THE READERS FOR WHOM MATTHEW WROTE HIS OOSPEL. 191 



gelists were always regarded in early days as forming one Gospel. 

 I do not myself see why those who spread Christianity in the East 

 should require a written Gospel earlier than those who spread it 

 in the West. 



I agree with Dr. Thomson in the reasons he has given for the 

 earliest preachers not requiring any written account of our Lord's 

 life, but should think these applied to those who worked in the East 

 as well as to those in the West. 



I think that the only way in which the verbal similarities in the 

 synoptic Gospels coupled with their divergencies can be explained 

 is by supposing that these three Evangelists made use of a common 

 oral tradition. In days when much writing and reading have per- 

 manently impaired our capacity for memorizing, we are unable to 

 realize how readily the ipsissima verba of long narratives were in 

 those days retained in the memory. 



St. Matthew, from his former occupation of tax-gatherer, was 

 probably the most accustomed to writing among the Apostles, and 

 therefore, the preparation of a Gospel for the Eastern Christians 

 would more naturally fall to him than any other of the Twelve. 



I must say that the lecturer has not convinced me that St. Peter 

 wrote (or dictated) his first Epistle at Babylon. I agree with Dr. 

 Hort and Professor Ramsay that this Apostle lived for several 

 years at least after the death of St. Paul, and wrote his E"pistle 

 at a time when the book of Revelation may have been already 

 current ; or i1 not, at a time when Rome was already known in 

 Christian circles as Babylon. I think the early tradition of St. 

 Peter in connection with Rome, however distorted, could not be 

 wholly without foundation, and I should judge from the districts 

 mentioned in his first Epistle that his labours had not been carried 

 so far east as Babylon. 



I do not quite understand why Dr. Thomson speaks of the Sinaitic 

 Palimpsest discovered by Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Gibson as a copy of 

 the Curetonian recension. I thought it was generally regarded as 

 older than what Dr. Cureton published. 



As regards the name "kingdom of heaven." I think it is based 

 on Daniel iv. 26, " after thou hast known that the heavens do 

 rule," and sets forth the acceptance on earth of the rule of heaven, 

 which is at present confined to those who acknowledge the One 

 seated at the right hand of the throne of the majesty in the heavens 

 (Heb. viii. 1) as their Lord and Master. It is important to notice 

 that even in Matthew's record, our Lord changed the name to the 

 Kingdom of God when He was speaking of the time then present 

 while He was on earth (xii. 28), and also when He was speaking 

 of the privilege and blessing of the Kingdom (xxi. 43). Our 

 lecturer has overlooked these instances in saying that Matthew 

 invariably uses the title " kingdom of the heavens." 



