1224.

1325 ζιζάνια.

1338 οἱ υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας.

1340 συντέλεια τοῦ αἰῶνος.

1352 γραμματεύς.

1617 σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα.

1618 πύλαι ᾅδου.

1619 "bind" and "loose."

1818

1928 παλιγγενεσία-θρόνου δόξης.

Cf. also the word-play in Nalopaîos, 223, and in Beeλeßovλ,

Cf. 811 1388.

Of course, this anti-Pharisaic attitude is observable also in a less degree in the editor's other source, viz. the second Gospel, where the Pharisees are represented as finding fault with Christ's teaching, 26, or conduct, 216 32. 22, or with the conduct of His disciples, 218. 24 75. They combine against Him with the Herodians, 36 1213. They ask Him for a sign, 811, and question Him about divorce, 102 (but see note on 198). They question Him about His right to teach, 1127. Christ bids His disciples beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, 815, and beware of the scribes, 1238. They plot to kill Him, 141. The Pharisees are mentioned by name in nine of the above cases, viz. 216. 18. 24 36 75 811.15 102 1213. In the others, viz. 26 322 141, it is the scribes who are mentioned, and it is scribes who with other members of the Sanhedrin effect the arrest of Christ, 1443, and His condemnation, 1453 151.

But the editor of the first Gospel extends the anti-Pharisaism of his sources. He not only borrows the polemical sayings from the Logia and the polemical incidents from S. Mark, but so arranges and adds to them as to give a very dark picture of the Pharisees. To them and to the Sadducees the Baptist spoke his words of denunciation and warning, 37-12. Against their teaching was directed a considerable section of the Sermon on the Mount, 520 61-18 His teaching was, says S. Mark, "not as the scribes,' not, adds S. Matthew, as the scribes and Pharisees. The editor also alters Mk.'s οἱ γραμματεῖς τῶν Φαρισαίων (218) into οἱ Φαρισαῖοι, and Mk.'s o ypappareis (322) into oi Papioraio (1224, cf. 984). The

same change occurs in Mk 1235 = Mt 2241, and in Mk 1228 = Mt 2234. See also critical note on 193.

Mk.'s short denunciation of the teaching of the scribes, 1237b-40, is lengthened into a long and severe denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees, ch. 23. The parable, Mk 121-12, is there, as in Mt 2123-44, addressed to the chief priests and elders; but in Mt 2145 it is the chief priests and the Pharisees who recognise that it was aimed against them. Indeed, the whole section, 2123–2246, seems to be directed against the Pharisees; cf. 2145 2215. 34. 41. This polemical motive probably explains the fact that in 2131.41 2220 the opponents are made to utter their own condemnation (λέγουσιν). The whole section seems to develop towards the terrific condemnation of ch. 23. Lastly, in 2762 it is the chief priests and the Pharisees who effect the sealing of the tomb and the placing of the guard before it. It is perhaps due to the same anti-Jewish motive that we owe the insertion of the incident of Pilate's handwashing (2724-25)

THE AUTHOR.

1. Papias apud Eusebius, H. E. iii. 39:

Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνεγράψατο 1 Ἡρμήνευσε δ' αὐτὰ ὡς ἦν δυνατὸς 2 ἕκαστος.

2. Irenæus, iii. 1. I apud Eusebius, H. E. v. 8. 2:

ὁ μὲν δὴ Ματθαῖος ἐν τοῖς Ἑβραίοις τῇ ἰδίᾳ αὐτῶν διαλέκτῳ καὶ γραφὴν ἐξήνεγκεν Εὐαγγελίου, τοῦ Πέτρου καὶ τοῦ Παύλου ἐν Ῥώμῃ εὐαγγελιζομένων καὶ θεμελιούντων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν.

3. Origen apud Eusebius, H. E. vi. 25:

ὅτι πρῶτον μὲν γέγραπται τὸ κατὰ τὸν ποτὲ τελώνην, ὕστερον δὲ ἀπόστολον Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ Ματθαῖον, ἐκδεδωκότα αὐτὸ τοῖς ἀπὸ Ἰουδαϊσμοῦ πιστεύσασι, γράμμασιν Εβραϊκοῖς συντεταγμένον.

4. Eusebius, H. E. iii. 24. 6 :

Ματθαῖος μὲν γὰρ πρότερον Ἑβραίοις κηρύξας, ὡς ἔμελλεν καὶ ἐφ ἑτέρους ἰέναι, πατρίῳ γλώττῃ γραφῇ παραδοὺς τὸ κατ ̓ αὐτὸν Εὐαγγελίον, τὸ λεῖπον τῇ αὐτοῦ παρουσίᾳ τούτοις ἀφ ̓ ὧν ἐστέλλετο, διὰ τῆς γραφῆς ἀνεπλήρου.

5. Eusebius, H. E. v. 10. 3:

ὁ Πάνταινος καὶ εἰς Ἰνδοὺς ἐλθεῖν λέγεται, ἔνθα λόγος εὑρεῖν αὐτὸν προφθάσαν τὴν αὐτοῦ παρουσίαν τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον Εὐαγγελίον παρά τισιν αὐτόθι τὸν Χριστὸν ἐπεγνωκόσιν, οἷς Βαρθολομαῖον τῶν ἀποστόλων ἕνα κηρύξαι αὐτοῖς τε Ἑβραίων γράμμασι τὴν τοῦ Ματθαίου καταλείψαι γραφήν, ἣν καὶ σώζεσθαι εἰς τὸν δηλούμενον χρόνον.

If we interpret τά λόγια in No. r as equivalent to the Gospel,” i.e. “ the Gospel which bears his name, we seem to have a uniform second century tradition (Papias, Irenæus) 1υ.Ι. συνετάξατο. 3 υ.. ἠδύνατο.

repeated in the third (Origen) and in the fourth (Eusebius), to the effect that the first Gospel was written by Matthew, the toll gatherer and Apostle, in Hebrew. The necessary inference must be that our canonical Gospel is a translation of the original Apostolic work.

This tradition (and inference) is, however, directly contradicted by the testimony of the first Gospel itself, for that work clearly shows itself to be a compilation by someone who has interwoven material from another source or other sources into the framework of the second Gospel. This renders it difficult to suppose that the book in its present form is the work of the Apostle Matthew. It is indeed not impossible, but it is very improbable, that an Apostle should rely upon the work of another for the entire framework of his narrative. If he did so, he certainly composed his work in Greek, not in Hebrew, for the first Gospel has largely embodied the Greek phraseology of the second Gospel. It is inconceivable that the compiler should have rendered Mk.'s Greek into Hebrew, and that this should have afterwards been retranslated into Greek so closely resembling its Marcan original.

It would therefore seem that if the five passages quoted above represent a uniform tradition, the only course open to us is to assert that tradition has here gone astray. Our first Gospel was not originally written in Hebrew, nor is it likely that in its present form it is the work of an Apostle. But such a direct negative only forces us to examine more closely the facts at issue. The main points are these:

(1) From the end of the second century it has been believed that our first Gospel was the work of the Apostle Matthew, who wrote it in "Hebrew." How did it come to bear his name?

(2) According to the tradition represented by Papias, Matthew composed rà λóyia in "Hebrew."

In the first place, it is clear that whilst the description rà λóyia need not necessarily exclude narrative material, it is admirably qualified to describe a book containing sayings, discourses, and parables. If there is corroborative evidence, we may reasonably suppose that S. Matthew's Hebrew work was of this description.

Secondly, our first Gospel contains some 411 verses, being about two-fifths of the whole book, which consists of sayings, some of them in small groups, others forming part of long discourses or of parables. These sayings are in large part characterised by common features. See above, p. liv f.

Now, if we assume that the compiler of the first Gospel drew these sayings from the Apostolic work or from a Greek translation of it, we have at once an explanation of the following

facts:

(1) That our first Gospel has been ascribed to Matthew from the end of the second century. On the one hand, an anonymous Gospel based on S. Mark's Gospel and on the Matthæan Logia was in use in the Church. It might, of course, have been called after its compiler. But there would be an irresistible tendency to find for it Apostolic sanction; and the tradition as represented by Papias, that the Logia, which formed so large a part of it, were drawn from a work of the Apostle Matthew, would naturally suggest the name of that Apostle as a sanction for the importance ascribed to the first Gospel. To have called it after its other and chief source, S. Mark's Gospel, would have led to confusion, since the second Gospel was also in common use.

(2) That the Church writers from the second century onwards speak of the first Gospel as having been written in "Hebrew." This is quite simply explained as an after consequence of the transference of the name Matthew from the original Apostolic work to the canonical Gospel. It was traditional knowledge that Matthew had written an Evangelic work in Hebrew, and this statement easily became attached to the first Gospel. If there seems to be a measure of unreality about such a statement as applied to the first Gospel, the fault must lie at the door of those who first transferred the name Matthew from the primary to the secondary work. Yet what could they do? They wanted a name for the first Gospel. The compiler was either unknown, or, if known, a man of second rank in the Church. The book embodied much of the Apostle's work, and it would be a pity to allow his name as an authority for the Church's records to pass into oblivion. And so the first Gospel became the work of the Apostle. But S. Matthew, as all men knew, had written in "Hebrew." And so wherever the first Gospel became known as his work, the statement that he had written in Hebrew followed his name, and was attached to the Gospel.

The canonical Gospel was not the only work ascribed to the Apostle Matthew in the second century. The Jewish Christian sect of the Nazarenes possessed a Gospel, which is referred to by second and third century writers as the Gospel according to the Hebrews. I give below some of the references to it. Lists of quotations from it may be seen in Preuschen's Antilegomena, or Nestle's Novi Testamenti Supplementum, or (in German) in Hennecke's Neutestamentliche Apokryphen. For critical discussions of the questions connected with the Gospel, see Zahn, Gesch. des Kanons, ii. 642 ff., or Adeney in the Hibbert Journal, Oct. 1904.

1. Ignatius (Hieronymus, De Vir. Illus. 16):

Ignatius scripsit-ad Smyrnæos-in qua et de evangelio, quod nuper a me translatum est, super persona Christi ponit testimonium dicens "Ego vero et post resurrectionem in carne eum vidi et credo

f

quia sit; et quando venit ad Petrum et ad eos qui cum Petro erant dixit eis: Ecce palpate me et videte, qui non sum dæmonium incorporale. Et statim tetigerunt eum et crediderunt." Cf. Ignatius, Ad Smyrn. iii. 1. 2. Jerome himself ascribes the expression "incorporale dæmonium" to the Gospel "quod Hebræorum lectitant Nazaræi," Comm. in Isaiah, pref. to Bk xviii. Origen, De Princip. 1, procem. 8, says that the expression "non sum dæmonium incorporeum came from the book called Petri Doctrina.

"

2. Hegesippus (Eusebius, H. E. iv. 22):

ἔκ τε τοῦ καθ ̓ Ἑβραίους εὐαγγελίου καὶ τοῦ Συριακοῦ καὶ ἰδίως ἐκ τῆς Ἑβραίδος διαλέκτου τινὰ τίθησιν.

3. Papias (Eusebius, H. E. iii. 39):

ἐκτέθειται δὲ καὶ ἄλλην ἱστοριὰν περὶ γυναικὸς ἐπὶ πολλαῖς ἁμαρτ τίαις διαβληθείσης ἐπὶ τοῦ κυρίου, ἦν τὸ καθ ̓ Ἑβραίους εὐαγγελίον περιέχει.

Eusebius does not here assert that Papias quoted from the Gospel according to the Hebrews.

4. Irenæus, Adv. Hær. i. 26. 2:

Solo autem eo quod est secundum Matthæum evangelio utuntur (Ebionæi), et apostolum Paulum recusant, apostatem eum legis dicentes.

5. (a) Origen, Comment. in Joh. vol. ii. 6 (Paris, 1759, vol. iv. 63). ἐὰν δὲ προσίεταί τις τὸ καθ ̓ Εβραίους εὐαγγέλιον.

(b) Origen, Comment. in Mt. vol. xv. 14 (Paris, 1740, vol. iii. 671). Scriptum est in evangelio quodam, quod dicitur secundum Hebræos, si tamen placet alicui suscipere illud, non ad auctoritatem, sed ad manifestationem propositæ quæstionis.

6. Clement Alex., Stromata, ii. 9:

ᾗ κἂν τῷ καθ ̓ Ἑβραίους εὐαγγελίῳγέγραπται.

7. (a) Eusebius, H. E. iii. 25:

Ηδη δ' ἐν τούτοις τινὲς καὶ τὸ καθ' Ἑβραίους εὐαγγέλιον κατέλεξαν, ᾧ μάλιστα Εβραίων οἱ τὸν Χριστὸν παραδεξάμενοι χαίρουσι. (b) Eusebius, H. E. iii. 27:

εὐαγγέλιῳ δὲ μόνῳ τῷ καθ ̓ Ἑβραίους λεγομένῳ χρώμενοι, τῶν λοιπῶν σμικρὸν ἐποιοῦντο λόγον.

8. (a) Jerome, De Vir. Illus. 3:

Mihi

Porro ipsum Hebraicum habetur usque hodie in Cæsariensi bibliotheca, quam Pamphilus martyr studiosissime confecit. quoque a Nazareis, qui in Berœa urbe Syriæ hoc volumine utuntur, describendi facultas fuit.

(b) Jerome, Contra Pelag. iii. 2:

In Evangelio juxta Hebræos, quod Chaldaico quidem Syroque Sermone, sed Hebraicis literis scriptum est, quo utuntur usque hodie Nazarani, secundum apostolos sive, ut plerique autumant, juxta Matthæum, quod et in Cæsariensi habetur bibliotheca, narrat historia, etc.