MATTHEW,
GOSPEL
ACCORDING
TO
gently,
and
gives
them
explanations
of
di£Bculties;
only
when
they
are
obstinate
does
He
denounce
them.
This
shows
that
Mt
5^»
is
not
in
its
chronological
order.
Then,
again,
many
of
the
parables
in
Mt.
are
grouped
together
(see
ch.
13),
but
they
would
not
have
been
spoken
all
at
one
time.
The
Charge
to
the
Twelve
(ch.
10)
includes
much
of
the
Charge
to
the
Seventy
and
other
sayings
to
the
disciples
in
Lk
6,
12-14,
17.
The
Discourse
on
the
End
in
Mt.
is
grouped
(see
§
6).
The
groups
in
Mt.
are
often
closed
with
a
formula
taken
from
Dt
31'
[LXXl;
thus
—
7^'
(Sermon
on
the
Mount),
11'
(Charge
to
the
Twelve),
13^'
(group
of
parables),
19'
26'
(groups
of
warnings).
In
fact,
the
First
Evangelist
aims
at
a
synoptic
view
of
Clirist's
teaching
as
a
whole
rather
than
at
a
chronological
statement.
In
one
or
two
particulars
only,
Mt.
seems
to
borrow
the
grouping
tendency
from
Mk.,
as
in
the
case
of
the
anointing
at
Bethany
(Mt
26™-,
Mk
1438),
which
is
related
in
close
connexion
with
Judas'
compact
with
the
ctiief
priests
(the
Evangelists
seem
to
mean
that
the
'waste'
of
the
ointment
greatly
influenced
the
traitor's
action),
whereas
Jn.
(12')
gives
the
more
chronologically
correct
position
of
the
incident,
'
six
days
before
the
passover.'
Anotherfeature
of
Mt.
is
the
frequency
of
quotations
from
the
OT,
and
the
mysticEd
interpretations
given.
The
interests
of
the
First
Evangelist
lie
largely
in
the
fulfilment
of
prophecy
(5").
The
principles
of
interpretation
common
among
the
Jews
are
applied:
a
text,
for
example,
which
in
its
literal
sense
applies
to
the
Exodus,
is
taken
to
refer
to
the
departure
of
tne
Cliild
Jesus
from
Egypt
(2'^,
Hos
11'),
and
the
Evangelist
conceives
of
events
as
coming
to
pass
that
prophecy
might
be
fulfilled
(l^^'-;
cf
.
2'5-
'"■
"
4"«-8"
12"K-1336
21".
27").
It
is
thought
that
the
second
ass,
which
is
found
only
in
the
Matthsean
narrative
of
tlie
Triumphal
Entry
(21'8-,
the
ass
and
*a
colt
the
foal
of
an
ass'),
is
due
to
the
influence
of
the
words
of
the
prophecy.
Zee
9^;
for
the
narrative
is
taken
closely
from
the
Petnne
tradition,
but
the
second
ass
of
Mt.
is
an
addition
to
it.
So
the
'
wine
mingled
with
gall'
(273^)
for
the
'wine
mingled
with
myrrh'
(lit.
'myrrhedwine')
of
the
Petrine
tradition
(Mk
15^3)
seems
to
be
due
to
Ps
69^'.
The
treatment
of
the
non-Markan
source
is
similar.
In
Lk
ll^"-
Jesus
refers
to
the
sign
of
Jonah
and
to
the
repentance
of
the
Ninevites,
to
whom,
by
his
preaching,
Jonah
was
a
sign;
but
the
Firat
Evangelist
sees
(with
justice)
a
type
of
our
Lord's
Resurrection
in
the
story
of
Jonah
in
the
belly
of
the
whale
(Mt
123^-;
see,
further,
Kohinaon,
Siitdy
of
theGospelStp.QQi.).
—
The
matter
peculiar
to
Mt.
is
large
in
amount.
Besides
the
Birth
narratives
we
have
the
healing
of
the
two
blind
men
(9^^-),
and
of
the
blind
and
dumb
demoniacs
(9^^-
1222f-
thought
by
some
to
be
one
incident),
the
walkang
of
St.
IPeter
on
the
water
(I428B),
the
coin
in
the
fish's
mouth
(17^),
Pilate's
wife's
dream
and
Pilate's
washing
of
his
hands
(27'^-
24'-),
and
some
other
incidents,
especially
m
the
Passion;
also
many
sayings,
and
part
of
the
Sermon
on
the
Mount.
3.
Purpose
of
the
Gospel.
—
That
it
was
written
tor
Jewish
Christians
appears
from
the
frequency
of
OT
quotations,
from
the
mystical
interpretations,
and
from
the
absence
of
explanations
of
Jewish
customs.
Yet
the
author
was
no
Judaizer.
He
alone
tells
us
of
the
visit
of
the
Gentile
Magi
;
with
Lk,
he
relates
the
heaUng
of
the
Gentile
centurion's
servant
(8")
;
and
the
admission
of
the
Gentiles
to
the
Kingdom
and
the
rejection
of
some
of
the
Jews
is
announced
in
8'"
(cf.
21").
The
Gospel
is
to
be
preached,
and
baptism
and
discipleship
are
to
be
given,
to
all
nations
(28").
4.
Author.
—
The
question
of
authorship
has
partly
been
anticipated
in
§
1.
The
earliest
MSS
give
the
title
simply
as
'According
to
Matthew,'
and
similar
titles
to
the
other
Gospels.
The
titles
need
not
be,
indeed
almost
certainly
are
not,
those
of
the
original
authors,
but
they
must
have
been
applied
at
a
very
early
date.
What
do
they
imply?
It
has
been
thought
that
they
meant
merely
that
the
Gospels
reflected
the
preach-ing
of
the
persons
named
(so
Bartlet
in
Hastings'
DB
iii.
297).
But
in
that
case
the
Second
Gospel
would
be
entitled
'
According
to
Peter,'
a
title
very
close
to
Justin
Martyr's
'
Memoirs
of
Peter,'
which
probably
refers
to
Mk.
(see
art.
Mark
[Gospel
acc.
to],
§
1).
There
can
be
little
doubt
that
those
who
used
the
title
in
the
second
MATTHEW,
GOSPEL
ACCORDING
TO
half
of
the
2nd
cent,
meant
it
to
imply
authorship.
It
is
a
question,
however,
whether
at
the
first
the
phrase
actually
meant
that
the
Gospel
in
its
latest
form
was
the
work
of
the
author
named.
For
lack
of
external
informa-tion
as
to
the
First
Gospel,
we
are
driven
to
internal
evidence.
But
this
would
not
lead
us
to
think
of
the
author
or
(if
the
phrase
be
preferred)
the
editor
who
brought
the
Gospel
into
its
present
form
as
an
Apostle
and
eye-witness.
Unlike
Jn.,
which
claims
to
be
written
by
an
eye-witness
(Jn.
l'<
19"),
—
a
claim
fully
borne
out
by
internal
evidence,
—
and
unlike
Mk.,
which
abounds
in
autoptic
characteristics,
—
though
in
that
case
we
have
reason
to
think
that
they
come
not
from
the
writer,
but
from
the
writer's
teacher,
—
the
First
Gospel
has
none
of
the
marks
of
an
eye-witness.
The
autoptic
characteristics
of
the
Petrine
tradition
have
in
many
cases
been
taken
away
by
the
alterations
introduced
by
the
First
Evangelist
(see
art.
Mark
[Gospel
acc.
to],
§
4).
The
conclusion
is
that
it
was
not
the
Apostle
Matthew
who
gave
us
the
Gospel
in
its
present
form.
The
name
comes
simply
from
ecclesiastical
testimony
of
the
2nd
cent.,
and
not
from
the
sacred
writings
themselves.
Yet
the
Matthaean
tradition
is
strong.
Even
Papias,
apparently,
thought
that
the
Greek
Mattbaean
Gospel
which
he
used
was
a
translation
of
the
Apostle's
work.
And
there
is
no
rival
claimant
to
the
authorship.
On
the
other
hand,
Matthew,
as
an
Apostle,
was
a
sufSciently
prominent
person
for
an
anonymous
work
to
be
assigned
to
him,
especially
if
he
had
written
a
work
which
was
one
of
its
sources.
These
considerations
may
lead
us
to
prefer
the
second
solution
mentioned
above,
in
§
1
(6)
—
that
Matthew
the
Apostle
composed
the
Aramaic
original
of
the
Greek
'non-Markan
document,'
the
'Logla'
(not
consisting
of
sayings
only,
but
of
sayings
and
narrative
combined
)
,
and
thatinthis
way
his
name
became
attached
to
the
First
Gospel.
The
real
author
must
remain
un-known.
That
the
work
of
an
Apostle
should
have
entirely
disappeared
is
not
a
very
serious
difficulty
when
we
reflect
on
the
number
of
St.
Paul's
Epistles
that
have
perished.
5.
Date.
—
Irenaeus
(Hcbt.
iii.
1.
1)
explicitly
states
that
Matthew
wrote
first,
'while
Peter
and
Paul
were
preaching
the
gospel
in
Rome,'
but
that
Mark
wrote
'after
their
departure."
In
the
Muratorian
Fragment
(c.
180-2007),
a
Ust
of
NT
books,
Mt.
seems
to
have
come
before
the
rest,
though,
as
it
is
incomplete
at
the
begin-ning,
this
is
not
certain.
This
probably
was
also
the
general
opinion
of
the
succeeding
ages,-
and
finds
an
echo
in
Augustine's
dictum
that
Mk.
is
an
abbreviation
of
Mt.
But
internal
evidence
strongly
negatives
the
idea
of
the
priority
of
Mt.
(see
Mark
[Gospel
acc.
to]).
Though
it
is
possible
to
make
some
reservations
as
to
editorial
touches,
Mk.
is
seen
to
have
been
in
the
hands
of
the
Matthsean
writer;
and
whatever
date
we
fix
for
it
must
be
the
earliest
Umit
for
Mt.
We
can
get
a
further
indication
from
the
Discourse
on
the
End
(Mt
24").
Both
in
Mt.
and
Mk.
(whatever
be
thought
of
Lk.)
the
discourse
is
reported
as
if
the
fulfilment
were
only
in
prospect,
and
in
a
manner
that
would
be
unhkely
if
the
siege
of
'Titus
had
already
taken
place.
This
conclusion
becomes
still
more
Ukely
when
we
compare
the
three
Synoptics
together.
They
aU
three
begin
with
the
destruction
of
the
Temple
(Mk
13'-
2
and
||
Mt.
Lk.).
In
Mk.
and
Lk.
there
follows
a
discourse
which
apparently
speaks
of
the
destruction
of
Jerusalem
(Mk
IS'-^"),
and
then
there
comes
in
Mk.
and
partly
in
Lk.
a
passage
which
seems
to
refer
to
the
end
of
the
world
(Mk
132'-").
But
the
First
Evangelist,
as
so
often,
weaves
together
the
sayings
of
Jesus
which
in
Mk.
are
distinct,
and
makes
the
two
events
apparently
one.
(Cf
.
Mt
24'
with
Mk
13*,
Lk
21').
Thus
the
writer
must
have
thought
that
both
events
would
be
synchronous,
and
therefore
must
have
written
his
account
of
the
prophecy
before
the
Fall
oJ
Jerusalem.
That
this
is
so
we
may
see
by
a
contrast.
The
Fourth
EvangeUst
gives
a
prophecy
of
our
Lord
which
had
been
fulfilled
when
he
wrote;
but
he
refers
to
