7rcTIX1xP

The Second Lesson: The Mystery of the Virgin Birth.943
In support of their idea, as above stated, they call attention to the fact that
the New Testament writings, known to Biblical students as the oldest and
earliest, make no mention of the idea; and that Paul ignores it completely,
as well as the other writers; (3) that the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke
bear internal evidences of the introduction of the story at a later date. This
matter we shall now consider, from the point of view of the Higher Criticism
within the body of the Church.
In the first place, let us consider the Gospel of St. Matthew. The majority of
people accept this as having been written by St. Matthew, with his own hand,
during his ministry; and that the Gospel, word for word, is the work of this
great apostle. This idea, however, is not held for a moment by the educated
clergy, as may be seen by a reference to any prominent theological work of
late years, or even in the pages of a good encyclopedia. The investigators
have made diligent researches concerning the probable authorship of
the New Testament books and their reports would surprise many faithful
church-goers who are not acquainted with the facts of the case. There is
no warrant, outside of tradition and custom, for the belief that Matthew
wrote the Gospel accredited to him, at least in its present shape. Without
going deeply into the argument of the investigators (which may be found
in any recent work on the History of the Gospels) we would say that the
generally accepted conclusion now held by the authorities is that the Gospel
commonly accredited to St. Matthew is the work of some unknown hand or
hands, which was produced during the latter part of the first century a.d.,
written in Greek, and most likely an enlargement or elaboration of certain
Aramaic writings entitled, “Sayings of Jesus,” which are thought to have been
written by Matthew himself. In other words, even the most conservative of
the critics do not claim that the Gospel of St. Matthew is anything more than
an enlargement, elaboration or development of Matthew’s earlier writings,
written many years before the elaboration of the present “Gospel.” The more
radical critics take an even less respectful view. This being the fact, it may be
readily seen how easy it would have been for the latter-day “elaborator” to