Gospel of St. Matthew

I. CANONICITY

The earliest Christian communities looked upon the Books of the
Old Testament as Sacred Scripture, and read them at their
religious assemblies. That the Gospels, which contained the words
of Christ and the narrative of His life, soon enjoyed the same
authority as the Old Testament, is made clear by Hegesippuus
(Eusebius, " Hist. eccl.", IV, xxii, 3), who tells us that in
every city the Christians were faithful to the teachings of the
law, the prophets, and the Lord. A book was acknowledged as
canonical when the Church regarded it as Apostolic, and had it
read at her assemblies. Hence, to establish the canonicity of the
Gospel according to St. Matthew, we must investigate primitive
Christian tradition for the use that was made of this document,
and for indications proving that it was regarded as Scripture in
the same manner as the Books of the Old Testament.

The first traces that we find of it are not indubitable, because
post-Apostolic writers quoted the texts with a certain freedom,
and principally because it is difficult to say whether the
passages thus quoted were taken from oral tradition or from a
written Gospel. The first Christian document whose date can be
fixed with comparative certainty (95-98), is the Epistle of St.
Clement to the Corinthians. It contains sayings of the Lord which
closely resemble those recorded in the First Gospel (Clement, xvi,
17 = Matt., xi, 29; Clem., xxiv, 5 = Matt., xiii, 3), but it is
possible that they are derived from Apostolic preaching, as, in
chapter xiii, 2, we find a mixture of sentences from Matthew,
Luke, and an unknown source. Again, we note a similar commingling
of Evangelical texts elsewhere in the same Epistle of Clement, in
the Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles, in the Epistle of Polycarp,
and in Clement of Alexandria. Whether these these texts were thus
combined in oral tradition or emanated from a collection of
Christ's utterances, we are unable to say.

�  The Epistles of St. Ignatius (martyred 110-17) contain no
literal quotation from the Holy Books; nevertheless, St. Ignatius
borrowed expressions and some sentences from Matthew (" Ad
Polyc.", ii, 2 = Matt., x, 16; "Eph.", xiv, 2 = Matt., xii, 33,
etc.). In his "Epistle to the Philadelphians" (v, 12), he speaks
of the Gospel in which he takes refuge as in the Flesh of Jesus;
consequently, he had an evangelical collection which he regarded
as Sacred Writ, and we cannot doubt that the Gospel of St. Matthew
formed part of it.

�  In the Epistle of Polycarp (110-17), we find various passages
from St. Matthew quoted literally (xii, 3 = Matt.,v. 44; vii, 2 =
Matt., xxvi, 41, etc.).

�  The Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles (Didache) contains sixty-
six passages that recall the Gospel of Matthew; some of them are
literal quotations (viii, 2 = Matt., vi, 7-13; vii, I = Matt.,
xxviii 19; xi, 7 = Matt., xii, 31, etc.).

�  In the so-called Epistle of Barnabas (117-30), we find a
passage from St. Matthew (xxii, 14), introduced by the scriptural
formula, os gegraptai, which proves that the author considered the
Gospel of Matthew equal in point of authority to the writings of
the Old Testament.

�  The "Shepherd of Hermas" has several passages which bear close
resemblance to passages of Matthew, but not a single literal
quotation from it.

�  In his "Dialogue" (xcix, 8), St. Justin quotes, almost
literally, the prayer of Christ in the Garden of Olives, in
Matthew, xxvi, 39,40.

�  A great number of passages in the writings of St. Justin recall
the Gospel of Matthew, and prove that he ranked it among the
Memoirs of the Apostles which, he said, were called Gospels (I
Apol., lxvi), were read in the services of the Church (ibid., @i),
and were consequently regarded as Scripture.

�  In his "Legatio pro christianis", xii, 11, Athenagoras (117)
quotes almost literally sentences taken from the Sermon on the
Mount (Matt., v, 44).

�  Theophilus of Antioch (Ad Autol., III, xiii-xiv) quotes a
passage from Matthew (v, 28, 32), and, according to St. Jerome (In
Matt. Prol.), wrote a commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew.

�  We find in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs--drawn up,
according to some critics, about the middle of the second century-
-numerous passages that closely resemble the Gospel of Matthew
(Test. Gad, v, 3; vi, 6; v, 7 = Matt., xviii, 15, 35; Test. Jos.,
i, 5, 6 = Matt., xxv, 35, 36, etc.), but Dr. Charles maintains
that the Testaments were written in Hebrew in the first century
before Jesus Christ, and translated into Greek towards the middle
of the same century. In this event, the Gospel of Matthew would
depend upon the Testaments and not the Testaments upon the Gospel.
The question is not yet settled, but it seems to us that there is
a greater probability that the Testaments, at least in their Greek
version, are of later date than the Gospel of Matthew, they
certainly received numerous Christian additions.

�  The Greek text of the Clementine Homilies contains some
quotations from Matthew (Hom. iii, 52 = Matt., xv, 13); in Hom.
xviii, 15, the quotation from Matt., xiii, 35, is literal.

�  Passages which suggest the Gospel of Matthew might be quoted
from heretical writings of the second century and from apocryphal
gospels--the Gospel of Peter, the Protoevangelium of James, etc.,
in which the narratives, to a considerable extent, are derived
from the Gospel of Matthew.

�  Tatian incorporated the Gospel of Matthew in his "Diatesseron";
we shall quote below the testimonies of Papias and St. Iren�us.
For the latter, the Gospel of Matthew, from which he quotes
numerous passages, was one of the four that constituted the
quadriform Gospel dominated by a single spirit.

�  Tertullian (Adv. Marc., IV, ii) asserts, that the "Instrumentum
evangelicum" was composed by the Apostles, and mentions Matthew as
the author of a Gospel (De carne Christi, xii).

�  Clement of Alexandria (Strom., III, xiii) speaks of the four
Gospels that have been transmitted, and quotes over three hundred
passages from the Gospel of Matthew, which he introduces by the
formula, en de to kata Maththaion euaggelio or by phesin ho
kurios.

It is unnecessary to pursue our inquiry further. About the middle
of the third century, the Gospel of Matthew was received by the
whole Christian Church as a Divinely inspired document, and
consequently as canonical. The testimony of Origen ("In Matt.",
quoted by Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", III, xxv, 4), of Eusebius (op.
cit., III, xxiv, 5; xxv, 1), and of St. Jerome ("De Viris Ill.",
iii, "Prolog. in Matt.,") are explicit in this repsect. It might
be added that this Gospel is found in the most ancient versions:
Old Latin, Syriac, and Egyptian. Finally, it stands at the head of
the Books of the New Testament in the Canon of the Council of
Laodicea (363) and in that of St. Athanasius (326-73), and very
probably it was in the last part of the Muratorian Canon.
Furthermore, the canonicity of the Gospel of St. Matthew is
accepted by the entire Christian world.

II. AUTHENTICITY OF THE FIRST GOSPEL

The question of authenticity assumes an altogether special aspect
in regard to the First Gospel. The early Christian writers assert
that St. Matthew wrote a Gospel in Hebrew; this Hebrew Gospel has,
however, entirely disappeared, and the Gospel which we have, and
from which ecclesiastical writers borrow quotations as coming from
the Gospel of Matthew, is in Greek. What connection is there
between this Hebrew Gospel and this Greek Gospel, both of which
tradition ascribes to St. Matthew? Such is the problem that
presents itself for solution. Let us first examine the facts.

A. TESTIMONY OF TRADITION

According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 111, xxxix, 16), Papias said
that Matthew collected (sunetaxato; or, according to two
manuscripts, sunegraphato, composed) ta logia (the oracles or
maxims of Jesus) in the Hebrew (Aramaic) language, and that each
one translated them as best he could.

Three questions arise in regard to this testimony of Papias on
Matthew: (1) What does the word logia signify? Does it mean only
detached sentences or sentences incorporated in a narrative, that
is to say, a Gospel such as that of St. Matthew? Among classical
writers, logion, the diminutive of logos, signifies the "answer of
oracles", a "prophecy"; in the Septuagint and in Philo, "oracles
of God" (ta deka logia, the Ten Commandments). It sometimes has a
broader meaning and seems to include both facts and sayings. In
the New Testament the signification of the word logion is
doubtful, and if, strictly speaking, it may be claimed to indicate
teachings and narratives, the meaning "oracles" is the more
natural. However, writers contemporary with Papias--e. g. St.
Clement of Rome (Ad Cor., liii), St. Iren�us (Adv. H�r., I, viii,
2), Clement of Alexandria (Strom., I, cccxcii), and Origen (De
Princip., IV, xi)--have used it to designate facts and savings.
The work of Papias was entitled "Exposition of the Oracles"
[logion] of the Lord", and it also contained narratives (Eusebius,
" Hist. eccl.", III, xxxix, 9). On the other hand, speaking of the
Gospel of Mark, Papias says that this Evangelist wrote all that
Christ had said and done, but adds that he established no
connection between the Lord's sayings (suntaxin ton kuriakon
logion). We may believe that here logion comprises all that Christ
said and did. Nevertheless, it would seem that, if the two
passages on Mark and Matthew followed each other in Papias as in
Eusebius, the author intended to emphasize a difference between
them, by implying that Mark recorded the Lord's words and deeds
and Matthew chronicled His discourses. The question is still
unsolved; it is, however, possible that, in Papias, the term logia
means deeds and teachings.

(2) Second, does Papias refer to oral or written translations of
Matthew, when he says that each one translated the sayings "as
best he could"? As there is nowhere any allusion to numerous Greek
translations of the Logia of Matthew, it is probable that Papias
speaks here of the oral translations made at Christian meetings,
similar to the extemporaneous translations of the Old Testament
made in the synagogues. This would explain why Papias mentions
that each one (each reader) translated "as best he could".

(3) Finally, were the Logia of Matthew and the Gospel to which
ecclesiastical writers refer written in Hebrew or Aramaic? Both
hypotheses are held. Papias says that Matthew wrote the Logia in
the Hebrew (Hebraidi) language; St. Iren�us and Eusebius maintain
that he wrote his gospel for the Hebrews in their national
language, and the same assertion is found in several writers.
Matthew would, therefore, seem to have written in modernized
Hebrew, the language then used by the scribes for teaching. But,
in the time of Christ, the national language of the Jews was
Aramaic, and when, in the New Testament, there is mention of the
Hebrew language (Hebrais dialektos), it is Aramaic that is
implied. Hence, the aforesaid writers may allude to the Aramaic
and not to the Hebrew. Besides, as they assert, the Apostle
Matthew wrote his Gospel to help popular teaching. To be
understood by his readers who spoke Aramaic, he would have had to
reproduce the original catechesis in this language, and it cannot
be imagined why, or for whom, he should have taken the trouble to
write it in Hebrew, when it would have had to be translated thence
into Aramaic for use in religious services. Moreover, Eusebius
(Hist. eccl., III, xxiv, 6) tells us that the Gospel of Matthew
was a reproduction of his preaching, and this we know, was in
Aramaic. An investigation of the Semitic idioms observed in the
Gospel does not permit us to conclude as to whether the original
was in Hebrew or Aramaic, as the two languages are so closely
related. Besides, it must be home in mind that the greater part of
these Semitisms simply reproduce colloquial Greek and are not of
Hebrew or Aramaic origin. However, we believe the second
hypothesis to be the more probable, viz., that Matthew wrote his
Gospel in Aramaic.

Let us now recall the testimony of the other ecclesiastical
writers on the Gospel of St. Matthew. St. Iren�us (Adv. Hoer.,
III, i, 2) affirms that Matthew published among the Hebrews a
Gospel which he wrote in their own language. Eusebius (Hist.
eccl., V, x, 3) says that, in India, Pant�nus found the Gospel
according to St. Matthew written in the Hebrew language, the
Apostle Bartholomew having left it there. Again, in his "Hist.
eccl." (VI xxv, 3, 4), Eusebius tells us that Origen, in his first
book on the Gospel of St. Matthew, states that he has learned from
tradition that the First Gospel was written by Matthew, who,
having composed it in Hebrew, published it for the converts from
Judaism. According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xxiv, 6),
Matthew preached first to the Hebrews and, when obliged to go to
other countries, gave them his Gospel written in his native
tongue. St. Jerome has repeatedly declared that Matthew wrote his
Gospel in Hebrew ("Ad Damasum", xx; "Ad Hedib.", iv), but says
that it is not known with certainty who translated it into Greek.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Epiphanius,
St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, etc., and all the commentators
of the Middle Ages repeat that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew.
Erasmus was the first to express doubts on this subject: "It does
not seem probable to me that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, since no one
testifies that he has seen any trace of such a volume." This is
not accurate, as St. Jerome uses Matthew's Hebrew text several
times to solve difficulties of interpretation, which proves that
he had it at hand. Pant�nus also had it, as, according to St.
Jerome ("De Viris Ill.", xxxvi), he brought it back to Alexandria.
However, the testimony of Pant�nus is only second-hand, and that
of Jerome remains rather ambiguous, since in neither case is it
positively known that the writer did not mistake the Gospel
according to the Hebrews (written of course in Hebrew) for the
Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew. However all ecclesiastical writers
assert that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and, by quoting
the Greek Gospel and ascribing it to Matthew, thereby affirm it to
be a translation of the Hebrew Gospel.

B. EXAMINATION OF THE GREEK GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW

Our chief object is to ascertain whether the characteristics of
the Greek Gospel indicate that it is a translation from the
Aramaic, or that it is an original document; but, that we may not
have to revert to the peculiarities of the Gospel of Matthew, we
shall here treat them in full.

(1) The Language of the Gospel

St. Matthew used about 1475 words, 137 of which are apax legomena
(words used by him alone of all the New Testament writers). Of
these latter 76 are classical; 21 are found in the Septuagint; 15
(battologein biastes, eunouchizein etc.) were introduced for the
first time by Matthew, or at least he was the first writer in whom
they were d@ covered; 8 words (aphedon, gamizein, etc.) were
employed for the first time by Matthew and Mark, and 15 others
(ekchunesthai, epiousios, etc.) by Matthew and another New
Testament writer. It is probable that, at the time of the
Evangelist, all these words were in current use. Matthew's Gospel
contains many peculiar expressions which help to give decided
colour to his style. Thus, he employs thirty-four times the
expression basileia ton ouranon; this is never found in Mark and
Luke, who, in parallel passages, replace it by basileia tou theou,
which also occurs four times in Matthew. We must likewise note the
expressions: ho pater ho epouranions, ho en tois ouranois,
sunteleia tou alonos, sunairein logon, eipein ti kata tinos,
mechri tes semeron, poiesai os, osper, en ekeino to kairo,
egeiresthai apo, etc. The same terms often recur: tote (90 times),
apo tote, kai idou etc. He adopts the Greek form Ierisiluma for
Jerusalem, and not Ierousaleu, which he uses but once. He has a
predilection for the preposition apo, using it even when Mark and
Luke use ek, and for the expression uios David. Moreover, Matthew
is fond of repeating a phrase or a special construction several
times within quite a short interval (cf. ii, 1, 13, and 19; iv,
12, 18, and v, 2; viii, 2-3 and 28; ix, 26 and 31; xiii, 44, 4.5,
and 47, etc.). Quotations from the Old Testament are variously
introduced, as: outos, kathos gegraptai, ina, or opos, plerothe to
rethen uto Kuriou dia tou prophetou, etc. These peculiarities of
language, especially the repetition of the same words and
expressions, would indicate that the Greek Gospel was an original
rather than a translation, and this is confirmed by the
paronomasi� (battologein, polulogia; kophontai kai ophontai,
etc.), which ought not to have been found in the Aramaic, by the
employment of the genitive absolute, and, above all, by the
linking of clauses through the use of men . . . oe, a construction
that is peculiarly Greek. However, let us observe that these
various characteristics prove merely that the writer was
thoroughly conversant with his language, and that he translated
his text rather freely. Besides, these same characteristics are
noticeable in Christ's sayings, as well as in the narratives, and,
as these utterances were made in Aramaic, they were consequently
translated; thus, the construction men . . . de (except in one
instance) and all the examples of paronomasia occur in discourses
of Christ. The fact that the genitive absolute is used mainly in
the narrative portions, only denotes that the latter were more
freely translated; besides, Hebrew possesses an analogous
grammatical construction. On the other hand, a fair number of
Hebraisms are noticed in Matthew's Gospel (ouk eginosken auten,
omologesei en emoi, el exestin, ti emin kai soi, etc.), which
favour the belief that the original was Aramaic. Still, it remains
to be proved that these Hebraisms are not colloquial Greek
expressions.

(2) General Character of the Gospel

Distinct unity of plan, an artificial arrangement of subject-
matter, and a simple, easy style--much purer than that of Mark--
suggest an original rather than a translation. When the First
Gospel is compared with books translated from the Hebrew, such as
those of the Septuagint, a marked difference is at once apparent.
The original Hebrew shines through every line of the latter,
whereas, in the First Gospel Hebraisms are comparatively rare, and
are merely such as might be looked for in a book written by a Jew
and reproducing Jewish teaching. However, these observations are
not conclusive in favour of a Greek original. In the first place,
the unity of style that prevails throughout the book, would rather
prove that we have a translation. It is certain that a good
portion of the matter existed first in Aramaic--at all events, the
sayings of Christ, and thus almost three-quarters of the Gospel.
Consequently, these at least the Greek writer has translated. And,
since no difference in language and style can be detected between
the sayings of Christ and the narratives that are claimed to have
been composed in Greek, it would seem that these latter are also
translated from the Aramaic. This conclusion is based on the fact
that they are of the same origin as the discourses. The unity of
plan and the artificial arrangement of subject-matter could as
well have been made in Matthew's Aramaic as in the Greek document;
the fine Greek construction, the lapidary style, the elegance and
good order claimed as characteristic of the Gospel, are largely a
matter of opinion, the proof being that critics do not agree on
this question. Although the phraseology is not more Hebraic than
in the other Gospels, still it not much less so. To sum up, from
the literary examination of the Greek Gospel no certain conclusion
can be drawn against the existence of a Hebrew Gospel of which our
First Gospel would be a translation; and inversely, this
examination does not prove the Greek Gospel to be a translation of
an Aramaic original.

(3) Quotations from the Old Testament

It is claimed that most of the quotations from the Old Testament
are borrowed from the Septuagint, and that this fact proves that
the Gospel of Matthew was composed in Greek. The first proposition
is not accurate, and, even if it were, it would not necessitate
this conclusion. Let us examine the facts. As established by
Stanton ("The Gospels as Historical Documents", II, Cambridge,
1909, p. 342), the quotations from the Old Testament in the First
Gospel are divided into two classes. In the first are ranged all
those quotations the object of which is to show that the
prophecies have been realized in the events of the life of Jesus.
They are introduced by the words: "Now all this was done that it
might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet," or other
similar expressions. The quotations of this class do not in
general correspond exactly with any particular text. Three among
them (ii, 15; viii, 17; xxvii, 9, 10) are borrowed from the
Hebrew; five (ii, 18; iv, 15, 16; xii, 18-21; xiii, 35; xxi, 4, 5)
bear points of resemblance to the Septuagint, but were not
borrowed from that version. In the answer of the chief priests and
scribes to Herod (ii, 6), the text of the Old Testament is
slightly modified, without, however, conforming either to the
Hebrew or the Septuagint. The Prophet Micheas writes (v, 2): "And
thou Bethlehem, Ephrata, art a little one among the thousands of
Juda"; whereas Matthew says (ii, 6): "And thou Bethlehem the land
of Juda art not the least among the princes of Juda". A single
quotation of this first class (iii, 3) conforms to the Septuagint,
and another (i, 23) is almost conformable. These quotations are to
be referred to the first Evangelist himself, and relate to facts,
principally to the birth of Jesus (i, ii), then to the mission of
John the Baptist, the preaching of the Gospel by Jesus in Galilee,
the miracles of Jesus, etc. It is surprising that the narratives
of the Passion and the Resurrection of Our Lord, the fulfilment of
the very clear and numerous prophecies of the Old Testament,
should never be brought into relation with these prophecies. Many
critics, e. g. Burkitt and Stanton, think that the quotations of
the first class are borrowed from a collection of Messianic
passages, Stanton being of opinion that they were accompanied by
the event that constituted their realization. This "catena of
fulfilments of prophecy", as he calls it, existed originally in
Aramaic, but whether the author of the First Gospel had a Greek
translation of it is uncertain. The second class of quotations
from the Old Testament is chiefly composed of those repeated
either by the Lord or by His interrogators. Except in two
passages, they are introduced by one of the formula: "It is
written"; "As it is written"; "Have you not read?" "Moses said".
Where Matthew alone quotes the Lord's words, the quotation is
sometimes borrowed from the Septuagint (v, 21 a, 27, 38), or,
again, it is a free translation which we are unable to refer to
any definite text (v, 21 b, 23, 43). In those Passages where
Matthew runs parallel with Mark and Luke or with either of them,
all the quotations save one (xi, 10) are taken almost literally
from the Septuagint.

(4) Analogy to the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke

From a first comparison of the Gospel of Matthew with the two
other Synoptic Gospels we find

�  that 330 verses are peculiar to it alone; that it has between
330 and 370 in common with both the others, from 170 to 180 with
Mark's, and from 230 to 240 with Luke's;

�  that in like parts the same ideas are expressed sometimes in
identical and sometimes in different terms; that Matthew and Mark
most frequently use the same expressions, Matthew seldom agreeing
with Luke against Mark. The divergence in their use of the same
expressions is in the number of a noun or the use of two different
tenses of the same verb. The construction of sentences is at times
identical and at others different.

�  That the order of narrative is, with certain exceptions which
we shall later indicate, almost the same in Matthew, Mark, and
Luke.

These facts indicate that the three Synoptists are not independent
of one another. They borrow their subject-matter from the same
oral source or else from the same written documents. To declare
oneself upon this alternative, it would be necessary to treat the
synoptic question, and on this critics have not vet agreed. We
shall, therefore, restrict ourselves to what concerns the Gospel
of St. Matthew. From a second comparison of this Gospel with Mark
and Luke we ascertain:

�  that Mark is to be found almost complete in Matthew, with
certain divergences which we shall note;

�  that Matthew records many of our Lord's discourses in common
with Luke;

�  that Matthew has special passages which are unknown to Mark and
Luke.

Let us examine these three points in detail, in an endeavour to
learn how the Gospel of Matthew was composed.

(a) Analogy to Mark

�  Mark is found complete in Matthew, with the exception of
numerous slight omissions and the following pericopes: Mark, i,
23-28, 35-39; iv, 26-29; vii, 32-36; viii, 22-26; ix, 39, 40; xii,
41-44. In all, 31 verses are omitted.

�  The general order is identical except that, in chapters v-xiii,
Matthew groups facts of the same nature and savings conveying the
same ideas. Thus, in Matt., viii, 1-15, we have three miracles
that are separated in Mark; in Matthew, viii, 23-ix, 9, there are
gathered together incidents otherwise arranged in Mark, etc.
Matthew places sentences in a different environment from that
given them by Mark. For instance, in chapter v, 15, Matthew
inserts a verse occurring in Mark, iv, 21, that should have been
placed after xiii, 23, etc.

�  In Matthew the narrative is usually shorter because he
suppresses a great number of details. Thus, in Mark, we read: "And
the wind ceased: and there was made a great calm", whereas in
Matthew the first part of the sentence is omitted. All unnecessary
particulars are dispensed with, such as the numerous picturesque
features and indications of time, place, and number, in which
Mark's narrative abounds.

�  Sometimes, however, Matthew is the more detailed. Thus, in
chapter xii, 22-45, he gives more of Christ's discourse than we
find in Mark, iii, 20-30, and has in addition a dialogue between
Jesus and the scribes. In chapter xiii, Matthew dwells at greater
length than Mark, iv, upon the object of the parables, and
introduces those of the cockle and the leaven, neither of which
Mark records. Moreover, Our Lord's apocalyptic discourse is much
longer in Matthew, xxiv-xxv (97 verses), than in Mark, xiii (37
verses).

�  Changes of terms or divergences in the mode of expression are
extremely frequent. Thus, Matthew often uses eutheos, when Mark
has euthus; men . . . de, instead of kai, as in Mark, etc.; the
aorist instead of the imperfect employed by Mark. He avoids double
negatives and the construction of the participle with eimi; his
style is more correct and less harsh than that of Mark; he
resolves Mark's compound verbs, and replaces by terms in current
use the rather unusual expressions introduced by Mark, etc.

�  He is free from the lack of precision which, to a slight
extent, characterizes Mark. Thus, Matthew says "the tetrarch" and
not "the king" as Mark does, in speaking of Herod Antipas; "on the
third day" instead.of "in three days". At times the changes are
more important. Instead of "Levi, son of Alpheus," he says: "a man
named Matthew"; he mentions two demoniacs and two blind persons,
whereas Mark mentions only one of each, etc.

�  Matthew extenuates or omits everything which, in Mark, might be
construed in a sense derogatory to the Person of Christ or
unfavourable to the disciples. Thus, in speaking of Jesus, he
suppresses the following phrases: "And looking round about on them
with anger" (Mark, iii, 5); "And when his friends had heard of it,
they went out to lay hold on him. For they said: He is beside
himself" (Mark, iii, 21), etc. Speaking of the disciples, he does
not say, like Mark, that "they understood not the word, and they
were afraid to ask him" (ix, 3 1; cf. viii, 17, 18); or that the
disciples were in a state of profound amazement, because "they
understood not concerning the loaves; for their heart was blinded"
(vi, 52), etc. He likewise omits whatever might shock his readers,
as the saying of the Lord recorded by Mark: "The sabbath was made
for man, and not man for the sabbath" (ii, 27). Omissions or
alterations of this kind are very numerous. It must, however, be
remarked that between Matthew and Mark there are many points of
resemblance in the construction of sentences (Matt., ix, 6 Mark,
ii, 10; Matt., xxvi, 47 = Mark, xiv, 43, etc.); in their mode of
expression, often unusual. and in short phrases (Matt.. ix, 16 =
Mark. ii, 21; Matt., xvi, 28 Mark, ix, 1: Matt., xx, 25 = Mark, x,
42); in some pericopes, narratives, or discourses, where the
greater part of the terms are identical (Matt., iv, 18-22 Mark, i,
16-20; Matt., xxvi, 36-38 = Mark, xiv, 32-34; Matt., ix, 5, 6 =
Mark, ii, 9-11), etc.

(b) Analogy to Luke

A comparison of Matthew and Luke reveals that they have but one
narrative in common, viz., the cure of the centurion's servant
(Matt., viii, 5-13 = Luke, vii, 1-10). The additional matter
common to these Evangelists, consists of the discourses and
sayings of Christ. In Matthew His discourses are usually gathered
together, whereas in Luke they are more frequently scattered.
Nevertheless, Matthew and Luke have in common the following
discourses: the Sermon on the Mount (Matt., v-vii the Sermon in
the Plain, Luke, vi); the Lord's exhortation to His disciples whom
He sends forth on a mission (Matt., x, 19-20, 26-33 = Luke, xii,
11-12, 2-9); the discourse on John the Baptist (Matt., xi = Luke,
vii); the discourse on the Last Judgment (Matt., xxiv Luke, xvii).
Moreover, these two Evangelists possess in common a large number
of detached sentences, e. g., Matt., iii, 7b-19, 12 = Luke. iii,
7b-9, 17; Matt., iv, 3-11 = Luke, iv, 3-13; Matt., ix, 37, 38 =
Luke x, 2; Matt., xii, 43-45 = Luke, xi, 24-26 etc. (cf.
Rushbrooke, "Synopticon", pp. 134-70). However, in these parallel
passages of Matthew and Luke there are numerous differences of
expression, and even some divergences in ideas or in the manner of
their presentation. It is only necessary to recall the Beatitudes
(Matt., v, 3-12 = Luke, vi, 20b-25): in Matthew there are eight
beatitudes, whereas in Luke there are only four, which, while
approximating to Matthew's In point of conception, differ from
them in general form and expression. In addition to having in
common parts that Mark has not, Matthew and Luke sometimes agree
against Mark in parallel narratives. There have been counted 240
passages wherein Matthew and Luke harmonize with each other, but
disagree with Mark in the way of presenting events, and
particularly in the use of the same terms and the same grammatical
emendations. Matthew and Luke omit the very pericopes that occur
in Mark.

(c) Parts peculiar to Matthew

These are numerous, as Matthew has 330 verses that are distinctly
his own. Sometimes long passages occur, such as those recording
the Nativity and early Childhood (i, ii), the cure of the two
blind men and one dumb man (ix, 27-34), the death of Judas (xxvii,
3-10), the guard placed at the Sepulchre (xxvii, 62-66), the
imposture of the chief priests (xxviii, 11-15), the apparition of
Jesus in Galilee (xxviii, 16-20), a great portion of the Sermon on
the Mount (v, 17-37; vi, 1-8; vii, 12-23), parables (xiii, 24-30;
35-53; xxv, 1-13), the Last Judgment (xxv, 31-46), etc., and
sometimes detached sentences, as in xxiii, 3, 28, 33; xxvii, 25,
etc. (cf. Rushbrooke, "Synopticon", pp.171-97). Those passages in
which Matthew reminds us that facts in the life of Jesus are the
fulfilment of the prophecies, are likewise noted as peculiar to
him, but of this we have already spoken.

These various considerations have given rise to a great number of
hypotheses, varying in detail, but agreeing fundamentally.
According to the majority of present critics--H. Holtzmann, Wendt,
J�licher, Wernle, von Soden, Wellhausen, Harnack, B. Weiss,
Nicolardot, W. Allen, Montefiore, Plummer, and Stanton--the author
of the First Gospel used two documents: the Gospel of Mark in its
present or in an earlier form, and a collection of discourses or
sayings, which is designated by the letter Q. The repetitions
occurring in Matthew (v, 29, 30 = xviii, 8, 9; v, 32 xix, 9; x,
22a = xxiv, 9b; xii, 39b = xvi, 4a, etc.) may be explained by the
fact that two sources furnished the writer with material for his
Gospel. Furthermore, Matthew used documents of his own. In this
hypothesis the Greek Gospel is supposed to be original. and not
the translation of a complete Aramaic Gospel. It is admitted that
the collection of sayings was originally Aramaic, but it is
disputed whether the Evangelist had it in this form or in that of
a Greek translation. Critics also differ regarding the manner in
which Matthew used the sources. Some would have it that Matthew
the Apostle was not the author of the First Gospel, but merely the
collector of the sayings of Christ mentioned by Papias. "However",
says J�licher, "the author's individuality is so strikingly
evident in his style and tendencies that it is impossible to
consider the Gospel a mere compilation". Most critics are of a
like opinion. Endeavours have been made to reconcile the
information furnished by tradition with the facts resulting from
the study of the Gospel as follows: Matthew was known to have
collected in Aramaic the sayings of Christ, and, on the other
hand, there existed at the beginning of the second century a
Gospel containing the narratives found in Mark and the sayings
gathered by Matthew in Aramaic. It is held that the Greek Gospel
ascribed to Matthew is a translation of it, made by him or by
other translators whose names it was later attempted to ascertain.

To safeguard tradition further, while taking into consideration
the facts we have already noted, it might be supposed that the
three Synoptists worked upon the same catechesis, either oral or
written and originally in Aramaic, and that they had detached
portions of this catechesis, varying in literary condition. The
divergences may be explained first by this latter fact, and then
by the hypothesis of different translations and by each
Evangelist's peculiar method of treating the subject-matter,
Matthew and Luke especially having adapted it to the purpose of
their Gospel. There is nothing to prevent the supposition that
Matthew worked on the Aramaic catechesis; the literary emendations
of Mark's text by Matthew may have been due to the translator, who
was more conversant with Greek than was the popular preacher who
furnished the catechesis reproduced by Mark. In reality, the only
difficulty lies in explaining the similarity of style between
Matthew and Mark. First of all, we may observe that the points of
resemblance are less numerous than they are said to be. As we have
seen, they are very rare in the narratives at all events, much
more so than in the discourses of Christ. Why, then, should we not
suppose that the three Synoptists, depending upon the same Aramaic
catechesis, sometimes agreed in rendering similar Aramaic
expressions in the same Greek words? It is also possible to
suppose that sayings of Christ, which in the three Synoptic
Gospels (or in two of them) differed only in a few expressions,
were unified by copyists or other persons. To us it seems probable
that Matthew's Greek translator used Mark's Greek Gospel,
especially for Christ's discourses. Luke, also, may have similarly
utilized Matthew's Greek Gospel in rendering the discourses of
Christ. Finally, even though we should suppose that Matthew were
the author only of the Logia, the full scope of which we do not
know, and that a part of his Greek Gospel is derived from that of
Mark, we would still have a right to ascribe this First Gospel to
Matthew as its principal author.

Other hypotheses have been put forth. In Zahn's opinion, Matthew
wrote a complete Gospel in Aramaic; Mark was familiar with this
document, which he used while abridging it. Matthew's Greek
translator utilized Mark, but only for form, whereas Luke depended
upon Mark and secondary sources, but was not acquainted with
Matthew. According to Belser, Matthew first wrote his Gospel in
Hebrew, a Greek translation of it being made in 59-60, and Mark
depended on Matthew's Aramaic document and Peter's preaching. Luke
made use of Mark, of Matthew (both in Aramaic and Greek), and also
of oral tradition. According to Camerlynck and Coppieters, the
First Gospel in its present form was composed either by Matthew or
some other Apostolic writer long before the end of the first
century, by combining the Aramaic work of Matthew and the Gospel
of Luke.

III. PLAN AND CONTENTS OF THE FIRST GOSPEL

The author did not wish to compose a biography of Christ, but to
demonstrate, by recording His words and the deeds of His life,
that He was the Messias, the Head and Founder of the Kingdom of
God, and the promulgator of its laws. One can scarcely fail to
recognize that, except in a few parts (e. g. the Childhood and the
Passion), the arrangement of events and of discourses is
artificial. Matthew usually combines facts and precepts of a like
nature. Whatever the reason, he favours groups of three (thirty-
eight of which may be counted)--three divisions in the genealogy
of Jesus (i, 17), three temptations (iv, 1-11), three examples of
justice (vi, 1-18), three cures (viii, 1-15), three parables of
the seed (xiii, 1-32), three denials of Peter (xxvi, 69-75), etc.;
of five (these areless numerous)--five long discourses (v-vii, 27;
x; xiii, 1-52; xviii; xxiv-xxv), ending with the same formula (Kai
egeneto, ote etelesen ho Iesous), five examples of the fulfilment
of the law (v, 21-48), etc.; and of seven--seven parables (xiii),
seven maledictions (xxiii), seven brethren (xxii, 25), etc. The
First Gospel can be very naturally divided as follows:-

A. INTRODUCTION (1-2)

The genealogy of Jesus, the prediction of His Birth, the Magi, the
Flight into Egypt, the Massacre of the Innocents, the return to
Nazareth, and the life there.

B. THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF JESUS (3-25)

This may be divided into three parts, according to the place where
He exercised it.

(1) In Galilee (3-18)

(a) Preparation for the public ministry of Jesus (3:1 to 4:11)

John the Baptist, the Baptism of Jesus, the Temptation, the return
to Galilee.

(b) The preaching of the Kingdom of God (4:17 to 18:35)

(1) the preparation of the Kingdom by the preaching of penance,
the call of the disciples, and numerous cures (iv, 17-25), the
promulgation of the code of the Kingdom of God in the Sermon on
the Mount (v, I-vii, 29);

(2) the propagation of the Kingdom in Galilee (viii, I-xviii, 35).
He groups together:

�  the deeds by which Jesus established that He was the Messias
and the King of the Kingdom: various cures, the calming of the
tempest, missionary journeys through the land, the calling of the
Twelve Apostles, the principles that should guide them in their
missionary travels (viii, 1-x, 42);

�  various teachings of Jesus called forth by circumstances:
John's message and the Lord's answer, Christ's confutation of the
false charges of the Pharisees, the departure and return of the
unclean spirit (xi, 1-xii, 50);

�  finally, the parables of the Kingdom, of which Jesus makes
known and explains the end (xiii, 3-52).

(3) Matthew then relates the different events that terminate the
preaching in Galilee: Christ's visit to Nazareth (xiii, 53-58),
the multiplication of the loaves, the walking on the lake,
discussions with the Pharisees concerning legal purifications, the
confession of Peter at C�sarea, the Transfiguration of Jesus,
prophecy regarding the Passion and Resurrection, and teachings on
scandal, fraternal correction, and the forgiveness of injuries
(xiv, 1-xviii, 35).

(2) Outside Galilee or the way to Jerusalem (19-20)

Jesus leaves Galilee and goes beyond the Jordan; He discusses
divorce with the Pharisees; answers the rich young man, and
teaches self-denial and the danger of wealth; explains by the
parable of the labourers how the elect will be called; replies to
the indiscreet question of the mother of the sons of Zebedee, and
cures two blind men of Jericho.

(3) In Jerusalem (21-25)

Jesus makes a triumphal entry into Jerusalem; He curses the barren
fig tree and enters into a dispute with the chief priests and the
Pharisees who ask Him by what authority He has banished the
sellers from the Temple, and answers them by the parables of the
two sons, the murderous husbandmen, and the marriage of the king's
son. New questions are put to Jesus concerning the tribute, the
resurrection of the dead, and the greatest commandment. Jesus
anathematizes the scribes and Pharisees and foretells the events
that will precede and accompany the fall of Jerusalem and the end
of the world.

C. THE PASSION AND THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS (26-28)

(1) The Passion (26-27)

Events are now hurrying to a close. The Sanhedrin plots for the
death of Jesus, a woman anoints the feet of the Lord, and Judas
betrays his Master. Jesus eats the pasch with His disciples and
institutes the Eucharist. In the Garden of Olives, He enters upon
His agony and offers up the sacrifice of His life. He is arrested
and brought before the Sanhedrin. Peter denies Christ; Judas hangs
himself. Jesus is condemned to death by Pilate and crucified; He
is buried, and a guard is placed at the Sepulchre (xxvi, 1-xxvii,
66).

(2) The Resurrection (28)

Jesus rises the third day and appears first to the holy women at
Jerusalem, then in Galilee to His disciples, whom He sends forth
to propagate throughout the world the Kingdom of God.

IV. OBJECT AND DOCTRINAL TEACHING OF THE FIRST GOSPEL

Immediately after the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles,
Peter preached that Jesus, crucified and risen, was the Messias,
the Saviour of the World, and proved this assertion by relating
the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord. This was the first
Apostolic teaching, and was repeated by the other preachers of the
Gospel, of whom tradition tells us that Matthew was one. This
Evangelist proclaimed the Gospel to the Hebrews and, before his
departure from Jerusalem, wrote in his mother tongue the Gospel
that he had preached. Hence the aim of the Evangelist was
primarily apologetic. He wished to demonstrate to his readers,
whether these were converts or still unbelieving Jews, that in
Jesus the ancient prophecies had been realized in their entirety.
This thesis includes three principal ideas:

�  Jesus is the Messias, and the kingdom He inaugurates is the
Messianic kingdom foretold by the prophets;

�  because of their sins, the Jews, as a nation, shall have no
part in this kingdom

�  the Gospel will be announced to all nations, and all are called
to salvation.

A. JESUS AS MESSIAS

St. Matthew has shown that in Jesus all the ancient prophesies on
the Messias were fulfilled. He was the Emmanuel, born of a Virgin
Mother (i, 22, 23), announced by Isaias (vii, 14); He was born at
Bethlehem (ii, 6), as had been predicted by Micheas (v, 2), He
went to Egypt and was recalled thence (ii, 15) as foretold by Osee
(xi, 1). According to the prediction of Isaias (xl, 3), He was
heralded by a precursor, John the Baptist (iii, 1 sqq.); He cured
all the sick (viii, 16 so.), that the Prophecy of Isaias (liii, 4)
might be fulfilled; and in all His actions He was indeed the same
of whom this prophet had spoken (xiii, 1). His teaching in
parables (xiii, 3) was conformable to what Isaias had said (vi,
9). Finally, He suffered, and the entire drama of His Passion and
Death was a fulfilment of the prophecies of Scripture (Isaias,
liii, 3-12; Ps. xxi, 13-22). Jesus proclaimed Himself the Messias
by His approbation of Peter's confession (xvi, 16, 17) and by His
answer to the high priest (xxvi, 63, 64). St. Matthew also
endeavours to show that the Kingdom inaugurated by Jesus Christ is
the Messianic Kingdom. From the beginning of His public life,
Jesus proclaims that the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand (iv, 17); in
the Sermon on the Mount He promulgates the charter of this
kingdom, and in parables He speaks of its nature and conditions.
In His answer to the envoys of John the Baptist Jesus specifically
declares that the Messianic Kingdom, foretold by the Prophets, has
come to pass, and He describes its characteristics: "The blind
see, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear,
the dead rise again, the poor have the gospel preached to them."
It was in these terms, that Isaias had described the future
kingdom (xxxv, 5, 6; loci, 1). St. Matthew records a very formal
expression of the Lord concerning the coming of the Kingdom: "But
if I by the Spirit of God cast out devils, then is the kingdom of
God come upon you" (xii, 28). Moreover, Jesus could call Himself
the Messias only inasmuch as the Kingdom of God had come.

B. EXCLUSION OF JEWS FROM MESSIANIC KINGDOM

The Jews as a nation were rejected because of their sins, and were
to have no part in the Kingdom of Heaven. This rejection had been
several times predicted by the prophets, and St. Matthew shows
that it was because of its incredulity that Israel was excluded
from the Kingdom, he dwells on all the events in which the
increasing obduracy of the Jewish nation is conspicuous,
manifested first in the princes and then in the hatred of the
people who beseech Pilate to put Jesus to death. Thus the Jewish
nation itself was accountable for its exclusion from the Messianic
kingdom.

C. UNIVERSAL PROCLAMATION OF THE GOSPEL

That the pagans were called to salvation instead of the Jews,
Jesus declared explicitly to the unbelieving Israelites:
"Therefore I say to you that the kingdom of God shall be taken
from you, and shall be given to a nation yielding the fruits
thereof" (xxi, 43); "He that soweth the good seed, is the Son of
man. And the field is the world" (xiii, 37-38). "And this gospel
of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a
testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come"
(xxiv, 14). Finally, appearing to His Apostles in Galilee, Jesus
gives them this supreme command: "All power is given to me in
heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations"
(xxviii 18, 19). These last words of Christ are the summary of the
First Gospel. Efforts have been made to maintain that these words
of Jesus, commanding that all nations be evangelized, were not
authentic, but in a subsequent paragraph we shall prove that all
the Lord's sayings, recorded in the First Gospel, proceed from the
teaching of Jesus.

V. DESTINATION OF THE GOSPEL

The ecclesiastical writers Papias, St. Iren�us, Origen, Eusebius,
and St. Jerome, whose testimony has been given above (II, A),
agree in declaring that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Jews.
Everything in this Gospel proves, that the writer addresses
himself to Jewish readers. He does not explain Jewish customs and
usages to them, as do the other Evangelists for their Greek and
Latin readers, and he assumes that they are acquainted with
Palestine, since, unlike St. Luke he mentions places without
giving any indication of their topographical position. It is true
that the Hebrew words, Emmanuel ,Golgotha, Eloi, are translated,
but it is likely that these translations were inserted when the
Aramaic text was reproduced in Greek. St. Matthew chronicles those
discourses of Christ that would interest the Jews and leave a
favourable impression upon them. The law is not to be destroyed,
but fulfilled (v, 17). He emphasizes more strongly than either St.
Mark or St. Luke the false interpretations of the law given by the
scribes and Pharisees, the hypocrisy and even the vices of the
latter, all of which could be of interest to Jewish readers only.
According to certain critics, St. Iren�us (Fragment xxix) said
that Matthew wrote to convert the Jews by proving to them that
Christ was the Son of David. This interpretation is badly founded.
Moreover, Origen (In Matt., i) categorically asserts that this
Gospel was published for Jews converted to the Faith. Eusebius
(Hist. eccl. III, xxiv) is also explicit on this point, and St.
Jerome, summarizing tradition, teaches us that St. Matthew
published his Gospel in Judea and in the Hebrew language,
principally for those among the Jews who believed in Jesus, and
did not observe even the shadow of the Law, the truth of the
Gospel having replaced it (In Matt. Prol.). Subsequent
ecclesiastical writers and Catholic exegetes have taught that St.
Matthew wrote for the converted Jews. "However," says Zahn
(Introd. to the New Testament, II, 562), "the apologetical and
polemical character of the book, as well as the choice of
language, make it extremely probable that Matthew wished his book
to be read primarily by the Jews who were not yet Christians. It
was suited to Jewish Christians who were still exposed to Jewish
influence, and also to Jews who still resisted the Gospel".

VI. DATE AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION

Ancient ecclesiastical writers are at variance as to the date of
the composition of the First Gospel. Eusebius (in his Chronicle),
Theophylact, and Euthymius Zigabenus are of opinion that the
Gospel of Matthew was written eight years, and Nicephorus
Callistus fifteen years, after Christ's Ascension--i. e. about A.
D. 38-45. According to Eusebius, Matthew wrote his Gospel in
Hebrew when he left Palestine. Now, following a certain tradition
(admittedly not too reliable), the Apostles separated twelve years
after the Ascension, hence the Gospel would have been written
about the year 40-42, but following Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, v,
2), it is possible to fix the definitive departure of the Apostles
about the year 60, in which event the writing of the Gospel would
have taken place about the year 60-68. St Iren�us is somewhat more
exact concerning the date of the First Gospel, as he says:
"Matthew produced his Gospel when Peter and Paul were evangelizing
and founding the Church of Rome, consequently about the years 64-
67." However, this text presents difficulties of interpretation
which render its meaning uncertain and prevent us from deducing
any positive conclusion.

In our day opinion is rather divided. Catholic critics, in
general, favour the years 40-45, although some (e. g. Patrizi) go
back to 36-39 or (e. g. Aberle) to 37. Belser assigns 41-42;
Conely, 40-50; Schafer, 50-51; Hug, Reuschl, Schanz, and Rose, 60-
67. This last opinion is founded on the combined testimonies of
St. Iren�us and Eusebius, and on the remark inserted
parenthetically in the discourse of Jesus in chapter xxiv, 15:
"When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which
was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place":
here the author interrupts the sentence and invites the reader to
take heed of what follows, viz.: "Then they that are in Judea, let
them flee to the mountains." As there would have been no occasion
for a like warning had the destruction of Jerusalem already taken
place, Matthew must have written his Gospel before the year 70
(about 65-70 according to Batiffol). Protestant and Liberalistic
critics also are greatly at variance as regards the time of the
composition of the First Gospel. Zahn sets the date about 61-66,
and Godet about 60-66; Keim, Meyer, Holtzmann (in his earlier
writings), Beyschlag, and Maclean, before 70, Bartiet about 68-69;
W. Allen and Plummer, about 65-75; Hilgenfeld and Holtzmann (in
his later writings), soon after 70; B. Weiss and Harnack, about
70-75; Renan, later than 85, Reville, between 69 and 96, J�licher,
in 81-96, Montefiore, about 90-100, Volkmar, in 110; Baur, about
130-34. The following are some of the arguments advanced to prove
that the First Gospel was written several years after the Fall of
Jerusalem. When Jesus prophesies to His Apostles that they will be
delivered up to the councils, scourged in the synagogues, brought
before governors and kings for His sake; that they will give
testimony of Him, will for Him be hated and driven from city to
city (x, 17-23) and when He commissions them to teach all nations
and make them His disciples, His words intimate, it is claimed,
the lapse of many years, the establishment of the Christian Church
in distant parts, and its cruel persecution by the Jews and even
by Roman emperors and governors. Moreover, certain sayings of the
Lord--such as: "Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my
church" (xi, 18), "If he [thy brother] will not hear them: tell
the Church" (xviii, 10)--carry us to a time when the Christian
Church was already constituted, a time that could not have been
much earlier than the year 100. The fact is, that what was
predicted by Our Lord, when He announced future events and
established the charter and foundations of His Church, is
converted into reality and made coexistent with the writing of the
First Gospel. Hence, to give these arguments a probatory value it
would be necessary either to deny Christ's knowledge of the future
or to maintain that the teachings embodied in the First Gospel
were not authentic.

VII. HISTORIC VALUE OF THE FIRST GOSPEL

(1) OF THE NARRATIVES

Apart from the narratives of the Childhood of Jesus, the cure of
the two blind men, the tribute money, and a few incidents
connected with the Passion and Resurrection, all the others
recorded by St. Matthew are found in both the other Synoptists,
with one exception (viii, 5-13) which occurs only in St. Luke.
Critics agree m declaring that, regarded as a whole, the events of
the life of Jesus recorded in the Synoptic Gospels are historic.
For us, these facts are historic even in detail, our criterion of
truth being the same for the aggregate and the details. The Gospel
of St. Mark is acknowledged to be of great historic value because
it reproduces the preaching of St. Peter. But, for almost all the
events of the Gospel, the information given by St. Mark is found
in St. Matthew, while such as are peculiar to the latter are of
the same nature as events recorded by St. Mark, and resemble them
so closely that it is hard to understand why they should not be
historic, since they also are derived from the primitive
catechesis. It may be further observed that the narratives of St.
Matthew are never contradictory to the events made known to us by
profane documents, and that they give a very accurate account of
the moral and religious ideas, the manners and customs of the
Jewish people of that time. In his recent work, "The Synoptic
Gospels" (London, 1909), Montefiore, a Jewish critic, does full
justice to St. Matthew on these different points. Finally all the
objections that could possibly have been raised against their
veracity vanish, if we but keep in mind the standpoint of the
author, and what he wished to demonstrate. The comments we are
about to make concerning the Lord's utterances are also applicable
to the Gospel narratives. For a demonstration of the historic
value of the narratives of the Holy Childhood, we recommend Father
Durand's scholarly work, "L'enfance de Jesus-Christ d'apr�s les
evangiles canoniques" (Paris, 1907).

(2) OF THE DISCOURSES

The greater part of Christ's short sayings are found in the three
Synoptic Gospels and consequently spring from the early
catechesis. His long discourses, recorded by St. Matthew and St.
Luke, also formed part of an authentic catechesis, and critics in
general are agreed in acknowledging their historic value. There
are, however some who maintain that the Evangelist modified his
documents to adapt them to the faith professed in Christian
communities at the time when he wrote his Gospel. They also claim
that, even prior to the composition of the Gospels, Christian
faith had altered Apostolic reminiscences. Let us first of all
observe that these objections would have no weight whatever,
unless we were to concede that the First Gospel was not written by
St. Matthew. And even assuming the same point of view as our
adversaries, who think that our Synoptic Gospels depend upon
anterior sources, we maintain that these changes, whether
attributable to the Evangelists or to their sources (i. e. the
faith of the early Christians), could not have been effected.

The alterations claimed to have been introduced into Christ's
teachings could not have been made by the Evangelists themselves.
We know that the latter selected their subject-matter and disposed
of it each in his own way, and with a special end in view, but
this matter was the same for all three, at least for the whole
contents of the pericopes, and was taken from the original
catechesis, which was already sufficiently well established not to
admit of the introduction into it of new ideas and unknown facts.
Again, all the doctrines which are claimed to be foreign to the
teachings of Jesus are found in the three Synoptists, and are so
much a part of the very framework of each Gospel that their
removal would mean the destruction of the order of the narrative.
Under these conditions, that there might be a substantial change
in the doctrines taught by Christ, it would be necessary to
suppose a previous understanding among the three Evangelists,
which seems to us impossible, as Matthew and Luke at least appear
to have worked independently of each other and it is in their
Gospels that Christ's longest discourses are found. These
doctrines, which were already embodied in the sources used by the
three Synoptists, could not have resulted from the deliberations
and opinions of the earliest Christians. First of all, between the
death of Christ and the initial drawing up of the oral catechesis,
there was not sufficient time for originating, and subsequently
enjoining upon the Christian conscience, ideas diametrically
opposed to those said to have been exclusively taught by Jesus
Christ. For example, let us take the doctrines claimed, above all
others, to have been altered by the belief of the first
Christians, namely that Jesus Christ had called all nations to
salvation. It is said that the Lord restricted His mission to
Israel, and that all those texts wherein He teaches that the
Gospel should be preached throughout the entire world originated
with the early Christians and especially with Paul. Now, in the
first place, these universalist doctrines could not have sprung up
among the Apostles. They and the primitive Christians were Jews of
poorly developed intelligence, of very narrow outlook, and were
moreover imbued with particularist ideas. From the Gospels and
Acts it is easy to see that these men were totally unacquainted
with universalist ideas, which had to be urged upon them, and
which, even then, they were slow to accept. Moreover, how could
this first Christian generation, who, we are told, believed that
Christ's Second Coming was close at hand, have originated these
passages proclaiming that before this event took place the Gospel
should be preached to all nations? These doctrines do not emanate
from St. Paul and his disciples. Long before St. Paul could have
exercised any influence whatever over the Christian conscience,
the Evangelical sources containing these precepts had already been
composed. The Apostle of the Gentiles was the special propagator
of these doctrines, but he was not their creator. Enlightened by
the Holy Spirit, he understood that the ancient prophecies had
been realized in the Person of Jesus and that the doctrines taught
by Christ were identical with those revealed by the Scriptures.

Finally, by considering as a whole the ideas constituting the
basis of the earliest Christian writings, we ascertain that these
doctrines, taught by the prophets, and accentuated by the life and
words of Christ, form the framework of the Gospels and the basis
of Pauline preaching. They are, as it were, a kind of fasces which
it would be impossible to unbind, and into which no new idea could
be inserted without destroying its strength and unity. In the
prophecies, the Gospels the Pauline Epistles, and the first
Christian writings an intimate correlation joins all together,
Jesus Christ Himself being the centre and the common bond. What
one has said of Him, the others reiterate, and never do we hear an
isolated or a discordant voice. If Jesus taught doctrines contrary
or foreign to those which the Evangelists placed upon His lips,
then He becomes an inexplicable phenomenon, because, in the matter
of ideas, He is in contradiction to the society in which He moved,
and must be ranked with the least intelligent sections among the
Jewish people. We are justified, therefore, in concluding that the
discourses of Christ, recorded in the First Gospel and reproducing
the Apostolic catechesis, are authentic. We my however, again
observe that, his aim being chiefly apologetic, Matthew selected
and presented the events of Christ's life anti also these
discourses in a way that would lead up to the conclusive proof
which he wished to give of the Messiahship of Jesus. Still the
Evangelist neither substantially altered the original catechesis
nor invented doctrines foreign to the teaching of Jesus. His
action bore upon details or form, but not upon the basis of words
and deeds.

E. JACQUIER
Transcribed by Ernie Stefanik

From the Catholic Encyclopedia, copyright � 1913 by the
Encyclopedia Press, Inc. Electronic version copyright � 1996 by
New Advent, Inc.

Taken from the New Advent Web Page (www.knight.org/advent).

This article is part of the Catholic Encyclopedia Project, an
effort aimed at placing the  entire Catholic Encyclopedia 1913
edition on the World Wide Web. The coordinator is Kevin Knight,
editor of the New Advent Catholic Website. If you would like to
contribute to this  worthwhile project, you can contact him by e-
mail at (knight.org/advent). For  more information please download
the file cathen.txt/.zip.

-------------------------------------------------------

  Provided courtesy of:

       Eternal Word Television Network
       PO Box 3610
       Manassas, VA 22110
       Voice: 703-791-2576
       Fax: 703-791-4250
       Web: http://www.ewtn.com
       Email address: [email protected]

-------------------------------------------------------

You are viewing proxied material from gopher.ratthing.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.