Matthew, Apostle, Evangelist, Saint

MATTHEW, Apostle, Evangelist, Saint. - Author of the first Gospel.

I. THE APOSTLE

From the New Testament few particulars are known about M. The name, in the oldest Greek codices, is written Ματθαῖος, in the more recent ones Ματθαῖος, in the Vulgate Mattheus. The Aramaic original seems to be Mattaj (abbreviation of Matnaj, Mattanjáh) and means "gift of Jahweh"; others, with J. Knabenbauer, think of the root 'ēmeth, so that M. would mean "faithful." It is known from the Synoptics that his calling took place at Capharnaum (Mt. 9, 9-10). The parallel passages, Mk. 2, 13-14 and Lk. 5, 27-28, give the publican, called there by the name of Levi, and Mark adds his paternity: Levi son of Alphaeus. The analogous circumstances that in all three Synoptics precede the event (healing of the paralytic) and follow it (meal in the house of the convert, questions with the Pharisees and with the disciples of John the Baptist) lead one to conclude that the publican who was called had two Semitic names: M. and Levi. His father Alphaeus seems to be distinct from the namesake father of James the Less. In the catalogues of the Apostles, Mk. 3, 18 and Lk. 6, 15 place M. in seventh position, Mt. 10, 3 and Acts 1, 13 in the eighth. Nothing else of special note do the writings of the New Testament preserve about M.

From the tradition preserved by Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, 24, 6) it emerges that at first M. preached to the Hebrews of Palestine, for whom he composed his Gospel, and then went to other peoples. Which these other peoples were is uncertain. Rufinus thinks of Ethiopia (Hist. eccl., I, 9: PL 21,

478), St. Eucherius (Instruct. ad Salon., I, 2: PG 50, 809), Socrates (Hist. eccl., I, 19: PG 67, 126) and the Roman Breviary (Sept. 21, lectio V) think of Ethiopia. Others indicate Pontus, Persia, Syria, Macedonia, Ireland. Although various apocryphal passiones of St. M. have been handed down, it is not certain that he died a martyr. The Gnostic Heracleon, cited and not contradicted on this point by Clement of Alexandria, excludes the bloody martyrdom of M.

The Latin Church celebrates him on Sept. 21; the Byzantine Church on Nov. 16; the Coptic Church on Oct. 9. As an evangelist he has as his symbol a (winged) man. He is depicted with the book, or else with the supposed instruments of martyrdom (sword or lance).

II. THE FIRST GOSPEL

1. Subject and division

The 28 chapters of the first Gospel are grouped differently by various commentators. The division that takes account both of the dominant ideas and of the changes of situation is preferable.

a) Infancy and preparation for the public life of Jesus (1:1-4:11). - The genealogy (1:1-17), the conception and birth from a Virgin (1:18-25), the adoration of the Magi (2:1-12), the flight into Egypt, the slaughter of the innocents, the return to Nazareth (2:13-23) demonstrate that Jesus is the Messiah foretold by the prophets. The Baptist, the precursor predicted by the prophets, presents him as Messiah and baptizes him (ch. 3). Jesus in the desert overcomes the tempter by citing the Scriptures (4:1-11).

b) The Messiah manifests himself in Galilee (4:12-15:20). - a) Beginning his public life at Capharnaum and in the region of Zabulon and Nephthali, Jesus fulfills the prophecy of Is. 4:12-17; he chooses four fishermen and with them travels through Galilee, preaching the coming of the messianic kingdom (4:23-25). b) With the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus manifests himself as a legislator who perfects the Mosaic law and establishes the statutes of the messianic kingdom (chs. 5-7). c) With a series of miraculous healings (chs. 8-9) Jesus manifests himself as the Messiah foretold by Isaiah, who takes upon himself human infirmities (cf. 8:17 with Is. 53:4). In these chapters M. also relates certain miracles over nature and over death (the calming of the storm: Mt. 8:23-34; the raising of Jairus's daughter: ibid. 9:18-26), which invite reflection on the messianic character of Jesus. 8) The Messiah organizes his kingdom by choosing and instructing the 12 Apostles (ch. 10). e) Against the unbelief of the Jews Jesus responds by showing his miracles which fulfill the prophecies, he vindicates the mission of the Baptist and his own by citing prophetic texts (ch. 11); to the accusations of the unbelievers he responds by adducing biblical examples and sayings (ch. 12). ζ) The Messiah manifests the characteristics of his kingdom by speaking in parables and thus fulfilling the prophecies (ch. 13). η) With further miracles he confirms his messianic mission (ch. 14) against the Pharisaic traditions opposed to the genuine sense of the Scriptures (15:1-20).

c) The Messiah manifests himself in the surroundings of Galilee (15:21-18:35). - α) Near Tyre and Sidon he performs a series of miracles (15:21-16:12). β) Near Caesarea Philippi he promises to Peter, who confesses him as Son of God, the primacy in his Church, foretells his redemptive passion, and recommends the spirit of sacrifice (16:13-28). By being transfigured and healing the lunatic, he confirms his messianic character. In Galilee Jesus again foretells his Passion and instructs the Apostles (17:23-18:35).

d) Journey toward Jerusalem and ministry in Judea (chs. 19-25). - α) The instruction of the Apostles continues: crossing Perea, Jesus recommends the Christian virtues, foretells his Passion for the third time, and at Jericho heals two blind men (chs. 19-20). β) He enters Jerusalem riding a donkey, fulfills the prophecies and manifests himself as Messiah-King; he purifies the Temple, disputes with the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the scribes; he foretells the coming and the conclusion of the messianic kingdom (chs. 21-35).

e) Passion, death and resurrection of the Messiah (chs. 26-28). - α) The Sanhedrin wants the death of Jesus; the supper in Bethany foretells it; Judas sells the Master for thirty pieces of silver, fulfilling a prophecy (26:1-16). Other predictions are fulfilled in the Last Supper, with the blood of the covenant, in Gethsemane with the scattering of the Apostles, with the sorrow of the sufferer and the capture

(26:16-56). Before Caiaphas Jesus recalls the oracle of Daniel, proclaiming himself Messiah and Son of God, while Peter denies him, fulfilling a prediction of the Messiah (26:57-75). β) Judas, agitated by remorse, returns the thirty pieces of silver, which serve, fulfilling another prophecy, to purchase the potter's field (27:1-10). Before Pilate Jesus proclaims himself King (27:11-31). On Calvary he is crucified as King of the Jews, while the prophecies of Ps. 21 are fulfilled (Mt. 17:11-20). The death of the Redeemer is accompanied by prodigies that attest to his divinity (27:51-56). γ) The risen Jesus appears to the pious women. In vain do the members of the Sanhedrin resort to deceit to hide the prodigy. The Risen One confers on the Eleven the mission to teach and baptize all nations (ch. 28).

2. Purpose and historical-literary character

From this outline the purpose intended by the Evangelist emerges clearly. He wishes to demonstrate by the prophecies that Jesus is the Messiah promised in the Old Testament, that he is the Son of God, King, founder of the messianic kingdom (Church, Kingdom of heaven), perfecter of the ancient Law. He is to be believed, on pain of exclusion from the messianic kingdom. Therefore the Evangelist arranges the facts and the discourses in systematic rather than chronological order: note the grouping of the miracles (chs. 8-9), of the parables (ch. 13), of the discourses in five groups concluded by the formula repeated 5 times "when Jesus finished these discourses" (7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1: in this last case he specifies: "when Jesus finished all these discourses"). For this purpose he uses very vague transitional formulas (τῶς, tunc, without a precise temporal connection), he prefers to gather the Master's discourses while passing over the secondary particulars of the facts, which are narrated picturesquely by Mark.

To demonstrate his thesis the Evangelist chooses from the apostolic catechesis the most probative facts and sayings, verifiable by the Jewish readers who had been direct or indirect witnesses of them. It is true that he seeks to adapt the prophecies to the facts (sometimes using accommodations), but he does not modify the facts to adapt them to the prophecies. Had he had this intention, attributed to him by certain rationalists, he would have invented facts more conformable to the prophecies.

The author does not intend to trace a complete history or biography of Jesus, but to gather from the history known to the readers the documents capable of proving his thesis. The historical value is confirmed by the accurate knowledge of Palestinian topography and customs which the author supposes to be known to the readers.

The style of the first Gospel, which has come down to us in Greek, is strongly influenced by the underlying Semitic text. The Semitic tastes stand out in the parataxis or coordination of sentences (4:25-5:2; 8:14 ff.), in the parallelism (6:1-6, 16-18; 7:7-8, 24-27; etc.), in the strophes with refrains proper to the Semitic oral style (7:24-25, 26-27; 11:21-24), in the arrangement of the facts in groups of three, of five or of seven, and in other devices used by the Hebrews.

3. Origin

The analysis of the content, the purpose intended by the author, the style and the literary structure lead to the conclusion that this Gospel is due to a Palestinian Jew, well informed about what he relates, who writes especially to demonstrate to his fellow countrymen, who knew the Scriptures, the messianic-divine character of Jesus of Nazareth.

Tradition, which has predominant value in historical questions, confirms and specifies these data. From the implicit citations of the Apostolic Fathers one can deduce that the first Gospel was known at the end of the 1st century and the beginning of the 2nd. Compare, for example, the First Epistle to the Corinthians, written by St. Clement of Rome around 95, with M. in these points: "Be merciful and you will obtain mercy" (First Corinthians 13:2 with Mt. 6:14-15; 7:1-2, 12); "Woe to that man, better for him if he had not been born" (First Corinthians 46:8 with Mt. 26:24; 18:6). Other interesting parallels are noted in the Didache (8:2 with Mt. 6:9 ff.; Did. 9:5 with Mt. 7:6; furthermore many other passages listed by F. X. Funk, Patres Apostolici, I, Tübingen 1901, p. 640). The so-called Epistle of Barnabas cites (4:14) with the formula "it is written" the expression "many are called, few are chosen" which is read in Mt. 20:16 and 22:14. St. Ignatius has many expressions that agree with M. (cf. especially Ad Polyc., 2:2 with Mt. 10:16). St. Polycarp (Ad Philipp., 7:2) draws from Mt. 26:41. For these and other allusions to Mt. on the part of the Apostolic Fathers cf. F. X. Funk, op. cit., pp. 640-52. St. Justin has about fifty citations of M., adduced without the author's name, but as Gospel or as Memoirs of the Apostles. Even the heretics Cerinthus, Carpocrates, the Ebionites, the Gnostics Valentinus and Basilides, and the pagan Celsus know the Gospel of M. These most ancient witnesses cite the book, but not the author's name, perhaps because in the most ancient codices the title "according to M. (κατὰ Ματθαῖον)" was lacking.

The most ancient witness who explicitly attributes a work to M. with the author's name is St. Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, who had been a fellow disciple of St. Polycarp in the school of John "the Presbyter" (the Apostle?). In a fragment of his work in 5 books, written around 120 and entitled Exposition of the logia (v.) of the Lord (preserved by Eusebius, Hist. eccl., III, 39, 1), after saying that Mark had not made the coordination of the logia of the Lord, he adds: "M. instead in the Hebrew language coordinated the logia (of the Lord) (τὰ λόγια συνετάξατο), and then interpreted each one as he was able."

According to Schleiermacher, and several rationalists, Papias would be speaking of a work of M. different from the first Gospel, containing only the discourses (logia in the strict sense) of the Lord, but, if one observes the context well, one sees that Papias supposes the Gospels of Mark and of M. to be known by his readers, and intends to give a reason for the fact that the sayings of the Lord in Mark are not so well coordinated, in logical order, as in M. The reason that Papias drew from John is this: "Mark did not write in order the sayings and deeds of the Lord... because he followed Peter, who made his instructions according to the usefulness of the hearers, not intending to make a coordination (σύνταξιν) of the logia of the Lord."

Others answer Schleiermacher's difficulty by saying that Papias with the term logia means both the sayings and the deeds; this interpretation could be confirmed by the testimony regarding Mark, where the term is explained with λαληθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα ("sayings or deeds") of the Lord. Still others think that Papias calls the Gospel of M. logia because it is composed predominantly of discourses. However these logia are understood, there are no serious reasons for excluding that Papias is speaking of the entire first Gospel and supposes it known to his readers.

Another important testimony, written between 175 and 189, is left by St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon: "M., among the Hebrews in their own language, also published a writing of the Gospel, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and founding the Church" (Adv. haer., III, 1: PG 7, 844).

A testimony independent of those of Papias and Irenaeus goes back to St. Pantaenus (d. around 200). According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., V, 10, 3), Pantaenus, having gone to India ("Arabia Felix"), would have found there the Gospel of M. written in Hebrew characters: the apostle Bartholomew would have left it there. The testimonies of Clement of Alexandria (Strom., I, 21: PG 8, 890), of Origen (in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VI, 25, 3), of Tertullian (Adv. Marc., 4, 2: PL 2, 363), of Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, 24, 5-6), of St. Jerome (De viris ill., 3: PL 23, 643) are irrefutable.

All these witnesses agree in explicitly attributing the first Gospel to the apostle M. Even a Priscillianist prologue from the end of the 4th century confirms this tradition (cf. F. L. Cross, The priscillianist prologues, in Expository times, 48 [1939], p. 188 f.).

There was no reason for tradition to attribute the first Gospel to the apostle M., rather than to another apostle, if not the reality of the fact; a hypothetical forger would have chosen the name of a more prominent apostle. It is true that from an eyewitness one might expect a more vivid description of the facts, but note that M. deliberately excludes particulars not directly relevant to his purpose.

As confirmation of the genuineness of the Gospel of M., it is worth underlining the special interest that the author, unlike the other Evangelists, places in money: he is the only one who speaks of the thirty pieces of silver (Mt. 26:15; 27:3-10): "M. writes of money and coins in twelve passages of his Gospel, while John only in two. The publican and... the eagle. M. mentions gold from the manger of the infant Jesus in Bethlehem; he is the only one among the Evangelists to also report the miraculous collection and payment of the Temple tax by Christ and Peter (17:24-27); only in his Gospel are read the parables of the treasure that lay hidden in a field, and of the merchant who sought precious pearls (13:44-46)... of the talents (18:23 ff.; 20:1 ff.; 25:14 ff.): O. Hophan, Gli Apostoli, Turin 1950, p. 168.

4. The original text and the Greek version

Tradition agrees in attesting that M. wrote in the language of the Hebrews. This was no longer the ancient Hebrew language (as Schegg, Belser, Cladder and others think), but Aramaic, also commonly called "Hebrew" in the New Testament (Jn. 5:2; 19:17; Acts 21:40), in the writings of Flavius Josephus (Antiq. Iud., III, 10, 6; Bell. Iud., V, 4, 2; etc.) and by the ancient Christian writers. M. intended to write for the people in the language then used by his Palestinian compatriots, not in the learned Hebrew language, known only to the rabbis.

The hypothesis proposed by Erasmus and repeated by Card. Cajetan and by many modern rationalists that Greek would be the original language of the first Gospel is not tenable.

It is true that in several points the Greek of M. seems literarily better than that of Mark, but a more careful analysis lets one intuit the numerous Semitisms hidden beneath the Greek version, which nevertheless aspires to a certain elegance. It is also true that in the first Gospel several citations of the Old Testament are drawn from the Greek version of the Septuagint; but these may have been adapted by the Greek translator, who used precisely that version. Note also that among the writers of the New Testament M. has the greatest number of citations conforming to the Hebrew text. Sometimes the citations are by sense.

The original Semitic text, used by the Palestinian Christian communities, disappeared rather early with the disappearance of such communities, some of which ended in heresy. Perhaps traces of it remained in the so-called Gospels (apocryphal) of the Hebrews, of the Nazarenes, or of the Ebionites (v.).

The Greek version, according to St. Papias (loc. cit.), was at first "compiled by each one as he was able." It seems, however, that toward the end of the 1st century the version that might be called official was already in circulation, cited by the Didache and by the Epistle of Barnabas.

Since the Church has always regarded this version without question as the Gospel of M., it must be said that this version was substantially in conformity with the primitive Aramaic text. Indeed, even in the Greek version it is noticeable that the teachings, the events, and the features of Christ's figure are presented from the point of view of a Jewish writer who writes directly for his Palestinian compatriots.

It may be admitted that the Greek translator inserted some incidental modifications in the translation of certain passages rendered by sense, in the substitution of citations drawn from the Septuagint, in the addition of some explanation, in the inversion of some part, in the adaptation of M.'s text to that of the Gospel of Mark, which seems to have been kept in mind. Despite these and other accessory modifications, the substance of the Greek version of M. corresponds to the lost Aramaic original.

5. Destination and date

Tradition, summarized and preserved by Eusebius (cf. Hist. eccl., III, 24, 5-6), attests that M., after preaching to the Hebrews of Palestine, before departing wrote a Gospel for them in their native language.

That M. wrote for converted Hebrews is also attested by Irenaeus, Origen and St. Jerome (in the passages cited); some (with Cladder, Gächter, Grandmaison) think that he wrote against the (unbelieving) Jews, thus interpreting the πρὸς Ἰουδαίους of Irenaeus. Others, better, hold that M. had chiefly in view the converted compatriots, without excluding the apologetic intent of converting those still unbelieving.

The purpose and the historico-apologetic character of the Gospel, which emerge from an examination of its content, confirm this broader destination.

Since it is not established when M. left Palestine to go and evangelize the Gentiles, the date of composition of his Gospel remains uncertain. Those who maintain that this departure occurred very early, basing themselves on an uncertain tradition that fixes it at 12 years after the Ascension (42-45 A.D.), date the composition of M.'s original text to this period. But such a date, presented by certain apocrypha (Kerygma Petri; Actus Petri cum Simone; Acta Iohannis) is far from being confirmed. St. Jerome, in his revision of Eusebius' Chronicon, says that M. wrote the Gospel in the third year of Caligula (41 A.D.: PL 27, 577-78).

It can be said with certainty that M. wrote first among the Evangelists, before the fall of Jerusalem (70 A.D.). Certain rationalists, claiming that the allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem contained in Mt. 22, 7 and 24 is a post eventum prophecy, would like to move the date of the Gospel to after 70. But the whole literary and historical character suggests that at the time of the composition of the Gospel the Temple of Jerusalem still stood and that the hostility of the unbelieving Jews was still very much alive. After that date, which marks the dispersion of the Jews, there was no reason for a Gospel like that of M. to be written for the Hebrews in Palestine.

Since St. Irenaeus (loc. cit.) affirms that M. "also published a writing of the Gospel (καὶ γραφὴν ἐξένεγκεν εὐαγγελίου), while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and founding the Church" (τοῦ Πέτρου καὶ τοῦ Παύλου ἐν Ῥώμῃ εὐαγγελιζομένων καὶ θεμελιούντων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν), some exegetes, basing themselves on the genitive absolute, think that M. wrote only after Paul's arrival in Rome, that is, after 61. Others reply that the genitive absolute would not have a temporal sense, but should be resolved into an adversative, thus: on the one hand, among the Hebrews, M. not only evangelized orally, but also published a writing of the Gospel; on the other hand, in Rome, Peter and Paul were evangelizing and also founding the Church. The emphasis would not be so much on the synchronism as on the different manner of evangelizing, by word or also in writing.

Others, on the other hand, while admitting the synchronism, think that Irenaeus added the name of Paul to that of Peter, ad modum unius, asserting that M. wrote when Peter (later helped by Paul) was evangelizing in Rome and founding the Church there. However this passage of Irenaeus "of uncertain and controverted interpretation" (as the Pont. Biblical Commission asserts) is to be understood, there are no serious grounds for postponing the origin of the first Gospel to after 60.

The most probable date, which takes into account both the traditional elements and a certain development of the history of the Church presupposed by the first Gospel, seems to be placed between the years 50 and 60, better around 55.

Cladder fixes the date between the years 50-59, at most up to 62; A. Merk around 50, L. Pirot at 45-50; Höpfl-Gut at 50-60; G. Ricciotti at 50-55. L. Tondelli thinks that the definitive redaction must be a few years earlier than 70, but the primitive composition must go back much further.

6. Directives of the Pont. Biblical Commission

On 19 June 1911 seven responses of the Pont. Biblical Commission were published on the "author, time of composition and historical truth of the Gospel according to M." Here are their essential ideas: a) It can and must be affirmed with certainty that M., apostle of Christ, is the author of the Gospel circulated under his name for the following reasons: the universal consent going back to the first centuries of the Church, attested by the explicit testimonies of the Fathers, by the titles of the codices and of the most ancient versions, by the catalogues transmitted by the Fathers, by ecclesiastical writers, by the supreme Pontiffs, by councils, by the liturgical use of the Eastern and Western Church.

b) Tradition confirms that M. was the first evangelist and that he wrote the first Gospel in the native language, used by the Palestinian Hebrews to whom it was directed.

c) Its composition cannot be postponed to after the fall of Jerusalem; the testimony of St. Irenaeus does not compel us to reject the more traditional opinion, which fixes the composition of M.'s Gospel even before Paul's arrival in Rome.

d) It cannot be held that M. wrote only a collection of the Lord's discourses, which then served as a source for an anonymous author.

e) It can be proved with certainty that the Greek Gospel of M. is identical, as to substance, with that written in the native language by the same Apostle: the universal ecclesiastical use is proof of this.

f) It is not lawful to deny credence to the first Evangelist on the ground that he has chiefly in view the dogmatic and apologetic purpose of showing the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah foretold by the prophets, born of the Davidic stock, and on the ground that he does not always adhere to the chronological order in arranging the events and sayings. Nor can it be affirmed that the accounts of Christ's deeds and discourses underwent a certain alteration or adaptation under the influence of the prophecies of the Old Testament and of the somewhat adult state of the Church, and that therefore they are not in conformity with the truth.

g) In a particular way, the opinions of those who doubt the historicity of the first two chapters, in which the genealogy and the infancy (v.) of Christ are spoken of, as well as of certain passages very important for dogma, such as those concerning the primacy of Peter (Mt. 16, 17-19), the form of Baptism with the universal mission of preaching conferred on the Apostles (Mt. 28, 19-20), the profession of faith of the Apostles in the divinity of Christ (Mt. 14, 33), are devoid of solid foundation. Cf. AAS, 3 (1911), pp. 294-96; Euchir. bibl., Rome 1927, no. 401 ff.; Denz-U, no. 2148 ff.

Pietro De Ambroggi

III. ICONOGRAPHY

St. M. the evangelist is depicted as a dignified old man with a beard, usually accompanied by his symbol, the angel, or inspired by it from heaven; as an apostle he has no figurative attribute of a special character. Sometimes he holds a book in his hands. The oldest known images of the saint are in the Ravenna mosaics of S. Vitale and S. Apollinare in Classe (6th century). Very frequent, with the now traditional attributes, is his representation in Romanesque art, while for the 16th century one may see as an example the St. M. painted in 1328 by B. Daddi, which is preserved in the Uffizi. Lorenzo Ghiberti, assisted by Michelozzo, follows the same typology in the statue of 1422 at Orsanmichele in Florence. On the left panel of the Portinari Triptych by Hugo van der Goes in the Uffizi, St. M. is painted in the act of holding a large lance in his right hand.

Among the depictions of St. M. in isolation from the Baroque age, one may cite first of all the canvas by Caravaggio on the altar of the Contarelli chapel at S. Luigi dei Francesi in Rome, and the one, by the same master, preserved in Berlin in the museum of Emperor Frederick. The Vatican Pinacoteca possesses a St. M. writing the Gospel, a late work by Guido Reni. A painting with the same subject, painted by Guercino, is found in the Capitoline Pinacoteca in Rome. In the upper church of the basilica of Assisi, frescoes of the Roman school of the late 13th century depict five scenes of the apostolate of St. M. in Africa.

An entire cycle of eight scenes with the legend of St. M. had been frescoed in the 14th century by an unknown artist of Rimini in the church of S. Maria in Porto near Ravenna, destroyed in the Second World War. The principal event of the legend of St. M., namely his vocation to the apostolate, was also painted by Vittore Carpaccio in S. Giorgio degli Schiavoni in Venice; his death as a martyr was the subject of a 13th-century mosaic in the basilica of S. Marco in Venice. Both these scenes found their most famous pictorial interpretation in the two large lateral canvases of the Contarelli chapel in S. Luigi dei Francesi in Rome, masterpieces of Caravaggio, painted between 1592 and 1598. - See plate XXVIII.

Witold Wehr

IV. GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

Apocryphal, also called the book of the "Origin of the blessed Mary and of the infancy of the Savior." Two spurious letters of the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus to St. Jerome with the reply, which serve as its introduction, attribute it to M. the apostle. St. Jerome is said to have rediscovered and translated its Hebrew original into Latin.

It consists of two parts: the first (chaps. 1-24), called Historia de nativitate Mariae et infantia Salvatoris, is substantially akin to the Protoevangelium of James (v.), with notable amplifications and additions, but it is not clear whether it depends on it. The second (chaps. 25-42) follows the Gospel of Thomas and is entitled De miraculis infantiae Domini Iesu Christi.

It is the only apocryphon that recounts (chaps. 18-24) the miracles worked by Jesus during the journey and sojourn of the Holy Family in Egypt. It tends to develop the prodigies that it has in common with the Protoevangelium of James. In chaps. 25-42 it recounts the prodigious life of Jesus after his return from Egypt, now on the banks of the Jordan, now at Capernaum, now at Nazareth, reworking the Gospel of Thomas in a crescendo of extravagances. Here and there one notices some less orthodox note. The Gospel of M. was composed in the West between the 5th and 6th centuries, certainly not before the 4th century.

The apocryphon De nativitate Mariae, among the works of St. Jerome (Epist. 50: PL 30, 307-15), is an adaptation of the first part of the Gospel of M., with a tendency to summarize, soften and render it more orthodox, with some slight additions and in a reasonably elegant Latin. It is reproduced in the Speculum historiale of Vincent of Beauvais and in the Legenda aurea of Jacobus de Voragine. It is considered to be of the Carolingian era.

Another apocryphon, which coincides in large part with the Gospel of M. and the Gospel of Thomas, is the Gospel of the infancy of the Savior concerning the birth of Mary and the birth and infancy of Jesus, published by James in two notably divergent recensions: the Hereford manuscript (13th cent.) and the Arundel manuscript. The first attributes it to James, the other to M. On its origin, however—that is, whether it depends on the Gospel of M., on the Protoevangelium of James or on the Gospel of Peter—full light has not yet been shed.

Bonaventura Mariani

V. ACTS OF MATTHEW

Apocryphal, published under the title Martyrium Matthaei by Lipsius-Bonnet (op. cit. in bibl., II, II, pp. 217-62), in Greek and in a very poor Latin text. It forms a homogeneous group with the Acta Andreae et Matthiae in urbe anthropophagorum (a Catholic reworking of the Acta Andreae in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic), with the Acta sanctorum apostolorum Petri et Andreae (in Greek, Slavonic, Ethiopic), with the Acta Pauli et Andreae and with the Acta Bartholomaei. Their origin is uncertain.

The subject matter of the Acts of M. in the Latin text is exceedingly fantastic. M. must go to preach in the land of the anthropophagi (Media). He is received by the bishop Plato, from whose staff he sees an immense tree spring forth that towers in Paradise. From the tree comes a river, which waters the city of the Myrmidons. M. frees from the demon the wife and the son of the emperor Bufa, who thereupon resolves to kill M., to whom Jesus appears to comfort him. The devil in the form of a soldier incites Bufa against M., but the soldiers sent to capture or devour him are struck with blindness. Bufa goes to arrest M., but in his presence becomes paralyzed. M. heals him. Ungrateful, he has him crucified on the ground at the edge of the sea. He orders him to be cremated, but the fire, through M.'s prayer, is extinguished and instead burns Bufa's idols. The fire becomes a dragon that pursues Bufa as far as his palace; he is freed from it by M., who dies at the sixth hour, then rises again and ascends into heaven crowned... Bufa, faced with so many marvels, is converted, is baptized and receives communion. M. appears and ordains Bufa a priest (he was 30 years old), his wife a deaconess (of 30 years) and his son a deacon (of 17 years). When Plato dies after 3 days, Bufa (called Matthew by M.) becomes bishop. The Greek text begins with the appearance of Jesus Christ to M. in the likeness of one of the holy Innocents singing psalms in Paradise.

There exist a Martyrium Matthaei in Pontus, Gnostic, the Ethiopic Acts of M. in Kahanat, a Parthian legend of M., the Coptic (Ethiopic) martyrdom of M., a local legend of Hierapolis and another Ethiopic one connected with the Indian legend of Bartholomew.

Bonaventura Mariani

VI. ANONYMOUS IN MATTHEW

Five fragments of a Latin commentary on M. were published for the first time by G. Mercati and attributed by him to Victorinus of Pettau because of their millenarianism and because Victorinus is the author of a Commentary on M.

But both A. Souter and Th. Zahn agree in attributing these fragments to the so-called Ambrosiaster (v.), while Turner is of the opposite opinion.

Erik Peterson