Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 13.djvu/221

MATTHEW. 193 MATTHEW. dress known as the Sermon on the Mount (v. 1- vii. 20). This is followed by a group of miracles, evidently intended to be typical of Messianic time> (viii. 1-ix. 34). This in turn is followed bv another group of discourses, though of broader compass than the former ( i.. 35-.xiii. 58). Then comes another smaller group of miraeles repre- sentative of Messianic conditions (xiv. 13-30) and another smaller group of discourses of a more distinctly judgment character (xv. 1-20). This same arrangement is carried out in the second main portion of the narrative — the ministry in the northern region — the groups, however, being all of them small. Fir.st are two miracles, the leading one evidently intended to represent the future mission to the Gentiles (xv. 21-39). Then follow two discourses, the main one having to do with Jesus' coming passion (xvi.). Finally there are two more miracles, the principal one of which apparently represents the ilessianie glory which is to be (x^-ii. 1-21). There then follows a passage of considerable length, the object of which seemingly is to form a; transition to the closing main portion of the narrative. In this also a tendency to the same grouping order is seen ( xvii. 22-xx. ) . Then is given the final Jerusalem ministry (xxi.-xxv. ). In this, how- ever, apart from the introductory passage, con- taining a record of the triumphal entry into the city, the cleaning of the temple, and a general summan' statement regarding healings accom- plished during that day. the whole narrative is concerned with the discourses and discussions of Tuesday of Passion Week, the one exception being the account of the withering of (he fig tree. The Gospel closes with the record of the Pass- over meal, the agony in Gethsemane, the be- trayal, arrest, trial, crucifixion, and resurrection (xxvi.-xxviii.) . From this arrangement of his material it is quite clear that the Evangelist had before him- self the didactic purpose of representing Jesus Christ to his readers as the Jewish Messiah. This is confirmed bv the ])ro]ilietic setting in which the narrative is placed. The birth of Jesus, the events of His life, the circumstances snrroundin,g His death, are not simply connected with Old Testament predictions. Ijut connected with them as being the necessary' outcome of a divinely pre- arranged plan, making Him the consummation of theo<'ratie history and the fulfillment of the- ocratic prediction — though not answering to the national Messianic hopes, but rather standing cut against them and disclosing the falseness of the .tudaism of that time. As a consequence, while the first chapters are marked by the ante- typal idea, the last chapters are marked by the idea of judgment upon the false views of the people. There would seem to be no room for doubt that the author of the Gospel was a -Tew. The narra- tive discloses a distinctively Jewish cast, not merely in the above Jewish presentation of Jesus, but in many specific Jewish details which this representation involves. At the same time it is quite as clear that, though a Jew, the author was not in any way a narrow-minded one. He recognizes the admission of the Gentiles into the Kingdom, and is in perfect accord with it. He unites with the third Gospel in reciting the Bap- tist's rebuke of the .Jerusalem .Jews (ch. iii.) ; while he is alone in giving .Jesus' denunciation of the Pharisees and Scribes (ch. xxiii.) and Jesus' commission to go out into all the world and make disciples of all nations (ch. x.xviii. ). From these facts it would seem to follow that the Gospel was intended for Jewish Christian readers. Where these readers were situated is not so apparent, though the tendency on the au- thor's part to explain Judean customs and be- liefs (xxii. 23; xxvii. 15) and to interpret He- brew and Aramaic words ( i. 23; xxvii. 33. 46) would go to show that they were not jiersonally familiar with Palestine and the Jewish life within that land. In confirmation of this is the fact, generally accepted to-daj-, that the Gospel is a piece of first-hand Greek composition and not a translation from a Hebrew original. The place of writing is impossible to determine, though Palestine seems most probable. The date is a matter of much discussion and cannot be decided with any certainty. At the same time the placing of it by the Tubingen School in the second century is now abandoned and the ques- tion is mainly concerned with the dividing line of A.D. 70 — the date of the destruction of .Jeru- salem. For either side of this line definite reasons may be urged, the general .Jewish tone of the Gospel — especially its Jewish-Christian didactic, if not apologetic cast — suiting the sit- uation cither before or after this event. From what we know of the Apostle Matthew there is nothing in the above conclusions which would render impossible an authorship of the Gospel by him. But when we come to external evidence, we find a well-supported tradition, which can be traced back to Papias (c.lOO A.D.), a reputed disciple of the Apostle .John, to the effect that Matthew wrote in Hebrew (Aramaic). (.See Eusebius. Hist. Kccles., iii. 30.) The terra, however, which Papias uses to designate this writing. Logia, is subject to considerable debate. It is used in many clifferent meanings, so that there is serious doid)t as to whether it can be identified with the general term Euangelion, used to designate the Ciospels which we have. As a result the following questions present them- selves: (1) What was the nature of this tradi- tional Hebrew writing of JIatthew ? Was it a collection of sayings of Jesus, with more or less narrative additions, or was it a full narrative Gospel, approximating, at least, such as we have in the New Testament? (2) What was the ori- gin of our canonical Matthew? W'as it a second Gospel writing by Matthew, more or less de- veloped out of this first one of his, or was it? an independent Gos])el writing by a later non-Apos- tolic hand elaborated friun the original Matthew writing; or is it not. after all, to be considered a first-hand Greek composition, but a transla- tion from this Hebrew writing which Matthew originally produced? Advocates are found for the view implied in eacli of these questions, though the general attitude of criticism to-day may be considered as favor.able to the fcdlowing position: (1) Papias's- /,o,(7iV( was a collection of ■Sayings of .Jesus,' originally written in Aramaic by ' the Apostle Matthew." but eomiiig finally through outside translation into the (heck form in which it was used by Matthew and Luke. (2) The canonical Matthew is an original Greek writing by a later non-Apostolic hand, more or less developed from the Matthew Logia, and composed not far from ..d. "0. I.ITER.TURE. Besides the usual New Testa- ment Introductions and the introductory por-