The canonical books of the New Testament of the first rank: The Gospel of Matthew.
The canonical books of the New Testament of the first rank: The Gospel of Matthew.
§ 243. To the canonical books of the New Testament of the first rank belongs: the Gospel of Matthew. There has never been any doubt about it in the Church. Tertullian calls Matthew “the most faithful interpreter of the Gospel” (De carne Christi, p. 37). In his preface to the Opus imperf., Chrysostom asserts that “[Matthew] preached the Gospel to sinners not [only] with speech but also by the improvement of his own life.” Eusebius (Hist. eccles., bk. 3, c. 24) and, from him, Nicephorus (bk. 2, c. 45) explain the occasion at which he wrote his evangelical history: “When Matthew had first preached to the Hebrews and now was about to go to others, he put his Gospel into writing. What those he was leaving might long for, his presence being removed, he filled in with his writing.” He wrote his Gospel ** in the eighth year after Christ’s ascent, as Eusebius would have it; or ** in the fifteenth year after Christ’s ascent, according to the reckoning of Nicephorus (bk. 2, c. 45); or in the twenty-first year, according to Irenaeus (bk. 3, c. 1).
Some testify that he wrote in Hebrew: Irenaeus (loc. cit.), Athanasius (Synopsis, p. 141), Eusebius (bk. 3, c. 24), Nazianzen (Carmina), Jerome (preface to the four evangelists, ad Damas.; in c. 11, Hosea), Augustine (De consens. evang., bk. 1, c. 2), and Nicephorus (bk. 4, c. 32)—all of whom Baronius (Annal., ann. 34, n. 165) and Bellarmine (De verbo Dei, bk. 2, c. 7) follow. Some attribute the translation of it to the evangelist John, some to the apostle James, some to Luke and Paul, some to Mark. However: (1) The ancient writers only say this; they do not prove it. Chrysostom, on Matthew, does not dare make a firm declaration. He says, “It is said,” and adds: “I would rather it exist than prove it.” Also, no one bears witness of having seen any trace of that Hebrew volume. In fact, that which they call the Book of the Nazarenes had not been written in Hebrew but in Chaldaic, only using Hebrew forms, according to Jerome. Also, it is listed among the apocryphal writings, for only the Nazarenes and Ebionites claimed it for themselves, according to Epiphanius and Jerome; the Catholics embraced the Greek. What Munsterus published does not belong to Matthew himself, for its author, whoever he may have been, was not even learned in Hebrew. (2) The same authors who say that Matthew wrote in Hebrew admit that that Gospel was published in Greek at the time of the apostles and was commended to the Church as authentic; Irenaeus (bk. 3, c. 39), Jerome (Catal. illustr.), and Eusebius (bk. 3, c. 34, 39; bk. 5, c. 10) attribute the translation of it to Mark. In Synopsis, Athanasius declares that the apostle James translated it from Hebrew to Greek. Theophylact attributes it to John. Anastasius (Genes., sermon 8) claims Luke and Paul as authors of that translation. (3) The rest of the apostles first wrote in the Greek language not only indiscriminately for all Jews and Gentiles but also specifically for the Jews. Why, then, would we want to make a different claim for Matthew? His calling to the apostolate required him to write in a familiar language. (4) Jerome believes that Matthew wrote with “a pure Hebrew language” (Catal., on Matthew). However, Widmanstadius, Guido Fabricius, and Bellarmine (De verbo Dei, bk. 2, c. 4) think he wrote it in Syriac. (5) The pen of Matthew clearly is in harmony with that of Mark and is not far removed from the style of John. (6) Matthew interprets the Hebrew name Immanuel in Greek (1:23); therefore he did not write his Gospel in Hebrew. After all, if he were writing in Hebrew, why would he interpret it for people who understood Hebrew? (7) Whatever it may be, the Greek edition of Matthew is authentic. In fact, he produced it while the apostles were still living, and the apostles themselves approved of it. The ancients also confirm this. Therefore one cannot approve what Baronius writes in the passage we recently cited: “I say that we cannot declare of what trustworthiness the Greek text is without a comparison with the Hebrew original.” Casaubonus explains carefully (Exerc. 15, c. 12, p. 338) what must be thought about this pronouncement.
The evangelical history of Matthew has twenty-eight chapters in which Christ’s person and His prophetic, priestly, and royal office are described.
** In other instances, the older Latins divide it according to the division of Hilary into thirty-three canons and according to the division of Christian Druthmar into sixty-seven canons. The more recent Latins, however, divide it into eight chapters. Among the Greeks, they divide it into sixty-eight chapters, according to Euthymius or Oecumenius; according to Suidas, into sixty-eight titles and 355 chapters. Ammonius and Eusebius also divide it into 355 chapters. **