MATTEO, APOSTOLO, EVANGELISTA, SANTO

MATTHEW, APOSTLE, EVANGELIST, SAINT. — Author of the first Gospel.

I. THE APOSTLE

The New Testament provides few details about M. The name, in the oldest Greek manuscripts, is written Ματθαῖος (Matt 9:26), in more recent ones Ματθαῖος (Matt 9:26), and in the Vulgate *Mattheus*. The Aramaic origin seems to be *Mattāj* (abbreviation of *Mattanjah*, *Mattanjah*), meaning “gift of Jahweh”; others, following J. Knabenbauer, consider the root *‘gneth*, so that M. would signify “faithful.” The Synoptics relate that his call took place in Capharnaum (Mt. 9, 9-10). The parallel passages, Mk. 2, 13-14 and Lk. 5, 27-28, refer to the publican as Levi, and Mark adds the patronymic: Levi of Alpheus. The analogous circumstances that precede (the healing of the paralytic) and follow (the meal in the convert’s house, disputes with the Pharisees and the disciples of John the Baptist) in all three Synoptics lead to the conclusion that the publican called had two Semitic names: M. and Levi. His father Alpheus seems to be distinct from the homonymous father of James the Less. In the lists of the Apostles, Mk. 3, 18 and Lk. 6, 15 place M. in seventh place, Mt. 10, 3 and Acts 1, 13 in eighth. The New Testament writings preserve nothing else special about M.

From the tradition preserved by Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, 24, 6) it appears that M. first preached to the Jews of Palestine, for whom he composed his Gospel, then went to other peoples. Which peoples these were is uncertain. Rufinus (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) suggest Ethiopia. Others indicate Pontus, Persia, Syria, Macedonia, or 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 without contradiction on this point by Clement of Alexandria, excludes the violent martyrdom of M.

The Latin Church celebrates his feast on Sept. 21; the Byzantine on Nov. 16; the Coptic on Oct. 9. As an evangelist he is symbolized by a man (winged). He is depicted with a book or with the supposed instruments of his 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 preferable division takes into account both the dominant ideas and the changes in situation.

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

b) The Messiah manifests himself in Galilee (4, 12–15, 20). — a) By beginning his public life in Capharnaum and in the region of Zebulun and Naphtali, Jesus fulfills the prophecy of Is. 9, 1–2; he chooses four fishermen and with them traverses Galilee, preaching the advent of the messianic kingdom (4, 23–25). b) With the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus manifests himself as the lawgiver who perfects the Mosaic Law and establishes the statutes of the messianic kingdom (chs. 5–7). c) Through 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).

c) The Messiah manifests himself in Judea and beyond the Jordan (4, 12–15, 20). — Jesus’ fame spreads (4, 24–25), and he performs miracles (chs. 8–9) and teaches (chs. 5–7; 10). The Sermon on the Mount (chs. 5–7) is the first great discourse, followed by the missionary discourse (ch. 10), the parables discourse (ch. 13), the discourse on the Church (ch. 18), and the eschatological discourse (chs. 24–25).

d) The Messiah’s passion, death, and resurrection (chs. 26–28). — a) At the Last Supper, Jesus institutes the Eucharist and predicts the denial of Peter (26, 1–56). At Caiaphas’ house, Jesus recalls Daniel’s oracle, proclaiming himself Messiah and Son of God, while Peter denies him, fulfilling a prediction of the Messiah (26, 57–75). β) Judas, tormented by remorse, returns the thirty pieces of silver, which, fulfilling another prophecy, are used to buy the potter’s field (27, 1–10). Jesus before Pilate proclaims himself King (27, 11–31). On Calvary he is crucified as King of the Jews, while the prophecies of Ps. 22 are fulfilled (Mt. 27, 35–44). The Redeemer’s death is accompanied by prodigies that attest to his divinity (27, 51–56). γ) The risen Jesus appears to the pious women. In vain the Sanhedrin resorts to deceit to conceal the miracle. The Risen One entrusts the Eleven with the mission to teach and baptize all nations (ch. 28).

2. Purpose and Historical-Literary Character

From this outline it is clear what the Evangelist intended. He wishes to demonstrate through prophecies that Jesus is the Messiah promised in the Old Testament, that he is the Son of God, King, founder of the messianic kingdom (the Church, the Kingdom of Heaven), and perfecter of the ancient Law. To him faith must be given, lest one be excluded from the messianic kingdom. For this reason the Evangelist arranges facts and discourses in a systematic rather than chronological order: note the grouping of miracles (chs. 8–9), parables (ch. 13), and discourses into five sections, each concluded by the repeated formula “when Jesus had finished these words” (7, 28; 11, 1; 13, 53; 19, 1; 26, 1; in the last case he specifies: “when Jesus had finished all these words”). For this purpose he uses very vague transitional formulas (τότε, τότε, without precise temporal connection), preferring to gather the Master’s discourses while overlooking secondary details of events, which Mark relates picturesquely.

To prove his thesis, the Evangelist selects from apostolic catechesis the facts and sayings most probative and verifiable by Jewish readers who had been either direct or indirect witnesses. It is true that he adapts prophecies to facts (sometimes using accommodations), but he does not alter facts to fit prophecies. Had he intended this, as certain rationalists claim, he would have invented facts more conformable to the prophecies.

The author does not intend to write a complete history or biography of Jesus, but to gather from the history known to his readers the documents suited to prove his thesis. The historical value is confirmed by the accurate knowledge of Palestinian topography and customs that the author assumes his readers possess.

The style of the first Gospel, transmitted in Greek, strongly reflects the underlying Semitic text. Semitic tastes are evident in the parade of coordinated phrases (4, 25–5, 2; 8, 14 ff.), in parallelism (6, 1–6; 16–18; 7, 7–8; 24–27; etc.), in strophes with refrains typical of Semitic oral style (7, 24–25; 26–27; 11, 21–24), in the arrangement of facts in groups of three, five, or seven, and in other devices used by the Jews.

3. Origin

Analysis of the content, the author’s purpose, the style, and the literary structure lead to the conclusion that this Gospel is the work of a Palestinian Jew, well informed about what he recounts, who writes especially to demonstrate to his fellow countrymen—who knew the Scriptures—the messianic and divine character of Jesus of Nazareth.

Tradition, which holds predominant value in historical matters, confirms and clarifies these data. From the implicit citations of the Apostolic Fathers, it can be deduced that the first Gospel was known by the end of the 1st century and the beginning of the 2nd. Cf., for example, 1 Corinthians, written by St. Clement of Rome ca. 95, with Mt. in these points: “Be merciful and you will obtain mercy” (1 Corinthians 13:2 with Mt. 6:14-15; 7:1-2, 12); “Woe to that man, better that he had not been born” (1 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; and 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 found in Mt. 20:16 and 22:14. St. Ignatius has many expressions that agree with Mt. (cf. especially *Ad Polycarpum* 2:2 with Mt. 10:16). St. Polycarp (*Ad Philippenses* 7:2) draws from Mt. 26:41. For these and other allusions to Mt. by the Apostolic Fathers, cf. F. X. Funk, *op. cit.*, pp. 640-52. St. Justin has about fifty citations of Mt., adduced without the author’s name but as “the Gospel” or as “the Memoirs of the Apostles.” Even the heretics Cerinthus, Carpocrates, the Ebionites, the Gnostics Valentinus and Basilides, and the pagan Celsus knew the Gospel of Mt. These very ancient witnesses cite the book but not the name of the author, perhaps because in the oldest codices the title “according to Mt. (κατά Ματθαίον)” was missing.

The earliest witness that explicitly attributes a work to Mt. by name is St. Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, who had been a hearer of St. Polycarp at the school of John and “the Presbyter” (the Apostle?). In a fragment of his five-book work, written ca. 120 and titled *Exegesis of the Lord’s Logia* (preserved by Eusebius, *Hist. eccl.*, III, 39:1), after saying that Mark had not arranged the logia of the Lord, he adds: “But Matthew arranged the logia in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as he was able.”

According to Schleiermacher and several rationalists, Papias would be speaking of a work by Mt. different from the first Gospel, containing only the Lord’s discourses (logia in the strict sense). But if the context is carefully observed, it is clear that Papias assumes that the readers already knew the Gospels of Mark and Matthew and intends to explain why the Lord’s sayings in Mark are not as well arranged in logical order as in Mt. The reason Papias drew from John is this: “Mark did not write the sayings and deeds of the Lord in order... because he followed Peter, who arranged his teachings according to the usefulness to the hearers, not intending to make an arrangement (σύνταξιν) of the Lord’s logia.”

Others respond to Schleiermacher’s difficulty by saying that Papias uses the term *logia* to mean both sayings and deeds; this interpretation could be confirmed by the testimony regarding Mark, where the term is explained by λεγόμενα ἢ πραχθέντα (“sayings or deeds”) of the Lord. Others again think that Papias calls the Gospel of Mt. *logia* because it is composed predominantly of discourses. Whatever the meaning of these *logia*, there is no serious reason to exclude 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 Lyons: “Matthew, among the Hebrews in their own language, also published a writing of the Gospel, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing and founding the Church” (*Adv. haer.*, III, 1: PG 7, 844).

An independent testimony from those of Papias and Irenaeus comes from St. Pantænus (d. ca. 200). According to Eusebius (*Hist. eccl.*, V, 10:3), Pantænus, having gone to India (“Happy Arabia”), would have found there the Gospel of Mt. written in Hebrew characters: “He would have left it to the apostle Bartholomew.” Unassailable are the testimonies of Clement of Alexandria (*Strom.*, I, 21: PG 8, 890), Origen (in Eusebius, *Hist. eccl.*, VI, 25:3), Tertullian (*Adv. Marc.*, 4:2: PL 2, 363), Eusebius (*Hist. eccl.*, III, 24:5-6), and St. Jerome (*De viris ill.*, 3: PL 23, 643).

All these witnesses agree in explicitly attributing the first Gospel to the apostle Mt. 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], pp. 188-89).

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

As confirmation of the genuineness of the Gospel of Mt., it is useful to emphasize the special interest that the author, unlike the other Evangelists, shows toward money: “the only one who speaks of the thirty pieces of silver (Mt. 26:15; 27:3-10)”; “Mt. writes about money and coins in twelve passages of his Gospel, while John does so in only two. The public is... the eagle. Mt. mentions gold from the very crib of the Child Jesus in Bethlehem; he is the only Evangelist to report the miraculous collection and payment of the Temple tax by Christ and Peter (17:24-27); only in his Gospel do we read the parables of the treasure hidden in a field and of the merchant seeking fine pearls (13:44-46)... of the talents (18:23, 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 Mt. wrote in the language of the Hebrews. This was no longer the ancient Hebrew language (as Schegg, Belser, Cladder, and others think), but Aramaic, which was also commonly called “Hebrew” in the New Testament (Jn. 5:2; 19:17; Acts 21:40), in the writings of Flavius Josephus (*Antiq. Jud.*, III, 10:6; *Bell. Jud.*, V, 4:2; etc.), and by ancient Christian writers. Mt. intended to write for the people in the language then used by his Palestinian countrymen, not in the learned Hebrew language known only to the rabbis.

The hypothesis proposed by Erasmus and repeated by Cardinal Cajetan and many modern rationalists—that Greek was the original language of the first Gospel—is unsustainable.

It is true that in several places the Greek of Mt. seems more literary than that of Mark, but a more careful analysis reveals 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 quotations from the Old Testament are taken from the Greek version of the Septuagint; but these may have been adapted by the Greek translator, who precisely used that version. It should also be noted that among the writers of the New Testament, Mt. has the greatest number of quotations conforming to the Hebrew text. Sometimes the quotations are paraphrased.

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

The Greek version, according to St. Papias (*loc. cit.*), was at first “compiled by each according to his ability.” It seems, however, that by the end of the 1st century there was already in circulation the version that might be called official, cited by the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas.

Since the Church has always unhesitatingly regarded this version 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 one notes that the teachings, the events, and the characteristics of the figure of Christ are presented from the point of view of a Jewish writer who writes directly for Palestinian compatriots.

It may be admitted that the Greek translator inserted some accidental modifications in the translation of certain passages rendered freely, in the substitution of quotations drawn from the Septuagint, in the addition of some explanations, in the inversion of some parts, and in the adaptation of M.’s text to that of the Gospel of Mark, which seems to have been kept in view. Despite these and other minor modifications, the substance of the Greek version of M. corresponds to the lost original Aramaic text.

5. Destination and Date

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

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

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

Since it is not certain when M. left Palestine to go and preach to the Gentiles, the date of composition of his Gospel remains uncertain. Those who maintain that his departure took place very early, basing themselves on an uncertain tradition that places it at twelve years after the Ascension (42-45 A.D.), place the composition of the original text of M. at that time. But this date, presented by some apocryphal works (Kerygma Petri; Actus Petri cum Simone; Acta Iohannis), is far from being confirmed. St. Jerome, in his recension of Eusebius’ Chronicle, says that M. wrote the Gospel in the third year of Caligula (41 A.D.: PL 27, 577-78).

It may be said with certainty that M. wrote as the first of 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 prophecy after the event, would like to place the date of the Gospel 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 existed and that the hostility of unbelieving Jews was still very much alive. After that date, which marks the dispersion of the Jews, there was no reason why an Evangelist like M. should write for the Jews in Palestine a Gospel such as his.

Since St. Irenaeus (loc. cit.) affirms that M. “published also a writing of the Gospel (καὶ γραφὴν ἐξέ-
νεχεν εὐαγγελίων), while Peter and Paul were evangelizing and founding the Church in Rome” (τοῦ Πέτρου καὶ τοῦ Παύλου ἐν 'Ρώμῃ εὐαγγελιζομένων καὶ θεμελιούντων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν), some exegetes, basing themselves on the absolute genitive, think that M. wrote only after the arrival of Paul in Rome, i.e., after 61. Others reply that the absolute genitive would not have a temporal sense, but should be resolved into an adversative, thus: on the one hand, among the Jews, M. not only preached orally but also published a written Gospel; on the other, in Rome, Peter and Paul were also evangelizing and founding the Church. The emphasis would not be so much on the synchronism as on the different manner of evangelizing, either orally or in writing.

Others, 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 assisted by Paul) was evangelizing in Rome and founding the Church there. However this passage of Irenaeus is to be understood—“of uncertain and controversial interpretation” (as the Pontifical Biblical Commission asserts)—there are no serious reasons for delaying the origin of the first Gospel until after 60.

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

Cladder places the date between 50-59, at the latest until 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 final redaction must be a few years before 70, but the primitive composition must go back much further.

6. Directives of the Pontifical Biblical Commission

On June 19, 1911, seven responses of the Pontifical Biblical Commission were published on “the author, the time of composition, and the historical truth of the Gospel according to M.” Here are the 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 consensus going back to the first centuries of the Church, attested by 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, and 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 tongue used by the Palestinian Jews to whom it was directed.

c) The composition cannot be placed after the fall of Jerusalem; the testimony of St. Irenaeus does not compel us to reject the more traditional opinion, which places the composition of the Gospel of M. even before the arrival of Paul 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 in substance to that written in the native tongue by the Apostle himself: proof of this is the universal ecclesiastical use.

f) It is not permissible to deny faith to the first Evangelist on the ground that he had primarily a dogmatic and apologetic purpose in showing to the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah foretold by the prophets, born of the Davidic line, and on the ground that he does not always adhere to chronological order in arranging events and sayings. Nor can it be affirmed that the narratives of Christ’s deeds and discourses have undergone a certain alteration or adaptation under the influence of Old Testament prophecies and the somewhat mature state of the Church, and thus are not in conformity with the truth.

g) In particular, the opinions of those who doubt the historicity of the first two chapters, which speak of the genealogy and the infancy (v.) of Christ, as well as of certain passages very important for doctrine, such as those concerning the primacy of Peter (Mt. 16, 17-19), the form of Baptism with the universal mission to preach conferred on the Apostles (Mt. 28, 19-20), and 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; Enchir. bibl., Rome 1927, n. 401 ff.; Denz-U, n. 2148 ff.

III. ICONOGRAPHY

St. Matthew 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 special figurative attribute. Sometimes he holds a book in his hands. The oldest known images of the Saint are in the Ravenna museums of S. Vitale and S. Apollinare in Classe (6th century). His representation in Romanesque art is very frequent with the now traditional attributes, while for the 14th century one may see as an example the St. Matthew painted in 1328 by B. Daddi, preserved in the Uffizi. The same typology is followed by Lorenzo Ghiberti, assisted by Michelozzo, 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. Matthew is painted holding a large lance in his right hand.

Among the depictions of St. Matthew in the Baroque period, one may first cite the canvas by Caravaggio on the altar of the Contarelli Chapel in S. Luigi dei Francesi in Rome, and the one by the same master preserved in Berlin in the museum of Emperor Frederick. The Vatican Picture Gallery possesses a St. Matthew writing the Gospel, a late work by Guido Reni. A painting with the same subject by Guercino is in the Capitoline Picture Gallery in Rome. In the upper church of the basilica of Assisi, frescoes by the Roman school of the late 13th century depict five scenes of the apostolate of St. Matthew in Africa. A complete cycle of eight scenes with the legend of St. Matthew had been frescoed in the 14th century by an unknown Rimini artist in the church of S. Maria in Porto near Ravenna, destroyed during the Second World War. The principal event in the legend of St. Matthew, namely his call to the apostolate, was also painted by Vittore Carpaccio in S. Giorgio degli Schiavoni.