On The Title Prefixed to Saint Matthew’s Gospel
The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ According to Matthew

This book of the Bible, in the Latin, Greek, and Syriac versions, has for its title, The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Matthew, which means: this is the book which contains the most excellent and joyful news of the coming of Christ, the Messias promised to the patriarchs, of His Incarnation, nativity, life, preaching, passion, resurrection and ascension; of the redemption, the salvation, the grace and the glory brought forth by Him and given to the whole world, which things S. Matthew wrote down at the dictation of the Holy Ghost. The Syriac translator prefixes the following title: “In power of the Lord, and of our God, Jesus Christ, we begin to write the book of the most sacred Evangelium, the first gospel, the preaching of Matthew.” Hence the book concludes, “The end of the holy gospel, the preaching of Matthew, which he preached in the Hebrew tongue, in the land of Palestine.” The Arabic has, “the gospel of Jesus Christ, as written by Mar (i.e., lord) Matthew, one of His twelve disciples.” Now let us weigh each word more precisely.

Holy. The gospel both is, and is called holy, because all the things which it contains are pre-eminently holy. Holy is the birth of Christ by the Holy Spirit, holy is His teaching, holy are His works, holy are His miracles, holy His passion, resurrection and ascension, holy the sending of the Holy Spirit. Daniel 9:24 alludes to this, where it is said that seventy weeks of years must be fulfilled until Christ, that the saint of saints (the holy of holies) may be anointed. That is to say, by this book and in this gospel the prophecy of Daniel about the coming of Christ, who is the holy of holies, is shown to be fulfilled. Therefore as of old to the Patriarch Jacob, so now to all Christians, His servants, He will give the science of saints [Proverbs 30:3], the knowledge of holy things; for His object is our sanctification, that we may serve him without fear: in holiness and justice before him, all our days (Luke 1:74–75). Furthermore, how admirable the holiness and perfection of the gospels are, and how much they surpass the law of nature and Mosaic law, is clear from the celestial precepts and counsels that Christ establishes in Matthew, chapters 5, 6 and 7, and also from the lives of the saints in the New Testament. In them we can see how great was the zeal of S. Paul and the Apostles, how heavenly the life and the contemplation of the hermits and religious, how indomitable the fortitude of the martyrs, how angelic the purity of the virgins, how heroic the labors of the holy confessors, bishops, pontiffs, etc.

Jesus Christ. Jesus is the proper name of the incarnate Word, that is, of this man united hypostatically to the Word, just as my proper name is “Cornelius”, and the names of other men are “Peter”, “Paul”, “James”, etc. Jesus is pronounced in Hebrew עשוהי, Jehoscua, which is abbreviated to עושי, Jescua, that is “Savior”, because, as the Archangel Gabriel predicted, He shall save his people from their sins (Matth. 1:21; Luke 1:31).

Christ, on the other hand, is the name of an office and dignity. Jesus is surnamed in Hebrew חישמ, Messias; in Greek, χριστός; in Latin, Unctus, for He was anointed and consecrated by God the Father to be the supreme Pontiff, King, Lawgiver, Prophet and Doctor in the whole world.

Gospel, in Greek Evangel, means “good news”. ἀγγέλλω is Greek for “I announce,” hence ἄγγελλος is “news”; εὐαγγέλλω is “I announce good things,” εὐάγγελλος and εὐαγγελιστὴς mean “good angel” or “joyful messenger,” and εὐαγγέλιον means “joyful and glad tidings”. So, S. Chrysostom. See Budaeus (in Pandectas), where he adds that evangel, by metonymy, signifies a donation, or an offering given for good news. Thus Cicero writes to Atticus, “O, thy sweet letters, for which I confess I owe Evangelia!” that is, a reward for good tidings. In Hebrew, Gospel is called הרושב besorah, from רשב basar, “flesh,” because besorah is the most joyful tidings of the Word “being made flesh” and of salvation and eternal happiness, which Christ the Lord brought to men like a messenger of a great plan. Now evangel is used metonymically for the book or the writing which historically narrates this message.

According to Matthew. The words, according to, denote 1. That the first and principle Author of this gospel is the Holy Spirit, and that the secondary author was S. Matthew. For the latter was, as it were, the organ, instrument, and pen of the Holy Spirit, writing those things which the Holy Ghost dictated to him, according to the words in the forty-fourth Psalm, My tongue is the pen of a Scrivener that writeth swiftly.

2. According to denotes that the gospel is one and the same, but was written in four different ways by four evangelists. Therefore “according to” indicates that the Gospel of S. Matthew is not another gospel than that of SS. 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. The gospel is one, but it was written by four evangelists in a four-fold manner, order and style.

3. It signifies that the Holy Ghost accommodated Himself to the nature and temperament of S. Matthew. The Holy Ghost illuminated, stirred him up, and directed him, so as to write the things which he had partly witnessed himself or had heard from the other Apostles, and those which God had revealed to him, in such a method, order and style, in such a way of thinking and of speaking as would befit the genius and character of S. Matthew. For there was no need of a fresh revelation from God for such things as Matthew already knew, by seeing or hearing them, but only of assistance, prompting and direction of the Holy Spirit, lest through forgetfulness, misunderstanding, or any other human infirmity, he should err from the truth even in the very slightest point, or write anything else, or in any different manner from what the Holy Spirit willed. Hence S. Luke says at the beginning of his gospel that he is writing the things that he had heard from the Apostles. For this reason, on the other hand, the style, the phrasing and the method of S. Luke is different from that of S. Matthew, S. Mark or S. John, as each one has his own way of speaking and writing.

Some are of the opinion that this title was prefixed to his gospel by S. Matthew himself, as were also the titles of S. Mark, S. Luke and S. John by those evangelists. For thus the prophets prefixed their names to their prophecies, as the vision of Isaias, the vision of Abdias, the words of Jeremias, etc.

Yet it is far more probable that the title of each gospel was attached to it, not by the evangelist himself, but by the Church. The similarity of the titles indicates that such was the case. The inscription or title of each gospel, in fact, is the same, the only change in each case being in the name of the evangelist who composed it. The title of the Syriac gospel is an even clearer indication that it was so: “In power of the Lord, and of our God, Jesus Christ, we begin to write the book of the most sacred Evangel, the first gospel, the preaching of Matai [Matthew].” The Arabic version also begins this way. And from this you may glean an irrefutable argument for the authority of traditions, that holy scripture does not suffice for building up the true Faith and morals of the Church, but that there is a further need for apostolic traditions. This is one of the false negations of the heretics. For tell me, if you please, from what source do you know that this is the gospel of S. Matthew, and canonical scripture—and that the gospels of Thomas, of Barnabas, and the twelve Apostles, which were formerly in circulation, are not canonical scripture—except from the Tradition, the mind and the consensus of the Church? For many books have false titles, and are erroneously attributed to other authors, as is plain in the works of S. Augustine, S. Jerome, S. Cyprian, S. Prosper and other fathers. In the same way some gospels contrived by the heretics were inscribed with the names of S. Bartholomew, S. Thomas, S. Barnabas, etc. By the same craft and deceit they might have ascribed a false gospel to S. Matthew, as in fact the Gnostics did, when they changed and corrupted S. Matthew’s gospel by their additions. In order, therefore, that we may be sure that this book is rightly ascribed to S. Matthew, and furthermore that the entire gospel really was dictated by the Holy Ghost, there must be the declaration and definition of the Church, which distinguishes this book from apocryphal writings, and discerns that it is canonical. Hence, S. Augustine, in his book Against the Epistle of Mani (chapter 4), which they call Fundamenti, wisely says, “I would not believe the gospel, unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me to do so.” Not because the authority of the Church is worthier or greater than that of holy scripture—for scripture is the word and the oracle of God Himself—but because it is the office of the Church to separate what is truly sacred scripture from what is false and spurious, and to explain its true sense and meaning. “When, therefore, we say,” says a weighty author, “that the evangelists and other sacred writers have authority from the Catholic Church, according to the sense in which we say it, no one has a right to be offended, as if we set the Church before God. For in saying that the Church confers authority upon the Scriptures, we mean that she declares them to be given by God, and affirms that they have been dictated by Him. Do they prefer the servant to his master, who says, as is commonly done, that the king’s letters have the chancellor’s authority, because he has attached the great seal to them? But the Church truly has the Seal of God, that is, the Spirit Himself, who was promised and has been given to the Church, that He may abide with her for ever. The Spirit recognizes His own handwriting. He it is who first dictated these four gospels; then He declared to us, by the Church, that He had dictated them.”

Matthew. S. Matthew, who was called by Christ from tax-collecting to the apostolate (Matth. 9), was the first to write a gospel. Hence S. Peter Damian, in his sermon on S. Matthew, praises him in these words: “Amongst the greatest saints who through their triumph over the world have carried their titles of victory into celestial glory, Blessed Matthew seems to me especially remarkable and famous, and to obtain a certain primacy of dignity amongst them. To speak more plainly, there is no one after Christ to whom, as it appears to me, the holy Church Universal is more indebted. For this is the cause of the life of the world, that the gospel light has shone upon us.” For, as the same author adds, “Like a captain, he carried a standard for his followers, and by his example stirred them up to write.” Cajetan and the Anabaptists are of the opinion that S. Matthew wrote in Greek, because Hebrew words are translated into Greek, such as Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us (Matth. 1:23); Eli, Eli; lama sabachthani, that is, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Matth. 27:46). Nevertheless, these interpretations were added by the Greek translator. S. Jerome, S. Augustine, Eusebius, and the rest of the fathers unanimously declare that S. Matthew wrote in Hebrew, and that he did so because he was asked by the Jews, when he was going away amongst the gentiles, to leave them in writing what he had orally preached to them. This is asserted by S. Chrysostom (in loco, homil. 1) and, following him, Euthymius, and S. Jerome (de Scrip. Eccl. in Matthaeo), and Eusebius in his History, book 3, chapter 18. The Auctor Imperfecti adds in his preface, “The cause which drove S. Matthew to write his gospel was this: at a time of severe persecution in Palestine, when all were in danger of being dispersed, in order that if the disciples were deprived of teachers of the Faith, they might not be deprived of teaching, they asked Matthew to write them a history of all the words and deeds of Christ, that wherever they might be, they might have with them a statement of all that they believed.” When S. Bartholomew was about to travel to India, he carried the gospel compiled by S. Matthew with him, as Eusebius testifies in his History, book 5, chapter 10, and also S. Jerome (de Script. Eccles. in Pantaeno). S. Barnabas brought to Cyprus a copy which he had written out in his own hand, as I said at the beginning. S. Jerome, in the passage already cited from his commentary on Matthew, claims that he had seen the latter’s gospel written in Hebrew at Cæsarea in the library of S. Pamphilus the Martyr, and from it had transcribed his own copy. The Hebrew text of S. Matthew, however, is now lost. For what Sebastian Munster, an unfrocked apostate, has foisted upon us, as though received from the Jews by honorable and learned men, is actually suspected to have been falsified by the heretical author and by Jewish traitors, and has besides an offensive odor of spuriousness. Indeed, it follows the Greek text word-for-word and it imitates and affects Hebraisms much too slavishly. Furthermore, it has many words and phrases that are not Hebrew but rather exotic and rabbinical—or should we say solecisms and barbarisms. Finally, there are various scholarly disputes about his none-too-faithful translation, according to the Catholic authority, Gretser.

S. Matthew wrote a gospel in Hebrew at the bidding of the Apostles, says S. Epiphanius (haeresi 51), in the same year that the Apostles took counsel about dispersing, that they might go to the gentiles. This was in the year 37 after the birth of Christ, the fourth from the passion, as I showed in the chronology that I prefaced to the Acts of the Apostles. Less probable, therefore, is the opinion of Baronius, that Matthew wrote in A.D. 41. Still less probable is what S. Irenaeus says (lib. 3 cap. 1), that he wrote this gospel at the time when SS. Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome. For S. Peter did not come to Rome before the second year of the Emperor Claudius, and S. Paul no earlier than the third year of Nero. Whence it would follow that S. Matthew did not write until the eighteenth or twentieth year after Christ’s ascension into heaven, which is evidently untrue.

Moreover, the gospel, which S. Matthew wrote in Hebrew, was immediately translated into Greek, seeing that this language was more popular and widespread among the peoples to whom the Apostles were to go. This was done either by S. Matthew himself, or by S. John, S. James or some such person. Hence S. Athanasius, in his Synopsis of Holy Scripture, says, “Matthew’s Gospel was written by Matthew in the Hebrew dialect, published at Jerusalem, and a translation was made by James, the brother of the Lord.” But Theophylact, in his preface to the gospel says, “John, it is reported, translated this gospel out of Hebrew into Greek.” There are others who think that the Apostle Barnabas translated Matthew’s Gospel from Hebrew into Greek, among them Sixtus Senensis. But Anastasius of Sinai (Patriarch of Antioch) says (lib. 8 Hexameron) that Luke and Paul rendered this same gospel into Greek. The Syriac version of S. Matthew was certainly translated not from the Hebrew, but from the Greek, as is evident from a comparison of the two texts. S. Jerome also, when by the command of S. Damasus he corrected [the Latin translation of] the four gospels, among them the Gospel of S. Matthew, corrected them according to the Greek text rather than the Hebrew, and to conform to the Greek faith, as he says to Damasus in his preface to the gospels. Note there, too, that when S. Jerome, at the bidding of Damasus, translated the Old Testament out of Hebrew into Latin, he did not translate afresh the New Testament, but brought the existing translation into accordance with the Greek original. Therefore the translator of the New Testament was not S. Jerome, but someone much earlier than he, though less of a Latinist, as is plain to every reader. No wonder, then, that repeatedly in his commentaries S. Jerome renders passages in a manner different from that unknown translator.

For this reason the Latin text of S. Matthew’s Gospel, and also of S. Mark’s, in the Vulgate edition, seems to be translated not from Hebrew but from Greek, as Bellarmine eloquently affirms (lib. de Scriptor. Eccles. in Matth.; cf. Franz Lukas, praefat. in Marcum), and it is clearly evident when the Greek text is compared with the Latin, that the latter is based upon the former. (See also Bellarmine, lib. 2 de Verbo Dei, c. 7). Then Athanasius (loc. cit.) holds that Matthew’s Gospel was translated into the Greek language by the Apostle James; but others attribute this translation to John the Apostle, and others to Matthew himself. But, whoever made it, this translation was received as though Matthew’s Gospel had first been written in that language. For these reasons we have little need for the Hebrew gospel published by Munster, nor for the one that was edited not long ago by Johann Tilly, in which there are many omissions and much that is superfluous, and wherein not a few changes can be discerned; God knows whether it might not have been made to undermine faith in the Greek and Latin versions, evidently through the cleverness of the Jews, at whose promptings this gospel was brought forth. At any rate, when S. Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, he appears to have followed the Hebrew original in citing passages from the Old Testament, says S. Jerome (de Scrip. Eccles. in Matth.). But the Greek translator has preferred to cite them in his Greek translation from the Greek Septuagint version, as being better known to the gentiles.

Whether S. Matthew wrote in pure Hebrew, such as that of Moses and the prophets, or in the corrupt Hebrew current after the Babylonian captivity, called Syriac [or Aramaic], is not known. It is certain that the Jews in the time of Christ did not speak pure Hebrew; Syriac was their vernacular. Hence Johann Albrecht Widmanstetter [= Albertus Widmanstadius], who first edited the Syriac New Testament, and Guido Faber [= Vitus Fabricius], who translated it into Latin, think that the Syriac version is S. Matthew’s original. Thus Matthaeus Galenus, chancellor of the [Irish] diocese of Duacen (praefat. in Epistolam S. Pauli ad Hebraeos) contends that the Syriac text of that epistle found in the royal library was S. Paul’s own manuscript. To be sure, this is not very likely. The other New Testament writings exist in Syriac, translated from the Greek; it seems that one and all were by the same translator. This is evident from the fact that the Hebrew words that are cited in the Greek original are different from the [corresponding] Syriac words now found in the Syriac version of S. Matthew. Now Matthew 27:8, for the Hebrew term haceldama, glosses “field of blood”; the Syriac, on the other hand, has aguresca dema, which is clearly Hellenized, for from ἀγρός, that is, “field,” it forms the word aguresca. Similarly, for the Hebrew word Cephas it has Kypho; for Eli, Eli it translates Il, Il, that is, God, God, without “my,” which is included in Eli (Matth. 27:46). For Golgotha it has Golgoulto; for “Jacob”, Jaacoub; for “Joseph”, Jauseph, and so on; consistently giving different forms for other Hebrew words found in the Greek and Latin; not to mention the fact that it includes Syriac forms of Greek words, turning βουλευτής, i.e., “counsellor,” into buleuta (Mark 15:43), etc.

The Syrians think that the translator of the New Testament from Greek into their language was S. Mark the Evangelist. But it is difficult to believe this, for both the Cyrils, Clement of Alexandria, S. Athanasius and Damascene, Theodoret, S. Ephrem, and others, who lived and wrote either in Syria, or else in nearby Egypt, make no mention of it. I may add that the version has several untoward things that are little pleasing to learned men. It seems, therefore that this Syriac translator lived at a later time than the fathers just named. One good point about him, however, is that he favored the Catholics over the heretics, for in his chapter headings he often mentions fasts, vigils, feasts, the invocation of saints, etc.

As for the partitioning of the book, the Gospel of S. Matthew has been divided by various editors into sections. By the ancient Latin Church, according to S. Hilary’s arrangement, it was divided into 33 canons: by others, it was partitioned into 67 canons. By the later Latins it is divided into 28 chapters. By the Greeks, according to Euthymius, it was divided into 68 chapters; according to Suidas into 68 titles, and 355 chapters. Similarly, Ammonius and Eusebius partition it into 355 chapters.

Lastly, S. Matthew is preeminent amongst the evangelists in the following respects: 1. He was the first to publish a gospel; hence he earnestly relates all things fully, says S. Chrysostom (hom. 4 in Matth.). Wherefore Tertullian (lib. de Carne Christi, cap. 22) calls him, “that most faithful exponent of the gospel.”

2. Because he dwells upon Christ’s regal dignity more than the others. Thus S. Augustine, Bede, Peter Damian, Rupert, et al.

3. Because by a divine revelation to the heart of S. Barnabas, his Hebrew gospel was found during the reign of the Emperor Zeno; on the other hand, it was subsequently destroyed by the ravages of time. Wherefore Pope Nicholas V promised 5,000 ducats to anyone who would bring him a copy of the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew, as Johann Ecken [= Joannes Eckius] writes (Lutheromast. homil. de S. Matth.).

4. Because S. Matthew was “the Apostle of Ethiopia, and the victim of virginity.” He was slain by King Hirtacus, because he was not willing that Iphigenia, the daughter of the king of Ethiopia, who had consecrated her virginity to God, should be given him as his wife.

5. Because S. Matthew, who was perfectly conversant with business affairs (for he was in charge of collecting taxes), was converted to Christ, not by seeing His miracles, not by hearing His preaching, says S. Chrysostom, but by a single word, Follow Me. Obeying this with the utmost promptitude, he was straightway changed into another man, even into an Apostle, so that he left his booth, his work, his family, etc., and followed Christ and put on His way of life. I may add, that after this he never left Christ, but was a beholder and a witness of His signs and wonders, an imitator of His life, a companion of His journeys, and a partaker of His labors, cares and griefs, and thus was conversant with Him during the whole period of His earthly ministry, being numbered among the chief disciples while progressing in virtue with time.

Matthew means in Hebrew, “given”, as Origen and Isidore say (lib. 7 Etymol. cap. 9), or “a gift”, as Pagninus thinks—from ןתמ matthan, a “gift”. Anastasius of Antioch (lib. 8, Hexameron) gives a different interpretation (I do not know whence it is derived). He says, “Matthew means the command of the Most High.” S. Gregory makes the following remarks about him (18 moral. c. 16, commenting on Job 28): “Iron is taken out of the earth. Was not Matthew found in the earth, when he was involved in worldly business, and served the customs’ board? But when he was taken out of the earth, he gained the strength of iron. For by his tongue, as by a most sharp sword, and by the ministry of the gospel [entrusted to him], the Lord transfixed the hearts of unbelievers. And he who once had been despised because of his worldly dealings, was made strong afterward for heavenly proclamations.” Clement of Alexandria (Paedag. lib. 2, c. 1) wrote of this evangelist that he was not accustomed to eat flesh, but to live on seeds, berries and herbs.

I pass over what Abdias wrote (lib. 3 Histor. Apostol.), that Matthew on account of the gospel that he was preaching to the Myrmidons, had his eyes put out by those idolaters, but that his sight was restored to him by S. Andrew the Apostle at the bidding of an angel. Or that S. Matthew, by divine intervention, surpassed the two magicians Zaroen and Arphaxat, and many other things; for this Abdias is an apocryphal writer. You may consult Surius, Baronius, [Pedro de] Ribadeneira [S.J.], John de le Haye (in Apparatu Evangel. cap. 45 et seq.), and several other writers for further particulars about S. Matthew. Finally, note that S. Matthew made himself known to S. Birgitta [Bridget of Sweden], when she was praying at his tomb in the city of Malphi (lib. 1 Revel. cap. 229), and said to her, “When I was writing it [the gospel], so inflamed was I with a continual divine ardor, that even if I had wished to keep silence, I could not have willed it, because of that intense heat.”