The second of these groups is stlbdivided into minor groups. If we consider that Matthew, for the benefit of the Jews, describes Christ as being the promised Messiah of the old covenant, it must appear perfectly appropriatc in him to nar rate the Sermon on the Mount beforc the calling of his disciples. The Sermon on the Mount shows the relation in which the Redeemer stood to the old covenant. In cc. viii and ix are given examples of the power which Jesus possessed of performing miracles; after which, in ch. ix:36, is stated the need of 'laborers' to instruct the peo ple. Then naturally follows, in ch. x, the ad monition delivered to the apostles before they arc sent out on their mission. In ch. xii is rc corded how Jesus entered into conflict with the dominant party, etc. (comp. Kern's Abhandlung fiber den Ursprung des Evangelii Afatthal, p. 51, sq.; Koster, Ueber die Composition des Ev. Afatth. in Pelt's Mitarbeiten, Heft i; Kuhn, Leben Jesu, t. Beilage.) But our adversaries further assert that the evangelist not only groups together events be longing to different times, but that some of his dates are incorrect: for instance, the date Matt. xiii :53 cannot be corrrect if Luke, ch. iv, has placed the event rightly. If, however, wc carefully consider the matter, we shall find. that Matthew hasplaced this fact more chronologically than Luke. It is true that the question in Matt. xiii :54, and the annunciation in Luke iv :18-2t, seem to synchronize best with thc first public ap nearance of Jesus. But even Schleiermacher, who, in his work on Luke, generally gives the preference to the arrangement of that evangelist, nevertheless observes (p. 63) that Luke iv:23 leads us to suppose that Jesus abode for a longer period in Capernaum (comp. the words Kara To , .
&JOU atrry in verse 16).
(4) Combination of Harmonious Themes. If the evangelist arranges his statements accord ing to subjects, and not chronologically, we must not be surprised that he connects similar sayings of Christ, inserting them in the longer discourses after analogous topics had been mentioned. These discourses are not compiled by the evangelist, but always form the fundamental framework towhich sometimes analogous subjects are attached. But even this is not the case in the Sermon on the Mount; and in ch. xiii it may be doubted whether the parables were spoken at different times. In the discourses recorded in ch. x and xxiii, it can be proved that several sayings are more correctly placed by Matthew than by Luke (comp. espe cially Matt. xxiii:37-39 with Luke xiii :34, 35) (5) Sources of Information. It depends en tirely upon the mode of interpretation, whether such positive errors as are alleged to exist are really chargeable on the evangelist. The differ ence, for instance, between the narrative of the birth of Christ, as severally recorded by Matthew and Luke, may easily be solved without question ing the correctness of either, if we suppose that each of them narrates what he knows from his individual sources of information. The history of Christ's childhood given in Luke, leads us to con clude that it was derived from the acquaintances of Mary, while the statements in Matthew seem to be derived from the friends of Joseph. As
to the transaction recorded in Matt. xxi:18-22, and Mark xi :it, 15, 20, 21, it appears that Nlark describes what occurred most accurately; and we must grant that we should scarcely have expected from an eye-witness the inaccuracy which is ob servable in Matthew. But we find that there are characters of such individuality that, being bent exclusively upon their main subject, they seem to have no perception for dates and localities.
5. Internal Proof of Genuineness. If these argurnents should still appear unsatisfactory, they may be supported by adding the positive internal proofs which exist in favor of the apostolical origin of this gospel.
(1) Harmony of Early Writers with the Book. The nature of the book agrees entirely with the statements of the Fathers of the church, from whom we learn that it was written for Jewish readers. None of the othcr evangelists quotes the Old Testament so often as Matthew, who, moreover, does not explain the Jewish rites and expressions, which are explained by Mark and John.
(2) Fullness of Accounts. If there is a want of precision in the narration of facts. there is, on the other hand. a peculiar accuracy and rich ness in the reports given of the discourses of Jesus: so that we may easily conceive why Papias, a parte potiori, styled the Gospel of thew X6-yta Kvploy, the Sill'ing'S °like Lord.
Some of the most beautiful and must important savings of our Lord, the historical credibility of which no skeptic can attack, have been preserved by 'Matthew alone (Matt. xi:28-3o; xvi:16-19; xxviii :20; comp. also xi:2-2r; xii :3-6, 25-29; x,,ii :12, 25, 26; XXV1:13). Above all. the Serm3n on the Mount must here be considered. Even negative criticism grants that Luke's account is defective as compared with Matthew's; and that Luke gives as isolated sentences what in Mat thew appears in beautiful connection. In short, the Sermon on the Mount, according to Matthew, forms the most beautiful and the best arranged whole of all the evangelical discourses. It may also be proved that in many particulars the re ports of several discourses in Matthew are more exact than in the other Evangelists; as may be seen by comparing Matt. xxiii. with the various parallel passages in Luke. Under these circum stances it is surprising that the genuineness of this gospel has not yet met with more distin guished advocates. The most important work in defense of the genuineness of Matthew is that of Kern, Ueber den Ursprung des Evangelii Mat thcei, Tubingen, 1834. Next in value are Ols hausen's Drei Programme, 1833, and the two Lucubrationes of Harless, 1840 and 1843. Even De \Vette, in the fourth edition of his Introduc tion, p. 17o, has ascribed only a qualified value to the doubts on this head.
6. Early Date. With regard to the date of this gospel, Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen state that it was written before the others. Irenmus (Adv. Herr. iii. i) agrees with them, but places its origin rather late—namely, at the time when Peter and Paul were at Rome. Even De Wette grants (Einleitung, sec. 97) that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. In proof of this we may also quote ch. xxvii :8.
A. T.