(3) Transposition of Events. He relates unchronologically, and transposes events to times in which they did not happen ; for instance, the event mentioned in Luke iv :74-3o must have happened at the commencement of Christ's public career, but Matthew relates it as late as ch. xiii: 53, sq.
(4) Combines Discourses. He embodies in one discourse several sayings of Christ which, according to Luke, were pronounced at different times (comp. 'Matt. v-vii, and xxiii).
(5) Errors Claimed. He falls, it is asserted, into positive errors. In ch. i and ii he seems not to know that the real dwelling-place of the par ents of Jesus was at Nazareth, and that their abode at Bethlehem was only temporary (comp. Matt. ii:1, 22, 23, with Luke ii :4, 39). Accord ing to 3.1ark xi:2o, 2r, the fig-tree withered on the day after it was cursed, but according to Matt. xxi:f9, it withered immediately. Accord ing to Matt. xxi:12, Christ purified the temple immediately after his entrance into Jerusalem; but according to Mark he on that day went out to Bethany, and purified the temple on the day following (Mark xi :1 r-f5). Alatthew says (xxi: 7) that Christ rode on a she-ass and on a colt, which is impossible. The other gospels speak only of a she-ass.
These circumstances have led Strauss and oth ers to consider the Gospel of St. Matthew as an unapostolical composition, originating perhaps at the conclusion of the first century; while some consider it a reproduction of the Aramman Mat thew, augmented by some additions; others call it an historical commentary of a later period, made to illustrate the collection of the sayings of Christ which Matthew had furnished (comp. Sieffert, Ueber die Aechtheit und den Ursprung des ersten Evangelii, 1832; Schneckenburger, Lieber den Ursprung des ersten Evangelii, 1834; Schott, Ueber die Azethenticitat des Ev. Alatth. 1837) • 4. Reply. To these objections we may reply as follows: (1) Completeness of Narration. The gift of narrating luminously is a personal qualifica tion of which even an apostle might be destitute, and which is rarely found among the lower or ders of people: this argument therefore has re cently been given up altogether. In the history of his call to be an apostle, Matthew has this ad vantage over Mark and Luke, that he relates the discourse of Christ (ix:f3) with greatcr com pleteness than these evangelists. Luke relates that Matthew prepared a great banquet in his house, .while Matthew simply mentions that an
entertainment took place, because the apostle could not well write that lie himself prepared a great banquet.
(2) Omissions by One Witness do not Invalidate Testirnony of Others. An argu nzentum a silentio must not be urged against the evangelists. The raising of Lazarus is nar rated only by John; and the raising of the youth at Nain only by Luke, the appearance of five hundred brethren after the resurrection, which, according to the testimony of Paul (1 Cor. xv: 6), was a fact generally known, is not recorded by any of the evangelists. The apparent restric tion of Christ's sphere of activity to Galilee, we find also in Mark and Lukc. This peculiarity arose perhaps from the circumstance that the apostles first taught in Jerusalem, where it was unnecessary to relate what had happened there, but where the events which had taken place in Galilee were unknown, and required to be nar rated: thus the sphere of narration may have gradually become fixed. At least it is generally granted that hitherto no satisfactory explanation of this fact has been discovered. The expres sions in Matt. xxvi :32, and xxviii:7, perhaps only indicate that the Lord appeared more fre quently, and for a longer period, in Galilee than elsewhere. In NIatt. xxviii:16, we are told that the disciples in Galilee went up to a mountain, whither Christ had appointed them to come; and since it is not previously mentioned that any such appointment had been made, the narrative of Matthew himself here leads us to conclude that Christ appeared to his disciples in Jerusalem after his resurrection.
(3) Coramunications Grouped According to Subjects. There is no reason to suppose that the evangelists intended to write a chronological biography. On the contrary, we learn from Luke i:4, and John xx:31, that their object was of a more practical tendency. With the exception of John, the evangelists have grouped their com munications more according to the subjects than according to chronological succession. This fact is now generally admitted. The principal groups of facts recorded by St. Matthew are: (I) The preparation of Jesus, narrated in ch. i—iv :t6. (2) The public ministry of Jesus, narrated in ch. iv:f7—xvi :2o. (3) The conclusion of the life of Jesus, narrated in ch. xvi:21—xxviii.