Chapter XXIII: Part 23

A few very brief notices are given of this apostle by John, who alone alludes to him, otherwise than by a bare mention on the list. It is mentioned in his gospel that Nathanael was of Cana, in Galilee, a town which stood about half-way between lake Gennesaret and the Mediterranean sea; but the circumstances of his call seem to show that he was then with Philip, probably at or near Bethsaida. Philip, after being summoned by Jesus to the discipleship, immediately sought to bring his friend Nathanael into an enjoyment of the honors of a personal intercourse with Jesus, and invited him to become a follower of the Messiah, foretold by Moses and the prophets, who had now appeared, as Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. On hearing of that mean place, as the home of the promised King of Israel, Nathanael, with great scorn, replied, in inquiry, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” To this sneering question, Philip answered by the simple proposition, “Come and see;”――wisely judging that no argument could answer his friend’s prejudice so well as an actual observation of the character and aspect of the Nazarene himself. Nathanael, accordingly, persuaded by the earnestness of his friend, came along with him, perhaps, partly to gratify him, but, no doubt, with his curiosity somewhat moved to know what could have thus brought Philip into this devout regard for a citizen of that dirty little town; and he therefore readily accompanied him to see what sort of prophet could come out of Nazareth.

The words with which Jesus greeted Nathanael, even before he had been personally introduced, or was prepared for any salutation, are the most exalted testimonial of his character that could be conceived, and show at once his very eminent qualifications for the high honors of the apostleship. When Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, he said, “Behold a true son of Israel, in whom is no guile!”――manifesting at once a confidential and intimate knowledge of his whole character, in thus pronouncing with such ready decision, this high and uncommon tribute of praise upon him, as soon as he appeared before him. Nathanael, quite surprised at this remarkable compliment from one whom he had never seen until that moment, and whom he supposed to be equally ignorant of him, replied with the inquiry, “Whence knowest thou me?” Jesus answered, “Before Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig-tree, I saw thee.” The fig-trees of Palestine, presenting a wide, leafy cover, and a delightful shade, were often used in the warm season as places of retirement, either in company, for conversation, or in solitude, for meditation and prayer, as is shown in numerous passages of the Rabbinical writings; and it was, doubtless, in one of these occupations that Nathanael was engaged, removed, as he supposed, from all observation, at the time to which Jesus referred. But the eye that could pierce the stormy shades of night on the boisterous waves of Galilee, and that could search the hearts of all men, could also penetrate the thick, leafy veil of the fig-tree, and observe the most secret actions of this guileless Israelite, when he supposed the whole world to be shut out, and gave himself to the undisguised enjoyment of his thoughts, feelings, and actions, without restraint. Nathanael, struck with sudden but absolute conviction, at this amazing display of knowledge, gave up all his proud scruples against the despised Nazarene, and adoringly exclaimed, “Rabbi! thou art the Son of God,――thou art the King of Israel.” Jesus, recognizing with pleasure the ready faith of this pure-minded disciple, replied, “Because I said unto thee, ‘I saw thee under the fig-tree,’――believest thou? Thou shalt see yet greater things than these.” Then turning to Philip as well as to Nathanael, he says to them both, “I solemnly assure you, hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.”

On the day but one after this occurrence, as John records, Jesus was in Cana of Galilee, the residence of Nathanael, and was present at a wedding which took place there. From the circumstance that the mother of Jesus was there also, it would seem likely that it was the marriage of some of their family friends; otherwise the conjecture might seem allowable, that the presence of Jesus and his disciples on this occasion, was in some way connected with the introduction of Nathanael to Jesus; and that this new disciple may have been some way concerned in this interesting event. The manner in which the occurrence is announced,――it being next specified, that two days after the occurrences recorded in the end of the first chapter, Jesus was present at a marriage in Cana of Galilee,――would seem to imply very fairly, that Jesus had been in some other place immediately before; and it is probable therefore, that he accompanied Nathanael home from Bethsaida, or whatever place was the scene of his calling to the discipleship, along with Philip. The terms of the statement are not, however, absolutely incompatible with the idea of this first introduction of these two disciples to Jesus, in Cana itself, which may have been the part of Galilee into which Jesus is said to have gone forth, after leaving Bethabara; although, the reasons above given make it probable that Bethsaida was the scene. After this first incident, no mention whatever is made of Nathanael, either under his proper name, or his paternal appellation, except that when the twelve were sent forth in pairs, he was sent with his friend Philip, that those who had been summoned to the work together, might now go forth laboring together in this high commission. One solitary incident is also commemorated by John, in which this apostle was concerned, namely, the meeting on the lake of Gennesaret, after the resurrection, where his name is mentioned among those who went out on the fishing excursion with Peter. His friend Philip is not there mentioned, but may have been one of the “two disciples,” who are included without their names being given. From this trifling circumstance, some have concluded that Nathanael was a fisherman by trade, as well as the other four who are mentioned with him; and certainly the conjecture is reasonable, and not improbable, except from the circumstance, that his residence was at Cana, which is commonly understood to have been an inland town, and too far from the water, for any of its inhabitants to follow fishing as a business. Other idle conjectures about his occupation and rank might be multiplied from most anciently and venerably foolish authorities; but let the dust of ages sleep on the prosy guesses of the Gregories, of Chrysostom, Augustin, and their reverential copyists in modern times. There is too much need of room in this book, for the detail and discussion of truth, to allow paper to be wasted on baseless conjectures, or impudent falsehoods.

HIS APOSTLESHIP.

There is a dim relic of a story, of quite ancient date, that after the dispersion of the apostles, he went to Arabia, and preached there till his death. This is highly probable, because it is well known that many of the Jews, more particularly after the destruction of Jerusalem, settled along the eastern coasts of the Red sea, where they were continued for centuries. Nothing can be more reasonable then, than to suppose that after the wasting fury of invasion had desolated the city and the land of their fathers, many of the Christian Jews too, went forth to seek a new home in the peaceful regions of Arabia Felix; and that with them also went forth this true Israelite without guile, to devote the rest of his life to apostolic labors, in that distant country, where those of his wandering brethren, who had believed in Christ, would so much need the support and counsel of one of the divinely commissioned ministers of the gospel. Those Israelites too, who still continued unbelievers, would present objects of importance, in the view of the apostle. All the visible glories of the ancient covenant had departed; and in that distant land, with so little of the chilling influence of the dogmatical teachers of the law around them, they would be the more readily led to the just appreciation of a spiritual faith, and a simple creed.

All the testimony which antiquity affords on this point, is
simply this:――Eusebius (Church History, V. 10,) says, in giving
the life of Pantaenus of Alexandria, (who lived about A. D. 180,)
that this enterprising Christian philosopher penetrated, in his
researches and travels, as far as to the inhabitants of India.
It has been shown by Tillemont, Asseman and Michaelis, that this
term, in this connection, means Arabia Felix, one part of whose
inhabitants were called _Indians_, by the Hebrews, the Syrians
and the early ecclesiastical historians. Eusebius relates that
Pantaenus there found the gospel of Matthew, in Hebrew, and that
the tradition among these people was, that _Bartholomew_, one
of the twelve apostles, had formerly preached there, and left
this gospel among them. This tradition being only a hundred
years old when Pantaenus heard it, ranks among those of _rather_
respectable character.

The tradition certainly appears authentic, and is a very interesting and valuable fragment of early Christian history, giving a trace of the progress of the gospel, which otherwise would never have been recognized,――besides the satisfaction of such a reasonable story about an apostle of whom the inspired narrative records so little, although he is represented in such an interesting light, by the account of his introduction to Jesus. Here he learned the meaning of the solemn prophecy with which Jesus crowned that noble profession of faith. Here he saw, no doubt, yet greater tokens of the power of Christ, than in the deep knowledge of hidden things then displayed. And here, resting at last from his labors, he departed to the full view of the glories there foretold,――to “see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.”

MATTHEW.

HIS RANK AND NAME.

In his own gospel, Matthew is not ranked immediately after the preceding apostle, but numbers himself eighth on the list, and after his associate, Thomas; but all the other lists agree in giving this apostle a place immediately after Nathanael. The testimony of others in regard to his rank has therefore been adopted, in preference to his own, which was evidently influenced by a too modest estimation of himself.

In connection with this apostle, as in other instances, there is a serious question about his name and individual identity, arising from the different appellations under which he is mentioned in different parts of the sacred record. In his own gospel, he is referred to by no other name than his common one; but by Mark and Luke, the circumstances of his call are narrated, with the details almost precisely similar to those recorded of the same occurrence by himself, and yet the person thus called, (in the same form of words used in summoning the other apostles,) is named Levi, the son of Alpheus; though Mark and Luke record Matthew by his common name among the twelve, in the list of names. Some have thought that the circumstance of their mentioning Matthew in this manner, without referring at all to his identity with the person named Levi, proves that they too had no idea that the former name was applied to the same person as the latter, and on the contrary, were detailing the call of some other disciple,――perhaps Jude, who also is called by the similar name, Lebbeus, and is known to have been the son of Alpheus. This view is not improbable, and is so well supported by coinciding circumstances, as to throw great uncertainty over the whole matter; though not entirely to set aside the probabilities arising from the almost perfect similarity between Matthew’s call, as related by himself, and the call of Levi, the son of Alpheus, as given in the other gospels.

On the question of Matthew’s identity with Levi, Michaelis is
full. (Introduction, III. iv. 1.) Fabricius (Bibliotheca Graeca,
IV. vii. 2,) discusses the question quite at length, and his
annotators give abundance of references to authors, in detail,
in addition, to those mentioned by himself, in the text.

HIS CALL.

The circumstances of his call, as narrated by himself, are represented as occurring at or near Capernaum. “Jesus, passing out of the city, saw a man named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom, and he said to him,――‘Follow me.’ And he arose, and followed him.” This account shows Matthew’s occupation, which is also known from the title of “the tax-gatherer,” annexed to his name, in his own list of the apostles. This was an occupation which, though unquestionably a source of great profit to those employed in it, and consequently as much sought after as such offices are in these days, and in this country, was always connected with a great deal of popular odium, from the relation in which they stood to the people, in this profitable business. The class of collectors to which Matthew belonged, in particular, being the mere toll-gatherers, sitting to collect the money, penny by penny, from the unwilling people, whose national pride was every moment wounded by the degrading _foreign_ exactions of the Romans, suffered under a peculiar ignominy, and were supposed to have renounced all patriotism and honor, in stooping, for the base purposes of pecuniary gain, to act as instruments of such a galling form of servitude, and were therefore visited with a universal popular hatred and scorn. A class of men thus deprived of all character for honor and delicacy of feeling, would naturally grow hardened, beyond all sense of shame; and this added to the usual official impudence which characterizes all mean persons, holding a place which gives them the power to annoy others, the despised publicans would generally repay this spite, on every occasion, which could enable them to be vexatious to those who came in contact with them. Yet out of this hated class, Jesus did not disdain to take at least one,――perhaps more,――of those whom he chose for the express purpose of building up a pure faith, and of evangelizing the world. No doubt, before the occasion of this call, Matthew had been a frequent hearer of the words of truth which fell from the divinely eloquent lips of the Redeemer,――words that had not been without a purifying and exalting effect on the heart of the publican, though long so degraded by daily and hourly familiarity with meanness and vice. And so weaned was his soul from the love of the gainful pursuit to which he had been devoted, that at the first call from Jesus, he arose from the place of toll-gathering, and followed his summoner, to a duty for which his previous occupation had but poorly prepared him. With such satisfaction did he renounce his old vocation, for the discipleship of the Nazarene, that he made it a great occasion of rejoicing, and celebrated the day as a festival, calling in all his old friends as well as his new ones, to share in the hospitable entertainment which he spread for all who could join with him in the social circle. Nor did the holy Redeemer despise the rough and indiscriminate company to which the grateful joy of Matthew had invited him; but rejoicing in an opportunity to do good to a class of people so seldom brought under the means of grace, he unhesitatingly sat down to the entertainment with his disciples,――Savior and sinners, toll-gatherers and apostles, all thronging in one motley group, around the festive board. What a sight was this for the eyes of the proud Pharisees who were spitefully watching the conduct of the man who had lately taken upon himself the exalted character of a teacher, and a reformer of the law! Passing into the house with the throng who entered at the open doors of the hospitable Matthew,――they saw the much glorified prophet of Nazareth, sitting at the social table along with a parcel of low custom-house collectors, toll-gatherers, tide-waiters and cheats, one of whose honorable fraternity he had just adopted into the goodly fellowship of his disciples, and was now eating and drinking with these outcast villains, without repelling the familiar merriment even of the lowest of them. At this spectacle, so degrading to such a dignity as they considered most becoming in one who aspired to be a teacher of morals and religion, the scribes and Pharisees sneeringly asked the disciples of Jesus,――“Why eateth your Master with tax-gatherers and sinners?” Jesus, hearing the malicious inquiry, answered it in such a tone of irony as best suited its impertinence. “They that are whole, need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what this means,――‘I will have mercy, rather than sacrifice;’ for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

HIS GOSPEL.

After the history of his call, not one circumstance is related respecting him, either in the gospels, the Acts or the epistles. In his own gospel, he makes not the slightest allusion to anything either said or done by himself; nor does his name anywhere occur except in the apostolic lists. Even the Fathers are silent as to any other important circumstances of his life, and it is only in the noble record which he has left of the life of Christ, in the gospel which bears his name, that any monument of his actions and character can now be found. Yet this solitary remaining effort of his genius is of such importance in the history of revealed religion, that hardly the most eminent of the apostles is so often brought to mind, as the evangelist, whose clear, simple, but impressive testimony to the words and deeds of his Lord, now stands at the head of the sacred canon.

On the history of this portion of the Christian scriptures, the testimony of the Fathers, from very early times, is very decided in maintaining the fact, that it was written in the vernacular language of Palestine. The very earliest testimony on this point, dating within seventy-five years of the time of Matthew himself, expressly declares that Matthew wrote his gospel in the Hebrew language; and that each one interpreted it for himself as he could. It is also said on somewhat early authority, that he wrote his gospel when about to depart from Palestine, that those whom he left behind him might have an authentic record of the facts in the life of Christ. So that by these and a great number of other testimonies, uniformly to the same effect, the point seems well established that Matthew wrote in Hebrew; and that what is now extant as his gospel, is only a translation into Greek, made in some later age, by some person unknown.

I. IN WHAT LANGUAGE DID MATTHEW WRITE HIS GOSPEL?

In mentioning the Hebrew as the original language of the gospel
of Matthew, it should be noticed, that the dialect spoken by the
Jews of the time of Christ and his apostles, was by no means the
language in which the Old Testament was written, and which is
commonly meant by this name at present. The true ancient Hebrew
had long before become a dead language, as truly so as it is now,
and as much unknown to the mass of the people, as the Latin is
in Italy, or the Anglo-Saxon in England. Yet the language was
still called “the _Hebrew_,” as appears from several passages
in the New Testament, where the Hebrew is spoken of as the
vernacular language of the Jews of Palestine. It seems proper
therefore, to designate the later Hebrew by the same name
which is applied to it by those who spoke it, and this is
still among modern writers the term used for it; but of late,
some, especially Hug and his commentator, Wait, have introduced
the name “Aramaic,” as a distinctive title of this dialect,
deriving this term from _Aram_, the original name of Syria,
and the regions around, in all which was spoken in the time of
Christ, this or a similar dialect. This term however, is quite
unnecessary; and I therefore prefer to use here the common
name, as above limited, because it is the one used in the New
Testament, and is the one in familiar use, not only with common
readers, but, as far as I know, with the majority of Biblical
critics.

Though the evidence that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, is
apparently of the most uniform, weighty and decisive character,
there have been many among the learned, within the three last
centuries, who have denied it, and have brought the best of
their learning and ability to prove that the Greek gospel of
Matthew, which is now in the New Testament, is the original
production of his pen; and so skilfully has this modern view
been maintained, that this has already been made one of the
most doubtful questions in the history of the canon. In Germany
more particularly, (but not entirely,) this notion has, during
the last century, been strongly supported by many who do not
like the idea, that we are in possession only of a translation
of this most important record of sacred history, and that the
original is now lost forever. Those who have more particularly
distinguished themselves on this side of the controversy, are
Maius, Schroeder, Masch and Hug, but the great majority of
critics still support the old view.

The earliest evidence for the _Hebrew_ original of Matthew’s
gospel, is Papias of Hierapolis, (as early as A. D. 140,) not
long after the times of the apostles, and acquainted with many
who knew them personally. Eusebius (Church History, III. 39,)
quotes the words of Papias, (of which the original is now lost,)
which are exactly translated here:――“Matthew therefore wrote the
divine words in the Hebrew language; and every one translated
them as he could.” By which it appears that in the time of
Papias there was no universally acknowledged translation of
Matthew’s gospel; but that every one was still left to his own
private discretion, in giving the meaning in Greek from the
original Hebrew. The value of Papias’s testimony on any point
connected with the history of the apostles, may be best learned
from his own simple and honest account of his opportunities and
efforts to inquire into their history; (as recorded by Eusebius
in a former part of the same chapter.) “If any person who had
ever been acquainted with the elders, came into my company, I
inquired of them the words of the elders;――what Andrew and Peter
said?――what Thomas, and James, and John, and Matthew, and the
other disciples of the Lord used to say?”――All this shows an
inquiring, zealous mind, faithful in particulars, and ready
in improving opportunities for acquiring historical knowledge.
Yet because in another part of the works of Eusebius, he is
characterized as rather enthusiastic, and very weak in judgment,
more particularly in respect to doctrines, some moderns have
attempted to set aside his testimony, as worth nothing on this
simple historical point, the decision of which, from the direct
personal witness of those who had seen Matthew and read his
original gospel, needed no more judgment than for a man to
remember his own name. The argument offered to discredit Papias,
is this:――“He believed in a bodily reign of the Messiah on the
earth, during the whole period of the millennium, and for this
and some similar errors, is pronounced by Eusebius, ‘a man
of very weak judgment,’――(πανυ σμικρος τον νουν.) Therefore,
he could not have known in what language Matthew wrote.”
The objection certainly is worth something against a man
who made such errors as Papias, in questions where any nice
discrimination is necessary, but in a simple effort of a
ready memory, he is as good a witness as though he had the
discrimination of a modern skeptical critic. (In Michaelis’s
Introduction to the New Testament, vol. III. c. iv. § 4, is a
full discussion of Papias’s character and testimony, and the
objections to them.)

The second witness is Irenaeus, (A. D. 160,) who, however,
coupling his testimony with a demonstrated falsehood, destroys
the value which might be otherwise put upon a statement so
ancient as his. His words are quoted by Eusebius, (Church
History, V. 8.) “Matthew published among the Hebrews his gospel,
written in _their own_ language, (τῃ ιδιᾳ αυτων διαλεκτῳ,) while
Peter and Paul were preaching Christ at Rome, and laying the
foundations of the church.” This latter circumstance is no great
help to the story, after what has been proved on this point in
the notes on Peter’s life; but the critics do not pretend to
attack it on this ground. They urge against it, that as Irenaeus
had a great regard for Papias, and took some facts on his word,
he probably took this also from him, with no other authority,――a
_guess_, which only wants proof, to make it a very tolerable
argument. Let Irenaeus go for what he is worth; there are enough
without him.

The third witness is Pantaenus of Alexandria, already quoted
in the note on Nathanael’s life, (p. 363,) as having found this
Hebrew gospel still in use, in that language, among the Jews of
Arabia-Felix, towards the end of the second century.

The fourth witness is Origen, (A. D. 230,) whose words on
this point are preserved only in a quotation made by Eusebius,
(Church History, VI. 25,) who thus gives them from Origen’s
commentary on Matthew. “As I have learned by tradition
concerning the four gospels, which alone are received without
dispute by the church of God under heaven: the first was written
by Matthew, once a tax-gatherer, afterwards an apostle of Jesus
Christ, who published it for the benefit of the Jewish converts,
having composed it in the HEBREW language, &c.” The term,
“_tradition_,” (παραδοσις,) here evidently means something more
than floating, unauthorized information, coming merely by vague
hearsay; for to this source only he refers all his knowledge
of the fact, that “the gospel was written by Matthew;” so that,
in fact, we have as good authority in this place, for believing
that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, as we have that he wrote at all.
The other circumstances specified, also show clearly, that he
did not derive all his information on this point from Papias,
as some have urged; because this account gives facts which that
earlier Father did not mention,――as that it was written first,
and that it was intended for the benefit of the Jewish converts.

Later authorities, such as Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem,
Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzus, and others, might be quoted
in detail, to the same effect; but this general statement is
sufficient for this place. The scholar of course, will refer to
the works on critical theology for detailed abstracts of these,
as well as the former writers. Michaelis is very full, both in
extracts and discussions. Hug also gives a minute account of the
evidence, with the view of refuting it.

The testimony of Jerome [A. D. 395,] is however, so full
and explicit, and so valuable from his character as a Hebrew
scholar, that it may well be esteemed of higher importance
to the question, than that of some earlier writers. His words
are,――“Matthew composed his gospel in _Hebrew letters and words_,
but it is not very well known who afterwards translated it.
Moreover, the very Hebrew original itself is preserved even to
this day, in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus,
most industriously collected. I also had the opportunity of
copying [describendi] this book by means of the Nazareans
in Beroea, a city of Syria, who use this book.” [Jerome De
scriptoribus ecclesiasticis. Vita Matthew.] Another passage
from the same author is valuable testimony to the same
purpose,――“Matthew wrote his gospel _in the Hebrew language_,
principally for the sake of those Jews who believed in Jesus.”

Now these testimonies, though coming from an authority so
late, are of the highest value when his means of learning the
truth are considered. By his own statement it appears that he
_had actually seen and examined_ the original Hebrew gospel of
Matthew, or what was considered to be such, as preserved in the
valuable collections of ♦Pamphilus, at a place within the region
for which it was first written. It has been urged that Jerome
confounded the “gospel according to the Hebrews,” an apocryphal
book, with the true original of Matthew. But this is disproved,
from the circumstance that Jerome himself translated this
apocryphal gospel from the Hebrew into Latin, while he says that
the translator of Matthew was unknown.

♦ “Pamphilius” replaced with “Pamphilus”

In addition to these authorities from the Fathers, may be
quoted the statements appended to the ancient Syriac and Arabic
versions, which distinctly declare that Matthew wrote in Hebrew.
This was also the opinion of all the learned Syrians.

The great argument with which all this evidence is met, (besides
discrediting the witnesses,) is that Matthew _ought_ to have
written in Greek, and therefore _did_. (Matthaeus Graece
scribere _debuit_. Schubert. Diss. § 24.) This sounds very
strangely; that, without any direct ancient testimony to support
the assertion, but a great number of distinct assertions against
it from the very earliest Fathers, moderns should now pronounce
themselves better judges of what Matthew _ought_ to do, than
those who were so near to his time, and were so well acquainted
with his design, and all the circumstances under which it was
executed. Yet, strangely as it sounds, an argument of even this
presumptuous aspect, demands the most respectful consideration,
more especially from those who have had frequent occasion, on
other points, to notice the very contemptible character of the
“testimony of the Fathers.” It should be noticed however, that,
in this case, the argument does not rest on a mere floating
tradition, like many other mooted points in early Christian
history, but in most of the witnesses, is referred to direct
personal knowledge of the facts, and, in some cases, to actual
inspection of the original.

It is proper to notice the reasons for thinking that Matthew
_ought_ to have written in Greek, which have influenced such
minds as those of Erasmus, Beza, Ittig, Leusden, Spanheim,
LeClerc, Semler, Hug and others, and which have had a decisive
weight with such wonderfully deep Hebrew scholars, as Wagenseil,
Lightfoot, John _Henry_ Michaelis, and Reland. The amount of
the argument is, mainly, that the Greek was then so widely and
commonly spoken even in Palestine, as to be the most desirable
language for the evangelist to use in preserving for the benefit
of his own countrymen, the record of the life of Christ. The
particulars of the highly elaborate and learned arguments, on
which this assertion has been rested, have filled volumes, nor
can even an abstract be allowed here; but a simple reference
to common facts will do something to show to common readers,
the prominent objections to the notion of a Greek original. It
is perfectly agreed that the Hebrew was the ordinary language
spoken by Christ, in his teachings, and in all his usual
intercourse with the people around him. That this language was
that in which the Jews also commonly wrote and read at that
time, as far as they were able to do either, in any language, is
equally plain. In spite of all that Grecian and Roman conquests
could do, the Jews were still a distinct and peculiar people;
nor is there any reason whatever to suppose that they were
any less so in language, than they were in dress, manners,
and general character. He, therefore, who desired to write
anything for the benefit of the Jews, as a nation, would insure
it altogether the best attention from them, if it came in a
form most accordant with their national feelings. They would
naturally be the first persons whose salvation would be an
object to the apostolic writers, as to the apostolic preachers,
and the feelings of the writer himself, being in some degree
influenced by love of his own countrymen, he would aim first
at the direct spiritual benefit of those who were his kindred
according to the flesh. Among all the historical writings of the
New Testament, that there should be not one originally composed
in the language of the people among whom the Savior arose, with
whom he lived, talked and labored, and for whom he died, would
be very strange. The fact that a gospel in the Hebrew language
was considered absolutely indispensable for the benefit of
the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, is rendered perfectly
incontestable by the circumstance that those apocryphal gospels
which were in common use among the heretical denominations of
that region, were _all in Hebrew_; and the common argument, that
the Hebrew gospel spoken of by the Fathers was translated into
Hebrew from Matthew’s Greek, is itself an evidence that it was
absolutely indispensable that the Jews should be addressed in
writing, in that language alone. The objection, that the Hebrew
original of Matthew was lost so soon, is easily answered by
the fact, that the Jews were, in the course of the few first
centuries, driven out of the land of their Fathers so completely,
as to destroy the occasion for any such gospel in their language;
for wherever they went, they soon made the dialect of the
country in which they lived, their only medium of communication,
written or spoken.

Fabricius may be advantageously consulted by the scholar for
a condensed view of the question of the original language of
Matthew’s gospel, and his references to authorities, ancient and
modern, are numerous and valuable, besides those appended by his
editors.――The most complete argument ever made out in defense
of a Greek original, is that by Hug, in his Introduction, whose
history of the progress of Grecian influence and language in
Syria and Palestine, is both interesting and valuable on its own
account, though made the inefficient instrument of supporting an
error. He is very ably met by his English translator, Wait, in
the introduction to the first volume. A very strong defense of
a Greek original of Matthew, is also found in a little quarto
pamphlet, containing a thesis of a Goettingen student, on taking
his degree in theology, in 1810. (Diss. Crit. Exeg. in serm.
Matt. &c. Auct. Frid. Gul. Schubert.)

II. WHAT WERE THE MATERIALS OF MATTHEW’S GOSPEL?

This point has been made the subject of more discussion and
speculation, within the last fifty years, among the critical
and exegetical theologians of Europe, than any other subject
connected with the New Testament. Those who wish to see the
interesting details of the modes of explaining the coincidences
between the three first evangelists, may find much on this
subject in Michaelis’s Introduction to the New Testament, and
especially in the translation by Bishop Marsh, who, in his notes
on Vol. III. of Michaelis, has, after a very full discussion
of all previous views of the origin of the gospels, gone on
to build one of the most ingenious speculations on this point
that was ever conceived on any subject, but which, in its very
complicated structure, will present a most insuperable objection
to its adoption by the vast majority of even his critical
readers; and accordingly, though he has received universal
praise for the great learning and ingenuity displayed in its
formation, he has found few supporters,――perhaps none. His
views are fully examined and fairly discussed, by the anonymous
English translator of Dr. F. Schleiermacher’s Commentary on
Luke, in an introductory history of all the German speculations
on this subject with which he has prefaced that work. The
historical sketch there given of the progress of opinion on the
sources and materials of the three first gospels, is probably
the most complete account of the whole matter that is accessible
in English, and displays a very minute acquaintance with the
German theologians. Hug is also very full on this subject,
and also discusses the views of Marsh and Michaelis. Hug’s
translator, Dr. Wait, has given, in an introduction to the
first volume, a very interesting account of these critical
controversies, and has large references to many German writers
not referred to by his author. Bertholdt and Bolten, in
particular, are amply quoted and disputed by Wait. Bloomfield
also, in the prefaces to the first and second volumes of his
critical Annotations on the New Testament, gives much on the
subject that can hardly be found any where else by a mere
English reader. Large references might be made to the works
of the original German writers; but it would require a very
protracted statement, and would be useless to nearly all
readers, because those to whom these rare and deep treasures
of sacred knowledge are accessible, are doubtless better able
to give an account of them than I am. It may be worth while
to mention, however, that of all those statements of the facts
on this subject with which I am acquainted, none gives a more
satisfactory view, than a little Latin monograph, in a quarto
of eighty pages, written by H. W. Halfeld, (a Goettingen
theological student, and a pupil of Eichhorn, for whose views
he has a great partiality,) for the Royal premium. Its title
is, “Commentatio de origine quatuor evangeliorum, et de eorum
canonica auctoritate.” (Goettingen, 1796.) The Bibliotheca
Graeca of Fabricius, (Harles’s edition with notes,) contains, in
the chapters on the gospels, very rich references to the learned
authors on these points. Lardner, in his History of the Apostles
and Evangelists, takes a learned view of the question, “whether
either of the three evangelists had seen the others’ writings.”
This he gives after the lives of all four of the evangelists,
and it may be referred to for a very full abstract of all the
old opinions upon the question. Few of these points have any
claim for a discussion in this book, but some things may very
properly be alluded to, in the lives of the other evangelists,
where a reference to their resemblances and common sources, will
be essential to the completeness of the narrative.

III. AT WHAT TIME DID MATTHEW WRITE HIS GOSPEL?

This is a question on which the records of antiquity afford no light, that can be trusted; and it is therefore left to be settled entirely by _internal_ evidence. There are indeed ancient stories, that he wrote it nine years after the ascension,――that he wrote it fifteen years after that event,――that he wrote it while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome,――or when he was about leaving Palestine, &c., all which are about equally valuable. The results of the examinations of modern writers, who have labored to ascertain the date, have been exceedingly various, and only probabilities can be stated on this most interesting point of gospel history. The most probable conjecture on this point is one based on the character of certain passages in Christ’s prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, which by their vividness in the evangelist’s record, may be fairly presumed to have been written down when the crisis in Jewish affairs was highest, and most interesting; and when the perilous condition of the innocent Christians must have been a matter of the deepest solicitude to the apostles,――so much as to deserve a particular provision, by a written testimony of the impending ruin. A reference made also to a certain historical fact in Christ’s prophecy, which is known on the testimony of Josephus, the Jewish historian, to have happened about this time, affords another important ground for fixing the date. This is the murder of Zachariah, the son of Barachiah, whom the Jews slew between the temple and the altar. He relates that the ferocious banditti, who had possessed themselves of the strong places of the city, tyrannized over the wretched inhabitants, executing the most bloody murders daily, among them, and killing, upon the most unfounded accusations, the noblest citizens. Among those thus sacrificed by these bloody tyrants, Josephus very minutely narrates the murder of Zachariah, the son of Baruch, or Baruchus, a man of one of the first families, and of great wealth. His independence of character and freedom of speech, denouncing the base tyranny under which the city groaned, soon made him an object of mortal hatred, to the military rulers; and his wealth also constituted an important incitement to his destruction. He was therefore seized, and on the baseless charge of plotting to betray the city into the hands of Vespasian and the Romans, was brought to a trial before a tribunal constituted by themselves, from the elders of the people, in the temple, which they had profaned by making it their strong hold. The righteous Zachariah, knowing that his doom was irrevocably sealed, determined not to lay aside his freedom of speech, even in this desperate pass; and when brought by his iniquitous accusers before the elders who constituted the tribunal, in all the eloquent energy of despair, after refuting the idle accusations against him, in few words, he turned upon his accusers in just indignation, and burst out into the most bitter denunciations of their wickedness and cruelty, mingling with these complaints, lamentations over the desolate and miserable condition of his ruined country. The ferocious Zealots, excited to madness by his dauntless spirit of resistance, instantly drew their swords, and threateningly called out to the judges to condemn him at once. But even the instruments of their power, were too much moved by the heroic innocence of the prisoner, to consent to this unjust doom; and, in spite of these threats, acquitted him at once. The Zealots then burst out, at once, into fury against the judges, and rushed upon them to punish their temerity, in declaring themselves willing to die with him, rather than unjustly pronounce sentence upon him. Two of the fiercest of the ruffians, seizing Zachariah, slew him in _the middle of the temple_, insulting his last agonies, and immediately hurled his warm corpse over the terrace of the temple, into the depths of the valley below.

This was, most evidently, the horrible murder, to which Jesus referred in his prophecy. Performed thus, just on the eve of the last, utter ruin of the temple and the city, it is the only act that could be characterized as the crowning iniquity of all the blood unrighteously shed, from the earliest time downwards. It has sometimes been supposed by those ignorant of this remarkable event, that the Zachariah here referred to, was Zachariah, son of Jehoiada, who in the reign of Joash, king of Judah, was stoned by the people, at the command of the king, in the outer court of the temple. But there are several circumstances connected with that event, which render it impossible to interpret the words of Jesus as referring merely to that, although some of the coincidences are truly amazing. That Zachariah was the son of _Jehoiada_,――this was the son of _Baruch_ or _Barachiah_;――that Zachariah was slain in the outer court,――this was slain “in the midst of the temple,”――that is, “between the temple and the altar.” Besides, Jesus evidently speaks of this Zachariah as a person yet to come. “Behold, I send to you prophets, and wise men, and writers; and some of them you _shall_ kill and crucify; and some of them you shall scourge and persecute; that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zachariah, the son of Barachiah, whom _ye slew_ between the temple and the altar. All these things shall come upon this generation.” It is true that here, the writer, in recording the prophecy, now referring to its fulfilment, turns to the Jews, charging it upon them as a crime already past, when he writes, though not at the time when the Savior spoke; and it is therefore, by a bold change of tense, that he represents Jesus speaking of a future event, as past. But the whole point of the discourse plainly refers to future crimes, as well as to future punishment. The multitude who heard him, indeed, no doubt considered him as pointing, in this particular mention of names, only to a past event; and notwithstanding the difference of minor circumstances, probably interpreted his words as referring to the Zachariah mentioned in 2 Chronicles, who was stoned for his open rebukes of the sins of king and people;――a conclusion moreover, justified by the previous words of Jesus. He had just been denouncing upon them the sin of their fathers, as the murderers of the prophets, whose tombs they were now so ostentatiously building; and if this wonderful accomplishment of his latter words had not taken place, it might reasonably be supposed, that he spoke of these future crimes only to show that their conduct would soon justify his imputation to them of their fathers’ guilt; that they would, during that same generation, murder similar persons, sent to them on similar divine errands, and thus become sharers in the crime of their fathers, who slew Zachariah, the son of Jehoiada, in the outer temple. But here now is the testimony of the impartial Josephus, a Jew,――himself a contemporary learner of all these events, and an eye-witness of some of them,――who, without any bias in favor of Christ, but rather some prejudice against him,――in this case too, without the knowledge of any such prophecy spoken or recorded,――gives a clear, definite statement of the outrageous murder of Zachariah, the son of Baruch or Barachiah, who, as he says, exactly, was “slain in the middle of the temple,”――that is, half-way “between the temple-courts and the altar.” He mentions it too, as the last bloody murder of a righteous man, for proclaiming the guilt of the wicked people; and it therefore very exactly corresponds to the idea of the crime, which was “to fill up the measure of their iniquities.” This event, thus proved to be the accomplishment of the prophecy of Jesus, and being shown moreover, to have been expressed in this peculiar form, with a reference to the recent occurrence of the murder alluded to,――is therefore a most valuable means of ascertaining the date of this gospel. Josephus dates the murder of Zachariah in the month of October, in the thirteenth year of the reign of Nero, which corresponds to A. D. 66. The Apostle Matthew then, must have written after this time; and it must be settled by other passages, _how long after_, he recorded the prophecy.

The passage containing the prophecy of ♦the death of Zachariah,
is in Matthew xxiii. 35; and that of “the abomination of
desolation,” is in xxiv. 15.

♦ remove duplicated word “the”

This interesting event is recorded by Josephus; (History of
Jewish War, IV. v. 4;) and is one of the numerous instances
which show the vast benefit which the Christian student of the
New Testament may derive from the interesting and exact accounts
of this Jewish historian.

Another remarkable passage occurring in the prophecy of Jesus to his disciples, respecting the ruin of the temple, recorded by Matthew immediately after the discourse to the multitude, just given, affords reasonable ground for ascertaining this point in the history of this gospel. When Jesus was solemnly forewarning Peter, Andrew, James and John, of the utter ruin of the temple and city, he mentioned to them, at their request, certain signs, by which they might know the near approach of the coming judgment upon their country, and might thus escape the ruin to which the guilty were doomed. After many sad predictions of personal suffering, which must befall them in his service, he distinctly announced to them a particular event, by the occurrence of which they might know that “the end was come,” and might then, at the warning, flee from the danger to a place of safety. “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, (_whoso READETH, let him understand_,) then let them that are in Judea flee to the mountains.” This parenthetical expression is evidently thrown in by Matthew, as a warning to his _readers_, of an event which it behoved them to notice, as the token of a danger which they must escape. The expression was entirely local and occasional, in its character, and could never have been made a part of the discourse by Jesus; but the writer himself, directing his thoughts at that moment to the circumstances of the time, called the attention of his Christian countrymen to the warning of Jesus, as something which they must understand and act upon immediately. The inquiry then arises as to the meaning of the expression used by Jesus in his prophecy. “The abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, as standing in the holy place,” unquestionably refers to the horrible violation of the sanctity of the holy places of the temple, by the banditti, styling themselves “_Zealots_ for their country,” who, taking possession of the sanctuary, called in the savage Idumeans, a heathen people, who not only profaned the temple, by their unholy presence, but defiled it with various excesses, committing there a horrible massacre, and flooding its pavements with blood. This was the abomination to which both Daniel and Matthew referred, and which the latter had in mind when he mentioned it to his brethren to whom he wrote, as the sign which _they in reading should understand_, and upon the warning, flee to the mountains. These horrible polluting excesses are the only events recorded in the history of the times, which can with such certainty and justice be pronounced the sad omens, to which Jesus and his evangelist referred. They are known to have occurred just before the death of Zachariah; and therefore also show this gospel to have been written after the date above fixed for that event. That it must have been written _before_ the last siege of Jerusalem, is furthermore manifest from the fact, that, in order to have the effect of a _warning_, it must have been sent to those in danger before the avenues of escape from danger were closed up, as they certainly were after Titus had fully encompassed Jerusalem with his armies, and after the ferocious Jewish tyrants had made it certain death for any one to attempt to pass from Jerusalem to the Roman camp. To have answered the purpose for which it was intended, then, it must have been written at some period between the murder of Zachariah, which was in the winter of the year 66, and the march of Titus from Galilee to Jerusalem, before which place he pitched his camp in the month of March, in A. D. 70. The precise point of time in these three years it is impossible to fix; but it was, very probably, within a short time after the commission of the bloody crimes to which he refers; perhaps in the beginning of the year 67.

This view of these passages and the circumstances to which they
refer, with all the arguments which support the inferences drawn
from them, may be found in Hug’s Introduction, (Vol. II. § 4.)
He dates Matthew’s gospel much later than most writers do; it
being commonly supposed to have been written in the year 41, or
in the year 61. Michaelis makes an attempt to reconcile these
conjectures, by supposing that it was written in Hebrew by
Matthew, in A. D. 41, and translated in 61. But this is a mere
guess, for which he does not pretend to assign a reason, and
only says that he “can see no impropriety in supposing so.”
(Introduction, III. iv. 1, 2.)

Eichhorn suggests, that a reason for concluding that Matthew
wrote his gospel a long time after the events which he relates,
is implied in the expression used in chap. xxvii. 8, and xxviii.
15. “It is so called, _to this day_,”――“It is commonly reported,
_to this day_,”――are expressions which, to any reader, convey
the idea of many years intervening between the incidents and
the time of their narration. In xxvii. 15, also, the explanation
which he gives of the custom of releasing a prisoner to the
Jews on the feast-day, implies that the custom had been so
long out of date, as to be probably forgotten by most of his
readers, unless their memories were refreshed by this distinct
explanation.

IV. WITH WHAT SPECIAL DESIGN WAS THIS GOSPEL WRITTEN?