Matthew is probably best known as the author of the first Gospel. Given how central this Gospel has been historically and theologically, it may come as a surprise to many that Matthew is among the apostles of Jesus whom scholars know the least about. One author even refers to him as the “phantom apostle.”1 However, Edgar J. Goodspeed claims that more is known more about Matthew than any of the other apostles, except possibly Peter.2 While this is likely an overstatement, there is some information about the life and travels of Matthew that enables the critical scholar to make a reasonable inference about the manner of his fate.
Matthew is one of the only apostles for whom there is an account of his call from Jesus (Matt 9:9). While Matthew’s response to the call may seem sudden, he was likely familiar with Jesus, and had possibly even heard him teach on various occasions. His willingness to follow Jesus also demonstrated a great deal of faith. While fishermen could quite easily go back to their fishing business, Matthew gave up a high-paying job. After all, who would hire a former tax collector?
When Matthew received the call to follow Jesus, he was living and working in Capernaum, the home town of Peter, James, and John. Mark refers to him as “Levi the son of Alphaeus,” which is probably another name for Matthew (Mark 2:14).3 If this identification is correct, Matthew was likely a Levite, and would have been familiar with Jewish law and customs. He would also have been the brother of James, son of Alphaeus, another member of the Twelve. Regardless, Matthew was certainly a Jew. He was undoubtedly familiar with Jewish traditions and Scripture, and this is reflected in his Gospel.4
His name, from the Aramaic mattai, is a shortened form of the Hebrew mattanyâ, meaning “gift of Yahweh.”5 Twice Matthew appears seventh in the list of apostles (Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15), and twice he appears eighth (Matt 10:3; Acts 1:13). The Bible and early church history offer no physical description for Matthew. But Clement of Alexandria suggests he was a vegetarian who ate seeds, nuts, and vegetables.6
As a tax collector, Matthew was in the service of Herod Antipas, and so knew at least Greek and Aramaic—he would have spoken Aramaic and kept records in Greek. He would be required to keep written records of the money he collected, and possibly even knew shorthand.7 Thus, Matthew must have had some formal education and training. Since he was employed through an unpopular government, which was sanctioned by Rome, he would have been profoundly resented and hated by patriotic Jews and the general populace.
R.T. France provides key insights as to the significance of Jesus choosing Matthew:
For Jesus to call such a man to follow him was a daring breach of etiquette, a calculated snub to conventional ideas of respectability, which ordinary people no less than Pharisees might be expected to baulk at. Fishermen may not have been high in the social scale, but at least they were not automatically morally and religiously suspect; Matthew was. Almost as remarkable as Jesus’ decision to call him is Matthew’s confident response; he does not seem to have felt uncomfortable at being included in a preacher’s entourage, though we are not told what the other disciples thought.8
Immediately after his call to discipleship, Matthew had Jesus over for dinner along with many other tax collectors and sinners (Mark 2:15). But when the Pharisees saw that he was reclining with such unsavory company, they protested to his disciples. When Jesus heard this, he replied: “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17). A feast of this sort would likely minimally require a decent-sized home, so Matthew may have been a man of considerable financial means.9
While a significant minority of scholars accept Matthean authorship for the first Gospel, the majority reject it—a principal reason being that the author of Matthew seems so closely to follow Markan material.10 Yet Michael Wilkins observes: “But if Matthew did have access to Mark’s Gospel, he would have known that Peter’s apostolic reminiscences lay behind Mark’s text, ensuring that Mark’s Gospel was reliable and a ready source for reinforcing his own reminiscences about the life and works of Jesus Christ.”11 Wilkins also provides positive evidence for Matthean authorship of the first Gospel.12 And Goodspeed offers internal evidence as well.13 Nevertheless, even some conservative scholars remain tentative regarding the conclusions.14
Eusebius reports that Matthew first preached to the Hebrews, then planned to go to other places as well.15 It is not clear whether this was to Jews in Judea, those in the diaspora, or to both. Jerome confirms that Matthew was in Judea.16 The church historian Socrates (born c. AD 379) reports that Matthew received the lot to go to Ethiopia.17 Hippolytus on the Twelve places his fate in Hierees, Parthia. The Acts of Andrew has Matthew in Mermidona. Other traditions place him in Persia and Macedonia.18 With such a variety of traditions regarding Matthew’s itinerary, none falling within the window of living memory, we move cautiously, with exceeding difficulty, between legend and history. We have little reason to doubt that Matthew spent at least some time ministering in Palestine, as the earliest traditions report, but where else did he go? Thomas Schmidt suggests the traditions describing him in Ethiopia and Egypt may be the most reliable:
The Nile was a convenient highway, there were land and sea routes into Arabia, and there were Jewish settlements throughout the region. Apostles could have traveled south beyond the borders of the empire just as they (more certainly) traveled to other compass points. The story of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:27–39) supports at least an awareness of the region and, perhaps, a connection to it through this early convert. Together, these factors support at least the possibility of an apostolic journey far up the Nile. Since Matthew is the only one of the Twelve with any traditional connection to the area; and since he is not strongly connected anywhere else, this account designates him the southernmost apostolic missionary.19
This rendition is certainly plausible, although it is difficult to determine its level of probability. The existence of seemingly distinct traditions of his sojourn to Ethiopia does count in its favor. Ruffin agrees, noting the lack of any reference of Matthew by Paul, which may suggest Matthew’s sphere of activity was not in the Mediterranean.20
It is undoubtedly difficult to ascertain which missionary traditions are history and which are legend. Nevertheless, the consistent testimony of the patristic evidence is that Matthew ministered in Judea for a while, then went forth proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We have no good reason to doubt that Matthew took seriously the last words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospel by his name: “And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’” (Matt 28:18–19). And as with the other apostles, Matthew was an eyewitness of the risen Jesus (Matt 28:16–17; Luke 24:36–49; John 20:19–23, 26–29; Acts 1:3) and was willing to suffer for his faith (Acts 5:17–32).
As with many of the other apostles, scholars differ in their assessment of the reliability of the martyrdom accounts of Matthew. When we look for ourselves and examine the evidence, we find that different traditions surround the fate of Matthew. According to Hippolytus on the Twelve, Matthew published his Hebrew Gospel in Jerusalem, then traveled to Parthia, where he “fell asleep.” Given that Hippolytus cites the crucifixion of Peter, beheading of Paul, stoning of James, and the specific methods of execution for many of the other apostles, it seems likely he believed that Matthew died naturally, which is the most straightforward way to understand the passage. The entry in Isidore of Seville’s De ortu et obitu patrum concurs that Matthew faced a natural death: “He preached the gospel first in Judea, and after that in Macedonia. He has his resting place in the mountains of the land of the Parthians.”21
Yet numerous traditions report that Matthew died as a martyr. According to the fifth-century Hieronymian Martyrology, Matthew was martyred in the town of Tarrium, Persia.22 Other medieval apostolic lists name Matthew as a martyr as well. For instance, the entry for Matthew in the Breviarium Apostolorum (c. AD 600) says: “He first preached the gospel in Judea, and after that in Macedonia, and he suffered martyrdom in Persia.”23
Another account is found in the Martyrdom of Matthew, which was probably based on the Apocryphal Acts of Andrew and Matthias.24 The story begins with Jesus appearing to the apostles in the form of a child. Matthew cannot recognize him, and simply assumes he is one of the children King Herod murdered in Bethlehem. Interestingly, Matthew is the only Gospel that records this story (Matt 2:16–18). After their commission, Matthew goes to Myrna, the city of man-eaters, to preach. While no record exists of a city called Myrna, there was a city called Myra not far from Ephesus.25 Many people were converted, including many in the royal family, but King Phulbanus became upset when Matthew would not stop, so he ordered him burned to death. He sent soldiers, who captured Matthew and aimed to torture him to death with oil, brimstone, asphalt, and pitch. Matthew was temporarily spared from the flames, which destroyed 12 idols, killed many soldiers, and turned into a dragon that chased the king until he returned to Matthew pleading for help. Matthew eventually “gave up the ghost” by his own volition and then returned to life before ascending to heaven with two angels.
Another tradition reports the martyrdom of Matthew in Parthia.26 According to this tradition, Matthew travels to the city of Apayanno, where he preaches and heals many. He meets a man who was thrown in jail when the ship he was guiding crashed and he lost all the possessions of the owner. Feeling compassion, Matthew let him out of prison for two days and guided him to find a bag of gold that he could use to repay his debt. But after he brought the money to the ship owner, he was accused of stealing the money, and Matthew was summoned to give an account before the king. The king was profoundly angry with Matthew, and had his guards behead him and leave his body upon the ground so the birds could eat it.
Another tradition, from Book VII of the Latin Pseudo-Abdias, places Matthew in Naddaver, a city in Ethiopia, during the reign of King Aeglippus.27 Matthew counteracted two magicians, performed many miracles, preached the Gospel, and built a massive church for the converts. The new king, Hirtacus, desired Matthew’s help to persuade Ephigenia to marry him, but Matthew objected and proclaimed such an act sacrilege. Enraged, Hirtacus sent a soldier to pierce Matthew in the back while he prayed. Yet Matthew came back from the grave, Hirtacus committed suicide, and churches sprung up all throughout Ethiopia. The medieval martyrology of Hrabanus (9th century) offers a similar script: “When he had preached there [in Ethiopia] the word of God and converted many to the faith in Christ, at last a spy was sent by King Hirtacus, who killed him with a sword, thus making him a martyr of Christ.”28
The accounts of the journey and fate of Matthew vary so significantly that it may be tempting to dismiss them all as legendary. In one tradition Matthew dies peacefully, but in other traditions he is burned, beheaded, or stabbed to death. Yet there may in fact be a gem of truth in one or some of the traditions. Currently, while it may not be possible to determine with any confidence which of those traditions contain a historical core, it would be pretentious to dismiss them all as fabrications. Kraeling suggests the martyrdom accounts of Matthew were invented since so many Christians had died for their faith, and it became incredible than any apostle other than John died naturally.29 This may be true, but he should provide positive evidence to establish this as the most reasonable conclusion.
Analysis of the traditions surrounding the fate of Matthew reveals a few important insights. First, the earliest patristic sources mention nothing of his martyrdom. Neither Eusebius nor Jerome make any mention of the fate of Matthew, although they both mention his ministry in Palestine. This is admittedly an argument from silence, but it does raise the question of whether or not the tradition of his martyrdom existed or was known at this time. Thus, whether or not they contain a historical core, it must be acknowledged that the various martyrdom traditions for Matthew are late. No known traditions exist of the death of Matthew until roughly two centuries after the close of the period of living memory.
Second, there is widespread difference over how he died. According to various traditions, he died by burning, beheading with a sword, and stabbing with a spear. If there were agreement that Matthew died by execution, but disagreement about the method, then the issue of agreement might trump the particulars of how he died and reveal a historical core, but given the disagreement over whether or not he died peacefully or as a martyr, the disagreements over his method of execution are much more glaring.
Third, we have traditions that he died as a martyr as well as traditions that he died naturally. Unlike traditions of the fate of Peter or Paul, which unanimously indicate martyrdom in Rome, considerable disagreement exists as to whether or not Matthew died as a martyr. For instance, Hippolytus on the Twelve claims that Matthew “fell asleep” in Parthia, and the entry on Matthew in De ortu et obitu patrum seems to agree.
In the writings of Clement of Alexandria, we find one of the most frequently cited passages in favor of Matthew’s natural death. In The Stromata 4.9, Heracleon says:
That there is a confession by faith and conduct, and one with the voice. The confession that is made with the voice, and before the authorities, is what the most reckon the only confession. Not soundly: and hypocrites also can confess with this confession. But neither will this utterance be found to be spoken universally; for all the saved have confessed with the confession made by the voice, and departed. Of whom are Matthew, Philip, Thomas, Levi, and many others.30
Even though it is a minority position, many scholars take this passage as an indication these apostles did not die as martyrs, but experienced natural deaths.31
This interpretation, however, is less certain than many take it to be. First, it is not clear that the term “departed,”—undoubtedly a euphemism for death in this passage—requires a natural death, especially since the point is that all believers (“the saved”) have confessed and then died. However, among the departed could also be those who testified before rulers and then were killed for their faith subsequently, but not before a magistrate. Second, Clement separates Levi and Matthew, whom the Gospels seem to take as the same person, which raises the question of whether Clement is passing on a reliable tradition. Third, it may be that Clement cites Heracleon, but does not necessarily endorse his conclusion. Clement often jots down statements from various sources indiscriminately.32
Fourth, if this passage were in fact indicating martyrdom, it might be an outlier that does not necessarily undermine the rest of the tradition. In the case of Thomas, we have an equally early and widespread tradition that he went to India and died as a martyr. It would be difficult to conclude that one vague passage by Clement (Heracleon) overturns this entire tradition. If Clement is wrong about Thomas, it raises questions regarding his conclusions about Matthew and Philip as well. Fifth, why is John not mentioned? If Clement’s goal was to mention apostles who testify and stay faithful to the Gospel throughout their lives without dying as martyrs, then John would have been the perfect candidate. Furthermore, there is no straightforward way to take this passage that does not raise further unanswered questions. Elaine Pagels asks: “Is he [Clement] saying that martyrdom is fine for ordinary Christians, but not necessary for gnostics? Is he offering a rationale for gnostics to avoid martyrdom? If that is what he means, he avoids stating it directly: his comments remain ambiguous.”33
Sixth, in the same document where Pseudo-Hippolytus claims that Clement died naturally, he mentions that Philip died as a martyr.34 Therefore, either Pseudo-Hippolytus reports an entirely different tradition than Clement of Alexandria, or the passage in Clement does not indicate they died naturally. While some see this passage in Clement of Alexandria as evidence against martyrdom for Matthew, Philip, and Thomas, others see it as evidence for their martyrdom. The ambiguity of the passage leads me to consider it inconclusive.
Still, even if this interpretation is mistaken and Clement was reporting that Matthew died a natural death, Heracleon does indicate that the three apostles confessed Christ before the authorities and lived faithfully throughout their entire lives.35 Heracleon confirms they stayed faithful to the end and never recanted or wavered in their faith. The sincerity of their belief in the risen Jesus is substantiated either way. With this analysis in mind, the following probabilities seem most reasonable in regard to the missionary work and fate of Matthew:
1. Matthew engaged in missionary work outside Jerusalem—very probably true (Matt 28:18–20; Acts 1:8; Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 3.24; Jerome, On Illustrious Men 3.1; Socrates, The Ecclesiastical History 1.19; Hippolytus on the Twelve 7; The Acts of Andrew; other later traditions).
2. Matthew experienced martyrdom—as plausible as not (Hieronymian Martyrology; Breviarium Apostolorum; Martyrdom of Matthew; [Latin] Pseudo-Abdias; Contendings of the Apostles; earliest accounts in the fifth century; disagreement over martyrdom and natural death).
1 C. Bernard Ruffin, The Twelve: The Lives of the Apostles After Calvary (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 1997), 135.
2 Edgar J. Goodspeed, Matthew: Apostle and Evangelist (Philadelphia, PA: John C. Winston, 1959), 10.
3 It was common for Jews to have multiple names in the first century. See Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, The New American Commentary, vol. 22 (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1992), 155. Nevertheless, Bauckham has noted the “virtually unparalleled phenomenon” of a Palestinian Jew bearing two common Semitic names. Thus, he judges it “implausible” that Matthew and Levi refer to the same person. See Richard J. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006), 108–12.
4 William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, Baker New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 96.
5 Catholic University of America Staff, ed., New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 9 (Washington, DC: Catholic University Press, 2003), s.v. “Matthew, Apostle, St.,” by J.A. Lefrançois.
6 Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 2.1.
7 Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, 95.
8 R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 351–52.
9 Herbert Lockyer, All the Apostles of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1972), 121–22.
10 For instance, see Luz Ulrich, Matthew 1–7: A Commentary on Matthew 1–7, ed. H. Koester, trans. James E. Crouch (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2007), 59.
11 Michael Wilkins, “Apologetics Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew,” in The Holman Apologetics Commentary on the Bible, ed. Jeremy R. Howard (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2013), 10.
12 Ibid., 7–11. For the patristic evidence of Matthean authorship, see Papias, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.16; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1; Origen, Ecclesiastical History 6.25.4; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.24.6; Jerome, On Illustrious Men 3.1.
13 Goodspeed, Matthew.
14 Blomberg, Matthew, 44.
15 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.24.6.
16 Jerome, On Illustrious Men 3.1.
17 Socrates, The Ecclesiastical History 1.19.
18 W.D. Davies and D.C. Allison, Matthew 1–7, International Critical Commentary (New York: T. & T. Clark, 1988), 146 n. 125.
19 Thomas E. Schmidt, The Apostles After Acts: A Sequel (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2013), 174.
20 Ruffin, The Twelve, 143.
21 Els Rose, Ritual Memory: The Apocryphal Acts and Liturgical Commemoration in the Early Medieval West (c. 500–1251) (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2009), 175.
22 David Noel Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Bantam Dell, 1992), s.v. “Matthew, Martyrdom of,” by Kenneth G.C. Newport.
23 Rose, Ritual Memory, 174.
24 J.K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 520.
25 W. Milton Timmons, Everything About the Bible that You Never Had Time to Look Up (Bloomington, IN: Xlibris, 2002), 487.
26 E.A. Wallis Budge, The Contendings of the Apostles: Being the Histories and the Lives and Martyrdoms and Deaths of the Twelve Apostles and Evangelists (London: Oxford University Press, 1935), 109–14.
27 Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, 530–31.
28 Rose, Ritual Memory, 176.
29 Emil G. Kraeling, The Disciples (Skokie, IL: Rand McNally, 1966), 165.
30 Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata 4:9, as cited in Ante-Nicene Fathers: Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus and Clement of Alexandria, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, rev. A. Cleveland Coxe (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Co., 1885), 2:422.
31 Newport, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, s.v. “Matthew, Martyrdom of.”
32 A.E. Medlycott, India and the Apostle Thomas (London: Ballantyne, 1905), 121.
33 Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (New York: Random House, 1979), 97.
34 Pseudo-Hippolytus, Hippolytus on the Twelve 5.
35 Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels, 97.