International Financial Statement

Analysis CFA Institute Investment

Series 3rd Edition Robinson
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/international-financial-statement-analysis-cfa-institute
-investment-series-3rd-edition-robinson/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

International Financial Statement Analysis CFA

Institute Investment Series 4th Edition Robinson Thomas
R

https://textbookfull.com/product/international-financial-
statement-analysis-cfa-institute-investment-series-4th-edition-
robinson-thomas-r/

Equity Asset Valuation CFA Institute Investment Series

4th Edition Pinto

https://textbookfull.com/product/equity-asset-valuation-cfa-
institute-investment-series-4th-edition-pinto/

Equity Asset Valuation CFA Institute Investment Series

4th Edition Pinto

https://textbookfull.com/product/equity-asset-valuation-cfa-
institute-investment-series-4th-edition-pinto-2/

Kaplan SchweserNotes for CFA Institute Investment

Foundations First Edition Dr. Douglas Van Eaton

https://textbookfull.com/product/kaplan-schwesernotes-for-cfa-
institute-investment-foundations-first-edition-dr-douglas-van-
eaton/
Financial reporting, financial statement analysis, and
valuation: a strategic perspective Baginski

https://textbookfull.com/product/financial-reporting-financial-
statement-analysis-and-valuation-a-strategic-perspective-
baginski/

Wiley CFA 2017 Level I - Study Guide Vol 1 1st Edition

Cfa Institute

https://textbookfull.com/product/wiley-cfa-2017-level-i-study-
guide-vol-1-1st-edition-cfa-institute/

CFA Program Curriculum 2020 Level III Volumes 1 6 1st

Edition Cfa Institute

https://textbookfull.com/product/cfa-program-
curriculum-2020-level-iii-volumes-1-6-1st-edition-cfa-institute/

CFA Program Curriculum 2018 Level III Volumes 1 6 Box

Set 1st Edition Cfa Institute

https://textbookfull.com/product/cfa-program-
curriculum-2018-level-iii-volumes-1-6-box-set-1st-edition-cfa-
institute/

Currency Internationalization and Macro Financial Risk

Control International Monetary Institute

https://textbookfull.com/product/currency-internationalization-
and-macro-financial-risk-control-international-monetary-
institute/
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
fishing as a business. Other idle conjectures about his occupation
and rank might be multiplied from most anciently and venerably
foolish authorities; but let the dust of ages sleep on the prosy
guesses of the Gregories, of Chrysostom, Augustin, and their
reverential copyists in modern times. There is too much need of
room in this book, for the detail and discussion of truth, to allow
paper to be wasted on baseless conjectures, or impudent
falsehoods.

his apostleship.

There is a dim relic of a story, of quite ancient date, that after the
dispersion of the apostles, he went to Arabia, and preached there till
his death. This is highly probable, because it is well known that many
of the Jews, more particularly after the destruction of Jerusalem,
settled along the eastern coasts of the Red sea, where they were
continued for centuries. Nothing can be more reasonable then, than
to suppose that after the wasting fury of invasion had desolated the
city and the land of their fathers, many of the Christian Jews too,
went forth to seek a new home in the peaceful regions of Arabia
Felix; and that with them also went forth this true Israelite without
guile, to devote the rest of his life to apostolic labors, in that distant
country, where those of his wandering brethren, who had believed in
Christ, would so much need the support and counsel of one of the
divinely commissioned ministers of the gospel. Those Israelites too,
who still continued unbelievers, would present objects of importance,
in the view of the apostle. All the visible glories of the ancient
covenant had departed; and in that distant land, with so little of the
chilling influence of the dogmatical teachers of the law around them,
they would be the more readily led to the just appreciation of a
spiritual faith, and a simple creed.

All the testimony which antiquity affords on this point, is simply this:――Eusebius
(Church History, V. 10,) says, in giving the life of Pantaenus of Alexandria, (who lived about
A. D. 180,) that this enterprising Christian philosopher penetrated, in his researches and
travels, as far as to the inhabitants of India. It has been shown by Tillemont, Asseman and
Michaelis, that this term, in this connection, means Arabia Felix, one part of whose
inhabitants were called Indians, by the Hebrews, the Syrians and the early ecclesiastical
historians. Eusebius relates that Pantaenus there found the gospel of Matthew, in Hebrew,
and that the tradition among these people was, that Bartholomew, one of the twelve
apostles, had formerly preached there, and left this gospel among them. This tradition being
only a hundred years old when Pantaenus heard it, ranks among those of rather
respectable character.

The tradition certainly appears authentic, and is a very interesting

and valuable fragment of early Christian history, giving a trace of the
progress of the gospel, which otherwise would never have been
recognized,――besides the satisfaction of such a reasonable story
about an apostle of whom the inspired narrative records so little,
although he is represented in such an interesting light, by the
account of his introduction to Jesus. Here he learned the meaning of
the solemn prophecy with which Jesus crowned that noble
profession of faith. Here he saw, no doubt, yet greater tokens of the
power of Christ, than in the deep knowledge of hidden things then
displayed. And here, resting at last from his labors, he departed to
the full view of the glories there foretold,――to “see heaven opened,
and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of
Man.”
 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 degrading foreign
exactions 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 had been 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 as to 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 “the
Hebrew,” 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 from Aram, 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 not entirely,) 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 the Hebrew original 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 in their own language, (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,――a guess, 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 the Hebrew
language, &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 authority in 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 in Hebrew 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 gospel in 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
he had actually seen and examined the 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 Matthew ought to have written in Greek, and therefore did. (Matthaeus
Graece scribere debuit. 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 Matthew ought to 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 Matthew ought to 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, John Henry Michaelis,
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 also
commonly 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, were all 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 on Vol. 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 of Dr. 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
volumes of 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 by
internal evidence. 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,
executing the 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 in the 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 has sometimes 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 of Jehoiada,――this was the son of Baruch
or Barachiah;――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 you shall kill 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, whom ye slew between 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 the outer 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 Matthew xxiii. 35;
and that of “the abomination of desolation,” is in xxiv. 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, (whoso
readeth, 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 his readers, 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 “Zealots for 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 which they 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
written before the last siege of Jerusalem, is furthermore manifest
from the fact, that, in order to have the effect of a warning, 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 in chap. xxvii. 8,
and xxviii. 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. In xxvii. 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