II. The Genuineness of Mt. i, ii
This problem can no longer be regarded as a burning question. Few scholars of the present day would contend that the First Gospel ever circulated without these chapters. In style, in vocabulary, and in mode of treatment, they are of a piece with the rest of the book.
(1) The literary style of the First Evangelist is not so marked as that of St. Luke, but it has nevertheless a distinct character of its own. As compared with that of St. Mark, it is “more prosaic and colourless”, but it is “more calm and balanced” (Milligan).[84] Prof. Burkitt describes it as follows: “I wish I could think of some other word than ‘formality’ by which to name the chief characteristic of the First Evangelist's literary style. Formality suggests rigidity, generally with a certain measure of incapacity, and these are not among his defects. On the contrary, Matthew has great literary skill, as well as dignity. Everything that he says is put with admirable clearness and lucidity; what he writes down he has first understood himself. If there is an exception to be noted he notes it” (GHT., p. 186). Now this same style is manifest everywhere throughout the Gospel, in cc. i, ii, as well as elsewhere.[85] The theory therefore that these chapters are a later insertion labours under an immense initial disadvantage. It requires to be explained how it is that this characteristic literary [pg 093] style is just as manifest in cc. i, ii as in the rest of the Gospel, in spite of the fact that the subject-matter of these chapters is peculiar and distinct.
(2) The Vocabulary and constructional forms of cc. i, ii are also characteristic of the Gospel as a whole. Burkitt (Evan. Da-Meph., ii, p. 259) instances eight words from these chapters as “characteristic Matthaean words”. These words are given below. The statistics have been obtained by tracing the record of the words in Moulton and Geden's Concordance (doubtful cases and quotations being omitted).
| Instances in Mt. i, ii. | Instances in Mt. iii-xxviii. | Instances in the rest of the NT. | |
| ἀναχωρεῖν | 4 | 6 | 4 |
| λεγόμενος (with names) | 2 | 11 | Mk. (1), Lk. (2), Jn. (8), Ac. (2), Pl. (4), Heb. (1). |
| ὄναρ | 5 | 1 | 0 |
| πληροῦσθαι | 4 | 8 | 13 |
| ῥηθέν | 4 | 8 | 0 |
| σφόδρα | 1 | 6 | 4 |
| τότε | 3 | 86 | 67 |
| φαίνεσθαι | 4 | 9 | 9 |
In addition to the list given by Burkitt, we may note also the following:
| Instances in Mt. i, ii. | Instances in Mt. iii-xxviii. | Mt, as compared with the rest of the NT. | |
| παραλαμβάνειν | 6 | 10 | 1/3 of NT. Record. |
| προσκυνεῖν | 3 | 9 | 1/4 of NT. |
| προσφέρειν | 1 | 13 | 1/3 of NT. |
| συνάγειν | 1 | 23 | 2/5 of NT. |
| ὅριον | 1 | 5 | 1/2 of NT. |
| θησαυρός | 1 | 8 | 1/2 of NT. |
| δῶρον | 1 | 8 | 1/2 of NT. |
| ἐπάνω | 1 | 7 | 2/5 of NT. |
| χρυσός | 1 | 4 | 1/2 of NT. |
Other words which repay examination are κατοικεῖν, ὅπως, ἐνθυμέομαι, ἐξετάζω, τελευτάω.
The argument is not, of course, that no one but the First Evangelist could have used these words—that would be absurd; but that they are words which he uses frequently, and in nearly every case more frequently than any other New Testament writer.[86]
An interesting fact is instanced by W. C. Allen (op. cit., p. lxxxvi). He notes as a characteristic of the Gospel “a tendency to repeat a phrase or construction two or three times at short intervals”. Fifteen examples of this are given, one of which occurs in Mt. ii. This last is an instance in which the genitive absolute is followed in three cases by ἰδού (ii. 1, 13, 19). We may add that the same construction appears in i. 20. Sir J. C. Hawkins shows (HS., 2nd Ed., pp. 5, 31) that there are seven instances of this construction in the rest of Mt., as compared with a single case in Lk. One other detail of construction may be noted. More than half the New Testament record of ἕως ἄν with the subjunctive (which occurs in ii. 13) belongs to the First Gospel.