THE READERS FOR WHOM MATTHEW WROTE HIS GOSPEL. 199 



With what Rev. J. J. B. Coles says I am in agreement. 



I value the agreement which Col. Mackinlay expresses to some 

 extent with my thesis, from his careful study of the Gospel of 

 Luke. However, it is the points in which we differ that I have 

 at present to consider. My acquaintance with bi-ligualism is with 

 it as it appears in the Scottish Highlands. The example of our 

 Premier is very pertinent. I may have been unguarded in my state- 

 ment in regard to the book of Esther, but my reference was to 

 Haman's statement (Esther iii. 8), in which he calls the Jews " a 

 certain people scattered abroad and dispersed in all provinces of 

 thy kingdom." One need not be anxious to maintain Haman's 

 accuracy. I venture to doubt Col. Mackinlay's statement that the 

 Magi were probably Jews. The Jews would not desire to be 

 reckoned Magians, nor would the Magians receive them. They 

 were a hereditary priesthood. 



In Rev. Mr. Marsh's remarks, I am interested, but do not 

 find anything to answer. 



To Mr. Sidney Collett's objection that there is too much hypo- 

 thesis and tradition about my theory, I would recall him to what 

 I say on page 178. that Papias' evidence really makes the view 

 that Matthew wrote in Hebrew and was the primary Gospel as 

 much history as is the belief that Marathon was a Persian defeat, 

 In regard to my saying that St. Peter corrected Matthew, I do 

 not know how Mr. CoUett would explain how Matthew (x. 10) 

 represents our Lord forbidding "staves" rahdous in Receptus 

 (Shahta, Feshitta), while Mark says, " Save a staff only." Again, 

 Matthew says our Lord forbids shoes, " sandals," that is, whereas 

 in Mark the Apostles are bidden to be shod with " sandals." These 

 differences have all the appearance of being corrections. There are 

 many other cases of similar phenomena. If Paul might correct 

 Peter's conduct, (Gal. ii. 11) surely Peter might correct Matthew's 

 statements. 



I welcome Mr. Hoste's testimony in regard to the authenticity 

 of Daniel. It is glaringly unlikely that the Jews of our Lord's 

 day would accept as ancient a book forged so recently as the days 

 of the Maccabeans. 



I am afraid I cannot agree with Mr. Avary Forbes in believing 

 that Greek was generally known east of the Euphrates. I have in 

 this matter the authority of Dr. Burkitt on my side. He declares 

 that the barrier of language is the main reason why we know so little 

 of the history of the Eastern Church. It is quite true that Alex- 

 ander wished to cause an amalgamation of races when he promoted 

 marriages between his soldiers and Persian women. This would 

 not tend to spread Greek. The children of such marriages would 

 speak Persian. A case in point is to be found in Canada. Early 

 last century, a number of Scotch Highland soldiers were placed in 

 lower Canada as colonists. They married French-Canadian wives. 

 Their descendants now all speak French, and are Romanists. 



