Introduction to the Gospel according to Saint Matthew

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE ON ST. MATTHEW

St. Matthew, whom the unanimous testimony of tradition (see the following §) designates as the author of the first Gospel, was probably from the province of Galilee (an old Parisian manuscript affirms this as a certain fact. Cf. Coteler., Patr. Apostol. 1, 272), as were most of the other apostles. We know very little about his person and his life. According to St. Mark, 2:14, he was the son of Alphaeus (an ancient legend mentioned by Winer, Bibl. Realwoerterbuch, sv Matthaeus, names his father Rucus and his mother Chirotia); From this, it has sometimes been concluded that he was the brother of St. James the Less (this is the opinion of Euthymius Zigabenus, Grotius, Paulus, Bretschneider, Credner, Doddrige, Alford, etc.), the Evangelists also presenting this apostle as a son of Alphaeus. Cf. Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 615. But this hypothesis is rightly rejected by most exegetes. Indeed, a mere similarity of name is far from sufficient to create such close ties, especially when it concerns a very common name, such as that of Alphaeus among the Jews of Palestine at that time. Moreover, neither the Gospel nor tradition counts St. Matthew among the relatives of Our Lord Jesus Christ; and yet he would have been Jesus' brother if his father had not differed from Alphaeus, father of St. James (see Matthew 13:55-56 and the explanation). Nowhere do we see his name associated with that of St. James the Less.

Matthew is a name of Hebrew origin. Its Jewish pronunciation was Mattai, םתי. The Greeks, by adding a masculine ending, transformed it into Ματθαῖος (this is the most common spelling. Several critics, relying on manuscripts B and D, etc., write Μαθθαῖος), from which the Latins derived Matthaeus. It means gift of the Lord and therefore corresponds to Theodore or God-given (compare Matthew 19:9 ff. with the commentary). The author of the first Gospel nowhere gives himself another name, and yet the parallel accounts in Mark 2:14 ff. (see the commentary) and Luke 5:27 ff. tell us that he had borne the name Levi before calling himself Matthew. Rationalists, it is true, claim to find in this divergence of accounts a manifest contradiction; other commentators (in ancient times, Heracleon, cited by Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 4.9; Origen, c. Cels, 1, 69, who is usually presented as an opponent of the identity of Levi and St. Matthew, actually supports it; cf. de Valroger, Historical and critical introduction to the books of the New Testament.. t. 2 p. 21. In modern times, Grotius, annotated. In Matth9, 9; Sieffert, Origin of the first Gospel., Koenigsberg, 1832 p. 59; Michaelis, Introduction, t. 2n. 935; Frisch, Dissertation. From Levi cum Matth. non-confundendo, Lips, 1746) assume that Levi and Matthew were two distinct individuals. But we will have no difficulty proving, when we study the fact of St. Matthew's conversion, according to St. Matthew himself, that these are entirely gratuitous assumptions. Like St. Peter, like St. Paul, like St. Mark, St. Matthew successively had two names that marked two entirely different periods of his life. As a Jew, he was called Levi; as a Christian and apostle, he became St. Matthew. Just as St. Paul nowhere mentions in his letters the Israelite name he received at circumcision, so too the first Evangelist refers to himself only by his Christian name. He adopts it in anticipation, even before becoming the Apostle of Jesus. The other two Synoptic Gospels [the three Synoptic Gospels St. Matthew, St. Mark and St. Luke], whose historical accuracy is usually more rigorous, distinguish on the contrary between the first and second appellations.

Before hearing Jesus' call, Matthew, or Levi, served as a publican, that is, a tax collector. (See Matthew 9:9 and parallel passages.) This office, which the Romans considered a disgrace (see the explanation of Matthew 5:46), and the Jews a heinous sin deserving excommunication (see also Matthew 9:10-11; 11:19; 18:17; 21:32), seems to have afforded him a certain degree of comfort; witness the sumptuous feast we will see him give to the Savior after his conversion. He resided in Capernaum (Matthew 9:1, 7, 9; Mark 2:1-43), and his office was near the Sea of Galilee (Mark 2:13-14). 

We know the circumstances that made the disgraced tax collector one of Jesus' first disciples. If the divine Master manifested the immensity of his love and mercy by calling Levi to follow him, the latter proved himself worthy of such a choice by the promptness and generosity of his response to grace. He seems to have been the seventh apostle according to the order of calling; cf. John 1, 37-51; Matt. 4, 18-22. This is the rank that St. Mark, 3, 18, and St. Luke, 6,15; Cf. Acts of the Apostles 1, 13, assign him in their lists. As for him, he only takes the eighth place and puts himself after St. Thomas. Cf. Matthew 10:3.

He is no longer mentioned in the Gospels after his vocation to the Apostleship. His name, however, appears one last time in the New Testament writings on the occasion of the descent of the Holy Spirit and the election of Saint Matthias. What became of him afterward? In which regions did he go to preach the Good News? The information from tradition on these two points is scarce, uncertain, and sometimes even contradictory. According to the testimonies of Clement of Alexandria (Stromat. 6) and Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. 3, 24; cf. Iren. Adv. Haer. 3, 1, 1), he would have first remained for some time in Jerusalem: it was only twelve or fifteen years after Pentecost that he would have gone to ἐφ'ἑτέρους. The other ecclesiastical writers of the first centuries have him exercising his apostolate sometimes in Macedonia (Isidor. Hispal., of life and death sanctorum(c. 67), sometimes in Arabia, in Syria, in Persia, in the land of the Medes (cf. Cave, Antiq. apost., p. 553 et seq.), sometimes in Ethiopia (Rufin, Ecclesiastical History10.9; Socrates, Ecclesiastical History. 1, 19).

A similar uncertainty surrounds his death. While Heracleon (Ap. Clem. Alex., Stromat. 4, 9) He died in a natural way, others assert that he gloriously ended his days by martyrdom (cf. Nicephorus. Ecclesiastical History. 2, 41). The Church decided in favor of this second opinion (Breviar. Rom. 21 Sept.; Cf. Martyrol. rom., ead. die. The apocryphal work published by Tischendorf under this title: “ Acts and Martyrdom of St. Matthew "is worthless). The Latins celebrate the feast of St. Matthew on September 21, the Greeks on December 16. 

AUTHENTICITY OF THE FIRST GOSPEL

Intrinsic evidence has sometimes been used to demonstrate that St. Matthew is indeed the author of the Gospel that bears his name. The following, in particular, have been quite frequently cited. 1. St. Luke 5:29 recounts that Levi, immediately after his calling to the apostleship, gave a great feast in honor of Our Lord Jesus Christ; the first Gospel mentions this meal in 9:9 ff., but without naming the host. 2. St. Luke and St. Mark, as mentioned above (see § 1), place St. Matthew seventh among the Apostles; the author of the first Gospel gives him only eighth. 3. This author is the only one who adds the humiliating epithet "tax collector" to St. Matthew's name in his list of the Apostles. These meticulous details, which had already attracted the attention of Eusebius and St. Jerome (see Patritii, of the Gospels books(Fribourg, p. 4 et seq.), certainly have their probative force; but it is quite clear that they are far from sufficient to demonstrate the authenticity of the first Gospel. We therefore mention them only as simple confirmation. The true arguments, when it comes to proving that a book is authentic, have always been and will always be arguments from authority, or extrinsic evidence. It is therefore specifically on this kind of evidence that we will rely to support the claim that the Gospel of St. Matthew is authentic in its present form. 

For the sake of clarity, we will distinguish between the testimonies of orthodox writers, those of heterodox writers, and finally the testimony of the apocryphal Gospels.

1The testimonies of Catholic writers are sometimes direct, sometimes indirect; direct when they affirm positively that St. Matthew composed the first of the four Gospel redactions; indirect when they limit themselves to quoting some passages from this redaction, attributing to them the value of Gospel texts.

1° Direct testimonies. — The oldest is that of Papias, disciple of St. John (St. Iren. Adv. haer. 5, 33, 4; Hieron. de Viris illustr. 100 18), died in the year 130 of the Christian era. This holy bishop, in a work entitled Λογίων ϰυριαϰῶν ἐξηγήσεις, of which the historian Eusebius has preserved for us some fragments (Hist. Eccles. 3, 39), assures that S. Matthew exposed the λογία, that is to say the story of Jesus (Ματθαῖος μὲν οῦν ἑβραἱδι διαλέϰτω τὰ λογία διετάξατο, ἡρμήνεῦσε δ' αὐτὰ ὠς ἠν δυνατὁς εϰαστος λογία. It is false that this word simply designates, as the rationalists claim, the words and discourses of the Savior. “What proves that for Papias, the λογία of St. Matthew did not exclude the narration of events is that he himself had titled his work Commentary on the λογία of the Lord, which did not prevent him from dealing with events, from reporting miracles, as demonstrated by the fragments preserved by Eusebius. Moreover, in mentioning the Gospel of St. Mark, which certainly included narratives and discourses (λεϰθέντα ἡ πραϰθέντα), Papias nonetheless designates both, as with St. Matthew, by this single term: all the Lord's speeches This is clear proof that, for him, the word λογία in no way excludes the narration of facts. Furthermore, St. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen also call our Gospels the λογία of the Lord. Should we conclude from this that the narrative element was still absent in the 3rd century? Schleiermacher and Credner put forward the hypothesis that Renan later echoed many years ago; but Lücke, Hug, Thiersch, Maier, and so many other critics have long since demonstrated its falsity. Freppel, Written Examination. On the Life of Jesus by Mr. Renan, 2nd edition, pp. 15 and 16.

S. Irenaeus, the illustrious archbishop of Lyon, who lived towards the end of the second century, writes in his work against heresies, 3, 1: Ὁ μὲν δὴ Ματθαῖος ἐν τοῖς Ἑϐραίοις τῇ ἰδἰα διαλέϰτῳ αὐτῶν ϰαί γραφὴν ἐξἐνεγγϰεν εὐαγγελίου.

Clement of Alexandria, Stromat. 1, 21, affirms the same fact. Origen is no less explicit: Ώς ἐν παραδόσει μαθὼν περί τῶν τεσσάρων εὐαγγελίων, ά ϰαί μόνα ἀναντίῤῥητά ἐστιν ἐν τῇ… ἐϰϰλησία τοῦ Θεοῦ ὄτι πρῶτον μὲν γέγραπται τὸ ϰατὰ τὸν ποτὲ τελώνην, ὕστερον δὲ ἀπόστολον Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ Ματθαῖον (ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 6, 25). 

Eusebius of Caesarea, S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Epiphanius also attribute to S. Matthew, in the most formal terms, the composition of the first Gospel. Ματθαῖος μὲν, says Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3, 24, παραδοὺς τό ϰατ αὐτὸν εὐαγγέλιον. And S. Cyrille, Catech. 14, c. 15: Ματθαῖος δ γράψας τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. And S. Epiphane, haer 30, c. 3: ὡς τὰ ἀληθῆ είπεῖν, ὅτι Ματθαῖος μόνος ἑϐραῖστὶ ἐν τῇ ϰαινῇ διαθήϰῃ ἐποιήσατο τὴν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἕϰθεσίν τε ϰαὶ ϰήρυγμα.

Similar claims in the Latin Church. Tertullian calls St. Matthew "a very faithful commentator on the Gospel" (De carne Christi, c. 22, Cf. cont. Marcion. 4, 2, 5) » ; the word comment This should be taken here in the sense of "a collection of facts intended for future generations." St. Jerome, in De Vir. Illustr. c. 3 (Cf. comment. in Matth. , prolog), writes for his part: "Matthew, who also goes by the name of Levi, a tax collector who became an apostle, was the first to compose a gospel of Christ for believers who came from the circumcision." 

To these patristic assertions, which could easily be multiplied, especially from the fourth century onward, we will add two testimonies no less direct and no less convincing. The first is contained in the famous document known as the Muratorian Canon, which certainly dates from the second century. It expressly mentions the Gospel according to St. Matthew among the inspired writings. The second testimony is deduced from the titles placed at the beginning of the first Gospel, both in the Greek text and in the oldest versions, such as the Syrian Peshitta and the Itala. These titles, which uniformly attribute the first Gospel to St. Matthew (Εὐαγγέλιον ϰατὰ Ματθαῖον, Evangelium secundum Matthaeum, etc.), presuppose that, from the very beginning of the Church, the book now regarded by all Christians like the work of the publican Levi, existed in the ranks of the faithful under the same name and with the same authority. 

2. Indirect Testimonies. – Ecclesiastical writers of the early centuries quote numerous passages from the first Gospel, presenting them as inspired lines: proof that this Gospel, in its current form, dates back to the beginning of the Christianity. 

Here again we will limit ourselves to pointing out a few examples.

S. Clement pope, died in 101, wrote to the Corinthians (1st letter, c. 46): Μνῄσθητε τῶν λογων Ίησοῦ τοῦ ϰυρίου ἡμῶν. Εῖπε γαρ· οὐαί τῶ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐϰείνῳ·ϰαλὸν ἦν αὐτῷ εί οὐϰ ἐγεννήθη, ἧ ἕνα τῶν ἐϰλεϰτῶν μου σϰανδαλσαι·ϰρεῖττον ἦν αὐτῷ ἦ ἕνα τῶν μιϰρῶν μου σϰανδαλίσαι There are in these words two texts from S. Matthew, 26, 24 and 18, 6, merged together. Also compare Clem. Rom., 1 Corinthians 13 and Matt. 6, 12.

St. Polycarp, disciple of St. John, said to the Philippians (letter to Philipp. c. 2): Μνηνονεύσαντες δὲ ὧν εῖπεν ὁ ϰύριος διδάσϰων… Μὴ ϰρίνετε ῖνα μη ϰριθῆτε (Cf. Matt. 7, 1), ἐν ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρῆτε, ἀντιμετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν (Cf. Matt. 7, 2) σύνης, etc. (Cf. Matt. 5, 3-10). See again Ep. ad. Philipp. c. 7, and Matt. 6, 13; 26, 41.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, ad Rom. c. 6, quotes verbatim St. Matthew, 16:26. Compare likewise the letter of St. Barnabas, c. 4 ad fin. and Matthew 20:16; Athenagoras, Legat. pro Christ- Chapters 11, 12, 22 and Matthew 5:44 ff.; Theophilus of Antioch, ad AntolMatthew 3:13-14 and Matthew 5:28, 32, 44 ff. But it is especially in the writings of St. Justin Martyr that we find material to glean from the perspective that concerns us. They contain a considerable number of texts specific to the first Gospel, which are quoted sometimes as we read them today, sometimes after being combined with one another, although they remain, even then, perfectly recognizable. It would have been impossible for St. Justin to make these quotations if he had not had before him a text from the first Gospel similar to ours.

We now understand that the historian Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History. 3, 25, had counted the Gospel according to St. Matthew among the canonical books whose authenticity was indisputable. We can still understand this indignant protest that St. Augustine addressed to the Manichean Faustus: “If I begin to read the Gospel of Matthew…you will immediately say: this account is not from Matthew, story that theuniversal church claims to be from Matthew, from the chairs of the apostles to the current bishops, in an unbroken succession (cont. Faust(l. 28, c. 2)

 2. S. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 3, 11, 7), speaking of the testimonies given in favor of the Gospels by the heretics of his time, exclaimed with holy joy: The Gospels have such authority that even heretics bear witness to them. For it is by relying on them that each of them tries to confirm their doctrine. For us, as for the great doctor of Lyon, it will be consoling to see the authenticity of the Gospels, and first of all that of St. Matthew, proven by the heterodox writers of ancient times.

The famous Basilides, a contemporary of the last surviving members of the apostolic college, quotes St. Matthew, 7, 6 (Ap. Epiph. Haer. 24, 5). He also knows the story of the Magi as told in the first Gospel (cf. Hippol. Philosoph. 7, 27).

Valentin, that other famous Gnostic, who lived in the first half of the second century, bases his heretical system on two passages from St. Matthew, 5, 18-19 and 19, 20 ff. (cf. Iren. adv. Haer. 1, 3, 2 and following). — Ptolemy, his disciple, also knew several texts of our Gospel: this can be seen by comparing his “letter to Florus”, preserved in the writings of St. Epiphanius (Haer. 33), with Matthew 12:25; 19:8; 15:5 and following; 5:17. 39.

Isidore, son of Basilides, mentions (Ap. Clem. Alex. Strom. 3, 1) several verses that we read in chapter 19 (5. 10 ff.) of St. Matthew. Cerdo, another heretic of the second century, cites (Ap. Theodor. Haeret. Fab. 1, 24, cf. Matt. 5, 38 ff.) part of the Sermon on the Mount. Other, lesser-known sectarians, such as the Ophites, the Naassenes, and the Sethians, all predating the third century, also sought bases for their errors in various accounts specific to the first evangelist (For the Ophites, see Epiph. Haer37.7. For the Naassenes, Hippolyte Philosophum. 5, 7 (cf. Matt. 19, 17; 5, 45); 5, 8 (cf. Matt. 13, 44; 23, 27; 27, 52; 11, 5; 7, 21; 21, 31; 2, 18 etc.). For the Sethians, ibid. 5, 21 (cf. Matt. 10, 34)).

The heretical work known as "Homilies Clementines" contains several quotations obviously taken from the Gospel according to St. Matthew, of which four are literal, ten are almost exact, and eleven are a little more free.

Tatian (cf. Clem. Alex. Strom. 3, 12) claims to demonstrate, based on Matthew 6:19, the legitimacy of his rigorous asceticism. Moreover, in his "Diatessaron," the oldest of all the Gospel concords, he gives considerable weight to the account of St. Matthew. Theodotus and Marcion also make very frequent use of the first Gospel (for the former, see the works of Clement of Alexandria, ed. Potter, § 59, cf. Matthew 12:29; § 12, cf. Matthew 17:2; § 14 and 51, cf. Matthew 10:28; § 86, cf. Matthew 25:5. For the latter, see Tertull. adv. Marc 2, 7; 4, 17, 36 (cf Matt. 5, 45), 3, 13 (cf Matt. 2, 1 et seq.); 4, 7; 5, 14 (cf Matt. 5, 17); etc.).

Even Jewish and pagan writers were familiar with the work of St. Matthew and attested to its antiquity. These include, on the one hand, Celsus and Porphyry (Ap. Orig. adv. Cels. 1, 58 and 65); and on the other, the Israelite authors of the fourth book of Ezra and the Apocalypse of Baruch.

3The apocryphal gospels form the third series of testimonies from early Christianity that support the authenticity of the first canonical gospel. Nowhere do these books explicitly mention the work of St. Matthew; nevertheless, several of their narratives seem to presuppose his existence at the time they were themselves composed. This is particularly true of the writings known as the Proto-Gospel of St. James, the Gospel of Nicodemus, and the Gospel according to the Hebrews. For example, chapter 17 of the "Protevangelium Jacobi" (see Brunet, the apocryphal gospels(Paris, 1863, p. 111 ff.) has as its natural basis Matthew 13:55; chapter 21 is in perfect correlation with Matthew 2. Likewise, chapter 26 with Matthew 23:35. Compare also chapters 2 and 9 of the Gospel of Nicodemus (Ibid., p. 215 ff.) with Matthew 27:19, 44-45. As for the Gospel according to the Hebrews, it is probable, as we will say later, that it owes its origin directly to the redaction of St. Matthew; it therefore proves its authenticity. (The development of this third type of proof can be found in the books of Constantin Tischendorf.)

From all the preceding testimonies (the reader will have noticed that they mostly belong to the first two centuries of the Christian era, a circumstance which further enhances their authority), we can conclude in the most peremptory way that the first Gospel is authentic: Whoever would refuse to admit the value of the evidence we have indicated, should, if he were consistent with himself, cease to believe in the authenticity of any book whatsoever.

4And yet, in the 19th century, a considerable number of so-called critics did not hesitate to regard the Gospel according to St. Matthew as a literary forgery dating from much later than the apostolic era (in ancient times, only the Manichean Faustus denied the authenticity of the first Gospel; cf. Augustine, c. Faustus 17, 1). According to Sixtus of Siena, Biblioth. SanctaIn verse 7, verse 2, the Anabaptists would likewise have rejected it as apocryphal. Today, it is not only advanced rationalists, such as de Wette, Strauss, and Baur, who share this view; usually moderate men, such as Lücke, Lachmann, and Neander, admit it without hesitation. This fact is in itself quite strange; but what is even stranger is that one should claim to speak in the name of science when formulating such an assertion. What scientific arguments could possibly be powerful enough to overturn the belief of eighteen centuries? To the extrinsic arguments alleged above, the opponents of the first Gospel find nothing serious to oppose. All their proofs are intrinsic, and therefore subjective, based on personal judgments. It will suffice to mention the principal ones here; we will encounter the others in the commentary, concerning the particular facts to which they relate.

1. Nothing in the first Gospel indicates that the author was an eyewitness to the events he recounts. The apostle St. Matthew would have been more precise with regard to places, dates, and people. 

2. The first Gospel completely omits very important events in the life of Jesus. For example, it says nothing about his ministry in Judea, or about the resurrection of Lazarus, of the healing of the man born blind, etc. It is therefore at most a disciple of the apostles who composed it (Schneckenburger, Ursprung des erst. Kanon. Evangelium, Stuttgart, 1834). 

3. Some actions or words of Jesus are related several times in various places in the Gospel, although with slight variations. Compare 9:32 ff. with 12:2 ff.; 12:38 ff. with 16:1 ff.; 14:13 ff. with 15:29 ff.; 16:28 with 24:34; 11:14 with 17:11 ff.; 5:32 with 19:9; 10:40-42 with 18:5; etc. (De Wette, Weisse, Holtzmann). 

4. The first Gospel contains marvelous, legendary events that an apostle would certainly not have admitted into his narrative (this assertion is attributed to Dr. Strauss; see Leben Jesu, passim. See also de Wette, Kurzgef. Exeget. Handbuch zum N. Test. t. 1, P. 5 4th ed.), Examples: several appearances of angels in the first and last pages of the Gospel, the story of the temptation of Jesus, ch. 4; the didrachma in the mouth of the fish, 17, 24 and following; the curse of the fig tree, 21, 18 and following; the resurrection of people who had been dead for some time, 17, 52 and following; etc.

5. Several Old Testament prophecies, which the author of the first Gospel wanted Jesus to fulfill, had a visible influence on the narration of certain events. See 21:7; 27:3 ff. Further proof that no apostle had any hand in writing them (De Wette, lcp 6).

It is easy to answer all these objections. — 1. We will encounter, on almost every page of the first Gospel, many a picturesque passage or expression which could be used to prove that the narrator had seen with his own eyes most of the events he included in his account. Cf. 9:9 ff.; 12:9-10, 13:49; 131:1; 14:24-32; etc. If the writing of St. Matthew, compared to those of St. Mark and St. Luke, is generally less precise and less detailed, this is because its plan was more specifically dogmatic, as we will explain below. — 2. The omissions attributed to the author of the first Gospel were entirely deliberate on his part, since his primary aim was to recount the Savior's public ministry in Galilee. He is, however, familiar with and mentions in passing Jesus' travels in Judea; Cf. 4:12; 19:1. — 3. The alleged repetitions stem sometimes from a regrettable error by our adversaries, who have identified entirely distinct things, and sometimes from Our Lord Jesus Christ himself, who certainly repeated, on various occasions during his public ministry, certain important sayings that he wished to fix in the minds of his listeners. — 4 and 5. The last two objections attack the veracity of the first Gospel much more than its authenticity. Moreover, they are based on preconceived ideas, on dogmatic prejudices, which we need not address here. — As long as no other grounds can be raised against the Holy Gospels, and, thank God, no other grounds ever will be, we can always regard them with confidence as the work of the holy figures to whom tradition attributes them.

INTEGRITY 

Towards the end of the 18th century and during the early years of the 19th, several critics, while admitting the authenticity of the first Gospel considered as a whole, nevertheless denied that it was entirely the original work of St. Matthew (the Englishman William is considered to have first formulated this view). According to them, the first two chapters, which recount the childhood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, certainly did not date back to the apostolic era. They would have been added at a later date by some unknown compiler. Two main reasons were given by the proponents of this singular opinion. 1. It is impossible to establish a true harmony between the accounts of the first and third Gospels relating to the childhood of the Savior. One of them is therefore necessarily apocryphal; but this can only be that of St. Matthew, since St. Luke presents himself "ex professo" 1, 1 and 2, as the historian of the early years of Jesus. 2° Chapters 1 and 2 of S. Matthew were missing in the Gospel of the Ebionites (cf. Epiph. Haer. 30, 13. This Gospel is probably the same as that of the Hebrews) and in the Diatessaron of Tatian (cf. Théodoret, Haeretic. Fab. 1, 20: τὰς τε γενεαλογίας περιϰόψας ϰαὶ τὰ αλλα, ὅσα ἐϰ σπέρματος Δαϐίδ ϰατα σάρϰα γεγεννημένον τὸν ϰύριον δείϰνυσιν.); proof that they were not generally regarded as authentic in the early Church. But these reasons are worthless. The contradictions that have been claimed to exist between the narrative of St. Matthew and that of Luke exist only superficially, as we will demonstrate in the commentary. As for the omission of the first two chapters of St. Matthew in the sources indicated above, it was evidently for dogmatic purposes, which negates the significance that some would attribute to it here. The Ebionites wanted a purely human Messiah, and Tatian was an avowed perpetrator of the Docetists' error. For the Ebionites and for Tatian, the genealogy of the Savior, the story of his virginal conception and birth, his adoration by the Magi, etc., contained formal arguments against their heresies; they found it more convenient to suppress these facts with a stroke of the pen. Such an omission is rather beneficial than detrimental to the integrity of the first Gospel. Moreover, the beginning of St. Matthew's account is too similar to the following pages, both in terms of ideas (we already see there, five or six times, those Old Testament quotations that are principal characteristics of the first Gospel; cf. 1:22-23; 2:4-6, 15, 17, 18, 23) and in terms of style, to have been inserted by a forger. Furthermore, this beginning is assumed by the rest of the narrative. Verse 13 of chapter 4 is unintelligible without the end of the second chapter (5:23). Verse 1 of chapter 3 would make a very poor opening; on the contrary, it connects very well with what precedes it. J.P. Lange therefore rightly said that one could just as easily separate the head from the body as the first two chapters from the following ones. If we add to this intrinsic evidence the very explicit testimony of several writers of the second and third centuries (St. Irenaeus and Origen quote various passages from these chapters, as does the pagan Celsus, as we have seen previously), we will understand why the integrity of our Gospel is completely beyond question.

TIME AND PLACE OF THE COMPOSITION OF THE FIRST GOSPEL

Among the ecclesiastical writers of the first centuries, all those who have had the idea of establishing a comparison between the four Gospels from a chronological point of view, invariably assign priority to that of St. Matthew. "Matthew, in his gospel," says Origen, "is the first to have sounded the priestly trumpet (Hom. 7 in Jos. Edit. Ben. t. 2, p. 412; cf. Iren. adv. haer. 3, 1, 1). And elsewhere: Ἀρξάμενοι ἁπὸ τοῦ Ματθαίου, ὅς ϰαὶ παραδέδοται πρῶτος λοιπῶν τοῖς Ἑϐραίοις ὲϰδεδωϰέναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῖς ἐϰ περιτομῆς πις τεύουσι (Comm. In Jean t. 4, p. 132; cf. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 6, 25). St. Augustine is no less emphatic on this point: “To put the Gospel into writing, something which must be believed to have been ordained by God himself, two of those whom Jesus had chosen before his Passion occupied respectively the first and last places: Matthew, the first, John, the last. So that those who hear the word, like sons embraced (with two arms), placed by that very fact in the middle, might be strengthened on both sides (de consen. Evangel. Lib. 1, c. 2). Likewise, St. Jerome, From vir. illust. c. 3. » These assertions are confirmed by the place that the Gospel according to St. Matthew has always occupied in the canon of the New Testament.

But at what precise time was it composed? This is impossible to determine with certainty, because tradition ceases to be unanimous on this point. Theophylact (Praefat. ad Matth.) and Euthymius Zigabenus (Comm. ad Matth.) place its appearance eight years after the Ascension (M. Gilly, in his A concise introduction, both general and specific, to Holy Scripture, Nîmes, 1868, vol. 3, p. 203, accepts this date). The "Chronicon paschale" and the historian Nicephorus (Ecclesiastical History. 2, 45) place it around the year 45 or 48; Eusebius of Caesarea (Ecclesiastical History. 3, 24), at the time when the apostles separated to go and preach the Gospel throughout the world, that is, about 12 years after Pentecost. Cosmas Indicopleustes (Ap. Montfaucon, Collect. nova patr. Graec. t. 2, p. 245. Cf. Patritii. de Evangel. Lib. 3, p. 50) thinks that it would have taken place immediately after the martyrdom of St. Stephen: St. Irenaeus, on the contrary, seems to push it back to after the year 60, when he says that St. Matthew published his Gospel "when Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the Church there (Adv. Haer. 3, 1, 1)”. Indeed, the two apostles were not together in Rome until around the year 66 or 67 AD. Modern writers sometimes adopt one or the other of these dates. Most, however, subscribe to Eusebius's intermediate opinion, according to which our Gospel was written around the year 45. What is certain is that it appeared before the capture of Jerusalem by the Romans, therefore before the year 70, since chapters 23 and 24 contain the prophecy of this event.

Contemporary exegetes (Hug, Einleitung in die Schrift. N.T.. t.2, § 5; A. Maier, Introduction(p. 67; etc.) believed they had found in several passages of the first Gospel indications of a relatively late composition. For example, the expression "to this day," 27:8; 28:15, which, according to them, would designate a period much later than the resurrection of the Savior, or even the parenthetical phrase "let the reader understand," 24:15, which would prove that at the time the evangelist was writing the last chapters, the Romans were already advancing against Judea. But these interpretations are exaggerated; ἕως τῆς σήμερον is a Jewish expression, which undoubtedly indicates that some time has passed since a specific period, but without requiring that this time be considerable. Ten years, twenty years would suffice to verify it. As for the other passage, we will say, in interpreting it, that it perhaps contains a reflection of Our Lord Jesus Christ himself. Moreover, even if it had been inserted by St. Matthew, as many commentators believe, it simply means that the catastrophe predicted by the Savior was approaching, that its precursor symptoms were visible, not however that it was imminent.

It has always been generally accepted that the Gospel according to St. Matthew was composed in Palestine. This is very clear from the testimonies bequeathed to us by sacred antiquity. It suffices to recall that of Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History., 3, 24: Ματθαῖος μὲν γὰρ πρότερον Ἑϐραίοις ϰηρύξας, ὡς ἕμελλε ἐφʹ ἑτέρους ἰέναι…παραδοὺς τὸ ϰατʹ αὺτὸν εὐαγγέλιον, τὸ λοῖπον τῆ αὐτοῦ παρουσίᾳ τούτοις ἀφʹ ᾧν ἐστέλλετο διὰ τῆς γραφῆς ἀπεπλήρου. According to the Synopsis attributed to St. Athanasius, it was in Jerusalem that the first Gospel was published. “As this city was the central point from which the Gospel word radiated in all directions, it is very likely that it was also there that this first Gospel came into being” (de Valroger, Historical and critical introduction to the books of the New Testament.(Vol. 2, p. 26).

DESTINATION AND PURPOSE OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW

The prevailing opinion, in ancient and modern times, was that St. Matthew, in writing his Gospel, had in mind above all those of his compatriots who, like him, had converted to ChristianityThe Jews who had become Christians, and especially the Jewish Christians of Palestine, were the specific circle to whom he addressed himself directly. Eusebius of Caesarea has just told us this explicitly (see the end of the preceding paragraph). We read above (§ 2, 1, 1°) the words of St. Irenaeus and St. Jerome affirming the same fact. Origen (Ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 6, 25: τοῖς ᾀπὸ Ίουδαῖσμον πιστεύσασι), S. Gregory of Nazianzus (Carm. 13, v. 31: Ματθαῖος ἕγραψεν Εϐραίοις) and S. John Chrysostom (Hom. 1 in MatthThey also consider it certain. In short, tradition has never wavered on this point. Now, the information it has transmitted to us is corroborated in a striking way by the content, the form, and, if we may use this expression, the tone of the first Gospel. Everything in it indicates “a Judeo-Christian work, composed for Judeo-Christians (Gilly, lcp 196).” It is interesting, in this respect, to compare the work of St. Matthew with those of St. Mark and St. Luke, which were originally written for readers of pagan origin. St. Mark interweaves his narrative with archaeological notes intended to explain Jewish expressions or customs that would not have been understood outside of Judaism: he defines the Corban (7:11), the Paraskeva (15:42), explains what is meant by “common hands” (7:2), etc. St. Luke, for his part, multiplies the geographical notes, because his friend Theophilus, 1, 3, (Cf. Acts of the Apostles 1, 1), did not know the setting of the Savior's life. He says that Nazareth and Capernaum were cities of Galilee. 1. 26; 4, 31; that the town of Arimathea was in Judea, 25, 15. He indicates the distance that separated Emmaus from Jerusalem. 24, 13. etc. (cf. Acts of the Apostles 1, 2; see also John 1:38, 41, 42; 2:6; 7:37; 11:18; etc.). Nothing, or at least almost nothing similar, in St. Matthew. Christians Those to whom he intended his Gospel were therefore familiar with the language, customs, and localities of Palestine; they were consequently former Jews who had converted. If, in a few rare places (1:23; 27:8, 33, 46), the Hebrew words are accompanied by a short interpretation, this must be the work of the translator who rendered the Aramaic work of St. Matthew into Greek (see the following section). If the doctrine of the Sadducees concerning the resurrection of the dead is characterized in a special way, 22, 23, this comes from the fact that the Sadducean sect was relatively little known to the Jewish people (cf. Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 18, 1, 4).

Just as the author of the first Gospel omitted details he deemed unnecessary for his readers, so too he strongly emphasized what might impress and interest Christians from a Jewish background. Jerusalem is the holy city par excellence (cf. 4:5; 27:53). The Mosaic Law will not be destroyed, but transfigured, restored to its ideal by the Christianity(cf. 5:17-19). Messianic salvation was preached first and foremost to the Jews alone (10:5ff.); the Savior's personal ministry was specifically reserved for them (15:25); only later were the Samaritans and Gentiles to hear the preaching of the Gospel. Conversely, and for a similar reason, the particular prejudices and evil tendencies of the Jews were repeatedly highlighted and refuted in the Gospel according to St. Matthew. Thus, the first evangelist elaborates more than the others on the discourses in which Our Lord Jesus Christ anathematized the errors and vices of the Pharisees and opposed their false interpretations with his entirely heavenly doctrine. "These speeches, reported in full, were obviously only of interest to men living under the influence of Pharisaic doctrines and customs, and could only be addressed to readers whom it was urgent to remove from this pernicious influence" (Vilmain, Critical Studies on the Gospels, in the Review of Ecclesiastical Sciences, May, 1867). » Hence again the mention of several facts or words which were living protests against the rabbinic doctrine according to which the Jews alone would be saved by the Messiah, to the exclusion of the pagans; Cf. 2, 1 et ss.; 4, 15 and 16; 8, 11; 28, 19; etc.

The purpose and destination of a work are always two correlative things. Written more directly for Jewish Christians, the first Gospel had to pursue a specific goal, in keeping with the origin, character, and needs of its original readers: and indeed, this is what it does. Its marked tendency, perfectly visible throughout the narrative's twists and turns, and recognized by most exegetes, is to prove historically that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah promised to the Jews by the God of the Old Covenant. Jesus fulfilled, feature for feature, the great messianic ideal of the Prophets: this is the fundamental idea upon which everything rests, to which everything is reduced in the account of St. Matthew. It is unnecessary to describe the interest that this thesis, well developed, could hold for converted Jews, the services it could render to the cause of the Christianity among the Israelites who remained unbelieving. It is better to quickly indicate how the evangelist remained faithful to his goal from the first page to the last. 

1° From the beginning, he traces the genealogy of Jesus, in order to link him to David and Abraham, from whom the Messiah was to be born according to the Prophets. 

2. Often, and in a very particular way, he mentions the writings of the Old Testament to show that Jesus fulfilled this or that messianic passage. The formulas he uses are significant: “This took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken through his prophet”; 1:22. Cf. 2:15, 23; 3:14, etc. “Then what had been spoken was fulfilled…”; 2:17; 27:9, etc. He quotes the Old Testament as many as forty-three times (among these quotations, thirteen are from the Pentateuch, nine from the Psalms, and sixteen from the prophetic writings) directly, which only happens nineteen times in St. Luke. 

3. In the public life and Passion of the Savior, he likes to highlight the features by which the divine Master most openly manifested his messianic character. Jesus had a Forerunner (3:3 and 11:10); he evangelized primarily the province of Galilee, which had once suffered so much (4:14-6); he multiplied miracles under his feet, 8, 17; 12, 17; he readily veiled his teaching in the form of parables13:14; he entered the Jewish capital triumphantly one day like a king, 21:5-16; his people rejected him, 21:42; his disciples abandoned him, 26:31-56: all these events and others like them, which abound in the first Gospel, prove that St. Matthew's aim was indeed to show the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets by Our Lord Jesus Christ. From this perspective, it is true to say that this Gospel represents the Jewish side of Christian doctrine. But it would be a gross error to add, with some rationalist writers (Schwegler, Hilgenfeld), that it Judaized the ideas of Christ and that all its non-Jewish elements are interpolations. St. Matthew is no more a Petrine than St. Luke is a Pauline (our readers know that these two barbarous names, derived from the names of St. Peter and St. Paul, were invented by rationalists to designate the supposed parties that formed in the Christian Church shortly after the death of Christ, one favorable to Jewish ideas and led by St. Peter, the other liberal, cosmopolitan, and led by St. Paul. See Le Hir, Bible Studies(vol. 2, p. 293 ff.), and it is only by distorting history that one can arrive at such conclusions. — We need not say that, despite the stated purpose above, the work of St. Matthew cannot be compared to an exclusively dogmatic text. The author does not address himself solely to the mind to prove that Jesus is the promised Messiah; he perhaps addresses himself even more to the heart to persuade that one must live in accordance with the doctrine of Christ (de Valroger, lcp 25). Moreover, his method remains primarily historical.

LANGUAGE IN WHICH THE FIRST GOSPEL WAS WRITTEN

This point, on which there was not the slightest doubt for many centuries, has become, since the Renaissance, the most difficult and complicated (Grawilz, On the original language of the Gospel. by S. Matthew, Paris, 1827) of all those that are dealt with in an Introduction to the first Gospel.

Tradition, however, is as clear and definitive as can be when it comes to determining the language in which St. Matthew composed his Gospel. Our early ecclesiastical writers unanimously affirm that it was Hebrew, or more precisely, Aramaic (often called Syro-Chaldean; Schegg alone believes that the first Gospel was originally written in pure Hebrew), which was then in use throughout Palestine, and of which the Talmuds are a precious remnant. In discussing the authenticity of the first Gospel (§ 2), we cited several of their testimonies; it will suffice to recall their principal expressions here.

Papias: ἑϐραΐδι διαλέϰτῳ, ap. Euseb. Hist. eccl. 3, 39.

S. Irénée: ἐν τοῖς Ἑϐραίος τῇ ἰδία διαλέϰτῳ αὐτῶν, adv. Hær. 3, l.

St. Pantaenus, about whom Eusebius writes in his history, 5.10: “It is reported (λέγεται) that, having gone to India, he found there written in Hebrew (Αὐτοῖς τε Ἑϐραίων γράμμασῖ) the Gospel according to St. Matthew which St. Bartholomew had brought to those lands.” St. Jerome, de Vir. illustr., c. 36, recounts the same event: "Pantenus reports that Bartholomew, one of the twelve apostles, had preached the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the gospel of Matthew, and that, returning to Alexandria, he brought back with him this gospel written in Hebrew letters."

Origen: γράμμασιν Ἑϐραΐϰοις συντεταγμένον, apud Euseb., Hist. Eccl. 6.25.

Eusebius of Caesarea: πατρίῳ γλώττῃ, in the native language of the Hebrews for whom he wrote. Ecclesiastical History., 3, 24. Elsewhere, Ἑϐραΐδι γλώττῃ.

S. Jerome: “He (Saint Matthew) composed a gospel in Hebrew”; Pref. in Matt.; Cf. contra. Pelag. 3, l. 

Likewise, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. 14, St. Epiphanius, Haeres. 30, 3, St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Augustine, in short, all the Fathers of the Church, both Eastern and Western (cf. Richard Simon, A Critical History of the New Testament(vol. 1, pp. 54-55). Likewise, following them, all commentators up to the 16th century. Does not this long chain of testimony, going back from link to link to the apostolic era, settle the matter in favor of Aramaic? We affirm it without hesitation. An impartial examination of the preceding testimonies leads us to this conclusion: faced with such a large number of independent witnesses, we would violate the first principles of historical criticism if we refused to admit that St. Matthew wrote his original Gospel in Hebrew. No fact relating to the history of the Gospels is established in a more complete and satisfactory manner. From the time of the Apostles until the end of the 4th century, all writers who had the opportunity to address this subject attested to the same thing unanimously. Such a fact seems to us to be more than sufficient to prove that St. Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew dialect that was spoken at the time.

Despite this overwhelming body of evidence, Erasmus, in his Annotat. in Matth. 8, 23; cf. Scholia ad Hieron. Vir. illustr. c. 3: “It seems to me more probable that this Gospel was written in the same language in which the other Evangelists wrote”—such is his conclusion), first attempted to prove that the Gospel according to St. Matthew had been composed in Greek, just like the other three. His research, however, did not lead him beyond mere probability. Thomas of Vio, better known as Cardinal Cajetan, inclined by principle toward new and unusual opinions, adopted Erasmus's conclusion. They were soon both followed by numerous Protestant writers (Calvin, Theodore Beza, Calovius, etc.), who readily seized this opportunity to attack the value of tradition in general and to diminish the authority of the Vulgate. The most famous and vigorous defender of the new thesis was Flaccius Illyricus, who endeavored to prove its truth with numerous arguments (Nov. Testam. ex versione D. Erasmi Rotterdami emendata, cum glossa compendiaria Matth. flacii Illyrici, Basel, 1570, p. 1 ff. The value of his demonstration will be appreciated later, as his successors added almost nothing to it). Masch, in turn, supported it with great enthusiasm (Essai sur la langue originale de l'Évangile selon S. Matthieu, Halle, 1755). Even today, its main adherents are Protestant or rationalist critics (for example, M. Renan, *Histoire des langues sémitiques*, p. 211; de Wette, Fritzsche, Credner; Thiersch, Baumgarten-Crusius, etc.). Yet, illustrious Protestant names are counted among the partisans of tradition, e.g., those of Eichhorn, Guericke, and Olshausen. Thus, it was not entirely surprising to see a famous Catholic professor, Dr. Hug of Freiburg im Breisgau, put "all his knowledge and rare talent for reasoning at the service of this negative opinion" (De Valroger, p. 29).

To break with such a constant and unanimous tradition, to be able to write, as Holtzmann did: “Although this was the opinion of the ancient Church, hardly anyone today believes in the original composition of our Gospel in the Hebrew language”: “As for the original language of the first Gospel, we are in a position to contradict the whole tradition,” one must be driven by powerful motives. Let us examine those that our adversaries have been repeating in turn since the time of Erasmus and Flaccius.

They first set about diminishing, and even completely destroying, the probative force of the testimonies we have cited. Of all the Fathers, they say, it was Papias who first reported that St. Matthew had composed his Gospel in Hebrew: the subsequent testimonies therefore depend on his, are linked to it as to a single source. Now, what weight should we give, on a point of criticism, to the judgment of a man whose, according to Eusebius (Hist., Ecc. 3, 39), “intellectual faculties were very mediocre,” σφόδρα τοι σμιϰρός ὤν τὸν νοῦν? Some Ebionite will have shown him the apocryphal Gospel according to the Hebrews (see below), claiming it was the original work of the apostle: he will have believed it, recorded it in his writings, and the other Fathers will have echoed his erroneous assertion. We admit that such a method of argumentation possesses a superior force, but to ruin, to annihilate, and truly we do not see what would remain standing in terms of tradition, if it were applied successively to all points of dogma, history, etc.

But let us return to the details to better appreciate the objection. Papias, it is true, was not very judicious in his choice of information, and it was thus that he allowed himself to be misled by the Millenaries, as the historian Eusebius adds. But did such great genius have to be so sure that a book had been written in Hebrew? His testimony cannot therefore be invalidated because of the severe note of the Bishop of Caesarea. When our opponents then assert that all subsequent testimonies of the Holy Fathers are merely an echo of Papias's, they fall into a gross error: the ecclesiastical writers we have cited are, on the contrary, quite independent of one another, and each represents the opinion of a particular era or Church. Men such as St. Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, and St. Jerome were certainly capable of forming their own opinions on the matter, and it held enough interest for them to directly gather all the necessary information, as is evident from their writings. Moreover, according to the very apt observation of Father de Valroger (lcp 32), “if the tradition concerning the Hebrew text of St. Matthew could be explained by some polemical or dogmatic interest, the attempt to cast doubt on this tradition might perhaps have some plausibility. But, on the contrary, the desire to make our Greek text more venerable should have led us to leave this tradition in the shadows. For it to have spread and been transmitted as it has, it must have had deep roots and the pure love of historical truth must have preserved its memory.” It therefore remains unassailable in every respect.

From the realm of tradition, our critics have moved to that of philology. The very nature of the question to be addressed certainly authorized them to do so: let us see if they have been more successful there.

Since the first Gospel was composed directly, as we have seen and as everyone agrees (see the preceding paragraph), for inhabitants of Palestine who had converted from Judaism to the religion of Jesus, St. Matthew should quite naturally have written it in the language of those to whom he was addressing it, that is, in Aramaic, and this fact singularly corroborates the ancient tradition. We are told, on the contrary, that independently of this circumstance, or rather because of this circumstance, he should have written it in Greek. It is here, above all, that Hug has displayed all his knowledge and skill. He attempts to demonstrate, with a wealth of documents and quotations, that in the first century of the Christian era the Greek language had become universally used in Palestine, that, with very few exceptions, everyone could understand, read, and speak it. But, besides the fact that it would simply follow from this that St. Matthew could compose his book in Greek, and not that he actually wrote it in that language, Hug's assertion is notably exaggerated. Although, since Herod, Hellenism in all its forms had made a full-scale invasion of the various provinces of Palestine, Greek was still far from having supplanted Aramaic and becoming the popular language. Mr. Renan, whose expertise in such matters we are far from denying, admits this without hesitation; “We believe,” he said, “that Syriac-Chaldean was the most widespread language in Judea, and that Christ must not have used any other in his popular conversations… The style of the New Testament, and in particular of the letters of St. Paul, is half Syriac in style, and it can be said that, to grasp all its nuances, knowledge of Syriac is almost as necessary as that of Greek… Josephus tells us that those of his compatriots who valued Hellenic literature were few, and that he himself had always been prevented, by the habit of his mother tongue, from properly grasping the pronunciation of Greek.”History of Semitic languages(p. 211 et seq.) Besides the example of the Jew Josephus (cf. The Jewish War, 6, 2, 1), one can cite that of St. Paul who, addressing the crowd that had gathered against him in the temple precinct, immediately won the sympathy of all because he spoke in Hebrew, ἐϐραΐδιδιαλέϰτῳ, Acts 22, 2. This fact demonstrates beyond a doubt that, during the second half of the first century, Syro-Chaldean had remained the popular language of Palestine. Greek, whatever progress it may have made, was still a foreign language to the mass of the inhabitants: those who spoke it, even if they were children of Abraham, bore the name Ἕλληνες, that is to say, pagans. For all these reasons, it was therefore quite natural that St. Matthew did not write in Greek, but in Aramaic.

But our opponents do not consider themselves defeated. Penetrating the very heart of the first Gospel to study its diction, they claim that the Greek in which it has been read since the first century, by its relative purity, reveals a completely original work and by no means a translation. They find in it elegant, original turns of phrase and expressions, even plays on words, the equivalents of which could scarcely have existed, given the difference between the languages, in a book originally written in Hebrew. Such are the following phrases: βαττολογεῖν and πολυλογία, 6:7; ἀφανίζουσι … ὅπως φανῶσι, 6:16; καϰοὺς καϰῶς ἀπολέσει, 21, 41, etc. (Bleek, Holtzmann). We reply that there are still considerable exaggerations here. Other scholars (Bolten, Eichhorn, Bertholdt) have asserted, on the contrary, that the Greek style of the first Gospel has a distinctly Hebrew feel throughout and abounds in translation errors. What is certain is that it contains expressions of a distinctly Semitic character, recurring frequently and seeming to presuppose an original Aramaic text; for example, καὶ ἰδού, דהבה, which St. Matthew uses up to thirty times; ἀποστρέφειν, like השיב, to mean: bring back, bring back, C. 26, 52; 27.7; ἐγὼ ϰύριε, 21, 30, I am ready. הנני ; ὀμνύειν ἐν, formed from the Hebrew בשבצ ב seven times; μέχρι or ἕως τῆς σήμερον, 11, 23; 27.8; 8, 15, a phrase favored by the writers of the Old Testament, צד־היום הדה etc. On this point too, we are successful, or at least the question remains doubtful.

A final philological objection arises from the nature of the Old Testament quotations made by the author of the first Gospel. These quotations are of two kinds: there are those that St. Matthew makes in his own name, to prove the messianic character of Jesus (here are the main ones: 1, 23, Cf. Isaiah 7, 14 and following: 2, 15, Cf. Os. 11, 4; 2, 48, Cf. Jeremiah 31, 15; 2, 23; Cf. Isaiah 11, 1; 4, 15 and following; Cf. Isaiah 8, 23; 9, 1; 8, 17, Cf. Isaiah 53, 4; 53, 35, Cf. Psalm 75, 2; 21. Cf. Zech. 9, 9.), and those which he reports as a simple narrator, because they were found in the speeches of Christ or other characters (among others: 3, 3, Cf. Isaiah 40, 3; 4, 4, Cf. Deuteronomy 8, 3; 4, 6, Cf. Psalm 90, 2; 4, 7, Cf. Deuteronomy 6, 16; 4, 10, Cf. Deuteronomy 6, 13; 15, 4, Cf. Exodus 20, 12: 15, 8, Cf. Isaiah 29, 13; 19:5, Cf. Genesis 2:24; 21:42. Cf. Psalm 117:22; 22:39, Cf. Leviticus 19:18; 24:15, Cf. Dan. 9:27; 26:31, Cf. Zech. 13:7). Now, the former are most often based on the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the latter regularly on the Septuagint version, even though it deviates from the Hebrew. Certainly, this is a rather extraordinary phenomenon, one that deserved the attention of critics. But does it prove, as our opponents (Hug, Langen) claim, that the Gospel according to St. Matthew was originally written in Greek? Not in the least. We could deduce with just as much truth the composition of the first Gospel in the Aramaic language, since several of the quotations from the Old Testament, for example 2, 15, Cf. Hos. 11, 1; and 8, 17, Cf. Isaiah 53Verses 4 would be completely meaningless if they were based on the Septuagint. What Jew, Langen rightly asks, what Jew writing in Greek and quoting the Old Testament, would have constantly departed from the official Septuagint version to produce his own independent translation of the original text? But, to be impartial, we prefer to agree with Arnoldi that the reported fact proves neither for nor against Matthew's use of Greek or Aramaic. It is likely that, in the Apostle's original writing, all the quotations conformed to the Hebrew text: it was the translator who, acting with great independence and perhaps wishing to establish, whenever possible without compromising the substance, as close a resemblance as possible between the first Gospel and the two subsequent ones that had then appeared, adapted some of St. Matthew's quotations to the Septuagint version.

But, we are asked, if St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew, how can we explain the rapid disappearance of the original text? Is it conceivable that in those ages of faith an apostolic work could have been lost in this way, without anything remaining but a translation? The answer that Richard Simon once gave to this objection has retained all its validity: “The reason why the Hebrew or Chaldean copy was not preserved is that the churches of Judea, for which it was first written, did not survive long. On the contrary, the churches where the Greek language flourished have always endured… It is therefore not extraordinary that the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew was lost… It is, however, noteworthy that it did not perish entirely in the early days of the Christianity ; because the sect of the Nazarenes, which originated from the first Nazarenes or Christians of Judea, continued for a long time to read it in its assemblies.

 It also passed to the Ebionites, who altered it in several places. Notwithstanding these alterations, it could still be said to be the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew (Critical History of the New Testament. t. 1, p. 52 et seq. “The Hebrew original,” Reithmeyr similarly says, “no doubt disappeared quite early on, when the small group of Christians who alone could make use of it had dispersed.” The learned critic, in these last lines, alludes to the famous writing which was already called in the time of the Fathers “the Gospel according to the Hebrews” (Εὐαγγέλιον ϰαθʹ Εϐραίους, Euseb. Ecclesiastical History. 3, 27; Cf. Hierou. Comm. ad Matth. 12, 13) which several ecclesiastical writers of the early centuries already identified with the original work of St. Matthew. St. Epiphanius has no doubt about this: “They possess,” he says of the orthodox Nazarenes, “the Gospel according to St. Matthew, very complete in the Hebrew language: they still clearly preserve this Gospel today as it was originally written in Hebrew characters (Haer. 29, 9).” St. Jerome, speaking on several occasions of the Gospel of the Hebrews, affirms that a great number of his contemporaries regarded it as the original writing of St. Matthew: “In the Gospel according to the Hebrews…which the Nazarenes still use, the Gospel according to the Apostles, or as many believe, according to Matthew, which is still found in the library of Caesarea (Cont. Pelagi. 3, 1.). “The Gospel used by the Nazarenes and the Ebionites…which is called by most the authentic Gospel of Matthew (Comm. ad Matth. 12, 13)». He also said: «The Hebrew Gospel of Saint Matthew himself is preserved to this day in the library of Caesarea… The Nazarenes of Beirut in Syria, who use this volume, have granted me permission to transcribe it (De Vir. illustrIn chapter 3, he recounts that he translated this Gospel from Hebrew into Greek and Latin. From these testimonies, let us conclude with Reithmayr (Translation by Father de Valroger, vol. 2, pp. 39 and 40) and with many other exegetes (among others J. Langen, Bisping, Van Steenkiste, Gilly, etc.), that in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, "we have found the source from which the Greek Gospel of St. Matthew, as we have it, was written." The existence of this book, although it has been classified among the apocryphal writings because of the errors or fables added to it by the Ebionites, thus confirms what we said above concerning the composition of the first Gospel in the Aramaic language.

It remains for us to say a few words about the Greek translation which, for so many centuries, has replaced the Hebrew text in both official and private use. Who composed it? What period does it date from? What is its relationship to the original work of St. Matthew? We would like to know this precisely; unfortunately, on these three points, we are reduced to more or less uncertain conjectures. 

1° The translator was no longer known by the time of St. Jerome: "The one who subsequently translated it into Greek is not known with certainty" (From vir. illustr., c. 3). It is true that the “Synopsis sacræ Scripturæ” wrongly placed among the writings of S. Athanasius (Edit. Bened. t. 2, p. 202: τὸ μὲν οὖν ϰατὰ Ματθαῖον εὐαγγέλιον ἐγράφη ὑπʹ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Ματθαίου τῆ Εϐραῖδι διαλέϰτῳ ϰαὶ ἐξεδόθη ἐν Ἱερουσαλὴμ, ἡρμηνεύθη δὲ ὑπὀ Ἰαϰώϐου τοῦ αδελφοῦ τοῦ ϰυρίου τό ϰατὰ σάρϰα.) attributes the Greek version of the first Gospel to S. James the Minor; that Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus and several manuscripts regard it as the work of the apostle S. John; that various ancient or modern authors have pronounced in the same sense the names of St. Barnabas (Isidor Hispalens.), of St. Mark (the English exegete Greswell), of St. Luke and of St. Paul (Anastasius Sinaita); finally that quite a few exegetes suppose that the translation was made by St. Matthew himself (Olshausen, Lee, Ebrard, Thierseh, etc.) or at least under his direction (Guericke): but these are mere assertions without solid foundation. 

2. The Aramaic Gospel of St. Matthew must have been translated into Greek very early on. It undoubtedly appeared in this new form almost immediately after its publication, certainly well before the end of the first century, since the Greek text was already widespread throughout the Church by the time of the Apostolic Fathers. St. Clement of Rome, St. Polycarp, and St. Ignatius of Antioch knew and quoted it (see their quotations mentioned in § 2.1, 22). Moreover, a Greek translation met a need too urgent for the first converts from the pagan world not to have been undertaken immediately. Thus, we read without any surprise in the fragments that remain of Papias, that there were at first multiple attempts in this direction: ἡρμήνευσε δʹ αὐτὰ (the λογια of St. Matthew, see § 3, 1, 1°) ὡς ἦν δυνατὸς ἕϰαστος (Ap. Euseb. Ecclesiastical History(3.39). All these imperfect versions had a short lifespan; only one soon acquired an official character, and the various Christian communities adhered to it unshakably, as if it were the apostle's own original. It is this translation that we still have today. 

3. No writer of antiquity ever considered establishing a comparison between the Hebrew text of St. Matthew and the Greek translation. This very silence, the prompt and uniform reception of the Greek text, and the canonical authority conferred upon it from the outset, prove that it reproduces the Aramaic Gospel exactly. We have, however, concluded from the classification of the Old Testament quotations into two categories, and from the special method applied to each of the two classes, that, in all likelihood, the translator sometimes acted quite independently, without ever ceasing to be faithful. All the other versions derive from the Greek text, with the exception of one in Syriac, which was made directly from the Hebrew original, as Mr. Cureton demonstrated some time ago (Syriac Recei 3, p. 75 ff. cf. Asian newspaperJuly 1859, pp. 48 and 49; Le Hir, Bible studies(Vol. 1, p. 25 et seq.)

CHARACTER OF THE FIRST GOSPEL

It is undeniable that the first Gospel lacks the life and rapidity of St. Mark's narrative, the vivid colors and psychological depth of St. Luke's: it is the least graphic of all the Gospels. This stems from the fact that its author most often confines himself to outlining the broad strokes of the life of Our Lord Jesus Christ, sketching the contours of events, without dwelling on meticulously depicting individual details. Considering things only in their general aspect, he is less interested in secondary circumstances: hence the lack of picturesqueness already noted above. But, on the other hand, how pleasing it is with its noble simplicity, its perfect calm, its majestic grandeur. If it is preeminently the Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven (the expression ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν appears as many as thirty-two times), the Gospel of the Messiah-King, the tone of the narrative is truly regal from the first to the last line. Moreover, while St. Matthew may be somewhat less skilled as a writer when it comes to reporting events, he is foremost among the Synoptic Gospels in presenting the discourses of the divine Master. One might even say that his specialty as an evangelist lies precisely in showing us Jesus as an orator. He adds little to the events, which he actually condenses when they are not relevant to his purpose (we will note in the commentary those that he alone recounts); but he adds enormously to the discourses and words of the Savior. He alone preserved as many as seven major discourses on various subjects, which suffice to give us a complete idea of Our Lord's style of eloquence. These are: 1) the Sermon on the Mount, chapters 5-7; 2) the address to the twelve Apostles when Jesus sent them to preach the Gospel for the first time, chapter 10; 3) an apology against the Pharisees, chapter 12, verses 25-45; 4) the parables of the kingdom of heaven, ch. 13; 5° a discourse addressed to the disciples on the reciprocal duties of Christians, ch. 18; 6° a vigorous polemic addressed to his adversaries, ch. 23; finally 7° a solemn prophecy relating to the ruin of Jerusalem and the end of the world, ch. 24-25.

To the stylistic peculiarities noted during the discussion of the language in which the first Gospel was composed, we will add the following, which will also help to define its general character. The expression δ πατὴρ δ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς is used sixteen times by St. Matthew, while it appears only twice in the second Gospel, and not once in the third. Jesus is called υτός Δαϐίδ seven times. The particle τότε recurs no fewer than ninety times in the evangelist's writings, to provide some transition. The phrases ϰατʹ ὄναρ, ἡ συντελεία τοῦ αίῶνος, τάφος, προσϰυνεῖν with the dative, rarely used in other writings of the New Testament, are used six, five, six, and ten times in our Gospel. The words: συμϐούλιον λαμϐάνειν, etc., are also expensive to. S. Matthew.

PLAN AND DIVISION

1. The goal that St. Matthew set for himself in composing his Gospel (cf. § 5) obviously influenced his choice of materials and the place he gave them in the narrative. Among miracles From the Savior's discourses, he therefore chose those that seemed to him to best prove the messianic character of Jesus, those that he could most perfectly connect to the ancient prophecies concerning the life of Christ. This is why he barely touches upon the ministry of Our Lord in Judea, while he elaborates at length and with affection on the activity carried out by the divine Master in the province of Galilee. Indeed, along with the story of the Holy Childhood and the Passion, it was the Galilean life of Jesus that provided the most of those characteristic features that St. Matthew could use in the interest of his dogmatic and apologetic thesis. By bringing them together, it was easy for him to show in Jesus, according to the prophets, a Christ who is lovable, popular, and worthy of drawing all hearts to himself.

The order followed by the evangelist is generally that of chronology. However, he often abandons it in secondary details, grouping events that did not follow one another immediately according to a logical order. This is how he brought together, in chapters 8 and 9, numerous miracles of Our Lord, simply linked together by the vague formulas τότε, ϰαί ἐγένετο, ἐγένετο δὲ, ἐν ἐϰείνῃ τῇ ημέρα, etc. This method of accumulating similar events, which several writers (cf. Ayre) have interpreted as a striking example of the habits of order and method that St. Matthew acquired while serving as a tax collector, lends considerable force to the narrative and renders irresistible the evidence the evangelist wished to highlight. However, it is a gross exaggeration to claim to find, almost everywhere, for example in chapters 5-7, 10, 13, and 21-24, contrived arrangements contrary to historical reality. We reserve the right to demonstrate elsewhere all the errors in this system (see in particular the preambles to chapters 5 and 10).

2. Almost all exegetes agree on dividing the first Gospel into three parts, corresponding to the preliminary story of Jesus, his public life in Galilee, and the final catastrophe that led him to Calvary; but they then diverge from one another when it comes to determining the beginning and end of each part. Several extend the preliminary story of the Savior to the middle of chapter 4 (§.11), and stop the second part at the end of chapter 18 (Kern, Hilgenfeld, Arnoldi); others place chapters 1 and 2 in the first part, chapters 3-25 in the second, and finally chapters 26-28 in the third (Bisping, Langen, Van Steenkiste). Several proponents of this division go too far when they claim that each part corresponds to one of the Messiah's titles: the first to the title of king, the second to the title of prophet, and the third to that of high priest (Lutterbeck). We have adopted this latter division as the most natural, though with a slight modification. Sections 1-17 of Chapter 1 seemed to us to form a general preludeThe end of this chapter and the entire following one correspond to the first part, which we entitle: The Hidden Life of Our Lord Jesus ChristThe second part, chapters 3-25, corresponds to the public life of the Savior; the third, chapters 26-27, to his A life of suffering. We considered the history of the resurrection, ch. 28, as a appendix— Mr. Delitzsch invented a division into five books, which he then parallels with the five parts of the Pentateuch, on the pretext that the Gospel according to St. Matthew represents the Torah, that is, the law of the new theocracy; 1:1–2:15 would form Genesis 2, 16-7, Exodus; 8-9, Leviticus ; 10-18, the Book of Numbers ; 19-28, DeuteronomyBut this combination, however ingenious it may be, has little basis other than the author's vivid imagination.

COMMENTS

It remains for us to briefly indicate the best commentaries that have appeared on the first Gospel from the time of the Fathers to the present day.

1°. Patristic commentaries.

a. Greek Church. — Origen explained the Gospel according to St. Matthew. Unfortunately, part of his commentaries has been lost: we only possess a Latin translation that begins in the 13th^è Chapter. St. John Chrysostom composed 91 homilies on the first Gospel, the collection of which forms a masterpiece of exegesis and eloquence. They fill two volumes of Migne's Patrologia. Later, in the 12th^è In the 11th century, Theophylact, Archbishop of the Bulgarians, published an excellent Greek commentary on St. Matthew. Similarly, Euthymius Zigabenus, a monk of Constantinople, did the same.

b. Latin Church. — St. Hilary of Poitiers, Commentarius in Evangelium Matthaei, Migne, Patrologia latina, t. 9, col. 917 et seq.

St. Jerome, Commentary in Evangel. S. Matthaei, Migne, ibid. t. 26, col. 15 et seq.—Excellent interpretation.

St. Augustine, Question 17 in Evangelium sec. Matt. lib. 1. — A work that is more theological than exegetical, like that of St. Hilary.

5^èBede (in the 8th century), Commentariorum in Matthæii Evangelium lib. 4.

St. Thomas Aquinas (13th century)Comment byGospel according to Saint Matthew, AndGold chain on the Four Gospels. [Excellent, free to download from the Internet].

2°. Modern comments.

a. Catholic works.

Father Marie-Joseph Lagrange, op (1855-1938), Gospel according to Saint Matthew, published by Lecoffre-Gabalda, collection Bible Studies4th edition. Paris, 1927. (available for free download on gallica.bnf.fr)

Erasmus of Rotterdam, Annotations in Novum TestamentumBasel 1516.

Maldonat, Commentarii in 4 Evangelia, 1st edition in 1596. One of the best writings ever composed on the Gospels.

Sylveira, Commentarii in textum Evangelium, edit. 6a, Lugduni, 1697.

Cornelius a Lapide, Commentarii in 4 EvangeliaAntwerp 1712.

Corn. Jansenius, In Sancta Jesu-Christi Evangelia CommentariusLouvain 1639.

D. Calmet, Literal commentary on all the books of the Old and New Testaments. t. 19, the Gospel of St. Matthew, Paris 1725. Excellent.

Daniel Tobenz, Commentarii in SS. scripturam Novi FæderisVienna, 1818.

Al. Gratz, Hist.-krit. Commentar über das Evangelium des Matthæus, Tübingen, 1821-1823.

Aug. von Berlepsch, Quartet Novi Testamenti Evangelia orthodox explanata, Regensburg, 1849. 

Reischl, die heilig. Schriften des N. Testaments, Ratisb. 1866.

Lipman, het New Testament eleven Heeren Jesus-Christus, 2nd edition, 1861.

Arnoldi, Commentary on the Evangelium of S. MatthæusTrier, 1856.

Bisping, Erklaerung des Evangeliums nach Matthæus, Munster, 1867, 2nd edition.

Schegg, Gospel according to Matthew, Munich, 1863, 2nd edition.

Bishop Mac-Evilly, Exposition of the Gospels, Dublin, 1876.

Van Steenkiste, Commentarius in Evangelium secundum MatthæumBruges, 1876.

b. Protestant works.

Theodore Beza, Annotationes majores in Nov. TestamGeneva, 1565.

Hug. Grotius, Annotations in Nov. TestamentumParis, 1644.

Olearius, Sacred Observations in Evangelium MatthaeiLeipzig, 1713.

Elsner, Commentarius crit.-philolog. in Evangelium Matthæi, 1769.

Kuinœl, How. in libros historicos N. T.t. 1. Evangelium MatthæiLeipzig, 1807.

Fritzsche, Quartet Evangelia recensuite, et cum perpetuis commentariis editit, t. 1, Evangeliam Matth. Leipzig, 1826.

Olhausen, Bibl. Commentar über die Schriften des N. Testamt.1. the three first Evangelists, Kœnigsberg, 1830.

Baumgarten-Crusius, Comment über das Evang. of MatthJena, 1844.

HW Meyer, Krit.-exeget. Comment üb. das N. Test. t. 1, das Evangelium des Matth2nd edition. Gœttingue, 1844.

JP Lange, Theolog.-homilet. Bibelwerk, N. Testam. 1 Theil. Das Evangelium nach Matth3rd ed. Bielefeld, 1868.

Lymann Abbott, the N. Testament with notes and comments, vol. 1, MatthewLondon, 1875.

Alford, Greek Testament, vol. 1 the first three Gospels.

c. Rationalist works.

Paulus, Philolog. krit. und histor. Comment üb. das N. Testam 1-3 Th. the three first Evangelists, 1800.

De Wette, Kurzgefasstes exeg. Handbook of N. T. t. I, Erklærung des Evang. Matthaei. Leipzig, 1836.

Ewald, the three first Evangelists, Gœttingue, 1850.

The Catholic works cited above are all remarkable for various reasons: taken together, they form as complete a commentary as possible on the Gospel according to St. Matthew. The Protestant and rationalist works are not without value; but we feel it necessary to remind readers here that they can only be read with great caution.

SYNOPTIC DIVISION OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW

PRELUDE.

THE GENEALOGY OF JESUS, 1, 1-17.

PART ONE.

THE HIDDEN LIFE OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, 1, 18-2, 23

l. — Marriage of Married and of Joseph.

1. 18-2, 23.

2. — Adoration of the Magi. 2, 1-12.

3. — Flight into Egypt and massacre of the SS. Innocents. 2, 13-18.

4. — Return from exile and stay in Nazareth. 2, 19-23.

PART TWO

PUBLIC LIFE OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, 3-20.

§ L. General character of public life.

§2. Preparation period. 3, 1-4, 11.

1. — The precursor. 3, 1-12.

2. — Messianic consecration. 3-13, 4-11.

1° Baptism. 3, 13-17.

2° The temptation. 4, 1-11.

§3. The Ministry of Our Lord Jesus Christ in Galilee. 4,12-18, 15.

1. — Jesus settled in Capernaum and began to preach. 4, 12-17.

2. — The calling of the first disciples. 4,18-22.

3. — Great mission to Galilee. 4, 23-9, 34.

1° General summary of the mission. 4. 23-25.

2. Sermon on the Mount. 5-7.

a. General overview of the preaching of Jesus.

b. The great messianic speech.

3. Miscellaneous miracles of Jesus. 8, 1-9, 34.

has. The miracles of Jesus considered as a whole.

b. Healing of a leper. 8, 1-4.

c. Healing of the centurion's servant. 8, 5-13.

d. Healing of St. Peter's mother-in-law. 8, 14-17.

e. The storm calmed. 8, 18-27.

f. The demoniacs of Gadara. 8, 28-34.

g. Healing of a paralytic. 9, 1-8.

h. The Calling of St. Matthew. 9:9-17.

i. Jairus' daughter and the woman with the hemorrhage. 9, 18-26.

j. Healing of two blind men. 9, 27-31.

k. Healing of a mute possessed person. 9, 32-34.

4. — Mission of the twelve Apostles. 9, 35-10, 42.

1° New mission to Galilee. 9, 35-38.

2° Powers conferred on the Twelve. 10, 1-4.

3. Pastoral instruction that Jesus addresses to them. 10:5-42.

5. — Embassy of John the Baptist, and discourse of Our Lord Jesus Christ on this occasion. 11, 1-30.

6. — Jesus in open conflict with the Pharisees. 12, 1-50.

1° Controversy concerning the Sabbath. 12. 1-21.

a. The disciples accused of violating the Sabbath. 12. 1-8.

b. Healing of a withered hand. 12. 9-14.

c. Softness and humility of Jesus foretold by Isaiah. 12. 15-21.

2° Controversy concerning the healing of a demoniac. 12. 22-50.

a. Jesus heals a demoniac: accusation of the Pharisees. 12. 22-24.

b. The Savior's reply. 12. 25-37.

c. The sign given to the Pharisees. 12. 38-45.

d. The mother and brothers of Jesus. 12. 46-50.

7. — The parables of the kingdom of Heaven. 13, 1-52.

1. General ideas about parables evangelicals.

2nd Opportunity for the first parables of Jesus. 13. 1-3a.

3° The parable of the Sower. 13. 3b-9.

4. Why Jesus teaches in the form of parables. 13.10-17.

5. Explanation of the parable of the Sower. 13. 18-23.

6. Parable of the tares. 13. 24-30.

7. Parable of the Mustard Seed. 13. 31-32.

8. Parable of the Leaven. 13. 33.

9. The evangelist's reflection on this new form of teaching. 13. 34-35.

10° Interpretation of the parable of the tares. 13. 36-43.

11. Parable of the hidden treasure. 13. 44.

12. Parable of the pearl. 13. 45-46.

13° Parabola of the net. 13. 45-50.

14th Conclusion of the parables of the kingdom of Heaven. 13. 51-52.

8. — New series of attacks and new miracles. 13, 53-16, 12.

1° Jesus and the inhabitants of Nazareth. 13, 53-58.

2° singular opinion of Herod concerning Jesus, 14, 1-2.

3rd Martyrdom of St. John the Baptist. 14.3-12.

4. The first multiplication of the loaves. 14:13-21.

5. Jesus walks on water. 14:22-33.

6. Jesus in the plain of Gennesaret. 14:34-36.

7. Conflict with the Pharisees concerning ablutions. 15:1-20.

8. Healing of the Canaanite woman's daughter. 15:21-28.

9th Second multiplication of the loaves. 15, 29-39.

10° The sign of the sky. 16. 1-4.

11° The leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. 16, 5-12.

9. — Confession and primacy of St. Peter. 16, 13-28.

1° What preceded the promise of the Primacy. 16, 13-16.

2° Promise of Primacy. 16, 17-19.

3° What followed the promise. 16. 20-28.

10. — The Transfiguration of Our Lord Jesus Christ. 17, 1-22.

1° The miracle 17. 1-8.

2° Three incidents which relate to the Transfiguration, 17. 9-22.

a. The coming of Elijah. 17. 9-13.

b. The cure of a lunatic. 17. 14-20.

c. Second official announcement of the Passion. 17, 21-22.

11. — Jesus' last stay in Galilee. 17, 23-18, 35.

1° The double drachma. 17, 23-26.

2° Instruction on the mutual duties of Christians. 18, 1-35.

a. Conduct to be observed towards the lowly and the humble. 18, 1-14.

b. Fraternal correction 18, 15-20.

c. Forgiveness insults. 18, 21-35.

§4. Jesus' journey to Jerusalem for the last Passover. 19, 1-20, 34.

1. — General outline of the journey. 19, 1-2.

2. — Jesus' stay in Perea, 19.3-20.16.

a. Discussion with the Pharisees about marriage. 19, 3-9.

b. Conversation with the disciples on virginity. 19, 10-12.

c. Jesus blesses the little children. 19, 13-15.

d. The rich young man. 19, 16-22.

e. Wealth and renunciation. 19, 23-30.

f. Parable of the workers sent into the vineyard. 20, 1-16.

3. — Last incidents of the journey 20, 17-34.

a. Third prediction of the Passion. 20, 17-19.

b. Salome's ambitious request. 20, 20-28.

c. The blind men of Jericho. 20, 29-34.

PART THREE

LAST WEEK OF JESUS' LIFE 21-27

1. First sectionSolemn entry of Jesus into Jerusalem. 21:1-11

2. Second sectionMessianic activity of Jesus in Jerusalem during the last week of his life. 21:12–25:46

1. The merchants driven out of the Temple. 21:12-17.

2. The cursed fig tree. 21, 18-22.

3. Jesus in open struggle with his enemies. 21, 23-23, 39.

1st First attack: the delegates of the Sanhedrin. 21, 23-22, 14.

a. The powers of Jesus. 21, 23-27.

b. Parable of the Two Sons. 21, 28-32.

c. Parable of the treacherous tenants. 21, 33-46.

d. Parable of the wedding feast. 22, 1-14.

2. Second attack: the Pharisees and Caesar's denarius. 22:15-22.

3rd Third attack: the Sadducees and the resurrection. 22, 23-33.

4th Fourth attack: again the Pharisees. 22, 34-46.

a. The greatest commandment. 22, 34-40.

b. The Messiah, son of David. 22:41-46.

5. Jesus' indictment against the Pharisees. 23.

a. First part. 23, 1-12.

b. Second part: the curses. 23, 13-32.

c. Third part. 23, 33-39.

4. Eschatological discourse of the Savior. 24-25.

1° First part. 24, 1-35.

a. Occasion of the speech. 24, 1-3.

b. Prognosis of great ruins. 24, 4-35.

2° Second part. 24, 36-25, 30.

a. We must be vigilant. 24, 36-51.

b. Parable of the Ten Virgins. 25, 1-13.

c. Parable of the talent. 25, 14-30.

3° Third part. 25, 31-46.

3. Third sectionAccount of the Savior's suffering and death. 26-27

1. Final announcement of the Passion. 26, 1-2.

2. Conspiracy of the Sanhedrin. 26, 3-5.

3. The meal and the anointing at Bethany. 26, 6-13.

4. Betrayal of Judas. 26, 14-16.

5. Preparation for the Passover Supper. 26, 17-19.

6. Legal Last Supper and prophecy concerning the traitor. 26, 20-25.

7. Eucharistic Supper. 26, 26-29.

8. Jesus predicts the fall of St. Peter. 26, 20-35.

9. Agony in the Garden. 26, 36-46.

10. Arrest of the Savior. 26, 47-56.

11. Jesus before the Sanhedrin. 26, 57-68.

12. The denial of St. Peter. 26, 69-75.

13. Jesus is led to the praetorium. 27, 1-2.

14. Despair and death of Judas. 26, 3-5.

15. Use of the thirty pieces of silver. 26, 6-10.

16. Jesus at Pilate's tribunal. 26:11-26.

17. The crowning with thorns. 26, 27-30.

18. The painful path. 26, 31-34.

19. Jesus on the cross. 26, 35-50.

20. What followed the death of Jesus. 26, 51-56.

21. The Burial of Christ. 26, 57-61.

22. The guards at the tomb. 26, 62-66.

APPENDIX

THE RESURRECTION OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 28.

a. The Holy Women at the Tomb. 28, 1-10.

b. The guards corrupted by the Sanhedrin. 28, 11-15.

c. Jesus appears to the disciples in Galilee. 28, 16-20.