examples is now used with #pоowTоv as in Luke ix. 51. However in the Greek version of Ezekiel τηρίζω προσWTOV frequently occurs. Thus in ch. xxi. 2. spisov ωπον το προσωπου σε επι Ιερεσαλημ: and in ch, xxviii. 21. τηρισον το προσωπον σε επι Σιδωνα. In both these instances D, converte faciam tuam, is used in the Hebrew. 17. In Syriac the common meaning of ja isecce,' as of in Hebrew, and of ds in Greek: nor does it appear to be ever used in the sense of jam.' That the Syriac translator has used it in Luke xiii. 16. shews nothing more than that he took ds in its common acceptation. 18. A better example is in tos is used in the Greek, and 1 Kings xvii. 24. where inny in the Hebrew. The present is the most convenient place for the examination of a subject, which has lately engaged the attention of some of the most eminent German critics, namely, 'The origin of our three first Gospels." Our author himself, in the preceding chapter, has delivered his opinion, though without entering into any minute investigation. Indeed the principal publications on this subject have appeared since the year 1788, when the last edition of his Introduction was printed, and therefore he had not an opportunity of entering so deeply into it, as he otherwise would have done. But as the subject is of great importance, and has material influence on every other critical question relative to our canonical Gospels, I thought it an indispensable duty to institute a particular inquiry into it, which I have done in the Dissertation printed in the latter half of this volume, and which the reader is requested to peruse immediately, because frequent reference will be made to it in the Notes to the three following chapters. CHAPTER IV. OF ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. SECTION I. PAGE 96. 1. SEE Simonis Onomasticum Novi Testamenti (Halæ, 1762, 4to.) p. 107, 108. PAGE 97. 2. Not only in regard to the main point, but in regard likewise to all the concomitant circumstances, are the accounts, which are given in Matth. ix. 9—17. Mark ii. 13-22. Luke v. 27-39. precisely the same: and in the greatest part of the narrative St. Mark has even the same words, as St. Matthew. See the Dissertation on the Origin of our three first Gospels, First Division, Sect. 8. All three Evangelists agree in relating, immediately after the description of Christ's cure of a person afflicted with the palsy at Capernaum, (Matth. ix. 1-8. Mark ii. 1–12. Luke v. 17-26.) that Christ departed from the house where the paralytic person had been cured, and that seeing a certain collector of tribute, who was then engaged in the duties of his office, Christ invited him to become his disciple, that this collector of tribute accepted the invitation, that in consequence of his acceptance a repast was prepared, of which Christ and his disciples partook, that certain Pharisees to whom tax-gatherers were obnoxious, seeing Christ in such company, censured him on that account, and that Christ answered they who are whole need not a physician, but they who are sick.' Further, all three Evangelists agree in relating that some disciples of John the Baptist, who were accustomed to a more austere life, seeing Christ at an enter tainment, expressed their surprize at it, and that Christ answered them in the parable of the bridegroom, the parable of an old garment mended with new cloth, and the parable of old bottles filled with new wine. It is reasonable to suppose therefore, that all three Evangelists have recorded one and the same fact, and that, though they differ in respect to the name of the collector of tribute, they mean one and the same person. Now since both St., Mark and St. Luke agree in calling him Avis, we may conclude that was the name, which was written in the common Hebrew document, and that both St. Mark and St. Luke retained it without any alteration. St. Matthew, on the contrary, exchanged the name of " for that of ', not.because was a mistake in the original document, but probably because St. Matthew, after he was become a disciple of Christ, laid aside his former name, which would have instantly reminded the Jews of an occupation, which was offensive to them, and adopted a new one, in the same manner as the apostle Lebbæus adopted. the name of Thaddeus, John, the cousin of Barnabas, the name of Mark, and Saul altered his name to that of Paul. According to this representation Levi (or Levis) and Matthew were nothing more than different names of the same person, the former being that, which he bore, while he was collector of tribute, the latter the name which he afterwards assumed. In the original Hebrew document the name of " was ascribed to him in the place, where his invitation to the apostleship was described, because at that time he bore the name of Levi: and St. Mark and St. Luke retained. the name, which they found in the common Hebrew document, because, as they themselves were not Apostles, and had no connexion with St. Matthew, they either did not know, that St. Matthew had changed his name, or were not aware that the name, which they found in their common document, denoted the Apostle Matthew. But St. Matthew himself, as he had laid aside the name of " long before he wrote his Gospel, substituted the name, by which he was generally known at the time when he wrote. 3. If St. Matthew and Levi had been names of two different persons, and these two persons had been invited by Christ at the same time to become his disciples, it is very improbable that St. Matthew would have confined the whole narrative in such a manner to himself, as not to give even the most distant hint, that another person received, at the same time, a similar invitation. But if the omission of the name of Levi in St. Matthew's Gospel must appear extraordinary under these circumstances, what must we think of the omission of the name of Matthew in the place where St. Mark and St. Luke relate the call of Levi. Our author indeed endeavours, as will presently appear, to assign reasons, which might have induced these two Evangelists to relate the call of the one, and omit the call of the other. But his reasons are merely imaginary and if they were ever so well founded, they never could justify a designed omission, as his arguments imply, of the call of a person, who was received into the number of the twelve Apostles, and that too in the very place, where they relate the call of his supposed colleague. PAGE 98. 4. It is true that St. Mark (but not St. Luke) calls Levi the son of Alphæus: but that he was therefore a relation of Christ, is an inference, which we cannot make, unless we take for granted, 1st, that Alphæus, mentioned Mark ii. 14. as the father of Levi, was the same Alphæus, who is mentioned as the father of James the Apostle, Matth. x. 3. Mark iii. 18. Luke vi. 15. and 2dly, that James the Apostle, son of Alphæus, was the same James, who is mentioned Matth. xiii. 55. and there called one of Christ's brethren, (adeλpo) This is the only mode of reasoning, by which a relationship can be made out between Levi and Christ: and if these two just mentioned positions could be proved to be true, it would follow that Levi was a brother of James the Less, as he is called, and a relation of Christ. But the first of them it is at least difficult to prove; for we have not sufficient data, to determine the identity of the Alphæus mentioned in Mark ii. 14. with the Alphæus mentioned in Matth. x. 3, &c.: and the identity of the name is no argument for the identity of the person, since various persons, who lived in Galilee, might have borne the name of Alphæus. Michaelis himself likewise has since abandoned the opinion that the Alphæus mentioned in Mark ii. 14. was the same as the Alphæus mentioned in Matth. x. 3, &c. as appears from what he says, on Mark ii. 14. in his Annotations on the three first Gospels, published in 1790. But even if their identity be granted, it will be of no use; for the other position not only cannot be proved to be true, but may be proved to be false. For none of Christ's brethren believed in him, at least not at the time when he chose his twelve Apostles, since it is expressly said in John vii. 5. Ουδε γαρ οἱ αδελφοι αυτό επιτευον εις αυτόν : and that the twelve Apostles had been already chosen at that time appears from what Christ says a few verses before (John vi. 70.), ουδε εγω ύμας τις δώδεκα εξελεξάμην, K. T.λ. See also Mark iii. 21. 31. But if none of Christ's brethren believed in him, none of them could have become an Apostle and therefore the James, who is mentioned, Matth. xiii. as one of Christ's brethren (adeλpoi) cannot be the Apostle James, the son of Al(αδελφοι) phæus. It cannot be objected, that the word adeλpoç has a different meaning in John vii. 5. from that which it has in Matth. xiii. 55. and that in one place it must be taken in a remote, in the other in its proper sense; for this would be to adopt a mere arbitrary interpretation, in order to support a previously assumed opinion. 5. Though St. Mark and St. Luke relate that the entertainment was given in the house of Levi, we cannot conclude that it was not given in the house of St, Matthew, without being guilty of a petitio principii, |