In all the lists of the apostles
in the New Testament Matthew appears as one of
the Twelve, in Mark and Luke occupying the seventh
place, in
Matthew and the Acts the eighth. By
the appellative "publican"
(
In the early Church the authorship of the first Gospel was universally ascribed to
Matthew. The tradition of apostolical authorship
arose very early, and that
Gospel was the chief
source used by the Apostolic Fathers,
i. External while Papias is expressly quoted as
Testimony. asserting the Matthean origin ("So
then Matthew wrote the logia in the
Hebrew language, and every one
interpreted them
as he was able," Eusebius, Hist. eccl., III., xxxix. 16;
NPNF, 2 ser., i. 173).
By the assertion that
the logia were in the Hebrew was meant not the
classical Hebrew of the Old Testament, but the dialect of Syriac which was the mother tongue of Matthew and of Jesus, and he implies
that the translations (into Greek) are more numerous than could
be desired because inaccurate. With this sentence
of Papias, then, begins the external testimony to
the authorship of the first Gospel. Later writers
never contradict Papias but rather copy or corroborate him (Eusebius,
Hist. eccl., III., xxiv. 6, V., viii. 2, VI., xxv. 4).
The fact of a Hebrew
Matthew receives confirmation from still another
source. And by this is meant neither what is related in the Apocryphal Acts of Barnabas (Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten, ii.
2, pp. 270 sqq., 291 sqq.) concerning the finding of an auto-
|
253 |
Since the Reformation belief in a Hebrew Matthew has been badly shaken. The originality of the Greek was a fundamental proposition with the Reformers. A reaction against this dogmatic assertion came in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when emphasis was laid 3. Criticism upon indications of translation in the
versus Greek and attempts were made to reTradition., construct the Aramaic basis. These attempts were destined to failure .for two reasons: (1) the canonical Gospel in its present form can not be the work of an apostle like Matthew who was an eye and ear witness of Jesus, since legend, misunderstanding, and irrelevancy are too prominent; (2) it is too closely dependent upon Mark not merely in choice of matter and arrangement but in verbal detail. Conservative criticism has sought to minimize the weight of these two sets of facts by supposing that the translator of the Hebrew Matthew had the Gospel of Mark before him and was influenced by it in him translation. But the identity of the present Matthew with the assumed Hebrew is no longer maintained, a "relationship" simply is asserted, and this, unfortunately, is no easier to establish than identity. Truly, many foolish arguments against the apostolicity of Matthew have been advanced which it is not neoessary to refute, particularly those drawn from comparison with the Fourth Gospel and from the first two chapters and the story of the temptation. But many of the additions to the Synoptic story of the passion bear the marks of invention which in some cases can be traced to a tendency to shift the weight of blame for Christ's death, and other episodes are suspicious, such as the opening of the graves (xxvii. 52-53). Similarly, such passages as xii. 40 are hardly to be attributed to a disciple, and a clear exposition of the consciousness of Jesus might be looked for from an apostle.
The relation between Matthew and Mark is to tally destructive of tradition. Under the Tübingen hypothesis that Mark was a condensation from Matthew and Luke, both sources of Mark were carried back to apostolic origination. Since that hypothesis has been given up, those who hold the priority of Matthew over Mark do it at the expense of the tradition respecting both, while 3. The Zahn supposes that Mark, the disciple Sources. of Peter, writing in Greek slavishly used the Hebrew Matthew, while the translator of the latter in turn used the Greek Mark. But comparison of Matthew and Mark and of Luke and, Mark show that Mark is the earlier, since Mat thew and Luke introduce corrections and explana tions. On the other hand, passages show inde pendent treatment by Matthew, as in chap. xiii., where Matthew, though following the thread of the Marcan chain of parables, makes additions. If Matthew, therefore, appears as the work of an author comparatively distant from the events he narrates and also dependent upon Mark for form and content, it can no longer be ascribed to the Apostle Matthew writing in Hebrew. Still, the Papias tradition may have a kernel of fact. For while Matthew is in great part parallel to Mark, it contains large and important portions not derived from the second Gospel. Such are chaps. i.-ii., v.-vii., x., parts of xxiii.-xxv., many of the parables, and bits of history like viii. 5-13; and in these matters Matthew is often in company with Luke. But since this close relationship between Matthew and Luke is limited to definite sections while in other parts the relation of dependence is out of the question, the solution can not be reached by the hypothesis of combination between Matthew and Luke, and there is left the supposition that these two Gospels employed another source besides Mark. It is the misfortune of the two-document theory that it has been bound up with a perverted explanation of Papias and with the supposed tradition that Matthew wrote only the words (logfa) of Jesus. In fact, it is one of the surest results of a criticism unencumbered by tradition and using internal evidences that it brings into use a lost writing which deals with the words of Jesus. That there were in existence col lections of logia is shown by the Oxyrhynchus fragments (cf. B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt, Logaa Jesu, London, 1897). The usage of Paul (I Tbess. iv. 15) and of the Gospels themselves in not always giving the historical framework of individual say ings or in differing in the historical setting supports the hypothesis of a logia source, and it is clear from comparison of Matthew and Luke that this source had formulas of introduction which both Gospels have employed. This document may have con tained many things which it is now impossible to prove were in it. It can not be decided whether Mark employed it; it is improbable, however, that|
254 |
An examination of the material does not permit the assertion that the compiler had in mind a sharply defined plan which included division into six or five or three parts, only that he gathered similar materials into great groups and left it.to be discovered what was his point of view in the arrange ment. The time idea is dominant in chaps. i. ii., xxvi.-xxviii., and in part also in iii. 4. Content, xxv. The connectives also give an Structure, impression of attention to chronology. and Purpose. But all this is only the employment of a literary form which is merely external. Thus, after a painting of Jesus' deeds (iv. 17-25) the Gospel illustrates his method of teaching (v.1-7, 27), and then exhibits him as a helper in every kind of need by adducing ten examples of his instruction. It is more difficult to expound the difference between ix. 35 and xx. 34. The apostle shows first how Jesus educated the disciples to assist in his work of evangelization by showing the necessity of help (ix. 35-38), and sketched the plan of operations (x. 5-42), though elsewhere in the Gospel, in spite of these earlier lessons, he is engaged in showing how to do the work; second, Jesus finds himself hindered by the dulness of the masses, for whom he adopts the method of teaching by parables (chaps. ai., xiii., xv-, xxi., sqq.); third, he combats Phari saic obtuseness and prejudice (xii. 1-14, xii. 22 sqq., xv- 1-20). One may say that ix. 35-xviii. 35 (or sx. 34) contains the transition from the first period of success to the turning away of Jesus from the crude people and the fanatical Pharisees to the little flock of devoted and true disciples. Of the purpose of this Gospel two opposing views have been held. One regards it as expressing a narrow type of Jewish Christianity, interested in the Davidic descent of Jesus, in the eternal worth of the law, and in prophecy (v. 17-20, x. 6, Md. 2-7); the other sees in Matthew an anti-Jewish and anti Judaistic tendency, especially in viii. 10-12, xii. 41-42, xv. 28, xxvii. 22-23, 25. Zahn thinks that Matthew wished his book to be read especially by Jews as yet unconverted. But this book was intended rather for the faithful, to whom it was meant to prove that in Jesus were realized the prophecies and promises of the Old Testament. It is not a narrative produced for the delights of author ship, nor a polemic writing against unbelieving Israel; it is a positive justification of the Gospel of Christ, the strong apologetics of which is directed
less against antagonistic reproach than against particular doubts, and least of all against heretical parties. Thus, the genealogy, arranged in three parts of fourteen steps each, from Abraham to David and then to Jechonias, is intended to prove that with the birth of Jesus a new era had begun. Moreover, in its closing words it is distinctively universalistic; and it recognizes that outside of Christ there is no salvation (xxv. 1-13).
While nothing further can be said of the author than that he was a Jewish Christian, acquainted with both Hebrew and Greek, a resident of Palestine and acquainted with numerous written and oral sources, there yet remains the task of setting his date. If Matthew was the author, g. Date the date would be not far from 70 A.D. and Value. Passages like x. 23, xvi. 28 echo the earliest period of Christianity, and x. 18 does not contradict this impression. For a time later than 70 A.D. speaks xxii. 7, but how much later? The reign of Trajan (98-117 A.D.) is the latest date allowable because of the testimony of Papias. If Luke is dependent upon Matthew, the date must be put prior to 100 A.D. The trini tarian formula (xxviii. 19) does not presume a very early date; xxiv. 25 does not seem to express immediate expectation of the parousia; the impres sion of development of the Church is quite marked, suggesting a date later than 75 A.D.; and there is no trace of a conflict such as Paul waged with the idea of the Jewish law as a principle of salvation. Argument as to the date derived from the amount of textual corruption as compared with the other Gospels is inconclusive, because the wide diffusion of the Matthew Gospel in the early Church gave larger opportunities for corruption. Distinction between a proto- and a deutero-Matthew does not seem justified in view of the unity of the book in its dogmatic, literary, and religious character istics. The regard in which the book was held in the early Church as compared with the popularity of Mark and Luke (the Gospel of John is so different in genius as not to come into comparison) is due to the fact that it expresses the spirit of the early Catholic Church, while the other Synoptics are more individualistic in character. The material is rich, derived from good sources, effectively and strongly presented, and the literary method preserves the mean between inartistic hardness and artificial plainness. And in neither of the other Synoptics does the figure of Jesus so stand out as teacher and helper as in this of Matthew. For the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew see Apocrypha, B, I., 2.
Bibliography: On the apostle the articles in the dictionaries, eg., DB, ii. 295-296; EB, iii . 2986-87; E. C. A. Riehm, Handw6rterbuch des biblischen Al&rtuma, pp. 976-977, Leipsic, 1894; F. Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de la Bible, Paris, 1905.
Questions of introduction are treated in the commentaries (below), in the works on New-Testament introduction (see Biblical Introduction), especially those of Godet, Holtzmann, Jülicher, and Zahn; much of the literature on the life of Christ discusses the subject; the literature on the Synoptic relations is given under Gospels. Note may be made here of the following special
works: J. H. Scholten Das dlteate Evamelium, Elberfeld, 1869; P. Schanz, in TQ, lxiv (1882), 517-560; E. Massebieau, Examen dee cifations de l'Araeien Tmament Wang . . . 3. MaMieu, Paris, 1885; A, B, Bruce, With Open Fax.
|
255 |
| Calvin College. Last modified on 08/11/06. Contact the CCEL. |  |