John P. Meier, (Antioch and Rome).
Part One: Antioch p. 11-86.

(Detailed summary)

Antioch, founded in 40 BC, is the cradle of Christianity: “It was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians” (Acts 11:26). According to Flavius Josephus (The Jewish War, 3:2:4; #29), it was the third most important city in the Roman Empire, after Rome and Alexandria. Located on the banks of the Orontes River and capital of the Roman province of Syria, it was the first major urban center of the Christian movement outside Jerusalem. From Ignatius, bishop of Antioch at the beginning of the 2nd century, to John Chrysostom, priest of this Church at the end of the 4th century, Antioch was the cradle of great theologians and influential bishops, the seat of famous schools of exegesis, and equally the home of heretical tendencies. It witnessed important clashes between apostles such as Paul, Peter, and James. At the beginning of the 2nd century, it was there that the structure of ecclesiastical authority centered on a single bishop surrounded by presbyters and deacons was developed.

Where does our information about this Church come from? It comes first from Paul's letter to the Galatians (2:11-21), written around the mid-50s. It also comes from the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, written between 108 and 117. But what about the period between these two eras? A likely source is provided by the Gospel of Matthew, written around 80 or 90 AD. Therefore, if we divide time into generations, we would have a first generation of Christians in Antioch in the 40s to 70s (data from Galatians, supplemented by the Acts of the Apostles, see ch. 2), the second generation in the years 70 to 100 (data from the Gospel according to Matthew, see ch. 3), and the third generation after the year 100 (data from Ignatius, see ch. 4).

One question will accompany us throughout this study: how could communities as different as those of Paul, Peter, Matthew, and Ignatius have developed in the same place? It would be a mistake to think that they simply coexisted in parallel. Rather, we will see that their connection makes sense when we understand the internal dynamics of the Antiochian Church.

  1. Locating Matthew’s Church in Time and Space p. 15-27

    First and foremost, it is important to demonstrate that the Gospel according to Matthew was written between the years 80 and 90.

    1. The Time of the Composition of Matthew's Gospel

      The Gospel of Matthew depends on the Gospel of Mark, which was composed around the year 70; therefore, it must be dated after that date. Furthermore, it comes at the end of a rather complex literary process that presupposes the existence not only of the Gospel of Mark, but also of a source called Q (a collection of Jesus' words) and a source of its own, called M; each of these sources comes from both oral and written traditions with their own histories, which Matthew manages to weave together. Furthermore, the Gospel presupposes a long process of evolution in which the Judeo-Christian community opened itself to mission among the Gentiles (Mt 10:5-6; 15:24; 28:16-20), and in which the question of circumcision and dietary laws had been settled for some time. Theologically, there has also been an evolution: with regard to eschatology, the frenetic expectation of Jesus' return has given way to a realized eschatology emphasizing the presence of the risen Lord (Mt 28:20: “I am with you always, even unto the end of the age”), and with regard to history, a vision of salvation history has taken hold that considers the past life of Jesus as a sacred event that will not be repeated.

      An important milestone is the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in the year 70. In the parable of the great banquet (Matthew 22:1-14), Matthew modifies the account he takes from the Q Document by adding the sentence: “The king sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city,” which would be an allusion to the fall of Jerusalem. Such an addition assumes that the trauma caused by this event is already far behind. Furthermore, the Matthew community seems to have broken with the synagogue, an event that is dated to around the year 85. On the other hand, since Ignatius of Antioch, who died around the year 117, mentions the Gospel of Matthew in his letters, this gospel must be placed well before his death. Therefore, a date between 80 and 90 is the best choice for the composition of the Gospel.

    2. The Place of the Composition of Matthew's Gospel

      While there is relative consensus on the date of composition, the same cannot be said for the place of composition. Here are the locations that have been suggested.

      1. Jerusalem

        Some biblical scholars have suggested this city because of the conservative tone of the Gospel of Matthew and its emphasis on morality, which would be typical of a Jewish environment. But such a location is unlikely for several reasons.

        1. The Jewish War and the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD created such disruption that a Palestinian Christian community in such an environment would not have had the time, energy, or financial means to undertake a project of such magnitude.

        2. Several chapters of the Gospel of Matthew are devoted to church organization, both in terms of authority structures and liturgy. However, this gospel was written in Greek, which would be incomprehensible if the target audience were Palestine, where the majority language was Aramaic.

      2. Alexandria

        In the 2nd century, this city became an important center of the Christian movement. But for the 1st century, we have no idea how the Christian faith could have developed there, making it unlikely as the place where the Gospel was composed; for its rapid spread and the warm welcome it received presuppose a prestigious and influential environment of origin.

      3. Caesarea Maritima

        This city was the seat of the Roman prefect or procurator. But the arguments against such a place of composition are overwhelming. First, at the very beginning of the war, the Jewish community was massacred by the Romans, and there is no evidence that it ever returned, making it unlikely as the origin of a gospel with deep Jewish roots. Furthermore, if the account in Acts 10 of the conversion of Cornelius, a pagan centurion, is historical, it means that the church in this milieu was primarily of pagan origin, a situation irreconcilable with the milieu of Matthew's Gospel. Moreover, Acts 8:40 (see also 21:8) tells us that this church in Caesarea welcomed Philip, one of the Hellenists, a group that was very liberal with regard to Jewish laws and opposed to the temple in Jerusalem.

      4. Syrian countryside or Edessa

        This location encompasses the entire northern hinterland of Syria. However, the arguments against this setting are similar to those mentioned earlier. First, it would be impossible to explain such a rapid spread of the gospel from the countryside. Furthermore, the dominant language of this environment was Aramaic or Syriac. For example, all the inscriptions found in Edessa from the first to the third century are in Syriac. Similarly, the earliest complete texts of Christian literature in Edessa are in Syriac. As for Damascus, while this city was of some importance for Jewish trade, it was not a rabbinical center for the study of the Scriptures and therefore could not have been a place for the scholarly Jewish-Christian debates found in the Gospel of Matthew. Added to this is the fact that the Greek language does not appear to have been widely spoken in Damascus.

      5. Phoenicia

        Some biblical scholars have suggested cities on the Phoenician coast such as Beirut, Tyre, or Sidon as the place of composition. Unfortunately, we know almost nothing about these Christian communities, except for brief references in Acts to Tyre and Sidon (Acts 21:3-7; 27:3). Furthermore, the Gospel of Matthew presupposes a fairly large, vibrant community and a fairly long history of Christian thought, which are unlikely for the marginal communities of the Phoenician coast.

      6. Antioch

        The city of Antioch was the capital of Syria, a metropolis where Greek was the main language spoken. It had a large Jewish population, probably the largest in Syria. It was in this city that the first Christian communities outside Palestine appeared. They were probably founded in the late 30s by Jewish Christians belonging to the Hellenistic group that had begun a mission there without circumcision. Of course, this mission was under pressure for a time from the strict policies of James's supporters in Jerusalem, but long before the arrival of Bishop Ignatius, it was able to move forward without constraints.

        These facts may explain the tensions that can be felt between the various layers of Matthew's Gospel. On the one hand, the oldest layer reflects the dominance of the group of James with its deep Jewish roots, with a gospel addressed to a largely Jewish audience, using Jewish methods of argumentation, concerned with Jewish customs, insisting on the fulfillment of prophecies, and confronted with discussions typical of Pharisaism. On the other hand, the Gospel is situated on the borderline between Jews and Gentiles, written in better Greek than Mark's, even allowing itself Greek puns, and offering a vibrant plea for a mission to the nations both in its finale, where the apostles are sent out into the whole world (Mt 28:19) as in its introduction with the story of the Magi (Mt 2:1-12). In short, the Gospel of Matthew reflects an environment that is influenced by both Jews and pagans, and Antioch reflects such an environment.

        Since its foundation in the late 30s, the church of Antioch had benefited from the time necessary for the development of a Jewish-Christian community that had reached the level of maturity necessary to give birth to a gospel such as that of Matthew. For there was a strong tradition of scribes, and perhaps even a school of scribes, who copied various versions of the Septuagint, which could be read and studied, as well as versions of the Gospel of Mark and the Q Document (a collection of Jesus' sayings). Furthermore, it must be recognized that the production of such a long gospel requires significant financial resources and advanced knowledge, which fits well with the environment of Antioch. Finally, the place occupied by Peter in the Gospel of Matthew favors Antioch as the place of writing. Indeed, Paul, in Galatians 2:11-14, tells us that Peter was very active in Antioch and, after coming into conflict with him, decided to leave the city for his mission in Greece, leaving Peter to exercise his full influence there, with Barnabas taking his side. This could explain the phrase in Matthew 16:18 (“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church...”) concerning the founding of the church in that area.

        The Antiochian origin of the Gospel of Matthew is confirmed by its use by Bishop Ignatius of Antioch, the first Church Father to do so. Three references to passages unique to Matthew have been identified, editorial passages that cannot come from oral tradition, but from the written Gospel itself.

        MatthewIgnatius of Antioch
        Mt 3: 15 : "Jesus says to the Baptist: 'It is fitting for us to fulfill all justice.'"Letter to Smyrneans, 1:1: "The Lord Jesus Christ. . . [was] baptized by John, in order that all justice might be fulfilled by him."
        Mt 10: 16b: "Be therefore as prudent as the serpents and as innocent as the doves"Letter to Polycarp, 2:2: "In all things be as prudent as the serpent and always innocent as the dove."
        Mt 1 – 2 : "...and said to him, 'Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit, and she will bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus... The Magi asked, 'Where is the newborn king of the Jews? We saw his star in the East and have come to worship him... And behold, the star they had seen in the East went before them until it came to rest above the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy..."Letter to Ephesians, 19:1-3 : "The prince of this world ignored Mary's virginity and her childbirth, as well as the death of the Lord, three resounding mysteries that were accomplished in God's silence. How, then, were they (the mysteries) revealed over the centuries? A star shone in the sky brighter than all the other stars, and its light was indescribable, and its novelty was astonishing, and all the other stars, together with the sun and the moon, formed a choir around the star and projected their light onto it more than all the others. And they were troubled, wondering where this novelty, so different from themselves, came from".

        There is no such explicit reference to another gospel in Ignatius. And when he refers to Matthew, he uses the word “gospel.”

        Some biblical scholars have raised the issue of the Eucharistic words found in Matthew 26:26-28, which echo those of Mark and differ from those of Paul presented in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 and echoed by Luke (green color), on the grounds that Paul's words were in use in Antioch.

        Mark 14Matthew 26Luke 221 Corinthians 11
        22a And them they were eating, having taken bread,26a Then, them they were eating, having taken the Jesus bread,19a And having taken bread,23b The Lord Jesus, in the night he was betrayed, he took bread.
        22b having blessing, he broke and gave to them and said : "Take, this is the body of me".26b having blessing, he broke and having given to the disciples, he said: "Take, eat, this is the body of me".19b having given thanks, he broke and gave to them saying: "This the body of me the [one] for you being given. Do this in the remembrance of me.24 and having given thanks, he broke and said: "This is the body of me the [one] for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
        23 And having taken a cup, having given thanks, he gave to them and they drank of it all.27 And having taken a cup and having given thanks, he gave to them saying: "Drink of it all.20a And the cup likewise after the supping,25a Likewise also the cup after the supping,
        24 And he said to them : "This is the blood of me of the covenant the [one] being poured out for many".28 For this is the blood of me of the covenant that [is] being poured out with regard to many towards forgiveness of sins.20b saying: "This the cup of the new covenant in the blood of me the [one] for you having poured out. 25b saying: "This is the cup of the new covenant in the blood of me. Do this as often as you might drink [it] in the remembrance of me.
        25 Amen, I say to you that I will drink no more of the product of the vine until that day when I will drink it anew in the kingdom of the God."29 Then, I say to you : I will not drink from now on of this, the product of the vine, until that day when I will drink it with you anew in the kingdom of the Father of me" 26 For as often as you might eat this bread and you might drink this cup, the death of the Lord you proclaim the [day] he might come.

        Let us first ask the question: where did Paul get his formulation of the Eucharistic words? We must admit the possibility that Paul received this formulation either during his stay in Damascus (at the time of his conversion) or during his stay in Jerusalem (to receive basic catechesis from the Apostles). Furthermore, we can question the idea that the church in Antioch or any other Christian group used only one single formulation of the Eucharistic words, especially when prophets or missionaries, often charismatic figures who were to preside over the Eucharist, were traveling around. Finally, it was probably the acceptance of the Gospel of Mark in Antioch, the basis of the Gospel according to Matthew, that stabilized this formulation.

  2. The Antiochene Church of the First Christian Generation (A.D. 40-70 – Galatians 2; Acts 11-15) p. 28-44

    1. Sources

      As primary sources, we are limited to two documents.

      1. Gal 2:11-21

        Paul's letter to the Galatians deals with a single incident in Antioch, and it is the only mention of this Syrian city in the entire Pauline corpus. Furthermore, it is both highly polemical and apologetic in tone, and this must be taken into account in our analysis. Nevertheless, its great value lies in the fact that it is an autobiographical account, written by a Christian who was directly involved in the incident, which is thought to have taken place around the year 52 and was reported around the year 53.

      2. Acts 11-15

        The author of the Acts of the Apostles wrote his account much later, and biblical scholars have noted his tendency to soften the fierce conflicts of the early church, so much so that they have questioned the historical value of such a peaceful and rosy view of events. Therefore, we will take a middle path, where we do not immediately dismiss Luke's account on the grounds that it is purely theological reflection, but where we do not naively accept it as entirely historical; each text must be judged on its own merits and on the basis of available information from other sources. Fortunately, most biblical scholars accept the account of the early days of the church in Antioch as credible information, at least in broad terms.

      Apart from these two sources, there are ancient sources that can indirectly shed some light on Judaism in Antioch, such as 1 and 2 Maccabees, Philo, Josephus, certain rabbinical documents, and later in the 4th and 6th centuries, John Chrysostom and John Malalas. It should be noted that archaeology provides us with no direct information about first-century Christians.

    2. The Jewish Community at Antioch

      Jews have lived in Antioch since its founding by Seleucus I Nicator (reigned 305–281 BC). They enjoyed the right to maintain their customs as a distinct group. Except during the period of persecution under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (reigned 175-164 BC), they were able to live peaceful and prosperous lives under the various Seleucid monarchs. Some estimate their population at 22,000, mainly concentrated in the southern suburbs of Daphne. They probably belonged to the various classes of the time: wealthy leaders, merchants, artisans, the poor, and a few slaves. According to the Jewish historian Josephus, this Jewish community seems to have been presided over by a “leader” (archōn), a Jew from Antioch. This leader was at the head of a council of elders, who were representatives of the various synagogues of Antioch and Daphne. One cannot help but see a parallel between this structure and the one that would develop in Antioch around the bishop presiding over a presbytery or group of elders in the time of Ignatius.

      The Roman conquest of Syria in 64-63 BC brought few changes for the Jewish community. Incorporated into the Roman province of Syria, the Jews enjoyed their traditional privileges, including the use of Mosaic law for internal community matters and the maintenance of close relations with the Holy Land and financial contributions to Jerusalem. Nevertheless, a notorious incident occurred in the winter of 39-40 (CE) when Caligula installed his statue in the temple in Jerusalem, sparking an outcry that was harshly suppressed. But it was the first Jewish revolt (66-73) that led to massacres of Jews in several places in Syria. At the very beginning, the Jews of Antioch were spared. But when Vespasian arrived in Syria, the Jewish apostate Antiochus stirred up the pagan population by spreading rumors of Jewish conspiracies. Riots and murders ensued (66-67), and were repeated four years later. When Titus, Vespasian's son, arrived in Antioch, the pagans asked him to expel the Jews, or at least to revoke their rights and privileges. Titus refused, but nevertheless placed some of the spoils stolen from Jerusalem at the city gate leading to Daphne, a suburb, as a memorial to the humiliation of the Jews. Also, since there was no major displacement of the Jewish population, the Christian church in Antioch enjoyed a stable and significant environment from which it could grow and against which it could define itself.

    3. The Beginnings of the Chrstian Church at Antioch

      Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that took place over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, and they spoke the [Christian] message to no one except Jews. But among them were some men of Cyprus and Cyrene who, on coming to Antioch, spoke [the Christian message] to the Gentiles also, proclaiming the Lord Jesus. (Acts 11:19-20)

      The account refers to “those who were scattered because of the persecution that took place over Stephen.” Who are they? In Acts 8:1, after Stephen's death, Luke tells us: "On that day a violent persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem. Except for the apostles, all were scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria." In fact, it was the people of Stephen's group, the Hellenists, who were scattered, Jews whose language was Greek. They were the ones who went to Antioch and began to convert pagans to the Christian faith. Among them were probably Lucius of Cyrene and Simeon called Niger (Acts 13:1).

      How did the Jewish Christian community in Jerusalem react when they heard about these pagan conversions? "News of this event reached the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and Barnabas was sent to Antioch. When he saw the grace of God at work there, he rejoiced and urged them all to remain true to the Lord with all their hearts" (Acts 11:22-23). Thus, Barnabas, a Levite from Cyprus (Acts 4:36), seems to have played a supervisory role on behalf of the apostles in Jerusalem. And this community in Antioch quickly grew large enough and, because it included converted pagans, became distinctive enough to be called “Christians” by the pagans (Acts 11:26). It is noteworthy that Ignatius of Antioch is the only one of the Church Fathers to use the term Christians.

      Acts 13:1 also tells us: “In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.” Note the name of Barnabas, first on the list, undoubtedly an indication of his leadership role, and that of Manaen, a childhood companion of Herod, a reminder that Christianity did not begin as a religion of slaves. Luke's passage indicates two roles in the Antioch community, and if we add the presence of the apostle Peter, we find the three roles mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:28: “And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers.” These roles are also mentioned in the Didache, a document of the Syrian church composed a little later, around the year 100. It should be noted that the names given by Luke above do not come from Antioch, and these people will soon leave on mission, which presupposes functions that did not involve permanent residence.

    4. The Clash between Peter and Paul

      1. Account of the Clash

        First, we must connect Acts 15 and Galatians 2:1-10, which both recount what is commonly referred to as the “Council” of Jerusalem, and Galatians 2:11-14, which is the continuation of that event. Let us identify the points of agreement between these passages from Paul and Luke, as well as their disagreements.

        1. Representatives from the church in Antioch traveled to Jerusalem for a meeting to resolve the issue of converting pagans to Christianity without requiring circumcision. This was a matter that required a decision. It should be noted that, historically, Jerusalem did not hold a position of authority over Antioch.

        2. The main representatives from Antioch were Paul and Barnabas, but they were not the only ones. Luke remains vague with his “a few others” (Acts 15:2), while Paul explicitly names Titus, an uncircumcised man (Gal 2:1, 3). According to Acts, the reason for this journey was due to the intervention in Antioch of “some believers from the party of the Pharisees” who had come from Judea and insisted "that the Gentiles should be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses " (Acts 15:5) if they wanted to be saved (Acts 15:1); all this triggered a serious conflict. But according to Paul, it was on the basis of a personal revelation that he took this initiative (Gal 2:2) in order to ensure that his mission was in agreement with the apostles in Jerusalem.

        3. It should be noted that no text identifies the Jewish Christians who demanded circumcision with the apostles considered to be “pillars” or James in particular. Paul calls them “false brothers, intruders who, having insinuated themselves, were spying on our freedom” (Gal 2:4), and Luke identifies them with Jewish Christians from the Pharisee movement (Acts 15:5).

        4. Paul explicitly names James, Cephas, and John at this meeting, while hinting at a larger group (Gal 2:1, 4, 6). Luke speaks of a formal assembly of the apostles and elders, where only Peter and James speak. The final decision is made by the apostles and elders on behalf of the entire church in Jerusalem.

        5. The decision was therefore made not to require circumcision for converts of pagan origin. Luke puts the final speech in James' mouth, reflecting his tendency to smooth over past differences in order to present a Church that is always united for theological reasons. Thus, Antioch could continue its mission to the pagans, while Peter, according to Galatians 2:8, would focus his mission on the Jews. While Paul and Luke agree that the question of dietary rules was raised after that of circumcision, Acts recounts that it was raised at the Jerusalem council, whereas for Paul it was raised later in Antioch. There is unanimity among biblical scholars in recognizing that the dietary observances of Leviticus 17-18 imposed on the Gentiles in Acts 15:20, 39 cannot historically belong to the Jerusalem agreement. Nevertheless, Luke and Paul associate James with the imposition of these laws on the Gentiles.

        6. Shortly after returning to Antioch, Paul and Barnabas clashed in a violent conflict that ended their missionary partnership. According to Galatians 2, Barnabas embraced Peter's hypocrisy and stopped eating with Christians of pagan origin due to pressure from members of James's entourage, who had recently arrived from Jerusalem. This text does not tell us what happened after this altercation. We only know that Paul soon embarked on a long mission to Asia Minor and Europe without Barnabas. He returned to Antioch only once for a brief visit (Acts 18:22) and made no further mention of the city in his letters. Galatians 2 does not mention who won the debate. We can infer from what happened next that Paul lost and found himself isolated, particularly from Barnabas, which led him to join forces with others for the mission. Luke gives us a different version: Paul and Barnabas separated because Barnabas wanted to take John Mark with them (Acts 15:36-41). Note that Luke completely omits Peter's visit to Antioch, the pressure from James's entourage, and the resulting confrontation.

        This conflict and its aftermath show that Jerusalem and Antioch were not two independent centers. The writings of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles recognize a certain precedence of the church in Jerusalem over that of Antioch. And the collection that Paul undertook for the poor in Jerusalem is a symbolic expression of this.

      2. The Situation of the Community after Paul's Departure

        Establishing this situation is pure conjecture, due to a lack of data. If the later period of Matthew and Ignatius can serve as a guide, there is no evidence of organized, parallel churches existing side by side. We can therefore assume that after Paul's departure, the church of Antioch did not split into two groups, Jewish Christians on one side and Christians of pagan origin on the other. But most likely, in accordance with the wishes of James's entourage, these two groups held separate meals (and therefore probably separate Eucharists). Paul's hasty departure prevented a schism from occurring, and thus a relative communion was preserved. Peter probably played a moderating role by promoting a certain compromise and maintaining the link between the two groups. In the 40s and 50s, he may have been the rallying point for those who felt torn between Paul's “liberalism” and James' “conservatism.”

        Maintaining peace between these two groups was probably no easy task. On the left wing, i.e., the Christians of pagan origin who were supporters of Paul, there was a desire for a universal mission without restriction, where baptism replaced circumcision and the word of Jesus replaced the Mosaic law. These Christians were probably the guardians of the various traditions of a universal mission found in Matthew, such as in Matthew 20:16-20. And they were probably aware that Peter's withdrawal from the common table in Antioch did not come from him, but from pressure from James' entourage.

        But such a universalist program was difficult to undertake as long as the “right wing” of the church in Antioch, i.e., James' entourage, exerted influence over Jewish Christians and the community as a whole. Even if James had not rejected the Jerusalem agreement on circumcision, his party, which could be identified with group II in our introduction, provided a haven for the extremists, group I, whom we identified in our introduction, who opposed a mission without circumcision. And perhaps this group I were the guardians, or even the creators, of a tradition of mission strictly oriented towards Israel, which we find in Matthew 10:5-6 (" Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans“ and Matthew 15:24 (”I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel").

        However, it does not seem that these extremists were able to control the entire church in Antioch. After Paul's departure, probably in a gesture of reconciliation, Peter, and perhaps even James's entourage, seem to have promoted greater brotherhood between Christians of Jewish origin and those of pagan origin in the community. This is suggested by the letter mentioned in Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25, which seems to be a compromise: Christians of pagan origin, even if they are not subject to circumcision, must nevertheless respect Jewish dietary rules. Among these rules are abstaining from meat offered to idols, not drinking animal blood, not eating meat from animals that have been strangled, and avoiding incestuous unions, rules that come from Leviticus 17-18 and which the Pentateuch considers mandatory for foreign residents. It is likely that it was through the imposition of these rules that the famous exception to the indissolubility of marriage in Matthew 5:32 (see also Matthew 19:9), the case of porneia, often translated as “immorality,” entered the Gospel of Matthew. This would explain why such an exception is found only in Matthew, and not in Mark, the Q Document, Luke, or Paul.

        Among the factors that helped to maintain the cohesion of the community despite the presence of a “right” wing and a “left” wing was probably the presence of the Hellenists, those Jewish Christians who were the initiators of the conversion of the pagans. While Stephen's speech (Acts 7) reflects their theology, the ideas of some of them were more radical than those of Paul. And there is no reason to think that after Paul's debate in Antioch, they left the city or changed their minds about the mission to the pagans. They therefore provided support for Christians of pagan origin, even though they technically belonged to the group of Jewish Christians. But the wall that Paul had failed to break down would soon be brought down by events: the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, as well as the movement of Yavne.

  3. The Antiochene Church of the Second Christian Generation (A.D. 70-100 – Matthew) p. 45-72

    When we consider the situation of the Church of Antioch as reflected in the Gospel of Matthew (circa 80–90) in relation to that of the 50s after Paul's departure, we notice notable changes that now need to be explained.

    1. External Factors Influencing Change in the Antiochene Church

      1. The most important factor is the First Jewish War (66-73), as well as the events that preceded and followed it. Among these events are the death of James in Jerusalem (which Josephus places in the year 62) and the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70. It should be remembered that it was pressure from the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem and the influence of James that led to the conflict between Paul and Peter in Antioch and the end of the common table between Christians of Jewish origin and those of pagan origin. But with James' martyrdom by the Jewish authorities and the disappearance of the Church of Jerusalem, the umbilical cord that connected the Church of Antioch with its Jewish identity and Jewish past was severed. From then on, groups III and IV (see our introduction), i.e., Christians of either Jewish or pagan origin who were supporters of Paul, as well as the Hellenists, were able to make headway against the conservative elements. Faced with this situation, group II was able to be more open to going further to satisfy Christians of pagan origin, while the extremists of group I may have left the community to form a Judeo-Christian sect in order to preserve what they considered to be the true heritage of James. In the latter case, we would have one of the origins of the Ebionites and the heretical Judeo-Christian writings (e.g., the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, the Ascents of James) that championed James, exalting him above Peter, and made Paul their enemy.

      2. Another factor that cannot be ignored is that after the year 70, the entire mission to the Jews proved to be a failure, while the mission to the pagans enjoyed some success. Faced with this obvious fact, it became increasingly difficult for Jewish Christians to oppose the mission without circumcision and not to see that the future of the Church lay with the pagans.

      3. The Jewish War exacerbated tensions between Jewish Christians and the Jews of Antioch. The debacle caused by this war led Jewish leaders, mainly those in the Pharisee movement, to gather in Yavne to reorganize, codify, and write down their traditions, and to stand together against their common enemies. This effort to impose a certain uniformity on Judaism forced Jewish Christians to choose between leaving the synagogue or the Church. This context, in which both the synagogue and the Church sought to redefine and codify their traditions, would explain the growing tensions, persecutions, and ultimately separation. This situation applied to Antioch, where Jews had been harassed and killed by pagans during the war and therefore had little patience with non-conformist Jewish Christians who had associated with Christians of pagan origin. The break with the synagogue was only a matter of time.

        Despite the efforts of some conservative Jewish Christians to keep the link with the synagogue alive, as evidenced by Matthew 23:2-3 ("The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: do therefore, and observe all things whatsoever they say unto you, but do not follow their deeds...“) seems to testify, the break appears to have been consummated before the Gospel of Matthew was written; thus the expression ”their synagogue“ appears in contrast to ”my Church." This break must have occurred between 70 and 85 AD. Thus, not only was the umbilical cord with James and the community in Jerusalem cut, but also that with the synagogue. The Jewish Christians of Antioch were now adrift in a pagan sea, heading towards the future of the Church.

        Let us not think that Christians of pagan origin did not experience harassment or persecution because they had no connection with the synagogue. Because they were distinct from the Jewish community, which enjoyed recognition by the Romans as a legitimate religion, they no longer benefited from this protection. Thus, Matthew's missionary (Mt 10:5-42) and apocalyptic (Mt 24-25) discourse speaks of opposition not only from the synagogues, but also from governors and kings, from Jews and pagans. The fact that both Jewish Christians and those of pagan origin were each suffering persecution in their own way brought them closer together.

    2. Internal Factors Favoring Change in the Antiochene Church

      Since its beginnings, the community had undergone a number of changes: the emergence of a mission without circumcision, objections to such a mission, its eventual acceptance, then the refusal of a common table between those of Jewish and pagan origin, and finally the compromise of applying minimal Jewish rules. All this made it possible to restore the brotherhood of the common table and the Eucharistic assembly. And this brotherhood fostered a form of symbiosis that gradually became osmosis. Added to this were the persecutions by both the synagogue and the civil authorities, which drove a group of Christians more firmly into the arms of the other. It was perhaps at this point that the right-wing extremists (group I), no longer at home in the synagogue or in the community, decided to continue their journey elsewhere.

      At the turn of the 80s, the community of Antioch found itself with Christians of pagan origin, liberal Jewish Christians espousing the ideas of Paul, Hellenists, and finally Jewish Christians, who were more conservative but did not want to break the bonds of Christian brotherhood and follow the path of the Ebionites. But the situation of these conservatives was difficult, because, having lost their connections with both Jerusalem and the synagogue, how could they preserve their monotheism, their moral standards, and all aspects of their Jewish heritage which, in their eyes, made the Christian faith the fulfillment of the promises to Israel, and not a new religion? The community of Antioch therefore needed a form of synthesis that would offer a way forward for all these tensions experienced by its members. This was the pastoral and theological task that Matthew would tackle.

    3. Different Streams of Gospel Tradition in the Antiochene Church

      These various tensions we have just discussed crystallized in multiple currents of the evangelical tradition, both oral and written. It is in this context that we must situate Matthew, a “liberal conservative” who creatively reworked these sources in response to the identity crisis of the Church of Antioch. But first, let us consider these sources.

      1. The Gospel of Mark

        This gospel is the backbone of the Gospel according to Matthew. Probably written shortly before the year 70 (or perhaps shortly after), the Gospel according to Mark seems to have been quickly accepted in Antioch. This would be easily explained if it came from Rome, as communication between the Roman capital and Antioch was excellent. Moreover, since the fall of Jerusalem, it was natural for the community of Antioch to turn to the Church in the capital of the empire, where two important figures for them, Paul and Peter, had died as martyrs. The fact that tradition attributed a role to Peter in the writing of this Gospel also helped its rapid acceptance.

        Thus, after the year 70, the Gospel of Mark seems to have become the gospel par excellence for liturgy, catechesis, apologetics, and polemics in the Church of Antioch. Christians of pagan origin and Hellenists certainly appreciated its openness to pagans and its criticism of Mosaic law. But over time, its rough Greek language and even rougher theology, as well as the limited scope of the subjects covered, gave rise to the need for a revision and expansion of the gospel. It is conceivable that even before Matthew's writing, additions or modifications to Mark's accounts may have been introduced while they were being read in public, in the manner of rabbinic “targums” or “midrashim.” It should be remembered that in this early period of Christianity, the written text was accompanied by a rapidly evolving oral tradition.

      2. The Q Document

        This document is a hypothetical reconstruction of the material shared by Matthew and Luke. It is a collection of Jesus' sayings that appear to belong to a fairly early period and originate from Palestine. Since it never took the form of a complete gospel, its content and outline remain fluid, with perhaps various versions in circulation. The eclectic nature of this collection of Jesus' words fostered its acceptance in Antioch, as each group could find elements in it to support its position; similarly, it would have been difficult to reject words that present radical moral demands, eschatological prophecies, or apocalyptic wisdom.

      3. The so-called M material

        The term “M material” is simply a generic term that refers to all the traditions found in the Gospel according to Matthew that do not originate from Mark or the Q Document. It encompasses the various traditions that reflect the multiple currents of thought within the Antioch community. The following can be distinguished:

        1. First, there is the legacy of Group I, the Judaizing extremists, represented by words rejecting the mission to the Gentiles: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Mt 10:5-6). And Matthew 15:24 gives this saying a theological foundation: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” These words harmonize perfectly with this statement in the Q Document: “Before heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter will pass from the law” (Mt 5:18 || Lk 16:17).

        2. Group II (James' entourage), at least those who remained in the community, had to emphasize strict observance of Mosaic law according to Jesus' teachings. They are the heirs of a moral tradition such as that of the Sermon on the Mount, which does not oppose Mosaic law (i.e., do not be angry or kill, do not commit adultery in thought or deed, do not pray like the pagans) and that of exhortations to remain faithful to the authorities of the Jewish synagogue (" The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: therefore do and observe all that they tell you..." (Mt 23:2-3). Their intention is probably to counter the danger of pagans entering the community.

        3. Finally, there were the Hellenists, allied with Christians of pagan origin, the “left wing” of the community, who favored missionary work among pagans and opposed the Pharisees' devotion to the Law. They were probably the heirs of traditions reflected in the universal sending out on mission (Matthew 28:16-20), the story of the Magi (Matthew 2), symbolizing the coming of the pagans to Christ, the rejection of the Pharisees (Matthew 15:12-14), and the criticism of Jewish piety concerning almsgiving, prayer, and fasting (Mt 6:1-6, 16-18). The Hellenists may have been the ones who proposed a revocation of Mosaic law in favor of a stricter morality (Matthew 5:33-37: prohibition of oaths and vows), thereby seeking to calm the apprehensions of James' group about immorality and to show the imperfections of Mosaic law. This is how a catechetical morality developed that responded to the needs of these new converts coming from paganism.

          It would be a mistake to think that the traditions of Mark, the Q Document, and M constitute three separate blocks that Matthew combined for the first time. On the contrary, we can imagine that interaction between these three traditions took place regularly during liturgy, catechesis, or other community activities, so that M was like the living sea of an oral tradition in which Mark and Q were immersed and imbued. It is thus possible that Mark and Q were modified even before Matthew wrote the first words of his Gospel.

        4. The Scribal School of Matthew

          The development of traditions presupposes an environment that makes it possible, and in Antioch there was certainly a group of teachers or scribes who reformulated, studied, commented on, and taught the expanding Christian tradition. Acts 13:1 informs us that the early leaders of the Antioch community were prophets and teachers who led public worship. From then on, this interaction between charismatic preachers or prophets, those who scrutinized Scripture filled with the Spirit, and catechists who taught gave rise to what some biblical scholars have called the Matthew school. And the evangelist Matthew was probably one of them, according to this autobiographical note: “every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 13:52). The M tradition, or perhaps Matthew himself, would not have issued the warning not to covet the titles of rabbi, teacher, or professor if there had not been Christians in Antioch who claimed these titles because of their prominent position as teachers in the community.

          It was therefore in this Matthean school that the prophetic texts of the Old Testament in their various forms were studied and applied to Christian catechesis, apologetics, and polemics. When we consider the vast scriptural knowledge presupposed by the numerous scriptural quotations in Matthew's Gospel, it is impossible that this could be the work of one man alone. But if we see Matthew as the heir to a whole school of scribes, who moreover reused the work of Jewish scribes in a Christian context, then his achievement becomes understandable. Matthew's quotations would therefore have originated in a school of scribes in Antioch. And these scriptural references were particularly welcome by Jewish Christians, as they allowed them to anchor the life and preaching of Jesus, as well as the life and preaching of the community, in Scripture and Jewish tradition.

        How will Matthew reinterpret and synthesize the various, sometimes conflicting traditions of the community to offer a path toward Christian identity? This is what we must now consider.

    4. Matthew's Gospel as a Reply to Problems Facing the Antiochene Church

      1. Problems Facing the Antiochene Church

        A prerequisite for understanding Matthew's work: perceiving this gospel as a theological and pastoral response to a crisis of identity and authority in the community of Antioch, a crisis that was social, structural, and theological in nature. This was a community that had lost its bearings: the temple and the city of Jerusalem had both been destroyed, its Christian community scattered, and its heroes, Peter and Paul, had died as martyrs.

        Linked to this crisis was that of authority within the community: the authority of Mosaic law and that of the Jewish teachers in the synagogue to uphold moral teaching among Jewish Christians no longer existed. This crisis became more acute with the arrival of pagans in the community: on what theological basis could moral teaching be offered and how could this moral authority be justified?

        The Gospel according to Matthew gives us several clues to this crisis, in particular the presence of false prophets “who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves” (Mt 17:15), who invoke the name of the Lord and perform miraculous deeds, but commit immoral acts (Mt 21-27). These false prophets reappear in the apocalyptic discourse when Jesus says that “false prophets will arise and lead many astray,” so that “because of the increase of wickedness, the love of many will grow cold” (Mt 24:11-12).

      2. Matthew's Reply to Problems Facing the Antiochene Church

        1. General principle of Matthew's hermeneutical response

          It was in response to this dual crisis of identity and morality that Matthew brought together the various Christian traditions to write his gospel. His goal was to offer a new synthesis that would provide his community with an adequate explanation of its origins and nature, thereby bridging the gap between a predominantly Jewish past and a future with an ever-growing presence of Christians of pagan origin. As a liberal conservative, he did not discard the various currents of the old Judeo-Christian tradition, but tried to integrate them into a deeper perspective. This approach is clearly expressed in Matthew 13:52: “Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old.” Note the order: first the new, then the old. What does this mean? The old order is understood in the light of the new order.

          However, while the old must be reinterpreted in light of the new, for Matthew it is nevertheless necessary to preserve the old. On this subject, it is revealing to observe how Matthew takes up Mark's image of new wine and new wineskins. While Mark concludes the image with, “But new wine must be put into new wineskins” (Mark 2:22), Matthew adds to this conclusion: “and both are preserved” (Matthew 9:17). This is his theological program: to preserve the new and the old, starting from the perspective of the new.

        2. The specific elements of Matthew's hermeneutical response

          1. A history of salvation in three periods

            Matthew develops his own vision of salvation history that embraces both the new and the old. This history is divided into three periods: the time of Old Testament prophecy, the time of Jesus' earthly fulfillment, and the time of the Church's universal mission. This division allows him first to retain the material of Jewish Christianity, such as that in Matthew 10:5-6 and Matthew 15:24, which prohibits mission to pagans, but this restriction is limited to the period of Jesus' earthly ministry. At the end of his Gospel (Matthew 28:16-20), the same Jesus, now risen, will be able to give the opposite command for a universal mission.

            Matthew explains this reversal by presenting the death and resurrection of Jesus through apocalyptic events, first at the cross (Mt 27:51-54) with the earthquake, the opening of the tombs, and the resurrection of the dead, then at the empty tomb on Easter Sunday, with the earthquake linked to the coming of the angel of the Lord who opens the tomb and announces the Easter message. Thus, Jesus' resurrection is the beginning of a new world.

            Similarly, he includes material from Jewish Christianity in his Gospel with the injunction to obey the scribes and Pharisees and the successors of Moses (Mt 23:2-3). But for Matthew, this only expresses Jesus' acceptance of the restrictions of his earthly mission. However, other passages indicate that for Matthew, the break with the synagogue had taken place: “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees!” (Mt 16:12); "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. Leave them [the Pharisees]: they are blind guides of the blind" (Mt 15:12-14).

            Above all, the distinction between the different periods of salvation history allows Matthew to explain why Israel ceased to be the people of God and why it was replaced by the Church. During his public ministry, Jesus addresses only the Jews. But certain scenes foreshadow the changes that will come after his death and resurrection. This is the case, for example, in the story of the healing of the centurion's servant, a pagan, a story that Matthew takes from the Q Document, but to which he adds these words from Jesus: “Many will come from the east and the west and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, but the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness” (Matthew 8:11-12).

            The tension between Jesus and Israel increases throughout the Gospel, especially from chapter 11 onwards. In the parable of the murderous tenants, Israel's rejection and its replacement by a new people is clearly stated: “The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that will produce its fruit” (Mt 21:43). In his description of the Passion, Matthew emphasizes the Jews' rejection of Jesus: “His blood be on us and on our children” (Mt 27:25). This replacement of one people by another takes place symbolically at the cross when all the groups that make up the Sanhedrin mock Jesus (Mt 27:41), while “the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus were seized with great fear and said, ‘Truly, this was the Son of God’” (Mt 27:54); the latter represent the community of pagan origin. Thus, at the conclusion of the Gospel, Jesus can give the mandate to make disciples ”of all nations," asking for baptism rather than circumcision as the rite of initiation into the people of God. With the end of Jesus' earthly ministry, the privileges of Israel came to an end, and the universal Church began.

          2. The Church as a guide to moral behavior

            Matthew establishes a connection between the person of Jesus Christ, the Church he founded, and the moral actions he taught. This connection can be considered Matthew's main characteristic.

            1. Jesus and moral behavior

              Matthew constantly emphasizes Jesus' dignity, power, knowledge, and authority when compared to Mark. Let's look at two examples:

              • When he takes up Mark's account of Jesus coming to the synagogue in Nazareth, Matthew omits the scene where Jesus' authority is challenged (Mk 6:1-6a || Mt 13:53-58).
              • In Mark 10:18, Jesus responds to the man who asks what he must do to have eternal life: “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone”; but Matthew, when he recounts this story, changes Jesus' response: “Why do you ask me about what is good?” (Matthew 19:17)

              Matthew's high Christology is supported by his judicious use of “Son of God” and “Son of Man.” Clothed with such authority, he can teach, to the great astonishment of the crowd, as we see at the end of the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 7:28-29). And his teaching is primarily focused on moral and parenetic instructions. Christ becomes the foundation, the norm, the teacher, and the model of moral behavior.

            2. Jesus and the Church

              Matthew seeks to link ecclesiology with his Christology. For him, Christ founded and built his Church. In the context of moral teaching, Christ shares with his Church the authority to teach, make decisions, and forgive sins. For example, in the story of the healing of the paralyzed man in Capernaum, where Jesus tells him that his sins are forgiven, Mark 2:10 puts these words in Jesus' mouth: “So that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”; on the other hand, when Matthew recounts this story, he adds this ending: "When the crowds saw this, they were filled with awe and gave glory to God, who had given such authority to men" (Mt 9:6). The expression "to men" emphasizes the fact that people in the Church share the authority of the Son of Man to forgive sins. Similarly, for Matthew, Simon receives the rabbinical power to bind and loose, to declare certain actions lawful or unlawful, in accordance or disagreement with the teaching of Jesus: “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Mt 16:19b). Similarly, in chapter 18, the local Church receives the power to admit someone to or exclude someone from the community.

              The authority to teach reaches its climax with the last pericope of the Gospel (Mt 28:16-20) when Jesus recalls that all power has been given to him and that now he grants the power to teach everything he has prescribed to his Church, especially with regard to moral action (Mt 28:20). This is the beginning of a new reality, for when he previously sent his disciples on mission, he commanded them only to heal and proclaim the kingdom of God. But now, just as God transferred the kingdom of Israel to a people who would bear fruit (Mt 21:43), so he transferred the function of teaching from the synagogue to the Church. Matthew then presents the identity of the Church through its role of teaching in order to deal with the crises and divisions of the 70s and 80s.

          3. The Church and its Institutions

            Like any group that grows rapidly and faces an identity crisis, it is called upon to develop its own institutional bodies. Thus, the community of Antioch, faced with questions about its identity and role, engaged in controversy and activities with Jews and pagans, was led to find institutional means to respond to its problems. These institutions can either betray or preserve the original charismatic spirit. For the community of Antioch, its institutions and structures of authority are reflected in the Gospel according to Matthew.

            1. The very fact that the Gospel uses the word “Church” (ekklēsia) three times is revealing. The early Christians used this term very early on to express their awareness of being a particular group, as evidenced by certain Pauline epistles (see 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 Corinthians), and later in Acts, 1 Timothy, and Revelation. It refers to both the local church and the universal church. The Gospels, except for Matthew, ignore this term in order to respect the archaic nature of their narratives. In Matthew, two of the three occurrences refer to the authoritative act of binding and loosing, either by a person in office or by the entire local church. Thus, for him, the term ekklēsia certainly means the Church as a visible structure and society, with agents of authority and functions of authority.

            2. Mt 16:18-19 (“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church...”) can only be understood by placing it in the spatial and temporal context in which it was written, i.e., in the face of the problems of the Syrian Church of Antioch around the year 85. We must avoid projecting onto it our modern question of whether the sole bishop of Rome is the successor of Simon Peter, especially since in Antioch around the year 85 there was no structure of a single bishop. Rather, Matthew presents Peter as the chief rabbi of the universal Church, with the power to make decisions on how to act in light of Jesus' teaching.

              It is possible that this Petrine tradition arose from Peter's historical role in Antioch in bringing stability and unity to the community. But the fact remains that for Matthew, Peter's role now has a general and universal scope: he is the sole human authority for the whole Church. Thus, Matthew proclaims that the Antioch tradition of Peter as a reconciling figure or moderating center will become the norm for the whole Church, as opposed to all the local groups, dissidents, and sects that appeal to either Paul or James as the norm for the whole Church.

              But the question remains: did Matthew see a particular individual exercising such a role in his time, either in Antioch or elsewhere? Was it merely a reference to the past, or was it an allusion to the monarchical episcopate that was coming to Antioch? To answer this, we must continue our analysis.

            3. Another passage should be of interest to us, Matthew 18:17 (“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church, and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector”), but it should not be read in the light of Matthew 16:18 (" You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church...")
              1. The context is not the same. Matthew 16 is set in the context of Peter's confession, while Matthew 18 is a discourse on the life and organization of the Church.
              2. The word “Church” has various meanings: in Matthew 16:17, it refers to all the communities for which Peter acts as chief rabbi, while in Matthew 18:19, it is the local community that must meet to make a decision concerning one of its members.
              3. The expression “to bind/loosen” does not have the same meaning in both cases. In the first case, it refers to the power to interpret Jesus' moral teaching with authority, while in the second case it refers to the power to admit or exclude people from the local community.

              Matthew 18:15-20 presents a case of disciplinary action by a local church. A sin committed by an individual must first be dealt with privately, and only when this is impossible should the local church intervene and, if necessary, excommunicate the individual.

              It is noteworthy that no local leader is named in this pericope. However, Peter appears earlier in Matthew 17:24-27 in the scene of the payment of taxes and reappears in 18:21 with the call for forgiveness. Matthew's intention may be to ensure that all members of the local community share in important decisions, especially disciplinary decisions involving excommunication. And for him, such a perspective is justified theologically: the local church is a fraternal community of people in service where all must share authority and responsibility for making decisions. But why insist on this point? That is what we need to see now.

            4. Clearly, Matthew is concerned about the emerging clericalism in the Antioch community. How else can we explain all the warnings about ostentatious religious clothing and accessories (Mt 23:5), the desire for the best seats in religious gatherings (Mt 23:6), and the desire for prestigious titles (Mt 23:7-10)? Who is Matthew targeting? Probably the Jewish scribes and Pharisees in their role as teachers of authority (Mt 23:2). This reference to teaching in a position of authority is clear with the mention of titles to be avoided: rabbi, master, father, teacher (Mt 23:7-10). This is confirmed by Acts 13:1, which informs us that the community of Antioch was led by a group of prophets and teachers. This group could be identified with the Matthew school mentioned earlier. Moreover, these prestigious preachers and Spirit-inspired teachers naturally became the leaders of the community's liturgy. This is also confirmed by Acts 13:2. Matthew is concerned to see these good and necessary roles evolve into an exercise of domination, monopoly, and clericalism.

            When we consider all of Matthew's statements about ecclesial structures, we cannot help but notice a certain ambivalence in his approach. On the one hand, he exalts Peter as a leader with unique authority, the rock of the entire Church; he also presupposes a group of prophets and teachers in the Antioch community to whom he attributes real authority, as suggested by the parallels with the Jewish scribes and Pharisees. On the other hand, he is extremely wary of the inevitable pitfalls that leaders can fall into, and calls on the local church to act and make decisions involving all members in matters of discipline. This ambivalence could be explained in part by the diverse traditions with which he has to work, and in part by the fact that his Church is a Church in transition, a transition that is not yet complete, and perhaps above all by his own indecision about the extent to which the authority of a leader is good for the Church. As much as he admires the rock that is Peter (Matthew 16:18-19), he is unable or unwilling to see such a figure of ecclesial stability embodied in the local church. Perhaps it is healthy to remember that we cannot expect an evangelist to have an answer to every problem.

  4. The Antiochene Church of the Third Christian Generation (after A.D. 100) p. 73-84

    For this period, we have two sources: first, the seven letters of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, and the Didache (“Teaching” [of the Twelve Apostles]), which establishes the rules of Christian morality and the organization of the Church. Since we do not know whether the latter document was actually written in Antioch, it will be discussed last.

    1. Ignatius of Antioch p. 74

      When we compare Matthew's church and theology with Ignatius' church and theology, the difference is so great that we may wonder if there is any connection between the two.

      1. Church Structure

        In Antioch, there was a clearly defined three-tiered structure: a single bishop, a group of presbyters (a council of elders or presbyterion), and a group of deacons.

        The bishop was the sole leader. Without him, neither baptism nor the Eucharist could be celebrated.

        Let no one, except the bishop, do anything concerning the Church. Let this Eucharist alone be regarded as legitimate, which is done under the presidency of the bishop or of the one whom he has appointed. Where the bishop appears, there let the community be, just as where Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permitted outside of the bishop to baptize or to celebrate the agape, but whatever he approves is also pleasing to God. Thus, everything that is done will be safe and legitimate. (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8:1-2)

        The bishop is also the chief teacher in the Church, the guarantor of the unity of the faith and the unity of the Church.

        The question arises: how did we move from the group of prophets and teachers in Matthew's Church to this three-tiered hierarchy in Ignatius' Church, a hierarchy that seems to have been a fait accompli for some time? The answer probably lies in the pressure exerted on the community by growing crises, such as that caused by the rise of Gnosticism with its Docetist tendencies, which forced the group of teachers and prophets to reorganize and unify in order to face a common enemy. Then there were the persecutions against Christians under Domitian (81-96) and especially under Trajan (98-117), which led to a consolidation of leadership in the face of crisis.

        In any case, around the year 100, a particularly gifted prophet-teacher broke away from the college of prophets and teachers to become the chief teacher and prophet, presiding over the college from which he came and receiving the title of “bishop” or “overseer.” The rest of the teachers or prophets were called “elders” or “presbyters,” and their group or college was called a ‘presbyterion’ or “synedrion.” Somewhat ironically, while Matthew wanted the greatest leader in the Church to be considered a “servant” (diakonos), this latter title was given to assistants (deacons) who constituted the third and lowest level of the hierarchical ladder. However, we should not imagine this group as a soulless bureaucracy. First of all, the entire Church of Antioch was probably about the size of a parish today. Secondly, Ignatius saw this Church as a living body that cooperated in mutual love to maintain its unity.

        Let us summarize. The prophet-teacher who exercised the presidency became the sole bishop, the others became the college of elders, and the other workers of the Church became deacons. Writing his letters between 108 and 117, Ignatius takes this structure for granted as he seeks to consolidate the position of the bishop in the other communities of Asia Minor. We can therefore assume that this ecclesial structure was established around the year 100, which leaves enough time before Ignatius began his letters and took this structure for granted, and also leaves enough time after the writing of the Gospel of Matthew for the development of a structure of authority. Was Ignatius thus the first bishop of Antioch? The silence on the existence of a predecessor suggests so.

      2. Theology

        When we examine Ignatius' theological sources, we notice that he assimilated a good deal of Pauline and Johannine thought, and he makes only rare references to the Old Testament. He probably did not know the Gospel of John directly; but since he had to combat the Gnostics and Docetists, who used the fourth Gospel, it was through them that he became familiar with it and used it to argue against them. A remarkable point is that Ignatius combines Pauline and Johannine thought with the synoptic tradition, represented in particular by Matthew, to offer a theological synthesis in the service of traditional Christian thought. He represents the first attempt to merge the major currents of New Testament thought into a coherent perspective that articulates the faith of the Catholic Church in its opposition to the Gnostics. Ignatius, the theologian bishop, in the first quarter of the 2nd century, anticipates the even more important synthesis of Irenaeus of Lyon, another theologian bishop, in the last quarter of the same century.

        From a certain point of view, Ignatius can be considered Matthew's successor. Like Matthew, he had to bring together different, even divergent, traditions in the service of the unity of the Church, which was facing a new crisis. Thus, confronted with the Docetist tendency of the Gnostics, Ignatius emphasized the unity of the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ, and more particularly the humanity of Jesus. To do this, he used Matthew's contribution to focus on the earthly life of Jesus, a contribution that seems broader than the few direct allusions in his letters.

      3. Diverse Groups

        Ignatius may have inherited the Matthew problem of a church divided between its “left wing” and its “right wing.” Indeed, the “left wing” consisted of Docetists, some of whom may have been the heirs of the Hellenists, or may have absorbed the Gnostic tendencies of converts from paganism. The “right wing” consisted of Judaizers, some of whom came from group I, identified in the introduction, or were heirs of the people in James's circle.

        One can imagine the violent confrontation between the two groups, one promoting a high Christology and rejecting Jewish Scripture around an evil creator God, the other devoting absolute allegiance to Jewish Scripture. Both groups undoubtedly considered themselves Christians and recognized the bishop in principle. But it seems that the Judaizers were less of a threat than the Gnostics. The latter are said to have seceded by abstaining from the Eucharist and public prayer in the Church. However, during a stay in Rome, Ignatius informs us that peace had been restored in the community of Antioch, which indicates that the situation was not frozen in irreconcilable opposition (see the letters to the Philadelphians 10:1; to the Smyrnaeans 10-11; to Polycarp 7). Furthermore, there is no mention of a bishop or elders at the head of the dissident groups. This would mean that the schism did not reach the point of separation into organized churches. In short, there would be similarities in Antioch between the time of Peter and Matthew and that of Ignatius.

    2. The Didache p. 81

      The date and place of composition of the Didache are highly debated among biblical scholars, and therefore, from a methodological standpoint, it cannot be included with more reliable sources such as the Epistle to the Galatians (supplemented by the Acts of the Apostles), the Gospel according to Matthew, and the letters of Ignatius of Antioch.

      1. The date of composition

        No biblical scholar denies the Didache's connections with Matthew's traditions. Rather, the question is whether this document knew the final form of the Gospel. If we consider only its theological tendencies, it must be dated after the writing of the Gospel. When we compare them, we can make a few observations:

        1. Sometimes there is a certain departure from Matthew's radicalism. For example, in Matthew 5:48 we read: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect,” while in Didache 6:2 we read: “If you can bear the whole yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect; if not, do at least what is in your power.”

        2. Sometimes the Didache falls into a form of legalism. While it denounces, like Matthew, the hypocrisy of fasting among some people, it merely replaces fasting on Mondays and Thursdays with fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays. Matthew 28:19 presents the triadic formula for baptism (“in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”), Didache 7:1-2 extends this formula with a discussion of the type of water that can be used, preferably cold running water, and if that is not possible, any other water or hot water.

        3. Sometimes the Didache (8:2-3) expands on Matthew's text, such as in the Lord's Prayer, which it concludes with a doxology: “For yours is the power and the glory forever!” followed by the recommendation: “Pray thus three times a day.”

        These observations lead us to place the final form of the Didache after the Gospel of Matthew.

      2. The place of composition

        If the final form of the Didache appeared after the Gospel of Matthew, then its place of composition cannot be located in Antioch, especially considering its ecclesial structure. For in the Didache, resident bishops and deacons (elders or presbyters seem to be absent) are just beginning to replace prophets and itinerant teachers, so that one must ask that bishops and deacons be respected as one do prophets and teachers. However, the three-level hierarchy of Antioch seems to have appeared around the year 100, so that the emerging two-level hierarchy of the Didache must be placed elsewhere.

        If we place the Didache somewhere in Syria, we can draw an interesting parallel with Acts 13:1-2: “There were prophets and teachers in the church at Antioch... One day, while they were worshiping the Lord.” Indeed, Didache 15:1 mentions in the same order “prophets and men charged with teaching,” and also the fact that they lead the liturgy or service (see also Didache 10:7). However, at the time of the Matthew community, there seems to have been a stable group of teachers oriented towards scholarship, which is far from the charismatic, sometimes greedy itinerants that were the prophets and teachers mentioned in the Didache, a more primitive ecclesial structure. But everything becomes more understandable if we place the development of Matthew's ecclesial structure in the cosmopolitan city of Antioch, and that of the Didache in a rural setting. The Didache would therefore have preserved an ancient ecclesial structure still present in certain communities in Syria, also reflected in Acts 13:1-2. It is possible that this two-level hierarchy also existed in Antioch before evolving into a three-level hierarchy. But it is impossible to be sure.

  5. Summary: Peter, Matthew, Ignatius, and the Struggle for a Middle Position p. 85-86

    Our study has shown the importance of Antioch in the development of Christianity. For it was in Antioch that

    • The disciples are called “Christians” for the first time.
    • The first mission without circumcision is organized.
    • Paul sets out on mission with the embryonic theology, structure, and liturgy of the movement.
    • The tradition of Peter as the center of unity develops.
    • Matthew confronts a fundamental crisis over the identity and role of the Church by bringing together various traditions into a masterful synthesis that is his Gospel, the favorite Gospel of the 2nd century.
    • A three-level hierarchy is proposed to respond to the new challenge of Church unity.
    • Ignatius develops a theological synthesis to combine the divinity and humanity of Christ, as well as the unity of the local church and that of the Catholic Church.
    • Peter, Matthew, and Ignatius undertook the delicate task of maintaining a delicate balance between the left and the right as they fought for the middle ground that would become the universal Church.

    The Gospel of Matthew and the three-tiered hierarchy that emerged in Antioch would have a fundamental impact on all Christian communities as they spread throughout the Roman Empire.

    1. The Gospel according to Matthew

      This Gospel would be the most quoted by the Fathers of the second century and would have a significant impact on the Christology and ecclesiology of the later Church. Its rhythmic language and well-structured pericopes were particularly suited to liturgy and catechesis. One need only think of the Lord's Prayer or the Beatitudes, which found their way not only into the teaching of the Church but also into popular piety. It is not surprising that it occupies the first place in the canon of the Gospels.

    2. The three-level hierarchy

      This three-tiered ecclesiastical structure, with the bishop occupying a position of preeminence, became established in all the major churches of the Roman Empire. It is ironic, however, to think that the environment that gave rise to the monarchical episcopate also gave birth to a gospel that fought against clericalism (Matthew 23:1-12).