644th ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING, 



Held in Committee Eoom B, 



THE CENTEAL HALL, WESTMINSTEE, S.W., on Monday, 

 May 29th, 1922, at 4.30 p.m. 



Theodore Eoberts, Esq., in the Chair. 



The Minutes of the previous Meeting were read, confirmed and signed 

 and the Hon. Secretary announced the election of the following as 

 Members : Albert Hiorth, Esq., C.E., Wilson Edwards Leslie, Esq., 

 and as Associate, David Smith Dow, Esq. 



The Chairman then announced that the Rev. J. E. H. Thomson, M*A., 

 D.D., the author of the paper, " The Readers for Whom Matthew wrote 

 his Hebrew Gospel/' had not been able to make it convenient to come 

 to town, and that Lieut. -Colonel F. A. Molony, O.B.E., would kindly 

 read it m his place. 



THE EEADEES FOE WHOM MATTHEW WEOTE HIS 

 HEBEEW GOSPEL. 



By THE Eev. J. E. H. Thomson, M.A., D.D. 

 It is universally admitted that external evidence is overwhelm- 

 ingly in favour of the traditional view that the earliest Gospel 

 w^as written by Matthew in Hebrew. Archdeacon Allen thus 

 sums up the case in the Introduction to his commentary on 

 Matthew (pp. Ixxix., Ixxx.) : " We have a uniform tradition in 

 the second century ... to the effect that the first Gospel was 

 written by Matthew, the Tollgatherer and Apostle, in Hebrew. 

 . . . This tradition is directly contradicted by the testimony of the 

 first Gospel itself." It is misleading to call this " tradition." 

 We do not say " there is a tradition that the Persians were 

 defeated at Marathon ' ' ; yet it was fought six years before Hero- 

 dotus, our earliest authority, was born. Papias, the earliest wit- 

 ness to the authorship of the first Gospel, was as near the probable 

 date of its composition as was Herodotus to the date of Marathon. 

 But the alleged contradiction of the evidence of history by the con- 

 tents of Matthew may be challenged. Archdeacon Allen in the 

 most painstaking way tabulates the differences between the first 

 and second Gospels ; in his argument he assumes throughout that 

 Matthew borrowed from Mark, and supplies somewhat vaguely 

 reasons why Matthew omitted words or clauses from Mark or 

 added them. He never considers the converse possibility that 



