Looking therefore to our present gospel for proofs of its original destination, we find internal evi dence tending to confirm the traditional statement. The great object of the evangelist is evidently to prove to his countrymen that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah, the antitype of the figures of the old covenant, and the fulfilment of all pro phecy. The opening words of his gospel declare his purpose. Jesus Christ is set forth as the son of David,' and the son of Abraham' fulfilling the promises made to the fathers,' and reviv ing the faded glories of the nation in the heir of David's royal line, Abraham's promised seed (cf. Iren. Fragm. xxix. ; Meer. iii. 9. I ; Orig. in can't., tom. iv., p. 4). In the symmetrical arrangement of the genealogy also, its divisions' (as Dean Goodwin has remarked, Comm. in St. Matt., Introd.), corresponding to the two great crises in their national life—the maximum and minimum points of Hebrew prosperity '—we have an accommodation to Jewish prejudices and Jewish habits of thought, in marked contrast with the continuous order of the universalistic St. Luke. As we advance we find that the accomplishment of the promises, the proof that Jesus Christ is He of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write,' is the object nearest to his heart. Thus he is continually speaking of the necessity of this or that event happening, in order that a particular prophecy might be fulfilled (Ira 71-XnpcuOi 76 fl02., inn?. ral Kvplot, (or ()coo Sca 7-or, 1. 22, 15, xxi. 4, xxvi. 56, cf. ii. 17, iii. 3, iv. 14, viii. 17, etc.) ; while his whole gospel is full of allusions to those passages and sayings of the O. T. in which the Christ was predicted and foreshadowed. As Da Costa has remarked (Four Witnesses, p. 2o), he regards the events he narrates as realised prophecy,' and everything is recorded with this view, that he may lead his countrymen to recognise in Jesus their promised Deliverer and King.
It is in keeping with the destination of his gospel that we find in St. Matthew less frequent explana tions of Jewish customs, laws, and localities, than in the other gospels. In the Sermon on the Mount Christ is introduced declaring himself not as the destroyer but the fulfiller of the Mosaic law. When the twelve are sent forth they are forbidden to go into the way of the Gentiles' (x. 5, cf. xv. And in the same passage—the only one in which the Samaritans are mentioned—that abhorred race is put on a level with the heathen, not at once to be gladdened with the gospel message.
But while we keep this in view, as the evan gelist's first object, we must not strain it too narrowly, as though he had no other purpose than to combat the objections and to satisfy the pre possessions of the Jews. No evangelist expresses with greater distinctness the universality of Christ's mission, or does more to break down the narrow notion of a Messiah for Israel, who was not one also for the whole world ; none delivers stronger warnings against trusting to an Abrahamic descent for acceptance with God. It is in St. Matthew that we read of the visit of the Magi (ii. 1, ff.), symbolizing the manifestation of Christ to the Gentiles; it is he that speaks of the fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy, when the nations that sat in darkness saw a great light' (iv. 15, 16), and adds to the narrative of the cure of the centurion's ser vant what is wanting to the universalistic Luke, that many should come from the East and West,' etc. (viii. is). The narrative of the Syrophcenician woman, omitted by St. Luke, is given by St. Matthew, in whom alone we also find the command to make disciples of all nations' (xxviii. 19), and the unrestricted invitation to 'all that labour and are heavy laden' (xi. 2S). Nowhere are we made more conscious of the deep contrast between the spiritual teaching of Christ and the formal teaching of the rulers of the Jewish church. We see also that others besides Jewish readers were contem plated, from the interpretations and explanations occasionally added, e. g., Immanuel, i. 23 ; Gol gotha, xxvii. 33 ; Eli, lama sabachthani ? ver. 46.
4. Original Language. —W e have seen that, with regard to those for whom this gospel was originally composed, the external evidence is sup ported and confirmed by the internal. It is not so with the difficult question we now proceed to con sider. While there is absolutely nothing in the gospel itself to lead us to imagine that it is a trans lation, and, on the contrary, everything favours the view that in the present Greek text, with its per petual verbal correspondence with the other synop tists, we have the original composition of the author himself ; the unanimous testimony of all antiquity affirms that St. Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, i. e., the Aramaic or Syro-Chaldaic dialect, which was the vernacular tongue of the then in habitants of Palestine. The internal evidence there fore is at variance with the external, and it is by no means easy to adjust the claims of the two.
To look first at the external evidence. The unanimity of all ancient authorities as to the He brew origin of this gospel is complete. In the words of the late Canon Cureton (Syriac Recension, p. lxxxiii.), 'no fact relating to the history of the gospels is more fully and satisfactorily established. From the days of the apostles down to the end of the 4th century, every writer who had occasion to refer to this matter has testified the same thing. Papias, Irenmus, Panttenus, Origen, Cyril of Jeru salem, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Jerome, all with one consent affirm this. Such a chain of historical evidence appears to be amply sufficient to establish the fact that St. Matthew wrote his gospel origin ally in the Hebrew dialect of that time, for the benefit of Jews who understood and spoke the language.' To look at the evidence more particu larly—().) The earliest witness is Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, in the beginning of the 2d century ; a hearer of the apostle, or more pro bably the presbyter John, and companion of Poly carp (Iren., Her. v. 33. 4). Eusebius describes him (H. E., iii. 36) as a man of the widest general information, and well acquainted with the Scrip tures,' civitp rd. rdvra 6rt pciXLo-ra Xcryithraros sal -ypaOs 615-iipww; and though in another place he depreciates his intellectual power, a06,5pa opucpas lop rev voep (H. E., iii. 39), this unfavourable view seems chiefly to have reference to his millennarian views (cf. Iren., Herr. v. 33. 3), and can hardly invalidate his testimony on a matter of fact. Papias says, it would seem on the authority of John the Presbyter, Matthew compiled his gospel (or the oracles ') in the Hebrew dialect ; while each inter preted them according to his ability' (Mai-Gael pep ale E(3ocaL 8/aAlsrcu Tit X6-y/a o-vvrypcb,Paro: iwo4 vevoe (1' aura Ws iv Svvarbs gsao-ros). In estimating the value of this testimony two important points have to be considered ; the meaning of the term X6-yia; and whether Papias is speaking of the present or the past. On the latter point there can
be little doubt. His use of the aorist, )ptojvevcre, not gp,a7)veoce, evidently shows that the state of things to which he or his original authority referred had passed away, and that individual translation was no longer necessary. It would seem, therefore, to follow, that an authorised Greek representative of the Hebrew St. Matthew' had come into use `in the generation after the apostles' (Westcott, Introd., p. 207, note). The signification of Xlryta has been much controverted. Schleiermacher (Stud. u. Krit., 1832, p. 735) was the first to ex plain the term of a supposed 'collection of dis courses' which is held to have been the basis which, by gradual modification and interpolation, was transformed into the existing gospel (Meyer, comm., i. 13). This view has found wide accept ance, and has been strenuously maintained by Lack mann (S. u. K., 1835), Meyer, De \Vette, Credner, \Vieseler, B. Crusius, Ewald, Renan, etc., but has been controverted by Lucke (S. U. K., 1833), Hug, Ebrard, Bauer, Delitzsch, Hilgenfeld, Thiersch, Alford, Westcott, etc. But X6-yia, in the N. T., signifies the whole revelation made by God, rather than the mere words in which that revelation is contained (Acts vii. 38 ; Rom. iii, 2; Heb. v. I 2 ; i Pet. iv. 1 s) ; and, as has been convincingly shown by Hug and Ebrard, the patristic use of the word confirms the opinion that, as used by Papias, both in this passage and in the title of his own work (Xo-yfcay rowtaKtZv lEtyncrcs), it implies a combined record of facts and discourses corresponding to the later use of the word 'gospel.' (2.) The next witness is Ire nwus, as quoted by Euseb. (H. E., v. S), says, that Matthew among the Hebrews published also a written gospel in their own language'—rg iltcs airri3v BtaXercry. Hug and others have attempted to invalidate this testimony, as a mere repetition of that of Papias, whose disciple, according to Jerome, was; but we may safely accept it as inde pendent evidence.• (3.) Pantxnus, the next wit ness, cannot be considered to strengthen the case for the Hebrew original much. Though, as far as it goes, his evidence is definite enough. His story, as reported by Eusebius, is that he is said to have gone to the Indians' (probably in the south of Arabia), where it is reported that the Gospel of St. Matthew had preceded him among some who had there acknowledged Christ, to whom it is said the Apostle Bartholomew had preached, and had left with them the writing of Matthew in Hebrew letters rot; Mar Vales and that it was preserved to the time mentioned.' Jerome tells the same tale, with the addition that Pantoenus brought back this Hebrew gospel with him (de Fir. Ill., 36). No works of Pantmnus have been preserved, and we have no means of confirming or refuting the tale, which has somewhat of a mythical air, and is related as a mere story (Xg-yerat, X6-yos eipeev a5raP), even by Eusebius. (4.) The testimony of Origen has been already referred to. It is equally definite with those quoted above on the fact that the gospel was published for Jewish believers, and composed in Hebrew letters' (ba6c6ox6ra at)ro Tar tiro 'Iovaaliruoii r -ypciuuacrev 'EPpaucas crovrera-yAtevov, Euseb. H. E., vi. 25). There is no reason for questioning the independence of Origen's evidence, or for tracing it back to Papias. He clearly states what was the belief of the church at that time, and without a doubt as to its correct ness. (For a refutation of the objections brought against it by Masch and Hug, etc., see Marsh's Michaelis, iv. 12S, 135, ff.) (5.) We have already given the testimony of Eusebius (H. E., iii. 24), to which may be added a passage (ad Marin. yuxst., ii. p. 941) in which he ascribes the words, c/th to the translator, rape!, ro0 'wacky, adding, for the evangelist Matthew delivered his gospel in the Hebrew tongue.' This is very important evidence as to the belief of Euse bius, which was clearly that of the church gene rally, that the gospel was originally composed in Hebrew. (6.) Epiphanius (Her., xxix. 9, p. 124) states the same fact without the shadow of a doubt, adding, that Matthew was the only evangelist who wrote ei3palort Kai Opakois The value of his evidence, however, is impaired by his identi fication of the Hebrew original with that employed by the Nazarenes and Ebionites, by whom he asserts it was still preserved, /7-1 (7.) The same observation may also be made concerning the testimony of Jerome, whose references to this sub ject are very frequent, and who is the only one of the fathers who appears to have actually seen the supposed Hebrew archetype (Pray'. ad Matt. ; De Vir. Ill. 3 and 36 ; in Quat. Ev. ad Dam. pnrf. ; Ep. Dam. de Osanna ; Ep. ad Hedib. quxst. viii. ; Comm. in Hos. xi.) A perusal of these passages shows that there was a book preserved in the library collected by Pamphilus at Caesarea, which was supposed to be the Hebrew original, ipsum and was as such transcribed and trans lated into Greek and Latin by Jerome, circa 392 A. D., from a copy obtained from the Nazarenes at the Syrian city of Berea. Afterwards, circa 39S A.D. (Comm. in Matt. xii. 53), he speaks more doubtfully of it, pod vocatur a plerisque Matt. authenticwn.' Later on, 415 A. D. (Contr. Pelag. iii 1), he modifies his opinion still further, and de scribes the book used by the Nazarenes and pre served in the library at Caesarea as Ev. juxta Hebrmos ... secundum Apostolos, sive at plerique au/an:ant juxta Matthum' (cf. Edin. Rev., July 1851, p. 39; De Wette, Einl., p. too). While then we may safely accept Jerome as an additional witness to the belief of the early church that St. Matthew's gospel was originally composed in He brew (Aramaic), which he mentions as something universally recognised without a hint of a doubt, we may reasonably question whether the book he translated had any sound claims to be considered the genuine work of St. Matthew, and whether Jerome himself did not ultimately discover his mis take, though he shrunk from openly confessing it. We may remark, in confirmation of this, that un less the Aramaic book had differed considerably from the Greek gospel, Jerome would hardly have taken the trouble to translate it ; and that while, whenever he refers to St. Matthew, he cites it ac cording to the present text, he never quotes the Nazarene gospel as a work of canonical authority, but only in such terms as, quo utuntur Nazareni,' quad lectitant Nazarwi,' quod juxta Heb. Na zar. Legere consuevenmt,' and still more doubtingly, qui crediderit evangelio, quod secundum Hebrxos editum nuper transtulimus ;' language inconsistent with his having regarded it as canonical Scripture. (S.) The statements of later writers, Cyril of Jer., Athanas., Chrysos., August., Greg. Naz., etc., merely echo the same testimony, and need not be more particularly referred to.