It could have easily been made at that period. The Syrians had a literature of their own early in the second century, and one of great celebrity. Bardesanes flourished during this period, and likewise his son Harmonius. Of the former Jerome says (De Vir. Illustr. c. 33), that "he wrote almost an infinite number of treatises against the heretics, and a liber clarissimus et fortissimus de fato, which he sent to M. Aurelius Antoninus. Many other books he wrote," adds Jerome, "concerning persecution, which his followers translated from the Syriac into Greek. Si autem (says he further in respect to these books) tanta vis est et fulgor in interpretatione, quantum putamus in sermone propria!" Eusebius (H. E. IV. 28) calls Bardesanes ἀνὴρ ἱκανώτατος, ἐν τῇ τῶν Σύρων φωνῇ διαλεκτικώτατος.

Harmonius, his Son, was brought up at Athens, and rivalled his father in literary eminence. He became the favourite poet of the Syrians, in their own language.

It does not certainly appear that Bardesanes was acquainted with the Greek; although it is quite possible that he was. Living in Mesopotamia, he was beyond the reach of much familiar Greek communication.

Now in what language did he read the New Testament in order to compose all his religious books? On the supposition that he understood the Greek, which may be allowed, yet as he wrote so many religious books in Syriac, is it probable that there was then no Syriac version of the New Testament? If it be possible, it cannot, all things considered, be deemed very probable. His writings must have been intended for those who could appeal to the Scriptures. But to the Greek Scriptures, the Syrians in general of Mesopotamia can hardly be thought capable of appealing.

Here then we have a version, the Peshito, of a very early age, in a language which was twin-sister to the Hebrew of the day, yea almost identical with it in a multitude of respects, and yet this version is demonstrably made, not from a Hebrew original of Matthew, but from the present Greek canonical Matthew! Could it enter the imagination of any Syriac translator, that a Greek copy on any account, either as to authority or language, was preferable to a genuine Hebrew one, supposing such an one to be current? It is almost absurd to suppose it. The business of translating into Syriac was more than three quarters done to hand, when a Syro-Chaldaic original of Matthew was obtained. All was plain, obvious, easy. But a

Greek original demanded much care, and not a little skill. That skill has indeed been exhibited fully; a noble version the Peshito is, truly; but then the time and pains it must have cost. were wasted, in case an original Syro-Chaldaic Matthew could have been obtained.

Could it not be, if it were extant and current among Jewish Christians? Most certainly it could. Jerome tells us, at the close of the fourth century, that he himself went into Syria, in order to get a copy of the Nazarene Matthew. We know, also, that in the second quarter, or rather we may say, near the close of the first quarter, of the second century, the Jews in Palestine were scattered abroad, by the devastations of Adrian which exceeded even those under Titus, over all the neighbouring countries. That there were Christian Jews in Syria and Mesopotamia, admits of no rational doubt. At all times, ever. since their captivities, the Jews had been scattered over all those oriental lands. That Christianity had been early preached and propagated there, the character and writings of Bardesanes and Harmonius are a sufficient voucher. It must have been widely diffused in order to make room for so many religious books as these authors published.

I may therefore very properly ask Mr. Norton and other advocates of an original Hebrew Matthew, how such facts as these are capable of being explained, on ground such as they occupy? I am not aware of any satisfactory answer.

Will it be said, that after all we cannot be certain that the Peshito or Old Syriac Version was made from our Greek copy of Matthew? Those may say this, who have never compared the two. Those who have, will never think of saying it.

I have made this comparison to some extent, and in various places. In particular, I have been carefully through with the whole of the two first chapters of Matthew, and compared every word down to the minutest particle. I had special reference in so doing to the question, whether these chapters were in the copy which the Syriac translator used. And nothing can be more certain than that this was so. No one word has escaped the vigilance of the interpreter. With the exception, that the de used in the genealogy of Matthew, in passing from one link to another, is purposely omitted throughout the whole list of names, because it was not in keeping with the Syriac usage in regard to compositions of this nature, every xai and dé and yáo and our even, throughout the two first chapters, is carefully

rendered by a corresponding o,,, and . Even the Genitive absolute in Greek, which so often occurs in Matthew, is here rendered throughout by the corresponding particle

with a verb following, which is the only way that a Syrian could translate a Genitive absolute. The peculiar clause in Matthew 1: 23, Εμμανουήλ, ὅ ἐστι μεθερμενευόμενον, μεθ ̓ ἡμῶν ὁ

ós, (which Kuinoel disposes of in the summary way of saying that this was undoubtedly added to the Greek version of Matthew by the translator), appears ad literam in the old Syriac. In a word, no more doubt can arise, when one makes the comparison between the Peshito and our Greek Matthew, that they stand related as original and translation, than can arise whether our English version was made from our canonical Greek text. Nay, the Syriac is even a more minute, exact, and literal version than our own.

So for substance is it with this version throughout the whole Gospel of Matthew. One is astonished to find how exactly our present Greek text agrees with the Syriac. I consider the old Syriac, indeed, a better voucher for the integrity of our present text, than any other testimony that is extant.

The advocates for an original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew are bound, as it seems to me, to offer us some solution of the difficulty which all this presents in the way of their position.

Will it be said, that the Greek version of Matthew was the one current in the church catholic, and therefore was selected by the Syriac translator? Such an account of the matter is cutting the knot, rather than untying it. How came this Version to be current-current before the close of the first century, as we have no good room to doubt it was? Were there not Jewish converts in the church catholic, who believed with Paul and with the church catholic, and who were not separated from Christians in general by any feeling of alienation arising from sectarian views like those of the Nazarenes and Ebionites? Surely this will not be denied. Why then should the original Hebrew Matthew, in their hands, go into disrepute and desuetude? No good reason has been or can be given. Of course none can be given why the Syriac translator might not have taken a copy of the work from them, as the exemplar from which he was to make his version.

(7) I have read the present Greek Gospel of Matthew through, for the sole purpose of ascertaining whether there are

any characteristics in it of a translation. If there are, they have escaped me. I cannot find them. The characteristics of the whole book are marked, and apparently decisive. It is no more replete with Hebraisms than Mark; and I may venture to say, without the fear of being contradicted by facts, than Luke; although the contrary has often been asserted. The book bears every where the impress of the same hand. This will not be denied; yet some attribute this to the adjusting skill of the translator. But I do not find the hand of a foreigner here. The easy, natural, unconstrained manner of an original writer, is just as plain and palpable throughout the whole, as in respect to any of the other Gospels. All that Mr. Norton has said, and so well said, of the prominent and original characteristics of the Gospels in other cases as still remaining, and not at all obscured by any interpolations or alterations, holds true of the Greek Matthew. A foreign addition would be instantaneously detected by a skilful reader, in case it were of any considerable length; and the constrained manner of a translator, especially of an ancient one, cannot be pointed out in the whole of this book. The dream of Bolten, that all our New Testament writings are only versions of Syro-Chaldaic originals, is now universally regarded as a dream. But there is just as much reason, for aught that I can discover from the internal state of Matthew, to regard other books of the New Testament as versions, as there is to consider his Gospel as such.

(8) If our canonical Matthew be a version only, then who was the translator?

I am aware that this question is answered by appealing to Jerome (De Viris Illust. c. 3), and quoting from him the declaration; Quis in Graecum transtulerit, non satis certum est. Truly, non satis certum est. It would indeed be difficult to discover who it was. And yet such a work as this must have exhibited some memorial of its performer as well as the many smaller and more insignificant works of early Christian antiquity. Consider for a moment the nature of this case. The early Christian church were so careful and particular in their selection of Gospels, that only four of all the writings which laid claim to such a character were selected. Yet one of these, according to Mr. Norton and many others, was only a translated Gospel. Still the original Hebrew one, if we are to credit these critics, was all the while current and easily to be had; and yet nobody belonging to the church catholic, neither VOL. XII. No. 31.

22

Jew nor Gentile, clergyman nor layman, ever once proposes to review and examine this matter, and correct any deficiencies or errors in the translated Matthew! The thing taken in its tout ensemble, is palpably aronov; it is a kind of monstrosity in critical history. It requires a large allowance of faith, in order to be a believer.

Such are the leading considerations which seem to me to determine against the probability of an original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. At all events, the whole mass of quotations which we have from Matthew as a genuine book, from Justin Martyr down through the whole series of Christian writers, are from the Greek Matthew. No other one is known ever to have had any currency in the church catholic. The presumption—and strong one it is under such circumstances-is fairly against the supposition, that any but the Greek Matthew was ever received by the church at large as his Gospel.

$ 4. Examination of objections.

But there are some suggestions made against these views, which it will be proper to notice, before this essay is brought to a close.

'Matthew wrote for the Hebrews; and he could not have been well understood, if he had not written in the Hebrew language.'

An easy answer to this objection, so far as it respects the intelligibility of a Greek Matthew, is at hand. Hug has shewn, in his Introduction to the New Testament, Part II. § 10, that the Greek language pervaded Palestine so thoroughly, that scarcely any difficulty of this sort can be well imagined. It would be merely to do again what has already been well done, to repeat the arguments which serve to shew conclusively the truth of this position.

A single fact is incidentally recorded in Acts 22: 2, which seems conclusive in respect to this matter. Paul, at Jerusalem, was seized by the mob with a design to inflict summary vengeance on him for having violated the Jewish customs as to temple-worship. The captain of the temple-guard, however, permitted him to address the Jewish multitude. This he did in Hebrew. When the Jews heard their own vernacular language, μãλlov napioxov novɣiav, says Luke, i. e. they gave him still the better opportunity to speak by keeping silence. The inference seems unavoidable, that had he addressed them in