MATTHEW, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

next to James (though they are not joined together as a pair) ; in the other two, next but one. If then we take the view that this James is neither the brother of our Lord, nor yet the same as James the Little (Mk 15"), and if we negative the idea that ' Alphseus ' (Aram. Khalphai) and ' Clopas ' are one name, there is perhaps something to be said for the opinion that Matthew and James were brothers. But they are not mentioned together else-where. Only in the Mt. list is the designation 'the publican' added. For Matthew's connexion with the First Gospel, see the next article. We have no trust-worthy information as to his later career.

A. J. Maclean.

MATTHEW, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO.— 1. The First Gospel in the Early Church. — Papias (c. a.d. 140 or earlier), as quoted by Eusebius (HE iii. 39), says: ' Matthew, however, composed the logia in the Hebrew dialect, but each one interpreted them as he was able.* This remark occurs in his work The Exposition of the Lord's logia, and is practically all the external information that we have about the Matthaean Gospel, except that Irenieus says: 'Matthew among the Hebrews published a Gospel in their own dialect, when Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome andfounding the Church ' (,Hcer. iii. 1). Irenaeus is probably quoting from Papias. In the 4th cent., Eusebius tells a story of Pantsenus finding in the 2nd cent, the original Aramaic Mt. in India, but the story is very uncertain; Epiphanius says that the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew existed in hia day, in the possession of an Ebionite sect (distinguished in modern times as Elkesaites), and describes it; and Jerome describes what he alleges to be the original of Mt. as in use among the Nazarenes, and says that he translated it into Greek. We have therefore first to interpret Papias, and then to deal with the later testimonies.

(o) What does Papias mean by the ' logia' f — The word may be translated 'oracles' or 'discourses,' and it is much disputed which sense we should take here. The interpretation of many (Westcott, Lightfoot, etc., who choose the translation 'oracles') is that it is an early word for the Gospels. The 'Lord's logia' which Papias expounded would be the story of our Lord's life and teaching, and Papias would mean that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew (cf. Ro 3^ where 'oracles' may mean only God's sayings, but more naturally may be taken to mean the whole of the OT). Certainly the word in the 1st cent, was used of any sacred writing, whether discourse or narrative. Others deny that at so early a date a NT writing as such could be called 'the Lord's oracles,' and take logia to mean ' discourses.' But from this point critics have diverged. Many understand Papias to mean that Matthew wrote our Lord's sayings only; but this does not appear from his words. The argument against the translation 'oracles' is deprived of force if we understand the reference to be, not neces-sarily to a written record, but to the Gospel story pure and simple, whether written or oral. Papias would then mean that Matthew wrote down the Gospel story in Hebrew. Even if we take the translation ' discourses ' or 'sayings,' it is extremely unlikely that Papias meant that Matthew's Gospel contained no narrative, though it is quite likely that discourse predominated in it. (For Renan's theory, see art. Mark [Gospel acc. to]).

(6) What does Papias mean about the original language of Matthew? — All the testimony as to its being Aramaic [' Hebrew '] probably reduces itself to this one sentence. One interpretation is that Matthew wrote down Jesus' sayings in Aramaic, but did not expound them, and that Papias' own Ijook had this object. But most writers understand Papias to mean that individuals translated Matthew's work into their own language for themselves. If so, this period must have been over in Papias' time, for he uses the past tense 'interpreted'; he must have had a Greek Matthew before him, And our Mt. is clearly an original composition, derived from Greek sources, such as Mk. and other documents, at any rate for the most

592

MATTHEW, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

part (see art. Gospels), and is not a translation from Aramaic. There is no reason for thinking that the Matthaean Gospel actually used by Papias was other than ours. We have then to ask. Did Papias make a mistake about the original language? We know that there was a ' Gospel of the Hebrews ' current early in the 2nd cent., known to Hegesippus, probably to the writer of the Clementine Homilies, perhaps to Ignatius. Jerome knew of it and gives us extracts from it; and Epiphanius knew of a derived or kindred Gospel, used by the sect of the Nazarenes and containing several episodes different from our canonical narrative, e,g. in connexion with our Lord's baptism, and His appearance to James after the Resurrection (cf. 1 Co 15'). In this Gospel the Holy Spirit is called the 'Mother' of Christ, the word 'Spirit' being feminine in Aramaic. Most critics (but Hilgenfeld and Harnack are exceptions) agree that this Gospel is later than our canonical four; Zahn gives good reasons for thinking that it is derived directly from our Mt.; and it is possible that Papias made the mistake fallen into later by Jerome, and, knowing that there was an Aramaic Gospel in existence purporting to be by Matthew (though he had apparently never seen it), thought that it was St. Matthew's in reaUty. Eusebius says that he was a man of not much understanding. He may, then, have erroneously thought that St. Matthew, writing in Palestine for Jewish Christians, must have written in Aramaic (Salmon). Another solution, however, is more commonly received. Papias is our only authority before Irenaeus for attributing a Gospel to St. Matthew. Possibly then the Apostle Matthew may have written in Aramaic a document incorporated in, or largely drawn upon by, our First Gospel — e.g. the original of the Greek 'non-Markan document' (see art. Gospels); and this fact may account for his name being attached even early in the 2nd cent, to the First Gospel. Both these solutions seem to be quite possible; but it is not possible to suppose that our First Gospel was originally written in Aramaic.

Quotations from Mt. are found in the Epistle of 'Barnabas' (c. a.d. 1007), one with the formula 'as it is written.'

2. Contents, sources, and characteristics of theGospel. The Birth narrative (chs. 1. 2) rests on an unknown source (see Luke [Gospel acc. to], § 3), and is independent of the other Synoptics. The Baptist's preaching, Jesus' baptism and temptation, the early ministry, and the calUng of Simon, Andrew, James, and John (chs. 3. 4) follow the 'Petrine tradition' with additions from the non-Markan source (esp. in the Baptism and Temptation), from which also the Sermon on the Mount (chs. 5-7) comes. The narrative of the Galilaean ministry (which extends from 412 to 162°) is taken mainly from these two sources, but the order of neither is strictly adhered to. It includes the Charge to the Twelve (ch. 10), a large number of parables (ch. 13), and many miracles, some peculiar to Mt. From 16*' to the end of the book is the story of the Passion with the preparation for it, including the Transfiguration (17'-'), the Discourse on the End (ch. 24), the parables which specially speak of the Passion and of the End of the World (20"- 21'»i-22»- 25"- "«•), and warnings against Pharisaism (esp. ch. 23). In the story of the Passion itself Mt. follows Mk. very closely, but has some additions.

We may now consider the manner in which the First Evangelist has treated his sources. We are at once struck with a great difference of order. Incidents are grouped together according to subject rather than to chronology. The Sermon on the Mount is a collection of sayings which were uttered at different times, as we see from Lk., where they occur in various contexts (Lk 6» " 112-< 12^- Mff. etc.). It contains a passage (Mt 5") which would suggest (if Mt. were a chronological work) that the breach with the Pharisees had already, at that early stage, taken place; whereas Mk. shows how gradual the breach was (see the various stages in Mk 2im. 24 322 7t). At first Jesus treats the Pharisees