MATTHEW.

MATTHEW.HIS RANK AND NAME.In his own gospel, Matthew is not ranked immediately after the preceding apostle, but numbers himself eighth on the list, and after his associate, Thomas; but all the other lists agree in giving this apostle a place immediately after Nathanael. The testimony of others in regard to his rank has therefore been adopted, in preference to his own, which was evidently influenced by a too modest estimation of himself.In connection with this apostle, as in other instances, there is a serious question about his name and individual identity, arising from the different appellations under which he is mentioned in different parts of the sacred record. In his own gospel, he is referred to by no other name than his common one; but by Mark and Luke, the circumstances of his call are narrated, with the details almost precisely similar to those recorded of the same occurrence by himself, and yet the person thus called, (in the same form of words used in summoning the other apostles,) is named Levi, the son of Alpheus; though Mark and Luke record Matthew by his common name among the twelve, in the list of names. Some have thought that the circumstance of their mentioning Matthew in this manner, without referring at all to his identity with the person named Levi, proves that they too had no idea that the former name was applied to the same person as the latter, and on the contrary, were detailing the call of some other disciple,——perhaps Jude, who also is called by the similar name, Lebbeus, and is known to have been the son of Alpheus. This view is not improbable, and is so well supported by coinciding circumstances, as to throw great uncertainty over the whole matter; though not entirely to set aside the probabilities arising from the almost perfect similarity between Matthew’s call, as related by himself, and the call of Levi, the son of Alpheus, as given in the other gospels.On the question of Matthew’s identity with Levi, Michaelis is full. (Introduction,III.iv.1.) Fabricius (Bibliotheca Graeca,IV.vii.2,) discusses the question quite at length, and his annotators give abundance of references to authors, in detail, in addition, to those mentioned by himself, in the text.HIS CALL.The circumstances of his call, as narrated by himself, are represented as occurring at or near Capernaum. “Jesus, passing out of the city, saw a man named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom, and he said to him,——‘Follow me.’ And he arose, and followed him.” This account shows Matthew’s occupation, which is also known from the title of “the tax-gatherer,” annexed to his name, in his own list of the apostles. This was an occupation which, though unquestionably a source of great profit to those employed in it, and consequently as much sought after as such offices are in these days, and in this country, was always connected with a great deal of popular odium, from the relation in which they stood to the people, in this profitable business. The class of collectors to which Matthew belonged, in particular, being the mere toll-gatherers, sitting to collect the money, penny by penny, from the unwilling people, whose national pride was every moment wounded by the degradingforeignexactions of the Romans, suffered under a peculiar ignominy, and were supposed to have renounced all patriotism and honor, in stooping, for the base purposes of pecuniary gain, to act as instruments of such a galling form of servitude, and were therefore visited with a universal popular hatred and scorn. A class of men thus deprived of all character for honor and delicacy of feeling, would naturally grow hardened, beyond all sense of shame; and this added to the usual official impudence which characterizes all mean persons, holding a place which gives them the power to annoy others, the despised publicans would generally repay this spite, on every occasion, which could enable them to be vexatious to those who came in contact with them. Yet out of this hated class, Jesus did not disdain to take at least one,——perhaps more,——of those whom he chose for the express purpose of building up a pure faith, and of evangelizing the world. No doubt, before the occasion of this call, Matthew had been a frequent hearer of the words of truth which fell from the divinely eloquent lips of the Redeemer,——words that had not been without a purifying and exalting effect on the heart of the publican, though long so degraded by daily and hourly familiarity with meanness and vice. And so weaned was his soul from the love of the gainful pursuit to which he hadbeen devoted, that at the first call from Jesus, he arose from the place of toll-gathering, and followed his summoner, to a duty for which his previous occupation had but poorly prepared him. With such satisfaction did he renounce his old vocation, for the discipleship of the Nazarene, that he made it a great occasion of rejoicing, and celebrated the day as a festival, calling in all his old friends as well as his new ones, to share in the hospitable entertainment which he spread for all who could join with him in the social circle. Nor did the holy Redeemer despise the rough and indiscriminate company to which the grateful joy of Matthew had invited him; but rejoicing in an opportunity to do good to a class of people so seldom brought under the means of grace, he unhesitatingly sat down to the entertainment with his disciples,——Savior and sinners, toll-gatherers and apostles, all thronging in one motley group, around the festive board. What a sight was this for the eyes of the proud Pharisees who were spitefully watching the conduct of the man who had lately taken upon himself the exalted character of a teacher, and a reformer of the law! Passing into the house with the throng who entered at the open doors of the hospitable Matthew,——they saw the much glorified prophet of Nazareth, sitting at the social table along with a parcel of low custom-house collectors, toll-gatherers, tide-waiters and cheats, one of whose honorable fraternity he had just adopted into the goodly fellowship of his disciples, and was now eating and drinking with these outcast villains, without repelling the familiar merriment even of the lowest of them. At this spectacle, so degrading to such a dignity as they considered most becoming in one who aspired to be a teacher of morals and religion, the scribes and Pharisees sneeringly asked the disciples of Jesus,——“Why eateth your Master with tax-gatherers and sinners?” Jesus, hearing the malicious inquiry, answered it in such a tone of irony as best suited its impertinence. “They that are whole, need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what this means,——‘I will have mercy, rather than sacrifice;’ for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”HIS GOSPEL.After the history of his call, not one circumstance is related respecting him, either in the gospels, the Acts or the epistles. In his own gospel, he makes not the slightest allusion to anything either said or done by himself; nor does his name anywhere occur except in the apostolic lists. Even the Fathers are silent asto any other important circumstances of his life, and it is only in the noble record which he has left of the life of Christ, in the gospel which bears his name, that any monument of his actions and character can now be found. Yet this solitary remaining effort of his genius is of such importance in the history of revealed religion, that hardly the most eminent of the apostles is so often brought to mind, as the evangelist, whose clear, simple, but impressive testimony to the words and deeds of his Lord, now stands at the head of the sacred canon.On the history of this portion of the Christian scriptures, the testimony of the Fathers, from very early times, is very decided in maintaining the fact, that it was written in the vernacular language of Palestine. The very earliest testimony on this point, dating within seventy-five years of the time of Matthew himself, expressly declares that Matthew wrote his gospel in the Hebrew language; and that each one interpreted it for himself as he could. It is also said on somewhat early authority, that he wrote his gospel when about to depart from Palestine, that those whom he left behind him might have an authentic record of the facts in the life of Christ. So that by these and a great number of other testimonies, uniformly to the same effect, the point seems well established that Matthew wrote in Hebrew; and that what is now extant as his gospel, is only a translation into Greek, made in some later age, by some person unknown.I. In what language did Matthew write his Gospel?In mentioning the Hebrew as the original language of the gospel of Matthew, it should be noticed, that the dialect spoken by the Jews of the time of Christ and his apostles, was by no means the language in which the Old Testament was written, and which is commonly meant by this name at present. The true ancient Hebrew had long before become a dead language, as truly so as it is now, and as much unknown to the mass of the people, as the Latin is in Italy, or the Anglo-Saxon in England. Yet the language was still called “theHebrew,” as appears from several passages in the New Testament, where the Hebrew is spoken of as the vernacular language of the Jews of Palestine. It seems proper therefore, to designate the later Hebrew by the same name which is applied to it by those who spoke it, and this is still among modern writers the term used for it; but of late, some, especially Hug and his commentator, Wait, have introduced the name “Aramaic,” as a distinctive title of this dialect, deriving this term fromAram, the original name of Syria, and the regions around, in all which was spoken in the time of Christ, this or a similar dialect. This term however, is quite unnecessary; and I therefore prefer to use here the common name, as above limited, because it is the one used in the New Testament, and is the one in familiar use, not only with common readers, but, as far as I know, with the majority of Biblical critics.Though the evidence that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, is apparently of the most uniform, weighty and decisive character, there have been many among the learned, within the three last centuries, who have denied it, and have brought the best of their learning and ability to prove that the Greek gospel of Matthew, which is now in the New Testament, is the original production of his pen; and so skilfully has this modern view been maintained, that this has already been made one of the most doubtful questions in the history of the canon. In Germany more particularly, (but notentirely,) this notion has, during the last century, been strongly supported by many who do not like the idea, that we are in possession only of a translation of this most important record of sacred history, and that the original is now lost forever. Those who have more particularly distinguished themselves on this side of the controversy, are Maius, Schroeder, Masch and Hug, but the great majority of critics still support the old view.The earliest evidence for theHebreworiginal of Matthew’s gospel, is Papias of Hierapolis, (as early as A. D. 140,) not long after the times of the apostles, and acquainted with many who knew them personally. Eusebius (Church History,III.39,) quotes the words of Papias, (of which the original is now lost,) which are exactly translated here:——“Matthew therefore wrote the divine words in the Hebrew language; and every one translated them as he could.” By which it appears that in the time of Papias there was no universally acknowledged translation of Matthew’s gospel; but that every one was still left to his own private discretion, in giving the meaning in Greek from the original Hebrew. The value of Papias’s testimony on any point connected with the history of the apostles, may be best learned from his own simple and honest account of his opportunities and efforts to inquire into their history; (as recorded by Eusebius in a former part of the same chapter.) “If any person who had ever been acquainted with the elders, came into my company, I inquired of them the words of the elders;——what Andrew and Peter said?——what Thomas, and James, and John, and Matthew, and the other disciples of the Lord used to say?”——All this shows an inquiring, zealous mind, faithful in particulars, and ready in improving opportunities for acquiring historical knowledge. Yet because in another part of the works of Eusebius, he is characterized as rather enthusiastic, and very weak in judgment, more particularly in respect to doctrines, some moderns have attempted to set aside his testimony, as worth nothing on this simple historical point, the decision of which, from the direct personal witness of those who had seen Matthew and read his original gospel, needed no more judgment than for a man to remember his own name. The argument offered to discredit Papias, is this:——“He believed in a bodily reign of the Messiah on the earth, during the whole period of the millennium, and for this and some similar errors, is pronounced by Eusebius, ‘a man of very weak judgment,’——(πανυ σμικρος τον νουν.) Therefore, he could not have known in what language Matthew wrote.” The objection certainly is worth something against a man who made such errors as Papias, in questions where any nice discrimination is necessary, but in a simple effort of a ready memory, he is as good a witness as though he had the discrimination of a modern skeptical critic. (In Michaelis’s Introduction to the New Testament,vol. III.c. iv.§4, is a full discussion of Papias’s character and testimony, and the objections to them.)The second witness is Irenaeus, (A. D. 160,) who, however, coupling his testimony with a demonstrated falsehood, destroys the value which might be otherwise put upon a statement so ancient as his. His words are quoted by Eusebius, (Church History,V.8.) “Matthew published among the Hebrews his gospel, written intheir ownlanguage, (τῃ ιδιᾳ αυτων διαλεκτῳ,) while Peter and Paul were preaching Christ at Rome, and laying the foundations of the church.” This latter circumstance is no great help to the story, after what has been proved on this point in the notes on Peter’s life; but the critics do not pretend to attack it on this ground. They urge against it, that as Irenaeus had a great regard for Papias, and took some facts on his word, he probably took this also from him, with no other authority,——aguess, which only wants proof, to make it a very tolerable argument. Let Irenaeus go for what he is worth; there are enough without him.The third witness is Pantaenus of Alexandria, already quoted in the note on Nathanael’s life, (p.363,) as having found this Hebrew gospel still in use, in that language, among the Jews of Arabia-Felix, towards the end of the second century.The fourth witness is Origen, (A. D. 230,) whose words on this point are preserved only in a quotation made by Eusebius, (Church History,VI.25,) who thus gives them from Origen’s commentary on Matthew. “As I have learned by tradition concerning the four gospels, which alone are received without dispute by the church of God under heaven: the first was written by Matthew, once a tax-gatherer, afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for the benefit of the Jewish converts, having composed it in theHebrewlanguage,&c.” The term, “tradition,” (παραδοσις,) here evidently means something more than floating, unauthorized information, coming merely by vague hearsay; for to this source only he refers all his knowledge of the fact, that “the gospel was written by Matthew;” so that, in fact, we have as good authorityin this place, for believing that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, as we have that he wrote at all. The other circumstances specified, also show clearly, that he did not derive all his information on this point from Papias, as some have urged; because this account gives facts which that earlier Father did not mention,——as that it was written first, and that it was intended for the benefit of the Jewish converts.Later authorities, such as Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzus, and others, might be quoted in detail, to the same effect; but this general statement is sufficient for this place. The scholar of course, will refer to the works on critical theology for detailed abstracts of these, as well as the former writers. Michaelis is very full, both in extracts and discussions. Hug also gives a minute account of the evidence, with the view of refuting it.The testimony of Jerome [A. D. 395,] is however, so full and explicit, and so valuable from his character as a Hebrew scholar, that it may well be esteemed of higher importance to the question, than that of some earlier writers. His words are,——“Matthew composed his gospel inHebrew letters and words, but it is not very well known who afterwards translated it. Moreover, the very Hebrew original itself is preserved even to this day, in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus, most industriously collected. I also had the opportunity of copying [describendi] this book by means of the Nazareans in Beroea, a city of Syria, who use this book.” [Jerome De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis. Vita Matthew.] Another passage from the same author is valuable testimony to the same purpose,——“Matthew wrote his gospelin the Hebrew language, principally for the sake of those Jews who believed in Jesus.”Now these testimonies, though coming from an authority so late, are of the highest value when his means of learning the truth are considered. By his own statement it appears that hehad actually seen and examinedthe original Hebrew gospel of Matthew, or what was considered to be such, as preserved in the valuable collections of♦Pamphilus, at a place within the region for which it was first written. It has been urged that Jerome confounded the “gospel according to the Hebrews,” an apocryphal book, with the true original of Matthew. But this is disproved, from the circumstance that Jerome himself translated this apocryphal gospel from the Hebrew into Latin, while he says that the translator of Matthew was unknown.♦“Pamphilius” replaced with “Pamphilus”In addition to these authorities from the Fathers, may be quoted the statements appended to the ancient Syriac and Arabic versions, which distinctly declare that Matthew wrote in Hebrew. This was also the opinion of all the learned Syrians.The great argument with which all this evidence is met, (besides discrediting the witnesses,) is that Matthewoughtto have written in Greek, and thereforedid. (Matthaeus Graece scriberedebuit.Schubert. Diss. § 24.) This sounds very strangely; that, without any direct ancient testimony to support the assertion, but a great number of distinct assertions against it from the very earliest Fathers, moderns should now pronounce themselves better judges of what Matthewoughtto do, than those who were so near to his time, and were so well acquainted with his design, and all the circumstances under which it was executed. Yet, strangely as it sounds, an argument of even this presumptuous aspect, demands the most respectful consideration, more especially from those who have had frequent occasion, on other points, to notice the very contemptible character of the “testimony of the Fathers.” It should be noticed however, that, in this case, the argument does not rest on a mere floating tradition, like many other mooted points in early Christian history, but in most of the witnesses, is referred to direct personal knowledge of the facts, and, in some cases, to actual inspection of the original.It is proper to notice the reasons for thinking that Matthewoughtto have written in Greek, which have influenced such minds as those of Erasmus, Beza, Ittig, Leusden, Spanheim, LeClerc, Semler, Hug and others, and which have had a decisive weight with such wonderfully deep Hebrew scholars, as Wagenseil, Lightfoot, JohnHenryMichaelis, and Reland. The amount of the argument is, mainly, that the Greek was then so widely and commonly spoken even in Palestine, as to be the most desirable language for the evangelist to use in preserving for the benefit of his own countrymen, the record of the life of Christ. The particulars of the highly elaborate and learned arguments, on which this assertion has been rested, have filled volumes, nor can even an abstract be allowed here; but a simple reference to common facts will do something to show to common readers, the prominent objections to the notion of a Greek original. It is perfectly agreed that the Hebrew was the ordinary language spoken by Christ, in his teachings, and in all his usual intercourse with the people around him. That this language was that in which the Jews alsocommonly wrote and read at that time, as far as they were able to do either, in any language, is equally plain. In spite of all that Grecian and Roman conquests could do, the Jews were still a distinct and peculiar people; nor is there any reason whatever to suppose that they were any less so in language, than they were in dress, manners, and general character. He, therefore, who desired to write anything for the benefit of the Jews, as a nation, would insure it altogether the best attention from them, if it came in a form most accordant with their national feelings. They would naturally be the first persons whose salvation would be an object to the apostolic writers, as to the apostolic preachers, and the feelings of the writer himself, being in some degree influenced by love of his own countrymen, he would aim first at the direct spiritual benefit of those who were his kindred according to the flesh. Among all the historical writings of the New Testament, that there should be not one originally composed in the language of the people among whom the Savior arose, with whom he lived, talked and labored, and for whom he died, would be very strange. The fact that a gospel in the Hebrew language was considered absolutely indispensable for the benefit of the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, is rendered perfectly incontestable by the circumstance that those apocryphal gospels which were in common use among the heretical denominations of that region, wereall in Hebrew; and the common argument, that the Hebrew gospel spoken of by the Fathers was translated into Hebrew from Matthew’s Greek, is itself an evidence that it was absolutely indispensable that the Jews should be addressed in writing, in that language alone. The objection, that the Hebrew original of Matthew was lost so soon, is easily answered by the fact, that the Jews were, in the course of the few first centuries, driven out of the land of their Fathers so completely, as to destroy the occasion for any such gospel in their language; for wherever they went, they soon made the dialect of the country in which they lived, their only medium of communication, written or spoken.Fabricius may be advantageously consulted by the scholar for a condensed view of the question of the original language of Matthew’s gospel, and his references to authorities, ancient and modern, are numerous and valuable, besides those appended by his editors.——The most complete argument ever made out in defense of a Greek original, is that by Hug, in his Introduction, whose history of the progress of Grecian influence and language in Syria and Palestine, is both interesting and valuable on its own account, though made the inefficient instrument of supporting an error. He is very ably met by his English translator, Wait, in the introduction to the first volume. A very strong defense of a Greek original of Matthew, is also found in a little quarto pamphlet, containing a thesis of a Goettingen student, on taking his degree in theology, in 1810. (Diss. Crit. Exeg. in serm. Matt.&c.Auct. Frid. Gul. Schubert.)II. What were the Materials of Matthew’s Gospel?This point has been made the subject of more discussion and speculation, within the last fifty years, among the critical and exegetical theologians of Europe, than any other subject connected with the New Testament. Those who wish to see the interesting details of the modes of explaining the coincidences between the three first evangelists, may find much on this subject in Michaelis’s Introduction to the New Testament, and especially in the translation by Bishop Marsh, who, in his notes onVol. III.of Michaelis, has, after a very full discussion of all previous views of the origin of the gospels, gone on to build one of the most ingenious speculations on this point that was ever conceived on any subject, but which, in its very complicated structure, will present a most insuperable objection to its adoption by the vast majority of even his critical readers; and accordingly, though he has received universal praise for the great learning and ingenuity displayed in its formation, he has found few supporters,——perhaps none. His views are fully examined and fairly discussed, by the anonymous English translator ofDr.F. Schleiermacher’s Commentary on Luke, in an introductory history of all the German speculations on this subject with which he has prefaced that work. The historical sketch there given of the progress of opinion on the sources and materials of the three first gospels, is probably the most complete account of the whole matter that is accessible in English, and displays a very minute acquaintance with the German theologians. Hug is also very full on this subject, and also discusses the views of Marsh and Michaelis. Hug’s translator,Dr.Wait, has given, in an introduction to the first volume, a very interesting account of these critical controversies, and has large references to many German writers not referred to by his author. Bertholdt and Bolten, in particular, are amply quoted and disputed by Wait. Bloomfield also, in the prefaces to the first and second volumesof his critical Annotations on the New Testament, gives much on the subject that can hardly be found any where else by a mere English reader. Large references might be made to the works of the original German writers; but it would require a very protracted statement, and would be useless to nearly all readers, because those to whom these rare and deep treasures of sacred knowledge are accessible, are doubtless better able to give an account of them than I am. It may be worth while to mention, however, that of all those statements of the facts on this subject with which I am acquainted, none gives a more satisfactory view, than a little Latin monograph, in a quarto of eighty pages, written by H. W. Halfeld, (a Goettingen theological student, and a pupil of Eichhorn, for whose views he has a great partiality,) for the Royal premium. Its title is, “Commentatio de origine quatuor evangeliorum, et de eorum canonica auctoritate.” (Goettingen, 1796.) The Bibliotheca Graeca of Fabricius, (Harles’s edition with notes,) contains, in the chapters on the gospels, very rich references to the learned authors on these points. Lardner, in his History of the Apostles and Evangelists, takes a learned view of the question, “whether either of the three evangelists had seen the others’ writings.” This he gives after the lives of all four of the evangelists, and it may be referred to for a very full abstract of all the old opinions upon the question. Few of these points have any claim for a discussion in this book, but some things may very properly be alluded to, in the lives of the other evangelists, where a reference to their resemblances and common sources, will be essential to the completeness of the narrative.III. At what time did Matthew write his gospel?This is a question on which the records of antiquity afford no light, that can be trusted; and it is therefore left to be settled entirely byinternalevidence. There are indeed ancient stories, that he wrote it nine years after the ascension,——that he wrote it fifteen years after that event,——that he wrote it while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome,——or when he was about leaving Palestine,&c., all which are about equally valuable. The results of the examinations of modern writers, who have labored to ascertain the date, have been exceedingly various, and only probabilities can be stated on this most interesting point of gospel history. The most probable conjecture on this point is one based on the character of certain passages in Christ’s prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, which by their vividness in the evangelist’s record, may be fairly presumed to have been written down when the crisis in Jewish affairs was highest, and most interesting; and when the perilous condition of the innocent Christians must have been a matter of the deepest solicitude to the apostles,——so much as to deserve a particular provision, by a written testimony of the impending ruin. A reference made also to a certain historical fact in Christ’s prophecy, which is known on the testimony of Josephus, the Jewish historian, to have happened about this time, affords another important ground for fixing the date. This is the murder of Zachariah, the son of Barachiah, whom the Jews slew between the temple and the altar. He relates that the ferocious banditti, who had possessed themselves of the strong places of the city, tyrannized over the wretched inhabitants, executingthe most bloody murders daily, among them, and killing, upon the most unfounded accusations, the noblest citizens. Among those thus sacrificed by these bloody tyrants, Josephus very minutely narrates the murder of Zachariah, the son of Baruch, or Baruchus, a man of one of the first families, and of great wealth. His independence of character and freedom of speech, denouncing the base tyranny under which the city groaned, soon made him an object of mortal hatred, to the military rulers; and his wealth also constituted an important incitement to his destruction. He was therefore seized, and on the baseless charge of plotting to betray the city into the hands of Vespasian and the Romans, was brought to a trial before a tribunal constituted by themselves, from the elders of the people, in the temple, which they had profaned by making it their strong hold. The righteous Zachariah, knowing that his doom was irrevocably sealed, determined not to lay aside his freedom of speech, even in this desperate pass; and when brought by his iniquitous accusers before the elders who constituted the tribunal, in all the eloquent energy of despair, after refuting the idle accusations against him, in few words, he turned upon his accusers in just indignation, and burst out into the most bitter denunciations of their wickedness and cruelty, mingling with these complaints, lamentations over the desolate and miserable condition of his ruined country. The ferocious Zealots, excited to madness by his dauntless spirit of resistance, instantly drew their swords, and threateningly called out to the judges to condemn him at once. But even the instruments of their power, were too much moved by the heroic innocence of the prisoner, to consent to this unjust doom; and, in spite of these threats, acquitted him at once. The Zealots then burst out, at once, into fury against the judges, and rushed upon them to punish their temerity, in declaring themselves willing to die with him, rather than unjustly pronounce sentence upon him. Two of the fiercest of the ruffians, seizing Zachariah, slew him inthe middle of the temple, insulting his last agonies, and immediately hurled his warm corpse over the terrace of the temple, into the depths of the valley below.This was, most evidently, the horrible murder, to which Jesus referred in his prophecy. Performed thus, just on the eve of the last, utter ruin of the temple and the city, it is the only act that could be characterized as the crowning iniquity of all the blood unrighteously shed, from the earliest time downwards. It hassometimes been supposed by those ignorant of this remarkable event, that the Zachariah here referred to, was Zachariah, son of Jehoiada, who in the reign of Joash, king of Judah, was stoned by the people, at the command of the king, in the outer court of the temple. But there are several circumstances connected with that event, which render it impossible to interpret the words of Jesus as referring merely to that, although some of the coincidences are truly amazing. That Zachariah was the son ofJehoiada,——this was the son ofBaruchorBarachiah;——that Zachariah was slain in the outer court,——this was slain “in the midst of the temple,”——that is, “between the temple and the altar.” Besides, Jesus evidently speaks of this Zachariah as a person yet to come. “Behold, I send to you prophets, and wise men, and writers; and some of them youshallkill and crucify; and some of them you shall scourge and persecute; that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zachariah, the son of Barachiah, whomye slewbetween the temple and the altar. All these things shall come upon this generation.” It is true that here, the writer, in recording the prophecy, now referring to its fulfilment, turns to the Jews, charging it upon them as a crime already past, when he writes, though not at the time when the Savior spoke; and it is therefore, by a bold change of tense, that he represents Jesus speaking of a future event, as past. But the whole point of the discourse plainly refers to future crimes, as well as to future punishment. The multitude who heard him, indeed, no doubt considered him as pointing, in this particular mention of names, only to a past event; and notwithstanding the difference of minor circumstances, probably interpreted his words as referring to the Zachariah mentioned in 2 Chronicles, who was stoned for his open rebukes of the sins of king and people;——a conclusion moreover, justified by the previous words of Jesus. He had just been denouncing upon them the sin of their fathers, as the murderers of the prophets, whose tombs they were now so ostentatiously building; and if this wonderful accomplishment of his latter words had not taken place, it might reasonably be supposed, that he spoke of these future crimes only to show that their conduct would soon justify his imputation to them of their fathers’ guilt; that they would, during that same generation, murder similar persons, sent to them on similar divine errands, and thus become sharers in the crime of their fathers, who slew Zachariah, the son of Jehoiada, in theouter temple. But here now is the testimony of the impartial Josephus, a Jew,——himself a contemporary learner of all these events, and an eye-witness of some of them,——who, without any bias in favor of Christ, but rather some prejudice against him,——in this case too, without the knowledge of any such prophecy spoken or recorded,——gives a clear, definite statement of the outrageous murder of Zachariah, the son of Baruch or Barachiah, who, as he says, exactly, was “slain in the middle of the temple,”——that is, half-way “between the temple-courts and the altar.” He mentions it too, as the last bloody murder of a righteous man, for proclaiming the guilt of the wicked people; and it therefore very exactly corresponds to the idea of the crime, which was “to fill up the measure of their iniquities.” This event, thus proved to be the accomplishment of the prophecy of Jesus, and being shown moreover, to have been expressed in this peculiar form, with a reference to the recent occurrence of the murder alluded to,——is therefore a most valuable means of ascertaining the date of this gospel. Josephus dates the murder of Zachariah in the month of October, in the thirteenth year of the reign of Nero, which corresponds to A. D. 66. The Apostle Matthew then, must have written after this time; and it must be settled by other passages,how long after, he recorded the prophecy.The passage containing the prophecy of♦the death of Zachariah, is in Matthewxxiii.35; and that of “the abomination of desolation,” is inxxiv.15.♦remove duplicated word “the”This interesting event is recorded by Josephus; (History of Jewish War,IV.v.4;) and is one of the numerous instances which show the vast benefit which the Christian student of the New Testament may derive from the interesting and exact accounts of this Jewish historian.Another remarkable passage occurring in the prophecy of Jesus to his disciples, respecting the ruin of the temple, recorded by Matthew immediately after the discourse to the multitude, just given, affords reasonable ground for ascertaining this point in the history of this gospel. When Jesus was solemnly forewarning Peter, Andrew, James and John, of the utter ruin of the temple and city, he mentioned to them, at their request, certain signs, by which they might know the near approach of the coming judgment upon their country, and might thus escape the ruin to which the guilty were doomed. After many sad predictions of personal suffering, which must befall them in his service, he distinctly announced to them a particular event, by the occurrence of which they might know that “the end was come,” and might then, at the warning, flee from the danger to a place of safety.“When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, (whosoREADETH, let him understand,) then let them that are in Judea flee to the mountains.” This parenthetical expression is evidently thrown in by Matthew, as a warning to hisreaders, of an event which it behoved them to notice, as the token of a danger which they must escape. The expression was entirely local and occasional, in its character, and could never have been made a part of the discourse by Jesus; but the writer himself, directing his thoughts at that moment to the circumstances of the time, called the attention of his Christian countrymen to the warning of Jesus, as something which they must understand and act upon immediately. The inquiry then arises as to the meaning of the expression used by Jesus in his prophecy. “The abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, as standing in the holy place,” unquestionably refers to the horrible violation of the sanctity of the holy places of the temple, by the banditti, styling themselves “Zealotsfor their country,” who, taking possession of the sanctuary, called in the savage Idumeans, a heathen people, who not only profaned the temple, by their unholy presence, but defiled it with various excesses, committing there a horrible massacre, and flooding its pavements with blood. This was the abomination to which both Daniel and Matthew referred, and which the latter had in mind when he mentioned it to his brethren to whom he wrote, as the sign whichthey in reading should understand, and upon the warning, flee to the mountains. These horrible polluting excesses are the only events recorded in the history of the times, which can with such certainty and justice be pronounced the sad omens, to which Jesus and his evangelist referred. They are known to have occurred just before the death of Zachariah; and therefore also show this gospel to have been written after the date above fixed for that event. That it must have been writtenbeforethe last siege of Jerusalem, is furthermore manifest from the fact, that, in order to have the effect of awarning, it must have been sent to those in danger before the avenues of escape from danger were closed up, as they certainly were after Titus had fully encompassed Jerusalem with his armies, and after the ferocious Jewish tyrants had made it certain death for any one to attempt to pass from Jerusalem to the Roman camp. To have answered the purpose for which it was intended, then, it must have been written at some period between the murder of Zachariah,which was in the winter of the year 66, and the march of Titus from Galilee to Jerusalem, before which place he pitched his camp in the month of March, in A. D. 70. The precise point of time in these three years it is impossible to fix; but it was, very probably, within a short time after the commission of the bloody crimes to which he refers; perhaps in the beginning of the year 67.This view of these passages and the circumstances to which they refer, with all the arguments which support the inferences drawn from them, may be found in Hug’s Introduction, (Vol. II.§4.) He dates Matthew’s gospel much later than most writers do; it being commonly supposed to have been written in the year 41, or in the year 61. Michaelis makes an attempt to reconcile these conjectures, by supposing that it was written in Hebrew by Matthew, in A. D. 41, and translated in 61. But this is a mere guess, for which he does not pretend to assign a reason, and only says that he “can see no impropriety in supposing so.” (Introduction,III.iv.1, 2.)Eichhorn suggests, that a reason for concluding that Matthew wrote his gospel a long time after the events which he relates, is implied in the expression used inchap. xxvii.8, andxxviii.15. “It is so called,to this day,”——“It is commonly reported,to this day,”——are expressions which, to any reader, convey the idea of many years intervening between the incidents and the time of their narration. Inxxvii.15, also, the explanation which he gives of the custom of releasing a prisoner to the Jews on the feast-day, implies that the custom had been so long out of date, as to be probably forgotten by most of his readers, unless their memories were refreshed by this distinct explanation.IV. With what special design was this Gospel written?The circumstances of the times, as alluded to under the last inquiry, afford much light on the immediate object which Matthew had in view, in writing his gospel. It is true, that common readers of the Bible seldom think of it as anything else than a mere complete revelation made to all men, to lead them in the way of truth and salvation; and few are prepared for an inquiry which shall take each portion of the scriptures by itself, and follow it through all its individual history, to the very source,——searching even into the immediate and temporary purpose of the inspired writers. Indeed, very many never think or know, that the historical portions of the New Testament were written with any other design than to furnish to believers in Christ, through all ages, in all countries, a complete and distinct narrative of the events of the history of the foundation of their religion. But such a notion is perfectly discordant, not only with the reasonable results of an accurate examination of these writings, in all their parts, but with the uniform and decided testimony of all the Fathers of the Christian church, who may be safely taken as important and trusty witnesses of the notions prevalent in their times, about the scope and original design of the apostolic records. And though, as to the minute particulars of the history of the sacred canon,their testimony is worth little, yet on the general question, whether the apostles wrote with only a universal reference, or also with some special design connected with their own age and times,——the Fathers are as good authority as any writers that ever lived could be, on the opinions generally prevalent in their own day. In this particular case, however, very little reference can be made to external historical evidence, on the scope of Matthew’s gospel; because very few notices indeed, are found, of its immediate object, among the works of the early writers. But a view of the circumstances of the times, before referred to, will illustrate many things connected with the plan of the work, and show a peculiar force in many passages, that would otherwise be little appreciated.It appears on the unimpeachable testimony of the historians of those very times, of Josephus, who was a Jew, and of Tacitus and Suetonius, who were Romans, that both before and during the civil disturbances that ended in the destruction of Jerusalem, there was a general impression among the Jews, that their long-foretold Savior and national restorer, the Messiah-king, would soon appear; and in the power of God, lead them on to a certain triumph over the seemingly invincible hosts, which even the boundless strength of Rome could send against them. In the expectation of the establishment of his glorious dominion, under which Israel should more than renew the honors and the power of David and Solomon, they, without fear of the appalling consequences of their temerity, entered upon the hopeless struggle for independence; and according to the testimony of the above-mentioned historians, this prevalent notion did much, not only to incite them to the contest, but also to sustain their resolution under the awful calamities which followed. The revolt thus fully begun, drew the whole nation together into a perfect union of feeling and interest; all sharing in the popular fanaticism, became Jews again, whereby the Christian faith must have lost not a few of its professors.In these circumstances, and while such notions were prevalent, Matthew wrote his sketch of the life, teachings and miracles of Jesus; and throughout the whole of his narrative makes constant references, where the connection can suggest, to such passages in the ancient holy books of the Hebrews, as were commonly supposed to describe the character and destiny of the Messiah. Tracing out in all these lineaments of ancient prophecy, the complete picture of the Restorer of Israel, he thus proved, by a comparison with the actual life of Jesus of Nazareth, that this was the person,whose course throughout, had been predicted by the ancient prophets. In this way, he directly attacked the groundless hopes, which the fanatical rebels had excited, showing, as he did, that he for whom they looked as the Deliverer of Israel from bondage, had already come, and devoted his life to the disenthralment and salvation of his people from their sins. A distinct and satisfactory proof, carried on through a chain of historical evidence to this effect, would answer the purpose as fully as the written truth could do, of overthrowing the baseless imposition with which the impudent Zealots were beguiling the hopes of a credulous people, and leading them on, willingly deceived, to their utter ruin. In this book, containing a clear prediction of the destruction of the temple and Holy city, and of the whole religious and civil organization of the Jewish nation, many would find the revealed truth, making them wise in the way of salvation, though, for a time, all efforts might seem in vain; for the literal fulfilment of these solemn prophecies thus previously recorded, afterwards ensuing, the truth of the doctrines of a spiritual faith connected with these words of prediction, would be strongly impressed on those whom the consummation of their country’s ruin should lead to a consideration of the errors in which they had been long led astray. These prophecies promised, too, that after all these schemes of worldly triumph for the name and race of Israel, had sadly terminated in the utter, irretrievable ruin of temple and city,——and when the cessation of festivals, and the taking away of the daily sacrifice, had left the Jew so few material and formal objects, to hang his faith and hopes on,——the wandering ones should turn to the pure spiritual truths, which would prove the best consolation in their hopeless condition, and own, in vast numbers, the name and faith of him, whose sorrowful life and sad death were but too mournful a type of the coming woes of those who rejected him. Acknowledging the despised and crucified Nazarene as the true prophet and the long-foretold Messiah-king of afflicted Judah, the heart-broken, wandering sons of Israel, should join themselves to that oft-preached heavenly kingdom of virtue and truth, whose only entrance was through repentance and humility. Hence those numerous quotations from the Prophets, and from the Psalms, which are so abundant in Matthew, and by which, even a common reader is able to distinguish the peculiar, definite object that this writer has in view:——to show to the Jews, by a minute detail, and a frequent comparison, that the actions of Jesus,even in the most trifling incidents, corresponded with those passages of the ancient scriptures, which foreshadowed the Messiah. In this particular, his gospel is clearly distinguished from the others, which are for the most part deficient in this distinct unity of design; and where they refer to the grand object of representing Jesus as the Messiah,——the Son of God,——they do it in other modes, which show that it was for more general purposes, and directed to the conversion of Gentiles rather than Jews. This is the case with John, who plainly makes this an essential object in his grand scheme; but he combines the establishment of this great truth, with the more immediate occasions of subverting error and checking the progress of heretical opinions that aimed to detract from the divine prerogatives of Jesus. But John deals very little in those pointed and apt references to the testimony of the Hebrew scriptures, which so distinguish the writings of Matthew; he evidently apprehends that those to whom he writes, will be less affected by appeals of that kind, than by proofs drawn from his actions and discourses, and by the testimony of the great, the good, and the inspired, among those who saw and heard him. The work of Matthew was, on the other hand, plainly designed to bring to the faith of Jesus, those who were already fully and correctly instructed in all that related to the divinely exalted character of the Messiah, and only needed proof that the person proposed to them as the Redeemer thus foretold, was in all particulars such as the unerring word of ancient prophecy required. Besides this object of converting the unbelieving Jews, its tendency was also manifestly to strengthen and preserve those who were already professors of the faith of Jesus; and such, through all ages, has been its mighty scope, enlightening the nations with the clearest historical testimony ever borne to the whole life and actions of Jesus Christ, and rejoicing the millions of the faithful with the plainest record of the events that secured their salvation.Beyond the history of this gospel, the Fathers have hardly given the least account, either fanciful or real, of the succeeding life of Matthew. A fragment of tradition, of no very ancient date, specifies that he wrote his gospel when he was about to leave Palestine to go to other lands; but neither the region nor the period is mentioned. Probably, at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, he followed the eastward course of the Jewish Christians; but beyond this, even conjecture is lost. But where all historical grounds fail, monkish invention comes in with its tedious detailsof fabulous nonsense; and in this case, as in others already alluded to, the writings of the monks of the fourteenth century, produce long accounts of Matthew’s labors in Ethiopia, where he is carried through a long series of fabled miracles, to the usual crowning glory of martyrdom.Ethiopia.——The earliest testimony on this point by any ecclesiastical history, is that of Socrates, (A. D. 425,) a Greek writer, who says only, that “when the apostles divided the heathen world, by lot, among themselves,——to Matthew was allotted Ethiopia.” This is commonly supposed to mean Nubia, or the country directly south of Egypt. The other Fathers of the fifth and following centuries, generally assign him the same country; but it is quite uncertain what region is designated by this name. Ethiopia was a name applied by the Greeks to such a variety of regions, that it is quite in vain to define the particular one meant, without more information about the locality.But no such idle inventions can add anything to the interest which this apostolic writer has secured for himself by his noble Christian record. Not even an authentic history of miracles and martyrdom, could increase his enduring greatness. The tax-gatherer of Galilee has left a monument, on which cluster the combined honors of a literary and a holy fame,——a monument which insures him a wider, more lasting, and far higher glory, than the noblest♦achievements of the Grecian or the Latin writers, in his or any age could acquire for them. Not Herodotus nor Livy,——not Demosthenes nor Cicero,——not Homer nor Virgil,——can find a reader to whom the despised Matthew’s simple work is not familiar; nor did the highest hope or the proudest conception of the brilliant Horace, when exulting in the extent and durability of his fame, equal the boundless and eternal range of Matthew’s honors. What would Horace have said, if he had been told that among the most despised of these superstitious and barbarian Jews, whom his own writings show to have been proverbially scorned, would arise one, within thirty or forty years, who, degraded by his avocation, even below his own countrymen’s standard of respectability, would, by a simple record in humble prose, in an uncultivated and soon-forgotten dialect, “complete a monument more enduring than brass,——more lofty than the pyramids,——outlasting all the storms of revolution and of disaster,——all the course of ages and the flight of time?” Yet such was the result of the unpretending effort of Matthew; and it is not the least among the miracles of the religion whose foundation he commemorated and secured, that such a wonder in fame should have been achieved by it.♦“achievments” replaced with “achievements”

HIS RANK AND NAME.In his own gospel, Matthew is not ranked immediately after the preceding apostle, but numbers himself eighth on the list, and after his associate, Thomas; but all the other lists agree in giving this apostle a place immediately after Nathanael. The testimony of others in regard to his rank has therefore been adopted, in preference to his own, which was evidently influenced by a too modest estimation of himself.In connection with this apostle, as in other instances, there is a serious question about his name and individual identity, arising from the different appellations under which he is mentioned in different parts of the sacred record. In his own gospel, he is referred to by no other name than his common one; but by Mark and Luke, the circumstances of his call are narrated, with the details almost precisely similar to those recorded of the same occurrence by himself, and yet the person thus called, (in the same form of words used in summoning the other apostles,) is named Levi, the son of Alpheus; though Mark and Luke record Matthew by his common name among the twelve, in the list of names. Some have thought that the circumstance of their mentioning Matthew in this manner, without referring at all to his identity with the person named Levi, proves that they too had no idea that the former name was applied to the same person as the latter, and on the contrary, were detailing the call of some other disciple,——perhaps Jude, who also is called by the similar name, Lebbeus, and is known to have been the son of Alpheus. This view is not improbable, and is so well supported by coinciding circumstances, as to throw great uncertainty over the whole matter; though not entirely to set aside the probabilities arising from the almost perfect similarity between Matthew’s call, as related by himself, and the call of Levi, the son of Alpheus, as given in the other gospels.

HIS RANK AND NAME.

In his own gospel, Matthew is not ranked immediately after the preceding apostle, but numbers himself eighth on the list, and after his associate, Thomas; but all the other lists agree in giving this apostle a place immediately after Nathanael. The testimony of others in regard to his rank has therefore been adopted, in preference to his own, which was evidently influenced by a too modest estimation of himself.

In connection with this apostle, as in other instances, there is a serious question about his name and individual identity, arising from the different appellations under which he is mentioned in different parts of the sacred record. In his own gospel, he is referred to by no other name than his common one; but by Mark and Luke, the circumstances of his call are narrated, with the details almost precisely similar to those recorded of the same occurrence by himself, and yet the person thus called, (in the same form of words used in summoning the other apostles,) is named Levi, the son of Alpheus; though Mark and Luke record Matthew by his common name among the twelve, in the list of names. Some have thought that the circumstance of their mentioning Matthew in this manner, without referring at all to his identity with the person named Levi, proves that they too had no idea that the former name was applied to the same person as the latter, and on the contrary, were detailing the call of some other disciple,——perhaps Jude, who also is called by the similar name, Lebbeus, and is known to have been the son of Alpheus. This view is not improbable, and is so well supported by coinciding circumstances, as to throw great uncertainty over the whole matter; though not entirely to set aside the probabilities arising from the almost perfect similarity between Matthew’s call, as related by himself, and the call of Levi, the son of Alpheus, as given in the other gospels.

On the question of Matthew’s identity with Levi, Michaelis is full. (Introduction,III.iv.1.) Fabricius (Bibliotheca Graeca,IV.vii.2,) discusses the question quite at length, and his annotators give abundance of references to authors, in detail, in addition, to those mentioned by himself, in the text.

HIS CALL.The circumstances of his call, as narrated by himself, are represented as occurring at or near Capernaum. “Jesus, passing out of the city, saw a man named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom, and he said to him,——‘Follow me.’ And he arose, and followed him.” This account shows Matthew’s occupation, which is also known from the title of “the tax-gatherer,” annexed to his name, in his own list of the apostles. This was an occupation which, though unquestionably a source of great profit to those employed in it, and consequently as much sought after as such offices are in these days, and in this country, was always connected with a great deal of popular odium, from the relation in which they stood to the people, in this profitable business. The class of collectors to which Matthew belonged, in particular, being the mere toll-gatherers, sitting to collect the money, penny by penny, from the unwilling people, whose national pride was every moment wounded by the degradingforeignexactions of the Romans, suffered under a peculiar ignominy, and were supposed to have renounced all patriotism and honor, in stooping, for the base purposes of pecuniary gain, to act as instruments of such a galling form of servitude, and were therefore visited with a universal popular hatred and scorn. A class of men thus deprived of all character for honor and delicacy of feeling, would naturally grow hardened, beyond all sense of shame; and this added to the usual official impudence which characterizes all mean persons, holding a place which gives them the power to annoy others, the despised publicans would generally repay this spite, on every occasion, which could enable them to be vexatious to those who came in contact with them. Yet out of this hated class, Jesus did not disdain to take at least one,——perhaps more,——of those whom he chose for the express purpose of building up a pure faith, and of evangelizing the world. No doubt, before the occasion of this call, Matthew had been a frequent hearer of the words of truth which fell from the divinely eloquent lips of the Redeemer,——words that had not been without a purifying and exalting effect on the heart of the publican, though long so degraded by daily and hourly familiarity with meanness and vice. And so weaned was his soul from the love of the gainful pursuit to which he hadbeen devoted, that at the first call from Jesus, he arose from the place of toll-gathering, and followed his summoner, to a duty for which his previous occupation had but poorly prepared him. With such satisfaction did he renounce his old vocation, for the discipleship of the Nazarene, that he made it a great occasion of rejoicing, and celebrated the day as a festival, calling in all his old friends as well as his new ones, to share in the hospitable entertainment which he spread for all who could join with him in the social circle. Nor did the holy Redeemer despise the rough and indiscriminate company to which the grateful joy of Matthew had invited him; but rejoicing in an opportunity to do good to a class of people so seldom brought under the means of grace, he unhesitatingly sat down to the entertainment with his disciples,——Savior and sinners, toll-gatherers and apostles, all thronging in one motley group, around the festive board. What a sight was this for the eyes of the proud Pharisees who were spitefully watching the conduct of the man who had lately taken upon himself the exalted character of a teacher, and a reformer of the law! Passing into the house with the throng who entered at the open doors of the hospitable Matthew,——they saw the much glorified prophet of Nazareth, sitting at the social table along with a parcel of low custom-house collectors, toll-gatherers, tide-waiters and cheats, one of whose honorable fraternity he had just adopted into the goodly fellowship of his disciples, and was now eating and drinking with these outcast villains, without repelling the familiar merriment even of the lowest of them. At this spectacle, so degrading to such a dignity as they considered most becoming in one who aspired to be a teacher of morals and religion, the scribes and Pharisees sneeringly asked the disciples of Jesus,——“Why eateth your Master with tax-gatherers and sinners?” Jesus, hearing the malicious inquiry, answered it in such a tone of irony as best suited its impertinence. “They that are whole, need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what this means,——‘I will have mercy, rather than sacrifice;’ for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”HIS GOSPEL.After the history of his call, not one circumstance is related respecting him, either in the gospels, the Acts or the epistles. In his own gospel, he makes not the slightest allusion to anything either said or done by himself; nor does his name anywhere occur except in the apostolic lists. Even the Fathers are silent asto any other important circumstances of his life, and it is only in the noble record which he has left of the life of Christ, in the gospel which bears his name, that any monument of his actions and character can now be found. Yet this solitary remaining effort of his genius is of such importance in the history of revealed religion, that hardly the most eminent of the apostles is so often brought to mind, as the evangelist, whose clear, simple, but impressive testimony to the words and deeds of his Lord, now stands at the head of the sacred canon.On the history of this portion of the Christian scriptures, the testimony of the Fathers, from very early times, is very decided in maintaining the fact, that it was written in the vernacular language of Palestine. The very earliest testimony on this point, dating within seventy-five years of the time of Matthew himself, expressly declares that Matthew wrote his gospel in the Hebrew language; and that each one interpreted it for himself as he could. It is also said on somewhat early authority, that he wrote his gospel when about to depart from Palestine, that those whom he left behind him might have an authentic record of the facts in the life of Christ. So that by these and a great number of other testimonies, uniformly to the same effect, the point seems well established that Matthew wrote in Hebrew; and that what is now extant as his gospel, is only a translation into Greek, made in some later age, by some person unknown.

HIS CALL.

The circumstances of his call, as narrated by himself, are represented as occurring at or near Capernaum. “Jesus, passing out of the city, saw a man named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom, and he said to him,——‘Follow me.’ And he arose, and followed him.” This account shows Matthew’s occupation, which is also known from the title of “the tax-gatherer,” annexed to his name, in his own list of the apostles. This was an occupation which, though unquestionably a source of great profit to those employed in it, and consequently as much sought after as such offices are in these days, and in this country, was always connected with a great deal of popular odium, from the relation in which they stood to the people, in this profitable business. The class of collectors to which Matthew belonged, in particular, being the mere toll-gatherers, sitting to collect the money, penny by penny, from the unwilling people, whose national pride was every moment wounded by the degradingforeignexactions of the Romans, suffered under a peculiar ignominy, and were supposed to have renounced all patriotism and honor, in stooping, for the base purposes of pecuniary gain, to act as instruments of such a galling form of servitude, and were therefore visited with a universal popular hatred and scorn. A class of men thus deprived of all character for honor and delicacy of feeling, would naturally grow hardened, beyond all sense of shame; and this added to the usual official impudence which characterizes all mean persons, holding a place which gives them the power to annoy others, the despised publicans would generally repay this spite, on every occasion, which could enable them to be vexatious to those who came in contact with them. Yet out of this hated class, Jesus did not disdain to take at least one,——perhaps more,——of those whom he chose for the express purpose of building up a pure faith, and of evangelizing the world. No doubt, before the occasion of this call, Matthew had been a frequent hearer of the words of truth which fell from the divinely eloquent lips of the Redeemer,——words that had not been without a purifying and exalting effect on the heart of the publican, though long so degraded by daily and hourly familiarity with meanness and vice. And so weaned was his soul from the love of the gainful pursuit to which he hadbeen devoted, that at the first call from Jesus, he arose from the place of toll-gathering, and followed his summoner, to a duty for which his previous occupation had but poorly prepared him. With such satisfaction did he renounce his old vocation, for the discipleship of the Nazarene, that he made it a great occasion of rejoicing, and celebrated the day as a festival, calling in all his old friends as well as his new ones, to share in the hospitable entertainment which he spread for all who could join with him in the social circle. Nor did the holy Redeemer despise the rough and indiscriminate company to which the grateful joy of Matthew had invited him; but rejoicing in an opportunity to do good to a class of people so seldom brought under the means of grace, he unhesitatingly sat down to the entertainment with his disciples,——Savior and sinners, toll-gatherers and apostles, all thronging in one motley group, around the festive board. What a sight was this for the eyes of the proud Pharisees who were spitefully watching the conduct of the man who had lately taken upon himself the exalted character of a teacher, and a reformer of the law! Passing into the house with the throng who entered at the open doors of the hospitable Matthew,——they saw the much glorified prophet of Nazareth, sitting at the social table along with a parcel of low custom-house collectors, toll-gatherers, tide-waiters and cheats, one of whose honorable fraternity he had just adopted into the goodly fellowship of his disciples, and was now eating and drinking with these outcast villains, without repelling the familiar merriment even of the lowest of them. At this spectacle, so degrading to such a dignity as they considered most becoming in one who aspired to be a teacher of morals and religion, the scribes and Pharisees sneeringly asked the disciples of Jesus,——“Why eateth your Master with tax-gatherers and sinners?” Jesus, hearing the malicious inquiry, answered it in such a tone of irony as best suited its impertinence. “They that are whole, need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what this means,——‘I will have mercy, rather than sacrifice;’ for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

HIS GOSPEL.

After the history of his call, not one circumstance is related respecting him, either in the gospels, the Acts or the epistles. In his own gospel, he makes not the slightest allusion to anything either said or done by himself; nor does his name anywhere occur except in the apostolic lists. Even the Fathers are silent asto any other important circumstances of his life, and it is only in the noble record which he has left of the life of Christ, in the gospel which bears his name, that any monument of his actions and character can now be found. Yet this solitary remaining effort of his genius is of such importance in the history of revealed religion, that hardly the most eminent of the apostles is so often brought to mind, as the evangelist, whose clear, simple, but impressive testimony to the words and deeds of his Lord, now stands at the head of the sacred canon.

On the history of this portion of the Christian scriptures, the testimony of the Fathers, from very early times, is very decided in maintaining the fact, that it was written in the vernacular language of Palestine. The very earliest testimony on this point, dating within seventy-five years of the time of Matthew himself, expressly declares that Matthew wrote his gospel in the Hebrew language; and that each one interpreted it for himself as he could. It is also said on somewhat early authority, that he wrote his gospel when about to depart from Palestine, that those whom he left behind him might have an authentic record of the facts in the life of Christ. So that by these and a great number of other testimonies, uniformly to the same effect, the point seems well established that Matthew wrote in Hebrew; and that what is now extant as his gospel, is only a translation into Greek, made in some later age, by some person unknown.

I. In what language did Matthew write his Gospel?

In mentioning the Hebrew as the original language of the gospel of Matthew, it should be noticed, that the dialect spoken by the Jews of the time of Christ and his apostles, was by no means the language in which the Old Testament was written, and which is commonly meant by this name at present. The true ancient Hebrew had long before become a dead language, as truly so as it is now, and as much unknown to the mass of the people, as the Latin is in Italy, or the Anglo-Saxon in England. Yet the language was still called “theHebrew,” as appears from several passages in the New Testament, where the Hebrew is spoken of as the vernacular language of the Jews of Palestine. It seems proper therefore, to designate the later Hebrew by the same name which is applied to it by those who spoke it, and this is still among modern writers the term used for it; but of late, some, especially Hug and his commentator, Wait, have introduced the name “Aramaic,” as a distinctive title of this dialect, deriving this term fromAram, the original name of Syria, and the regions around, in all which was spoken in the time of Christ, this or a similar dialect. This term however, is quite unnecessary; and I therefore prefer to use here the common name, as above limited, because it is the one used in the New Testament, and is the one in familiar use, not only with common readers, but, as far as I know, with the majority of Biblical critics.

Though the evidence that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, is apparently of the most uniform, weighty and decisive character, there have been many among the learned, within the three last centuries, who have denied it, and have brought the best of their learning and ability to prove that the Greek gospel of Matthew, which is now in the New Testament, is the original production of his pen; and so skilfully has this modern view been maintained, that this has already been made one of the most doubtful questions in the history of the canon. In Germany more particularly, (but notentirely,) this notion has, during the last century, been strongly supported by many who do not like the idea, that we are in possession only of a translation of this most important record of sacred history, and that the original is now lost forever. Those who have more particularly distinguished themselves on this side of the controversy, are Maius, Schroeder, Masch and Hug, but the great majority of critics still support the old view.

The earliest evidence for theHebreworiginal of Matthew’s gospel, is Papias of Hierapolis, (as early as A. D. 140,) not long after the times of the apostles, and acquainted with many who knew them personally. Eusebius (Church History,III.39,) quotes the words of Papias, (of which the original is now lost,) which are exactly translated here:——“Matthew therefore wrote the divine words in the Hebrew language; and every one translated them as he could.” By which it appears that in the time of Papias there was no universally acknowledged translation of Matthew’s gospel; but that every one was still left to his own private discretion, in giving the meaning in Greek from the original Hebrew. The value of Papias’s testimony on any point connected with the history of the apostles, may be best learned from his own simple and honest account of his opportunities and efforts to inquire into their history; (as recorded by Eusebius in a former part of the same chapter.) “If any person who had ever been acquainted with the elders, came into my company, I inquired of them the words of the elders;——what Andrew and Peter said?——what Thomas, and James, and John, and Matthew, and the other disciples of the Lord used to say?”——All this shows an inquiring, zealous mind, faithful in particulars, and ready in improving opportunities for acquiring historical knowledge. Yet because in another part of the works of Eusebius, he is characterized as rather enthusiastic, and very weak in judgment, more particularly in respect to doctrines, some moderns have attempted to set aside his testimony, as worth nothing on this simple historical point, the decision of which, from the direct personal witness of those who had seen Matthew and read his original gospel, needed no more judgment than for a man to remember his own name. The argument offered to discredit Papias, is this:——“He believed in a bodily reign of the Messiah on the earth, during the whole period of the millennium, and for this and some similar errors, is pronounced by Eusebius, ‘a man of very weak judgment,’——(πανυ σμικρος τον νουν.) Therefore, he could not have known in what language Matthew wrote.” The objection certainly is worth something against a man who made such errors as Papias, in questions where any nice discrimination is necessary, but in a simple effort of a ready memory, he is as good a witness as though he had the discrimination of a modern skeptical critic. (In Michaelis’s Introduction to the New Testament,vol. III.c. iv.§4, is a full discussion of Papias’s character and testimony, and the objections to them.)

The second witness is Irenaeus, (A. D. 160,) who, however, coupling his testimony with a demonstrated falsehood, destroys the value which might be otherwise put upon a statement so ancient as his. His words are quoted by Eusebius, (Church History,V.8.) “Matthew published among the Hebrews his gospel, written intheir ownlanguage, (τῃ ιδιᾳ αυτων διαλεκτῳ,) while Peter and Paul were preaching Christ at Rome, and laying the foundations of the church.” This latter circumstance is no great help to the story, after what has been proved on this point in the notes on Peter’s life; but the critics do not pretend to attack it on this ground. They urge against it, that as Irenaeus had a great regard for Papias, and took some facts on his word, he probably took this also from him, with no other authority,——aguess, which only wants proof, to make it a very tolerable argument. Let Irenaeus go for what he is worth; there are enough without him.

The third witness is Pantaenus of Alexandria, already quoted in the note on Nathanael’s life, (p.363,) as having found this Hebrew gospel still in use, in that language, among the Jews of Arabia-Felix, towards the end of the second century.

The fourth witness is Origen, (A. D. 230,) whose words on this point are preserved only in a quotation made by Eusebius, (Church History,VI.25,) who thus gives them from Origen’s commentary on Matthew. “As I have learned by tradition concerning the four gospels, which alone are received without dispute by the church of God under heaven: the first was written by Matthew, once a tax-gatherer, afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for the benefit of the Jewish converts, having composed it in theHebrewlanguage,&c.” The term, “tradition,” (παραδοσις,) here evidently means something more than floating, unauthorized information, coming merely by vague hearsay; for to this source only he refers all his knowledge of the fact, that “the gospel was written by Matthew;” so that, in fact, we have as good authorityin this place, for believing that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, as we have that he wrote at all. The other circumstances specified, also show clearly, that he did not derive all his information on this point from Papias, as some have urged; because this account gives facts which that earlier Father did not mention,——as that it was written first, and that it was intended for the benefit of the Jewish converts.

Later authorities, such as Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzus, and others, might be quoted in detail, to the same effect; but this general statement is sufficient for this place. The scholar of course, will refer to the works on critical theology for detailed abstracts of these, as well as the former writers. Michaelis is very full, both in extracts and discussions. Hug also gives a minute account of the evidence, with the view of refuting it.

The testimony of Jerome [A. D. 395,] is however, so full and explicit, and so valuable from his character as a Hebrew scholar, that it may well be esteemed of higher importance to the question, than that of some earlier writers. His words are,——“Matthew composed his gospel inHebrew letters and words, but it is not very well known who afterwards translated it. Moreover, the very Hebrew original itself is preserved even to this day, in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus, most industriously collected. I also had the opportunity of copying [describendi] this book by means of the Nazareans in Beroea, a city of Syria, who use this book.” [Jerome De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis. Vita Matthew.] Another passage from the same author is valuable testimony to the same purpose,——“Matthew wrote his gospelin the Hebrew language, principally for the sake of those Jews who believed in Jesus.”

Now these testimonies, though coming from an authority so late, are of the highest value when his means of learning the truth are considered. By his own statement it appears that hehad actually seen and examinedthe original Hebrew gospel of Matthew, or what was considered to be such, as preserved in the valuable collections of♦Pamphilus, at a place within the region for which it was first written. It has been urged that Jerome confounded the “gospel according to the Hebrews,” an apocryphal book, with the true original of Matthew. But this is disproved, from the circumstance that Jerome himself translated this apocryphal gospel from the Hebrew into Latin, while he says that the translator of Matthew was unknown.

♦“Pamphilius” replaced with “Pamphilus”

♦“Pamphilius” replaced with “Pamphilus”

♦“Pamphilius” replaced with “Pamphilus”

In addition to these authorities from the Fathers, may be quoted the statements appended to the ancient Syriac and Arabic versions, which distinctly declare that Matthew wrote in Hebrew. This was also the opinion of all the learned Syrians.

The great argument with which all this evidence is met, (besides discrediting the witnesses,) is that Matthewoughtto have written in Greek, and thereforedid. (Matthaeus Graece scriberedebuit.Schubert. Diss. § 24.) This sounds very strangely; that, without any direct ancient testimony to support the assertion, but a great number of distinct assertions against it from the very earliest Fathers, moderns should now pronounce themselves better judges of what Matthewoughtto do, than those who were so near to his time, and were so well acquainted with his design, and all the circumstances under which it was executed. Yet, strangely as it sounds, an argument of even this presumptuous aspect, demands the most respectful consideration, more especially from those who have had frequent occasion, on other points, to notice the very contemptible character of the “testimony of the Fathers.” It should be noticed however, that, in this case, the argument does not rest on a mere floating tradition, like many other mooted points in early Christian history, but in most of the witnesses, is referred to direct personal knowledge of the facts, and, in some cases, to actual inspection of the original.

It is proper to notice the reasons for thinking that Matthewoughtto have written in Greek, which have influenced such minds as those of Erasmus, Beza, Ittig, Leusden, Spanheim, LeClerc, Semler, Hug and others, and which have had a decisive weight with such wonderfully deep Hebrew scholars, as Wagenseil, Lightfoot, JohnHenryMichaelis, and Reland. The amount of the argument is, mainly, that the Greek was then so widely and commonly spoken even in Palestine, as to be the most desirable language for the evangelist to use in preserving for the benefit of his own countrymen, the record of the life of Christ. The particulars of the highly elaborate and learned arguments, on which this assertion has been rested, have filled volumes, nor can even an abstract be allowed here; but a simple reference to common facts will do something to show to common readers, the prominent objections to the notion of a Greek original. It is perfectly agreed that the Hebrew was the ordinary language spoken by Christ, in his teachings, and in all his usual intercourse with the people around him. That this language was that in which the Jews alsocommonly wrote and read at that time, as far as they were able to do either, in any language, is equally plain. In spite of all that Grecian and Roman conquests could do, the Jews were still a distinct and peculiar people; nor is there any reason whatever to suppose that they were any less so in language, than they were in dress, manners, and general character. He, therefore, who desired to write anything for the benefit of the Jews, as a nation, would insure it altogether the best attention from them, if it came in a form most accordant with their national feelings. They would naturally be the first persons whose salvation would be an object to the apostolic writers, as to the apostolic preachers, and the feelings of the writer himself, being in some degree influenced by love of his own countrymen, he would aim first at the direct spiritual benefit of those who were his kindred according to the flesh. Among all the historical writings of the New Testament, that there should be not one originally composed in the language of the people among whom the Savior arose, with whom he lived, talked and labored, and for whom he died, would be very strange. The fact that a gospel in the Hebrew language was considered absolutely indispensable for the benefit of the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, is rendered perfectly incontestable by the circumstance that those apocryphal gospels which were in common use among the heretical denominations of that region, wereall in Hebrew; and the common argument, that the Hebrew gospel spoken of by the Fathers was translated into Hebrew from Matthew’s Greek, is itself an evidence that it was absolutely indispensable that the Jews should be addressed in writing, in that language alone. The objection, that the Hebrew original of Matthew was lost so soon, is easily answered by the fact, that the Jews were, in the course of the few first centuries, driven out of the land of their Fathers so completely, as to destroy the occasion for any such gospel in their language; for wherever they went, they soon made the dialect of the country in which they lived, their only medium of communication, written or spoken.

Fabricius may be advantageously consulted by the scholar for a condensed view of the question of the original language of Matthew’s gospel, and his references to authorities, ancient and modern, are numerous and valuable, besides those appended by his editors.——The most complete argument ever made out in defense of a Greek original, is that by Hug, in his Introduction, whose history of the progress of Grecian influence and language in Syria and Palestine, is both interesting and valuable on its own account, though made the inefficient instrument of supporting an error. He is very ably met by his English translator, Wait, in the introduction to the first volume. A very strong defense of a Greek original of Matthew, is also found in a little quarto pamphlet, containing a thesis of a Goettingen student, on taking his degree in theology, in 1810. (Diss. Crit. Exeg. in serm. Matt.&c.Auct. Frid. Gul. Schubert.)

II. What were the Materials of Matthew’s Gospel?

This point has been made the subject of more discussion and speculation, within the last fifty years, among the critical and exegetical theologians of Europe, than any other subject connected with the New Testament. Those who wish to see the interesting details of the modes of explaining the coincidences between the three first evangelists, may find much on this subject in Michaelis’s Introduction to the New Testament, and especially in the translation by Bishop Marsh, who, in his notes onVol. III.of Michaelis, has, after a very full discussion of all previous views of the origin of the gospels, gone on to build one of the most ingenious speculations on this point that was ever conceived on any subject, but which, in its very complicated structure, will present a most insuperable objection to its adoption by the vast majority of even his critical readers; and accordingly, though he has received universal praise for the great learning and ingenuity displayed in its formation, he has found few supporters,——perhaps none. His views are fully examined and fairly discussed, by the anonymous English translator ofDr.F. Schleiermacher’s Commentary on Luke, in an introductory history of all the German speculations on this subject with which he has prefaced that work. The historical sketch there given of the progress of opinion on the sources and materials of the three first gospels, is probably the most complete account of the whole matter that is accessible in English, and displays a very minute acquaintance with the German theologians. Hug is also very full on this subject, and also discusses the views of Marsh and Michaelis. Hug’s translator,Dr.Wait, has given, in an introduction to the first volume, a very interesting account of these critical controversies, and has large references to many German writers not referred to by his author. Bertholdt and Bolten, in particular, are amply quoted and disputed by Wait. Bloomfield also, in the prefaces to the first and second volumesof his critical Annotations on the New Testament, gives much on the subject that can hardly be found any where else by a mere English reader. Large references might be made to the works of the original German writers; but it would require a very protracted statement, and would be useless to nearly all readers, because those to whom these rare and deep treasures of sacred knowledge are accessible, are doubtless better able to give an account of them than I am. It may be worth while to mention, however, that of all those statements of the facts on this subject with which I am acquainted, none gives a more satisfactory view, than a little Latin monograph, in a quarto of eighty pages, written by H. W. Halfeld, (a Goettingen theological student, and a pupil of Eichhorn, for whose views he has a great partiality,) for the Royal premium. Its title is, “Commentatio de origine quatuor evangeliorum, et de eorum canonica auctoritate.” (Goettingen, 1796.) The Bibliotheca Graeca of Fabricius, (Harles’s edition with notes,) contains, in the chapters on the gospels, very rich references to the learned authors on these points. Lardner, in his History of the Apostles and Evangelists, takes a learned view of the question, “whether either of the three evangelists had seen the others’ writings.” This he gives after the lives of all four of the evangelists, and it may be referred to for a very full abstract of all the old opinions upon the question. Few of these points have any claim for a discussion in this book, but some things may very properly be alluded to, in the lives of the other evangelists, where a reference to their resemblances and common sources, will be essential to the completeness of the narrative.

III. At what time did Matthew write his gospel?This is a question on which the records of antiquity afford no light, that can be trusted; and it is therefore left to be settled entirely byinternalevidence. There are indeed ancient stories, that he wrote it nine years after the ascension,——that he wrote it fifteen years after that event,——that he wrote it while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome,——or when he was about leaving Palestine,&c., all which are about equally valuable. The results of the examinations of modern writers, who have labored to ascertain the date, have been exceedingly various, and only probabilities can be stated on this most interesting point of gospel history. The most probable conjecture on this point is one based on the character of certain passages in Christ’s prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, which by their vividness in the evangelist’s record, may be fairly presumed to have been written down when the crisis in Jewish affairs was highest, and most interesting; and when the perilous condition of the innocent Christians must have been a matter of the deepest solicitude to the apostles,——so much as to deserve a particular provision, by a written testimony of the impending ruin. A reference made also to a certain historical fact in Christ’s prophecy, which is known on the testimony of Josephus, the Jewish historian, to have happened about this time, affords another important ground for fixing the date. This is the murder of Zachariah, the son of Barachiah, whom the Jews slew between the temple and the altar. He relates that the ferocious banditti, who had possessed themselves of the strong places of the city, tyrannized over the wretched inhabitants, executingthe most bloody murders daily, among them, and killing, upon the most unfounded accusations, the noblest citizens. Among those thus sacrificed by these bloody tyrants, Josephus very minutely narrates the murder of Zachariah, the son of Baruch, or Baruchus, a man of one of the first families, and of great wealth. His independence of character and freedom of speech, denouncing the base tyranny under which the city groaned, soon made him an object of mortal hatred, to the military rulers; and his wealth also constituted an important incitement to his destruction. He was therefore seized, and on the baseless charge of plotting to betray the city into the hands of Vespasian and the Romans, was brought to a trial before a tribunal constituted by themselves, from the elders of the people, in the temple, which they had profaned by making it their strong hold. The righteous Zachariah, knowing that his doom was irrevocably sealed, determined not to lay aside his freedom of speech, even in this desperate pass; and when brought by his iniquitous accusers before the elders who constituted the tribunal, in all the eloquent energy of despair, after refuting the idle accusations against him, in few words, he turned upon his accusers in just indignation, and burst out into the most bitter denunciations of their wickedness and cruelty, mingling with these complaints, lamentations over the desolate and miserable condition of his ruined country. The ferocious Zealots, excited to madness by his dauntless spirit of resistance, instantly drew their swords, and threateningly called out to the judges to condemn him at once. But even the instruments of their power, were too much moved by the heroic innocence of the prisoner, to consent to this unjust doom; and, in spite of these threats, acquitted him at once. The Zealots then burst out, at once, into fury against the judges, and rushed upon them to punish their temerity, in declaring themselves willing to die with him, rather than unjustly pronounce sentence upon him. Two of the fiercest of the ruffians, seizing Zachariah, slew him inthe middle of the temple, insulting his last agonies, and immediately hurled his warm corpse over the terrace of the temple, into the depths of the valley below.This was, most evidently, the horrible murder, to which Jesus referred in his prophecy. Performed thus, just on the eve of the last, utter ruin of the temple and the city, it is the only act that could be characterized as the crowning iniquity of all the blood unrighteously shed, from the earliest time downwards. It hassometimes been supposed by those ignorant of this remarkable event, that the Zachariah here referred to, was Zachariah, son of Jehoiada, who in the reign of Joash, king of Judah, was stoned by the people, at the command of the king, in the outer court of the temple. But there are several circumstances connected with that event, which render it impossible to interpret the words of Jesus as referring merely to that, although some of the coincidences are truly amazing. That Zachariah was the son ofJehoiada,——this was the son ofBaruchorBarachiah;——that Zachariah was slain in the outer court,——this was slain “in the midst of the temple,”——that is, “between the temple and the altar.” Besides, Jesus evidently speaks of this Zachariah as a person yet to come. “Behold, I send to you prophets, and wise men, and writers; and some of them youshallkill and crucify; and some of them you shall scourge and persecute; that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zachariah, the son of Barachiah, whomye slewbetween the temple and the altar. All these things shall come upon this generation.” It is true that here, the writer, in recording the prophecy, now referring to its fulfilment, turns to the Jews, charging it upon them as a crime already past, when he writes, though not at the time when the Savior spoke; and it is therefore, by a bold change of tense, that he represents Jesus speaking of a future event, as past. But the whole point of the discourse plainly refers to future crimes, as well as to future punishment. The multitude who heard him, indeed, no doubt considered him as pointing, in this particular mention of names, only to a past event; and notwithstanding the difference of minor circumstances, probably interpreted his words as referring to the Zachariah mentioned in 2 Chronicles, who was stoned for his open rebukes of the sins of king and people;——a conclusion moreover, justified by the previous words of Jesus. He had just been denouncing upon them the sin of their fathers, as the murderers of the prophets, whose tombs they were now so ostentatiously building; and if this wonderful accomplishment of his latter words had not taken place, it might reasonably be supposed, that he spoke of these future crimes only to show that their conduct would soon justify his imputation to them of their fathers’ guilt; that they would, during that same generation, murder similar persons, sent to them on similar divine errands, and thus become sharers in the crime of their fathers, who slew Zachariah, the son of Jehoiada, in theouter temple. But here now is the testimony of the impartial Josephus, a Jew,——himself a contemporary learner of all these events, and an eye-witness of some of them,——who, without any bias in favor of Christ, but rather some prejudice against him,——in this case too, without the knowledge of any such prophecy spoken or recorded,——gives a clear, definite statement of the outrageous murder of Zachariah, the son of Baruch or Barachiah, who, as he says, exactly, was “slain in the middle of the temple,”——that is, half-way “between the temple-courts and the altar.” He mentions it too, as the last bloody murder of a righteous man, for proclaiming the guilt of the wicked people; and it therefore very exactly corresponds to the idea of the crime, which was “to fill up the measure of their iniquities.” This event, thus proved to be the accomplishment of the prophecy of Jesus, and being shown moreover, to have been expressed in this peculiar form, with a reference to the recent occurrence of the murder alluded to,——is therefore a most valuable means of ascertaining the date of this gospel. Josephus dates the murder of Zachariah in the month of October, in the thirteenth year of the reign of Nero, which corresponds to A. D. 66. The Apostle Matthew then, must have written after this time; and it must be settled by other passages,how long after, he recorded the prophecy.

III. At what time did Matthew write his gospel?

This is a question on which the records of antiquity afford no light, that can be trusted; and it is therefore left to be settled entirely byinternalevidence. There are indeed ancient stories, that he wrote it nine years after the ascension,——that he wrote it fifteen years after that event,——that he wrote it while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome,——or when he was about leaving Palestine,&c., all which are about equally valuable. The results of the examinations of modern writers, who have labored to ascertain the date, have been exceedingly various, and only probabilities can be stated on this most interesting point of gospel history. The most probable conjecture on this point is one based on the character of certain passages in Christ’s prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, which by their vividness in the evangelist’s record, may be fairly presumed to have been written down when the crisis in Jewish affairs was highest, and most interesting; and when the perilous condition of the innocent Christians must have been a matter of the deepest solicitude to the apostles,——so much as to deserve a particular provision, by a written testimony of the impending ruin. A reference made also to a certain historical fact in Christ’s prophecy, which is known on the testimony of Josephus, the Jewish historian, to have happened about this time, affords another important ground for fixing the date. This is the murder of Zachariah, the son of Barachiah, whom the Jews slew between the temple and the altar. He relates that the ferocious banditti, who had possessed themselves of the strong places of the city, tyrannized over the wretched inhabitants, executingthe most bloody murders daily, among them, and killing, upon the most unfounded accusations, the noblest citizens. Among those thus sacrificed by these bloody tyrants, Josephus very minutely narrates the murder of Zachariah, the son of Baruch, or Baruchus, a man of one of the first families, and of great wealth. His independence of character and freedom of speech, denouncing the base tyranny under which the city groaned, soon made him an object of mortal hatred, to the military rulers; and his wealth also constituted an important incitement to his destruction. He was therefore seized, and on the baseless charge of plotting to betray the city into the hands of Vespasian and the Romans, was brought to a trial before a tribunal constituted by themselves, from the elders of the people, in the temple, which they had profaned by making it their strong hold. The righteous Zachariah, knowing that his doom was irrevocably sealed, determined not to lay aside his freedom of speech, even in this desperate pass; and when brought by his iniquitous accusers before the elders who constituted the tribunal, in all the eloquent energy of despair, after refuting the idle accusations against him, in few words, he turned upon his accusers in just indignation, and burst out into the most bitter denunciations of their wickedness and cruelty, mingling with these complaints, lamentations over the desolate and miserable condition of his ruined country. The ferocious Zealots, excited to madness by his dauntless spirit of resistance, instantly drew their swords, and threateningly called out to the judges to condemn him at once. But even the instruments of their power, were too much moved by the heroic innocence of the prisoner, to consent to this unjust doom; and, in spite of these threats, acquitted him at once. The Zealots then burst out, at once, into fury against the judges, and rushed upon them to punish their temerity, in declaring themselves willing to die with him, rather than unjustly pronounce sentence upon him. Two of the fiercest of the ruffians, seizing Zachariah, slew him inthe middle of the temple, insulting his last agonies, and immediately hurled his warm corpse over the terrace of the temple, into the depths of the valley below.

This was, most evidently, the horrible murder, to which Jesus referred in his prophecy. Performed thus, just on the eve of the last, utter ruin of the temple and the city, it is the only act that could be characterized as the crowning iniquity of all the blood unrighteously shed, from the earliest time downwards. It hassometimes been supposed by those ignorant of this remarkable event, that the Zachariah here referred to, was Zachariah, son of Jehoiada, who in the reign of Joash, king of Judah, was stoned by the people, at the command of the king, in the outer court of the temple. But there are several circumstances connected with that event, which render it impossible to interpret the words of Jesus as referring merely to that, although some of the coincidences are truly amazing. That Zachariah was the son ofJehoiada,——this was the son ofBaruchorBarachiah;——that Zachariah was slain in the outer court,——this was slain “in the midst of the temple,”——that is, “between the temple and the altar.” Besides, Jesus evidently speaks of this Zachariah as a person yet to come. “Behold, I send to you prophets, and wise men, and writers; and some of them youshallkill and crucify; and some of them you shall scourge and persecute; that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zachariah, the son of Barachiah, whomye slewbetween the temple and the altar. All these things shall come upon this generation.” It is true that here, the writer, in recording the prophecy, now referring to its fulfilment, turns to the Jews, charging it upon them as a crime already past, when he writes, though not at the time when the Savior spoke; and it is therefore, by a bold change of tense, that he represents Jesus speaking of a future event, as past. But the whole point of the discourse plainly refers to future crimes, as well as to future punishment. The multitude who heard him, indeed, no doubt considered him as pointing, in this particular mention of names, only to a past event; and notwithstanding the difference of minor circumstances, probably interpreted his words as referring to the Zachariah mentioned in 2 Chronicles, who was stoned for his open rebukes of the sins of king and people;——a conclusion moreover, justified by the previous words of Jesus. He had just been denouncing upon them the sin of their fathers, as the murderers of the prophets, whose tombs they were now so ostentatiously building; and if this wonderful accomplishment of his latter words had not taken place, it might reasonably be supposed, that he spoke of these future crimes only to show that their conduct would soon justify his imputation to them of their fathers’ guilt; that they would, during that same generation, murder similar persons, sent to them on similar divine errands, and thus become sharers in the crime of their fathers, who slew Zachariah, the son of Jehoiada, in theouter temple. But here now is the testimony of the impartial Josephus, a Jew,——himself a contemporary learner of all these events, and an eye-witness of some of them,——who, without any bias in favor of Christ, but rather some prejudice against him,——in this case too, without the knowledge of any such prophecy spoken or recorded,——gives a clear, definite statement of the outrageous murder of Zachariah, the son of Baruch or Barachiah, who, as he says, exactly, was “slain in the middle of the temple,”——that is, half-way “between the temple-courts and the altar.” He mentions it too, as the last bloody murder of a righteous man, for proclaiming the guilt of the wicked people; and it therefore very exactly corresponds to the idea of the crime, which was “to fill up the measure of their iniquities.” This event, thus proved to be the accomplishment of the prophecy of Jesus, and being shown moreover, to have been expressed in this peculiar form, with a reference to the recent occurrence of the murder alluded to,——is therefore a most valuable means of ascertaining the date of this gospel. Josephus dates the murder of Zachariah in the month of October, in the thirteenth year of the reign of Nero, which corresponds to A. D. 66. The Apostle Matthew then, must have written after this time; and it must be settled by other passages,how long after, he recorded the prophecy.

The passage containing the prophecy of♦the death of Zachariah, is in Matthewxxiii.35; and that of “the abomination of desolation,” is inxxiv.15.

♦remove duplicated word “the”

♦remove duplicated word “the”

♦remove duplicated word “the”

This interesting event is recorded by Josephus; (History of Jewish War,IV.v.4;) and is one of the numerous instances which show the vast benefit which the Christian student of the New Testament may derive from the interesting and exact accounts of this Jewish historian.

Another remarkable passage occurring in the prophecy of Jesus to his disciples, respecting the ruin of the temple, recorded by Matthew immediately after the discourse to the multitude, just given, affords reasonable ground for ascertaining this point in the history of this gospel. When Jesus was solemnly forewarning Peter, Andrew, James and John, of the utter ruin of the temple and city, he mentioned to them, at their request, certain signs, by which they might know the near approach of the coming judgment upon their country, and might thus escape the ruin to which the guilty were doomed. After many sad predictions of personal suffering, which must befall them in his service, he distinctly announced to them a particular event, by the occurrence of which they might know that “the end was come,” and might then, at the warning, flee from the danger to a place of safety.“When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, (whosoREADETH, let him understand,) then let them that are in Judea flee to the mountains.” This parenthetical expression is evidently thrown in by Matthew, as a warning to hisreaders, of an event which it behoved them to notice, as the token of a danger which they must escape. The expression was entirely local and occasional, in its character, and could never have been made a part of the discourse by Jesus; but the writer himself, directing his thoughts at that moment to the circumstances of the time, called the attention of his Christian countrymen to the warning of Jesus, as something which they must understand and act upon immediately. The inquiry then arises as to the meaning of the expression used by Jesus in his prophecy. “The abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, as standing in the holy place,” unquestionably refers to the horrible violation of the sanctity of the holy places of the temple, by the banditti, styling themselves “Zealotsfor their country,” who, taking possession of the sanctuary, called in the savage Idumeans, a heathen people, who not only profaned the temple, by their unholy presence, but defiled it with various excesses, committing there a horrible massacre, and flooding its pavements with blood. This was the abomination to which both Daniel and Matthew referred, and which the latter had in mind when he mentioned it to his brethren to whom he wrote, as the sign whichthey in reading should understand, and upon the warning, flee to the mountains. These horrible polluting excesses are the only events recorded in the history of the times, which can with such certainty and justice be pronounced the sad omens, to which Jesus and his evangelist referred. They are known to have occurred just before the death of Zachariah; and therefore also show this gospel to have been written after the date above fixed for that event. That it must have been writtenbeforethe last siege of Jerusalem, is furthermore manifest from the fact, that, in order to have the effect of awarning, it must have been sent to those in danger before the avenues of escape from danger were closed up, as they certainly were after Titus had fully encompassed Jerusalem with his armies, and after the ferocious Jewish tyrants had made it certain death for any one to attempt to pass from Jerusalem to the Roman camp. To have answered the purpose for which it was intended, then, it must have been written at some period between the murder of Zachariah,which was in the winter of the year 66, and the march of Titus from Galilee to Jerusalem, before which place he pitched his camp in the month of March, in A. D. 70. The precise point of time in these three years it is impossible to fix; but it was, very probably, within a short time after the commission of the bloody crimes to which he refers; perhaps in the beginning of the year 67.

Another remarkable passage occurring in the prophecy of Jesus to his disciples, respecting the ruin of the temple, recorded by Matthew immediately after the discourse to the multitude, just given, affords reasonable ground for ascertaining this point in the history of this gospel. When Jesus was solemnly forewarning Peter, Andrew, James and John, of the utter ruin of the temple and city, he mentioned to them, at their request, certain signs, by which they might know the near approach of the coming judgment upon their country, and might thus escape the ruin to which the guilty were doomed. After many sad predictions of personal suffering, which must befall them in his service, he distinctly announced to them a particular event, by the occurrence of which they might know that “the end was come,” and might then, at the warning, flee from the danger to a place of safety.“When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, (whosoREADETH, let him understand,) then let them that are in Judea flee to the mountains.” This parenthetical expression is evidently thrown in by Matthew, as a warning to hisreaders, of an event which it behoved them to notice, as the token of a danger which they must escape. The expression was entirely local and occasional, in its character, and could never have been made a part of the discourse by Jesus; but the writer himself, directing his thoughts at that moment to the circumstances of the time, called the attention of his Christian countrymen to the warning of Jesus, as something which they must understand and act upon immediately. The inquiry then arises as to the meaning of the expression used by Jesus in his prophecy. “The abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, as standing in the holy place,” unquestionably refers to the horrible violation of the sanctity of the holy places of the temple, by the banditti, styling themselves “Zealotsfor their country,” who, taking possession of the sanctuary, called in the savage Idumeans, a heathen people, who not only profaned the temple, by their unholy presence, but defiled it with various excesses, committing there a horrible massacre, and flooding its pavements with blood. This was the abomination to which both Daniel and Matthew referred, and which the latter had in mind when he mentioned it to his brethren to whom he wrote, as the sign whichthey in reading should understand, and upon the warning, flee to the mountains. These horrible polluting excesses are the only events recorded in the history of the times, which can with such certainty and justice be pronounced the sad omens, to which Jesus and his evangelist referred. They are known to have occurred just before the death of Zachariah; and therefore also show this gospel to have been written after the date above fixed for that event. That it must have been writtenbeforethe last siege of Jerusalem, is furthermore manifest from the fact, that, in order to have the effect of awarning, it must have been sent to those in danger before the avenues of escape from danger were closed up, as they certainly were after Titus had fully encompassed Jerusalem with his armies, and after the ferocious Jewish tyrants had made it certain death for any one to attempt to pass from Jerusalem to the Roman camp. To have answered the purpose for which it was intended, then, it must have been written at some period between the murder of Zachariah,which was in the winter of the year 66, and the march of Titus from Galilee to Jerusalem, before which place he pitched his camp in the month of March, in A. D. 70. The precise point of time in these three years it is impossible to fix; but it was, very probably, within a short time after the commission of the bloody crimes to which he refers; perhaps in the beginning of the year 67.

This view of these passages and the circumstances to which they refer, with all the arguments which support the inferences drawn from them, may be found in Hug’s Introduction, (Vol. II.§4.) He dates Matthew’s gospel much later than most writers do; it being commonly supposed to have been written in the year 41, or in the year 61. Michaelis makes an attempt to reconcile these conjectures, by supposing that it was written in Hebrew by Matthew, in A. D. 41, and translated in 61. But this is a mere guess, for which he does not pretend to assign a reason, and only says that he “can see no impropriety in supposing so.” (Introduction,III.iv.1, 2.)

Eichhorn suggests, that a reason for concluding that Matthew wrote his gospel a long time after the events which he relates, is implied in the expression used inchap. xxvii.8, andxxviii.15. “It is so called,to this day,”——“It is commonly reported,to this day,”——are expressions which, to any reader, convey the idea of many years intervening between the incidents and the time of their narration. Inxxvii.15, also, the explanation which he gives of the custom of releasing a prisoner to the Jews on the feast-day, implies that the custom had been so long out of date, as to be probably forgotten by most of his readers, unless their memories were refreshed by this distinct explanation.

IV. With what special design was this Gospel written?The circumstances of the times, as alluded to under the last inquiry, afford much light on the immediate object which Matthew had in view, in writing his gospel. It is true, that common readers of the Bible seldom think of it as anything else than a mere complete revelation made to all men, to lead them in the way of truth and salvation; and few are prepared for an inquiry which shall take each portion of the scriptures by itself, and follow it through all its individual history, to the very source,——searching even into the immediate and temporary purpose of the inspired writers. Indeed, very many never think or know, that the historical portions of the New Testament were written with any other design than to furnish to believers in Christ, through all ages, in all countries, a complete and distinct narrative of the events of the history of the foundation of their religion. But such a notion is perfectly discordant, not only with the reasonable results of an accurate examination of these writings, in all their parts, but with the uniform and decided testimony of all the Fathers of the Christian church, who may be safely taken as important and trusty witnesses of the notions prevalent in their times, about the scope and original design of the apostolic records. And though, as to the minute particulars of the history of the sacred canon,their testimony is worth little, yet on the general question, whether the apostles wrote with only a universal reference, or also with some special design connected with their own age and times,——the Fathers are as good authority as any writers that ever lived could be, on the opinions generally prevalent in their own day. In this particular case, however, very little reference can be made to external historical evidence, on the scope of Matthew’s gospel; because very few notices indeed, are found, of its immediate object, among the works of the early writers. But a view of the circumstances of the times, before referred to, will illustrate many things connected with the plan of the work, and show a peculiar force in many passages, that would otherwise be little appreciated.It appears on the unimpeachable testimony of the historians of those very times, of Josephus, who was a Jew, and of Tacitus and Suetonius, who were Romans, that both before and during the civil disturbances that ended in the destruction of Jerusalem, there was a general impression among the Jews, that their long-foretold Savior and national restorer, the Messiah-king, would soon appear; and in the power of God, lead them on to a certain triumph over the seemingly invincible hosts, which even the boundless strength of Rome could send against them. In the expectation of the establishment of his glorious dominion, under which Israel should more than renew the honors and the power of David and Solomon, they, without fear of the appalling consequences of their temerity, entered upon the hopeless struggle for independence; and according to the testimony of the above-mentioned historians, this prevalent notion did much, not only to incite them to the contest, but also to sustain their resolution under the awful calamities which followed. The revolt thus fully begun, drew the whole nation together into a perfect union of feeling and interest; all sharing in the popular fanaticism, became Jews again, whereby the Christian faith must have lost not a few of its professors.In these circumstances, and while such notions were prevalent, Matthew wrote his sketch of the life, teachings and miracles of Jesus; and throughout the whole of his narrative makes constant references, where the connection can suggest, to such passages in the ancient holy books of the Hebrews, as were commonly supposed to describe the character and destiny of the Messiah. Tracing out in all these lineaments of ancient prophecy, the complete picture of the Restorer of Israel, he thus proved, by a comparison with the actual life of Jesus of Nazareth, that this was the person,whose course throughout, had been predicted by the ancient prophets. In this way, he directly attacked the groundless hopes, which the fanatical rebels had excited, showing, as he did, that he for whom they looked as the Deliverer of Israel from bondage, had already come, and devoted his life to the disenthralment and salvation of his people from their sins. A distinct and satisfactory proof, carried on through a chain of historical evidence to this effect, would answer the purpose as fully as the written truth could do, of overthrowing the baseless imposition with which the impudent Zealots were beguiling the hopes of a credulous people, and leading them on, willingly deceived, to their utter ruin. In this book, containing a clear prediction of the destruction of the temple and Holy city, and of the whole religious and civil organization of the Jewish nation, many would find the revealed truth, making them wise in the way of salvation, though, for a time, all efforts might seem in vain; for the literal fulfilment of these solemn prophecies thus previously recorded, afterwards ensuing, the truth of the doctrines of a spiritual faith connected with these words of prediction, would be strongly impressed on those whom the consummation of their country’s ruin should lead to a consideration of the errors in which they had been long led astray. These prophecies promised, too, that after all these schemes of worldly triumph for the name and race of Israel, had sadly terminated in the utter, irretrievable ruin of temple and city,——and when the cessation of festivals, and the taking away of the daily sacrifice, had left the Jew so few material and formal objects, to hang his faith and hopes on,——the wandering ones should turn to the pure spiritual truths, which would prove the best consolation in their hopeless condition, and own, in vast numbers, the name and faith of him, whose sorrowful life and sad death were but too mournful a type of the coming woes of those who rejected him. Acknowledging the despised and crucified Nazarene as the true prophet and the long-foretold Messiah-king of afflicted Judah, the heart-broken, wandering sons of Israel, should join themselves to that oft-preached heavenly kingdom of virtue and truth, whose only entrance was through repentance and humility. Hence those numerous quotations from the Prophets, and from the Psalms, which are so abundant in Matthew, and by which, even a common reader is able to distinguish the peculiar, definite object that this writer has in view:——to show to the Jews, by a minute detail, and a frequent comparison, that the actions of Jesus,even in the most trifling incidents, corresponded with those passages of the ancient scriptures, which foreshadowed the Messiah. In this particular, his gospel is clearly distinguished from the others, which are for the most part deficient in this distinct unity of design; and where they refer to the grand object of representing Jesus as the Messiah,——the Son of God,——they do it in other modes, which show that it was for more general purposes, and directed to the conversion of Gentiles rather than Jews. This is the case with John, who plainly makes this an essential object in his grand scheme; but he combines the establishment of this great truth, with the more immediate occasions of subverting error and checking the progress of heretical opinions that aimed to detract from the divine prerogatives of Jesus. But John deals very little in those pointed and apt references to the testimony of the Hebrew scriptures, which so distinguish the writings of Matthew; he evidently apprehends that those to whom he writes, will be less affected by appeals of that kind, than by proofs drawn from his actions and discourses, and by the testimony of the great, the good, and the inspired, among those who saw and heard him. The work of Matthew was, on the other hand, plainly designed to bring to the faith of Jesus, those who were already fully and correctly instructed in all that related to the divinely exalted character of the Messiah, and only needed proof that the person proposed to them as the Redeemer thus foretold, was in all particulars such as the unerring word of ancient prophecy required. Besides this object of converting the unbelieving Jews, its tendency was also manifestly to strengthen and preserve those who were already professors of the faith of Jesus; and such, through all ages, has been its mighty scope, enlightening the nations with the clearest historical testimony ever borne to the whole life and actions of Jesus Christ, and rejoicing the millions of the faithful with the plainest record of the events that secured their salvation.Beyond the history of this gospel, the Fathers have hardly given the least account, either fanciful or real, of the succeeding life of Matthew. A fragment of tradition, of no very ancient date, specifies that he wrote his gospel when he was about to leave Palestine to go to other lands; but neither the region nor the period is mentioned. Probably, at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, he followed the eastward course of the Jewish Christians; but beyond this, even conjecture is lost. But where all historical grounds fail, monkish invention comes in with its tedious detailsof fabulous nonsense; and in this case, as in others already alluded to, the writings of the monks of the fourteenth century, produce long accounts of Matthew’s labors in Ethiopia, where he is carried through a long series of fabled miracles, to the usual crowning glory of martyrdom.

IV. With what special design was this Gospel written?

The circumstances of the times, as alluded to under the last inquiry, afford much light on the immediate object which Matthew had in view, in writing his gospel. It is true, that common readers of the Bible seldom think of it as anything else than a mere complete revelation made to all men, to lead them in the way of truth and salvation; and few are prepared for an inquiry which shall take each portion of the scriptures by itself, and follow it through all its individual history, to the very source,——searching even into the immediate and temporary purpose of the inspired writers. Indeed, very many never think or know, that the historical portions of the New Testament were written with any other design than to furnish to believers in Christ, through all ages, in all countries, a complete and distinct narrative of the events of the history of the foundation of their religion. But such a notion is perfectly discordant, not only with the reasonable results of an accurate examination of these writings, in all their parts, but with the uniform and decided testimony of all the Fathers of the Christian church, who may be safely taken as important and trusty witnesses of the notions prevalent in their times, about the scope and original design of the apostolic records. And though, as to the minute particulars of the history of the sacred canon,their testimony is worth little, yet on the general question, whether the apostles wrote with only a universal reference, or also with some special design connected with their own age and times,——the Fathers are as good authority as any writers that ever lived could be, on the opinions generally prevalent in their own day. In this particular case, however, very little reference can be made to external historical evidence, on the scope of Matthew’s gospel; because very few notices indeed, are found, of its immediate object, among the works of the early writers. But a view of the circumstances of the times, before referred to, will illustrate many things connected with the plan of the work, and show a peculiar force in many passages, that would otherwise be little appreciated.

It appears on the unimpeachable testimony of the historians of those very times, of Josephus, who was a Jew, and of Tacitus and Suetonius, who were Romans, that both before and during the civil disturbances that ended in the destruction of Jerusalem, there was a general impression among the Jews, that their long-foretold Savior and national restorer, the Messiah-king, would soon appear; and in the power of God, lead them on to a certain triumph over the seemingly invincible hosts, which even the boundless strength of Rome could send against them. In the expectation of the establishment of his glorious dominion, under which Israel should more than renew the honors and the power of David and Solomon, they, without fear of the appalling consequences of their temerity, entered upon the hopeless struggle for independence; and according to the testimony of the above-mentioned historians, this prevalent notion did much, not only to incite them to the contest, but also to sustain their resolution under the awful calamities which followed. The revolt thus fully begun, drew the whole nation together into a perfect union of feeling and interest; all sharing in the popular fanaticism, became Jews again, whereby the Christian faith must have lost not a few of its professors.

In these circumstances, and while such notions were prevalent, Matthew wrote his sketch of the life, teachings and miracles of Jesus; and throughout the whole of his narrative makes constant references, where the connection can suggest, to such passages in the ancient holy books of the Hebrews, as were commonly supposed to describe the character and destiny of the Messiah. Tracing out in all these lineaments of ancient prophecy, the complete picture of the Restorer of Israel, he thus proved, by a comparison with the actual life of Jesus of Nazareth, that this was the person,whose course throughout, had been predicted by the ancient prophets. In this way, he directly attacked the groundless hopes, which the fanatical rebels had excited, showing, as he did, that he for whom they looked as the Deliverer of Israel from bondage, had already come, and devoted his life to the disenthralment and salvation of his people from their sins. A distinct and satisfactory proof, carried on through a chain of historical evidence to this effect, would answer the purpose as fully as the written truth could do, of overthrowing the baseless imposition with which the impudent Zealots were beguiling the hopes of a credulous people, and leading them on, willingly deceived, to their utter ruin. In this book, containing a clear prediction of the destruction of the temple and Holy city, and of the whole religious and civil organization of the Jewish nation, many would find the revealed truth, making them wise in the way of salvation, though, for a time, all efforts might seem in vain; for the literal fulfilment of these solemn prophecies thus previously recorded, afterwards ensuing, the truth of the doctrines of a spiritual faith connected with these words of prediction, would be strongly impressed on those whom the consummation of their country’s ruin should lead to a consideration of the errors in which they had been long led astray. These prophecies promised, too, that after all these schemes of worldly triumph for the name and race of Israel, had sadly terminated in the utter, irretrievable ruin of temple and city,——and when the cessation of festivals, and the taking away of the daily sacrifice, had left the Jew so few material and formal objects, to hang his faith and hopes on,——the wandering ones should turn to the pure spiritual truths, which would prove the best consolation in their hopeless condition, and own, in vast numbers, the name and faith of him, whose sorrowful life and sad death were but too mournful a type of the coming woes of those who rejected him. Acknowledging the despised and crucified Nazarene as the true prophet and the long-foretold Messiah-king of afflicted Judah, the heart-broken, wandering sons of Israel, should join themselves to that oft-preached heavenly kingdom of virtue and truth, whose only entrance was through repentance and humility. Hence those numerous quotations from the Prophets, and from the Psalms, which are so abundant in Matthew, and by which, even a common reader is able to distinguish the peculiar, definite object that this writer has in view:——to show to the Jews, by a minute detail, and a frequent comparison, that the actions of Jesus,even in the most trifling incidents, corresponded with those passages of the ancient scriptures, which foreshadowed the Messiah. In this particular, his gospel is clearly distinguished from the others, which are for the most part deficient in this distinct unity of design; and where they refer to the grand object of representing Jesus as the Messiah,——the Son of God,——they do it in other modes, which show that it was for more general purposes, and directed to the conversion of Gentiles rather than Jews. This is the case with John, who plainly makes this an essential object in his grand scheme; but he combines the establishment of this great truth, with the more immediate occasions of subverting error and checking the progress of heretical opinions that aimed to detract from the divine prerogatives of Jesus. But John deals very little in those pointed and apt references to the testimony of the Hebrew scriptures, which so distinguish the writings of Matthew; he evidently apprehends that those to whom he writes, will be less affected by appeals of that kind, than by proofs drawn from his actions and discourses, and by the testimony of the great, the good, and the inspired, among those who saw and heard him. The work of Matthew was, on the other hand, plainly designed to bring to the faith of Jesus, those who were already fully and correctly instructed in all that related to the divinely exalted character of the Messiah, and only needed proof that the person proposed to them as the Redeemer thus foretold, was in all particulars such as the unerring word of ancient prophecy required. Besides this object of converting the unbelieving Jews, its tendency was also manifestly to strengthen and preserve those who were already professors of the faith of Jesus; and such, through all ages, has been its mighty scope, enlightening the nations with the clearest historical testimony ever borne to the whole life and actions of Jesus Christ, and rejoicing the millions of the faithful with the plainest record of the events that secured their salvation.

Beyond the history of this gospel, the Fathers have hardly given the least account, either fanciful or real, of the succeeding life of Matthew. A fragment of tradition, of no very ancient date, specifies that he wrote his gospel when he was about to leave Palestine to go to other lands; but neither the region nor the period is mentioned. Probably, at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, he followed the eastward course of the Jewish Christians; but beyond this, even conjecture is lost. But where all historical grounds fail, monkish invention comes in with its tedious detailsof fabulous nonsense; and in this case, as in others already alluded to, the writings of the monks of the fourteenth century, produce long accounts of Matthew’s labors in Ethiopia, where he is carried through a long series of fabled miracles, to the usual crowning glory of martyrdom.

Ethiopia.——The earliest testimony on this point by any ecclesiastical history, is that of Socrates, (A. D. 425,) a Greek writer, who says only, that “when the apostles divided the heathen world, by lot, among themselves,——to Matthew was allotted Ethiopia.” This is commonly supposed to mean Nubia, or the country directly south of Egypt. The other Fathers of the fifth and following centuries, generally assign him the same country; but it is quite uncertain what region is designated by this name. Ethiopia was a name applied by the Greeks to such a variety of regions, that it is quite in vain to define the particular one meant, without more information about the locality.

But no such idle inventions can add anything to the interest which this apostolic writer has secured for himself by his noble Christian record. Not even an authentic history of miracles and martyrdom, could increase his enduring greatness. The tax-gatherer of Galilee has left a monument, on which cluster the combined honors of a literary and a holy fame,——a monument which insures him a wider, more lasting, and far higher glory, than the noblest♦achievements of the Grecian or the Latin writers, in his or any age could acquire for them. Not Herodotus nor Livy,——not Demosthenes nor Cicero,——not Homer nor Virgil,——can find a reader to whom the despised Matthew’s simple work is not familiar; nor did the highest hope or the proudest conception of the brilliant Horace, when exulting in the extent and durability of his fame, equal the boundless and eternal range of Matthew’s honors. What would Horace have said, if he had been told that among the most despised of these superstitious and barbarian Jews, whom his own writings show to have been proverbially scorned, would arise one, within thirty or forty years, who, degraded by his avocation, even below his own countrymen’s standard of respectability, would, by a simple record in humble prose, in an uncultivated and soon-forgotten dialect, “complete a monument more enduring than brass,——more lofty than the pyramids,——outlasting all the storms of revolution and of disaster,——all the course of ages and the flight of time?” Yet such was the result of the unpretending effort of Matthew; and it is not the least among the miracles of the religion whose foundation he commemorated and secured, that such a wonder in fame should have been achieved by it.

But no such idle inventions can add anything to the interest which this apostolic writer has secured for himself by his noble Christian record. Not even an authentic history of miracles and martyrdom, could increase his enduring greatness. The tax-gatherer of Galilee has left a monument, on which cluster the combined honors of a literary and a holy fame,——a monument which insures him a wider, more lasting, and far higher glory, than the noblest♦achievements of the Grecian or the Latin writers, in his or any age could acquire for them. Not Herodotus nor Livy,——not Demosthenes nor Cicero,——not Homer nor Virgil,——can find a reader to whom the despised Matthew’s simple work is not familiar; nor did the highest hope or the proudest conception of the brilliant Horace, when exulting in the extent and durability of his fame, equal the boundless and eternal range of Matthew’s honors. What would Horace have said, if he had been told that among the most despised of these superstitious and barbarian Jews, whom his own writings show to have been proverbially scorned, would arise one, within thirty or forty years, who, degraded by his avocation, even below his own countrymen’s standard of respectability, would, by a simple record in humble prose, in an uncultivated and soon-forgotten dialect, “complete a monument more enduring than brass,——more lofty than the pyramids,——outlasting all the storms of revolution and of disaster,——all the course of ages and the flight of time?” Yet such was the result of the unpretending effort of Matthew; and it is not the least among the miracles of the religion whose foundation he commemorated and secured, that such a wonder in fame should have been achieved by it.

♦“achievments” replaced with “achievements”

♦“achievments” replaced with “achievements”

♦“achievments” replaced with “achievements”

Back to IndexNext