The Book of Matthew

Matthew, surnamed Levi, before his conversion was a publican, or tax-gatherer under the Romans at Capernaum. He is generally allowed to have written his Gospel before any other of the evangelists. The contents of this Gospel, and the evidence of ancient writers, show that it was written primarily for the use of the Jewish nation. The fulfilment of prophecy was regarded by the Jews as strong evidence, therefore this is especially dwelt upon by St. Matthew. Here are particularly selected such parts of our Saviour's history and discourses as were best suited to awaken the Jewish nation to a sense of their sins; to remove their erroneous expectations of an earthly kingdom; to abate their pride and self-conceit; to teach them the spiritual nature and extent of the gospel; and to prepare them for the admission of the Gentiles into the church.

Matthew Henry (1706) · public domain

INTRODUCTION

The author of this Gospel was a publican or tax gatherer, residing at Capernaum, on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. As to his identity with the "Levi" of the second and third Gospels, and other particulars, see on Mt 9:9. Hardly anything is known of his apostolic labors. That, after preaching to his countrymen in Palestine, he went to the East, is the general testimony of antiquity; but the precise scene or scenes of his ministry cannot be determined. That he died a natural death may be concluded from the belief of the best-informed of the Fathers--that of the apostles only three, James the Greater, Peter, and Paul, suffered martyrdom. That the first Gospel was written by this apostle is the testimony of all antiquity. For the date of this Gospel we have only internal evidence, and that far from decisive. Accordingly, opinion is much divided. That it was the first issued of all the Gospels was universally believed. Hence, although in the order of the Gospels, those by the two apostles were placed first in the oldest manuscripts of the Old Latin version, while in all the Greek manuscripts, with scarcely an exception, the order is the same as in our Bibles, the Gospel according to Matthew is in every case placed first. And as this Gospel is of all the four the one which bears the most evident marks of having been prepared and constructed with a special view to the Jews--who certainly first required a written Gospel, and would be the first to make use of it--there can be no doubt that it was issued before any of the others. That it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem is equally certain; for as Hug observes [Introduction to the New Testament, p. 316, Fosdick's translation], when he reports our Lord's prophecy of that awful event, on coming to the warning about "the abomination of desolation" which they should "see standing in the holy place," he interposes (contrary to his invariable practice, which is to relate without remark) a call to his readers to read intelligently--"Whoso readeth, let him understand" (Mt 24:15)--a call to attend to the divine signal for flight which could be intended only for those who lived before the event. But how long before that event this Gospel was written is not so clear. Some internal evidences seem to imply a very early date. Since the Jewish Christians were, for five or six years, exposed to persecution from their own countrymen--until the Jews, being persecuted by the Romans, had to look to themselves--it is not likely (it is argued) that they should be left so long without some written Gospel to reassure and sustain them, and Matthew's Gospel was eminently fitted for that purpose. But the digests to which Luke refers in his Introduction (see on Lu 1:1) would be sufficient for a time, especially as the living voice of the "eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word" was yet sounding abroad. Other considerations in favor of a very early date--such as the tender way in which the author seems studiously to speak of Herod Antipas, as if still reigning, and his writing of Pilate apparently as if still in power--seem to have no foundation in fact, and cannot therefore be made the ground of reasoning as to the date of this Gospel. Its Hebraic structure and hue, though they prove, as we think, that this Gospel must have been published at a period considerably anterior to the destruction of Jerusalem, are no evidence in favor of so early a date as A.D. 37 or 38--according to some of the Fathers, and, of the moderns, Tillemont, Townson, Owen, Birks, Tregelles. On the other hand, the date suggested by the statement of Irenæus [Against Heresies, 3.1], that Matthew put forth his Gospel while Peter and Paul were at Rome preaching and founding the Church--or after A.D. 60--though probably the majority of critics are in favor of it, would seem rather too late, especially as the second and third Gospels, which were doubtless published, as well as this one, before the destruction of Jerusalem, had still to be issued. Certainly, such statements as the following, "Wherefore that field is called the field of blood unto this day" (Mt 27:8); "And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day" (Mt 28:15), bespeak a date considerably later than the events recorded. We incline, therefore, to a date intermediate between the earlier and the later dates assigned to this Gospel, without pretending to greater precision. We have adverted to the strikingly Jewish character and coloring of this Gospel. The facts which it selects, the points to which it gives prominence, the cast of thought and phraseology, all bespeak the Jewish point of view from which it was written and to which it was directed. This has been noticed from the beginning, and is universally acknowledged. It is of the greatest consequence to the right interpretation of it; but the tendency among some even of the best of the Germans to infer, from this special design of the first Gospel, a certain laxity on the part of the Evangelist in the treatment of his facts, must be guarded against. But by far the most interesting and important point connected with this Gospel is the language in which it was written. It is believed by a formidable number of critics that this Gospel was originally written in what is loosely called Hebrew, but more correctly Aramaic, or Syro-Chaldaic, the native tongue of the country at the time of our Lord; and that the Greek Matthew which we now possess is a translation of that work, either by the Evangelist himself or some unknown hand. The evidence on which this opinion is grounded is wholly external, but it has been deemed conclusive by Grotius, Michaelis (and his translator), Marsh, Townson, Campbell, Olshausen, Creswell, Meyer, Ebrard, Lange, Davidson, Cureton, Tregelles, Webster and Wilkinson, &c. The evidence referred to cannot be given here, but will be found, with remarks on its unsatisfactory character, in the Introduction to the Gospels prefixed to our larger Commentary, pp. 28-31. But how stand the facts as to our Greek Gospel? We have not a tittle of historical evidence that it is a translation, either by Matthew himself or anyone else. All antiquity refers to it as the work of Matthew the publican and apostle, just as the other Gospels are ascribed to their respective authors. This Greek Gospel was from the first received by the Church as an integral part of the one quadriform Gospel. And while the Fathers often advert to the two Gospels which we have from apostles, and the two which we have from men not apostles--in order to show that as that of Mark leans so entirely on Peter, and that of Luke on Paul, these are really no less apostolical than the other two--though we attach less weight to this circumstance than they did, we cannot but think it striking that, in thus speaking, they never drop a hint that the full apostolic authority of the Greek Matthew had ever been questioned on the ground of its not being the original. Further, not a trace can be discovered in this Gospel itself of its being a translation. Michaelis tried to detect, and fancied that he had succeeded in detecting, one or two such. Other Germans since, and Davidson and Cureton among ourselves, have made the same attempt. But the entire failure of all such attempts is now generally admitted, and candid advocates of a Hebrew original are quite ready to own that none such are to be found, and that but for external testimony no one would have imagined that the Greek was not the original. This they regard as showing how perfectly the translation has been executed; but those who know best what translating from one language into another is will be the readiest to own that this is tantamount to giving up the question. This Gospel proclaims its own originality in a number of striking points; such as its manner of quoting from the Old Testament, and its phraseology in some peculiar cases. But the close verbal coincidences of our Greek Matthew with the next two Gospels must not be quite passed over. There are but two possible ways of explaining this. Either the translator, sacrificing verbal fidelity in his version, intentionally conformed certain parts of his author's work to the second and third Gospels--in which case it can hardly be called Matthew's Gospel at all--or our Greek Matthew is itself the original. Moved by these considerations, some advocates of a Hebrew original have adopted the theory of a double original; the external testimony, they think, requiring us to believe in a Hebrew original, while internal evidence is decisive in favor of the originality of the Greek. This theory is espoused by Guericks, Olshausen, Thiersch, Townson, Tregelles, &c. But, besides that this looks too like an artificial theory, invented to solve a difficulty, it is utterly void of historical support. There is not a vestige of testimony to support it in Christian antiquity. This ought to be decisive against it. It remains, then, that our Greek Matthew is the original of that Gospel, and that no other original ever existed. It is greatly to the credit of Dean Alford, that after maintaining, in the first edition of his Greek Testament the theory of a Hebrew original, he thus expresses himself in the second and subsequent editions: "On the whole, then, I find myself constrained to abandon the view maintained in my first edition, and to adopt that of a Greek original." One argument has been adduced on the other side, on which not a little reliance has been placed; but the determination of the main question does not, in our opinion, depend upon the point which it raises. It has been very confidently affirmed that the Greek language was not sufficiently understood by the Jews of Palestine when Matthew published his Gospel to make it at all probable that he would write a Gospel, for their benefit in the first instance, in that language. Now, as this merely alleges the improbability of a Greek original, it is enough to place against it the evidence already adduced, which is positive, in favor of the sole originality of our Greek Matthew. It is indeed a question how far the Greek language was understood in Palestine at the time referred to. But we advise the reader not to be drawn into that question as essential to the settlement of the other one. It is an element in it, no doubt, but not an essential element. There are extremes on both sides of it. The old idea, that our Lord hardly ever spoke anything but Syro-Chaldaic, is now pretty nearly exploded. Many, however, will not go the length, on the other side, of Hug (in his Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 326, &c.) and Roberts ("Discussions of the Gospels," &c., pp. 25, &c.). For ourselves, though we believe that our Lord, in all the more public scenes of His ministry, spoke in Greek, all we think it necessary here to say is that there is no ground to believe that Greek was so little understood in Palestine as to make it improbable that Matthew would write his Gospel exclusively in that language--so improbable as to outweigh the evidence that he did so. And when we think of the number of digests or short narratives of the principal facts of our Lord's history which we know from Luke (Lu 1:1-4) were floating about for some time before he wrote his Gospel, of which he speaks by no means disrespectfully, and nearly all of which would be in the mother tongue, we can have no doubt that the Jewish Christians and the Jews of Palestine generally would have from the first reliable written matter sufficient to supply every necessary requirement until the publican-apostle should leisurely draw up the first of the four Gospels in a language to them not a strange tongue, while to the rest of the world it was the language in which the entire quadriform Gospel was to be for all time enshrined. The following among others hold to this view of the sole originality of the Greek Matthew: Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Lightfoot, Wetstein, Lardner, Hug, Fritzsche, Credner, De Wette, Stuart, Da Costa, Fairbairn, Roberts. On two other questions regarding this Gospel it would have been desirable to say something, had not our available space been already exhausted: The characteristics, both in language and matter, by which it is distinguished from the other three, and its relation to the second and third Gospels. On the latter of these topics--whether one or more of the Evangelists made use of the materials of the other Gospels, and, if so, which of the Evangelists drew from which--the opinions are just as numerous as the possibilities of the case, every conceivable way of it having one or more who plead for it. The most popular opinion until recently--and perhaps the most popular still--is that the second Evangelist availed himself more or less of the materials of the first Gospel, and the third of the materials of both the first and second Gospels. Here we can but state our own belief, that each of the first three Evangelists wrote independently of both the others; while the fourth, familiar with the first three, wrote to supplement them, and, even where he travels along the same line, wrote quite independently of them. This judgment we express, with all deference for those who think otherwise, as the result of a close study of each of the Gospels in immediate juxtaposition and comparison with the others. On the former of the two topics noticed, the linguistic peculiarities of each of the Gospels have been handled most closely and ably by Credner [Einleitung (Introduction to the New Testament)], of whose results a good summary will be found in Davidson's Introduction to the New Testament. The other peculiarities of the Gospels have been most felicitously and beautifully brought out by Da Costa in his Four Witnesses, to which we must simply refer the reader, though it contains a few things in which we cannot concur.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown (1871) · public domain

Preface to the Gospel of St. Matthew With a Short Account of His Life

The general title of this latter collection of sacred books, which, as well as the former, all Christians acknowledge to have been given by immediate inspiration from God, is in the Greek Η ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ, which we translate The New Testament: but which should rather be translated The New Covenant; or, if it were lawful to use a periphrasis, the New Covenant, including a Testamentary Declaration and Bequest: for this is precisely the meaning of this system of justice, holiness, goodness, and truth. St. Paul, 2Cor 3:14, calls the sacred books before the time of Christ, Η ΠΑΛΑΙΑ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ, The Old Covenant; which is a very proper and descriptive title of the grand subject of those books. This apostle evidently considers the Old Testaments and the New, as two covenants, Gal 4:24; and, if comparing these two together, he calls one παλαιαν διαθηκην, the old covenant, the other καινην, the new; one πρωτην, the first, the other νεαν, that which is recent; in opposition to the old covenant, which was to terminate in the new, he calls this κρειττονα, better, more excellent, Heb 7:22; Heb 8:6; and αιωνιον, everlasting, Heb 13:20, because it is never to be changed, nor terminate in any other; and to endure endlessly itself. The word covenant, from con together, and venio, I come, signifies a contract or agreement made between two parties; to fulfill the conditions of which, they are mutually bound. The old covenant, in its essential parts, was very simple. I Will Be Your God. Ye Shall Be My People - the spirit of which was never changed. The people were to take Jehovah as the sole object of their religious worship; put their whole trust and confidence in him; serve him in his own way, according to the prescribed forms which he should lay before them. This was their part. On his side, God was to accept them as his people, give them his Spirit to guide them, his mercy to pardon them, his providence to support them, and his grace to preserve them unto eternal life. But all this was connected with the strict observance of a great variety of rites and ceremonies, at once expressive of the holiness of God, the purity of the Divine justice, and the exceeding sinfulness and utter helpless state of man. A great part of the four latter books of Moses is employed in prescribing and illustrating these rites and ceremonies; and what is called the new covenant is the complement and perfection of the whole. The word Διαθηκη, from δια and τιθημι, I lay down, signifies not only a covenant agreement, but also that disposal which a man makes of his secular matters during his life, which is to take place after his death. It answers to the Hebrew ברית berith, from בר bar, to purify, because, in making covenants, a sacrifice was usually offered to God, for the purification of the contracting parties; and hence the word ברית berith is frequently used to express not only the covenant itself, but also the sacrifice offered on the occasion. See below under Gospel; and see the notes on Gen 6:18; Gen 15:18 (note); Exo 29:45 (note); Lev 26:15 (note); and Deu 29:12 (note), where every thing relative to this subject is minutely considered. The term new covenant, as used here, seems to mean that grand plan of agreement or reconciliation which God made between himself and mankind, by the death of Jesus Christ; in consequence of which, all those who truly repent, and unfeignedly believe in the great atoning sacrifice, are purified from their sins, and united to God. Christ is called της Διαθηκης καινης μεσιτης, the Mediator of the new covenant, Heb 9:15. And referring to the ratification of this new covenant or agreement, by means of his own death, in the celebration of his last supper, Christ calls the cup, το ποτεριον η καινη Διαθηκη εν τῳ αιματι μου, this cup is the new covenant in my blood: i.e. an emblem or representation of the new covenant ratified by his blood. See Luk 22:20. And from these expressions, and their obvious meaning, the whole Christian Scriptures have obtained this title, The New Testament, or Covenant, of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Those writings, and the grand subject of them, which, previously to the New Testament times, were termed simply The covenant; were, after the incarnation, called the Old covenant, as we have already seen, to distinguish them from the Christian Scriptures, and their grand subject, which were called the New covenant; not so much because it was a new agreement, but rather a renewal of the old, in which the spirit, object, and design of that primitive covenant were more clearly and fully manifested. The particular title to each of the four following books, in most Greek MSS. and printed editions, is ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ κατα ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ - ΜΑΡΚΟΝ - ΛΟΥΚΑΝ - ΙΟΑΝΝΗΝ, which we translate, the Gospel according to Matthew - Mark - Luke - John; i.e. the gospel or history of our blessed Lord, as written and transmitted to posterity by each of these writers. Our word Gospel, which should be always written godspel, or godespel, comes from the Anglo-Saxon, and is compounded of good, and history, narrative, doctrine, mystery, or secret; and was applied by our ancestors to signify the revelation of that glorious system of truth, which had been, in a great measure, hidden or kept secret from the foundation of the world. Among Saxon scholars, the word Gospel has been variously explained. Mr. Somner explains it thus, Sermo Dei mysticus; Dei historia. "The mystic word of God; the history of God, or God's history." But he supposes that it may be compounded of good, and, a message; and very properly observes, that the verb signifies, not only to preach, or proclaim the Gospel; but also to foretell, or predict; to prophesy, to divine: and in this latter sense the word spell was anciently used among us, and still signifies an incantation, or a charm; which implies a peculiar collocation and repetition of certain words, which were supposed to produce supernatural effects by means of spiritual influence or agency; which agency was always attracted and excited by such words, through some supposed correspondency between the words, and the spiritual agency to be employed. The word, in this sense, occurs in King Alfred's Saxon translation of Boethius, De Consolatione Philosophiae, chap. 38., Then deceitful men began to practice incantations. It is possible that our ancestors gave this title to the preaching of Christ crucified, from observing the astonishing effects produced by it, in changing the hearts and lives of sinners. And very innocently might they denominate the pure powerful preaching of the death and resurrection of Christ, God's charm: that wonderful word, which, accompanied with the demonstration and power of the Holy Ghost, produced such miraculous effects among men. As the word spellian signifies to teach or instruct, hence our word to spell, i.e. to teach a person, by uniting vowels and consonants, to enunciate words; and thus learn to read. And hence the book out of which the first rudiments of language are learned is termed a spelling book, exactly answering to the spell-book of our ancestors, which signified a book of homilies, or plain discourses, for the instruction of the common people. We may see (note on Gen 1:1 (note)) that god among our ancestors, not only signified God, the supreme Being; but also good or goodness, which is his nature: godspell, therefore, is not only God's history, doctrine, or plan of teaching; but also the good history, the good doctrine; and hence spellian to preach or proclaim this doctrine; spel-boc the sermons that contained the rudiments of it, for the instruction of men; and spel-boda, the orator, messenger, or ambassador, that announced it. The Greek word Ευαγγελιον, from ευ good, and αγγελια a message, signifies good news, or glad tidings in general; and is evidently intended to point out, in this place, the good message or the glad tidings of great joy which God has sent to all mankind, preaching peace and reconciliation by Christ Jesus, who is Lord of all: proclaiming that he, as the promised Messiah, has, by the grace of God, tasted death for every man - for he has died for their offenses, and risen again for their justification; and that, through his grace, every sinner under the whole heaven, may turn to God, and find mercy. This is good news, glad tidings, a joyful message; and it is such to all mankind, as in it every human spirit is interested. It is used in this sense by Achilles Tatius, lib. v. c. 12, Ταυτα ακαυσας ὁ Σατυρος, προστρεχει προς την Μελιττην ευαγγελια φερων: Having heard these things, Satyrus ran to Melitta, bringing the good news. But, besides this general meaning, the word Ευαγγελιον, has other acceptations in the New Testament, and in the Greek writers, which may be consulted here with great propriety and effect. 1. It signifies the reward given to those who brought good news. Thus Homer represents the disguised Ulysses claiming a reward ευαγγελιον, a vest and mantle, should he verify to Eumeus the glad tidings of his master's safety. Ευαγγελιον δε μοι εϚω. Let me have a reward for my good news. Odyss. xiv. v. 152. To which Eumeus, who despaired of his master's return, replied: - Ω γερον, ουτ' αρ' εγων Ευαγγελιον τοδε τισω, Ουτ' Οδυσσευς ετι οικον ελευσεται. Ib. v. 266 Old friend! nor cloake nor vest thy gladsome news Will ever earn: Ulysses comes no more! Cowper And on the word, as thus used, Eustathius gives the following comment: Ευαγγελιον; δωρον υπερ αγαθης ευαγγελιας. "Euangelion signifies the reward given for bringing good news." St. Chrysostom, in his sixth Homily on the Acts, gives this as a common meaning of the word. "The Gospel is this: Thou shalt receive good things: as men are accustomed in their common conversation to say to each other, τι μοι των ευαγγελιων; What reward wilt thou give me for my good news? etc." It is used in the same sense by the Septuagint. 2Sam 4:10. When one told me, saying, Behold, Saul is dead, thinking to have brought good tidings, I took him and slew him in Ziglag, who thought ω εδει με δουναι Ευαγγελια, that I would have given him A Reward for his tidings. Cicero uses it in the same sense; see his epistles to Atticus, lib. 2. ep. 3. O suaves epistolas tuas uno tempore mihi datas duas: quibus Ευαγγελια quae reddam nescio, deberi quidem, plane fateor. "O, how delightful are your epistles! two of which I have received at one time, for which I know not what recompense to make: but, that I am your debtor, I candidly confess." 2. It is used also to signify the prayers, thanksgivings, and sacrifices offered on the arrival of good news. So Aristophanes, Μοι δοκει - Ευαγγελια θυειν, εκατον βους, τη θεω, I think I should Sacrifice A Hecatomb to the goddess for this intelligence, Aristoph. in Equit. v. 653. Isocrates (Areopag. initio) is supposed to use the word in the sense of supplication, Επι τοσαυταις πραξεσιν Ευαγγελια μεν δις ηδη τεθυκαμεν - "relative to these transactions, we have purposed to make supplication twice." Xenophon uses it to denote a eucharistic offering made on account of receiving good news. Εθυε τα Ευαγγελια. See Hist. Gr. i. 6, 27. It seems to be used in a similar sense by the Septuagint in 2Sam 18:20, 2Sam 18:27. Other examples might be produced in which the word is used in all the above senses; but these may be deemed sufficient. I would not have been so copious, had not a certain great man denied that the word had the above meanings. 3. However illustrative the above acceptations of Ευαγγελιον, among the Greek writers, may be of the word in relation to the great doctrine of the new covenant; yet, among the sacred writers, it is restricted to express the glad tidings of the coming of the Messiah, for the reasons mentioned above. See Luk 2:10. 4. The whole doctrine of Jesus Christ, comprised in the history of his incarnation, preaching, miracles, sufferings, death, resurrection, ascension, and the mission of the Holy Spirit, by which salvation was procured for a lost world, is expressed by the word Ευαγγελιον, as well as by the general title; Καινη Διαθηκη. Rom 1:1, Rom 1:3, Rom 1:9; Mat 4:23; Mat 9:35; Mat 24:14; Mar 1:14. But the sacred writers use it with a variety of epithets which it may be necessary to mention. 1st, It is sometimes termed, The Gospel of God concerning his Son. Rom 1:1, Rom 1:3. 2dly, The Gospel of the Son of God. Rom 1:9. 3dly, The Gospel of the kingdom of God. Mat 4:23; Mat 9:35; Mat 24:14; Mar 1:14. 4thly, Sometimes it is simply called The Gospel. Mar 13:10; Mar 16:15. 5thly, The word or doctrine (λογος) of the Gospel. Act 15:7. 6thly, The Gospel of peace. Eph 6:15. 7thly, The Gospel of glory, το Ευαγγελιον της δοξης. 1Tim 1:11. 8thly, The Gospel of salvation, το Ευαγγελιον της σωτηριας Eph 1:13. 5. In 1Cor 9:23, it means the blessings and privileges promised in the New Testament. 6. It means the public profession of the doctrine taught by Christ, Mar 8:35; Mar 10:29; 2Tim 1:8; Plm 1:13. 7. But in Gal 1:6, Gal 1:8, Gal 1:9, the word Ευαγγελιον seems to mean any new doctrine, whether true or false. Many MSS. have Το κατα Ματθαιον αγιον Ευαγγελιον, which is generally rendered, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew. But the word αγιον, saint, or holy, should be here applied to the Gospel, with which it properly agrees; and then the title would run, The holy Gospel according to Matthew; that is, the account of this holy dispensation according to the narrative composed by Matthew, an eye witness of all the transactions he relates. But anciently the word holy was neither applied to the narrative nor to the narrator, the title being simply, The Gospel according to Matthew, and so of the others. Matthew, supposed to be the same who is also called Levi, son of Alpheus, was by birth a Jew. As to his office, he appears to have been a tax-gatherer, under the Romans. He was a native of Galilee, as the rest of Christ's apostles were; but of what city in that country, or of which tribe of the people of Israel, is not known. As he sat at the custom house, by the seaside, in or near the city of Capernaum, Jesus called him; and as soon as he could make up his accompts with those by whom he had been employed and intrusted, he became a willing, faithful disciple of Christ. After this, St. Mark tells us, he made an entertainment in his own house, where Christ and several of his disciples were present, together with many tax-gatherers, and others, of no very respectable character, in the sight of the Pharisees. It is probable that Matthew took this occasion of calling together his relatives and acquaintances, that he might take a friendly farewell of them; and give them the opportunity of seeing and hearing that Divine Person, whose words he had already found to be spirit and life to his own soul, and to whose service he had now solemnly dedicated himself. He was placed by our Lord in the number of his apostles, and continued with him during his life. After the ascension of Christ, he was at Jerusalem, and received the Holy Ghost with the rest of the disciples on the day of pentecost. Matthew, with Andrew, Peter, and the two sons of Zebedee, are the only disciples whose call is particularly mentioned. It is uncertain when, where, or how he died. There does not appear to be any clear evidence, in the writings of the primitive fathers, that he suffered martyrdom. St. Matthew's gospel is generally allowed to be the most ancient part of the writings of the New Covenant. Many modern critics contend that it was written about the year of our Lord 61, or between this and 65. Others, that it was written so early as 41, or about the eighth year after the ascension; and this is supported by the subscriptions at the end of this gospel in many MSS.; but it must be observed, that all these MSS. are posterior to the 10th century. Michaelis has adopted a middle way, which carries much of the appearance of probability with it, viz.: that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew about the 8th year after the ascension of our Lord, or a.d. 41; and that the translation of it into Greek was made about a.d. 61, or later. Whether this gospel were written originally in Hebrew or Greek, is a question by which the most eminent critics have been greatly puzzled and divided. The balance, however, is clearly in favor of a Hebrew original. The present Greek text was doubtless published at a very early period; who the translator was, cannot, at this distance of time, be determined; probably it was the evangelist himself. As Matthew was one of the twelve disciples, his history is an account of what he heard and saw, being a constant attendant on our blessed Lord. This consideration, of itself, would prove that, allowing him only to be a man of integrity, he would make no mistakes in his narrative. Add to this, the influence and superintendence of the Holy Spirit, under which he constantly acted, and which our Lord had promised to his disciples, to guide them into all truth, and bring what soever he had spoken to them, into remembrance, Joh 14:26. These two considerations stamp the narrative with the utmost degree of credibility. The genealogy of Christ divided into three classes of fourteen generations each: The first fourteen, from Abraham to David, Mat 1:2-6. The second fourteen, from Solomon to Jechonias, Mat 1:7-10. The third fourteen, from Jechonias to Christ, Mat 1:11-16. The sum of these generations, Mat 1:17. Christ is conceived by the Holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary, when she was espoused to Joseph, Mat 1:18. Joseph's anxiety and doubts are removed by the ministry of an Angel, Mat 1:19, Mat 1:20; by whom the child is named Jesus, Mat 1:21. The fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah relative to this, Mat 1:22, Mat 1:23. Joseph takes home his wife, Mary, and Christ is born, Mat 1:24, Mat 1:25.

Adam Clarke (1831) · public domain

ORIGINAL PREFACE TO THE NOTES ON THE GOSPELS (BARNES)

In the preparation of the following Notes, free use has been made of all the helps within the reach of the author. The works from which most assistance has been derived are, Walton's Polyglott; the Critici Sacri, particularly the Notes of Grotius; Lightfoot's Works; Macknight and Newcome's Harmony of the Gospels; Jahn's Archaeology; Horne's Introduction; Doddridge's Family Expositor; Calmet's Dictionary; Campbell on the Gospels; the Commentaries of Kuinoel, Rosenmuller Clarke, and Henry; Tittman's Meletamata Sacra on John; the Sacred Geography of Wells, and that prepared for the American Sunday School Union, by Mcssrs J. & J. W. Alexander. The object has been to express, in as few words as possible, the real meaning of the Gospels;--the results of their critical study, rather than the process by which these results were reached.

This work is designed to occupy a place, which is supposed to be unappropriated, in attempts to explain the New Testament. It was my wish to present to Sunday school teachers a plain and simple explanation of the more common difficulties of the book which it is their province to teach. This wish has given character to the work. If it should occur to any one that more minute explanations of words, phrases, and customs, have been attempted than might seem to them desirable, it will be recollected that many Sunday school teachers have little access to means of information, and that no small part of their success is dependent on the minuteness and correctness of the explanation which is given to children.

This work is designed also to be a Harmony of the Gospels. Particular attention has been bestowed, especially in the Notes on Matthew, to bring the different narratives of the evangelists together, and to show that, in their narration of the same events, there is no real contradiction. It will be recollected, that the sacred narrative of an event is what it is reported to be by all the evangelists. It will also be recollected, that the most plausible objections to the New Testament have been drawn from the apparent contradictions in the Gospels. The importance of meeting these difficulties, in the education of the young, and of showing that these objections are not well founded, will be apparent to all.

Particular attention has been paid to the references to parallel passages of Scripture. In all instances, in these Notes, they are an essential part of the explanation of the text. The authority of the Bible has been deemed the only authority that was necessary in such cases; and it is hoped that no one will condemn any explanation offered, without a candid examination of the real meaning of the passages referred to.

The main design of these Notes will be accomplished, if they furnish a just explanation of the text. Practical remarks could not have been more full without materially increasing the size of the book, and, as was supposed, without essentially limiting its circulation and its usefulness. All that has been attempted, therefore, in this part of the work, has been to furnish leading thoughts, or heads of practical remark, to be enlarged on at the discretion of the teacher.

These Notes have been prepared amidst the pressing and anxious cares of a responsible pastoral charge. Of their imperfections no one can be more sensible than the author. Of the time and patience indispensable in preparing even such brief Notes on the Bible, under the conviction that the opinions expressed may form the sentiments of the young on the subject of the Book of God, and determine their eternal destiny, no one can be sensible who has not made the experiment. The great truth is becoming more and more impressed on the minds of this generation, that the Bible is the only authoritative source of religious belief; and if there is any institution pre-eminently calculated to deepen this impression, and fix it permanently in the minds of the coming age, it is the Sunday school. Every minister of the Gospel, every parent, every Christian, must therefore feel it important that just views of interpretation should be imbibed in these schools. I have felt more deeply than I have any other sentiment, the importance of inculcating on the young proper modes of explaining the sacred Scriptures. If I can be one of the instruments, however humble, in extending such views through the community, my wish in this work will be accomplished. I commit it, therefore, to the blessing of the God of the Bible, with the prayer that it may be one among many instruments of forming correct religious views, and promoting the practical love of God and man among the youth of this country. ALBERT BARNES. PHILADELPHIA, August 25th, 1832. ======================================================================= For INTRODUCTION to BARNES Mt 1:2 ======================================================================= PREFACE

TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

THE word Gospel means good news, or a joyful message.It commonly signifies the message itself. But it is here used to denote the book containing the record of the message. The title "saint," given to the sacred writers of the New Testament, is of Roman Catholic origin, and is of no authority.

It is now conceded pretty generally that Matthew wrote his gospel in his native tongue; that is, the language of Palestine. That language was not pure Hebrew, but a mixture of the Hebrew, Chaldaic, and Syraic, commonly called Syro-Chaldaic, or Aramaean. This language our Saviour undoubtedly used in his conversation; [see instances in Mk 7:34, Mt 27:46] and his disciples would naturally use this language also, unless there were good reasons why they should write in a foreign tongue. It is agreed that the remainder of the New Testament was written in Greek. The reason for this, in preference to the native language of the writers, was, that Greek was the language then generally spoken and understood throughout the eastern countries conquered by Alexander the Great, and particularly in Judea, and in the regions where the apostles first laboured.

The Christian Fathers, without any exception, assert that Matthew wrote his gospel for the use of the Christians in Palestine, and say that it was written in the Hebrew dialect. It should be remarked, however, that many modern critics of much eminence do not suppose the evidence that Matthew wrote in Hebrew to be decisive; and believe that there is sufficient proof that, like the other writers of the New Testament, Matthew wrote in Greek. See Lardher's works, vol. v. pp. 308-318, London edition, 1829.

The Gospel of Matthew exists now, however, only in Greek. The original Hebrew, or Syro-Chaldaic, if it was written in that language, has been designedly laid aside, or undesignedly lost. The question, then, naturally arises, who is the author of the Greek translation which we possess? and is it to be regarded as of Divine authority?

It has been conjectured by some that Matthew himself furnished a Greek translation of the Hebrew. This conjecture, in itself probable enough, wants human testimony to support it. Athanasius, one of the early Fathers, says that it was translated by "James, the brother of our Lord according to the flesh." Papias, another of the early Fathers, says, that "each one translated it as he was able." If James translated it, there can be no question about its inspiration and canonical authority. Nor does it affect the question of its inspiration, even if we are ignorant of the name of the translator. The proper inquiry is, whether it had such evidence of inspiration as to be satisfactory to the church in the times when they were under the direction of the apostles. That it had such evidence, none acquainted with ancient history will doubt.

Epiphanius says that the Gospel by Matthew was written while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome. This was about the year of our Lord 63, about the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. It is now generally supposed that this gospel was written about this time. There is very clear evidence in the gospel that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. The destruction of the holy city is clearly and minutely told; but there is not the slightest intimation in it that these predictions had been accomplished; a thing which we should naturally expect if the gospel was not written until after these calamities came upon the Jews. Comp. Acts 11:28. It has been till lately uniformly regarded as having been written before either of the other evangelists. Some of late have, however, endeavoured to show that Luke was written first. All testimony, and all ancient arrangements of the books, are against the opinion; and when such is the fact, it is of little consequence to attend to other arguments. In all copies of the New Testament, and in all translations, this gospel has been placed first. This, it is probable, would not have been done, had not Matthew published his gospel before any other was written.

Matthew, the writer of this gospel, called also Levi, son of Alpheus, was a publican, or tax-gatherer, under the Romans. Mt 9:9; Lk 5:27. Of his life and death little is certainly known. Socrates, a writer of the fifth century, says that he went to Ethiopia, after the apostles were scattered abroad from Judea, and died a martyr in a city called Nadebbar; but by what kind of death is altogether uncertain. However, others speak of his preaching and dying in Parthia or Persia, and the diversity of their accounts seems to show that they are all without good foundation. See Lardher's works, vol. v. pp. 296, 297. =======================================================================

GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW.

1. The book of the generation. This is the proper title of the chapter. It is the same as to say, "The account of the ancestry or family, or the genealogical table of Jesus Christ." The phrase is common in Jewish writings. Compare Gen 5:1, "This is the book of the generations of Adam," that is, the genealogical table of the family or descendants of Adam. See also Gen 6:9. The Jews, moreover, as we do, kept such tables of their own families, and it is probable that this was copied from the record of the family of Joseph.

Jesus. See Mt 1:21.

Christ. The word Christ is a Greek word, signifying anointed. The Hebrew word signifying the same is Messiah. Hence, Jesus is called either the Messiah, or the Christ, meaning the same thing. The Jews speak of the Messiah; Christians speak of him as the Christ. Anciently, when kings and priests were set apart to their office, they were anointed with oil, Lev 4:3, 6:20, Ex 28:41, 29:7, 1Sam 9:16, 15:1, 2Sam 23:1. To anoint, therefore, means often the same as to consecrate, or set apart to any office. Thence those thus set apart are said to be anointed, or the anointed of God. It is for this reason that the name is given to the Lord Jesus, Dan 9:24. He was set apart by God to be the King, and High Priest, and Prophet of his people. Anointing with oil was, moreover, supposed to be emblematic of the influences of the Holy Spirit; and as God gave him the Spirit without measure, (Jn 3:34) so he is called peculiarly the Anointed of God.

The Son of David, The word son, among the Jews, had a great variety of significations. It means, literally, a son; then a grandson; a descendant; an adopted son; a disciple, or one who is an object of tender affection--one who is to us as a son. In this place it means a descendant of David; or one who was of the family of David. It was important to trace the genealogy of Jesus up to David, because the promise had been made that the Messiah should be of his family, and all the Jews expected it would be so. It would be impossible, therefore, to convince a Jew that Jesus was the Messiah, unless it could be shown that he was descended from David. See Jer 23:5 Ps 132:10,11; compared with Acts 13:23, Jn 7:42.

The Son of Abraham. The descendant of Abraham. The promise was made to Abraham also. See Gen 12:3; 21:12; comp. Heb 11:13; Gal 3:16. The Jews expected that the Messiah would be descended from him; and it was important, therefore, to trace the genealogy up to him also. Though Jesus was of humble birth, yet he was descended from most illustrious ancestors. Abraham, the father of the faithful--" the beauteous model of an eastern prince,"--and David, the sweet psalmist of Israel, the conqueror, the magnificent and victorious leader of the people of God, were both among his ancestors. From these two persons, the most eminent for piety, and the most renowned for their excellencies of all the men of antiquity, sacred or profane, the Lord Jesus was descended; and though his birth and life were humble, yet they who regard an illustrious descent as of value, may find here all that is to be admired in piety, purity, patriotism, splendour, dignity, and renown.

(a) "generation of Jesus Christ" Lk 3:33 (b) "son of David" Ps 132:11, Mt 22:45, Acts 2:30 (c) "son of Abraham" Gen 22:18, Gal 3:16INTRODUCTION.

THE writings which are regarded by Christians as the sole standard of faith and practice, have been designated at various periods by different names. They are frequently called The Scriptures, to denote that they are the most important of all writings; The Holy Scriptures, because composed by persons divinely inspired, and containing sacred truth; and The Canonical Scriptures. The word canon means a rule; and it was applied by the Christian fathers to the books of the Bible because they were regarded as an authoritative rule of faith and practice; and also to distinguish them from certain spurious or apocryphal books, which, although some of them might be true as matter of history, or correct in doctrine, were not regarded as a rule of faith, and were therefore considered as not canonical.

But the most common appellation given now to these writings is THE BIBLE. This is a Greek word signifying book. It is given to the Scriptures by way of eminence, to denote that this is the Book of books, as being infinitely superior to every unassisted production of the human mind. In the same way, the name Koran or reading is given to the writings of Mohammed, denoting that they are the chief writings to be read, or eminently the reading.

The most common and general division of the Bible is into the Old and New Testaments. The word testament, with us, means a will; an instrument in writing, by which a person declares his will in relation to his property after his death. This is not, however, its meaning when applied to the Scriptures. It is taken from the Greek translation of the Hebrew word meaning covenant, compact, or agreement. The word is applied to the covenant or compact which God made with the Jews to be their God, and thus primarily denotes the agreement, the compact, the promises, the institutions, of the old dispensation, and then the record of that compact in the writings of Moses and the Prophets. The name" Old Testament," or" Old Covenant," therefore, denotes the books containing the records of God's compact with his people, or his dispensations under the Mosaic or Jewish state. The phrase New Covenant, or Testament, denotes the books which contain the record of his new covenant or compact With his people under the Messiah, or since Christ came. We find mention made of the Book of the Covenant in Ex 24:7, and in the New Testament the word is once used, (2Cor 3:14,) with an undoubted reference to the sacred books of the Jews. By whom, or at what time, these terms were first used to designate the two divisions of the sacred Scriptures, is not certainly known. There can be no doubt, however, of the great antiquity of the application.

The Jews divided the Old Testament into three parts, called THE LAW, THE PROPHETS, and THE HAGIOGRAPHA, or the holy writings. This division is noticed by our Saviour in Lk 24:44. Lk 24:44. "All things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me." Josephus, the Jewish historian, also makes mention of the same division. (Against Apion). "We have," says he, "only twenty-two books which are to be believed to be of Divine authority; of which five are the books of Moses. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, son of Xerxes, king of Persia, the prophets who were the successors of Moses have written in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and documents of life for the use of men." It is probable that precisely the same books were not always included in the same division; but there can be no doubt that the division itself was always retained. The division into twenty-two books was made partly, no doubt, for the convenience of the memory. This was the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. The English Bible contains thirty-nine instead of twenty-two books in the Old Testament. The number which Josephus reckons may be accurately made out as follows:

The first division, comprehending the five books of Moses, or THE LAW.

The second, including,

1st, Joshua;
2nd, Judges, with Ruth;
3rd, Samuel;
4th, Kings;
5th, Isaiah;
6th, Jeremiah, with Lamentations;
7th, Ezekiel;
8th, Daniel;
9th, the twelve minor prophets;
10th, Job;
11th, Ezra, including Nehemiah;
12th, Esther;
13th, Chronicles:

these thirteen books were called THE PROPHETS. The four remaining will be Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon. In regard to the second division, it is a fact well known, that the twelve smaller prophets, from Hosea to Malachi, were for convenience uniformly united in one volume; and that the small books of Ruth and Lamentations were attached to the larger works mentioned, and Ezra and Nehemiah were long reckoned as one book. The arrangement of the books of the Bible has not always been the same. The order followed in the English Bible is taken from the Greek translation called the Septuagint. Probably the best way to read the Bible is to read the books as nearly as possible in the order in which they were written. Thus Isaiah informs us, (Isa 1:1) that his prophecies were delivered in the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah; and, to be correctly understood, should be read in connexion with the record of those reigns in Kings and Chronicles.

The names of most of the books in the Bible are taken from the Greek translation above mentioned. The books of the Bible were anciently written without any breaks, or divisions into chapters and verses. For convenience, the Jews early divided the Old Testament into greater and smaller sections. These sections in the law and prophets were read in the worship of the synagogues. The New Testament was also early divided in a similar manner.

The division into chapters and verses is of recent origin. It was first adopted in the 13th century by Cardinal Hugo, who wrote a celebrated commentary on the Scriptures. He divided the Latin Vulgate, the version used in the church of Rome, into chapters nearly the same as those which now exist in our English translation. These chapters he divided into smaller sections by placing the letters A, B, C, etc., at equal distances from each other in the margin.

The division into verses was not made until a still later period. The division of Cardinal Hugo into chapters became known to Rabbi Nathan, a distinguished Jew, who adopted it for the Hebrew Bible, and placed the Hebrew letters, used also as numerals, in the margin. This was used by Rabbi Nathan in publishing a concordance, and adopted by Athias in a printed edition of the Hebrew Bible in 1661.

The verses into which the New Testament is divided are still more modern, and are an imitation of those used by Rabbi Nathan in the fifteenth century. This division was invented and first used by Stephens, in an edition of the New Testament printed in 1551. The division was made as an amusement while he was on a journey from Lyons to Paris, during the intervals in which he rested in travelling. It has been adopted in all the subsequent editions of the Bible.

In regard to this division into chapters and verses, it is clear that they are of no authority whatever. It has been doubted whether the sacred writers used any points or divisions of any kind. It is certain that they were wholly unacquainted with those now in use. It is further evident that, in all cases, these divisions have not been judiciously made. The sense is often interrupted by the close of a chapter, and still oftener by the break in the verses. In reading the Scriptures, little regard should be had to this division. It is of use now only for reference; and inaccurate as it is, it must evidently be substantially retained. All the books that have been printed for three hundred years, which refer to the Bible, have made their reference to these chapters and verses; and to attempt any change now would be to render almost useless a great part of the religious books in our language, and to introduce inextricable confusion in all attempts to quote the Bible.

The first translation of the Old Testament was made about the year 270 before the Christian era. It was made at Alexandria, in Egypt, into the Greek language, and probably for the use of the Jews, who were scattered among pagan nations. Ancient writers inform us, indeed, that it was made at the command of Ptolemy Philadelphus, to be deposited in the Library at Alexandria. It bears internal marks of having been made by different individuals, and no doubt at different times. It came to be extensively used in Judea, and no small part of the quotations in the New Testament were taken from it. There is no doubt that the apostles were familiar with it; and as it had obtained general currency, they chose to quote it rather than translate the Hebrew for themselves. It is called the Septuagint, or the version by the Seventy, from a tradition that seventy elders of Israel, deputed for that purpose, were employed in making the translation.

The language Spoken by our Saviour and his apostles was a corruption of the Hebrew, a mixture of that and the language spoken in Chaldee, called Syro-Chaldaic, or more commonly the Syriac. The reason why the New Testament was not written in this language was, that the Greek had become the common language used throughout the eastern nations subject to the Romans. This general use of the Greek language was produced by the invasion and conquest of those nations by Alexander the Great, about 330 years before Christ. The New Testament was, however, early translated into the Syriac language. A translation is now extant in that language, held in great veneration by Syrian Christians, said to have been made in the first century, or in the age of the apostles, and acknowledged by all to have been made before the close of the second century.

About the beginning of the fourth century, the Bible was translated into Latin by Jerome. This translation was made in consequence, as he says, of the incorrectness of a version then in use, called the Italic. The translation made by Jerome, now called the Latin Vulgate, is the authorized version of the church of Rome. [For an account of this version, Is 1:1.]

The Bible was translated by Luther in the beginning of the Reformation. This translation has done much to fix the German language, and is now the received version among the Lutheran churches.

There have been many other translations of the Bible, and there are many more still in progress. More than one hundred and fifty translations of the whole Bible, or parts of it, have been made during the last half century. Those which have been mentioned, together with the English, have been, however, the principal, and are most relied on as faithful exhibitions of the meaning of the sacred Scriptures.

The English translation of the Bible now in use was made in the reign of James I. This translation was intended only as an improvement of those previously in existence. A short account of the translation of the Bible into our own language cannot fail to be interesting.

It is not easy to ascertain the precise time when the gospel was introduced into Britain, or when the inhabitants were first in possession of the Bible. The earliest version of which we have any account is a translation of the Psalms into the Saxon language, about the year 706. But the principal translation at that early period was made by the "venerable Bede," about the year 730. He translated the whole Bible into the Saxon language.

The first English translation of the Bible was executed about the year 1290 by some unknown individual. About the year 1380, John Wickliffe, the morning star of the Reformation, translated the entire Bible into English from the Latin. The great labour and expense of transcribing books, before the invention of printing, probably prevented a very extensive circulation of the Scriptures among the people. [So great was the expense of transcribing the Bible at that time, that the price of one of Wickliffe's New Testaments was not less than forty pounds sterling, or one hundred and seventy-six dollars and seventy- eight cents of our money. And it should be matter of devout gratitude to God that, by the art of printing, the New Testament can now be obtained for the trifling sum of ten cents, and the entire Bible for twenty-five]. Yet the translation of Wickliffe is known to have produced a vast effect on the minds of the people. Knowledge was beginning to be sought for with avidity. The eyes of the people were beginning to open to the abominations of the church of Rome; and the national mind was preparing for the great change which followed in the days of Luther. So deep was the impression made by Wickliffe's' translation, and so dangerous was it thought to be to the interest of the Romish religion, that a bill was brought into the House of Lords for the purpose of suppressing it. The bill was rejected through the influence of the Duke of Lancaster; and this gave encouragement to the friends of Wickliffe to publish a more correct translation of the Bible. At a convocation, however, held at Oxford, in 1408, it was decreed that no one should translate any text of the Holy Scripture into English, by way of a book, or little book, or tract; and that no book of this kind should be read that was composed in the time of John Wickliffe, or since his death. This decree led the way to a great persecution; and many persons were punished severely, and some even with death, for reading the Bible in English. The Bible translated by Wickliffe was never printed. Some years since the New Testament was printed in England.

For the first printed English translation of the Scriptures we are indebted to William Tindal. He printed this translation at Antwerp, in Flanders; and the copies were brought thence into England. So great was the opposition to this by the Roman Catholic clergy, that the Bishop of London endeavoured to buy up whole editions as fast as they were printed, to burn them. This effort, however, produced little effect. Copies of the New Testament were multiplied. It is said that, on one occasion, Sir Thomas More, then chancellor of England, asked how Tindal contrived to maintain himself abroad. To which it was replied that the Bishop of London supported him by purchasing the Scriptures as fast as they could be printed.

In 1535, the whole Bible, translated into English, was printed in folio, and dedicated to the king, by Miles Coverdale. This was the first English translation of the Bible allowed by royal authority.

Various editions and translations of the Scriptures, with various degrees of correctness, were printed in successive years, till, in 1568, the edition appeared which was called "the Bishop's Bible," or "the great English Bible." This was prepared by royal authority. It was the work of much care. Different learned men undertook to translate different parts of the Bible, and after these persons had been carefully compared, the whole was printed, and directed to be used as an authorized English translation of the Scriptures. This, after being reprinted many times, and after being in use for half an century, was succeeded by the translation at present in use.

* The following is a specimen of this translation:-
=======================================================================
Matthew, chap. v.--And Jhesus seynge the people, went up into an hil;
and whanne he was sett, his disciplis camen to him. And he openyde his
mouthe, and taughte them; and seide, Blessid be pore men in spirit; for
the kyngdom of hevenes is hereun [theirs]. Blessid ben mylde men: for
thei schulen weelde the erthe. Blessid ben thei that mournen: for thei
schal be comfortid. Blessid be thei that hungten and thirsten
rightwisnesse [Rightfulnesse, MS, plures]: for thei schal be fulfilled.
Blessid ben merciful men: for thei schul gete mercy. Blessid ben
thei that ben of clene herte: for thei schulen se god. Blessid ben
pesible men: for thei schulen be clepid goddis children. Blessid ben thei
that surften persecucioun for rightwisnesse: for the kyngdom of hevenes
is hern. Ye schul be blessid whanne men schul curse you, and schul pursue
you: and schul seye al yvel agens you liynge for me. Joie ye and be ye
glade:for your meede is plenteous in hevenes: for so thei hah pursued
also prophets that weren bifore you. Ye ben salt of the erthe, that if
the salt vanishe awey wherynne schal it be salted? to nothing it is worth
over, no but it be cast out, and be defoulid of men. Ye ben light of the
world, a citee sett on an hil may not be hid. Ne me teendith not a
lanterne and puttith it under a bushel; but on a candlesfik that it give
light to alle that ben in the hous. So, schyne your light bifore men,
that thei see youre gode workis, and glorifie your fadir that is in
hevenes. Nyle ghe deme that I cam to undo the Lawe or the prophets, I cam
not to undo the lawe but to fulfille. Forsothe I sey to you till
hevene and erthe passe, oon lettre, or oon title, schal not passe fro the
Lawe till alle thingis be don. Therefore he that brekith oon of these
leeste maundementis, and techith thus men, sehal be clepid the Leest in
the rewme of hevenes; but he that doth, and techith, schal be clepid
greet in the kyngdom of hevenes.--Baber's Edition.
=======================================================================

As this is in many respects, the most important of all English translations of the sacred Scriptures, it is proper to dwell more fully . on the circumstances under which it was made.

It was undertaken by the authority of King James I. of England. He came to the throne in 1603. Several objections having been made to the "Bishop's Bible," then in general use, he ordered a new translation to be made. This work he committed to fifty-four men; but before the translation was commenced, seven of them had either died, or had declined the task, so that it was actually accomplished by forty-seven. All of them were eminently distinguished for their piety, and for their profound acquaintance with the original languages. This company of eminent men was divided into six classes, and to each class was allotted a distinct part of the Bible to be translated. "Ten were to meet at Westminster, and to translate from Genesis to the end of the second book of Kings. Eight assembled at Cambridge, and were to translate the remaining historical books, the Psalms, Job, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes. At Oxford, seven were to translate the four greater Prophets, the Lamentations of Jeremiah, and the twelve minor Prophets. The four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Revelation, were assigned to another company of eight at Oxford; and the Epistles were allotted to a company of seven at Westminster. Lastly, another company at Cambridge were to translate the Apocrypha."

To these companies the king gave instructions to guide them in their work, of which the following is the substance:-

The Bishop's Bible, then used, to be followed, and to be altered as little as the original would permit.

The names of the sacred writers to be retained as they were commonly used.

When a word had different significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the fathers, and most eminent writers.

No alteration to be made in the chapters and verses. No marginal notes to be affixed, except to explain the Greek and Hebrew words that could not be briefly and fitly explained in the text. Reference to parallel places to be set down in the margin.

Each man of a company to take the same chapters, and translate them according to the best of his abilities; and when this was done, all were to meet together and compare their translations, and agree which should be regarded as correct.

Each book, when thus translated and approved, to be sent to every other company for their approbation.

Besides this, the translators were authorized, in cases of great difficulty, to send letters to any learned men in the kingdom to obtain their opinions.

In this manner the Bible was translated into English. In the first instance, each individual translated each book allotted to his company. Secondly, the readings to be adopted were agreed upon by that company assembled together. The book thus finished was sent to each of the other companies to be examined. At these meetings one read the English, and the rest held in their hands some Bible, of Hebrew, Greek, Latin, French, Spanish, etc. If they found any fault, says Selden, they spoke; if not, he read on.

The translation was commenced in 1607, and completed in about three years. At the end of that time, three copies of it were sent to London. Here a committee of six reviewed the work, which was afterwards reviewed by Dr. Smith, who wrote the preface, and by Dr. Bilson. It was first printed, in 1611, at London, by Robert Barker.

From this account, it is clear that no ordinary care was taken to furnish to English readers a correct translation of the sacred Scriptures. No translation of the Bible was ever made under more happy auspices; and it would now be impossible to furnish another translation in our language under circumstances so propitious. Whether we contemplate the number, the learning, or the piety of the men employed in it; the cool deliberation with which it was executed; the care taken that it should secure the approbation of the most learned men, in a country that embosomed a vast amount of literature; the harmony with which they conducted their work; or the comparative perfection of the translation, we see equal cause of gratitude to the great Author of the Bible that we have so pure a translation of his word.

From this time the English language became fixed. More than two hundred years have elapsed, and yet the simple and majestic purity and power of the English tongue is expressed in the English translation of the Bible, as clearly as when it was given to the world. It has become the standard of our language; and nowhere can the purity and expressive dignity of this language be so fully found as in the sacred Scriptures.

The friends of this translation have never claimed for it inspiration or infallibility. Yet it is the concurrent testimony of all who are competent to express an opinion, that no translation of the Bible into any language has preserved so faithfully the sense of the original as the English. Phrases there may be, and it is confessed there are, which modern criticism has shown not to express all the meaning of the original; but as a whole, it indubitably stands unrivalled. Nor is it probable that any translation can now supply its place, or improve upon its substantial correctness. The fact that it has, for two hundred years, poured light into the minds of millions, and guided the steps of generation after generation in the way to heaven, has given to it somewhat of the venerableness which appropriately belongs to a book of God. Successive ages may correct some of its few un- important errors; may throw light on some of its obscure passages; but, to the consummation of all things, it must stand, wherever the English language is spoken, as the purest specimen of its power to give utterance to the meaning of ancient tongues, and of the simple and pure majesty of the language which we speak.

These remarks are made, because it is easy for men who dislike the plain doctrines of the Bible, and for those ignorant of the true history of its translation, to throw out insinuations of its unfaithfulness. From various quarters, from men opposed to the clear doctrines of the Scriptures, are often heard demands for a new translation.

We by no means assert the entire infallibility, much less the inspiration, of the English translation of the Bible. Yet, of its general faithfulness to the original there can be no doubt. It would be easy to multiply testimonies of the highest authority to this fact. But the general testimony of the world; the profound regard paid to it by men of the purest character and most extensive learning; the fact that it has warmed the hearts of the pious, ministered to the comforts of the wretched and the dying, and guided the steps of millions to glory, for two hundred years, and now commands the high regard of Christians of so many different denominations, evinces that it is, to no ordinary extent, faithful to the original, and has a claim on the continued regard of coming generations.

It is perfectly clear, also, that it would be impossible now to translate the Scriptures into the English language, under so favourable circumstances as attended the translation in the time of James I. No single set of men could so command the confidence of the Christian world; no convention who claim the Christian name could be formed, competent to the task, or if formed, could prosecute the work with harmony; no single denomination could make a translation that would secure the undisputed respect of others. The probability is, therefore, that while the English language is spoken, and as far as it is used, the English Bible Will continue to form their faith, and direct their lives; and that the words which now pour light into our minds will continue to illuminate the understandings, and mould the feelings, of unnumbered millions, in their park to immortal life.

Verses 2-16. Mt 1:3.

Verse 2.

(d) "begat Isaac" Gen 21:2-5 (e) "begat Judah" Gen 25:26

Albert Barnes (1834) · public domain