MATTHEW, ST., THE GOSPEL OF, is a canonical book of the New Testament, ascribed by the unanimous consent of the early Chris tian writers to the apostle Matthew.
It is not easy to determine the language in which this gospel was composed. That it was written in Hebrew (by which we are to under stand the Syro-Chaldaic dialect spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ), and that it was composed for the Jewish Christians, is asserted by Papias (Eusohius, Hist. Eec.,' iii. 39), Irennus (Ibid., v. 8), Origen (Ibid., vi., 25), Ensebius (Ibid., iii. 24), and Jerome (' Comment. in blett.; prtef., and Do Vir. Must, c. ); and their account is followed by others of the early Christian writers. On the other hand it is argued in favour of a Greek original that these testimonies are incon cluaive, for that Papias was a weak and credulous man, and that tho other writers merely followed his account; that we find no traces of the actual existence of the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew, for all the quotations in the works of the early fathers are made from the Greek copy which wo now have ; that explanations are introduced which would be useless to Jewish readers (see Blatt., i. 23 ; xxvii. 33-46); that parallel passages of the Old Testament are generally quoted from the Septuagint ; and that the Greek Gospel which we now have bears every mark of being not a translation but an original document. In order to reconcile these facts with the statements of the early writers, Bengel long ago, and others since, have supposed that there were two originals of the Gospel, one written in Hebrew for the Jewish converts, and the other in Greek for general use. This belief is gaining ground, and is supported by the facts that Greek was the common language of literature and business, and that Josephus wrote his history in both languages.
The date of St. Matthew's Gospel has been the subject of as much dispute as its original language. If it were written at first for the use of the Christians in Judaea, the date would probably be early ; and it has been remarked that the exhortations which it contains to patience under persecution would be most acceptable to the Jewish Christians in their persecution by the Sanhedrim soon after the ascension of Christ. None of the early writers, except Irenmus, give any explicit testimony on the subject, but their statements appear to imply that this was the first written of the four Gospels, and also, what indeed Eusebius expressly asserts, that it was composed before Matthew left Judaea. On these grounds, and from the supposed improbability of the Christians remaining long without some written account of the life of Jesus, the general opinion has assigned it the date of about A.D. 41.
But Irenceus says that it was put forth while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of a church there.
(' Adv. liter.; iii. 1, in Euseb., Hist. Ecc.,' v. 8.) On the strength of this testimony Michaelis, Lardner, and others have fixed the date at A.D. 61 or 63, and Lardner has drawn an elaborate argument in favour of this date from the internal evidence of the book itself, in which he endeavours to show that Matthew understood many points in the Christian system which the Apostles did not understand till some considerable time after Christ's ascension. But as in these passages Matthew is recording the words and actions of Jesus, and not his own opinions, we cannot see any force in the argument.
Some of the advocates for a double original refer the Hebrew copy to the earlier date, and the Greek to the later.
The genuineness, authenticity, and canonical authority of this Gospel are established beyond dispute by the unanimous testimony of Christian writers from the earliest age, and by its place in the ancient versions.
But many critics have doubted the genuineness of the first and second chapters, chiefly on account of the difference between the genealogy of Christ in the first chapter, and that given by St. Luke (iii.), and other discrepancies between these chapters and Luke's account of the early life of Christ, and other internal difficulties, and also on the ground that they were omitted in the copies used by the Nazarenes and Ebionites, which however were undoubtedly corrupt. The chief argu ments on the other aide are, that these chapters are contained in all the ancient MSS. and versions, that they are referred to and quoted by several of the Fathers, that the particle la at the beginning of the third chapter shows that something had gone before, and that the style of these two chapters agrees with that of the rest of the Gospel, especially in the manner of quoting the prophecies of the Old Testament.
St. Matthew was an Apostle and an eye-witness of the acts of Jesus, at least of those which were after his call. His narrative has therefore the highest degree of credibility. His style of narration is simple and effective, and he relates the discourses of Christ with clearness, and often with great energy.
(Lardner'a Credibility and Lives of the Apostles and Evangelists; Cave's Lives of the Apostles ; Kuinoel, Comment. in Lib. Kist. N. T.
Proleg. in Matt. ; Dr. Kitto's Introduction to St. Matthew, in Pictorial Bible, edit. 1849 ; and the Introductions of Michaelis, Eichhorn, De Wette, Hug, and Horne.)