Page:EB1911 - Volume 17.djvu/917

 the work of Jesus while on earth see xv. 24 (and note  in verse 22, which implies that Jesus had not himself entered the heathen borders), and for a similar rule prescribed to the disciples, x. 5, 6 and 23.

The rejection of Jesus by the people in Galilee, xi. 21; xiii. 13–15, and by the heads of “the nation,” xxvi. 3, 47 and by “the whole nation,” xxvii. 25; their condemnation xxiii. 38.

Mercy to the Gentiles and the punishment of “the sons of the kingdom” is foretold viii. 11, 12. The commission to go and convert Gentile peoples ( ) is given after Christ’s resurrection (xxviii. 19).

(b) The Fulfilment of Prophecy.—In the birth and childhood of Jesus, i. 23; ii. 6, 15, 18, 23. By these citations attention is drawn to the lowliness of the beginnings of the Saviour’s life, the unexpected and secret manner of His appearing, the dangers to which from the first He was exposed and from which He escaped.

The ministry of Christ’s forerunner, iii. 3. (The same prophecy, Isa. xl. 3, is also quoted in the other Gospels.)

The ministry of Jesus. The quotations serve to bring out the significance of important events, especially such as were turning-points, and also to mark the broad features of Christ’s life and work, iv. 15, 16; viii. 17; xii. 18 seq.; xiii. 35; xxi. 5; xxvii. 9.

(c) The Teaching on the Kingdom of God.—Note the collection of parables “of the Kingdom” in xiii.; also the use of  (“the Kingdom”) without further definition as a term the reference of which could not be misunderstood, especially in the following phrases peculiar to this Gospel:  (“the Gospel of the Kingdom”) iv. 23, ix. 35, xxiv. 14; and  (“the word of the kingdom”) xiii. 19. The following descriptions of the kingdom, peculiar to this Gospel, are also interesting  (“the kingdom of their father”) xiii. 43 and (“of my father”) xxvi. 29.

(d) The Relation of the New Law to the Old.—Verses 17-48, cf. also, addition at xxii. 40 and xix. 19b. Further, his use of  (“righteousness”) and  (“righteous”) (specially frequent in this Gospel) is such as to connect the New with the Old; the standard in mind is the law which “fulfilled” that previously given.

(e) The Christian Ecclesia.—Chap. xvi. 18, xviii. 17.

(f) The Messianic Dignity and Glory of Jesus.—The narrative in i. and ii. show the royalty of the new-born child. The title “Son of David” occurs with special frequency in this Gospel. The following instances are without parallels in the other Gospels: ix. 27; xii. 23; xv. 22; xxi. 9; xxi. 15. The title “Son of God” is also used with somewhat greater frequency than in Mark and Luke: ii. 15; xiv. 33; xvi. 16; xxii. 2 seq. (where it is implied); xxvii. 40, 43.

The thought of the future coming of Christ, and in particular of the judgment to be executed by Him then, is much more prominent in this Gospel than in the others. Some of the following predictions are peculiar to it, while in several others there are additional touches: vii. 22, 23; x. 23, 32, 33; xiii. 39-43; xvi. 27, 28; xix. 28; xxiv. 3, 27, 30, 31, 37, 39; xxv. 31-46; xxvi. 64.

The majesty of Christ is also impressed upon us by the signs at His crucifixion, some of which are related only in this Gospel, xxvii. 51–53, and by the sublime vision of the Risen Christ at the close, xxviii. 16-20.

(5) Time of Composition and Readers addressed.—The signs of dogmatic reflection in this Gospel point to its having been composed somewhat late in the 1st century, probably after Luke’s Gospel, and this is in accord with the conclusion that some insertions had been made in the Marcan document used by this evangelist which were not in that used by Luke (see ). We may assign 80–100 as a probable time for the composition.

The author was in all probability a Jew by race, and he would seem to have addressed himself especially to Jewish readers; but they were Jews of the Dispersion. For although he was in specially close touch with Palestine, either personally or through the sources at his command, or both, his book was composed in Greek by the aid of Greek documents.

See commentaries by Th. Zahn (1903) and W. C. Allen (in the series of International Critical Commentaries, 1907); also books on the Four Gospels or the Synoptic Gospels cited at the end of.

MATTHEW CANTACUZENUS, Byzantine emperor, was the son of (q.v.). In return for the support he gave to his father during his struggle with John V. he was allowed to annex part of Thrace under his own dominion and in 1353 was proclaimed joint emperor. From his Thracian principality he levied several wars against the Servians. An attack which he prepared in 1350 was frustrated by the defection of his Turkish auxiliaries. In 1357 he was captured by his enemies, who delivered him to the rival emperor, John V. Compelled to abdicate, he withdrew to a monastery, where he busied himself with writing commentaries on the Scriptures.

MATTHEW OF PARIS (d. 1259), English monk and chronicler known to us only through his voluminous writings. In spite of his surname, and of his knowledge of the French language, his attitude towards foreigners attests that he was of English birth. He may have studied at Paris in his youth, but the earliest fact which he records of himself is his admission as a monk at St Albans in the year 1217. His life was mainly spent in this religious house. In 1248, however, he was sent to Norway as the bearer of a message from Louis IX. of France to Haakon VI.; he made himself so agreeable to the Norwegian sovereign that he was invited, a little later, to superintend the reformation of the Benedictine monastery of St Benet Holme at Trondhjem. Apart from these missions, his activities were devoted to the composition of history, a pursuit for which the monks of St Albans had long been famous. Matthew edited anew the works of Abbot John de Cella and Roger of Wendover, which in their altered form constitute the first part of his most important work, the Chronica majora. From 1235, the point at which Wendover dropped his pen, Matthew continued the history on the plan which his predecessors had followed. He derived much of his information from the letters of important personages, which he sometimes inserts, but much more from conversation with the eye-witnesses of events. Among his informants were Earl Richard of Cornwall and Henry III. With the latter he appears to have been on terms of intimacy. The king knew that Matthew was writing a history, and showed some anxiety that it should be as exact as possible. In 1257, in the course of a week’s visit to St Albans, Henry kept the chronicler beside him night and day, “and guided my pen,” says Paris, “with much good will and diligence.” It is therefore curious that the Chronica majora should give so unfavourable an account of the king’s policy. Luard supposes that Matthew never intended his work to see the light in its present form, and many passages of the autograph have against them the note offendiculum, which shows that the writer understood the danger which he ran. On the other hand, unexpurgated copies were made in Matthew’s lifetime; though the offending passages are duly omitted or softened in his abridgment of his longer work, the Historia Anglorum (written about 1253), the real sentiments of the author must have been an open secret. In any case there is no ground for the old theory that he was an official historiographer.

Matthew Paris was unfortunate in living at a time when English politics were peculiarly involved and tedious. His talent is for narrative and description. Though he took a keen interest in the personal side of politics he has no claim to be considered a judge of character. His appreciations of his contemporaries throw more light on his own prejudices than on their aims and ideas. His work is always vigorous, but he imputes motives in the spirit of a partisan who never pauses to weigh the evidence or to take a comprehensive view of the situation. His redeeming feature is his generous admiration for strength of character, even when it goes along with a policy of which he disapproves. Thus he praises Grosseteste, while he denounces Grosseteste’s scheme of monastic reform. Matthew is a vehement supporter of the monastic orders against their rivals, the secular clergy and the mendicant friars. He is violently opposed to the court and the foreign favourites. He despises the king as a statesman, though for the man he has some kindly feeling. The frankness with which he attacks the court of Rome for its exactions is remarkable; so, too, is the intense nationalism which he displays in dealing with this topic. His faults of presentment are more often due to carelessness and narrow views than to deliberate purpose. But he is sometimes guilty of inserting rhetorical speeches which are not only fictitious, but also misleading as an account of the speaker’s sentiments. In other cases he tampers with the documents which he inserts (as, for instance, with the text of Magna Carta). His chronology is, for a contemporary, inexact; and he occasionally inserts duplicate versions of the same incident in different places. Hence he must always be rigorously checked where other authorities exist and used with caution where he is our sole informant. None the less, he gives a more vivid impression of his age than any other English chronicler; and it is a matter for regret that his great history breaks off in 1259, on the eve of the crowning struggle between Henry III and the baronage.

.—The relation of Matthew Paris’s work to those of John de Cella and Roger of Wendover may best be studied in H. R. Luard’s edition of the Chronica majora (7 vols., Rolls series, 1872–1883), which contains valuable prefaces. The Historia