conquerors; and even the Roman public edicts were in those cities ordered to be exposed in the Latin and Greek languages. The Greek language and manners prevailed in many of the cities of the Jews for several ages. Even in Rome debates in Greek were sometimes heard. Tiberius and other of the Roman emperors answered such foreign ambassadors as spake Greek in the same language. The Roman officers of rank appear to have all spoken Greek, and in many of the provinces the judges gave judgments in it; so that this was the language of the courts of law. Thus it was in Syria and Phenicia, and, as several learned men who have largely investigated this subject have shown, there is no doubt that Pilate and Festus used the Greek tongue in Judea; as neither in Josephus, nor in the New Testament, have we any hint that they made use of an interpreter. With the higher classes of Jews the Greek was a necessary branch of education; but great numbers of the common people of different ranks learned it by connection and intercourse, in a more imperfect manner, but still in a sufficient degree for the ordinary purposes of life, with the numerous foreigners, and Hellenistic Jews, who abounded in their principal cities, and flocked to Jerusalem at their festivals. Our Lord is therefore supposed, not unfrequently, to have spoken in the prevailing Greek dialect; and judging from the apparently immediate communication between Philip and “the Greeks,” that is to say, foreign Jews who did not speak the Hebræo-Aramean language of Palestine, who desired to see our Lord, the apostles also at that time were familiar with it. On this account, too, we observe that Jesus at once converses with these Greeks. As therefore a gospel written in Greek would be so largely understood even in Palestine, and when read in the assemblies of the Christians could be so easily rendered into the common tongue, for the instruction of all, a constant practice in the synagogues as to the Hebrew Scriptures, little restriction was placed upon its utility by its being composed in Greek; while its benefit would be largely extended among that still more numerous class of Jews who lived beyond the boundaries of Palestine, in every noted city and country of the Roman empire, and who, though they might in some instances understand the Hebrew of the Old Testament, in scarcely any could they know the mixed Hebrew dialect of Judea. To all these the Greek was universally vernacular. When, however, we speak of the Greek language as in use among the Jews, whether in Palestine or in distant places, the general reader needs to be informed that, as Professor Winer has observed, “in the age which succeeded Alexander the Great, the Greek language underwent an internal change of a double nature. In part, a prosaic language of books was formed, h koinh dialektov, which was built on the Attic dialect, but was intermixed with not a few provincialisms; and partly a language of popular intercourse was formed, in which the various dialects of the different Grecian tribes, heretofore separate, were more or less mingled together; while the Macedonian dialect was peculiarly prominent. The latter language constitutes the basis of the diction employed by the Seventy, the writers of the Apocrypha and of the New Testament.
“All the nations who after Alexander’s death came under Greek rulers, and gradually adopted the language of their conquerors in the common intercourse of life, particularly the Syrians and Hebrews, spoke the Greek less purely than the native Grecians, and enstamped upon it more or less of the characteristics of their respective vernacular tongues. Since now all the Jews who spoke the Greek language are commonly called Hellenists, so the dialect used by them has obtained the appellation of Hellenistic. On this account the New Testament diction has been called Hellenistic.” (Winer’s Grammar, pages 22 and 27.)
The chief difference between the classical Greek and the Hellenistic lies in the idiom: the inflections are the same, but the phrase is different. The sacred language, the Hebrew, and, in some instances, the Palestinian dialect, have each left its impress upon it. The phraseology, indeed, is often Hebrew, though the words are Greek; still it contains fewer Hebrew grammatical constructions than the Septuagint. The style of the New Testament was a circumstance, however, no doubt determined by the Holy Ghost himself, and by which we may conclude, in spite of the fastidiousness of many critics, the truth has been more fully enunciated than if the refined language of the Greek rhetors had been adopted; as at least being more simple, and for this reason more capable of nearly literal translation into the various tongues of mankind. We are always to remember that the Gospel was communicated “in words which the Holy Ghost taught,” and that the reasons for the choice must have been determined by infinite wisdom. Some of these are even obvious; as, for instance, that it affords a strong point of evidence that the language of the New Testament writers should be the language of men in the precise circumstances, and living in the precise places, which they profess. The only conclusion to which any critic could come in reading the histories of the four evangelists is, that their works, being written in Greek, yet in none of the proper dialects of that language, and with such a resemblance to the Hebrew in idiom, were written by native Jews, — by Jews, too, living before the last expulsion of that people from their ancient seats; which is just what the Christian Church has always affirmed of them. That they were plain men, too, unacquainted with even that sort of philosophy which among the higher Jews was known and studied, is equally clear from the entire absence of all allusions to it in their writings. Here nothing of human speculation appears, nothing of rhetorical art, nothing of the inventive power of genius; and the reason is given by St. Paul, that “our faith might not stand in the wisdom of man, but in the power of God.” Some very learned but mistaken men, indeed, who appear to have been scandalized at the assertion, that the Greek of the New Testament was not classical, have bent their efforts to exhibit parallel phrases taken from the most approved Greek authors, and have, in fact, in some instances, succeeded. But the point is now generally given up as of no importance; or rather, because the fair admission of the fact, as far as it goes, is to the honour of the Gospel. It is certain that the style lacks neither clearness nor strength, — two of the greatest qualities of writing; and how far it might have suffered in these respects by the trimming of the grammarian in a fastidious age, we know not. Few men of real taste would even exchange the prayers composed in the time of Elizabeth for the very same prayers cast into what is now called classical English; and not only does the style of St. Paul, for instance, rise to the fulness of perspicuity and vigour, but it has passages of elegant beauty and lofty majesty, to which no parallel can be found. The power which raised, sustained, and subdued the world with this force and majesty, could easily have conformed the idiom and construction to Greek usage and rules; but the Spirit designed not to speak independent of the men; but the men were to speak and write by the Spirit, and to preserve that appropriate dialect to which they and their countrymen were accustomed; yet so that, while their dialect preserved its distinctive character, it should yet be so under immediate control and direction, that, as their Master spake “as never man spake,” so they should write as never men wrote.
Reasons have been given above in favour of the opinion, that St. Matthew first wrote his gospel, in the Greek tongue, with which he, as a man in office, and of at least respectable education, was no doubt familiar: but it is proper also to state the opposite opinion. So uniform is the testimony of antiquity, that he wrote a Hebrew gospel, meaning thereby one in the common language of Judea, that, did not the fathers rely wholly upon the testimony of a passage from Papias only, whom they have all followed, and of whose judgment Eusebius, though he receives his testimony in this respect, speaks very lightly, this question could nat have been so warmly disputed. In the list of names ranged on each side of this controversy there is perhaps nothing to turn the scale, so high is the authority of most of them, both continental and British, in researches of this kind; but the question is, in fact, of almost no importance, since the undoubted antiquity of St. Matthew’s Greek gospel is so high as to reach to the lifetime of that apostle himself, to whom those fathers who allow that he wrote the gospel in Aramean ascribe the translation of that into Greek, or the composition of two original works. Eusebius expressly points out a passage quoted from the Psalms, in which St. Matthew, in his Greek translation, departed from the Septuagint, and rendered into Greek from his own view of the sense of the Hebrew text: and although Origen does not speak of St. Matthew’s gospel as a Greek translation of that written for the Jews in their own language, which he believed to exist, yet he speaks of the gospel which St. Matthew wrote for all classes of Christians composing the whole Church under heaven, which a work written in the Palestinian dialect could not be; and so, in fact, he gives his testimony to St. Matthew being the author of the gospel in Greek commonly received as his, and indeed never questioned from the earliest times. Several of the learned have therefore adopted the theory of two originals, alleging the consent of antiquity for the Hebrew, and evident marks of originality for the Greek. Still, however, though the latter is a conclusive argument, the former, the consent of antiquity, is not in this case sufficiently decisive, to preponderate against those weighty reasons which those have adduced who advocate but one original in Greek. That there would be unauthorized but still very interesting accounts of our Lord’s history, some longer and some shorter, written by many with honest intentions, even before Matthew wrote, is very probable; and we have strong proofs of the great antiquity of a work in the popular language, called “The Gospel according to St. Matthew,” and another, “The Gospel according to the Hebrews,” meaning the Jews in Palestine, and another, “The Gospel according to the Apostles,” if these were not varied forms of the same work, framed by the Nazaræans and Ebionites, Judaizing Christian sects, who in a short time became strongly tinctured with Gnosticism, and the perfect counterparts of those against whom St. Paul so strongly inveighs in several of his epistles. These gospels are referred to by Ignatius, Origen, Jerome, and others; and it was their very antiquity which led them probably to conclude them to be transcripts, more or less corrupted, of the supposed Matthew’s gospel according to the Hebrews, or, what is the same, the Hebrew Aramean “Gospel according to St. Matthew.” It is, however, a remarkable fact, that none of the fathers had ever seen this alleged uncorrupted gospel of St. Matthew. Its disappearance ought also to be accounted for. This has been done by some modern critics, by considering it as the consequence of the dispersion of the Jews after the taking of Jerusalem, and the disuse of their vernacular language. But this ought rather to have diffused so precious a work as an original gospel written by an apostle, and of course of equal authority with his gospel in Greek, which was universally received. Such a work ought to have been found among the faithful Hebrew Christians in various places into which they fled for shelter, under the special protection of Christ, who had warned them to escape on the first approach of the Roman armies to Jerusalem. Had such a work been required from St. Matthew, on the ground of general usefulness to the Palestinian Jewish believers, numerous copies of it must have been taken, both in Judea and in Syria; and yet “Origen obtained no trace of it; he could nowhere find any thing but the book kaq’ Ebraiouv, the value of which he left to each individual’s judgment; yet the discovery of Matthew in his original language was of no less consequence to him, as his perseverance in investigations of this nature was indefatigable. In the same manner as he laboured upon the Old Testament for the sake of restoring the Septuagint, by reference to the original text and the other existing critical aids, so also was he occupied with a recension of the New Testament. The many faults which had crept into Matthew, of which he expressly complains, were to be remedied in no more effectual way than by consulting the original text, as he had done in the Old Testament. He made, during twenty-eight years, various journeys for critical purposes; he drew many unused and forgotten manuscripts out of their obscurity, in which they would perhaps have decayed, for the sake of leaving no means unessayed to amend the Biblical text. His journeys were directed through Palestine and Syria, and at Tyre he laboriously formed his critical apparatus. In spite of these troublesome and voluntary investigations, which this scientific man made, he nowhere discovered any trace of such an original gospel of Matthew. Pamphilus, a Phenician from Barut, famed as a martyr, as the teacher of Eusebius, and, on account of his Biblical learning, as a scholar, established, for the Church at Cesarea, a library, celebrated among the ancients, to furnish books, for which he most carefully explored every direction. The treasure there provided in Biblical literature attracted Jerome, also, who made use of it to advantage. But for this collection Pamphilus had obtained no Hebrew copy of Matthew: it was only the Nazaræan book that he could procure, which Jerome, who translated it, here examined. So fruitless were the endeavours of the ancients to obtain a sight of the pretended original text of the evangelist, that its existence seems to have been a mere report, and it nowhere appears to have existed.” (Hug’s Introduction, vol. 2:58, 59.) But another subject has been largely discussed by the persevering critics of modern times, and especially in Germany; and has led to the most patient and acute investigations, which, however, as in most similar cases, have terminated by ranging those who have engaged in them on different sides. The chief benefit has been an instructive display of the different principles upon which the learned conduct such inquiries, and the eliciting of much information, which, if it does not serve the main point, is often useful in others not at first intended. The remarkable agreement among the three first evangelists, not only in facts, but in words; the use of the same expression for many verses together; the differences which then arise, and which again subside into the same exact correspondence; are circumstances which, it is supposed, can only be accounted for by assuming,
1. That each evangelist embodies many of the same oral traditions common among the immediate disciples of our Lord; or,
2. That the later evangelists saw and copied partially the writings of the preceding; or,
3. That there was one original document, from which Archetypus Evangeliorum, or wrwteuaggelion, each selected at pleasure. In this country, Bishop Marsh has adopted and largely defended this hypothesis of a common document. “Whoever,” says he, “thinks it possible that three texts so closely allied could have been formed independently of each other, may easily convince himself of the contrary by translating a page from any language, and then comparing his own version of it with any other; for he will find that, though the same in substance, they are not identically alike. The argument is strengthened, if we find three authors not only making choice of identical words in common use, but such as are unusual, and which they do not employ themselves on other occasions.” These discussions have unhappily been carried on both in Germany and England, either in entire forgetfulness, or with too little consideration, of the inspiration of the evangelists. These writers have been treated as mere human authors; and this has led to the misapplication, and, indeed, often the impertinent obtrusion, of a vast mass of acute and laboured criticism. But a reference to the original circumstances of the case will always serve to clear our way out of the labyrinths in which bold but theory-loving critics often entangle themselves and their readers. As to the public actions of Christ, they would be remembered by multitudes; but would be stated with great variety by different persons; and, through human infirmity, where there was no ill design, would often be greatly altered in their transmission from those who witnessed them, to those who did not. Many of the sayings of Christ were at the time designedly enigmatical, and could not be understood until after his ascension: and even then only by those who had received the gift of the Holy Spirit; and as for his longer discourses, human memory was so inadequate to retain them faithfully, that one of his own promises to his apostles was to send the Spirit to bring them “to remembrance.” Thus a large body of facts and conversations were floating, so to speak, for some years in the minds and discourses of his disciples, all correct as to substance, but more or less confused as to their full import and exact character, until the day of pentecost; when what had been accurately remembered was explained, what was forgotten was revived, and what was feebly apprehended was fully seized by the mind. These gifts were bestowed on many, and especially upon those who were appointed to preach the Gospel, and convert others. Every apostle, and every teacher, and no doubt many of the more immediate disciples of our Lord who had followed him from the beginning, were therefore qualified to write one of those accounts which we call a gospel; as he was qualified, by his miraculous endowments, to declare them orally: and among them the agreement in substance, and very often in words, must have been obvious; a circumstance which could only create surprise, provided the special gift and office of the Holy Spirit, to take of “the things of Jesus and show to them.” were denied or left out of the argument. From this inspiration it would not, indeed, follow that each of the apostles in his preaching should express the same truth always in exactly the same words; though, as that might in many cases be necessary for the clear enunciation of a doctrine delivered by their Lord, that would be provided for by Him under whose influence they were: and it is therefore quite probable that these primitive preachers, without any concert with each other, and in distant places, did sometimes deliver the same thing in various phrase, and sometimes in the same, as we see it done in the writings of the evangelists. So as to the oral information concerning facts in the history of our Lord, with which they furnished the new converts in different places, they would impart some more copiously and circumstantially than others, as the case of the people, and many other circumstances, seemed to require; some laying more stress upon one, some upon another, and some giving the same relation more copiously, others more curtly; still influenced in all by that Spirit which was always with them. Of this primitive preaching, so far as it related to the instruction of inquirers or new converts, before any gospel had been published, or where copies had not reached, the gospels themselves maybe considered as an exact counterpart; only with this difference, that as all the first inspired preachers were not directed to write, those who were appointed to this office were placed under special superintendence, that each writing should be fitted to answer its end as to the persons for whom it was immediately designed, as that of St. Matthew, in the first instance, for the Jews; those of Mark, the companion of St. Peter, and Luke, the companion of St. Paul, for the churches generally, but the latter rendered more copious than the former; and that of St. John, to counteract the growing Gnostic errors as to the person of Christ, and to preserve his longer discourses; while the whole, when collected and preserved, as in the intention of their divine Author they were always designed to be, should be for the benefit of the whole world, Jews and Gentiles, and be adapted to refute every species of fundamental error to the end of time. If the MATTER of the gospels be inspired, we must conclude that the FORM was determined by the same authority, but still under a rule; that while man was made use of by the Holy Spirit, the character and circumstances of the writer should be preserved, not displaced. There would be, therefore, in these writings, a substantial agreement, and there would often be an entire similarity; — a substantial agreement, because in such writings there can be nothing but truth; and this would chiefly apply to those things which they had known “accurately from the beginning,” and which were remembered by them; — and an entire similarity, as to those things which had been specially “brought to their remembrance,” because that would be done, probably, as to all the disciples at the day of pentecost, in the same words; and, if so, in the same words, or nearly so, afterward, as to those inspired to write the gospels, which words would be in the same language in which they wrote. There appears, therefore, not the least force in the circumstance of their frequent verbal agreement to impel us to either of the conclusions which has been considered inevitable; that the evangelism copied from each other; or that they each copied from a common original gospel, the Archetypus Evangeliorum, as it has been called. “I admit, indeed,” says Bishop Randolph, “of a common document; but that document was no other than the preaching of our blessed Lord himself. In looking up to him, the author of their faith and mission, and to the very words in which he was wont to dictate to them, which not only yet sounded in their ears, but were also recalled by the aid of his Holy Spirit, promised for that very purpose, they have given us their gospels, often agreeing in words, though not without much diversification, and always in sense.”
Harmonies of the gospels, or attempts to form one consecutive account out of the four in chronological order, have but ill repaid the labour bestowed upon them, because almost all harmonists have attempted too much. In different languages, they approach to near two hundred in number; and, still disappointed, one has followed another into the same field of hopeless toil. One mischievous effect has, indeed, sometimes resulted. Discrepances among the evangelists have been often complained of, when the real discrepance has not been between evangelist and evangelist, but between them and the false schemes of the harmonists themselves. As it has been remarked, the evangelists manifestly never intended, either together or separately, to give an exact and full chronological and historical account of our Lord’s life and ministry; but to state those particulars which should display his character, and show the fulfilment of prophecy in him; to record the substance of his teaching, and those events of his birth, life, death, and resurrection, which form the basis of his religion. The order of time was with them, therefore, but a secondary consideration, and, in several instances, appears to have been thought of no importance. Such a general order and succession as the case required is, however, sufficiently manifest; and by considering this, several passages derive illustration and force. This is generally within the power of every reader, as he may be easily assisted by lists of parallels. It may be useful, however, to remark that harmonies may be divided into two general classes, — those which assume that the chronological order has been observed in the gospels; and those which, allowing that this order has been more or less neglected, profess, on very different schemes, to correct the supposed irregularity.
Matthew, who had also the name of Levi, was, at an early period of our Lord’s ministry, called to follow him, as he was sitting at the receipt of custom at Capernaum, upon the sea of Galilee. This was called Christ’s “own city,” because of his most frequent residence there, after he left Nazareth, Matthew 4:13. There can be little doubt, therefore, that Matthew, who was also a resident there, had heard his preaching, knew his character, and was already a believer. On this occasion he was, however, bidden to “follow” him; the import of which command he knew was, to become, in a more formal and intimate manner, his disciple, and to continue with him in all places, as the celebrated Jewish rabbins were attended by their chosen scholars. It implied, also, his seeking more perfect instruction in Christ’s heavenly doctrine. This explains the readiness with which Matthew obeyed the call; and the joy that he felt in being admitted into the number of our Lord’s peculiar disciples, — those who were permitted to behold all his works, to hear all his conversations and discourses, and to be trained to teach his doctrines to others, — was expressed by his making a great feast for his fellow publicans, at which Jesus and his disciples attended. The publicans were odious to the stricter Jews, especially the Pharisees; not, however, let it be observed, always on account of their rapacity, though that might be chargeable upon many, but because they submitted to collect the Roman imposts, — a mark of subjection which the pride of the Pharisees affected to disown, although their country was, in fact, a Roman province. That there were respectable men among even the publicans, appears from the example of Zaccheus and Levi, or Matthew. When they classed them emphatically with “sinners,” it was therefore because they thought the office, when held by a Jew, an apostacy from, or at least an offence against, Judaism. In modern language, we should call Matthew a custom-house officer, because his office was to receive the dues paid at the port of Capernaum upon goods landed there; and that he was of the higher rank, may be gathered from his making the great feast just mentioned, at which he entertained a very large company. He was finally made one of the twelve apostles. Of his labours out of Judea we have nothing certain; but the fathers seem to agree that he left Palestine on some foreign evangelic mission.