Who Wrote the Gospel of Matthew?

[The Pixie]

On another thread, Mountain Man made this extraordinary claim, a sentiment that seemed to be echoed by several others:

First of all, there is no credible dispute concerning gospel authorship. Based on multiple points of evidence, we know who wrote them, and we know when they were written within a couple of decades. There's no reason to question it outside of rampant skepticism.

Apparently, I am a rampant sceptic, as I think there is reason to question it. I am interested to see what the evidence is for the Gospel of Matthew being written by the eponymous apostle.

Some other rampant skeptics:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html

It is the near-universal position of scholarship that the Gospel of Matthew is dependent upon the Gospel of Mark. This position is accepted whether one subscribes to the dominant Two-Source Hypothesis or instead prefers the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis.
It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew.

http://www.womenpriests.org/gospels/mtauthor.asp

Modern scholars think that the original material was elaborated by a Christian scribe, possibly in Antioch. He translated the text into Greek, added sections from the Ur-Mark document and arranged its presentation in its present schematic and symbolical form. The Gospel may have reached its final form in the eighties.
“Aramaic Matthew” has entirely been lost, perhaps because there were very few people who spoke Aramaic in later times. Anyway, what the Christian community has canonised is the complete Greek Gospel which we know at present.

So why are these rampant sceptics dubious of the claim that Matthew wrote the gospel?


Originally Written In Greek

Firstly because the gospel was originally written in Greek.

http://soniclight.com/constable/notes/pdf/matthew.pdf?

If Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Aramaic, it is difficult to explain why he sometimes, but not always, quoted from a Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. The Hebrew Old Testament would have been the normal text for a Hebrew or Aramaic author to use. A Greek translator might have used the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX) to save himself some work, but if he did so—why did he not use it consistently?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...peed/ch11.html

This cannot possibly mean our Gospel of Matthew, for the identities of Greek expression between it and Mark and Luke cannot be reconciled with the idea that it is a translation; the Greek relationship between the three must have come through Greek and could not have survived independent translation, which always breeds variation in abundance.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ew-cathen.html

These peculiarities of language, especially the repetition of the same words and expressions, would indicate that the Greek Gospel was an original rather than a translation, and this is confirmed by the paronomasiæ (battologein, polulogia; kophontai kai ophontai, etc.), which ought not to have been found in the Aramaic, by the employment of the genitive absolute, and, above all, by the linking of clauses through the use of men . . . oe, a construction that is peculiarly Greek.

http://www.religion-online.org/showc...le=1116&C=1229

Against Papias, it has been claimed, however, that Matthew cannot be a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic (even though some of the Old Testament quotations seem to have come from the Hebrew Bible), especially since it is written in a clear Greek which reflects an advance over Mark’s style and language; there is a play on the Greek words ‘kopsontai’ and ‘opsontai’ in Matthew 24:30. This claim neglects the wide variety to be found in the work of translators, and the play on Greek words can be balanced by Matthew 1:21: ‘you shall call his name Jesus, for it is he who will save his people from their sins -- ‘Jesus’ and ‘save’ are related in Hebrew (‘ieshua’ -- ‘ieshoa’).

Papias on Matthew

Why does it matter if the gospel was originally written in Greek? Because we have this statement from Papias:

"Matthew collected the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could."

So we have evidence that St Matthew wrote something, but that what he wrote was NOT the gospel we have today. He wrote something in Hebrew. What we have today was originally in Greek.

Now it is possible that the real author used the writings of Matthew in his new gospel, together with the Gospel of Mark, and perhaps that is where the name comes from, but the author of the gospel we have was not the apostle.

This is doubly important because the Papias quote is often cited as evidence that Matthew was the author, despite it actually being evidence against it.


"According to"

The gospel has been called the Gospel According to Matthew since the mid-second century. Good evidence he wrote it, right? Well, no, for two reasons. The first is that that is about 80 years after is was written, and plenty of time for it to get wrongly credited. But also because "according to" is different to "written by".

http://www.theopedia.com/gospel-of-matthew

To be sure, the title “According to Matthew” was assigned to the gospel during the second century C. E. ... The “kata” (meaning “according to”) does not affirm authorship.

https://www.catholicculture.org/cult...fm?recnum=6976

We must keep in mind that in the ancient world, authorship was designated in several ways: ... Third, the individual was still considered the author if he only provided the ideas or if the text were written in accord with his thought and in his spirit even though a "ghost writer" did the actual composition. In the broadest sense, the individual was even considered the author if the work was written in his tradition; for example, David is given credit for the Psalms even though clearly he did not write all of the Psalms.

Marcan Priority

The synoptic problem - as most here will know full well - is the observation that much of Mark, Luke and Matthew are pretty much the same; it is pretty certain that two of the them copied much of their works from the third. The question is, which was the original? The answer, for most scholars, is Mark.

https://bible.org/article/synoptic-problem

The majority of NT scholars hold to Markan priority (either the two-source hypothesis of Holtzmann or the four-source hypothesis of Streeter).

http://virtualreligion.net/forum/complete.html

Still, as we enter a new century, some form of the Two Source hypothesis continues to be preferred by an overwhelming majority of critically trained New Testament scholars as the theory that is best able to resolve the synoptic problem.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html

It is the near-universal position of scholarship that the Gospel of Matthew is dependent upon the Gospel of Mark. This position is accepted whether one subscribes to the dominant Two-Source Hypothesis or instead prefers the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis.

Even if Mark was the author of the gospel that bears his name, he was not a witness to what actually happened, and so we have to wonder why Matthew, who was a witness, who spoke to Jesus, who heard Jesus preach, would choose to lavishly copy Mark where he could (he copied around 95% of Mark). Of course, it is possible that he chose to use a second hand account because it was superior to his own recollections, but the most likely explanation is that, like the author of Luke, the author of Matthew was at some remove from the events, and so was compiling a record from the accounts of others.

[shunyadragon]

Good show! This was the thread I was planning to begin showing the progressive character of the gospels, because I was ridiculed in a previous thread for proposing this scenario that Mathew evolved from Mark with an unknown author, editor or redactor, possibly more than one person involved.

[One Bad Pig]

What we have now is probably not what Matthew originally wrote in Hebrew. It is possible that he or someone else used Mark and Q (or Luke) to extensively rewrite it in Greek. As Mark's gospel is ostensibly based on Peter's teaching, it could be considered more authoritative (since Matthew, unlike Peter, was not in the core group of 3 disciples). Dr. Wallace argues here that the author was likely Jewish and may well have been a tax collector given his emphasis on money. Professor Barry Smith also argues for a likely Jewish author and readership based on the material unique to Matthew.

[Juice]

Apparently, I am a rampant sceptic, as I think there is reason to question it.

Are you equally sceptical of the authorship of secular works where the evidential support is no better? Name a work from antiquity which you feel the evidence for authorship is so strong there is no reason to doubt it and we can use that work as a baseline to establish whether you are a rampant sceptic or not.

I am interested to see what the evidence is for the Gospel of Matthew being written by the eponymous apostle.

Here’s some external evidence.

”Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” - Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.1.1

Irenaeus tells us he met Polycarp who knew the disciples including John. So we have an unbroken line coming down to us from around 100 years after the last Gospel was probably written.

"For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence... For Matthew, after the forty days' fast and the temptation which followed it, indicates the chronology of his work when he says: Now when he heard that John was delivered up he withdrew from Judea into Galilee." – Eusebius, Church History, 3.24.6,9

“So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.”- Papias, as recorded by Eusebius CH 3.39.16


The internal evidence supports the traditional authorship in as much as it’s consistent with what we know of Matthew and doesn’t falsify it.

Originally Written In Greek

This doesn’t pose as big a problem to traditional authorship as is often made out. We have precedents for works being translated without leaving discernible signs of translation.

The early church conflated the Hebrew Matthew with the Greek one probably because they recognized it was not unprecedented for educated Jews to write a work in Hebrew and then later translate it to Greek. In the same book containing the quotes on Matthew’s authorship Eusebius makes the following comment about Josephus a few chapters before.

”[Josephus] wrote the whole of the Antiquities of the Jews in twenty books, and a history of the war with the Romans which took place in his time, in seven books. He himself testifies that the latter work was not only written in Greek, but that it was also translated by himself into his native tongue.” – Eusebius, CH, 3.9.3

As a cross reference here are Josephus’ own words where he states he wrote the work first in his native language (Hebrew) and then translated it to Greek.

”I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country” - Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 1.

The Hebrew version of Josephus’ War of the Jews is lost to us. But apparently Josephus was able to make this translation from Hebrew to Greek without showing any discernible signs of translation. Sound familiar?

"According to"

The gospel has been called the Gospel According to Matthew since the mid-second century. Good evidence he wrote it, right? Well, no, for two reasons. The first is that that is about 80 years after is was written, and plenty of time for it to get wrongly credited. But also because "according to" is different to "written by".

This is weak. We have no competing traditions for the Gospel of Matthew’s authorship in the early church. How could it circulate around anonymously for 80 years and then emerge with the church unanimously attributing it to Matthew with no dispute? The time frame is better than some secular works like Caesar’s Gallic War. It’s not until Suetonius around 120AD, roughly 160 years after publication, that it finally emerges with the title Gallic War. Prior to that it seems to be known simply as “Caesar’s memoirs.”

Marcan Priority

The synoptic problem - as most here will know full well - is the observation that much of Mark, Luke and Matthew are pretty much the same; it is pretty certain that two of the them copied much of their works from the third. The question is, which was the original? The answer, for most scholars, is Mark.

Markan priority only poses a problem if we assume Markan priority. If we assume the two-Gospel hypothesis the problem disappears.

Even under the assumption of Markan priority is the problem really that bad for traditional authorship? Is it so farfetched that Matthew, an eyewitness, would use Mark? I don’t think it is especially when we consider the authority of Peter stands behind Mark’s gospel. So it wouldn’t Matthew agreeing with Mark as much as it would be Mathew agreeing with Peter.

[shunyadragon]

Are you equally sceptical of the authorship of secular works where the evidential support is no better? Name a work from antiquity which you feel the evidence for authorship is so strong there is no reason to doubt it and we can use that work as a baseline to establish whether you are a rampant sceptic or not.

This has covered many times in many threads, scholars are equally skeptical of authorship and origins of ALL ancient works. Nonetheless there are ancient works that have a strong foundation of known authorship, such as, Lucretius's poetic work Nature.

Here’s some external evidence.

”Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” - Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.1.1

Irenaeus tells us he met Polycarp who knew the disciples including John. So we have an unbroken line coming down to us from around 100 years after the last Gospel was probably written.

"For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence... For Matthew, after the forty days' fast and the temptation which followed it, indicates the chronology of his work when he says: Now when he heard that John was delivered up he withdrew from Judea into Galilee." – Eusebius, Church History, 3.24.6,9

“So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.”- Papias, as recorded by Eusebius CH 3.39.16

I do not consider these later references good evidence for known authorship of Matthew.

The internal evidence supports the traditional authorship in as much as it’s consistent with what we know of Matthew and doesn’t falsify it.

The internal evidence reflects editing and redacting of the text, and is not convincing.

This doesn’t pose as big a problem to traditional authorship as is often made out. We have precedents for works being translated without leaving discernible signs of translation.

Which works?

The early church conflated the Hebrew Matthew with the Greek one probably because they recognized it was not unprecedented for educated Jews to write a work in Hebrew and then later translate it to Greek. In the same book containing the quotes on Matthew’s authorship Eusebius makes the following comment about Josephus a few chapters before.

”[Josephus] wrote the whole of the Antiquities of the Jews in twenty books, and a history of the war with the Romans which took place in his time, in seven books. He himself testifies that the latter work was not only written in Greek, but that it was also translated by himself into his native tongue.” – Eusebius, CH, 3.9.3

As a cross reference here are Josephus’ own words where he states he wrote the work first in his native language (Hebrew) and then translated it to Greek.

”I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country” - Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 1.

The Hebrew version of Josephus’ War of the Jews is lost to us. But apparently Josephus was able to make this translation from Hebrew to Greek without showing any discernible signs of translation. Sound familiar?

Self-translation by Josephus is not the evidence I would like to see concerning what the original language of Matthew was written in. I believe the evidence indicates it was Greek, with Greek not Hebrew use of OT works. The Septuagint in Greek and Hebrew were available.

Markan priority only poses a problem if we assume Markan priority. If we assume the two-Gospel hypothesis the problem disappears.

Even under the assumption of Markan priority is the problem really that bad for traditional authorship?

Markan priority is not presumed, it supported by good scholarship.

Is it so farfetched that Matthew, an eyewitness, would use Mark?

Yes.

[Juice]

This has covered many times in many threads, scholars are equally skeptical of authorship and origins of ALL ancient works.

Patently false. There are works such as Caesar's Gallic Wars to name one which are not at all disputed by Classical scholars. Yet the evidence is no better.

Nonetheless there are ancient works that have a strong foundation of known authorship, such as, Lucretius's poetic work Nature.

Shall we use it as a baseline then? Can you share with us the evidence for authorship?

[The Pixie]

What we have now is probably not what Matthew originally wrote in Hebrew. It is possible that he or someone else used Mark and Q (or Luke) to extensively rewrite it in Greek. As Mark's gospel is ostensibly based on Peter's teaching, it could be considered more authoritative (since Matthew, unlike Peter, was not in the core group of 3 disciples). Dr. Wallace argues here that the author was likely Jewish and may well have been a tax collector given his emphasis on money. Professor Barry Smith also argues for a likely Jewish author and readership based on the material unique to Matthew.

Okay, so let us recall that Mountain man claimed:

"First of all, there is no credible dispute concerning gospel authorship. Based on multiple points of evidence, we know who wrote them, and we know when they were written within a couple of decades."

The evidence you offer is:

1. It is possible that he or someone else used Mark and Q (or Luke) to extensively rewrite it in Greek.

2. The author was likely Jewish

3. The author emphasizes money, so may have been a tax collector

Do you think that that is enough to eliminate all credible dispute about authorship? Seems a bit to me.

[The Pixie]

Are you equally sceptical of the authorship of secular works where the evidential support is no better? Name a work from antiquity which you feel the evidence for authorship is so strong there is no reason to doubt it and we can use that work as a baseline to establish whether you are a rampant sceptic or not.

I am sorry, is someone here making claims about other works from antiquity? I know I am not.

Here’s some external evidence.

”Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” - Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.1.1

Irenaeus tells us he met Polycarp who knew the disciples including John. So we have an unbroken line coming down to us from around 100 years after the last Gospel was probably written.

"For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence... For Matthew, after the forty days' fast and the temptation which followed it, indicates the chronology of his work when he says: Now when he heard that John was delivered up he withdrew from Judea into Galilee." – Eusebius, Church History, 3.24.6,9

“So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.”- Papias, as recorded by Eusebius CH 3.39.16

Well, done. Matthew wrote something in Hebrew (or Aramaic).

But as the OP points out, most modern scholars agree that what we have today was first written in Greek. What these early church fathers were talking about is NOT the gospel we have today.

The internal evidence supports the traditional authorship in as much as it’s consistent with what we know of Matthew and doesn’t falsify it.

But you chose not to say what that is. I will do it for you. He was Jewish and talked about money. Have I missed anything?

Do you really think that is conclusive enough to claim:

"First of all, there is no credible dispute concerning gospel authorship. Based on multiple points of evidence, we know who wrote them, and we know when they were written within a couple of decades. There's no reason to question it outside of rampant skepticism. "

This doesn’t pose as big a problem to traditional authorship as is often made out. We have precedents for works being translated without leaving discernible signs of translation.

Ah, right. So it is your opinion that modern scholarship has got it wrong. Because... you want it to be wrong?

The early church conflated the Hebrew Matthew with the Greek one probably because they recognized it was not unprecedented for educated Jews to write a work in Hebrew and then later translate it to Greek. In the same book containing the quotes on Matthew’s authorship Eusebius makes the following comment about Josephus a few chapters before.

Interesting speculation.

”[Josephus] wrote the whole of the Antiquities of the Jews in twenty books, and a history of the war with the Romans which took place in his time, in seven books. He himself testifies that the latter work was not only written in Greek, but that it was also translated by himself into his native tongue.” – Eusebius, CH, 3.9.3

As a cross reference here are Josephus’ own words where he states he wrote the work first in his native language (Hebrew) and then translated it to Greek.

”I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country” - Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 1.

The Hebrew version of Josephus’ War of the Jews is lost to us. But apparently Josephus was able to make this translation from Hebrew to Greek without showing any discernible signs of translation. Sound familiar?

Your argument here rests on the claim that there are no "discernible signs of translation". What is your evidence of that?

This is weak. We have no competing traditions for the Gospel of Matthew’s authorship in the early church. How could it circulate around anonymously for 80 years and then emerge with the church unanimously attributing it to Matthew with no dispute?

Well one possibility is thast it was called the Gospel According to Matthew because it followed his teachings, not because it was authored by him. As I pointed out in the OP, that fits the Greek perfectly well.

Markan priority only poses a problem if we assume Markan priority. If we assume the two-Gospel hypothesis the problem disappears.

Most Bible scholars accept Markan priority, as the OP makes clear.

Even under the assumption of Markan priority is the problem really that bad for traditional authorship? Is it so farfetched that Matthew, an eyewitness, would use Mark? I don’t think it is especially when we consider the authority of Peter stands behind Mark’s gospel. So it wouldn’t Matthew agreeing with Mark as much as it would be Mathew agreeing with Peter.

I accept that that is possible. Again, I said that in the OP. However, it seems more likely that the author copied Mark because he was not Matthew, not a witness.

[shunyadragon]

Patently false. There are works such as Caesar's Gallic Wars to name one which are not at all disputed by Classical scholars. Yet the evidence is no better.

What evidence, please cite?

Patently False? Bogus, Hokus. Pokus.

The skepticism of authorship and questions of original content of documents has always been open to question concerning ancient sources. Citing on reference does not change the academic skeptical view in general.

Shall we use it as a baseline then?

No.

Can you share with us the evidence for authorship?

Reference to Lucretius poetry;

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucretius

In a letter by Cicero to his brother Quintus in February 54 BC, Cicero said : "The poems of Lucretius are as you write: they exhibit many flashes of genius, and yet show great mastership."[8] By this time, both Cicero and his brother had read De rerum natura, and so might have many other Romans. A literary evaluation of Lucretius's work, however, reveals some repetition and a sudden end to Book 6 during a description of the plague at Athens. The poem appears to have been published without a final revision, possibly due to its author's death. If this is true, Lucretius must have been dead by 54 BC.

© Copyright Original Source

[One Bad Pig]

Okay, so let us recall that Mountain man claimed:

"First of all, there is no credible dispute concerning gospel authorship. Based on multiple points of evidence, we know who wrote them, and we know when they were written within a couple of decades."

The evidence you offer is:

1. It is possible that he or someone else used Mark and Q (or Luke) to extensively rewrite it in Greek.

2. The author was likely Jewish

3. The author emphasizes money, so may have been a tax collector

Do you think that that is enough to eliminate all credible dispute about authorship? Seems a bit to me.

I don't recall endorsing MM's position. In his opinion, it is enough. In my opinion, I'm satisfied that it is credibly possible that Matthew did write the gospel. Due to the general paucity of evidence from antiquity, it is a stretch to rule out other credible hypotheses.

[The Pixie]

Patently false. There are works such as Caesar's Gallic Wars to name one which are not at all disputed by Classical scholars. Yet the evidence is no better.

That is an interesting one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commen...e_Bello_Civili

"Caesar's authorship of the Commentarii de Bello Civili is not disputed. However, its continuations on the Alexandrian, African and Hispanic wars are believed to have been written by others: the 2nd-century historian Suetonius suggested Aulus Hirtius and Gaius Oppius as possible authors."

So yes, that book is not disputed, but others are. Authorship of classic work clearly can be questioned, just as Gospel authorship is questioned. How the evidence compares... well, that is the question.

[Mountain Man]

Okay, so let us recall that Mountain man claimed:

"First of all, there is no credible dispute concerning gospel authorship. Based on multiple points of evidence, we know who wrote them, and we know when they were written within a couple of decades."

I stand by this claim. Whatever argument you make against gospel authorship can be applied just as readily to any ancient work for which there is no widespread dispute concerning authorship. Which is say that if we can't confidently determine who wrote the gospels with the wealth of evidence at our disposal then we can not confidently determine who wrote anything in history up until several hundred years ago, and even those writings may be open to dispute if we apply skeptical arguments consistently!

[Mountain Man]

That is an interesting one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commen...e_Bello_Civili

"Caesar's authorship of the Commentarii de Bello Civili is not disputed. However, its continuations on the Alexandrian, African and Hispanic wars are believed to have been written by others: the 2nd-century historian Suetonius suggested Aulus Hirtius and Gaius Oppius as possible authors."

So yes, that book is not disputed, but others are. Authorship of classic work clearly can be questioned, just as Gospel authorship is questioned. How the evidence compares... well, that is the question.

Wikipedia

[The Pixie]

I don't recall endorsing MM's position.

No, but that statement was the starting point of this thread: Is it reasonable to claim "there is no credible dispute concerning gospel authorship"? You are clearly not supporting that claim, which is perfectly reasonable.

In his opinion, it is enough. In my opinion, I'm satisfied that it is credibly possible that Matthew did write the gospel. Due to the general paucity of evidence from antiquity, it is a stretch to rule out other credible hypotheses.

I think that is fair.

[The Pixie]

I stand by this claim. Whatever argument you make against gospel authorship can be applied just as readily to any ancient work for which there is no widespread dispute concerning authorship. Which is say that if we can't confidently determine who wrote the gospels with the wealth of evidence at our disposal then we can not confidently determine who wrote anything in history up until several hundred years ago, and even those writings may be open to dispute if we apply skeptical arguments consistently

So you argument is:

There is no convincing evidence for any author in antiquity
Therefore there is no credible dispute concerning gospel authorship

Is that right?