Greek, which they evidently expected, they could have understood him, although they would listen to Hebrew with more satisfaction.

No good reason, then, can be offered, on this ground, why Matthew might not have written in Greek. Why not, as well as the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, whose work is now, I believe, universally conceded to have been originally written in Greek.

Let us now examine another allegation made in the objection which we are canvassing. It is taken for granted that Matthew wrote for the Hebrews, and only for the Hebrews in Palestine. Appeal is made to a passage in Eusebius (cited above on p. 158), in which he makes such a declaration.

So far as his authority is concerned, I acknowledge, without hesitation, that he has faithfully reported a tradition which came down to him. But this, like the other report concerning the original language, we must suppose, in view of all the circumstances, was only what the Jewish Christians affirmed of their Gospel, and which was received by others in the manner that has been already stated.

I now venture to suggest, as a further answer to the allegation we are examining, that the internal state of Matthew plainly contradicts the idea that his Gospel was designed only or principally for believers in Palestine. Facts are what we need here, and to them let us now resort.

In Matt. 22: 23 the writer says: "At that time came to him Sadducees, οἱ λέγοντες μὴ εἶναι ἀνάστασιν, who say that there is no resurrection." Did then the Jews in Palestine, among whom the Sadducees lived, (for few of these were found abroad), need to be told that the Sadducees denied a resurrection? That party had no fears, it would seem, in developing their sentiments; as is plain enough in the questions they put to Jesus concerning the woman who had had seven husbands; which the immediate sequel to the passage cited above fully exhibits. Such an explanatory clause, then, seems plainly to indicate, that the author felt himself to be addressing readers who were not much conversant with the particulars respecting the religious parties of Judea, as well as readers who were so.

In Matt. 27: 8, it is said, respecting the potter's field which had been bought with the money that Judas had abandoned: "Wherefore that field was called the field of blood, ws ins onμegov." Did a native of Palestine, where this report was

current, and the ground of it well known, need to be told that such a report was often made within his own hearing? On the contrary; this looks like telling readers abroad, what had been and was going on in Palestine. I have cited the passage as genuine, because I do not think its credit can be shaken.

In Matt. 27: 15 the writer says: "It was the custom of the Governor, during the feast, to release some prisoner for the multitude-whomsover they might desire." And did the Jews of Palestine need to be told this, after all their experience in regard to the customs and manners of the Roman Governors? Matt. 27: 33. "And coming to a place called Golgotha, i. e. the place of a skull, they gave etc.'

I am aware of the solution which Kuinoel and others of the like opinion give to this passage, and which I presume Mr. Norton must also give, viz., that the explanatory clause was here added by the translator. But as all the passages of this kind stand fully translated in the Peshito; and as we seem to be well entitled to regard the canonical Greek Matthew as having been from the first just what it now is, in every important, and almost in every minute, respect; I feel that this is assuming too much, unless there were some kind of evidence to support it. All the ancient translations we have of the Gospels, are literal even to a fault. See the remains of the Itala, and compare the Peshito; then read the versions of Irenaeus and of some parts of Origen, which have come down to us. Did the translators take such liberties with their text, as Kuinoel and others bid us believe were taken by the translator of Matthew into Greek? Every one who is conversant with the versions in question, knows well that they did not.

I ask then for some other evidence that this explanatory clause was foisted into the text of the Evangelist, besides that of mere suspicion or conjecture. I regard the clause as thrown in for the sake of readers abroad, whether Jew or Gentile, who were not familiar with Hebrew, and would not know that Golgotha ment skull.

In the same light must I view the translation of the words Hi! 'Hi! haua oaßaydavi; My God! My God! Why hast thou forsaken me? Matt. 27: 46. It is impossible that a Hebrew original could have contained such a translation. It was itself more intelligible to its Jewish readers in Palestine, than any version could be.

In Matt. 27: 6 it is said: "And on the morrow, which is

μerà τýv пaçãoжevv, i. e. the day after the preparation-day." Only readers abroad needed to be told this. The preceding context shews what morrow must here mean; and it shews, at the same time, that this morrow was μετὰ τὴν παρασκευήν. But a foreigner did not know that such was the technical name of this day, and so the Evangelist gives him the name.

In Matt. 28: 15, the writer says: "Then they who received the money, did as they were bidden; and this report was spread abroad, among the Jews, until the present time." The report mentioned was, that the disciples of Jesus had come by night, and taken him away clandestinely from the sepulchre where he was laid. Did a Jew in Palestine, where this report was current and general, need to be gravely told that it was current? A reference to such a thing en passant, we might well suppose to be made by Matthew or any other writer. But the communication of this fact as being something unknown to a portion of his readers, we can not well suppose to have been addressed by Matthew to his Palestine friends.

Will it be said, now, in order to avoid the force of this reasoning, that all the references to the Old Testament, the quotations from it, the allusions to the religious opinions, customs, manners, government, natural and artificial objects, etc., of Palestine, imply an apprehension on the part of Matthew that his readers are acquainted with these things, and consequently a conviction that he is addressing his fellow-countrymen at home? The answer is easy. It is just the same in these respects, with all the other Evangelists. They, and Matthew also, knew that their Gospels would go into the hands of Jewish converts abroad, and into the hands of Greeks who were united with them in the same church, and had the same Old Testament Scriptures. They might well take it for granted, that most of these things would be understood in neighbouring countries; and even with respect to those individuals who would not at once understand them, the means of explanation were at hand. Jews were scattered every where, who had been up to Jerusalem to worship, and could give such information as was needed.

If it be again asked, why the author sometimes explains, and at other times does not ? The answer is, that he supposes, in some cases, the circumstances to be of such a nature as might have escaped the general notice of foreigners visiting Judea, or of those who lived in its neighbourhood; while in others

he feels that there is no need of explanation on his part. Of this we must concede him to have been a proper judge.

With these internal evidences in view, that Matthew must have intended his Gospel for readers abroad as well as those in Palestine, we should join the consideration of the state of the Jewish nation when he wrote. In all probability his Gospel was written about A. D. 60, when Jewish believers were to be found in all the neighbouring countries, in Egypt, and throughout Asia Minor and Greece. Why should he think of limiting his efforts to propagate a knowledge of Christianity merely to Jews who spoke the Hebrew language?

That Matthew himself was acquainted with the Greek, would follow almost with certainty from the office which he held. Nearly all public officers were chosen from those who could communicate with their fellow men by the use of the Greek language. It was the general medium of official communication. It was at that day, what the French now is, and has for a long time been, in many countries on the continent of Europe. 5. Was not the Gospel according to the Hebrews itself a TRANSLATION from the Greek Original of Matthew, with interpolations and alterations?

That this Gospel stood related in some respects to Matthew, is agreed on all hands. Matthew appears to have been its original basis. But that in transcribing, or in translating, it had received many changes, is perfectly clear from the extracts that we have from it, as given us by the Christian fathers. How can these changes be accounted for? Or is it our canonical Gospel which has been changed, while the Jewish one remained true to its original archetype? The internal evidence in respect to this question is overwhelming, and entirely satisfactory. The puerile passages in the Gospels according to the Hebrews, which have been exhibited in the preceding pages, shew how entirely incongruous they are with the whole tenor of all the canonical Gospels, and speak for themselves, to the entire conviction of the reader, that they arose from other sources than those of truly evangelical authors.

Besides this, there is, in the few fragments that we meet with in Jerome who translated the Jewish Gospel, and whose testimony can be depended on with respect to the matter before us there is evidence somewhat striking, that the Nazarene Gospel was rather a translation than an original.

In our canonical Matthew 23: 35, we have mention of a Zechariah, the son of Barachias, slain between the temple and the altar.' This passage has greatly perplexed all commentators, ancient and modern. The difficulty arises from the supposition, that the Zechariah here mentioned, is the one whose martyrdom is recorded in 2 Chron. 24: 20, 21, and who is there called the son of Jehoiada. Now this difficulty is removed by the Hebrew Gospel; for, as Jerome testifies in his Commentary on Matthew 23: 25, that Gospel read the son of Jehoiada. Sapit interpretem-is what seems obvious in this case. The supposition would be quite improbable, that a translator of Matthew from the Hebrew into Greek would introduce the difficulty in question, by inserting vioù Baqaziov instead of the son of Jehoiada. Every probability seems to be on the other side. The translator from Greek into Hebrew got rid of the difficulty, by making what he supposed to be a requisite correction of his text, and writing the son of Jehoiada instead of Barachias.

Again Βαραββάν (Acc. case from Βαραββᾶς) is mentioned in Matthew 27: 16. Jerome says (Comm. in loc.), that he found in the Hebrew Gospel, filius magistri eorum as the correspondent to this proper name. Now here is evidently a mistake on the part of an interpreter, respecting the etymology of the word Bagaßßpav. He supposed it to stand for in, i. e. the son of their master or teacher; whereas the plain and proper etymology is NEN 2, son of our father. Here we may clearly say: Sapit interpretem. If, on the other hand, our Greek Matthew were translated from the Hebrew Gospel, how should the interpreter have fallen upon Βαραββᾶς (α proper name) as the equivalent rendering of in72, i. e. filius magistri eorum?

My own impression, from comparing the specimens transmitted to us by the fathers, in regard to the Gospel according to the Hebrews, is, that this Gospel is plainly and clearly a secondary work, a mere compilation from the Greek Matthew, with very many interpolations and changes of the original modes of expression, translated into Hebrew for the use of Jewish Churches, and translated after the Jewish converts had separated from the church catholic, and were desirous of something in the way of Scripture which would serve as a rallyingpoint for their party. Nothing can be more certain than that the Gospel in question Judaizes. It was composed, or rather