Gospel according to Matthieu

The Gospel according to Matthieu is one of the four Gospel S of the New Testament. The Gospels are traditionally printed in the following order: Matthieu, followed by Marc, then Luc and finally Jean.

Although the text itself does not comprise a name of author, the Christian traditions oldest allot the first Gospel to Matthieu, collector taxes become Apôtre of Jesus-Christ (whose call is told in MT 9.9).

Origins of the Gospel of Matthieu

Regarded a long time as oldest from the Gospels, which Marc would have taken as a starting point, Matthieu comes today as a second in the Théorie from the two sources, which follow the majority of the exégètes. According to this theory and its derivative, the Gospel of Marc would be former and would have been for him one of its sources, in company of hypothetical the Source Q. It should however be noted that a certain number of authors maintain answers to the synoptic Problème which preserve the primacy of Matthieu (see in particular Philippe Roland, the first Gospels. A new glance on the synoptic problem , LD, Paris, stag, 1984).

According to the Assumption of the two sources, the author of Matthieu would have taken as a starting point Marc as well as hypothetical source called Q by the scholars (initial of the German Which , meaning “source”).

The question of the date of composition of the first Gospel is discussed, the proposals going of years 60-65 to 80-85 while passing by the any proximity of the period of destruction of Jerusalem (70). Several criteria are taken into account, in particular the way in which Matthieu gives an account of the prophecy of Jesus concerning the destruction of the Temple (MT 25) and the report/ratio of Matthieu to the Judaism.

The many references to prophecies of the Old Testament, the genealogy of Jesus, the way in which the problem of the Law is dealt with, in any case suggest the proximity of the author and his world with the Judaism of the first century.

What the old tradition said

In its Ecclesiastical History, Eusèbe de Césarée, at the beginning of the 4th century, thus summarized what the tradition reminded of the Matthieu apostle: " Matthieu, indeed preached initially with the Hebrews. As it was to also go towards others, it delivered to the writing, in its native tongue, its Gospel, temporary of the remainder to its presence by the means of the writing, for those of which it éloignait". (H.E. III, 24,6). Always according to Eusèbe de Césarée, Papias would have written towards 125: " Matthieu thus joins together in Hebraic language the logia (s.e of Jesus) and each one translated them (êrmêneusen) as it was capable." (H.E. III, 39,16). Of the same Saint Irenee had written, towards 180: " Thus Matthieu published it among Hebrews, in their own language text known as " ''hebraioi dialecto''", that is to say " in araméen and for the hébreux" , the written shape of Gospel, at the time where Pierre and Paul évangélisaient Rome and founded Église." there; The testimony of Papias was believed until the 12th century. Today, if the specialists agree on a double hellenistic and Semitic cultural influence on the Gospel of Matthieu, nothing in the current Greek version Matthieu makes it possible to think that it is about a translation. No suspicion of this kind exists for the other Gospels

The Matthieu apostle, therefore, would have published very early, in Palestine and Hebraic language (Hebrew or araméen), the written shape of Gospel, especially inserting speeches, or sentences, of Jesus (as one can find some for example in the Évangile according to Thomas). He would have then left abroad, like the majority of the other apostles.

The question which installation is thus this one: Which is the anonymity which, after its departure, would have translated into Greek the " logia" of the Lord, while inserting there as would do it Luc, and most probably after dialog with him as various indices show it, the essence of the Gospel of saint Marc (600 verses out of 661)?

It is with this question that " claims to answer; the assumption of the Philippe" deacon;.

The assumption of the deacon Philippe.

" The assumption of the Philippe" deacon; is an installation of the Theory of the two sources. (See synoptic Problem).

The deacon Philippe, one of the Seven, would be the real author of our first Gospel, after dialog with Luc, companion of Paul at the time of the stay in Palestine of this last, towards 57-59 (cf ac 21,8 --- 27,2); more precisely in maritime Césarée, place of residence of Philippe, where Paul himself was retained prisoner during nearly two years.

Philippe and Luc would have inherited two sources: the logia of the Lord written in araméen by the Matthieu apostle, according to the tradition, and the Gospel of Marc, resulting from the testimony and preachings of the Pierre apostle.

Philippe as Luc would have had all the time to carry out their personal survey.

The hellenist Philippe and Luc would have then composed independently one of the other, in Greek, their Gospel respective, one in maritime Césarée (Philippe), and the other in Rome (Luc).

The Philippe deacon (or the Church after him) would have left the first Gospel under the patronage of the Matthieu apostle, because it largely reproduced the logia and because the name of an apostle was more prestigious.

This assumption with the advantage of remarkably reconciling the data of the tradition (critical external) and the data textual of the synoptic question (critical intern). In particular, it raises certain aporias of the Theory of the two sources.

Why Greek Matthieu (according to this Philippe assumption) and Luc, though having worked independently one of the other, they despite everything the remarkable agreements know: even place of the Gospels of childhood with parallel developments though different, insertion at the same place in the screen of Marc (3,19) of the Blisses and the Sermon on the Mountain (though in very dissimilar forms, and though Marc in this place speaks neither about blisses nor of sermon), use of two identical sources: the logia and Marc (though with very diverse methods), without speaking about many agreements of detail (against Marc) which are for a long time " croix" for the exégètes.

There was not thus copy between them, but well prior cooperation, and even common reading of the same sources.

In addition it is very probable that the first Gospel (Greek Matthieu) was composed in Palestine because it indicates a precise knowledge of this country.

One can raise in addition that the intensive testimony of the Philippe deacon for the drafting of the Acts of the Apostles appears more than probable.

Significance and intention of the Gospel of Matthieu.

As it is known as in the presentation of this article, the first Gospel appears to be addressed above all to the Jews and to the rabbis of the synagog, to show to them using the Writings, the Old Testament, that Jesus-Christ are really the Son of God and Emmanuel, God with us since the beginning, the son of David, the heir to all the kings of Israel and the Messiah whom they hoped for.

The Son of God title intervenes with the important turnings of the account, as of childhood, with the baptism, the confession of Pierre, transfiguration, the lawsuit of Jesus and the crucifixion. The wire name of David, who is associated to him, and which returns in ten occurrences, shows that Jesus is new Solomon: indeed Jesus expresses himself like incarnated Wisdom. Under the terms of the Son of man title, who traverses the Gospel, and which comes straight of Daniel and the Book from Hénoch, Jesus sees himself equipped with any divine authority on the Kingdom of God, with the skies as on the ground.

Greek Matthieu, writing for a community of Christians come from the Judaism, and undoubtedly discussing with the rabbis, sticks before very showing in the person and the work of Jesus the achievement of the Writings. It confirms by texts scripturaires: its davidic race (1,1-17), its birth of a virgin (1,23), her birth in Bethlehem (2,6), its stay in Egypt (2,15), its establishment with Capharnaüm (4,14-16), its Messianic entry in Jerusalem ((21,5.16). It does it for its work of miraculous cures (11,4-5) and for its teaching ((5,17).

Just as easily it stresses that the apparent failure of the mission of Jesus was announced by the Writings, and that lowerings of the Son of man achieve the prophecy of the suffering Servant of Isaïe (12,17-21).

The first Gospel is thus presented much less in the form of a one simple biography of Jesus, which made on their side excellently Marc and Luc, who like a perfectly built and documented thesis addressed to the Jews hellenists, believers to consolidate them in their faith, incrédules or opponents to refute them.

It fits well in this tense atmosphere which prevailed in Palestine of before the destruction of the Temple, such as it is described to us in the Acts of the Apostles, where persecution threatened unceasingly: martyrdom of Etienne at the instigation of the synagog, dispersion of the apostles, who would be followed by the martyrdom of Jacques the minor.

The problems of the first Gospel make think of that of the speech of Etienne, who is brought back to us by the Acts (cf ac 7). That does not have anything astonishing if they have almost the same author: the Philippe deacon dictating for Luc the speech of Etienne, and itself final writer of the first Gospel.

The terrible invectives of the Etienne deacon, about to die, resemble to mistake there with the curses of Christ (seven), against the scribes and the pharisees, whom one finds in the chapter 23 of our first Gospel.

Plan of the Gospel of Matthieu

---- the arrival of the servant ---- the ministry for the servant ---- the sacrifice of the servant ---- the résurection

Use of Marc by the Gospel of Matthieu.

Greek Matthieu, has one says, re-used almost the totality of the Gospel of Marc. It even made of it, like Luc, the frame of his own work. However, unlike Luc, it has, especially for the beginning, much less respected the sequence of Marc, showing by there that it did not have, in the highest degree, of chronological, or biographical concerns.

One can count at least 22 péricopes of Marc that Greek Matthieu moved, including 10 important that one can quote:

MT 8,14-17 = Mc 1,29-34
MT 8,2-4 = Mc 1,40-45
MT 9,2-17 = Mc 2,1-22
MT 12,1-21 = Mc 2,23 --- 3,12
MT 12,22-37 = Mc 3,22-30
MT 12,46 --- 13,15 = Mc 3,31 --- 4,12
MT 13,18-23 = Mc 4,13-20
MT 13,31-32 = Mc 4,30-32
MT 13,34-35 = Mc 4,33-34
MT 10,1.9-14 = Mc 6,6 b-13

It makes them undergo considerable jumps, placing for example the cure of the mother-in-law of Simon-Pierre after teaching on the mountain or the choice of the Twelve, whereas Marc and Luc place it front. Placing the cure of paralytic and the call of Matthieu-Lévi after the alleviated storm, whereas Marc and Luc have it front. Etc

But one observes a remarkable phenomenon, it is that inside these péricopes moved, Greek Matthieu preserves (in spite of certain additions or certain suppressions, as constantly) the original order of Marc whom one finds in theory in saint Luc (Luc, as for him, not having generally moved these péricopes).

There is a tangible proof there, at the same time respect of Greek Matthieu for the content of the account of Marc and the veracity of the Theory of the two sources. It is well Marc who is the document-Master that two the other synoptic ones, and sometimes even Jean, dissociated.

But one must as note, another remarkable phenomenon, as from:

MT 14,1 = Mc 6,14

Greek Matthieu (undoubtedly Philippe) henceforth follows very accurately the sequence of Marc (with always of the complements or the suppressions, and some inversions minor) until the end (authenticates) this Gospel, much more accurately even as Luc, who, cuts down to him in an important way the text of Marc, or stops it for long beaches of insertions.

The complements or the omissions of Marc, by Greek Matthieu or Luc, are made independently by these the last two evangelists. What still consolidates the Theory of the two sources.

To explain certain minor agreements of Greek Matthieu and Luc, against Marc, some exégètes German imagined the existence of a former state of Marc, the Urmarkus , slightly different from that which we know, that Greek Matthieu and Luc would have used jointly.

Without being proven, one can point out that this proposal would agree extremely well with " the assumption of the Philippe" deacon;. The Urmarkus would not be other than a private version of Marc, not yet published, that which Luc would have communicated to the Philippe deacon at the time of his stay in Palestine. Its author, Marc, would have then altered it somewhat, before publication.

Use of the logia , the source Q, by Greek Matthieu.

One defines the source Q as being what the Gospels of Matthieu and Luc have in common, apart from Marc. In this direction the source Q is not at all a hypothetical document, as it sometimes is read; but it can extremely well be reconstituted.

There was necessarily a common source for Greek Matthieu and Luc, apart from Marc.

But the problem is that one cannot delimit this document, nor to even to assign a precise order him. One is not sure whole, one has even the strong presumption of the opposite, that Greek Matthieu and Luc did not bring it back each one in extenso . In addition the sentences that one finds there, in addition to some rare accounts, are not given in the same order by Greek Matthieu and Luc. Which of both best respected the original order of the document?

Moreover quotations of this document inserted by our two synoptic, generally, are not made word for word, but in periphrastic form; rather direction for direction.

For the reconstitution of this document one cannot escape assumptions. It seems that most probable is to admit that Luc respected better than Greek Matthieu the order and the content of the source Q, and than he introduced it such as it is into his Gospel, in two principal beaches:

LLC 6,20 --- 8,3
LLC 9,51 --- 18,14.

One can add to it: LLC 22,30.

Moreover it seems well that:

MT 3,7-10.12; 4,2-11a = LLC 3,7-9.17; 4,2b-13

was also a document with share, which one can, for lack of proof of the opposite, to compare to the source Q.

Sentences, or speeches, that Greek Matthieu has into clean and who do not appear in the source Q, as reconstituted above, can be, without disadvantage, allotted to an oral matthéenne source, because the Philippe deacon would have been the confidant of the Matthieu apostle before his departure for the mission.

It does not seem that one can hardly go front.

Here thus, one identifies purely and simply the logia of the Lord of which the existence is known by the tradition and the source Q, defined by the German exégètes.

Greek Matthieu, undoubtedly the Philippe deacon, will have used very freely the two traditions matthéennes, that written in theory common with Luc, and that oral which is clean for him, in addition to the results of its personal investigation and its memories.

It is itself which will have orally translated, for Luc, the Hebrew documents, or araméens, which it had in his possession.

The genealogy matthéenne of Christ.

Greek Matthieu put forward the genealogy of Christ (cf MT 1,1-17), allotting a considerable apologetic importance to him, that usually the exégètes do not underline enough.

This genealogy summarizes with it only all the Old Testament, and attaches it to New. In fact for us, in our bibles, it opens the reading of New Testament.

The genealogy of Greek Matthieu is that of Joseph and the " brothers of Seigneur" , wanting to prove to the Jews that Jesus was well the downward legal one of David, Solomon and all the kings of Israel (or of Juda), the heir to the throne and, consequently, the promised Messiah. It is besides under this official title of " king of the Jews " (MT 27,37) that Jesus will be crucifié. " You are the king of the Jews? Pilate Jesus retorted: “You say it”. " (MT 27,11).

It is so true that later the descendants of Jude " brother of Seigneur" were worried on several occasions by the Roman capacity like implicit applicants with the royalty. (Cf Eusèbe de Césarée, H.E. III, 12 and 19-20).

In this time the files of the Jewish people had not been destroyed yet (they will be it later, at the time of the Jewish revolts and the catch of Jerusalem, by the Romans). The genealogy (especially a royal genealogy!) was to be exact, and verifiable, if not it would have turned to the detriment of the cause which it claimed to serve.

However holy Irenee, father of the Church, underlined very strongly that the genealogy given by Matthieu could not be the real genealogy of Jesus, because Jéchonias and all its descendants were formally excluded from the Messianic ascent by the Jérémie prophet. (Cf Adv. Hae. III, 21,9). In Joseph fact is only the virginal, or legal father (according to the Torah), of Jesus. (Cf MT 1,16.18-25).

It is Luc who will expose the true genealogy of Jesus, by his mother Marie, itself downward of David, but by Nathan and not by Solomon (cf LLC 3,23-38). This thesis is not new, or in the air, but it is defended in a way very argued by saint Irenee (cf Adv. Hae. III, 9,2; 16,3; 21-22).

Luc undoubtedly did it after dialog with the Philippe deacon.

As for Philippe himself, it was to hold its genealogy of Christ, either of the Matthieu apostle, or directly of the " brothers of Seigneur" who lived in Jerusalem and who controlled the Church there: Jacques the minor, Simon and Jude " brother of Jacques" , this Church of which he was the faithful deacon, and even the first of the deacons, after the death of Etienne (cf ac 6,5).

Gospels of childhood, according to Greek Matthieu.

In the same way for the Gospels of childhood (cf MT 1,18 --- 2,23), Greek Matthieu brings back the point of view of Joseph and the " brothers of Seigneur" , while Luc (cf LLC 1 --- 2) will give the point of view of Marie, undoubtedly through the testimony of the Jean apostle, contacted beforehand by him.

The told facts are very different, but they remain nevertheless reconcilable and superposable. There was most probably prior cooperation, on this subject, between Greek Matthieu (Philippe) and Luc, because the remarks of the one and other are exactly parallel, or symmetrical, in their respective Gospel. The exégètes often raised convergence of the assertions biographical, or theological, implicit, which are contained in these two accounts. Thus according to Joseph A. Fitzmyer (The gospel according to Luke I-IX, page 307):

1) the birth of Jesus is brought back to the reign of Hérode.
2) Marie, who becomes her mother, is a virgin engaged towards Joseph, but they did not cohabit yet.
3) Joseph is house of David.
4) an angel come from the sky announces the event of the birth of Jesus.
5) Jesus itself is recognized like wire of David.
6) Its design intervenes thanks to the action of the Holy Spirit.
7) Joseph is excluded from the design.
8) the name of " Jésus" is prescribed by the sky, before the birth.
9) the angel identifies Jesus like " Sauveur".
10) Jesus was born after Marie and Joseph started to live together.
11) Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
12) Jesus settles, with Marie and Joseph, in Nazareth, as a Galileo.

One does not give the references which are easy to find, in Matthieu and Luc.

Although the facts told by Greek Matthieu cannot be proven historically, one notices nevertheless how much they are in conformity with the psychology of the characters whom one knows in addition, for example Hérode, and with manners of time. The historical framework is undeniable, with last times of Hérode then its succession.

As of the entry, Jesus is introduced like Sauveur (cf MT 1,21), Emmanuel (1,23), king (2,2), Messie or Christ (2,4), Sons of God (2,15), in achievement of all prophecies.

Passion, Resurrection, the sending on mission, in Matthieu.

In the account of the Passion and Resurrection of Christ, like sending on mission, Greek Matthieu, like the three other Gospels, very accurately follows the diagram of Marc, until the authentic end of this Gospel, which one locates in Mc 16,8.

Like the others, it rewrites it with its manner, without hardly changing the substance it.

Greek Matthieu confirms in particular, like Luc, the chronology of Marc who makes hold Oiling with Béthanie two days before Passover (MT 26,2), to celebrate Holy the Cène the evening even of Passover (26,17), and which makes remain Jesus at least six hours in cross, Friday, after being crucifié at nine o'clock in the morning (cf MT 27,45).

It adds only some episodes, according to its personal investigation:

the account of died of Judas (MT 27,3-10) which one finds another version, slightly different, in the Acts of the Apostles (ac 1,18-19); what once again shows the close links which can exist between the first Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles.
the anecdote of the woman of Pilate which intervenes in favor of Jesus (MT 27,19).
the ostentatious rectal injection of the hands by same Pilate, disuniting assassins of Jesus (MT 27,24).
expressed Them telluric after the death of Jesus, and resurrection many departeds (MT 27,51b-53).
guard of the tomb after Passion, claimed by the Jewish chiefs (MT 27,62-66).
new the Earthquake and the imposing spectacle of the angel which comes to roll the stone of the sepulchre, at the time of Resurrection (MT 28,2-4).
Finally the trickery of the Jewish chiefs to deny the resurrection of Jesus (MT 28,11-15).

After the Resurrection, Greek Matthieu, unlike Luc and final added with the Gospel of Marc (Mc 16,9-20) which follows Luc and perhaps Jean, after a first appearance of Christ to the holy women (MT 28,9-10), defers the appearances of Christ to the apostles, and the sending on mission, a Galileo (MT 28,16-20) where the angel (MT 28,7) and Jesus himself (MT 28,10) had given go to the disciples.

In the same way, the Jean evangelist will place an appearance of Christ at his disciples, as a Galileo, at the edge of the Lake Tibériade (cf Jn 21).

While following very close the sequence of Marc, Greek Matthieu enriched it by new episodes, however shortening the narration of Marc in certain places. It seems to have profited from a clean tradition, different from that of Luc, since it does not announce the appearance of Jesus in front of Hérode (cf LLC 23,8-12).

An oral tradition matthéenne?

In addition to one tradition matthéenne written, in theory common with Luc, and that, following the German exégètes of the XIX E century, one affublée name of " Q" source; , it seems well that the first Gospel profited from an oral matthéenne source, special with this Gospel.

Philippe had known the Matthieu apostle personally. It is of him that it had received, like eleven others, the charisma of the diaconate, and the mandate of evangelic preaching. (Cf ac 6,6; 8,1.14). It is the Matthieu apostle who, leaving for the foreigner (Rufin tells us the Ethiopia: cf H.E. III, 1,1, Latin translation of Rufin), would have given its Gospel araméen to him, makes of them the logia , or speech of the Lord, with the load to translate them and publish.

In addition to these logia , the first Gospel transmits to us invaluable and original information on the Matthieu customs officer, become one of the Twelve. Whereas Marc, followed by Luc, tells us the call of certain Lévi, wire of Alphée, Greek Matthieu teaches us, in the parallel account that it is about Matthieu even; " Its name was Matthieu " (MT 9,9), one of the Twelve (cf Mc 3,18).

Giving in its turn the list apostles, Greek Matthieu would mention that this Matthieu was publicain (cf MT 10,3).

It is the first Gospel alone which would speak to us about the royalty of the Temple discharged by Jesus and Pierre (cf MT 17,24-27). There one can see a notation specific to the tax collector which was Matthieu. It gave to the currency of the tax its technical name of " didrachme ". As a true specialist in finances he taught us that a statère was worth two didrachmes (that is to say still a tétradrachme) to pay the aforesaid tax and that it would thus be enough for two people (cf MT 17,27).

Matthieu saint, apostle and scribe of Christ (in language araméenne) would be perfectly definite, at the end of the parabolic speech: " … scribe become disciple of the vieux." and Kingdom of heaven… similar to an owner who draws from his treasure of the nine; (MT 13,52). There some exégètes (Bible of Jerusalem) believed to find a signature discrete of the evangelist primitive.

The first Gospel would bring back parabolas remarkable, suitable to us for him, which would implement the money: parabola of the pitiless debtor, who would speak to us about 10.000 talents, colossal sum, and of one hundred sums of money (cf MT 18,23-35); parabola of the talents (cf MT 25,14-30), whereas Luc would speak about mines (cf LLC 19,11-27).

It was the first Gospel which in the prayer of our Father would evoke the handing-over of the debts and the debtors (cf MT 6,12), while Luc would mention the handing-over of the sins for its part and the duty to give to whoever owes us (cf LLC 11,4).

It was the first Gospel alone which would give the price of the treason of Judas: " Thirty silver coins " (MT 26,15), i.e. thirty sicles (and not thirty sums of money like it is often said), the value of a slave (cf Ex 21,32), while Marc (14,11) and Luc (22,5) would make to state only one certain amount of money. Of the same Matthieu alone would specify us as Judas would have brought back this sum: " thirty silver coins, with the large priests and the scribes " (MT 27,3) then would have thrown them, seized of despair, not in the trunk but in the sanctuary even ( naos ) of the Temple (cf MT 27,5).

In the same way, in the account of Resurrection, Greek Matthieu would be alone to say to us that the large old priests and the " gave to the soldiers a large sum money, with this instruction: “You will say this: its disciples came night and concealed it while we sleep”. " (MT 28,12-13).

Philippe, direct heir to Matthieu and agent of his testimony, will have wanted to leave under the patronage of Matthieu only the first entire Gospel, in his final edition.

The aspect pétrinien of Ier Gospel.

The exégètes often noted the character pétrinien of the first Gospel. More than two the other synoptic ones, he insisted on the primacy of the Pierre apostle.

That does not have anything of surprising if it is admitted that the aforementioned first Gospel had as a principal writer, and final, the Philippe deacon. One knows by the Acts of the Apostles the close connections which Philippe with the Prince had maintained the apostles. Ordered deacon on the initiative of Pierre, and by his hands with the head of the Twelve, Philippe was to receive it many times in Samarie or elsewhere in Judaea (cf ac 6 --- 12). The testimony of Philippe in the first Gospel, like also in the Acts, could be first hand.

The first Gospel added to the report/ratio of Marc, itself collaborator of Pierre and its interpreter, the details on Pierre, or the words relating to it, which could hardly come but from the personal confidences of the chief of the apostles to the Philippe deacon: the walk of Pierre on the floods (cf MT 14,28-32), the You are Petrus (cf MT 16,17-19), perhaps the royalty of the Temple discharged by Jesus and Pierre with Capharnaüm (cf MT 17,24-27). These facts are known for us only by the relation of the first Gospel, inserted in the screen of Marc.

The first Gospel was that of the preaching of the Kingdom of heaven. But the aforementioned Kingdom of heaven was carried out on the ground only by the means of a community of disciples, which was the Church; and this Church even was built on the Pierre apostle.

With the confession of faith of the messianity of Jesus, brought back by Marc (8,29) and Luc (9,20), Greek Matthieu (Philippe) had added, in the mouth of Pierre, the explicit confession of the divinity of Jesus (cf MT 16,16). It was in answer to this last confession that Pierre had gotten along instituted, by Christ, like the majordomo of the Kingdom of heaven.

notes of references

Random links: