to have Hebrew words interpreted to them. Thus he
interprets "Immanuel" (i. 23), "Golgotha" (xxvii. 33), and the words of
our Lord on the cross (xxvii. 46). The numerous quotations from the
Old Testament have for a long time exercised the ingenuity of scholars,
who have believed that they enable us to determine how the Gospel was
written. On the whole these quotations suggest two conclusions: (1)
That the evangelist knew both Greek and Aramaic, (2) that the Gospel is
not a mere translation from the Aramaic or Hebrew. Roughly speaking,
the quotations which St. Matthew has in common with the other
Synoptists are from the Greek (Septuagint) version of the Old
Testament, while those which are peculiar to his {37} Gospel show that
the Hebrew has been consulted. Altogether the quotations number 45.
Of these there are 11 which are texts quoted by the evangelist himself
to illustrate the Messianic work of our Lord, and 9 of the 11 seem to
imply a knowledge of Hebrew. They are i. 23; ii. 15, iv. 15-16, viii.
17, xii. 18-21; xiii. 14-15; xiii. 35b; xxi. 5; xxvii. 9, 10. The
other 34 texts comprise the quotations which are made in the discourses
of our Lord, and they are sometimes called context-quotations or cyclic
quotations, as coming in the cycle of discourses. Perhaps 6 or 7 of
these 34 texts imply a knowledge of the Hebrew. But it is certain that
this class of quotations is far nearer to the Septuagint than the other
class. This conclusion remains good in spite of the fact that even the
Messianic quotations show the influence of the Septuagint, _e.g._ in i.
23 the writer uses the Septuagint, inasmuch as the Greek word
translated "virgin" _necessarily_ implies the unique condition of the
mother of our Lord, whereas the corresponding Hebrew word does not
_necessarily_ imply the same condition. Now, it is plain that if the
Gospel had been translated from the Hebrew, the context-quotations
would probably have been as near to the Hebrew as the quotations made
by the evangelist himself. This is not the case. The quotations in
Matt. show that the writer knew Hebrew but wrote in Greek, and based
part of his work on a Greek document.

The fact that the Gospel was written in Greek does not prove that it
was not written in Palestine. It has been urged that it cannot have
been written in Palestine, because in ix. 26, 31 we find Palestine
called "_that_ land," but the phrase may refer only to a part of
Palestine, and there