Of his earlier theory of translation by Matthew, Davidson justly says:  “It is easy to perceive its gratuitous character.  It is a clumsy expedient, devised for the purpose of uniting two conflicting opinions—­for saving the credit of ancient testimony, which is on the side of a Hebrew original, and of meeting, at the same time, the difficulties supposed to arise from the early circulation of the Greek....  The advocates of the double hypothesis go in the face of ancient testimony.  Besides, they believe that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, for the use of Jewish converts.  Do they also suppose his Greek Gospel to have been intended for the same class?  If so, the latter was plainly unnecessary:  one Gospel was sufficient for the same persons.  Or do they believe that the second edition of it was designed for Gentile Christians? if so, the notion is contradicted by internal evidence, which proves that it was written specially for Jews.  In short, the hypothesis is wholly untenable, and we are surprised that it should have found so many advocates” ("Introduction to the New Testament,” p. 52).  The fact is, that no one knows who was the translator—­or, rather, the writer—­of the Greek Gospel.  Jerome honestly says that it is not known who translated it into Greek.  Dr. Davidson has the following strange remarks:  “The author indeed must ever remain unknown; but whether he were an apostle or not, he must have had the highest sanction in his proceeding.  His work was performed with the cognisance, and under the eye of Apostolic men.  The reception it met with proved the general belief of his calling, and competency to the task.  Divine superintendence was exercised over him” (Ibid, pp. 72, 73).  It is difficult to understand how Dr. Davidson knows that divine superintendence was exercised over an unknown individual.  Dr. Giles argues against the hypothesis that our Greek Gospel is a translation:  “If St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, why has the original perished?  The existing Greek text is either a translation of the Hebrew, or it is a separate work.  But it cannot be a translation, for many reasons, 1.  Because there is not the slightest evidence on record of its being a translation. 2.  Because it is unreasonable to believe that an authentic work—­written by inspiration—­would perish, or be superseded by, an unauthenticated translation—­for all translations are less authentic than their originals. 3.  Because there are many features in our present Gospel according to St. Matthew, which are common to the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke; which would lead to the inference that the latter are translations also.  Besides, there is nothing in the Gospel of St. Matthew, as regards its style or construction, that would lead to the inference of its being a translation, any more than all the other books contained in the New Testament.  For these reasons we conclude that the ‘Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew,’ which perhaps no one has seen since Pantaenus, who