The genuineness of the first two chapters has been called in question, but on no sufficient grounds. See Meyer's note, Comment. i. 65, who adduces as arguments for their genuineness, that—(1) they are found in all MSS. and ancient versions, and are quoted by the fathers of the 2d and 3d centuries ; Irenccus, Clem. Alex., etc., and are referred to by Celsus (Orig., C. Cels., 38 ; ii. 32). (2.) The facts they record are perfectly in keeping with a gospel written for Jewish Christians. (3.) The opening of chap. iii., iv Se rats tic. refers back, by its construction, to the close of chap. ii. ; and iv. 13 would be unintelligible without ii. 23. (4.) There is no distinction between the diction and con structions and those in the other parts of the gospel.
The opponents of these two chapters rest chiefly on their alleged absence from the Gospel of the Hebrews in use among the Ebionites (Epiphan., Hay., xxx. 13). But Epiphanius describes that book as ' incomplete, adulterated, and muti lated ;' and as the Ebionites regarded Jesus simply as the human Messiah co-ordinate with Adam and Moses, the absence of the two chapters may be readily accounted for on doctrinal grounds. The same explanation may be given for the alleged ab sence from the Diatessaron of Tatian of these chap ters, and the corresponding parts of St. Luke con
taining the genealogy, and all the other passages which show that the Lord was born of the seed of David ' according to the flesh ;' (Theodor., Hari, fab. i. 20). The case must be a weak one which requires us to appeal to acknowledged heretics for the correction of our canon. The supposed discre pancy between the opening chapters of St. Matthew and St. Luke, which has led even Professor Nor ton to follow Strauss, Paulus, Schleiermacher, etc., in rejecting them, have been abundantly discussed in all recent commentaries, and by Wieseler, Sy nopsis; Neander, Life of Christ; Mill, Pantheism ; Kern, Ursprung d. Ev. Mat., etc., as well as in the various answers to Strauss.
Co mmentaries. —Origen, Comm. in Math.; Chry sostom, Homil. izz Matth. ; Augustine, De Serm. Dom. ; Quart. in Matth. ; Hilar. Pictay. ; Je rome ; Bede, Comm. in Matth. ; Melanchthon, Comment. in Matth., 1523 ; CEcolampadius, E71(717. in Ev. Matth., 1536 ; Erasmus Sarcerius, Schol. in Matt., 1538; Bullinger, Comment., ; Musculus, Comment. in Matth., 1548 ; Spanheim, Fred., Evang. vindic., 1663-1685; Van Til., Ex /Vic. literal, 1678 ; Olearius, Obs. ad Ev. Matth., 1713; Pfaff, Int. Exeg. in Ev. Matth., 1721 ; Els ner, Comm. in Ev. Matti., 1767 ; Bolten, Bericht.
d. M., 1792 ; Arnoldi ; Delitzsch ; Tholuck ; Wichelhaus.—E. V.