MATTHEW, Gospel According to. The Gospel with which the name of Matthew has uniformly been associated has with almost equal uniformity stood first in the gospel canon. It received this place both because it is the longest of the Gospels and because of the apostolic authority which the name of Matthew save to but the place is fitting also because it relates itself more closely to the Old Testa ment than does any other gospel.
Contents.—As respects the events recorded, they are much the same as those given in Mark and Luke, and are arranged in substantially the same order. The book may be briefly analyzed somewhat as follows: Introductory, genealogy, birth and infancy of Jesus, ministry of John the Baptist, baptism and temptation of Jesus, 1-iv, 11. I. Early Galilean ministry (iv. 12 xii, 50). II. Later ministry in Galilee and neighborhood, and the Perean journey (xiii, 1-xx, 34). III. Entry of Jesus into Jerusalem and his teaching there, mainly controversial (xxi, 1-xxiii, 39). IV. Eschatological dis course (xxiv, 1-xxv, 46). V. Closing scenes, anointing at Bethany, last supper, agony in Geth semane, trial, crucifixion, death and resurrec tion (xxvi, 1-xxviii, 20). In addition to the story of events and many brief reports of say ings of Jesus, this Gospel is marked by a cycle of five long discourses, each followed by a urn form formula, "It came to pass when Jesus finished.' These discourses are "The Sermon on the Mount" (v, 1-vii, 27) ; the "Address to the Apostles' (x, 5-42) ; the collection of ((Kingdom Parables* (xiii, 1-52) ; the "Dis course on Humility and Forgiveness* (xviii, 1-35) ; and the "Apocalyptic Discourse' (xxiv, 4-xxv, 46). While it need not be doubted that Jesus spoke at length on each of the occasions with which these discourses are connected, it is commonly held, especially in view of the somewhat parallel reports in Luke, that the author has gathered sayings spoken at various times and grouped them into what may be called ((bouquets" of discourse, uniting them, not on the ground that all were spoken on the same occasion, but rather according to a logi cal association of ideas. This Gospel is also characterized by an arrangement of material in groups of threes, fives or sevens, presumably to aid the memory. Some 40 triplets have been named, e.g., the genealogy is arranged in three groups of 14 generations each, in chapters yin and ix there are three miracles of power, fol lowed by three of restoration, there are given three prayers in Gethsemane, etc. Groupings by five and seven are not so common but occur often enough to deserve note as a striking characteristic of this book.
Purpose.— The purpose of the author plainly was to confirm Jewish Christians in their belief that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah long foretold by the prophets and ex pected by his nation. This is strikingly shown
by the many references to the Old Testament which is cited no less than 40 times, often with the formal statement "that it might be ful filled." The frequent use of the title "Son of David,* as well as the genealogy which is traced back to Abraham through the royal line of David, the declaration in the Sermon on the Mount of his right to legislate parallel to the original gift of the Divine law through Moses, the assertion that the kingdom would be taken from the Jews and given to others and the grief over Jerusalem, the picture of himself as the judge at the Final Judgment, these claims in addition to the claims of Messiah ship found in the other Gospels and culminating in the declaration of the Risen Christ that all authority in heaven and earth alike is his, all this abundantly proves that the object of the author was to show that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah and that all the Divine promises were to be fulfilled, not for the na tion at large which had rejected him, but for his followers, because they had accepted him..
Sources.— Careful comparison of the first Gospel with the second shows that the order of events is substantially the same in both and that almost every paragraph of Mark is re produced in Matthew, the exceptions being only seven brief paragraphs of at most less than 35 verses. As the theory that Mark is an abbreviation of Matthew has proved untenable, it follows that Matthew must be in some way dependent on the material of Mark : the re semblance is too close to permit the supposi tion that both drew from some independent document. But while the source of Matthew must have corresponded in general very closely to the present form of our Mark, yet this con tains so much of picturesque detail which is not reproduced in Matthew that it cannot rea sonably be held that Mark as we now have it was the source in question. How to account for this difference is still a problem of criti cism. It is generally held that there may also be traced in Matthew a second main source, sometimes called the "Logia" document, some times °Q." (See article GOSPELS). In addition, there is some material which cannot reason ably he traced to either of the two main sources, as the genealogy and the infancy narratives, but it is impossible now to trace the origin and extent of these special sources. This fact need not, however, impair our sense of their trust worthiness. It may also be noted that it is not reasonable to hold that the author of this book was a mere copyist who kept slavishly to the exact form of any written sources which lay before him.