(3.) 116s Aapi3, to designate Jesus as the Messiah, seven times, three times each in Mark and Luke.
(4.) 'H loyia raXts, and 6 dytos 1-67os, for Jerusa lem, three times ; not in the other evangelists, (5.) CrUPTEXEiC4 rob ' the consummation of the age the end of the world,' is found five times in Matt., nowhere else in the N. T. except Heb. ix, 26, in the plural, cactwcov.
(6.) 5va (67ces) 7lo7pc..195 Ti 6n8gp, eight times, nowhere else in the N . T. St. John uses Yea emp• 6 X67., or i7 Wag5. ; St. Mark once (xiv. 49), 'tea 71-Xnp, al ypark.
(7.) 76 6v0iP (always used by Matt. when quoting Holy Scripture himse/f, in other citations 74pa7r •raz, with the other evangelists), twelve times ; • di .fInOelr, once (iii. 3). He never uses the singular, watph. Mark once uses 7-6 OnOeu (xiii. 14).
(8.) twice ; nowhere else in N. T.
(9.) davoeLe ep, seven times ; not elsewhere, save Rev. x. 6.
(so.) real 16oti, in narrative, twenty-three times ; in Luke sixteen times ; not in Mark. (Sod, after a genitive absolute, nine times.
(II.) rpocepxeaeat and ropdeo-Oat, continually used to give a pictorial colouring to the narrative (e.g., iv. 3 ; viii. S, 19, 25 ; ix. 14, 20, etc. ; ii. 8 ; ix. 13 ; xi. 4, etc.) (12.) Xeycov, absolutely, without the dative of the person (e.g., 1. 20 ; in. 2, 13, 20 ; ill. 2, 14, 17 ; v. 2; Vl. 31, etc.) (i3.) Other peculiarities, establishing the unity of authorship, may be noticed :—e.g. (r.) The use of r6re, as the ordinary particle of transition, ninety times ; six times in Mark, and fourteen in Luke. (2.) sal eyevero 8re, five times ; Luke uses &re U. 4-yevero, or sal He (3.) gwr eV, seven times. (4.) ev gKEby rco ev pg ex. and are T. rip. H. scarcely found in Mark or Luke. (5.) eoaxeopeco, 'to retire,' ten times. (6.) ear' Hap, six times. (7.) 7TOLE1V d't, tSorep, saOds, eixtativer ; Luke, 7rot. baohos. (S.) rciq5ar, six times ; only Rom. iii. 13 besides in N. T. (9.) ercp6Spa, and other adverbs, after the verb, except ofirco, always before it.
irpoo-xvvelv, with the dative, ten times ; twice in Mark, three times in John. Other words which are found either only or more frequently in Matthew, are cpplangos, oimax6s, VCTEpOP, eKEIVEP, BaL, gerayeiv, auvapeiv N6yov, croupoetLov pew, aaNaela—KOS, etc. (cf. Credner, p. 63,
ff ; Gersdorf, Beitragea, 5:ftrachtharact. d. N. T.) 8. Citations from the O. T.—Few facts are more significant of the original purpose of this gospel, and the persons for whom it was de signed, than the frequency of citations from and references to the O. T. Scriptures. While in St. Luke and St. Mark, the Gentile gospels, we have only twenty-four and twenty-three respec tively, St. Matthew supplies no less than fifty four. The character of the quotations is no less noticeable than the number. In St. Matthew the O. T. is cited verbally no less than forty-three times, many of the quotations being peculiar to this evangelist ; in St. Luke we have not more than nineteen direct citations, and only eight quota tions (in St. Mark only two), which are not found elsewhere. The two classes into which these cita tions are distinguished—those more or less directly from the LXX., and those which give an original rendering of the Hebrew text—have been alluded to above. The citations peculiar to St. Matthew are marked with an asterisk (*), and those which he quotes as having been fulfilled in our Lord's life with (a).
9. Genuineness. —Notwithstanding the doubts that have been thrown upon it, the genuineness of St. Matthew is as satisfactorily established as that I of any ancient book whatever. From the days of I Justin we find perpetual quotations corresponding with the existing text of the gospel, which prove that the book then in circulation, as of canonical authority, was the same as that we now have. Of the various recensions by which we are invited by Marsh, Hilgcnfeld, Schleiermacher, Ewald, etc., to believe that the gospel assumed its present form, there is absolutely no external evidence, while the internal, arising from style and diction, are entirely in favour of the whole having substantially pro ceeded from one hand. Other supposed internal evidence varies so much, according to the subjective position of critics, and leads them by the same data to such opposite results, as to be little worth. This branch of the subject has been amply discussed by Hug, Einleit. ; Norton, Genuineness; Westcott, Canon; to whose works the reader may be referred.