Cornelius a Lapide
The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ According to Matthew (Sanctum Jesu Christi Evangelium secundum Matthaeum)
Table of Contents
The Inscription of the Book
This book is inscribed in the Latin, Greek, and Syriac manuscripts alike: "The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Matthew," as if to say: This is the book containing the best and most joyful message of the coming of Christ, that is, of the Messiah promised to the Patriarchs — namely, of Christ's incarnation, birth, life, preaching, passion, resurrection, ascension, and redemption, of the salvation, grace, and glory obtained by Him and brought to the whole world — of which St. Matthew was the writer and the Holy Spirit the dictator. The Syriac translator prefixes this title: "In the power of the Lord, and of our God Jesus Christ, we begin to write the book of the most holy Gospel, and the first Gospel, the proclamation of Matthew" — that is, what Matthew proclaimed or preached. Hence it ends thus: "End of the holy Gospel proclamation of Matthew, which he preached in Hebrew in the land of Palestine." The Arabic reads: "The Gospel of Jesus Christ as written by Mar (that is, Lord) Matthew, one of His twelve disciples." Now let us examine each word more closely.
Sanctum (Holy)
HOLY. — The Gospel is and is called holy, because everything it contains is holy in an eminent degree: namely, holy is Christ's birth from the Holy Spirit, holy His doctrine, holy His works, holy His miracles, holy His passion, holy His resurrection, ascension, and sending of the Holy Spirit. This alludes to Daniel 9:24, where it is said that seventy weeks of years must be completed until Christ, "that the Holy of Holies may be anointed." As if to say: In this book and Gospel it is shown that the prophecy of Daniel concerning the coming Christ has been fulfilled — He who is the Holy of Holies — and therefore, just as He once gave to Jacob the Patriarch, so now also to His Christian followers He will give knowledge of holy things; for the end of His coming is our sanctification, "that we may serve Him in holiness and righteousness before Him all the days of our life" (Luke 1:75). Moreover, how great and how admirable is the holiness and perfection of the Gospel beyond the law of nature and of Moses is clear from the heavenly precepts and counsels which Christ establishes in Matthew chapters 5, 6, and 7; and from the lives of the Saints of the New Testament; for in them one can see how great was the zeal of St. Paul and the Apostles; how heavenly the life and contemplation of anchorites and religious; how unconquerable the fortitude of the martyrs; how angelic the purity of Virgins; how heroic the labors of the holy Confessors, Bishops, Pontiffs, etc.
Jesu Christi (Of Jesus Christ)
Jesus is His proper name. OF JESUS CHRIST. — Jesus is the proper name of the incarnate Word, that is, of this Man hypostatically united to the Word, just as my proper name is Cornelius, another's Peter, Paul, James, etc. Jesus is called in Hebrew יהושע Jehoscua, and in contracted form ישוע Jescua, that is, Savior, because, as the Archangel Gabriel foretold: "He Himself shall save His people from their sins" (Matt. 1:21; Luke 1:31).
Christus (The Name of His Office)
Christ is the name of His office. Christ, however, is the name of His office and dignity. For Jesus is surnamed in Hebrew משיח Messiah; in Greek χριστός (Christos); in Latin Unctus (the Anointed One), because He was anointed and consecrated by God the Father as the supreme Pontiff, King, Lawgiver, Prophet, and Teacher of the world.
Evangelium (Gospel)
Gospel means good news. GOSPEL. — That is, good news. For ἀγγέλλω (angello) means "I announce," whence ἄγγελος (angelos) is a messenger; εὐαγγελίζω (euangelizo) means "I announce good news"; εὐάγγελος (euangelos) and εὐαγγελιστής (euangelistes) is a good messenger — an Angel, or joyful messenger; εὐαγγέλιον (euangelion) is a joyful and happy message. So says St. Chrysostom. See here Budaeus in the Pandects, where he adds that "Gospel" by metonymy signifies a gift or sacrifice offered in return for good news. Hence Cicero writes to Atticus: "O delightful letters of yours, for which I confess a gospel reward is owed" — evangelia, that is, rewards for joyful news. "Gospel" in Hebrew is called בשורה besora from בשר basar, that is, flesh; as if besora were the most joyful message of the incarnation of the Word concerning eternal salvation and happiness, which Christ the Lord, as the Angel of great counsel, brought to mankind. Here, however, "Gospel" is taken by metonymy for the book or writing that historically narrates this message.
Secundum Matthaeum (According to Matthew)
What the word "according to" signifies here. First. ACCORDING TO MATTHEW. — The word "according to" indicates: first, that the primary and principal author of this Gospel is the Holy Spirit, while the secondary author is St. Matthew; for he was, as it were, the organ, instrument, and pen of the Holy Spirit, writing what the Holy Spirit dictated, according to the words: "My tongue is the pen of a scribe writing swiftly" (Psalm 44).
Second, it indicates that there is one and the same Gospel, but written in different ways and in fourfold manner by the four Evangelists. Therefore "according to" indicates that the Gospel of St. Matthew is not different from the Gospels of Sts. Luke, Mark, and John, nor does it present a different history or doctrine, but only that there was a different writer and a different manner of writing. For there is one Gospel, but written by four Evangelists in a fourfold mode, order, and style.
Third, it indicates that the Holy Spirit accommodated Himself to the nature and talent of St. Matthew; for the Holy Spirit illuminated, stirred, and directed him, so that those things which he had partly seen or heard from the Apostles, and partly those which God revealed to him, he might write in that method, order, thought, conception, and phrasing which suited St. Matthew's character and talent. For there was no need for a new revelation from God regarding what St. Matthew already knew, because he had seen or heard it, but only for the assistance, stirring, and direction of the Holy Spirit, lest from forgetfulness or a lapse of mind, or similar human frailty, he might deviate from the truth even in a single point, or write anything other or otherwise than the Holy Spirit willed. Hence St. Luke at the beginning of his Gospel says that he writes what he had heard from the Apostles. Hence again, the style of St. Luke is different, his phrasing different, his method different from St. Matthew's, different from St. Mark's, different from St. John's, just as each has his own genius for speaking and writing.
The Title Prefixed by the Church, Not by the Evangelists
The title in the inscription is from the Church, not from the Evangelists. Some think that this title was prefixed to his Gospel by St. Matthew himself, just as theirs were by Sts. Mark, Luke, and John. For thus the Prophets prefixed their own names to their prophecies, as "the vision of Isaiah, the vision of Obadiah, the words of Jeremiah," etc.
The authority of Traditions is necessary. But it is far truer that the title was prefixed to each Gospel not by the Evangelists themselves, but by the Church; for the uniformity of the inscription indicates this. For the inscription, or title, of each Gospel is the same, with only the name of the Evangelist who wrote it being changed. The same is more clearly indicated by the Syriac inscription of the title, which reads: "In the power of our Lord and God Jescua Christ, we begin to write the book of the most holy Gospel, and first the Gospel, the proclamation of Matai (Matthai)." Likewise the Arabic cited at the beginning. And from this draw an irrefutable argument for the authority of traditions: namely, that Sacred Scripture alone is not sufficient for the Church to establish true faith and morals, but Apostolic traditions are also needed; wherefore the Heretics wrongly deny them. For tell me, pray, how do you know that this Gospel is St. Matthew's and is canonical Scripture, rather than the Gospels of Thomas, Barnabas, or the Twelve Apostles, which once circulated, unless from the tradition, understanding, and consensus of the Church? For many books bear false titles and are falsely ascribed to other authors, as is evident in the works of St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Cyprian, St. Prosper, and the other Fathers. For thus certain Gospels fabricated by Heretics were inscribed with the name of St. Bartholomew, St. Thomas, St. Barnabas, etc., who could have used the same art and fraud to falsely ascribe them to St. Matthew — as in fact the Gnostics did, who altered and corrupted the Gospel of St. Matthew with their additions. Therefore, in order that we may know that the book is truly ascribed to St. Matthew, and even more that we may know that it is entirely a Gospel dictated by the Holy Spirit, the declaration and definition of the Church must be added, which separates this book from pseudepigrapha and decrees it to be canonical. Hence St. Augustine wisely says in his book Against the Epistle of the Manichaeans, which they call the Foundation, chapter 4: "I would not believe the Gospel, unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me." Not that the authority of the Church is more worthy or greater than that of Sacred Scripture, since Scripture is also the word and oracle of God Himself, but that it belongs to the Church to separate and identify the true Sacred Scripture from the false and spurious, and to explain its genuine meaning and senses. "When therefore we say," says a certain weighty author, "that the Evangelists and other sacred writers have authority from the Catholic Church in the manner stated, no one should rightly take offense as if we were placing the Church above God. For we say that the Church gives authority to the Scriptures in the sense that it declares them to have been given by God and confirms them to have been dictated by Him. Do those who commonly say that royal letters have authority from the Nomophylax (keeper of laws) who applied the seal thereby place the servant above the master? The Church indeed has as God's seal that very Spirit who was promised and given to the Church, that He might remain with it forever, and who recognizes His own hand and writing. He it is who first dictated these four Gospels; then He declared to us through the Church that they had been dictated by Him."
Matthaeus (Matthew the Evangelist)
MATTHEW. — St. Matthew, called from the tax-collector's booth by Christ to the Apostolate (Matt. 9:9), was the first of all to write a Gospel. Hence Blessed Peter Damian gives him this encomium, in his sermon on St. Matthew: "Among all the saints who have brought to heavenly glory the trophies of victory over the conquered world, Blessed Matthew seems to me outstanding and conspicuous, holding a certain primacy of dignity among them; and to speak more clearly, there is no one after Christ to whom the holy universal Church owes more. For the reason the world lives is this: because the Evangelical light has shone upon us." Because, as the same author adds: "Like a leader, he bore the standard before those who followed, and by his example he inspired them to write." Cajetan and the Anabaptists here think that he wrote in Greek, because Hebrew names are interpreted in Greek, as "Emmanuel, which is interpreted 'God with us'" (Matt. 1:23); and "Eli, Eli, lamma sabacthani, that is, My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me" (Matt. 27:46). But these interpretations were added by the Greek translator. Wherefore St. Jerome, St. Augustine, Eusebius, and all the rest with one voice assert that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew, having been asked by the Jews that, as he was about to depart to the Gentiles, he would leave in writing what he had preached to them by word of mouth, as St. Chrysostom asserts here, homily 1, and from him Euthymius; St. Jerome, in his book On Ecclesiastical Writers under Matthew; and Eusebius, book 3 of his History, chapter 18. The Author of the Imperfect Work adds in his preface: "The reason that compelled Matthew to write his Gospel was this: when a severe persecution had arisen in Palestine, so that all were in danger of being scattered, in order that those who might perhaps lack teachers of the faith would not lack the teaching itself, they asked Matthew to write for them a history of all the words and deeds of Christ, so that wherever they might be, they would have with them the entire substance of the faith." St. Bartholomew, about to set out for India, took with him a copy of St. Matthew's Gospel, as Eusebius attests, book 5 of his History, chapter 10, and St. Jerome, in his book On Ecclesiastical Writers under Pantaenus; and St. Barnabas carried the same, written in his own hand, to Cyprus, as I said at the beginning. Moreover, St. Jerome, in the passage already cited under Matthew, asserts that he saw his Gospel written in Hebrew at Caesarea, in the Library of the martyr St. Pamphilus, and that he copied it from there. But the Hebrew text of St. Matthew has since perished. For what Sebastian Munster, an apostate who had thrown off his cowl, foisted upon us as if received from the Jews, is suspected of being false by upright and learned men, either because of the heretical author or the treacherous Jews, and it smells of a forgery in itself. For it follows the Greek text word for word, and imitates and affects Hebraisms too childishly. Moreover, it contains many words and phrases that are not Hebrew but exotic and Rabbinic — indeed, solecisms and barbarisms. Finally, various complaints of the learned exist about its unreliable translation, as our Gretser says.
The Date of the Gospel
St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, at the command of the Apostles, says St. Epiphanius, Heresy 51, in the same year in which the Apostles took counsel about their dispersal and departure to the Gentiles, which was the thirty-seventh year from the birth of Christ, the fourth from His passion, as I showed in the Chronotaxis that I prefixed to the Acts of the Apostles. Therefore it is less probable, as Baronius holds, that Matthew wrote in the forty-first year of Christ. Still less probable is what St. Irenaeus holds, book 3, chapter 1, that this Gospel was written at the time when Sts. Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome. For St. Peter did not come to Rome before the second year of the Emperor Claudius, nor Paul before the third year of Nero. Whence it would follow that St. Matthew wrote in the eighteenth or twentieth year after Christ's ascension into heaven, which is clearly false.
The Greek Translation of Matthew's Gospel
Moreover, the Gospel written in Hebrew by St. Matthew was immediately translated into the Greek language, since Greek was at that time the most famous and most widely spoken language among the nations to whom the Apostles were about to go — and this was done either by St. Matthew himself, or by Sts. John, James, or someone similar. Hence St. Athanasius in his Synopsis of Sacred Scripture: "Matthew's Gospel," he says, "was written in the Hebrew dialect by Matthew, published at Jerusalem, and set forth through the translation of James, the brother of the Lord." Theophylact, in his preface to Matthew, says: "John, they report, translated it from the Hebrew language into Greek." There are those who think that the Apostle Barnabas translated Matthew's Gospel from Hebrew into Greek, among whom is Sixtus of Siena; while Anastasius of Sinai the Antiochene, book 8 of the Hexameron, says that Luke and Paul rendered the same Gospel in Greek.
The Latin and Syriac Texts
The Syriac text was translated from the Greek. Hence the Syriac text of St. Matthew's Gospel was translated not from the Hebrew but from the Greek, as is clear to anyone comparing the two. St. Jerome did not translate the New Testament, but corrected it. Hence also St. Jerome, at the command of St. Damasus, in correcting the four Gospels, and among them the Gospel of St. Matthew, corrected them according to the Greek text, not the Hebrew, and restored them to Greek fidelity, as he himself says in his preface to the Gospels addressed to Damasus — where note that St. Jerome, at Damasus's command, translated the Old Testament from Hebrew into Latin, but did not translate the New Testament; rather, he corrected it against the Greek autograph. Therefore the translator of the New Testament was not St. Jerome, but someone else more ancient than he, though less skilled in Latin, as is evident to anyone reading through it. Hence it is not surprising if here and there St. Jerome translates differently in his Commentary.
Accordingly, the Latin text of St. Matthew's Gospel, as well as that of St. Mark in the Vulgate edition, appears to have been translated not from the Hebrew but from the Greek, as Bellarmine expressly asserts in his book On Ecclesiastical Writers under Matthew, and Francis Lucas in his preface to Mark; and this will be clearly apparent to anyone comparing the Greek text with the Latin — namely, that the latter was derived from the former. Hear the same Bellarmine, book 2 of On the Word of God, chapter 7. Furthermore, Athanasius in the passage cited thinks that Matthew's Gospel was translated into the Greek language by the Apostle James; others attribute the translation to the Apostle John, and others to Matthew himself. But whoever did it, that translation was received as if the Gospel of Matthew had originally been written in that language. Therefore we have little need of the Hebrew Gospel that Munster published, nor of that which John Tilius recently had published, in which many things are missing, many are superfluous, and not a few are seen to have been altered — and God knows whether this was not done to undermine confidence in the Greek and Latin editions, through the cunning of the Jews, from whose storehouses that Gospel came forth. Moreover, St. Matthew, since he wrote in Hebrew, appears to have followed the Hebrew original when citing passages from the Old Testament, says St. Jerome in his book On Ecclesiastical Writers under Matthew; but the Greek translator substituted in his Greek translation the Greek version of the Seventy Interpreters, as being better known to the Gentiles.
Pure Hebrew or Syriac?
Whether St. Matthew wrote in the pure Hebrew dialect, such as Moses and the Prophets used, or rather in the Hebrew corrupted by the Chaldeans during the Babylonian captivity — that is, Syriac — is uncertain. Certainly the Jews in Christ's time spoke Syriac, not pure Hebrew; therefore Syriac was then their vernacular. Hence Albert Widmanstadt, who first published the New Testament in Syriac, and Guy Fabricius, who translated it into Latin, think that the Syriac version is the autograph of St. Matthew. Likewise Matthaeus Galenus, Chancellor of Douai, in his preface to St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, contends that the Syriac text of that Epistle, which exists in the Royal Bibles, is St. Paul's own autograph. But this is scarcely plausible. For it is established that the rest of the New Testament was translated into Syriac from the Greek, and the translator of both seems to have been entirely the same person. The same is clear from the fact that the Hebrew words cited in the Greek autograph differ from the Syriac words now found in the Syriac version of St. Matthew. For in Matt. 27:8, instead of the Hebrew haceldama, that is, "field of blood," the Syriac already has aguresca dema, where it clearly Grecizes, since from ἀγρός (agros), that is, "field," it forms aguresca. Similarly, instead of the Hebrew Cephas it has Kypho; instead of Eli, Eli, it translates Il, Il, that is, "God, God," without "my," which is in Eli (Matt. 27:46); instead of Golgotha, Golgoulto; instead of Jacob, Jaacoub; instead of Joseph, Jauseph; and so in other cases it similarly differs from the Hebrew words that appear in the Greek and Latin — and indeed it even turns Greek words into Syriac ones, as from βουλευτής (bouleutes), that is, "councillor," it forms buleuta (Mark 15:43), and many similar cases.
The Syrians think that the translator who rendered the New Testament from Greek into Syriac was St. Mark the Evangelist. But this is hard to believe. For both Cyrils, Clement of Alexandria, St. Anastasius, Damascene, Theodoret, St. Ephrem, and others who lived and wrote in Syria or neighboring Egypt make no mention of him in this role. Add to this that his version contains certain things that displease the learned, or find little favor with them. Therefore the Syriac translator seems to have been later than the Fathers just cited. Nevertheless, this is to its credit: that it favors Catholics against Heretics; for it frequently mentions in its titles fasts, vigils, feast days, the invocation of Saints, etc.
The Division of the Gospel
Now as to the division of the book, the Gospel of St. Matthew has been divided and punctuated differently by different authors; for by the more ancient Latins, according to the division of St. Hilary, it is divided into 33 Canons, and according to another division into 67 Canons; by the more recent Latins into 28 chapters; by the Greeks, however, according to Euthymius, into 68 chapters; according to Suidas, into 68 titles and 355 sections. Ammonius likewise and Eusebius divide it into 355 sections.
The Excellences of St. Matthew
St. Matthew excels the Evangelists. First. Finally, St. Matthew excels the other Evangelists in the following respects: First, because he was the very first to publish a Gospel; hence he carries out everything fully and diligently, says St. Chrysostom, homily 4 on Matthew. Hence Tertullian, in his book On the Flesh of Christ, chapter 22, calls him the most faithful commentator of the Gospel.
Second, because he explains the royal dignity of Christ more than the others. So say St. Augustine, Bede, Peter Damian, Rupert, and others.
Third, because his Hebrew Gospel was found by divine revelation under the Emperor Zeno at the breast of St. Barnabas; but afterwards it again perished through the injury of time. Hence Pope Nicholas V promised five thousand ducats to anyone who would bring him the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, as John Eck, the Luther-fighter, writes in his homily on St. Matthew.
Fourth. Fourth, because St. Matthew was "the Apostle of Ethiopia, and a victim for virginity"; for he was killed by King Hirtacus, because he refused to allow Iphigenia, the daughter of the King of the Ethiopians, who had vowed her virginity to God, to be given to him as a wife.
Fifth. Fifth, because St. Matthew, being very eminent in practical experience and the knowledge of affairs (hence he had also been set over the tax booth), says St. Chrysostom, was converted to Christ not from seeing His miracles, not from hearing His preaching, but by His single word: "Follow Me." For obeying this most promptly, he was suddenly changed into a different man — indeed, into an Apostle — so that leaving behind his tax booth, his wealth, his family, etc., he followed Christ and put on His ways. Add that he never afterward departed from Christ, but was a witness and spectator of His signs and miracles, an imitator of His life, a companion in all things, and a sharer in His labors, cares, and anxieties; inasmuch as he spent the entire time of Christ's ministry with Him, was counted among His chief disciples, and possessed a virtue that grew with the passing of time.
The Etymology of the Name Matthew
The etymology of Matthew. Hence Matthew in Hebrew means the same as "given" (donatus), say Origen and Isidore, book 7 of the Etymologies, chapter 9; or "gift" (donum), as Pagninus holds; for mattan means "gift" — though Anastasius of Antioch, book 8 of the Hexameron, gives a different etymology (whence it was derived, I do not know): "Matthew," he says, "is interpreted 'the command of the Most High.'" Wherefore St. Gregory, book 18 of the Morals, chapter 16, on Job 28, says: "Iron is taken from the earth. Was not Matthew found in the earth, who was entangled in earthly affairs and served the uses of the tax booth? But lifted from the earth, he grew strong with the strength of iron, whose tongue, like a very sharp sword, the Lord used in the ministry of the Gospel to pierce the hearts of unbelievers; and he who had formerly been weak and despised through earthly affairs, was afterwards made strong for heavenly proclamation." Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus book 2, chapter 1, wrote of the same Evangelist that he was accustomed to eating seeds, berries, and vegetables, not meat.
Other Traditions and a Revelation to St. Bridget
I omit what Abdias, book 3 of his Apostolic History, wrote — that St. Matthew, on account of the Gospel he was preaching to the Myrmidons, was blinded by idolaters, but that his sight was restored by St. Andrew the Apostle, at the command of an Angel. Likewise that St. Matthew overcame two sorcerers, Zaroes and Arphaxat, by divine power, and many other things — because this Abdias is apocryphal. For more on St. Matthew, see Surius, Baronius, Ribadeneira, and John de la Haye in his Apparatus on the Gospels, chapter 25 and following.
Finally, hear what St. Matthew revealed about himself to St. Bridget as she prayed at his tomb in the city of Amalfi, book 1 of her Revelations, chapter 229: "When I was writing that Gospel, so great a fire of divine inspiration persisted with me that even if I had wished to be silent, I could in no way have wished it because of the intense ardor."