| |
Matthew, The Book of (Gospel of)
|
RELATED: Apostle(s), Disciple(s), Galilee, Gospels, The; Jesus, John the Baptist, Lord's Supper, Matthew (the Apostle), Parable, Pilate, Sabbath, Sermon on the Mount, The Transfiguration
AUTHOR: Matthew (the Apostle) |
|
READ: American Standard Version,
King James Version,
New American Standard Bible
|
|
|
|
Easton's Bible Dictionary
The author of this book was beyond a doubt the Matthew,
an apostle of our Lord, whose name it bears. He wrote the Gospel of Christ according
to his own plans and aims, and from his own point of view, as did also the other
"evangelists."
As to the time of its composition, there is little in the Gospel itself to indicate.
It was evidently written before the destruction of Jerusalem ( Matthew
24 ), and some time after the events it records. The probability is that it
was written between the years A.D. 60 and 65.
The cast of thought and the forms of expression employed by the writer show that
this Gospel was written for Jewish Christians of Palestine. His great object is
to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah, and that in him the
ancient prophecies had their fulfilment. The Gospel is full of allusions to those
passages of the Old Testament in which Christ is predicted and foreshadowed. The
one aim prevading the whole book is to show that Jesus is he "of whom Moses in
the law and the prophets did write." This Gospel contains no fewer than sixty-five
references to the Old Testament, forty-three of these being direct verbal citations,
thus greatly outnumbering those found in the other Gospels. The main feature of
this Gospel may be expressed in the motto, "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
As to the language in which this Gospel was written there is much controversy.
Many hold, in accordance with old tradition, that it was originally written in
Hebrew (i.e., the Aramaic or Syro-Chaldee dialect, then the vernacular of the
inhabitants of Palestine), and afterwards translated into Greek, either by Matthew
himself or by some person unknown. This theory, though earnestly maintained by
able critics, we cannot see any ground for adopting. From the first this Gospel
in Greek was received as of authority in the Church. There is nothing in it to
show that it is a translation. Though Matthew wrote mainly for the Jews, yet they
were everywhere familiar with the Greek language. The same reasons which would
have suggested the necessity of a translation into Greek would have led the evangelist
to write in Greek at first. It is confessed that this Gospel has never been found
in any other form than that in which we now possess it.
The leading characteristic of this Gospel is that it sets forth the kingly glory
of Christ, and shows him to be the true heir to David's throne. It is the Gospel
of the kingdom. Matthew uses the expression "kingdom of heaven" (thirty-two times),
while Luke uses the expression "kingdom of God" (thirty-three times). Some Latinized
forms occur in this Gospel, as kodrantes ( Matthew
5:26 ), for the Latin quadrans, and phragello ( 27:26
), for the Latin flagello. It must be remembered that Matthew was a tax-gatherer
for the Roman government, and hence in contact with those using the Latin language.
As to the relation of the Gospels to each other, we must maintain that each writer
of the synoptics (the first three) wrote independently of the other two, Matthew
being probably first in point of time.
"Out of a total of 1071 verses, Matthew has 387 in common with Mark and Luke,
130 with Mark, 184 with Luke; only 387 being peculiar to itself." (See MARK;
LUKE;
GOSPELS .)
The book is fitly divided into these four parts:
(1) Containing the genealogy, the birth, and the infancy
of Jesus ( Matthew
1 ; 2
).
(2) The discourses and actions of John the Baptist preparatory to Christ's public
ministry ( Matthew
3 ; 4:11
).
(3) The discourses and actions of Christ in Galilee ( Matthew
4:12 - 20:16
).
(4) The sufferings, death and resurrection of our Lord ( Matthew
20:17 - 28
). |
Hitchcock's Dictionary of Bible Names
(no entry)
Smith's Bible Dictionary
1. Its authorship . --
That this Gospel was written by the apostle Matthew there is no reason to doubt.
Seventeen independent witnesses of the first four centuries attest its genuineness.
2. Its original language . --
The testimony of the early Church is unanimous that Matthew wrote originally in
the Hebrew language. On the otherhand doubt is thrown over this opinion, both
statements of by an examination of the fathers and by a consideration of peculiar
forms of language employed in the Gospel itself. The question is unsettled, the
best scholars not agreeing in their Judgment concerning it. If there was a Hebrew
original, it disappeared at a very early age. The Greek Gospel which we now possess
was it is almost certain, written in Matthews lifetime; and it is not at all improbable
that he wrote the Gospel in both the Greek and Hebrew languages. --Lyman Abbolt.
It is almost certain that our Lord spoke in Greek with foreigners, but with his
disciples and the Jewish people in Aramaic (a form of language closely allied
to the Hebrew). --Schaff. The Jewish historian Josephus furnishes an illustration
of the fate of the Hebrew original of Matthew. Josephus himself informs us that
he, wrote his great work "The History of the Jewish Wars," originally in Hebrew,
his native tongue, for the benefit of his own nation, and he afterward translated
it into Greek. No notices of the Hebrew original now survive. --Professor D.S.
Gregory.
3. The date .--
The testimony of the early Church is unanimous that Matthew wrote first of the
early Church is among the evangelists. Irenieus relates that Matthew wrote his
Gospel while Peter and Paul were preaching, and founding the Church at Rome, after
A.D. 61. It was published before the destruction of Jerusalem, A.D. 50.--Alford.
We would place our present Gospel between A.D. 60 and 66. If there was an original
Hebrew Gospel, an earlier date belongs to it --Ellicott.
4. Its object .--
This Gospel was probably written in Palestine for Jewish Christians. It is an
historical proof that Jesus is the Messiah. Matthew is the Gospel for the Jew.
It is the Gospel of Jesus, the Messiah of the prophets. This Gospel takes the
life of Jesus as it was lived on earth, and his character as it actually appeared,
and places them alongside the life and character of the Messiah as sketched in
the prophets, the historic by the side of the Prophetic, that the two may appear
in their marvellous unity and in their perfect identity.
--Professor Gregory.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
(euaggelion kata Maththaion (or Matthaion)):
1. Name of Gospel--Unity and Integrity
The "Gospel according to Matthew," i.e. the Gospel according to the account of
Matthew, stands, according to traditional, but not entirely universal, arrangement,
first among the canonical Gospels. The Gospel, as will be seen below, was unanimously
ascribed by the testimony of the ancient church to the apostle Matthew, though
the title does not of itself necessarily imply immediate authorship. The unity
and integrity of the Gospel were never in ancient times called in question. Matthew
1; 2, particularly--the story of the virgin birth and childhood of Jesus--are
proved by the consentient testimony of manuscripts, VSS, and patristic references,
to have been an integral part of the Gospel from the beginning (see VIRGIN BIRTH).
The omission of this section from the heretical Gospel of the Ebionites, which
appears to have had some relation to our Gospel, is without significance.
The theory of successive redactions of Mt, starting with an Aramaic Gospel, elaborated
by Eichhorn and Marsh (1801), and the related theories of successive editions
of the Gospel put forth by the Tubingen school (Baur, Hilgenfeld, Kostlin, etc.),
and by Ewald (Bleek supposes a primitive Greek Gospel), lack historical foundation,
and are refuted by the fact that manuscripts and versions know only the ultimate
redaction. Is it credible that the churches should quietly accept redaction after
redaction, and not a word be said, or a vestige remain, of any of them?
2. Canonicity and Authorship
(1) Canonicity.
The apostolic origin and canonical rank of the Gospel of Matthew were accepted
without a doubt by the early church. Origen, in the beginning of the 3rd century
could speak of it as the first of "the four Gospels, which alone are received
without dispute by the church of God under heaven" (in Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica,
VI, 25). The use of the Gospel can be traced in the apostolic Fathers; most distinctly
in Barnabas, who quotes Matthew 22:14 with the formula, "It is written" (5). Though
not mentioned by name, it was a chief source from which Justin took his data for
the life and words of Jesus (compare Westcott, Canon, 91), and apostolic origin
is implied in its forming part of "the Memoirs of the Apostles," "which are called
Gospels," read weekly in the assemblies of the Christians (Ap. i.66, etc.). Its
identity with our Matthew is confirmed by the undoubted presence of that Gospel
in the Diatessaron of Tatian, Justin's disciple. The testimony of Papias is considered
below. The unhesitating acceptance of the Gospel is further decisively shown by
the testimonies and use made of it in the works of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement
of Alexandria, and by its inclusion in the Muratorian Canon, the Itala, Peshitta,
etc.
See CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT; GOSPELS.
(2) Authorship.
The questions that cluster around the First Gospel have largely to do with the
much-discussed and variously disputed statement concerning it found in Eusebius
(Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 39), cited from the much older work of Papias, entitled
Interpretation of the Words of the Lord. Papias is the first who mentions Matthew
by name as the author of the Gospel. His words are: "Matthew composed the Logia
(logia, "words," "oracles") in the Hebrew (Aramaic) tongue, and everyone interpreted
them as he was able." Papias cannot here be referring to a book of Matthew in
which only the discourses or sayings of Jesus had been preserved, but which had
not any, or only meager accounts of His deeds, which imaginary document is in
so many critical circles regarded as the basis of the present Gospel, for Papias
himself uses the expression ta logia, as embracing the story, as he himself says,
in speaking of Mark, "of the things said or done by Christ" (Eusebius, Historia
Ecclesiastica, III, 24; compare particularly T. Zahn, Introduction to New Testament,
section 54, and Lightfoot, Supernatural Religion, 170). Eusebius further reports
that after Matthew had first labored among his Jewish compatriots, he went to
other nations, and as a substitute for his oral preaching, left to the former
a Gospel written in their own dialect (III, 24). The testimony of Papias to Matthew
as the author of the First Gospel is confirmed by Irenaeus (iii.3, 1) and by Origen
(in Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, V, 10), and may be accepted as representing
a uniform 2nd-century tradition. Always, however, it is coupled with the statement
that the Gospel was originally written in the Hebrew dialect. Hence, arises the
difficult question of the relation of the canonical Greek Gospel, with which alone,
apparently, the fathers were acquainted, to this alleged original apostolic work.
|
3. Relation of Greek and Aramaic Gospels
One thing which seems certain is that whatever this Hebrew (Aramaic) document
may have been, it was not an original form from which the present Greek Gospel
of Matthew was translated, either by the apostle himself, or by somebody else,
as was maintained by Bengel, Thiersch, and other scholars. Indeed, the Greek Matthew
throughout bears the impress of being not a translation at all, but as having
been originally written in Greek, and as being less Hebraistic in the form of
thought than some other New Testament writings, e.g. the Apocalypse. It is generally
not difficult to discover when a Greek book of this period is a translation from
the Hebrew or Aramaic. That our Matthew was written originally in Greek appears,
among other things, from the way in which it makes use of the Old Testament, sometimes
following the Septuagint, sometimes going back to the Hebrew. Particularly instructive
passages in this regard are 12:18-21 and 13:14,15, in which the rendering of the
Alexandrian translation would have served the purposes of the evangelist, but
he yet follows more closely the original text, although he adopts the Septuagint
wherever this seemed to suit better than the Hebrew (compare Keil's Commentary
on Matthew, loc. cit.).
The external evidences to which appeal is made in favor of the use of an original
Hebrew or Aramaic. Matthew in the primitive church are more than elusive. Eusebius
(Historia Ecclesiastica, V, 10) mentions as a report (legetai) that Pantaenus,
about the year 170 AD, found among the Jewish Christians, probably of South Arabia,
a Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew, left there by Bartholomew; and Jerome, while in
the Syrian Berea, had occasion to examine such a work, which he found in use among
the Nazarenes, and which at first he regarded as a composition of the apostle
Matthew, but afterward declared not to be such, and then identified with the Gospel
according to the Hebrews (Evangelium secundum or juxta Hebraeos) also called the
Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, or of the Nazarenes, current among the Nazarenes
and Ebionites (De Vir. Illustr., iii; Contra Pelag., iii.2; Commentary on Matthew
12:13, etc.; see GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE HEBREWS). For this reason the references
by Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius to the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew are by many scholars
regarded as referring to this Hebrew Gospel which the Jewish Christians employed,
and which they thought to be the work of the evangelist (compare for fuller details
See Hauck-Herzog, Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche, XII,
article "Matthaeus der Apostel"). Just what the original Hebrew. Mathew was to
which Papias refers (assuming it to have had a real existence) must, with our
present available means, remain an unsolved riddle, as also the possible connection
between the Greek and Hebrew texts. Attempts like those of Zahn, in his Kommentar
on Matthew, to explain readings of the Greek text through an inaccurate understanding
of the imaginary Hebrew original are arbitrary and unreliable. There remains,
of course, the possibility that the apostle himself, or someone under his care
(thus Godet), produced a Greek recension of an earlier Aramaic work.
The prevailing theory at present is that the Hebrew Matthean document of Papias
was a collection mainly of the discourses of Jesus (called by recent critics Q),
which, in variant Greek translations, was used both by the author of the Greek
Matthew and by the evangelist Luke, thus explaining the common features in these
two gospels (W.C. Allen, however, in his Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
Matthew, disputes Luke's use of this supposed common source, Intro, xlvi). The
use of this supposed Matthean source is thought to explain how the Greek Gospel
came to be named after the apostle. It has already been remarked, however, that
there is no good reason for supposing that the "Logia" of Papias was confined
to discourses. See further on "sources" below.
4. Contents, Character, and Purpose
(1) Contents and Character.
As respects contents, the Gospel of Matthew can be divided into 3 chief parts:
(1) preliminary, including the birth and early youth of
the Lord (Matthew 1 ; 2);
(2) the activity of Jesus in Galilee (Matthew 3 - 18);
(3) the activity of Jesus in Judea and Jerusalem, followed by His passion, death,
and resurrection (Matthew 19 - 28). |
In character, the Gospel, like those of the other evangelists, is only a chrestomathy,
a selection from the great mass of oral tradition concerning the doings and sayings
of Christ current in apostolic and early Christian circles, chosen for the special
purpose which the evangelist had in view. Accordingly, there is a great deal of
material in Matthew in common with Mark and Lk, although not a little of this
material, too, is individualistic in character, and of a nature to vex and perplex
the harmonist, as e.g. Matthew's accounts of the temptation, of the demoniacs
at Gadara, of the blind man at Jericho (Matthew 4:1 - 11 ; 8:28 - 34 ; 20:20 -
34); yet there is much also in this Gospel that is peculiar to it. Such are the
following pericopes:
Matthew 1 ; 2 ; 9:27 - 36 ; 10:15 , 37-40 ; 11:28-30 ; 12:11 , 12 , 15-21 , 33-38
; 13:24-30 , 36-52 ; 14:28-31 ; 16:17-19 ; 17:24-27; 18:15-35 ; 19:10-12 ; 20:1-16
; 21:10 , 14-16 , 28-32 ; 22:1-14 ; 23:8-22 ; 24:42-25:46 ; 27:3-10 , 62-66 ;
28:11. The principle of arrangement of the material is not chronological, but
rather that of similarity of material. The addresses and parables of Jesus are
reported consecutively, although they may have been spoken at different times,
and material scattered in the other evangelists--especially in Luke--is found
combined in Matthew. Instances are seen in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7),
the "mission address" (Matthew 10), the seven parables of the Kingdom of God (Matthew
13), the discourses and parables (Matthew 18), the woes against the Pharisees
(Matthew 23), and the grand eschatological discourses (Matthew 24; 25) (compare
with parallel in the other gospels, on the relation to which, see below).
(2) Purpose.
The special purpose which the writer had in view in his Gospel is nowhere expressly
stated, as is done, e.g., by the writer of the Fourth Gospel in John 20:30,31,
concerning his book, but it can readily be gleaned from the general contents of
the book, as also from specific passages. The traditional view that Matthew wrote
primarily to prove that in Jesus of Nazareth is to be found the fulfillment and
realization of the Messianic predictions of the Old Testament prophets and seers
is beyond a doubt correct. The mere fact that there are about 40 proof passages
in Matthew from the Old Testament, in connection even with the minor details of
Christ's career, such as His return from Egypt (2:15), is ample evidence of this
fact, although the proof manner and proof value of some of these passages are
exegetical cruces, as indeed is the whole way in which the Old Testament is cited
in the New Testament.
See QUOTATIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
The question as to whether the Gospel was written for Jewish Christians, or for
Jews not yet converted, is less important, as this book, as was the case probably
with the Epistle of James, was written at that transition period when the Jewish
and the Christian communions were not yet fully separated, and still worshipped
together.
Particular indications as to this purpose of the Gospel are met with at the beginning
and throughout the whole work; e.g. it is obvious in Matthew 1:1, where the proof
is furnished that Jesus was the son of Abraham, in whom all families of the earth
were to be blessed (Genesis 12:3), and of David, who was to establish the kingdom
of God forever (2 Samuel 7). The genealogy of Luke, on the other hand (3:23),
with its cosmopolitan character and purpose, aiming to show that Jesus was the
Redeemer of the whole world, leads back this line to Adam, the common ancestor
of all mankind. Further, as the genealogy of Matthew is evidently that of Joseph
the foster and legal father of Jesus, and not that of Mary, as is the case in
Luke, the purpose to meet the demands of the Jewish reader is transparent. The
full account in Matthew of the Sermon on the Mount, which does not, as is sometimes
said, contain a "new program of the kingdom of God"--indeed does not contain the
fundamental principles of the Gospel at all--but is the deeper and truly Biblical
interpretation of the Law over against the superficial interpretation of the current
Pharisaism, which led the advocates of the latter in all honesty to declare, "What
lack I yet?" given with the design of driving the auditors to the gospel of grace
and faith proclaimed by Christ (compare Galatians 3:24)--all this is only intelligible
when we remember that the book was written for Jewish readers. Again the gegraptai--i.e.
the fulfillment of Old Testament Scripture, a matter which for the Jew was everything,
but for the Gentile was of little concern--appears in Matthew on all hands. We
have it e.g. in connection with the birth of Jesus from a virgin, His protection
from Herod, His coming to Nazareth (Matthew 1:22; 2:5 , 6 , 15 , 17 , 23), the
activity of John the Baptist (Matthew 3:3; compare Matthew 11:10), the selection
of Galilee as the scene of Jesus' operations (Matthew 4:14), the work of Jesus
as the fulfillment of the Law and Prophets (Matthew 5:17), His quiet, undemonstrative
methods (Matthew 12:17), His teaching by parables (Matthew 13:35), His entrance
into Jerusalem (Matthew 21:4,16), His being arrested (Matthew 26:54), the betrayal
of Judas (Matthew 27:9), the distribution of His garments (Matthew 27:35). Throughout,
as Professor Kubel says, the Gospel of Mt shows a "diametrical contrast between
Christ and Pharisaism." Over against the false Messianic ideas and ideals of contemporary
teachings among the Jews, Mt selects those facts from the teachings and deeds
of Christ which show the true Messiah and the correct principles of the kingdom
of God. In this respect the Gospel can be regarded as both apologetic and polemical
in its aim, in harmony with which also is its vivid portraiture to the growing
hostility of the Jews to Christ and to His teachings which, in the latter part
of Matthew, appears as intense as it does in John. Nowhere else do we find such
pronounced denunciations of the Pharisees and their system from the lips of Jesus
(compare Matthew 9:11; 12:1; 15:1; 16:1; and on particular points 5:20; 9:13;
23:23; see also 8:12; 9:34; 12:24; 21:43). It is from this point of view, as representing
the antithesis to the narrow Pharisaic views, that we are to understand the writer's
emphasis on the universality of the kingdom of Jesus Christ (compare Matthew 3:1
- 12 ; 8:10 - 12 ; 21:33 - 44 ; 28:18 - 20)--passages in which some have thought
they discerned a contradiction to the prevailing Jewish strain of the Gospel.
|
5. Problems of Literary Relation
The special importance of the Gospel of Matthew for the synoptic problem can be
fully discussed only in the article on this subject (see GOSPELS, THE SYNOPTIC),
and in connection with Mark and Luke. The synoptic problem deals primarily with
the literary relations existing between the first 3 Gospels. The contents of these
are in many cases so similar, even in verbal details, that they must have some
sources in common, or some dependence or interdependence must exist between them;
on the other hand, each of the 3 Gospels shows so many differences and dissimilarities
from the other two, that in their composition some independent source or sources--oral
or written--must have been employed. In general it may be said that the problem
itself is of little more than literary importance, having by no means the historical
significance for the development of the religion of the New Testament which the
Pentateuchal problem has for that of the Old Testament. Nor has the synoptic problem
any historical background that promises a solution as the Pentateuchal problem
has in the history of Israel. Nothing save an analysis of the contents of these
Gospels, and a comparison of the contents of the three, offers the scholar any
material for the study of the problem, and as subjective taste and impressions
are prime factors in dealing with materials of this sort, it is more than improbable,
in the absence of any objective evidence, that the synoptic problem in general,
or the question of the sources of Matthew in particular, will ever be solved to
the satisfaction of the majority of scholars. The hypothesis which at present
has widest acceptance is the "two-source" theory, according to which Mark, in
its existing or some earlier form, and the problematical original Matthew (Q),
constitute the basis of our canonical Gospel.
In proof of this, it is pointed out that nearly the whole of the narrative-matter
of Mark is taken up into Matthew, as also into Luke, while the large sections,
chiefly discourses, common to Matthew and Luke are held, as already said, to point
to a source of that character which both used. The difficulties arise when the
comparison is pursued into details, and explanation is sought of the variations
in phraseology, order, sometimes in conception, in the respective gospels.
Despite the prestige which this theory has attained, the true solution is probably
a simpler one. Matthew no doubt secured the bulk of his data from his own experience
and from oral tradition, and as the former existed in fixed forms, due to catechetical
instruction, in the early church, it is possible to explain the similarities of
Matthew with the other two synoptics on this ground alone, without resorting to
any literary dependence, either of Matthew on the other two, or of these, or either
of them, on Matthew. The whole problem is purely speculative and subjective and
under present conditions justifies a cui bono? as far as the vast literature which
it has called into existence is concerned.
6. Date of Gospel
According to early and practically universal tradition Mt wrote his Gospel before
the other three, and the place assigned to it in New Testament literature favors
the acceptance of this tradition. Irenaeus reports that it was written when Peter
and Paul were preaching in Rome (ill.1), and Eusebius states that this was done
when Matthew left Palestine and went to preach to others (Historia Ecclesiastica,
III, 24). Clement of Alexandria is responsible for the statement that the presbyters
who succeeded each other from the beginning declared that "the gospels containing
the genealogies (Matthew and Luke) were written first" (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica,
VI, 14). This is, of course, fatal to the current theory of dependence on Mark,
and is in consequence rejected. At any rate, there is the best reason for holding
that the book must have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70
AD (compare 2415). The most likely date for the Greek Gospel is in the 7th Christian
decade. Zahn claims that Matthew wrote his Aramaic Gospel in Palestine in 62 AD,
while the Greek Matthew dates from 85 AD, but this latter date is not probable.
LITERATURE
Introduction to the Commentary on Matthew (Meyer, Alford, Allen (ICC), Broadus
(Philadelphia, 1887), Morison, Plummer, Schaeffer in Lutheran Commentary (New
York, 1895), etc.); works on Introduction to the New Testament (Salmon, Weiss,
Zahn, etc.); articles in Bible Dictionaries and Encyclopedia may be consulted.
See also F.C. Burkitt, The Gospel History and Its Transmission; Wellhausen, Das
Evangelium Matthaei and Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien; Sir J.C. Hawkins,
Horae Synopticae; Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels; Lightfoot,
Essays on Supernatural Religion, V, "Papias of Hierapolis" (this last specially
on the sense of Logia).
See also the works cited in MARK, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO.
G. H. Schodde
Tags:
bible commentary, bible history, bible reference, bible study, book of matthew, define, galilee, genealogy of jesus, gospel of matthew, jesus, john the baptist, kingdom of heaven, lord's supper, new testament, parables, sermon on the mount, synoptics, transfiguration of jesus, written for jewish christians
Comments:
|
 |
|
