Rembrandt (1606–1669),
The Evangelist Matthew and the Angel, 1661, 96 x 81, Louvre-Lens
Saint Matthieu
Un des apôtres du Christ,
martyr (1er s.)
A Capharnaüm, il y avait
un poste de douane. Le fonctionnaire qui tenait ce poste s'appelait Lévi ou
Matthieu. Il était fils d'Alphée. Un matin, Jésus l'appelle, Matthieu laisse
ses registres et suit Jésus. (Marc
2, 14 - Luc
5, 27)
A quelle attente secrète
répond-il ainsi? En tout cas, il explose de joie, suit Jésus, l'invite à dîner,
invite ses amis. Le fonctionnaire méticuleux devient missionnaire et, choisi
comme apôtre, il sera aussi le premier évangéliste(*), relevant méticuleusement
les paroles et les actions de Jésus. Ce publicain, méprisé par les scribes, est
pourtant le plus juif des quatre évangélistes: 130 citations de l'Ancien
Testament. Par la suite, la Tradition lui fait évangéliser l'Éthiopie.
(*) Evangile
de Jésus-Christ selon saint Matthieu
Des internautes nous
signalent:
- "St Matthieu est
le patron des agents des douanes, et à cette occasion dans certaines directions
les remises de la médaille des Douane aux agents a lieu le 21/09."
- "En Basse Sambre,
région de l'Arrondissement judiciaire de Namur (Belgique), les professionnels
de la comptabilité et de la fiscalité organisent le quatrième vendredi de
septembre un banquet pour la fête de la saint Matthieu."
Au 21 septembre, au
martyrologe romain, fête de saint Matthieu, Apôtre et Évangéliste. surnommé
Lévi, appelé par Jésus à le suivre, il abandonna son métier de publicain ou
collecteur d’impôts et, choisi dans le groupe des Douze, il écrivit son
Évangile, où il montre que Jésus, le Christ, fils de David, fils d’Abraham, a
porté à son terme l’ancienne Alliance.
Martyrologe romain
SOURCE : http://nominis.cef.fr/contenus/saint/1066/Saint-Matthieu.html
.jpg)
Caravaggio (1571–1610),
Vocazione di san Matteo / The Calling of Matthew, circa 1599-1600, 340 x
322, Contarelli Chapel, Church of San Luigi dei Francesi, Rome
Saint Matthieu
Apôtre
(Ier siècle)
Saint Matthieu était
probablement Galiléen de naissance. Il exerçait la profession de publicain ou
de receveur des tributs pour les Romains, profession très odieuse parmi les
Juifs. Son nom fut d'abord Lévi. Il était à son bureau, près du lac de
Génésareth, où apparemment il recevait le droit de péage, lorsque Jésus-Christ
l'aperçut et l'appela. Sa place était avantageuse; mais aucune considération ne
l'arrêta, et il se mit aussitôt à la suite du Sauveur. Celui qui l'appelait par
Sa parole le touchait en même temps par l'action intérieure de Sa grâce.
Lévi, appelé Matthieu
après sa conversion, invita Jésus-Christ et Ses disciples à manger chez lui; il
appela même au festin ses amis, espérant sans doute que les entretiens de Jésus
les attireraient aussi à Lui. C'est à cette occasion que les Pharisiens dirent
aux disciples du Sauveur: "Pourquoi votre Maître mange-t-Il avec les
publicains et les pécheurs?" Et Jésus, entendant leurs murmures, répondit
ces belles paroles: "Les médecins sont pour les malades et non pour ceux
qui sont en bonne santé. Sachez-le donc bien, Je veux la miséricorde et non le
sacrifice; car Je suis venu appeler, non les justes, mais les pécheurs."
Après l'Ascension, saint
Matthieu convertit un grand nombre d'âmes en Judée; puis il alla prêcher en
Orient, où il souffrit le martyre. Il est le premier qui ait écrit l'histoire
de Notre-Seigneur et Sa doctrine, renfermées dans l'Évangile qui porte son nom.
– On remarque, dans l'Évangile de saint Matthieu, qu'il se nomme le publicain,
par humilité, aveu touchant, et qui nous montre bien le disciple fidèle de
Celui qui a dit: "Apprenez de Moi que Je suis doux et humble de
coeur." On croit qu'il évangélisa l'Éthiopie. Là, il se rendit populaire
par un miracle: il fit le signe de la Croix sur deux dragons très redoutés, les
rendit doux comme des agneaux et leur commanda de s'enfuir dans leurs repaires.
Ce fut le signal de la
conversion d'un grand nombre. La résurrection du fils du roi, au nom de
Jésus-Christ, produisit un effet plus grand encore et fut la cause de la
conversion de la maison royale et de tout le pays. On attribue à saint Matthieu
l'institution du premier couvent des vierges. C'est en défendant contre les
atteintes d'un prince une vierge consacrée au Seigneur, que le saint Apôtre
reçut le coup de la mort sur les marches de l'autel.
Abbé L. Jaud, Vie
des Saints pour tous les jours de l'année, Tours, Mame, 1950
SOURCE : http://magnificat.ca/cal/fr/saints/saint_matthieu.html
Caravaggio (1571–1610),
Il martirio di San Matteo, circa 1600, 323 x 343, San Luigi dei Francesi, Ponte, Municipio I, Rome, Metropolitan City of Rome, Lazio, Italy
Matthieu est probablement d’origine juive, galiléen de naissance. Il
exerce la profession de collecteur d’impôts (publicain) pour les romains à
Capharnaüm. C’est un homme cultivé, de formation grecque (d’ où son nom Lévi).
Le jour où Jésus, de passage devant son bureau de péage, lui demande de le
suivre, il abandonne tout et devient un de ses disciples.
Evangile selon saint Luc
V 27-29 : "Et après cela il sortit, et il remarqua un publicain
du nom de Lévi, assis au bureau du péage, et il lui dit : Suis-moi. Et,
quittant tout, se levant, il le suivait. Et Lévi lui fit une grande réception
dans sa maison".
Evangile selon saint Marc II 13-14 : "Et il sortit de nouveau le
long de la mer. Et toute la foule venait vers lui, et il les enseignait. Et en
passant, il vit Lévi, le fils d’Alphée, assis au bureau du péage. Et il lui
dit : Suis-moi. Et se levant, il le suivit".
Sa profession aurait fait
de lui un homme méprisé par les autres juifs : les percepteurs étaient de
véritables oppresseurs au service des Romains et l’on savait qu’ils
escroquaient les gens pour augmenter leurs revenus. Ils étaient exclus de la
communauté religieuse, interdits de Temple et tout le monde les évitait.
Lévi, captivé par les
propos de Jésus, le suivit, quittant sa fonction de publicain. Il devint l’un
des 12 apôtres de Jésus et pris le nom de Matthieu. Afin de convaincre ses amis
de partager ses nouvelles convictions, Matthieu les convia à prendre un repas
chez lui, en compagnie de Jésus. et de ses disciples. Les Pharisiens en prirent
ombrage car il était malvenu de déjeuner avec les publicains. Jésus leur
répondit : "Les médecins sont pour les malades et non pour ceux
qui sont en bonne santé. Sachez-le donc bien, je veux la miséricorde et non le
sacrifice ; car je suis venu appeler, non les justes, mais les
pécheurs."
L’Évangile de Matthieu est un récit lucide, qui semble avoir été écrit d’abord pour montrer que Jésus répond aux attentes messianiques juives, d’où son souci de bien établir sa généalogie. En 130, Papias montra que Matthieu écrivit d’abord en araméen, comme un Juif écrivant pour des lecteurs juifs. Cependant, les fragments les plus anciens sont en grec. Le style est concis et conventionnel, particulièrement adapté aux lectures publiques et à l’enseignement.
Alors que les trois autres évangélistes sont symbolisés par des animaux,
Matthieu est représenté par un homme ailé en raison de son souci de l’humanité
et particulièrement de la famille du Christ.
Après la Pentecôte, selon la tradition orale de l’Eglise, il passe un temps en Egypte, puis part en Ethiopie.
Arrivé à Naddaver, la capitale, il prêche et combat l’influence de deux mages, convertissant une partie du peuple désabusé.
Il devient populaire en opérant la résurrection du fils du roi, au nom de Jésus Christ.
Défendant une vierge consacrée au Seigneur contre l’avidité d’un prince, Matthieu s’attire la colère du nouveau roi Hirtiacus. Il est assassiné au cours d’une célébration à Naddaver.
Ses reliques auraient été transportées d’Éthiopie dans le Finistère, en
Bretagne, d’où elles furent transférées à Salerne par Robert Guiscard. Quant à
sa tête, quatre églises différentes en France prétendent la posséder.
L’évangile araméen de
Matthieu parait avant l’an 50. Une traduction grecque circule déjà hors
Palestine, étayée des autres synoptiques parus entre-temps.
D’où vient le nom de
Matthieu ? Il s’agit d’un nom sémitique, Mattaï, signifiant « don de
Dieu » (Théodore, Dieudonné). Certains pensent que ce surnom lui vient de
Jésus.
Saint patron des
percepteurs, des comptables, des fiscalistes et des banquiers ; fêté le 21
septembre en Occident, le 16 novembre en Orient.
SOURCE : http://www.catholique-verdun.cef.fr/spip/spip.php?page=service&id_article=3227
21 septembre
Saint Matthieu
Apôtre et évangéliste
Le nom de Matthieu que
l'on a traduit du grec Maththios ou Matthios, vient de
l'hébreux Matt'yah, abréviation de Mattatyah, qui signifie don
de Yahvé, comme Matthias, Mattathias et Matthan.
On sait que saint
Matthieu, auteur du premier évangile, est un des douze apôtres du Seigneur[1], qu'il est fils d'Alphée et porte d'abord le
nom de Lévi.
Il semble originaire de
Capharnaüm[2] où il est publicain[3] et tient le bureau de péage[4], c'est-à-dire le bureau où l'on perçoit
le portorium, à la fois douane, octroi et péage entre les états du roi
Hérode Antipas et de son frère, le tétrarque Philippe[5]. Chacun connaît les récits de son appel par
Jésus :
Évangile selon saint
Matthieu IX 9 : « Et, passant plus loin, Jésus vit, assis au bureau
du péage, un homme appelé Matthieu. Et il lui dit : Suis-moi. Et, se levant, il
le suivit. »
Évangile selon saint Luc
V 27-29 : « Et après cela il sortit, et il remarqua un publicain du
nom de Lévi, assis au bureau du péage, et il lui dit : Suis-moi. Et, quittant
tout, se levant, il le suivait. Et Lévi lui fit une grande réception dans sa
maison. »
Évangile selon saint Marc
II 13-14 : « Et il sortit de nouveau le long de la mer. Et toute la
foule venait vers lui, et il les enseignait. Et en passant, il vit Lévi, le
[fils] d'Alphée, assis au bureau du péage. Et il lui dit : Suis-moi. Et se
levant, il le suivit. »
(Textes liturgiques ©
AELF, Paris)
La tradition
hagiographique[6], reprise par Rufin, saint Eucher de Lyon et
Socrate dit qu'il passa un temps en Egypte avant que d'aller dans la capitale
d'Ethiopie, Naddaver, où il fut accueilli par cet eunuque, haut fonctionnaire
de la Candace[7], que le diacre Philippe avait baptisé. Or,
il y avait dans cette ville deux habiles magiciens, Zaroës et Arfaxat, qui
trompaient les habitants en leur causant des maladies qu'ils savaient guérir ;
saint Matthieu ne tarda pas à découvrir leurs sortilèges et à désabuser le
peuple dont beaucoup se convertirent.
Quand Matthieu eut
ressuscité le prince héritier Euphranor, le roi et la reine, avec toute la
maison royale et tout ce qui comptait dans la province reçurent le baptême.
Iphigénie, fille du roi d'Ethiopie et quelques unes de ses compagnes, firent
vœu de virginité et se retirèrent dans une maison particulière qui devint le
premier monastère du pays.
Le roi Eglippe étant
mort, son frère Hirtace s'empara du royaume et, pour mieux asseoir son pouvoir,
voulut d'épouser Iphigénie. Hirtace eut recours à saint Matthieu qui lui
répondit : Vienne votre Majesté au discours que je vais faire aux
vierges chrétiennes rassemblées avec Iphigénie et vous verrez vous-même avec
quel zèle je vais remplir vos ordres ; saint Matthieu fit un tel éloge de
la virginité, invitant ses filles à mourir plutôt qu'à y renoncer, qu'Hirtace
se résolut à le faire mourir. Les bourreaux arrivèrent alors que saint Matthieu
finissait la messe, ils montèrent à l'autel et le tuèrent.
Le corps de saint
Matthieu fut d’abord conservé avec beaucoup de vénération dans la ville de
Naddaver où il avait enduré le martyre. En 956, il fut transféré à Salerne,
dans le Royaume de Naples. Comme on se trouvait alors souvent en péril de
guerre et que l’on craignait que quelqu’un s’emparât furtivement des reliques,
on cacha le corps de saint Matthieu dans un endroit secret connu de quelques
personnes. Près de cent vingt ans plus tard, sous le pontificat de saint
Grégoire VII, on découvrit le caveau secret ce dont le Pape félicita
Alfane[8], archevêque de Salerne. De Salerne, le chef
de saint Matthieu fut transporté en France et déposé dans la cathédrale de,
Beauvais ; une partie de ce chef fut donnée au monastère de la Visitation
Sainte-Marie de Chartres. La relique de Beauvais disparut pendant la révolution
française (1793).
[1] Saint
Marc III 18, saint Luc VI 15, saint Matthieu X 3 et Actes des Apôtres I 13
[2] Capharnaüm (le
village de Nahum) aujourd'hui Tell-Hum : ville de Galilée située au
nord-ouest du lac de Gennésareth (lac de Tibériade ou mer de Galilée), à quatre
kilomètres de l'embouchure du Jourdain dans le lac, qui appartient aux
territoires du tétrarque Hérode Antipas. Capharnaüm (aux confins des états
d'Hérode Antipas et de d'Hérode Philippe II) est un poste de douane sur la
route de la Gaulanitide tenu par le publicain Lévi, fils d'Alphée, le futur
apôtre Matthieu (S. Matthieu IX 9, S. Marc II 13-17, S. Luc V 27-32) ; la ville
est gardée par une garnison romaine commandée par le centurion du Domine
non sum dignus (S. Matthieu VIII 5-13, S. Luc VII 1-10). Au début de sa
vie publique, Jésus y établit son centre d'action, y fit de nombreux miracles
et y prêcha dans la synagogue. Il vint habiter à Capharnaüm qui est au
bord de la mer, dans le territoire de Zabulon et de Nephtali, pour que
s'accomplît ce qui avait été annoncé par Isaïe, le prophète, quand il dit :
" Pays de Zabulon et pays de Nephtali, chemin de la mer, pays au-delà du
Jourdain, Galilée des nations, le peuple qui était assis dans les ténèbres a vu
une grande lumière, et pour ceux qui étaient assis dans le sombre pays de la
mort une lumière s'est levée " (S. Matthieu IV 13-16).
[3] Sous
aucun régime la levée de l'impôt n'a été un moyen de se concilier la faveur
populaire. Les exactions et les vexations dont les publicains se rendaient
coupables, n'avaient fait qu'accroître cette impopularité, inhérente à la
fonction ; Hérondas affirme que chaque demeure frissonnait de peur à leur
vue. Autant du Publicains, autant de voleurs, disait d'eux le comique
Xénon, en cela fidèle interprète du sentiment public dans le monde gréco-romain
où Lucien les assimilait à ceux qui tenaient des maisons de débauche et Cicéron
les appelait les plus vils des hommes. Le monde juif ne pensait pas
autrement : la littérature rabbinique associe les publicains, réputés traitres
et apostats puisqu'ils violent les observances de pureté légale, aux voleurs et
aux meurtriers ; on accole publicains et pécheurs (S. Matthieu IX 10),
publicains et païens (S. Matthieu XVIII 17), publicains et prostituées (S.
Matthieu XXI 31). Le Talmud leur interdit les fonctions de juges ou de témoins
dans les procès. Quand Jean-Baptiste avait commencé à prêcher, plusieurs de ces
fonctionnaires de l'impôt étaient allés le trouver pour se faire
baptiser : Maître, que devons-nous faire ? lui avait-il
demandé. N'exigez rien de plus que la taxe fixée, leur avait-il répondu,
laissant clairement entendre que telle n'était pas leur pratique habituelle (S.
Luc III 12-13). L'impopularité du métier n'empêchait pas qu'il ne fût fort
recherché, la perspective du gain imposant facilement silence aux
susceptibilités de l'amour-propre. Avec une souveraine indépendance, Jésus veut
se choisir un disciple parmi les membres de cette corporation méprisée.
[4] Capharnaüm,
située sur une des routes principales qui reliaient Damas à la Méditerranée et
à l'Égypte, elle possédait un bureau où l'on percevait à la fois les droits de
douane, d'octroi et de péage. Suivant la méthode pratiquée dans l'empire
romain, ces taxes avaient été affermées par Hérode, pour une somme déterminée,
à de riches particuliers ou à des compagnies qui se chargeaient de percevoir
directement, non sans y ajouter des taxes pour couvrir leurs frais et se
ménager un bénéfice. Ces fermiers de l'impôt public avaient reçu le nom
de publicains, qui se donnait aussi à leurs agents subalternes (ils
étaient appelés portitores à Rome). Ces impôts (portorium ou teloneum)
portaient sur les marchandises, les individus et les moyens de transport,
hormis ce qui servait à l'armée ou au fisc ; ils étaient levés aux frontières
d'un état (douane), à la sortie d'une ville (octroi) et sur des points
déterminés de passage comme l'entrée d'une route ou d'un pont (péage).
[5] Saint
Marc II 14-15, saint Luc V 27, saint Matthieu IX 9.
[6] Saint
Ambroise et saint Paulin de Nole parlent d'une prédication en Perse, d'autres
parlent du Pont, de la Syrie, de la Macédoine et même de l'Irlande.
[7] Candace
(en grec Kandake, du méroïte Kantake) que les Actes des Apôtres (VIII 27)
donnent comme nom à la reine d'Ethiopie, n'est en fait pas un nom, mais un
titre attribué aux reines de Méroé, l'Ethiopie des Romains, dont la capitale
était Napata (Pline : Histoire naturelle, XVIII 6 ; Strabon : Géographie, XVII,
1, 54).
[8] Alfano
I°, archevêque de Salerne, théologien, philosophe, poète, médecin et musicien.
Originaire de Salerne, il y étudia la médecine. Il entra au monastére de
Sainte-Sophie de Bénévent (1054), puis à celui du Mont-Cassin (1056) où il fit
des études classiques et théologiques. Il parut à la cour du pape Victor II, où
il se fit remarquer par ses connaissances musicales et médicales. Au
Mont-Cassin se trouvaient déjà Fredéric de Lorraine et Didier, ses deux amis,
comme lui savants et lettrés. Frédéric étant devenu le pape Étienne IX (1057)
et Didier l’abbé du Mont-Cassin, Alfano accepta le siège archiépiscopal de
Salerne (1058) et fut consacré par Étienne IX. Sous son épiscopat, l'Église de
Salerne fut enrichie de nombreux privilèges par les papes et les princes et
reçut de notables accroissements spirituels et matériels : droit pour ses
archevêques d'user du pallium, de nommer et de consacrer leurs onze évêques
suffragants ; droit de primauté sur les métropoles de Cosenza, Conza et
Acerenza. Sous l'épiscopat d'Alfano fut bâtie la cathédrale qui fut dédiée
à saint Matthieu, dont on venait de retrouver les restes. L'édifice fut
consacré par saint Grégoire VII (1085). L'archevéque réorganisa aussi son
chapitre, qui se composa de vingt-huit chanoines, dont vingt-quatre portèrent
le titre de cardinaux-prétres, et quatre celui de cardinaux-diacres. Alfano
prit part à plusieurs conciles où il se lia d'amitié avec Hildebrand (futur
Grégoire VII), dont il partageait les desseins de réforme ecclésiastique,
et dont il seconda les efforts dans sa lutte pour la liberté de l'Église. En
1062 ou 1063, il fit, avec l’évêque Bernard de Palestrina, un pèlerinage en
Palestine. Il rendit des services diplomatiques aux princes normands qui
gouvernaient le sud de l’Italie, et fut peu ou prou mêlé aux grandes affaires
de son temps. Lorsque Grégoire VII fut chassé de Rome, Alfano le reçut à
Salerne. Alfano mourut le 9 octobre 1085 et fut enseveli dans sa cathédrale,
près de son Grégoire VII, mort le 25 mai de la même année. Alfano jouit
d'un renom de sainteté, justifié par les pratiques d'une vie austère et
bienfaisante. « Il passait le carême sans manger plus de deux fois par
semaine et sans reposer sur un lit. Les témoins de sa vie racontèrent sa mort
comme celle des saints. On assura qu’il avait vu en songe une échelle qui, du
bord de sa couche allait jusqu'au ciel, et que deux jeunes hommes vêtus de blanc
l'invitaient à monter. » Parmi les devoirs d'une vie si remplie, Alfano trouva
le temps de cultiver la médecine, la philosophie, la poésie, l’éloquence et
l’hagiographie, laissant des œuvres dans toutes ces branches du savoir. On
conserve encore de lui un sermon sur saint Matthieu.
SOURCE : http://missel.free.fr/Sanctoral/09/21.php
.jpg)
Caravaggio (1571–1610), Saint Matthew and the Angel, circa 1602, 292 x 186, Contarelli Chapel, Church of San Luigi dei Francesi, Roma
La tradition est unanime
à reconnaître dans le publicain Matthieu (ou Lévi) l’auteur du
premier évangile. Fête attestée au IXème siècle.
La messe du jour lit
l’évangile de l’appel de St Matthieu dans son évangile. La messe de la Vigile
(voir au 20/09, vigile supprimée en 1955) faisait lire l’appel de Lévi selon St
Luc.
(Leçons des Matines)
AU DEUXIÈME NOCTURNE.
Quatrième leçon. L’apôtre
et Évangéliste Matthieu, appelé aussi Lévi, était assis à son comptoir, lorsque
le Christ lui fit entendre son appel. Il le suivit sans tarder et le reçut à sa
table, lui et les autres disciples. Après la résurrection du Christ, avant de
quitter la Judée pour la contrée qui lui était échue à évangéliser, il écrivit
le premier, en hébreu, l’Évangile de Jésus-Christ, pour les Juifs convertis.
Puis il partit pour l’Éthiopie, où il prêcha la bonne nouvelle, confirmant sa
doctrine par de nombreux miracles.
Cinquième leçon. On doit
citer en première ligne le miracle qu’il opéra en ressuscitant la fille du roi
; ce prodige convertit à la foi du Christ le roi, père de la jeune fille, la
reine, et toute la contrée. A la mort du roi, Hirtacus, son successeur, voulut
épouser la princesse Iphigénie, de race royale. Mais comme celle-ci avait voué
à Dieu sa virginité, sur le conseil de Matthieu, et qu’elle persistait dans son
pieux dessein, Hirtacus donna l’ordre de tuer l’Apôtre, tandis qu’il célébrait
à l’autel les saints Mystères. La gloire du martyre couronna sa carrière
apostolique, le onze des calendes d’octobre. Son corps fut transporté à
Salerne, et déposé peu après, Grégoire VII étant souverain Pontife, dans
l’église consacrée sous son vocable, et il y reçoit de la part de nombreux
fidèles, un culte de pieuse vénération.
On lit pour 6ème Leçon,
la 4ème Leçon du Commun.
AU TROISIÈME NOCTURNE.
Lecture du saint Évangile
selon saint Matthieu.
En ce temps-là : Jésus
vit un homme nommé Matthieu assis au bureau des impôts, et lui dit : Suis-moi.
Et le reste.
Homélie de saint Jérôme,
Prêtre.
Septième leçon. Les
autres Évangélistes, par respect et honneur pour Matthieu, se sont abstenus de
lui donner son nom populaire et ils l’ont appelé Lévi ; il eut en effet ces
deux noms. Quant à lui, suivant ce que dit Salomon : « Le juste est le premier
accusateur de lui-même ; » et : « Confesse tes péchés, afin d’être justifié, »
il s’appelle Matthieu et se déclare publicain, pour montrer à ceux qui le
liront que nul ne doit désespérer du salut, pourvu qu’il embrasse une vie
meilleure, puisqu’on voit en sa personne un publicain tout à coup changé en
Apôtre.
Huitième leçon. Porphyre
et l’empereur Julien relèvent ici sous forme d’accusation, ou l’ignorance d’un
historien inexact ou la folie de ceux qui suivirent immédiatement le Sauveur,
comme s’ils avaient inconsidérément obéi à l’appel du premier venu ; tandis
qu’au contraire, Jésus avait déjà opéré beaucoup de miracles et de grands
prodiges, que les Apôtres avaient certainement vus avant de croire. D’ailleurs
l’éclat et la majesté de la divinité cachée en lui reflétés jusque sur sa face,
pouvaient dès le premier aspect, attirer à lui ceux qui le voyaient ; car si
l’on dit que l’aimant et l’ambre ont la propriété d’attirer les anneaux de fer,
les tiges de blé, les brins de paille, combien plus le Seigneur de toutes
choses pouvait-il attirer à lui ceux qu’il appelait ?
Neuvième leçon. « Or il arriva que Jésus étant à table dans la maison, beaucoup de publicains et de pécheurs vinrent s’y asseoir avec lui. » Ils voient que ce publicain, passé d’un état de péché à une vie meilleure, avait été admis à la pénitence ; et c’est pour cela qu’eux-mêmes ne désespèrent pas de leur salut. Mais ce n’est pas en demeurant dans leurs mauvaises habitudes qu’ils viennent à Jésus, ainsi que les Pharisiens et les Scribes le disent avec murmure. C’est en faisant pénitence, comme le marque le Seigneur dans la réponse qui suit : « Je veux la miséricorde et non le sacrifice ; car je ne suis pas venu appeler les justes, mais les pécheurs. » Aussi le Seigneur allait-il aux repas des pécheurs, pour avoir l’occasion de les instruire et de servir à ceux qui l’invitaient, des aliments spirituels.
SOURCE : http://www.introibo.fr/21-09-St-Matthieu-apotre-et
Michelangelo
Merisi da Caravaggio, Saint Matthew and the Angel, c.1602, formerly the
Kaiser Friedrich Museum, Berlin, destroyed 1945 in Flakturm Friedrichshain
fire, Department of Image Collections, National Gallery of Art Library,
Washington, DC
L'évangile de Matthieu
a-t-il un original hébreu ?
L'apôtre Matthieu ou Lévi
?
Appelé par Jésus (Mt 9,
9-10), Matthieu était percepteur des impôts à Capharnaüm, aux frontières du
territoire de Hérode Antipas et de son frère Philippe.
Marc et Luc cependant
l'appellent Lévi (Mc 2, 13-14; Lc 5, 27-28).
Le témoignage de Papias
(vers l'an 130).
Papias fut évêque de
Hiérapolis en Phrygie vers l'an 110, et il était un disciple personnel de
l'apôtre Jean et un compagnon de Polycarpe[1].
L'œuvre de Papias est
perdue, mais Eusèbe de Césarée nous apprend que Papias « ordonna des logia ».
Le mot « logia » vient du mot « logos », mot, parole, sentence. Il s'agit d'un
recueil de sentences. Et dans un autre passage, Eusèbe parle d'un Evangile de
Matthieu, dans sa langue maternelle. Le pape commente cette tradition :
« La tradition de
l'Eglise antique s'accorde de façon unanime à attribuer à Matthieu la paternité
du premier Evangile. Cela est déjà le cas à partir de Papias, évêque de
Hiérapolis en Phrygie, autour de l'an 130. Il écrit:
"Matthieu recueillit
les paroles (du Seigneur) en langue hébraïque, et chacun les interpréta comme
il le pouvait"
(in Eusèbe de Césarée,
Hist. eccl. III, 39, 16).
L'historien Eusèbe ajoute
cette information:
"Matthieu, qui avait
tout d'abord prêché parmi les juifs, lorsqu'il décida de se rendre également
auprès d'autres peuples, écrivit dans sa langue maternelle l'Evangile qu'il
avait annoncé; il chercha ainsi à remplacer par un écrit, auprès de ceux dont
il se séparait, ce que ces derniers perdaient avec son départ"
(Ibid., III, 24, 6).
Nous ne possédons plus
l'Evangile écrit par Matthieu en hébreu ou en araméen, mais, dans l'Evangile
grec que nous possédons, nous continuons à entendre encore, d'une certaine
façon, la voix persuasive du publicain Matthieu qui, devenu Apôtre, continue à
nous annoncer la miséricorde salvatrice de Dieu et écoutons ce message de saint
Matthieu, méditons-le toujours à nouveau pour apprendre, nous aussi, à nous
lever et à suivre Jésus de façon décidée. »
(Benoît XVI, audience du
30 août 2006).
Le témoignage de saint
Irénée (vers l'an 180).
En pleine cohérence avec
la tradition de Papias, vers la fin du II° siècle, saint Irénée écrit :
"Ainsi Matthieu
publia-t-il chez les Hébreux, dans leur propre langue, une forme écrite
d'Evangile, à l'époque où Pierre et Paul évangélisaient Rome et y fondaient
l'Eglise"[2].
Hébreu ou araméen ? [3].
La première ébauche
était-elle en hébreu, langue traditionnelle du peuple juif ? Ou en araméen (qui
n'est pas un dialecte mais une langue tout aussi vénérable que l'hébreu),
beaucoup plus répandu en Galilée et dans la plupart des villages juifs a 1°
siècle de notre ère ? L'hébreu est possible et semble plus conforme aux
indications de Papias et d'Irénée. Pourtant, il est courant dans les textes
chrétiens rédigés en grec d'appeler « langue hébraïque » la langue des juifs,
même lorsqu'il s'agit explicitement d'araméen. Il y en a trois exemples dans
l'évangile de Jean (Jn 5,2 ; 19, 13.17). L'araméen est alors plus probable.
Matthieu : de qui
parle-t-on ? [4]
Nous expliquons ailleurs
que l'évangile de Matthieu fut achevé plus tard que celui de Marc.
Il faut donc accepter que
son rédacteur final soit distinct de l'un des Douze. En effet, il est
invraisemblable qu'un témoin oculaire prenne modèle sur un homme apostolique
qui n'a pas été témoin oculaire (Marc).
Ce rédacteur final (que
nous appelons Matthieu) s'est donc placé sous l'autorité apostolique de l'apôtre
(Matthieu-Lévi) et il a écrit un évangile complet. Ce dédoublement des rôles
peut expliquer que Matthieu soit appelé Lévi dans les autres évangiles (Mc 2,
13-14; Lc 5, 27-28).
Ce rédacteur final est
très probablement judéo-chrétien, car il fait un bon usage de l'Ancien
Testament, il connaît les légendes juives, il fait un parallèle entre Moïse et
Jésus, etc... Et il aura très probablement utilisé le recueil de sentences dont
parle Papias. Car nous n'avons aucune raison de disqualifier Papias.
Ceci dit, n'y a-t-il pas
eu un évangile hébreu complet ? [5]
Irénée parle bien d'un
évangile. Dans l'antiquité, il est légitime de penser qu'il y avait un évangile
juif, probablement araméen, utilisé par les chrétiens palestiniens.
Mais il n'a pas été retrouvé.
• Les quelques citations
chez les pères de l'Eglise.
Saint Jérôme affirmait
l'avoir traduit en grec. Pourtant quand on les compare à l'évangile canonique
de Matthieu, les quelques passages conservés dans les citations des pères de
l'Eglise semblent être des ajouts secondaires ou des interpolations.
• Les versions
médiévales.
Il existe des versions
médiévales hébraïques de Matthieu et la plupart des spécialistes considèrent
qu'il s'agit des rétroversions du grec du Matthieu canonique, souvent destinées
au débat entre chrétiens et juifs.
Certains affirment
cependant que ces textes peuvent conduire à l'original hébreu de Matthieu[7].
• D'autres pensent
pouvoir reconstruire l'original hébreu ou araméen sous-jacent à tout ou partie
du texte grec du Matthieu canonique.
La grande majorité des
exégètes, toutefois, soutient que l'évangile que nous connaissons sous le nom
de Matthieu fut originellement composé en grec (puisque par exemple il corrige
le style de Marc et se livre à des jeux de mots grecs).
Conclusion.
L'Eglise croit que
l'Esprit Saint a guidé tout le processus de la rédaction de la Bible et ne
dévalue pas l'influence des apôtres.
Benoît XVI, dans la
catéchèse sur Matthieu, rapporte la tradition de Papias sur l'évangile en
langue hébraïque attribué à Matthieu, mais il ajoute que nous n'en avons plus
la trace. Il se garde bien d'attribuer directement à Matthieu l'évangile canonique
(grec) que nous possédons, il dit simplement que « nous continuons à entendre,
d'une certaine façon, la voix persuasive du publicain Matthieu ».
La tradition de Papias,
reprise par saint Irénée, avait l'intention de montrer comme plausible et authentique
l'origine apostolique de ce qui avait été écrit en bel ordre dans « l'évangile
selon Matthieu ».[7]
Benoît XVI ne s'en
éloigne nullement. Mais il autorise aussi les recherches récentes qui pensent
que notre évangile de Matthieu ne soit pas une traduction et qu'il ait eu aussi
une source « Q », en grec, commune avec Luc.
[1] IRENEE, Contre
les hérésies, V, 33, 4. ; EUSEBES, Histoire eccl., III, 39, 1
[2] IRENEE, Contre
les hérésies, III, 1, 1
[3] Michel QUESNEL, Histoire
des Evangiles, Cerf, Paris 1987, p. 56.
[4] Cf. R. E.
Brown, Que sait-on du Nouveau Testament ? Bayard, Paris 2000, p.
252-253
[5] Cf. R. E.
Brown, Que sait-on du Nouveau Testament ? Bayard, Paris 2000, p.
250-252
[6] Auteurs récents ayant
travaillé ce thème : Cl. Tresmontrant ; O. Grelot ; G.E. Howard ; G.A.Mercer.
[7] SEGALLA G., Evangelo
e vangeli, EDB, Bologna 1993, pp. 116-117.
Françoise Breynaert
SOURCE : http://www.mariedenazareth.com/6733.0.html?&L=0
El Greco (1541–1614),
San Mateo Apóstol, circa 1610, 62 x 50, Indianapolis Museum of Art, Arthur
W. Herrington Collection, Indianapolis, Indiana
BENOÎT XVI
AUDIENCE GÉNÉRALE
Mercredi 30 août 2006
Matthieu
Chers frères et soeurs,
En poursuivant la série
de portraits des douze Apôtres, que nous avons commencée il y a quelques
semaines, nous nous arrêtons aujourd'hui sur Matthieu. En vérité, décrire
entièrement sa figure est presque impossible, car les informations qui le
concernent sont peu nombreuses et fragmentaires. Cependant, ce que nous pouvons
faire n'est pas tant de retracer sa biographie, mais plutôt d'en établir le
profil que l'Evangile nous transmet.
Pour commencer, il est
toujours présent dans les listes des Douze choisis par Jésus (cf. Mt 10, 3; Mc
3, 18; Lc 6, 15; Ac 1, 13). Son nom juif signifie "don de Dieu". Le
premier Evangile canonique, qui porte son nom, nous le présente dans la liste
des Douze avec une qualification bien précise: "le publicain"
(Mt 10, 3). De cette façon, il est identifié avec l'homme assis à son bureau de
publicain, que Jésus appelle à sa suite: "Jésus, sortant de Capharnaüm,
vit un homme, du nom de Matthieu, assis à son bureau de publicain. Il lui
dit: "Suis-moi". L'homme se leva et le suivit" (Mt 9, 9).
Marc (cf. 2, 13-17) et Luc (cf. 5, 27-30) racontent eux aussi l'appel de
l'homme assis à son bureau de publicain, mais ils l'appellent "Levi".
Pour imaginer la scène décrite dans Mt 9, 9, il suffit de se rappeler le
magnifique tableau du Caravage, conservé ici, à Rome, dans l'église
Saint-Louis-des-Français. Dans les Evangiles, un détail biographique supplémentaire
apparaît: dans le passage qui précède immédiatement le récit de l'appel,
nous est rapporté un miracle accompli par Jésus à Capharnaüm (cf. Mt 9, 1-8; Mc
2, 1-12) et l'on mentionne la proximité de la mer de Galilée, c'est-à-dire du
Lac de Tibériade (cf. Mc 2, 13-14). On peut déduire de cela que Matthieu
exerçait la fonction de percepteur à Capharnaüm, ville située précisément
"au bord du lac" (Mt 4, 13), où Jésus était un hôte permanent dans la
maison de Pierre.
Sur la base de ces
simples constatations, qui apparaissent dans l'Evangile, nous pouvons effectuer
deux réflexions. La première est que Jésus accueille dans le groupe de ses
proches un homme qui, selon les conceptions en vigueur à l'époque en Israël,
était considéré comme un pécheur public. En effet, Matthieu manipulait non
seulement de l'argent considéré impur en raison de sa provenance de personnes
étrangères au peuple de Dieu, mais il collaborait également avec une autorité
étrangère odieusement avide, dont les impôts pouvaient également être déterminés
de manière arbitraire. C'est pour ces motifs que, plus d'une fois, les
Evangiles parlent à la fois de "publicains et pécheurs" (Mt 9, 10; Lc
15, 1), de "publicains et de prostituées" (Mt 21, 31). En outre, ils
voient chez les publicains un exemple de mesquinerie (cf. Mt 5, 46: ils
aiment seulement ceux qui les aiment) et ils mentionnent l'un d'eux, Zachée,
comme le "chef des collecteurs d'impôts et [...] quelqu'un de riche"
(Lc 19, 2), alors que l'opinion populaire les associait aux "voleurs,
injustes, adultères" (Lc 18, 11). Sur la base de ces éléments, un premier
fait saute aux yeux: Jésus n'exclut personne de son amitié. Au contraire,
alors qu'il se trouve à table dans la maison de Matthieu-Levi, en réponse à
ceux qui trouvaient scandaleux le fait qu'il fréquentât des compagnies peu
recommandables, il prononce cette déclaration importante: "Ce ne
sont pas les gens bien portants qui ont besoin du médecin, mais les malades. Je
suis venu appeler non pas les justes, mais les pécheurs" (Mc 2, 17).
La bonne annonce de
l'Evangile consiste précisément en cela: dans l'offrande de la grâce de
Dieu au pécheur! Ailleurs, dans la célèbre parabole du pharisien et du
publicain montés au Temple pour prier, Jésus indique même un publicain anonyme
comme exemple appréciable d'humble confiance dans la miséricorde divine:
alors que le pharisien se vante de sa propre perfection morale, "le
publicain... n'osait même pas lever les yeux vers le ciel, mais il se frappait
la poitrine en disant: "Mon Dieu, prends pitié du pécheur que je
suis!"". Et Jésus commente: "Quand ce dernier rentra chez
lui, c'est lui, je vous le déclare, qui était devenu juste. Qui s'élève sera
abaissé; qui s'abaisse sera élevé" (Lc 18, 13-14). Dans la figure de
Matthieu, les Evangiles nous proposent donc un véritable paradoxe: celui
qui est apparemment le plus éloigné de la sainteté peut même devenir un modèle
d'accueil de la miséricorde de Dieu et en laisser entrevoir les merveilleux
effets dans sa propre existence. A ce propos, saint Jean Chrysostome formule
une remarque significative: il observe que c'est seulement dans le récit
de certains appels qu'est mentionné le travail que les appelés effectuaient.
Pierre, André, Jacques et Jean sont appelés alors qu'ils pêchent, Matthieu
précisément alors qu'il lève l'impôt. Il s'agit de fonctions peu importantes -
commente Jean Chrysostome - "car il n'y a rien de plus détestable que le
percepteur d'impôt et rien de plus commun que la pêche" (In Matth.
Hom.: PL 57, 363). L'appel de Jésus parvient donc également à des
personnes de basse extraction sociale, alors qu'elles effectuent un travail
ordinaire.
Une autre réflexion, qui
apparaît dans le récit évangélique, est que Matthieu répond immédiatement à
l'appel de Jésus: "il se leva et le suivit". La concision de la
phrase met clairement en évidence la rapidité de Matthieu à répondre à l'appel.
Cela signifiait pour lui l'abandon de toute chose, en particulier de ce qui lui
garantissait une source de revenus sûrs, même si souvent injuste et peu
honorable. De toute évidence, Matthieu comprit qu'être proche de Jésus ne lui
permettait pas de poursuivre des activités désapprouvées par Dieu. On peut
facilement appliquer cela au présent: aujourd'hui aussi, il n'est pas
admissible de rester attachés à des choses incompatibles avec la
"sequela" de Jésus, comme c'est le cas des richesses malhonnêtes. A
un moment, Il dit sans détour: "Si tu veux être parfait, va, vends
ce que tu possèdes, donne-le aux pauvres, et tu auras un trésor dans les cieux.
Puis viens, suis-moi" (Mt 19, 21). C'est précisément ce que fit
Matthieu: il se leva et le suivit! Dans cette action de "se
lever", il est légitime de lire le détachement d'une situation de péché
et, en même temps, l'adhésion consciente à une nouvelle existence, honnête,
dans la communion avec Jésus.
Rappelons enfin que la
tradition de l'Eglise antique s'accorde de façon unanime à attribuer à Matthieu
la paternité du premier Evangile. Cela est déjà le cas à partir de Papia,
Evêque de Hiérapolis en Phrygie, autour de l'an 130. Il écrit:
"Matthieu recueillit les paroles (du Seigneur) en langue hébraïque, et
chacun les interpréta comme il le pouvait" (in Eusèbe de Césarée, Hist.
eccl. III, 39, 16). L'historien Eusèbe ajoute cette information:
"Matthieu, qui avait tout d'abord prêché parmi les juifs, lorsqu'il
décida de se rendre également auprès d'autres peuples, écrivit dans sa langue
maternelle l'Evangile qu'il avait annoncé; il chercha ainsi à remplacer par un
écrit, auprès de ceux dont il se séparait, ce que ces derniers perdaient avec
son départ" (Ibid., III, 24, 6). Nous ne possédons plus l'Evangile écrit
par Matthieu en hébreu ou en araméen, mais, dans l'Evangile grec que nous
possédons, nous continuons à entendre encore, d'une certaine façon, la voix
persuasive du publicain Matthieu qui, devenu Apôtre, continue à nous annoncer
la miséricorde salvatrice de Dieu et écoutons ce message de saint Matthieu,
méditons-le toujours à nouveau pour apprendre nous aussi à nous lever et à
suivre Jésus de façon décidée.
* * *
Je salue cordialement les
pèlerins francophones présents ce matin, en particulier les séminaristes de
l’archidiocèse de Lyon, accompagnés par le Cardinal Philippe Barbarin, ainsi
que le pèlerinage œcuménique d’Athènes. Puisse la figure de l’Apôtre Matthieu
vous inviter à devenir toujours plus des témoins de la miséricorde du Seigneur,
en vous donnant tout entiers pour son service et pour celui de vos frères !
© Copyright 2006 -
Libreria Editrice Vaticana
SOURCE : http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/fr/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060830.html
Anthony van Dyck (1599–1641), L’Apôtre
Matthieu, circa 1618, 83,5 x 72,5, Rubenshuis,
Fonds Generet, 2016, King Baudouin Foundation
SAINT MATHIEU, APÔTRE
Saint Mathieu eut deux
noms, Mathieu et Lévi. Mathieu veut dire don hâtif, ou bien donneur de conseil.
Ou Mathieu vient de magnus, grand, et Theos, Dieu, comme si on disait grand à
Dieu, ou bien de main et de Theos, main de Dieu. En effet il fut un don hâtif
puisque sa conversion fut prompte. Il donna des conseils par ses prédications
salutaires. II fut grand devant Dieu par la perfection de sa vie, et il fut la
main dont Dieu se servit pour écrire son Evangile. Lévi veut dire, enlevé, mis,
ajouté, apposé. Il fut enlevé à son bureau d'impôts, mis au nombre des apôtres,
ajouté à la société des Evangélistes, et apposé au catalogue des martyrs.
Saint Mathieu, apôtre,
prêchait. en Ethiopie (Honorius d'Autun.) dans une ville nommée Nadaber, où il
trouva deux mages Zaroïs et Arphaxus qui ensorcelaient les hommes par de tels
artifices que tous ceux qu'ils voulaient paraissaient avoir perdu la santé avec
l’usage de leurs membres. Ce qui enfla tellement leur orgueil qu'ils se
faisaient adorer comme des dieux par les hommes. L'apôtre Mathieu étant entré
dans cette ville où il reçut l’hospitalité de l’eunuque de la reine de Candace
baptisé par Philippe (Actes, vin), découvrait si adroitement les prestiges de
ces mages qu'il changeait eu bien le mal qu'ils faisaient aux hommes. Or,
l’eunuque, ayant demandé à saint Mathieu comment il se faisait qu'il parlât et comprit
tant de langages différents, Mathieu lui exposa qu'après la descente du
Saint-Esprit, il s'était trouvé posséder la science de toutes les langues, afin
que, comme ceux qui avaient essayé par orgueil d'élever une tour jusqu'au ciel,
s'étaient vus forces d'interrompre leurs travaux par la confusion des langues,
de même les apôtres, par la connaissance de tous les idiomes, construisissent,
non plus avec des pierres, mais avec des vertus, une tour au moyen de laquelle
tous ceux qui croiraient pussent monter au ciel. Alors quelqu'un vint annoncer
l’arrivée des deux mages accompagnés de dragons qui, en vomissant un feu de
soufre par la gueule et par les naseaux, tuaient, tous les hommes. L'apôtre, se
munissant du signe de la croix, alla avec assurance vers eux. Les dragons ne
l’eurent pas plutôt aperçu qu'ils vinrent à l’instant s'endormir à ses pieds.
Alors saint Mathieu dit aux mages : « Où donc est votre art ? Eveillez-les, si
vous pouvez : quant à moi, si je n'avais prié le Seigneur, j'aurais de suite tourné
contre vous ce que vous aviez la pensée de me faire. » Or, comme le peuple
s'était rassemblé, Mathieu commanda de par le nom de J.-C. aux dragons de
s'éloigner, et ils s'en allèrent de suite sans nuire à personne. Ensuite saint
Mathieu commença à adresser un grand discours au peuple sur la gloire da
paradis terrestre, avançant qu'il était plus élevé que toutes les montagnes et
voisin du ciel, qu'il n'Y avait là ni épines ni ronces, que les lys ni les
roses ne s'y flétrissaient, que la vieillesse n'y existait pas, mais que les
hommes y restaient constamment jeunes, que les concerts des anges s'y faisaient
entendre, et que quand on appelait les oiseaux, ils obéissaient tout de suite.
Il ajouta que l’homme avait été chassé de ce paradis terrestre, mais que par la
naissance de J.-C. il avait été rappelé au Paradis du ciel. Pendant qu'il
parlait au peuple, tout à coup s'éleva mi grand tumulte ; car l’on pleurait la
mort du fils du roi. Comme les magiciens ne pouvaient le ressusciter, ils
persuadaient au roi qu'il avait été enlevé en la compagnie des dieux et qu'il
fallait en conséquence lui élever une statue et un temple. Mais l’eunuque, dont
il a été parlé plus haut, fit garder les magiciens et manda l’apôtre qui, après
avoir fait une prière, ressuscita à l’instant le jeune homme (Bréviaire.).
Alors le roi, qui se nommait Egippus, ayant vu cela, envoya publier dans toutes
ses provinces : « Venez voir un Dieu caché sous les traits d'un homme. » On
vint donc avec des couronnes d'or et différentes victimes dans l’intention
d'offrir des sacrifices à Mathieu, mais celui-ci les en empêcha en disant : « O
hommes, que faites-vous? Je ne suis pas un Dieu, je suis seulement le serviteur
de N.-S. J.-C. » Alors avec l’argent et l’or qu'ils avaient apportés avec eux,
ces gens bâtirent, par l’ordre de l’apôtre, une grande église qu'ils
terminèrent en trente jours; et dans laquelle saint Mathieu siégea trente-trois
ans; il convertit l’Egypte toute entière; le roi Egippus, avec sa femme et tout
le peuple, se fit baptiser. Iphigénie, la fille du roi, qui avait été consacrée
à Dieu, fut mise à la tête de plus de deux cents vierges.
Après quoi Hirtacus
succéda au roi ; il s'éprit d'Iphigénie et promit à l’apôtre la moitié de son
royaume s'il la faisait consentir à accepter sa main. L'apôtre lui dit de venir
le dimanche à l’église comme son prédécesseur, pour entendre, en présence
d'Iphigénie et des autres vierges, quels avantages procurent les mariages
légitimes. Le roi s'empressa de venir avec joie, dans la pensée que l’apôtre voudrait
conseiller le mariage à Iphigénie. Quand les vierges et tout le peuple furent
assemblés, saint Mathieu parla longtemps des avantages du mariage et mérita les
éloges du roi, qui croyait que l’apôtre parlait ainsi afin d'engager la vierge
à se marier. Ensuite, ayant demandé qu'on fit silence, il reprit son discours
en disant « Puisque le mariage est une bonne chose, quand on en conserve
inviolablement les promesses, sachez-le bien, sous qui êtes ici présents, que
si un esclave avait la présomption d'enlever l’épouse du roi, non seulement il
encourrait la colère du prince, mais, il mériterait encore la mort, non parce
qu'il serait convaincu de s'être marié, mais parce qu'en prenant l’épouse de
son seigneur, il aurait outragé son prince dans sa femme. Il en serait de même
de vous, ô roi; vous savez qu'Iphigénie est devenue l’épouse du roi éternel, et
qu'elle est consacrée par le voile sacré; comment donc pourrez-vous prendre
l’épouse de plus puissant que vous et vous unir à elle par le mariage ? » Quand
le roi eut entendu cela, il se retira furieux de colère (Bréviaire.). Mais
l’apôtre intrépide et constant exhorta tout le monde à la patience et à la
constance; ensuite il bénit Iphigénie, qui, tremblante de peur, s'était jetée à
genoux devant lui avec les autres vierges. Or, quand la messe solennelle fut
achevée, le roi envoya. un bourreau qui tua Mathieu en prières debout devant
l’autel et les bras étendus vers le ciel. Le bourreau le frappa par derrière et
en fit ainsi un martyr. A cette nouvelle, le peuple courut, au palais du roi
pour y mettre le feu, et ce fut à peine si les prêtres et les diacres purent le
contenir; puis on célébra avec joie le martyre de l’apôtre. Or, comme le roi ne
pouvait par aucun moyen faire changer Iphigénie de résolution, malgré les
instances des dames qui lui furent envoyées, et celles des magiciens, il fit
entourer sa demeure tout entière d'un feu immense afin de la brûler avec les
autres vierges. Mais l’apôtre leur apparut, et il repoussa l’incendie de leur
maison. Ce feu en jaillissant se jeta sur le palais du roi qu'il consuma en
entier; le roi seul parvint avec peine à s'échapper avec son fils unique.
Aussitôt après ce fils fut saisi par le démon, et courut au tombeau de l’apôtre
en confessant les crimes de son père, qui lui-même fut attaqué d'une lèpre
affreuse ; et comme il ne put être guéri, il se tua de sa propre main en se
perçant avec une épée. Alors le peuple établit roi le frère d'Iphigénie qui
avait été baptisé par l’apôtre. Il régna soixante-dix ans, et après s'être
substitué son fils, il procura de l’accroissement au culte chrétien, et remplit
toute la province de l’Ethiopie d'églises en l’honneur de J.-C. Pour Zaroës et
Arphaxat, dès le jour ou l’apôtre ressuscita le fils du roi, ils s'enfuirent en
Perse; mais saint Simon et saint Jude les y vainquirent.
Dans saint Mathieu, il
faut considérer quatre vertus : 1° La promptitude de son obéissance : car à
l’instant où J.-C. l’appela, il quitta immédiatement son bureau, et sans
craindre ses maîtres, il laissa les états d'impôts inachevés pour s'attacher
entièrement à J.-C. Cette promptitude dans son obéissance a donné à
quelques-uns l’occasion de tomber en erreur, selon que le rapporte saint Jérôme
dans son commentaire sur cet endroit de l’Evangile : « Porphyre, dit-il, et
l’empereur Julien accusent l’historien de mensonge et de maladresse, comme
aussi il taxe de folie la conduite de ceux qui se mirent aussitôt à la suite du
Sauveur, comme ils auraient fait à l’égard de n'importe quel homme qu'ils
auraient suivi sans motifs. J.-C. opéra auparavant de si grands prodiges et de
si grands miracles qu'il n'y a pas de doute que les apôtres ne les aient vus
avant de croire. Certainement l’éclat même et la majesté de la puissance divine
qui était cachée, et qui brillait sur sa face humaine, pouvait au premier
aspect attirer à soi ceux qui le voyaient. Car si on attribue à l’aimant la
force d'attirer des anneaux et de la paille, à combien plus forte raison le
maître de toutes les créatures pouvait-il attirer à soi ceux qu'il voulait. »
2° Considérons ses largesses et sa libéralité, puisqu'il donna de suite au
Sauveur un grand repas dans sa maison. Or, ce repas ne fut pas grand par cela
seul qu'il fut splendide, mais il le fut : a) par la résolution qui lui fit
recevoir J.-C. avec grande affection et désir; b) par le mystère dont il fut la
signification; mystère que la glose sur saint Luc explique en disant : « Celui
qui reçoit J.-C. dans l’intérieur de sa maison est rempli d'un torrent de
délices et de volupté » ; c) par les instructions que J.-C. ne cessa d'y
adresser comme, par exemple : « Je veux la miséricorde et non le sacrifice » et
encore : « Ce ne sont pas ceux qui se portent bien qui ont besoin de médecins;
» d) par la qualité des invités, qui furent de grands personnages, comme J.-C.
et ses disciples. 3° Son humilité qui parut en deux circonstances : la première
en ce qu'il avoua être un publicain. Les autres évangélistes, dit là glose, par
un sentiment de pudeur, et par respect pour saint Matthieu, ne lui donnent pas
son nom ordinaire. Mais, d'après ce qui est écrit du Juste, qu'il est son
propre accusateur, il se nomme lui-même Mathieu et publicain, pour montrer à
celui qui se convertit qu'il ne doit jamais désespérer de son salut, car de
publicain il fut fait de suite apôtre et évangéliste. La seconde, en ce qu'il
supporta avec patience les injures qui lui furent adressées. En effet quand les
pharisiens murmuraient de ce que J.-C. eût été loger chez un pécheur, il aurait
pu à bon droit leur répondre et leur dire : « C'est vous plutôt: qui êtes des
misérables et des pécheurs puisque vous refusez les secours du médecin en vous
croyant justes : mais moi je ne puis plus être désormais appelé pécheur, quand
j'ai recours au médecin du salut et que je lui découvre mes plaies. »
4° L'honneur que reçoit
dans l’église son évangile qui se lit plus souvent que celui des autres
évangélistes comme les psaumes de David et les épîtres de saint Paul, qu'on lit
plus fréquemment que les autres livres de la sainte Ecriture. En voici la
raison : Selon saint Jacques, il y a trois sortes de péchés, savoir: l’orgueil,
la luxure et l’avarice. Saul, ainsi appelé de Saül le plus orgueilleux des
rois, commit le péché d'orgueil quand il persécuta l’église au delà de toute
mesure. David se livra au péché de luxure en commettant un adultère et en
faisant tuer par suite de ce premier crime Urie le plus fidèle de ses soldats.
Mathieu commit le péché, d'avarice, eu se livrant à des gains honteux, car il
était douanier. La douane, dit Isidore, est un lieu sur un port de mer où sont
reçues les marchandises des vaisseaux et les gages des matelots. Telos, en
grec, dit Bède, veut dire impôt. Or, bien que Saul, David et Mathieu eussent
été pécheurs, cependant leur pénitence fut si agréable que non seulement (85)
le Seigneur leur pardonna leurs fautes, mais qu'il les combla de toutes sortes
de bienfaits : car dit plus cruel persécuteur, il fit le plus fidèle
prédicateur; d'un adultère et d'un homicide il fit un prophète et un psalmiste;
d'un homme avide de richesses et d'un avare, il fit un apôtre et un
évangéliste. C'est pour cela que les paroles de ces trois personnages se lisent
si fréquemment : afin que personne ne désespère de son pardon, s'il veut se
convertir, eu considérant la grandeur de la race dans ceux qui ont été de si
grands coupables. D'après saint Ambroise, dans la conversion de saint Mathieu
il y a certaines particularités à considérer du côté du médecin, du côté de
l’infirme qui est guéri, et du côté de la manière de guérir. Dans le médecin il
y a eu trois qualités, savoir : la sagesse qui connut, le mal dans sa racine,
la bonté qui employa les remèdes, et la puissance qui changea saint. Mathieu si
subitement. Saint Ambroise parle ainsi de ces trois qualités dans la personne
de saint Mathieu lui-même : « Celui-là peut enlever la douleur de mon cœur et
la pâleur de mon âme qui connaît ce qui est caché. » Voici ce qui a rapport à
la sagesse. « J'ai trouvé le médecin qui habite les cieux et qui sème les
remèdes, sur la terre. » Ceci se rapporte à la bonté. « Celui-là seul peut
guérir mes blessures qui ne s'en connaît pas. » Ceci s'applique à la puissance.
Or, dans cet infirme qui est guéri, c'est-à-dire dans saint Mathieu, il y a
trois circonstances à considérer; toujours d'après saint Ambroise. Il se
dépouilla parfaitement de la maladie, il resta agréable à celui qui le
guérissait, et quand il eut reçu la santé, toujours il se conserva intact.
C'est ce qui lui fait dire : « Déjà je ne suis plus ce publicain, je ne suis
plus Lévi, je me suis dépouillé de Lévi, quand j'ai eu revêtu J.-C. », ce qui
se rapporte à la première considération. « Je hais ma race, je change de vie,
je marche seulement à votre suite, mon Seigneur Jésus, vous qui guérissez mes
plaies. » Ceci, a trait à la deuxième considération. «Quel est celui qui me
séparera de la charité de Dieu, laquelle réside en moi? Sera-ce la tribulation,
la détresse, la faim? » C'est ce qui s'applique à la troisième. D'après saint
Ambroise le mode de guérison fut triple : 1° J.-C. le lia avec des chaînes ; 2°
il le cautérisa; 3° il le débarrassa de toutes ses pourritures. Ce qui fait
dire à saint Ambroise dans la personne de saint Mathieu : « J'ai été lié avec
les clous de la croix et dans les douces entraves de la charité ; enlevez, ô
Jésus! la pourriture de mes péchés tandis que vous me tenez enchaîné dans les
liens de la charité ; tranchez tout ce que vous trouverez de vicieux. » Premier
mode. « Votre commandement, sera pour moi un caustique que je tiendrai sur moi,
et si le caustique de votre commandement brûle, toutefois il ne brûle que les
pourritures de la chair; de peur, que la contagion ne se glisse comme un virus
; et quand bien même le médicament tourmenterait, il ne laisse pas d'enlever
l’ulcère. » Deuxième mode. « Venez de. suite, Seigneur, tranchez les passions
cachées et profondes. Ouvrez vite la blessure, de peur que le mal ne s'aggrave;
purifiez tout ce qui est fétide dans un bain salutaire. » Troisième mode. —
L'évangile de, saint Mathieu fut trouvé écrit de sa main l’an du Seigneur 500,
avec les os de saint Barnabé. Cet apôtre portait cet évangile avec lui et le
posait sur les infirmes qui tous étaient guéris, tant par la foi de Barnabé que
par les mérites de Mathieu.
La Légende dorée de
Jacques de Voragine nouvellement traduite en français avec introduction,
notices, notes et recherches sur les sources par l'abbé J.-B. M. Roze, chanoine
honoraire de la Cathédrale d'Amiens, Édouard Rouveyre, éditeur, 76, rue de
Seine, 76, Paris mdccccii
SOURCE : http://www.abbaye-saint-benoit.ch/voragine/tome03/141.htm
Theodoric
of Prague, Matthew the Apostle, circa 1360, collection of the National
Gallery in Prague
Also
known as
Levi
Apostle of Ethiopia
Matthew the Evangelist
21
September (Western calendar)
16
November (Eastern calendar)
6 May (translation
of his relics)
Profile
Son of Alphaeus, he lived
at Capenaum on Lake Genesareth. He was a Roman tax
collector, a position equated with collaboration with the enemy by those
from whom he collected taxes. Jesus’ contemporaries were surprised to see the
Christ with a traitor, but Jesus explained that he had come “not to call
the just, but sinners.”
Matthew’s Gospel is
given pride of place in the canon of
the New Testament, and was written to
convince Jewish readers that their anticipated Messiah had come in the person
of Jesus. He preached among
the Jews for 15 years; his audiences may have included the Jewish enclave
in Ethiopia,
and places in the East.
Worshipful
Company of Tax Advisers
Washington,
DC, archdiocese of
in Italy
angel holding
a pen or inkwell
man holding money
money box
winged man
young man
Storefront
medals and pendants –
( part
1 ) ( part
2 ) ( part
3 ) ( part
4 ) ( part
5 ) ( part
6 ) ( part
7 ) ( part
8 ) ( part
9 ) ( part
10 ) ( part
11 ) ( part
12 ) ( part
13 ) ( part
14 ) ( part
15 ) ( part
16 ) ( part
17 ) ( part
18 ) ( part
19 ) ( part
20 ) ( part
21 ) ( part
22 ) ( part
23 ) ( part
24 ) ( part
25 ) ( part
26 ) ( part
27 )
rosaries – ( part
1 ) ( part
2 )
Additional
Information
A
Garner of Saints, by Allen Banks Hinds, M.A.
Book
of Saints, by the Monks of
Ramsgate
Catholic
Encyclopedia, by E. Jacquier
Encyclopaedia
Britannica, 1911 edition
Lives
of Illustrious Men, by Saint Jerome
Lives
of the Saints, by Father Alban
Butler
Lives
of the Saints, by Father Francis
Xavier Weninger
Meditations
on the Gospels for Every Day in the Year, by Father Pierre
Médaille
New
Catholic Dictionary: Gospel of Saint Matthew
New
Catholic Dictionary: Saint Matthew
Pope
Benedict XVI: General Audience, 30 August 2006
Roman
Martyrology, 1914 edition
Saints
and Saintly Dominicans, by Blessed Hyacinthe-Marie
Cormier, O.P.
Saints
of the Canon, by Monsignor John
T McMahon
Short
Lives of the Saints, by Eleanor Cecilia Donnelly
books
Our Sunday Visitor’s Encyclopedia of Saints
other
sites in english
Catholic Herald: A patron saint for bankers and accountants
Christian
Biographies, by James E Keifer
Did
Matthew Invent a Prophecy about Jesus?, by Jimmy Akin
Gospel According
to Matthew New American Bible
audio
Gospel According to Matthew – New English Bible
images
video
sitios
en español
Martirologio Romano, 2001 edición
sites
en français
Abbé
Christian-Philippe Chanut
fonti
in italiano
nettsteder
i norsk
Readings
“Jesus saw a man called
Matthew sitting at the tax office, and he said to him: Follow me.” Jesus saw
Matthew, not merely in the usual sense, but more significantly with his
merciful understanding of men.” He saw the tax collector and, because he saw
him through the eyes of mercy and chose him, he said to him: “Follow me.” This
following meant imitating the pattern of his life – not just walking after him.
Saint John tells us: “Whoever says he abides in Christ ought to walk in the
same way in which he walked.” “And he rose and followed him.” There is no
reason for surprise that the tax collector abandoned earthly wealth as soon as
the Lord commanded him. Nor should one be amazed that neglecting his wealth, he
joined a band of men whose leader had, on Matthew’s assessment, no riches at
all. Our Lord summoned Matthew by speaking to him in words. By an invisible,
interior impulse flooding his mind with the light of grace, he instructed him
to walk in his footsteps. In this way Matthew could understand that Christ, who
was summoning him away from earthly possessions, had incorruptible treasures of
heaven in his gift. – from a homily by Saint Bede the
Venerable
MLA
Citation
“Saint Matthew the
Apostle“. CatholicSaints.Info. 7 June 2023. Web. 23 September 2023.
<https://catholicsaints.info/saint-matthew-the-apostle/>
SOURCE : https://catholicsaints.info/saint-matthew-the-apostle/
Giovanni Girolamo Savoldo (1480–1548),
Matthew the Apostle and the Angel,
1530, 93,4 x 124,5, Metropolitan Museum of Art
St. Matthew
Apostle and evangelist.
The name Matthew is
derived from the Hebrew Mattija,
being shortened to Mattai in post-Biblical Hebrew.
In Greek it is sometimes spelled Maththaios, BD, and sometimes Matthaios,
CEKL, but grammarians do not agree as to which of the two spellings is the
original.
Matthew is spoken of five
times in the New
Testament; first in Matthew
9:9, when called by Jesus to
follow Him, and then four times in the list of the Apostles,
where he is mentioned in the seventh (Luke
6:15, and Mark
3:18), and again in the eighth place (Matthew
10:3, and Acts
1:13). The man designated in Matthew
9:9, as "sitting in the custom house", and "named
Matthew" is the same as Levi, recorded in Mark
2:14, and Luke
5:27, as "sitting at the receipt of custom". The account in the
three Synoptics is
identical, the vocation of
Matthew-Levi being alluded to in the same terms. Hence Levi was the original
name of the man who was subsequently called Matthew; the Maththaios
legomenos of Matthew
9:9, would indicate this.
The fact of one man
having two names is of frequent occurrence among the Jews.
It is true that
the same person usually
bears a Hebrew
name such as "Shaoul" and a Greek name, Paulos.
However, we have also examples of individuals with
two Hebrew
names as, for instance, Joseph-Caiaphas, Simon-Cephas,
etc. It is probable that Mattija, "gift of Iaveh", was the name
conferred upon the tax-gatherer by Jesus
Christ when He called him
to the Apostolate,
and by it he was thenceforth known among his Christian brethren,
Levi being his original name.
Matthew, the son of
Alpheus (Mark
2:14) was a Galilean,
although Eusebius informs
us that he was a Syrian.
As tax-gatherer at Capharnaum,
he collected custom duties for Herod
Antipas, and, although a Jew,
was despised by the Pharisees,
who hated all publicans.
When summoned by Jesus,
Matthew arose and followed Him and tendered Him a feast in his house, where
tax-gatherers and sinners sat
at table with Christ and
His disciples.
This drew forth a protest from the Pharisees whom Jesus rebuked
in these consoling words: "I came not to call the just, but sinners".
No further allusion is
made to Matthew in the Gospels,
except in the list of the Apostles.
As a disciple and
an Apostle he
thenceforth followed Christ,
accompanying Him up to the time of
His Passion and,
in Galilee,
was one of the witnesses of
His Resurrection.
He was also amongst the Apostles who
were present at the Ascension,
and afterwards withdrew to an upper chamber, in Jerusalem, praying in
union with Mary,
the Mother of Jesus,
and with his brethren (Acts
1:10 and 1:14).
Of Matthew's subsequent
career we have only inaccurate or legendary data. St.
Irenæus tells us that Matthew preached the Gospel among
the Hebrews, St.
Clement of Alexandria claiming that he did this for fifteen years,
and Eusebius maintains
that, before going into other countries, he gave them his Gospel in
the mother
tongue. Ancient writers are not as one as to the countries evangelized by
Matthew, but almost all mention Ethiopia to the south of the Caspian Sea
(not Ethiopia in Africa),
and some Persia and
the kingdom of the Parthians, Macedonia,
and Syria.
According to Heracleon,
who is quoted by Clement
of Alexandria, Matthew did not die a martyr,
but this opinion conflicts with all other ancient testimony. Let us add,
however, that the account of his martyrdom in
the apocryphal Greek
writings entitled "Martyrium S. Matthæi in Ponto" and published by
Bonnet, "Acta apostolorum apocrypha" (Leipzig, 1898), is absolutely
devoid of historic value. Lipsius holds
that this "Martyrium S. Matthæi", which contains traces of Gnosticism,
must have been published in the third century.
There is a disagreement
as to the place of St. Matthew's martyrdom and
the kind of torture inflicted on him, therefore it is not known whether
he was burned, stoned,
or beheaded. The Roman Martyrology simply
says: "S. Matthæi, qui in Æthiopia prædicans martyrium passus est".
Various writings that are
now considered apocryphal,
have been attributed to St. Matthew. In the "Evangelia
apocrypha" (Leipzig, 1876), Tischendorf reproduced a Latin document
entitled: "De Ortu beatæ Mariæ et infantia Salvatoris", supposedly
written in Hebrew by St.
Matthew the Evangelist,
and translated into Latin by Jerome,
the priest.
It is an abridged adaptation of the "Protoevangelium" of St. James,
which was a Greek apocryphal of
the second century. This pseudo-Matthew dates from the middle or the end of the
sixth century.
The Latin
Church celebrates the feast of St.
Matthew on 21 September, and the Greek
Church on 16 November. St. Matthew is represented under the symbol of
a winged man,
carrying in his hand a lance as a characteristic emblem.
Jacquier, Jacque Eugène. "St. Matthew." The Catholic
Encyclopedia. Vol. 10. New York: Robert Appleton
Company, 1911.21 Sept. 2015
Transcription. This
article was transcribed for New Advent by Ernie Stefanik.
Ecclesiastical
approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D.,
Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Copyright © 2021 by Kevin Knight. Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
SOURCE : http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10056b.htm
Gospel of St. Matthew
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 Hegesippus (Eusebius, Church
History IV.22.3), 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, 16:17 = Matthew
11:29; Clem., 24:5 = Matthew
13:3), 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.", 2:2
= Matthew
10:16; "Ephesians", 14:2 = Matthew
12:33, 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 (12:3 = Matthew
5:44; 7:2 = Matthew
26:41, etc.).
The Doctrine of
the Twelve
Apostles (Didache) contains sixty-six passages that recall
the Gospel of Matthew; some of them are literal quotations (8:2
= Matthew
6:7-13; 7:1 = Matthew
28:19; 11:7 = Matthew
12:31, 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
26:39-40.
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 Plea
for the Christians 12.11, Athenagoras (177)
quotes almost literally sentences taken from the Sermon on
the Mount (Matthew
5:44).
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, 5:3; 6:6; 5:7 = Matthew
18:15, 35; Test. Joshua 1:5, 6 = Matthew
25:35-36, 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. 3:52 = Matthew
15:13); in Hom. xviii, 15, the quotation from Matthew
13:35, 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. Irenæus. 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 (Stromata III.13)
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 Matthaion 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, Church
History III.25.4), of Eusebius (op.
cit., III, xxiv, 5; xxv, 1), and of St.
Jerome ("De Viris Ill.", iii, "Prolog.
in Matt.,") are explicit in this respect. 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.
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.
Testimony of Tradition
According to Eusebius (Church
History III.39.16), Papias said
that Matthew collected (synetaxato; or, according to two manuscripts, synegraphato,
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. Irenæus (Against
Heresies I.8.2), Clement
of Alexandria (Stromata I)
and Origen (De
Principiis IV.11)--have used it to designate facts and sayings. The
work of Papias was entitled "Exposition of the Oracles"
[logion] of the Lord", and it also contained narratives (Eusebius, Church
History III.39.9). 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. Irenæus 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 (Church
History III.24.6) 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 borne 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.
Irenæus (Adv. Haer., III, i,
2) affirms that Matthew published among
the Hebrews a Gospel which he wrote in their own
language. Eusebius (Church
History V.10.3) says that, in India, Pantænus found
the Gospel according to St. Matthew written in
the Hebrew language, the Apostle Bartholomew having left it
there. Again, in Church
History VI.25.3-4, 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 (Church
History III.24.6), 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. Pantænus also had it, as, according to St.
Jerome ("De Viris Ill.", xxxvi), he brought it back
to Alexandria. However, the testimony of Pantænus 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.
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.
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
discovered; 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 paronomasiæ (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.
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.
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 (5:2):
"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.
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
1:23-28, 35-39; 4:26-29; 7:32-36; 8:22-26; 9:39-40; 12:41-44. In
all, 31 verses are omitted.
The general order is
identical except that, in chapters 5-13, Matthew groups
facts of the same nature and sayings conveying the same ideas.
Thus, in Matthew
8:1-15, we have three miracles that
are separated in Mark; in Matthew
8:23-9:9, 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 5:15, Matthew inserts
a verse occurring in Mark
4:21, that should have been placed after 13:23,
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 12:22-45,
he gives more of Christ's discourse
than we find in Mark
3:20-30, and has in addition a dialogue between Jesus and
the scribes. In chapter
13, Matthew dwells at greater length than Mark
4 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
24-25 (97 verses), than in Mark
13 (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
3:5); "And when his friends had heard of it, they went out to lay hold
on him. For they said: He is beside himself" (Mark
3:21), 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 (Matthew
9:6; Mark
2:10; Matthew
26:47 = Mark
14:43, etc.); in their mode of expression, often unusual. and in short
phrases (Matthew
9:16 = Mark
2:21; Matthew
16:28 = Mark
9:1; Matthew
20:25 = Mark
10:42); in some pericopes, narratives, or discourses, where the greater
part of the terms are identical (Matthew
4:18-22; Mark
1:16-20; Matthew
26:36-38 = Mark
14:32-34; Matthew
9:5-6 = Mark
2:9-11), 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
(Matthew
8:5-13 = Luke
7:1-10). 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 (Matthew
5-7,
the Sermon in the Plain, Luke
6); the Lord's exhortation to His disciples whom He
sends forth on a mission (Matthew
10:19-20, 26-33 = Luke
12:11-12, 2-9); the discourse on John
the Baptist (Matthew
11 = Luke
7); the discourse on the Last Judgment (Matthew
24; Luke
17). Moreover, these two Evangelists possess
in common a large number of detached sentences, e.g., Matthew
3:7b-19:12 = Luke
3:7b-9, 17; Matthew
4:3-11 = Luke
4:3-13; Matthew
9:37-38 = Luke
10:2; Matthew
12:43-45 = Luke
11:24-26 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 (Matthew
5:3-12 = Luke
6:20b-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, Jülicher, 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
Jülicher, "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.
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 are
less 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:-
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.
The public ministry of Jesus (3-25)
This may be divided into
three parts, according to the place where He exercised it.
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 Cæsarea, 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).
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.
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.
The Passion and the Resurrection of Jesus (26-28)
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).
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.
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.
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 (1:22-23),
announced by Isaias (7:14);
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 (11:1).
According to the prediction of Isaias (40:3),
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 (53:4)
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 (13:3)
was conformable to what Isaias had
said (6:9).
Finally, He suffered, and the entire drama of His Passion and
Death was a fulfilment of the prophecies of Scripture (Isaiah
53:3-12; Psalm
21:13-22). Jesus proclaimed
Himself the Messias by
His approbation of Peter's confession (16:16-17)
and by His answer to the high
priest (26:63-64). 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 (4:17);
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 (35:5-6). 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.
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.
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.
Destination of the Gospel
The ecclesiastical writers Papias, St.
Irenæus, 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.
Irenæus (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 (Church
History III.24) 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".
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 (Church
History III.5.2), 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 Irenæus 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; Conély, 40-50; Schafer, 50-51; Hug, Reuschl, Schanz, and Rose, 60-67. This last opinion is founded on the combined testimonies of St. Irenæus 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, Réville, between 69 and 96, Jülicher, 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" (16:18), "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.
Historic value of the
First Gospel
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 in 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 Jésus-Christ
d'après les évangiles canoniques" (Paris, 1907).
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 and
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.
Appendix: decisions of the Biblical Commission
The following answers
have been given by the Biblical
Commission to inquiries about the Gospel of St.
Matthew: In view of the universal and constant agreement of the Church,
as shown by the testimony of the Fathers,
the inscription of Gospel codices,
most ancient versions of the Sacred Books and lists handed down
by the Holy Fathers, ecclesiastical writers, popes and councils,
and finally by liturgical usage
in the Eastern and Western
Church, it may and should be held that Matthew,
an Apostle of Christ,
is really the author of the Gospel that goes by his name. The belief that Matthew preceded
the other Evangelists in
writing, and that the first Gospel was written in the native language
of the Jews then
in Palestine, is to be considered as based on Tradition.
The preparation of this
original text was not deferred until after the destruction of Jerusalem,
so that the prophecies it contains about this might be written after
the event; nor is the alleged uncertain and much disputed testimony of Irenaeus convincing
enough to do away with the opinion most conformed to Tradition, that their
preparation was finished even before the coming of Paul to Rome.
The opinion of certain Modernists is
untenable, viz., that Matthew did not in a proper and strict sense
compose the Gospel, as it has come down to us, but only a collection of
some words and sayings of Christ,
which, according to them, another anonymous author used as sources.
The fact that
the Fathers and all ecclesiastical writers,
and even the Church itself
from the very beginning, have used as canonical the Greek text of
the Gospel known as St. Matthew's, not even excepting those who
have expressly handed down that the Apostle Matthew wrote in his
native tongue, proves for certain that this
very Greek Gospel is identical in substance with
the Gospel written by the same Apostle in his native
language. Although the author of the first Gospel has
the dogmatic and apologetic purpose of proving to
the Jews that Jesus is
the Messias foretold
by the prophets and
born of the house of David,
and although he is not always chronological in arranging the facts or
sayings which he records, his narration is not to be regarded as lacking truth.
Nor can it be said that his accounts of the deeds and utterances
of Christ have been altered and adapted by the influence of
the prophecies of the Old
Testament and the conditions of the growing Church, and
that they do not therefore conform to historical truth. Notably unfounded
are the opinions of those who cast doubt on
the historical value of the first two chapters, treating of
the genealogy and infancy of Christ,
or on certain passages of much weight for certain dogmas,
such as those which concern the primacy of Peter (xvi,
17-19), the form of baptism given
to the Apostles with their universal missions (xxviii,
19-20), the Apostles' profession of faith in Christ (xiv,
33), and others of this character specially emphasized by Matthew.
Jacquier, Jacque Eugène. "Gospel of St. Matthew." The
Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10. New York: Robert Appleton
Company, 1911. 21 Sept.
2015 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm>.
Transcription. This
article was transcribed for New Advent by Ernie Stefanik & Herman F.
Holbrook. Omnes sancti Apostoli et Evangelistae, orate pro nobis.
Ecclesiastical
approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D.,
Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Copyright © 2021 by Kevin Knight.
Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
SOURCE : http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm
St. Matthew, Apostle and
Evangelist
Matt. ix.
Mark ii.
Luke v.
See Tillemont, Calmet, Ceillier, Hammond, &c
ST. MATTHEW is called by
two evangelists Levi, both which names are of Jewish extraction. 1 The
latter he bore before his conversion, the other he seems to have taken after
it, to show that he had renounced his profession, and had become a new man. St.
Mark calls him the son of Alphæus; but the conjecture which some form from
hence, that he was brother to St. James the Less, has not the very shadow of
probability. He seems to have been a Galilæan by birth, and was by profession a
publican, or gatherer of taxes for the Romans, which office was equally odious
and scandalous among the Jews. The Romans sent publicans into the provinces to
gather the tributes, and this was amongst them a post of honour, power, and
credit, usually conferred on Roman knights. T. Flavius Sabinus, father of the
Emperor Vespasian, was the publican of the provinces of Asia. These Roman
general publicans employed under them natives of each province, as persons best
acquainted with the customs of their own country. These collectors or farmers
of the tributes often griped and scraped all they could by various methods of
extortion, having frequent opportunities of oppressing others to raise their
own fortunes, and they were usually covetous. On this account even the Gentiles
often speak of them as exactors, cheats, and public robbers. 2 Zaccheus,
a chief among these collectors, was sensible of these occasions of fraud and
oppression, when he offered four-fold restitution to any whom he had injured.
Among the Jews these
publicans were more infamous and odious, because this nation looked upon them
as enemies to their privilege of natural freedom which God had given them, and
as persons defiled by their frequent conversation and dealing with the pagans,
and as conspiring with the Romans to entail slavery upon their countrymen.
Hence the Jews universally abhorred them, regarding their estates or money as
the fortunes of notorious thieves, banished them from their communion in all
religious worship, and shunned them in all affairs of civil society and
commerce. Tertullian is certainly mistaken when he affirms that none but
Gentiles were employed in this sordid office, as St. Jerom demonstrates from
several passages in the gospels. 3 And
it is certain that St. Matthew was a Jew, though a publican. His office is said
to have particularly consisted in gathering customs of commodities that came by
the lake of Genesareth or Tiberias, and a toll which passengers paid that came
by water; of which mention is made by Jewish writers. Hence the Hebrew gospel
published by Munster renders the word Publican in this place by, “The Lord of
the Passage.” St. Mark says that St. Matthew kept his office or toll-booth by
the side of the lake, where he sat at the receipt of custom.
Jesus having lately cured
a famous paralytic, went out of Capharnaum, and walked on the banks of the lake
or sea of Genesareth, teaching the people who flocked after him. Here he espied
Matthew sitting in his custom-house, whom he called to come and follow him. The
man was rich, enjoyed a very lucrative post, was a wise and prudent man, and
perfectly understood what his compliance would cost him, and what an exchange
he made of wealth for poverty. But he overlooked all these considerations, and
left all his interests and relations to become our Lord’s disciple, and to
embrace a spiritual kind of commerce or traffic. We cannot suppose that he was
before wholly unacquainted with our Saviour’s person or doctrine, especially as
his custom-office was near Capharnaum, and his house seems to have been in that
city, where Christ had resided for some time, had preached and wrought many
miracles, by which he was in some measure prepared to receive the impression
which the call of Christ made upon him. St. Jerom says, that a certain amiable
brightness and air of majesty which shone in the countenance of our divine
Redeemer, pierced his soul, and strongly attracted him. But the great cause of
his wonderful conversion was, as Bede remarks, that, “He who called him
outwardly by his word, at the same time moved him inwardly by the invisible
instinct of his grace.” We must earnestly entreat this same gracious Saviour
that he would vouchsafe to touch our hearts with the like powerful interior
call, that we may be perfectly converted to him. He often raises his voice in
the secret of our hearts: but by putting wilful obstacles we are deaf to it,
and the seed of salvation is often choked in our souls.
This apostle, at the
first invitation, broke all ties; forsook his riches, his family, his worldly
concerns, his pleasures, and his profession. His conversion was sincere and
perfect, manifesting itself by the following marks. First, it admitted no
deliberation or delay; to balance one moment between God and sin or the world,
is to resist the divine call, and to lose the offered grace. Secondly, it was
courageous; surmounting and bearing down all opposition which his passions or
the world could raise in his way. Thirdly, it was constant; the apostle from
that moment looked no more back, but following Christ with fervour, persevered
to the end, marching every day forward with fresh vigour. It is the remark of
St. Gregory, that those apostles who left their boats and nets to follow
Christ, were sometimes afterwards found in the same employment of fishing, from
which they were called: but St. Matthew never returned to the custom-house,
because it was a dangerous profession, and an occasion of avarice, oppression,
and extortion. St. Jerom and St. Chrysostom take notice, that St. Mark and St.
Luke mention our apostle by the name of Levi, when they speak of his former
profession of publican, as if it were to cover and keep out of sight the
remembrance of this apostle’s sin, or at least to touch it tenderly; but our
evangelist openly calls himself Matthew, by which name he was then known in the
church, being desirous out of humility to publish his former infamy and sin,
and to proclaim the excess of the divine mercy which had made an apostle of a
publican. The other evangelists, by mentioning him in his former dishonourable
course of life under the name of Levi, teach us, that we ought to treat
penitent sinners with all modesty and tenderness; it being against the laws of
religion, justice, and charity, to upbraid and reproach a convert with errors
or sins which God himself has forgiven and effaced, so as to declare that he no
longer remembers them, and for which the devil himself, with all his malice,
can no longer accuse or reproach him.
St. Matthew, upon his
conversion, to show that he was not discontented at his change, but looked upon
it as his greatest happiness, entertained our Lord and his disciples, at a
great dinner in his house, whither he invited his friends, especially those of
his late profession, doubtless hoping that by our Saviour’s divine
conversation, they also might be converted. The Pharisees carped at this
conduct of Christ, in eating with publicans and sinners. Our divine Saviour
answered their malicious secret suggestions, that he came for the sick, not for
the sound and healthy, or for those who conceited themselves so, and imagined
they stood in no need of a physician; and he put them in mind, that God prefers
acts of mercy and charity, especially in reclaiming sinners, and doing good to
souls, before ritual observances, as the more necessary and noble precept, to
which other laws were subordinate. Commerce with idolaters was forbidden the
Jews for fear of the contagion of vice by evil company. This law the proud
Pharisees extended not only beyond its bounds, but even against the essential
laws of charity, the first among the divine precepts. Yet this nicety they
called the strict observance of the law, in which they prided themselves,
whereas in the sight of God it was hypocrisy and overbearing pride, with a
contempt of their neighbours, which degraded their pretended righteousness
beneath the most scandalous sinners, with whom they scorned to converse, even
for the sake of reclaiming them, which the law, far from forbidding, required
as the first and most excellent of its precepts. Christ came from heaven, and
clothed himself with our mortality, in the bowels of the most tender compassion
and of his infinite mercy for sinners: he burned continually with the most
ardent thirst for their salvation, and it was his greatest delight to converse
with those who were sunk in the deepest abyss, in order to bring them to
repentance and salvation. How affectionately he cherished, and how tenderly he
received those who were sincerely converted to him he has expressed by the most
affecting parables, and of this, St. Matthew is, among others, an admirable
instance.
The vocation of St.
Matthew happened in the second year of the public ministry of Christ, who soon
after forming the college of his apostles, adopted him into that holy family of
the spiritual princes and founders of his church. The humility of our saint is
remarked in the following circumstance. Whereas the other evangelists, in
describing the apostles by pairs, constantly rank him before St. Thomas, he places
that apostle before himself, and in this very list adds to his name the epithet
of the publican. He delighted in the title of Matthew the Publican, because he
found in it his own humiliation, magnified by it the divine mercy and grace of
his conversion, and expressed the deep spirit of compunction in which he had
his former guilt always before his eyes. Eusebius and St. Epiphanius tell us,
that after our Lord’s ascension, St. Matthew preached several years in Judea
and the neighbouring countries till the dispersion of the apostles; and that a
little before it he wrote his gospel, or short history of our blessed Redeemer,
at the entreaty of the Jewish converts, and, as St. Epiphanius says, at the
command of the other apostles. That he compiled it before their dispersion
appears, not only because it was written before the other gospels, but also
because St. Bartholomew took a copy of it with him into India, and left it
there. 4 Christ
no where appears to have given any charge about committing to writing his
history or divine doctrine; particular accidents gave the occasions. St.
Matthew wrote his gospel to satisfy the converts of Palestine; 5 St.
Mark at the pressing entreaties of the faithful at Rome; 6 St.
Luke, to oppose false histories; 7 St.
John, at the request of the bishops of Asia, to leave an authentic testimony
against the heresies of Cerinthus and Ebion. 8 It
was, nevertheless, by a special inspiration of the Holy Ghost, that this work
was undertaken and executed by each of them. The gospels are the most excellent
part of the sacred writings. For in them Christ teaches us, not by his
prophets, but by his own divine mouth, the great lessons of faith, and of
eternal life; and in the history of his holy life the most perfect pattern of
sanctity is set before our eyes for us to copy after. The gospel of St. Matthew
descends to a fuller and more particular detail in the actions of Christ, than
the other three, but from ch. v., to ch. xiv., he often differs from them in
the series of his narration, neglecting the order of time, that those
instructions might be related together which have a closer affinity with each
other. This evangelist enlarges chiefly on our Saviour’s lessons of morality,
and describes his temporal or human generation, in which the promises made to
Abraham and David, concerning the Messias to be born of their seed, were
fulfilled; which argument was a particular inducement to the Jews to believe in
him.
St. Matthew, after having
made a great harvest of souls in Judea, went to preach the faith to the
barbarous and uncivilized nations of the East. He was a person much devoted to
heavenly contemplation, and led an austere life, using a very slender and mean
diet; for he ate no flesh, satisfying nature with herbs, roots, seeds, and
berries, as St. Clement of Alexandria assures us. 9 St.
Ambrose says, 10 that
God opened to him the country of the Persians. Rufinus 11 and
Socrates 12 tell
us, that he carried the gospel into Ethiopia, meaning probably the southern and
eastern parts of Asia. St. Paulinus mentions, 13 that
he ended his course in Parthia. Venantius Fortunatus relates, that he suffered
martyrdom at Nadabar, a city in those parts. According to Dorotheus, he was
honourably interred at Hierapolis in Parthia. His relics were long ago brought
into the West. Pope Gregory VII., in a letter to the bishop of Salerno, in
1080, testifies that they were then kept in a church which bore his name in
that city. They still remain in the same place.
St. Irenæus, St. Jerom,
St. Austin, and other fathers find a figure of the four evangelists in the four
mystical animals represented in Ezechiel, 14 and
in the Apocalypse of St. John. 15 The
eagle is generally said to represent St. John, who in the first lines of his
gospel soars up to the contemplation of the eternal generation of the Word. The
calf agrees to St. Luke, who begins his gospel with the mention of the
priesthood. St. Austin makes the lion the symbol of St. Matthew, who explains
the royal dignity of Christ; but others give it to St. Mark, and the man to St.
Matthew, who begins his gospel with Christ’s human generation.
In the gospel, The
only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, hath declared him, 16 and
hath delivered to us the most sublime truths. Wherefore St. Austin writes, 17 “Let
us hear the gospel as if we listened to Christ present.” The primitive
Christians always stood up when they read it, or heard it read. 18 St.
Jerom says: “While the gospel is read, in all the churches of the East, candles
are lighted, though the sun shine, in token of joy.” 19 St.
Thomas Aquinas always read the gospel on his knees. In this divine book not
only the divine instructions of our Blessed Redeemer are delivered to us, but
moreover a copy of his sacred life on earth is painted before our eyes. As St.
Basil says; 20 “Every
action and every word of our Saviour Jesus Christ is a rule of piety. He took
upon him human nature that he might draw as on a tablet, and set before us a
perfect model for us to imitate.” Let us study this rule, and beg the patronage
of this apostle, that the spirit of Christ, or that of his humility,
compunction, self-denial, charity, and perfect disengagement from the things of
this world, may be imprinted in our hearts.
Note 1. Levi signifies one associated; Matthew, him that is given; in Latin, Donatus. [back]
Note 2. The
profession of a tax-gatherer is in itself lawful and necessary, and may be
innocent. It has even furnished eminent examples of sanctity, witness the baron
of Montmorency in Flanders, and Bernieres in Normandy, &c. [back]
Note 3. Ep. 146, ad
Damas. [back]
Note 4. The English
word Gospel signifies, in the language of our ancestors, not God’s
Word, but Good Word, or tidings, as Evangelium in Greek. Good they wrote God;
and God, Gode, with e. We now retain the word Spell only to signify a
charm. See Hammond, (p. 3,) Somner, and Fr. Junius’s Etymological Dictionary by
Edm. Lye. That St. Matthew’s gospel was originally written in the modern
Hebrew, that is, in the Syro-Chaldaic language, used by the Jews after the
captivity, is affirmed by Papias, Origen, SS. Irenæus, Eusebius, Jerom, Epiphanius,
Theodoret, and all the ancient fathers, so positively and so unanimously, that
it is matter of surprise that Erasmus, Calvin, Lightfoot, and some few others,
should pretend it was written first in Greek, which they falsely mistake to
have then been the vulgar language of the Jews in Palestine. That Christ
preached to them in the Syro-Chaldaic tongue is plain from many words of that
language used by him, which the evangelists retain and interpret in the
gospels. St. Paul, haranguing the Jews at Jerusalem, spoke in the Syro-Chaldaic
tongue, (Act. xx.
2, xxvii.
40, xxvi.
14.) The Syro-Chaldaic paraphrase of Onkelos on the Pentateuch, composed
about the time of our Redeemer, and that of Jonathan on the books of Josue,
Judges, and Kings, not much later, extant in the Polyglot, &c. were made to
expound the Bible to the common people, who no longer understood the true
ancient Hebrew, in which language the sacred books were still read in the
synagogues. (See Huet, de Claris Interpret. § 6, Simon, l. 2, c. 18;
Walton, Proleg. 12; Frassen, contra Morin. l. 2; Exercit. 8, et Nat. Alex. Sæc.
2, Diss. 11.)
What Erasmus
and the rest of these authors ground their conjecture upon, that St. Matthew
quotes the Old Testament according to the Greek Septuagint, is another mistake.
For out of ten quotations found in his gospel, seven are visibly taken from the
Hebrew, and the rest are no way contrary to that text, though they are
mentioned only as to the sense, not in the words. St. Jerom expressly observes,
from a copy of this gospel in the original Hebrew which he saw in the library
at Cæsarea, that St. Matthew’s quotations are made from the Hebrew. (in Catal.)
We are fools, says Isaac Vossius, (Præf. App. in l. de 70 Interpr.) if we spend
our time in confuting all idle dreams which trample upon the unanimous
testimony of all antiquity, and the authority of all churches, which conspire
in assuring us, that the gospel of St. Matthew was originally written in the
Syro-Chaldaic language. The Greek translation was made in the time of the
apostles, as St. Jerom and St. Austin affirm, perhaps by some of them; it was
at least approved by them, and from their time has been always looked upon to
hold the place of the original. For, the Syro-Chaldaic copy seems to have been
soon corrupted by the Nazareans, or Jewish converts, who adhered to the
ceremonies of the law. Also the Ebionite heretics retrenched many passages.
Among the
additions made by the Nazareans some consisted of sayings of our Divine Redeemer,
handed down by those who had received them from his sacred mouth, and are
quoted as such by the fathers. See a collection of these in Grabe. (Spicilegii,
t. 1, p. 12.) Other additions of these heretics were fictions. These
interpolations and falsifications brought the Hebrew copy into disrepute in the
church; or if the gospel of the Nazareans had a different ground from the
Hebrew text of St. Matthew, at least the latter is long since lost: and St.
Epiphanius tells us (Hær. 29, n. 9,) that the gospel of the Nazareans or
Hebrews was only that of St. Matthew interpolated. The Chaldaic text of St.
Matthew’s gospel, published by Tillet, and republished from another more
imperfect copy by Munster, is evidently a modern translation made from the
Greek. The Latin Vulgate, or rather the old Italic, was translated from the
Greek text, and corrected according to it by St. Jerom. See Le Long, Biblioth.
Sacra: Mills, Proleg. in Gr. Test. p. 5 et 31, &c. Dom Martianay published,
in 1695, the ancient Italic version of this gospel. Since that time an old MS.
copy of the four gospels in the true ancient Italic version, was found at
Corbie; and published at Verona. [back]
Note 5. Eus. l. 3,
c. 24. S. Hieron. in Catal. [back]
Note 6. Eus. l. 2,
c. 15. [back]
Note 8. S. Hieron.
Prol. in Matt. S. Epiph. hær. 31, t. 12. [back]
Note 9. Pædag. l. 2,
c. 1. [back]
Note 10. In Ps.
45. [back]
Note 11. L. 10, c.
9. [back]
Note 12. L. 1, c.
19. [back]
Note 13. Carm.
26. [back]
Note 14. Ezech. i.
10. [back]
Note 15. Apoc. iv.
7. [back]
Note 18. Const.
Apost. l. 2, c. 62. [back]
Note 19. Adv.
Vigilant. [back]
Note 20. Constit.
Monast. c. 2. [back]
Rev. Alban
Butler (1711–73). Volume IX: September. The Lives of the
Saints. 1866.
SOURCE : http://www.bartleby.com/210/9/211.html
Camillo Rusconi. Saint Matthieu,
Archbasilica of St. John Lateran
San Matteo Apostolo
ed evangelista
I secolo dopo Cristo
Matteo, chiamato anche
Levi, viveva a Cafarnao ed era pubblicano, cioè esattore delle tasse. Seguì Gesù
con grande entusiasmo, come ricorda San Luca, liberandosi dei beni terreni. Ed
è Matteo che nel suo vangelo riporta le parole Gesù:"Quando tu dai
elemosina, non deve sapere la tua sinistra quello che fa la destra, affinché la
tua elemosina rimanga nel segreto... ". Dopo la Pentecoste egli
scrisse il suo vangelo, rivolto agli Ebrei, per supplire, come dice Eusebio,
alla sua assenza quando si recò presso altre genti. Il suo vangelo vuole prima
di tutto dimostrare che Gesù è il Messia che realizza le promesse dell' Antico
Testamento, ed è caratterizzato da cinque importanti discorsi di Gesù sul regno
di Dio. Probabilmente la sua morte fu naturale, anche se fonti poco attendibili
lo vogliono martire di Etiopia.
Patronato: Banchieri,
Contabili, Tasse
Etimologia: Matteo = uomo
di Dio, dall'ebraico
Emblema: Angelo, Spada,
Portamonete, Libro dei conti
Martirologio Romano:
Festa di san Matteo, Apostolo ed Evangelista, che, detto Levi, chiamato da Gesù
a seguirlo, lasciò l’ufficio di pubblicano o esattore delle imposte e, eletto
tra gli Apostoli, scrisse un Vangelo, in cui si proclama che Gesù Cristo,
figlio di Davide, figlio di Abramo, ha portato a compimento la promessa
dell’Antico Testamento.
San Matteo Apostolo
ed evangelista
Festa: 21 settembre - Festa
I secolo dopo Cristo
Matteo fa l'esattore delle tasse in Cafarnao di Galilea. Gesù lo vede, lo chiama. Lui si alza di colpo, lascia tutto e lo segue. Da quel momento cessano di esistere i tributi, le finanze, i Romani. Tutto cancellato da quella parola di Gesù: "Seguimi".
Gli evangelisti Luca e Marco lo chiamano anche Levi, che potrebbe essere il suo secondo nome. Ma gli danno il nome di Matteo nella lista dei Dodici scelti da Gesù come suoi inviati: “Apostoli”. E con questo nome egli compare anche negli Atti degli Apostoli.
Pochissimo sappiamo della sua vita. Ma abbiamo il suo Vangelo, a lungo ritenuto il primo dei quattro testi canonici, in ordine di tempo. Ora gli studi mettono a quel posto il Vangelo di Marco: diversamente dagli altri tre, il testo di Matteo non è scritto in greco, ma in lingua “ebraica” o “paterna”, secondo gli scrittori antichi. E quasi sicuramente si tratta dell’aramaico, allora parlato in Palestina. Matteo ha voluto innanzitutto parlare a cristiani di origine ebraica. E ad essi è fondamentale presentare gli insegnamenti di Gesù come conferma e compimento della Legge mosaica.
Vediamo infatti – anzi, a volte pare proprio di ascoltarlo – che di continuo egli lega fatti, gesti, detti relativi a Gesù con richiami all’Antico Testamento, per far ben capire da dove egli viene e che cosa è venuto a realizzare. Partendo di qui, l’evangelista Matteo delinea poi gli eventi del grandioso futuro della comunità di Gesù, della Chiesa, del Regno che compirà le profezie, quando i popoli "vedranno il Figlio dell’Uomo venire sopra le nubi del cielo in grande potenza e gloria" (24,30).
Scritto in una lingua per pochi, il testo di Matteo diventa libro di tutti dopo
la traduzione in greco. La Chiesa ne fa strumento di predicazione in ogni
luogo, lo usa nella liturgia. Ma di lui, Matteo, sappiamo pochissimo. Viene
citato per nome con gli altri Apostoli negli Atti (1,13) subito dopo
l’Ascensione al cielo di Gesù. Ancora dagli Atti, Matteo risulta presente con
gli altri Apostoli all’elezione di Mattia, che prende il posto di Giuda
Iscariota. Ed è in piedi con gli altri undici, quando Pietro, nel giorno della
Pentecoste, parla alla folla, annunciando che Gesù è "Signore e
Cristo". Poi, ha certamente predicato in Palestina, tra i suoi, ma ci sono
ignote le vicende successive. La Chiesa lo onora come martire.
Patronato: Banchieri,
Contabili, Tasse
Etimologia: Matteo =
uomo di Dio, dall'ebraico
Emblema: Angelo,
Spada, Portamonete, Libro dei conti
Martirologio
Romano: Festa di san Matteo, Apostolo ed Evangelista, che, detto Levi,
chiamato da Gesù a seguirlo, lasciò l’ufficio di pubblicano o esattore delle
imposte e, eletto tra gli Apostoli, scrisse un Vangelo, in cui si proclama che
Gesù Cristo, figlio di Davide, figlio di Abramo, ha portato a compimento la
promessa dell’Antico Testamento.
Non si capisce subito il
disprezzo per i pubblicani, ai tempi di Gesù, nella sua terra: erano esattori
di tasse, e non si detesta qualcuno soltanto perché lavora all’Intendenza di
finanza. Ma gli ebrei, all’epoca, non pagavano le tasse a un loro Stato sovrano
e libero, bensì agli occupanti Romani; devono finanziare chi li opprime. E
guardano all’esattore come a un detestabile collaborazionista.
Matteo fa questo mestiere
in Cafarnao di Galilea. Col suo banco lì all’aperto. Gesù lo vede poco dopo
aver guarito un paralitico. Lo chiama. Lui si alza di colpo, lascia tutto
e lo segue. Da quel momento cessano di esistere i tributi, le finanze, i
Romani. Tutto cancellato da quella parola di Gesù: "Seguimi".
Gli evangelisti Luca e
Marco lo chiamano anche Levi, che potrebbe essere il suo secondo nome. Ma gli
danno il nome di Matteo nella lista dei Dodici scelti da Gesù come suoi
inviati: “Apostoli”. E con questo nome egli compare anche negli Atti degli
Apostoli.
Pochissimo sappiamo della
sua vita. Ma abbiamo il suo Vangelo, a lungo ritenuto il primo dei quattro
testi canonici, in ordine di tempo. Ora gli studi mettono a quel posto il
Vangelo di Marco: diversamente dagli altri tre, il testo di Matteo non è
scritto in greco, ma in lingua “ebraica” o “paterna”, secondo gli scrittori
antichi. E quasi sicuramente si tratta dell’aramaico, allora parlato in
Palestina. Matteo ha voluto innanzitutto parlare a cristiani di origine
ebraica. E ad essi è fondamentale presentare gli insegnamenti di Gesù come conferma
e compimento della Legge mosaica.
Vediamo infatti – anzi, a
volte pare proprio di ascoltarlo – che di continuo egli lega fatti, gesti,
detti relativi a Gesù con richiami all’Antico Testamento, per far ben capire da
dove egli viene e che cosa è venuto a realizzare. Partendo di qui,
l’evangelista Matteo delinea poi gli eventi del grandioso futuro della comunità
di Gesù, della Chiesa, del Regno che compirà le profezie, quando i popoli
"vedranno il Figlio dell’Uomo venire sopra le nubi del cielo in grande
potenza e gloria" (24,30).
Scritto in una lingua per
pochi, il testo di Matteo diventa libro di tutti dopo la traduzione in greco.
La Chiesa ne fa strumento di predicazione in ogni luogo, lo usa nella
liturgia. Ma di lui, Matteo, sappiamo pochissimo. Viene citato per nome
con gli altri Apostoli negli Atti (1,13) subito dopo l’Ascensione al cielo di
Gesù. Ancora dagli Atti, Matteo risulta presente con gli altri Apostoli
all’elezione di Mattia, che prende il posto di Giuda Iscariota. Ed è in piedi
con gli altri undici, quando Pietro, nel giorno della Pentecoste, parla alla
folla, annunciando che Gesù è "Signore e Cristo". Poi, ha certamente
predicato in Palestina, tra i suoi, ma ci sono ignote le vicende successive. La
Chiesa lo onora come martire.
Autore: Domenico
Agasso
L’apostolo ed evangelista
Matteo incarna in modo paradigmatico la figura del conoscitore della Scrittura
che ha imparato ciò che riguarda il Regno di Dio, ed «è come un padrone di casa
che trae fuori dal suo deposito cose nuove e cose vecchie» (Mt 13,52).
Egli era uomo di una certa cultura, esattore delle imposte (pubblicano) a
Cafarnao; di formazione ellenistica, pare che abbia grecizzato il suo nome,
Levi, di origine ebraica (Mc 2,14; Lc 5,27). Il
compito svolto da questo discepolo di Gesù nella trasmissione del vangelo è di
capitale importanza. Dopo la risurrezione si erano raccolti alcuni episodi
della vita del Signore, e organizzati dei «discorsi» (raccolta di parole del
Signore) attorno ad alcune parole-chiave. Questi elementi di «lieto annuncio»
del Cristo, potevano servire ai primi cristiani, a «compimento» delle letture
dell’Antico Testamento che ascoltavano ancora nelle sinagoghe. Matteo, anche in
base a queste prime redazioni, scrisse in aramaico un’ampia sintesi di «parole»
e di «fatti» di Gesù mettendo in rilievo la sua «messianità» e la posizione dei
cristiani, cioè della Chiesa di fronte alla legge e al culto dell’Antica
Alleanza.
Matteo o Levi?
Originario di Cafarnao, pubblicano e esattore delle tasse, poi convertito da
Gesù, il suo nome simbolicamente vuol dire “Dono di Dio”.
Alcuni suppongono che abbia cambiato il nome come una forma tipica dell'epoca,
per indicare il cambiamento di vita, analogamente a Simone diventato
Pietro, e Saulo divenuto Paolo. Gesù passò vicino al pubblicano
Levi e gli disse semplicemente Seguimi (Marco 2,14). Ed egli,
alzandosi, lo seguì; e immediatamente tenne un banchetto a cui invitò, oltre a
Gesù, un gran numero di pubblicani e altri pubblici peccatori. Il riferimento a
un esattore di imposte a Cafarnao, di nome Levi, compare anche
in Luca 5,27. Lo stesso episodio è riportato in Matteo 9,9, dove
però il pubblicano viene chiamato Matteo; Levi e Matteo vengono generalmente
ritenuti la stessa persona.
Gesù vide un uomo, chiamato Matteo, seduto al banco delle imposte, e gli disse:
«Seguimi»
Il capitolo 9 nel versetto 9 del suo vangelo, ci presente la chiamata di Matteo
e ne disegna un profilo suggestivo ed emblematico per ogni chiamata alla
conversione. Gesù gli disse «Seguimi», cioè imitami. Seguimi, disse, non tanto
col movimento dei piedi, quanto con la pratica della vita. «Ed egli si alzò,
prosegue, e lo seguì» (Mt 9, 9). Come scrive San Beda il Venerabile, non
c'è da meravigliarsi che un pubblicano alla prima parola del Signore, che lo
invitava, abbia abbandonato i guadagni della terra che gli stavano a cuore e,
lasciate le ricchezze, abbia accettato di seguire colui che vedeva non avere
ricchezza alcuna. Infatti lo stesso Signore che lo chiamò esternamente con la
parola, lo istruì all'interno con un'invisibile spinta a seguirlo. Infuse nella
sua mente la luce della grazia spirituale con cui potesse comprendere come
colui che sulla terra lo strappava alle cose temporali era capace di dargli in
cielo tesori incorruttibili. Mentre Gesù sedeva a mensa in casa, sopraggiunsero
molti pubblicani e peccatori e si misero a tavola con lui e con i discepoli»
(9, 10). Ecco dunque che la conversione di un solo pubblicano servì di stimolo
a quella di molti pubblicani e peccatori, e la remissione dei suoi peccati fu
modello a quella di tutti costoro. San Marco invece nel suo vangelo ci
presenta Matteo così : Gesù « Nel passare, vide Levi, il figlio di
Alfeo, seduto al banco delle imposte, e gli disse: “Seguimi”. Egli
alzatosi, lo seguì. » (Mc 2,14).Matteo tenne un banchetto: «Mentre
Gesù stava a mensa in casa di lui, molti pubblicani e peccatori si misero a
mensa insieme con Gesù e i suoi discepoli; erano molti infatti quelli che lo
seguivano. Allora gli scribi della setta dei farisei, vedendolo mangiare con i
peccatori e i pubblicani, dicevano ai suoi discepoli: "Come mai egli
mangia e beve in compagnia dei pubblicani e dei peccatori?" Avendo udito
questo, Gesù disse loro: “Non sono i sani che hanno bisogno del medico, ma
i malati; non sono venuto per chiamare i giusti, ma i peccatori”. (Mc
2,15-17)
La sua figura nei Vangeli e negli Atti degli Apostoli
Gesù lo scelse come membro del gruppo dei dodici apostoli, e come tale appare
nelle tre liste che ci hanno tramandato i tre vangeli sinottici: Matteo 10,3;
Marco 3,18; Luca 6,15. Titti e tre i vangeli sinottici ci descrivono la sua
chiamata mentre ero nell’esercizio del suo discusso lavoro di esattore delle
tasse per conto dei romani. Il suo nome appare anche negli Atti dove si
menzionano gli apostoli che costituiscono la timorosa comunità sopravvissuta
alla morte di Gesù. «Entrati in città salirono al piano superiore dove
abitavano. C'erano Pietro e Giovanni, Giacomo e Andrea, Filippo e Tommaso,
Bartolomeo e Matteo, Giacomo di Alfeo e Simone lo Zelòta e Giuda di Giacomo.» (At
1,13). Ancora dagli Atti, Matteo risulta presente con gli altri Apostoli
all’elezione di Mattia, che prende il posto di Giuda Iscariota. Ed è in piedi
con gli altri undici, quando Pietro, nel giorno della Pentecoste, parla alla
folla, annunciando che Gesù è "Signore e Cristo".
Matteo il pubblicano
Matteo è identificato con l’appellativo “ pubblicano”, termine carico di
conseguenze negative e socialmente rilevanti. Il disprezzo per i pubblicani, ai
tempi di Gesù, era molto ben radicato: erano esattori di tasse, e non si
detesta qualcuno soltanto perché lavora in quella che oggi chiameremmo
intendenza di finanza. Ma gli ebrei, all’epoca, non pagavano le tasse a un loro
Stato sovrano e libero, bensì agli occupanti Romani; in pratica, si trattava di
finanziare chi li opprimeva. E guardavano all’esattore come a un detestabile
collaborazionista. Matteo fa questo mestiere in Cafarnao di Galilea. Col suo
banco lì all’aperto. Gesù lo vede poco dopo aver guarito un paralitico. Lo
chiama. Lui si alza di colpo, lascia tutto e lo segue. Da quel momento cessano
di esistere i tributi, le finanze, i Romani. Tutto cancellato da quella parola
di Gesù: "Seguimi".
La predicazione e il martirio in Etiopia
Secondo la tradizione Matteo dopo la pentecoste predicò prima in Giudea e poi portò
il Vangelo nell'Africa, in Etiopia, e si sa per testimonianza di Clemente
Alessandrino, che praticava l'esercizio della contemplazione e conduceva vita
austera, non mangiando altro che erbe, radici e frutta selvatica. Fu
trucidato da una squadra di feroci pagani, mentre celebrava il santo
sacrificio. Secondo altre Passiones apocrife, attestate
nella Legenda Aurea di Jacopo da Varagine, avrebbe portato alla
conversione il re Egippo e la terra su cui regnava, l'Etiopia, dopo aver fatto
risorgere miracolosamente la figlia Ifigenia. La tradizione racconta anche che,
alla morte del sovrano, gli sarebbe succeduto sul trono il re Irtaco, fratello
di Egippo, che avrebbe voluto sposare la figlia del re defunto, Ifigenia, che
però aveva consacrato la sua verginità al Signore. Dal momento che la sua
proposta di matrimonio era stata rifiutata dalla giovane, Irtaco chiese a
Matteo di persuaderla a concedersi a lui, ma il santo in risposta lo invitò ad
ascoltare una sua predica che avrebbe tenuto il sabato successivo nel tempio al
cospetto di tutta la popolazione. Quel sabato l'apostolo proclamò solennemente
che il voto di matrimonio di Ifigenia con il re celeste non sarebbe potuto
essere infranto per il matrimonio con un re terreno perché se un servo
usurpasse la moglie del suo re sarebbe giustamente arso vivo. Il santo sarebbe
stato ucciso sull'altare mentre celebrava la messa, trafitto a colpi di spada
da un sicario inviato dal re. Viene raffigurato anziano e barbuto, ha come
emblema un angelo che lo ispira o gli guida la mano mentre scrive il Vangelo.
Spesso ha accanto una spada, simbolo del suo martirio.
L’autore del primo Vangelo
San Mattero è considerato l’autore del primo Vangelo canonico, non il più
antico ma il primo nell’elenco del Canone. Di un Vangelo secondo Matteo vi era
traccia già tra la fine del I secolo e l’inizio del secondo. Se ne ha, infatti,
notizia da riferimenti contenuti in vari autori del tempo. Lo citano Clemente
Romano nel 95 d.C., nonché Ignazio d’Antiochia nel 115 d.C. Allusioni sono anche
contenute nell’Epistola di Barnaba tra il 100 e il 130 d.C. e
nella Didaché(100 d.C.).Per quanto non fosse indicato il nome di Matteo
come autore, è indubbia la considerazione che il Vangelo avesse nella chiesa
primitiva. Solo dalla metà del II secolo si cominciò a indicare tale Vangelo
come “secondo Matteo”, attribuendolo all’apostolo di Gesù.La tradizione antica
identificava senz’altro l’autore del Vangelo di Matteo con il pubblicano Matteo
chiamato da Gesù a seguirlo. La tradizione, comunque, ritiene il pubblicano
Matteo l’autore del relativo vangelo. E tale attribuzione richiama un passo di
Papia di Gerapoli dei primi decenni del II secolo, riportato da Eusebio di
Cesarea: “Matteo raccolse i logia in lingua ebraica, e ciascuno li
interpretò come poteva”. Sembrerebbe, dunque, stante la testimonianza di Papia,
che Matteo avesse scritto il suo vangelo in ebraico, raccogliendo detti e
narrazioni (la c.d. fonte “Q”) precedenti. In realtà, quando Papia parla di
“lingua ebraica” non si riferisce alla lingua ebraica vera e propria perché
l’ebraico dei tempi di Gesù, ma anche di quelli di Matteo, non è la lingua del
Vecchio Testamento, ormai entrata in disuso, bensì l’aramaico.Matteo avrebbe,
perciò, scritto il suo Vangelo in aramaico (forse composto da 5 libri), tant’è
che il testo greco di quello che è considerato il primo Vangelo contiene
numerosi elementi aramaici, sia nello stile che nel vocabolario, poi passati al
testo greco. Vi era, dunque, un testo aramaico del primo Vangelo, andato
perduto per le diverse vicende, anche belliche, dell’epoca. A che data risale,
dunque, il testo greco? L’ambiente politico e sociale descritto, la
conflittualità tra Gesù e i farisei, sembrerebbero indicare che la stesura in
greco sia avvenuta prima della distruzione di Gerusalemme da parte dei romani,
cioè prima del 70 d.C. Nel Vangelo secondo Matteo, inoltre, sono presenti
elementi provenienti dal Vangelo secondo Marco, scritto intorno al 62 d.C., per
cui il testo greco si collocherebbe tra il 62 e il 70 d.C. sulla scia di Papia,
comunque, anche gli altri autori cristiani riportano la stessa notizia sul
Vangelo di Matteo. Così Ireneo di Lione il quale, intorno al 180, riferisce che
«Matteo pubblicò presso gli Ebrei, nella loro lingua, uno scritto di Vangelo,
mentre Pietro e Paolo predicavano a Roma e fondavano la Chiesa». Per Origene,
quello di Matteo è il primo dei quattro Vangeli. Così, infatti, scrive nel
233: Come ho appreso dalla tradizione riguardo ai quattro Vangeli, che
sono anche i soli accettati dalla Chiesa di Dio che è sotto il cielo, per primo
è stato scritto quello secondo Matteo, che prima era un pubblicano, poi
apostolo di Gesù Cristo; egli l’ha redatto per i credenti provenienti dal
giudaismo, e composto in lingua ebraica. Ed Eusebio di Cesarea conferma,
ancora una volta, la notizia: Matteo infatti, che predicò in un primo tempo
agli Ebrei, quando dovette andare anche presso altri mise per iscritto nella
lingua dei suoi antenati il suo Vangelo per i fedeli che lasciava, sostituendo
così con lo scritto alla sua presenza. Nel IV secolo l’attribuzione a
Matteo è ormai un fatto acclarato, come si evince dalle citazioni contenute in
diversi autori cristiani.
Le Reliquie conservate a Salerno
Le reliquie di San Matteo sarebbero giunte a Velia, in Lucania, intorno al V
secolo, dove rimasero sepolte per circa quattro secoli. Il corpo del Santo fu
rinvenuto dal monaco Atanasio nei pressi di una fonte termale dell'antica città
di Parmenide. Le spoglie furono portate dallo stesso Atanasio presso l'attuale
chiesetta di San Matteo a Casal Velino. Il modesto edificio dalla semplice
facciata a capanna presenta, alla destra dell'altare, l'arcosolio, dove secondo
tradizione furono depositate le sacre reliquie del Santo. Un'iscrizione latina
piuttosto tarda (XVIII sec.), incastonata sul lato corto dell'arcosolio,
ricorda l'episodio della traslazione; successivamente le ossa furono portate
presso il Santuario della Madonna del Granato in Capaccio-Paestum. Ritrovate in
epoca longobarda, furono portate il 6 maggio 954 a Salerno, dove sono attualmente
conservate nella cripta della cattedrale. Il Santo è patrono della città.
Patronati
San Matteo è considerato il patrono di banchieri, bancari, doganieri, della
Guardia di finanza, cambiavalute, ragionieri, commercialisti, contabili ed
esattori. Il documento papale che attesta il riconosciuto patrocinio, reca la
data del 10 aprile 1934 ed è firmato dal cardinale Eugenio Pacelli, futuro papa
Pio XII. Il Pontefice che accolse l’istanza avanzata dal Comandante Generale e
sostenuta dall’Ordinario Militare del tempo era Pio XI. Il "Breve
Pontificio", nel dichiarare San Matteo Patrono della Guardia di Finanza
auspica che tutti gli appartenenti al Corpo possano, sul suo esempio, unire
l’esercizio fedele del dovere verso lo Stato con la fedele sequela di Cristo.
Autore: Don Luca Roveda
Matteo è un esattore delle tasse al servizio di Erode, al tempo in cui vive Gesù. Svolge il suo lavoro, mal visto se non disprezzato dal popolo, a Cafarnao, in Palestina. Matteo, infatti, raccoglie le tasse per conto dell’occupante Impero romano che sfrutta la povera gente. Per Matteo il denaro ha molta importanza e nel suo cuore indurito e avaro non c’è posto per altro, ma un giorno Gesù lo incontra dietro al suo banchetto mentre conta il denaro appena raccolto. Lo guarda, gli rivolge la parola e gli dice di alzarsi e di seguirlo. Basta questo per fargli cambiare vita. L’esattore ubbidisce all’istante, si alza dalla sua postazione e segue Gesù: si converte, abbandona tutto (famiglia, lavoro, amici) e, diventato generoso e altruista, entra a far parte del gruppo dei dodici apostoli.
Matteo dà l’addio alla vecchia vita offrendo un banchetto ai suoi amici, peccatori come lui, a cui partecipa anche Gesù. Il Maestro intende così dimostrare di essere venuto sulla Terra per aiutare i peccatori a pentirsi e a cambiare comportamento e non solo per i buoni e i giusti. Matteo per tre anni segue il Maestro nella sua predicazione, e dopo la sua morte e resurrezione, scrive uno dei quattro Vangeli, descrivendo gli eventi di cui è stato diretto testimone. Matteo vede i miracoli compiuti da Gesù, come la moltiplicazione dei pani e dei pesci, ascolta le sue prediche e assiste alla sua resurrezione.
Secondo alcune versioni, per sfuggire alla persecuzione dei cristiani, l’apostolo abbandona la Palestina e viaggia in molti Paesi, dove diffonde il messaggio cristiano: dalla Persia alla Siria, dalla Macedonia all’Etiopia, dove muore intorno al 74 dopo Cristo. San Matteo è protettore di banchieri, bancari, commercialisti, revisori dei conti, cambiavalute, doganieri, fiscalisti, guardie di finanza. È patrono di Salerno dove nell’XI secolo sarebbe stato traslato il suo corpo, custodito nel duomo della città. Si narra che per intercessione di San Matteo, Salerno sia stata risparmiata nel 1544 dall’assedio dei Saraceni e nel 1688 dal terremoto. Il simbolo che lo caratterizza è un angelo che, con il calamaio in mano, ispira e guida il santo nella stesura del racconto evangelico.
Autore: Mariella Lentini
SOURCE : https://www.santiebeati.it/dettaglio/21550
Jan de Beer, Martirio di san Matteo, vers
1530-1535,
huile
sur bois, 25,5 X 41,5, Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum
Saint
Thomas d'Aquin. Catena Aurea. Explications sur L'Évangile de Saint
Matthieu :
http://livres-mystiques.com/partieTEXTES/Stthomas/Aureamat/table.html
Voir aussi : http://catholique-verdun.cef.fr/spip/spip.php?page=service&id_article=3227
http://matthieu.com/saint-matthieu.html
http://www.cassicia.com/FR/Vie-de-saint-Matthieu-apotre-et-evangeliste-Fete-le-21-septembre-Il-est-l-auteur-inspire-par-le-Saint-Esprit-du-premier-des-quatre-recits-evangeliques-No_545.htm
