Having thus stated the arguments in favour of a Hebrew and Greek original respectively, it remains for us to inquire whether there is any way of ad justing the claims of the two. We think there is, and that Mr. Westcott—to whom the study of the gospels owes so much—has pointed out the road to it. Not that the difficulties which beset this matter can be regarded as cleared up, or the question finally and satisfactorily settled, but a mode of re conciling the inconsistency between testimony and fact has been indicated, which, if pursued, may, we think, lead to a decision. It has been shown,' says Mr. Westcott, Introd. p. 208, note, that the oral gospel probably existed from the first both in Aramaic and in Greek, and in this way a prepara tion for a fresh representative of the Hebrew gospel was at once found. The parts of the Aramaic oral gospels which were adopted by St. Matthew already existed in the Greek counterpart. The change was not so much a version as a substitution ; and fre quent coincidence with common parts of St. Mark and St. Luke, which were derived from the same oral Greek gospel, was a necessary consequence. Yet it may have happened that, as long as the Hebrew and Greek churches were in close connec tion, perhaps till the destruction of Jerusalem, no authoritative Greek gospel of St. Matthew—Le., such a version of the Greek oral gospel as would exactly answer to St. Matthew's version of the Aramaic—was committed to writing. When, how ever, the separation between the two sections grew more marked, the Greek gospel was written, not indeed as a translation, but as a representation of the original, as a Greek oral counterpart was already current.' This theory of the origin of the Greek gospel, it appears to us, meets the facts of the case, and satisfies its requirements more fully than any other. We have seen above that the language of Papias indicates that, even in his day, the gospel of St. Matthew existed substantially in Greek, and its universal diffusion and general authority in the earliest ages of the Church prove that its compo sition cannot be placed much after the times of the apostles. May it not have been then that the two —the Aramaic and the Greek gospel—existed for some time in their most important portions as an oral tradition side by side—that the Aramaic was the first to be committed to writing, and gained a wide though temporary circulation among the He brew Christians of Syria and Palestine ?—that when, as would soon be the case, the want of a Greek gospel for the use of the Hellenistic Jews was felt, this also was published in its written form, either by St. Matthew himself (as is maintained by Thiersch, Olshausen, and Lee), or by those to whom, from constant repetition, the main portions were familiar ; perhaps under the apostle's eye, and with the virtual, if not the formal sanction of the church at Jerusalem ? As it supplied a need widely felt by the Gentile Christians, it would at once obtain currency, and as the Gentile church rapidly extended her borders, while that of the Jewish believers was continually be coming confined within narrower limits, this Greek gospel would speedily supplant its Hebrew prede cessor, and thus furnish a fresh and most striking example of what Mr. Westcott, in his excellent work on The Bible in the Church, Introd. p. calls that doctrine of a divine providence separat ing (as it were) and preserving special books for the perpetual instruction of the church, which is the true correlative and complement of every sound and reverend theory of inspiration.' No other hypo thesis, as Dr. Lee has satisfactorily shown (Inspir. of H. Sc., Appendix M), than the Greek gospel being either actually or substantially the production of St. Matthew himself, accounts for the profound silence of ancient writers respecting the translation, ... or for the absence of the least trace of any other Greek translation of the Hebrew original.' The hypotheses which assign the translation to St. Bar nabas (Isid. Hispal., Chron. p. 272), St. John (Theophy]., Euthym. Zigab.), St. Mark (Greswell), St. Luke and St. Paul conjointly (Anastas. Sinaita), or James the brother of our Lord (Syn. Sacr. Scr. apud Athanas. t. ii. p. 202), are mere arbitrary asser tions without any foundation in early tradition. The last named is the most ingenious, as we may rea sonably suppose that the Bishop of Jerusalem would fee] solicitude for the spiritual wants of the Hel lenistic Christians of that city.
Those who desire to pursue the investigation of this subject will find ample materials for doing sn in the 'Introductions' of Hug, De \Vette, and Credner ; Marsh's Michaelis, vol. iii. part i., where the patristic authorities are fully discussed ; La rdner's Credibility, vol. v. ; Reuss' Gesth. d. Kano,'; Tregelles on The Original Language of St. Matthew ; Rev. A. Roberts' Discussions on the Gospels; the commen taries of Olshausen, Meyer, Alford, Wetstein, Fritzsche, Lange, etc. ; and the works on the Gospels of Norton (Credibility), Westcott, Baur, Gieseler (Entstehung), Hilgenfeld, etc. ; Cureton's
Syriac Recension, Preface ; and Dr. W. Lee on In spiration, Append. M ; Jeremiah Jones' Vindication of St. Matthew ; Ewald, die drei Erst. Ey. ; and 7ahrbzich, d. Bibl. Wissensch, 1848-1849.
5. Characteristics. —St. Matthew's is emphati cally the Gospel of the Kingdom. The main object of the evangelist is to portray the kingly character of Christ, and to show that in Him the ideal of the King reigning in righteousness, the true Heir of David's throne, was fulfilled (cf. August., De Con sens. En., passim). And thus the tone throughout is majestic and kingly. He views things in the grand general aspect ; and, indifferent to the details in which St. Mark loves so much to dwell, he gathers up all in the great result. His narrative proceeds with a majestic simplicity, regardless of time and place, according to another and deeper order, ready to sacrifice mere chronology or locality to the development of his idea. Thus he brings together events separated sometimes by considerable intervals, according to the unity of their nature or purpose, and with a grand but simple power accumulates in groups the discourses, parables, and miracles of our Lord (I. Williams, Study of Gospels, p. 28). From the formation and objects of the gospels, we should expect that their prevailing characteristics should be indicated rather by a genera] tone and spirit than by minute peculiarities. Not, however, that these latter are wanting. It has been already remarked how the genealogy with which St. Mat thew's gospel opens sets our Lord forth in His kingly character, as the heir of the throne of David, the representative of the royal line of which He was the true successor and fulfilment. As we advance we find His birth hailed, not by lowly shepherds as in St. Luke, but by wise men coming to wait on Him with royal gifts, inquiring, Where is He that is born king of the Jews.' In the Sermon on the Mount the same majesty and authority appear. We hear the Judge himself delivering Ills sentence; the King laying down the laws of His kingdom, I say unto you,' and astonishing His hearers with the authority' with which He speaks.
The awful majesty of our Lord's reproofs in His teaching in the temple, and His denunciations of the Scribes and Pharisees, also evidence the autho rity of a king and lawgiver—' one who knew the mind of God and could reveal it ;' which may also be noticed in the lengthened discourses that mark the close of His ministry, in which the king' and the kingdom of heaven' come forward with so much frequency (xxi. 31, 43 ; xxii. 2, E ; xxiii. 14; xxiv. ; xxv. I, 34, 40). Nor can we over look the remarkable circumstance,. that in the par able of the marriage- feast, so similar in its general circumstances with that in St. Luke (xiv. 16), instead of a certain man,' it is a king' making a marriage I'm his son, and in kingly guise sending forth his armies and binding the unworthy guest. The addi tion of the doxology also to the Lord's Prayer, with its ascription of the kingdom, the power,.
and the glory,' is in such true harmony with the same prevailing tone as to lead many to see in this fact alone the strongest argument for its genuineness.
But we must not in this, or in any of the gospels, direct our attention too exclusively to any one side of our Lord's character. The King is one and the same in all ; and so is the Son of Man, and the Priest. . . He who is the King is also the Sacri fice' (Williams, u. s., p. 32). The gospel is that of the king, but it is the king `meek' (xxi. 5), meek and lowly of heart' (xi. 29); the kingdom is that of the poor in spirit," the persecuted for righteousness' sake' (vers. 3, to), into which the weary and heavy laden' are invited, and which they enter by submitting to the yoke' of its king. And He, it tells us, was to be one of ourselves, whose brotherhood with man answered all the anticipations the Jewish prophets had formed of their king, and whose power to relieve the woes of humanity could not be separated from his partici pation in them, who Himself took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses" (viii. r7)— (Maurice, Unity of N. T., p. 19o). As the son of David and the sou of Abraham He was the partaker of the sorrows as well as the glories of the throne— the heir of the curse as well as the blessing. The source of all blessings to mankind, fulfilling the ori ginal promise to Abraham, the curse due to man's sin meets and centres in Him, and is transformed into a blessing when the cross becomes His kingly throne ; and from the lowest point of His degradation He reappears, in His resurrection, as the Lord and King to whom all power is given in heaven and earth.' He fulfils the promise, in thy seed shall all families of the earth be blessed ;' in the command to go and make disciples of all nations,' he ex pands the I AM, which was the ground of the national polity, into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost" (Maurice, a. s., p. 221).