MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF. I. Author.—There is no ancient book with regard to the authorship of which we have earlier, fuller, and more unani mous testimony. From Papias, almost if not quite contemporary with the apostles, downwards, we have a stream of unimpeachable witnesses to the fact that Matthew was the author of a gospel ; while the quotations which abound in the works of the Fathers prove that at least as early as Ire nmus—if we may not also add Justin, whose Me morabilia of Christ' we cannot but identify with the Gospels' he speaks of as in public use—prove that the gospel received by the church under his name was the same as that which has reached us. As in the case of the other synoptists, a subsidiary argument of no small weight in favour of the cor rectness of this assignment, may be drawn from the comparative insignificance of St. Matthew among the twelve. Any one desirous of imposing a spurious gospel on the church would have natu rally assumed one of the principal apostles as its author, instead of one whose name could add but little weight or authority to the composition.
2. Time and Place of its Composition.—There is little in the gospel itself to throw any light on the date of its composition. In xxvii. 7,8; xxviii. 15, we have evidences of a date some years subsequent to the Resurrection ; but these may well be addi tions of a later hand, and prove nothing as to the age of the substance of the gospel. Little trust can be placed in the dates given by some late writers ; e. g., Theophylact, Eathymius Zigabenus, Euseb. Chron. eight years after the Ascension ; Niceph., Callist., and the Citron. Pasch., A. D. 45. The only early testimony is that of Irenmus (Herr.
p. 174), that it was written when St. Peter and St. Paul were preaching in Rome, and found ing the church.' This would bring it down to about 63 A. D. ; probably somewhat earlier, as this is the latest date assigned for St. Luke's Gospel ; and we have the authority of a tradition accepted by Origen, for the priority of that of St. Matthew, irapaSdarc AccOeop .. . 67c 7rpiDrop AZT ygyparrat rc) Kara 70TE COTEpOP Sg cbrocrr. I. Xp.
Marb-ai:ov (Euseb., H. E., vi. 25). The most pro bable date is between 5o and 60 A. D., though this is by no means universally accepted by modern writers. Tillemont maintains 33 A. D. ; Townson
37 A. D. ; Owen and Tomline 38 A. D. ; Davidson, Introd. N. T, inclines to 41-43 A. D. ; while Hug, Eichhorn, Credner, Bertholdt, etc., identifying Zacharias the son of Barachias ' (xxiii. 35) with Zacharias the son of Baruch, whose murder is re corded by Josephus ,ud. iv. 6. 4), place its composition shortly after the fall of Jerusalem, a theory which is rejected by De Wette and Meyer, and may safely be dismissed as untenable. When the external evidence is so inconsistent, and the internal evidence so scanty and precarious, no definite conclusion can well be arrived at.
With regard to the place, there is no difference of opinion. All ancient authorities agree that St. Matthew wrote his gospel in Palestine, and this has been as unanimously received by modern critics.
3. For what readers was it written ?—As with the place of its composition, so with the pekons for whose use it was primarily intended. The concurrent testimony of the early church that St. Matthew drew up his gospel for the benefit of the Jewish Christians of Palestine (rots ?orb 'IovactFcritof; irco-rei3ffacc, Orig. Vied Euseb. IL E. vi. 25), has been accepted without question, and may be regarded as a settled point. The statement of Eusebius is that, having previously preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to others also, he committed to writing in his native tongue his gospel (rb Kay' at'n-dp daryAcop), and so filled up by his writing that which was lacking of his presence to those whom he was departing from' (Euseb. H. E. iii. 24). The testimony of Jerome, frequently repeated, is to the same effect (Praf. ad Matt. ; de Vir. Ill. ; Comm. in Hos. xi.) The passages quoted and referred to above, it is true, have reference to the supposed Aramaic original, and not to the present Greek gospel. But what ever conclusion may be arrived at on the perplexed question of the origin of the existing gospel, Mr. Westcott has shown (Introd. to Gospels, p. 208) that there is no sufficient reason to depart from the unhesitating habit of the earliest writers who notice the subject, in practically identifying the revised version with the original text,' so that whatever has been stated of the purpose or cha racteristics of the one may unhesitatingly be re garded as applicable to the other also.