Who was the Author of the Gospel of Matthew?
Establishing the true authorship of the Gospel of Matthew remains a matter of scholarly debate, with significant implications for understanding early Christian history and the nature of the texts that form the New Testament. As near as can be determined, it appears that the Gospel we now know as Matthew’s was not actually authored by the apostle himself. This article delves into the evidence surrounding who might have been the actual author, examining textual influences, historical inaccuracies, and traditions associated with the Gospel.
The Question of Authorship and Influence
Historical Context and Influence: It is widely believed that the book of Matthew was not written by the disciple Matthew, who is traditionally considered one of the twelve apostles. The text itself is written in a highly sophisticated Koine Greek, a language that would have been more attuned to a literate and educated audience rather than the likely educated level of the early apostles. Furthermore, the content and style of Matthew’s Gospel are heavily influenced by the earlier Gospel of Mark.
Mark's Gospel, composed around 70 A.D., is comparatively more straightforward and less developed than Matthew’s, which incorporates approximately 90% of its verses. The word-for-word similarity and the meticulous order in which events are recounted suggest that Matthew did not write his own observations but used Mark as a primary source. An eyewitness would likely have written a Gospel in their own words rather than relying on an earlier written account.
Traditions and Later Integrations
Church Traditions and Manuscripts: Despite the textual evidence, traditional Church belief held that the Gospel of Matthew was indeed written by the apostle himself. Some early Church fathers, such as Bishop Papias in 125 A.D., supported the idea that Matthew wrote the Gospel in Hebrew, which was later translated into Greek. This belief underscores the importance of oral tradition in early Christian communities.
Additionally, there were Sayings-lists in circulation before any full Gospel was written, which indicates that the material on which these Gospels were based was not unique to the authors themselves. These Sayings-lists provide further evidence that the authors were using existing material rather than relying on direct eyewitness accounts.
Historical Accuracy and Fictional Elements
Analysis of Historical Inaccuracies: Considering that Matthew was written in the second century, after the apostles, it is unreasonable to expect it to be a completely accurate historical record. In fact, many of the events described in Matthew’s Gospel can be seen as intentionally contrived to serve specific purposes, such as moving readers to convert to Christianity or to affirm existing beliefs.
Take, for example, the tales of Jesus’ miracles. In Mark, Jesus heals a single leper, while Matthew expands this to ten. Such additions serve to enhance the narrative and emphasize the miraculous nature of Jesus’ actions. In other instances, Matthew contradicts Mark to provide a clearer and more compelling narrative, as seen in the accounts of the crucifixion and the resurrection. For instance, Mark describes the tearing of the temple curtain during Jesus’ death, while Josephus reports no such incident in his Antiquities of the Jews.
Moreover, the inclusion of the resurrection of the dead, the coming of the kings from the east, and the earthquake upon Jesus’ death, none of which are supported by contemporary historical records, further indicate that the Gospel is a fusion of historical narrative and myth.
The Genealogical Argument and Other Elements
Critical Analysis of Matthew’s Claims: The claim of divine lineage through King David (Mark 1:1) inspired Matthew to produce a genealogy that supports this connection. However, without evidence of King David’s direct descendants or any written genealogies from that period, the genealogy found in Matthew is more likely a symbolic and theological construct rather than a historical account.
Matthew 1:23 references the Greek Septuagint version of Isaiah 7:14, which interprets the passage as a prophecy of the Virgin Birth. This interpretation raises questions about its original meaning and its inclusion in the Septuagint.
The account of Judas’ death in Matthew 27:3-5 contrasts sharply with that in Acts 1:18. In one version, Judas repents, returns the money, and hangs himself, while in the other, he immediately repents and is killed after purchasing a field with the money. These conflicting narratives highlight the lack of historic accuracy in such stories and suggest that the Gospel writers may have been more concerned with presenting a narrative that served their cause rather than maintaining historical fidelity.
Conclusion
While the Gospel of Matthew remains an important text in Christian theology, its authorship and historical accuracy are open to significant scrutiny. A combination of historical evidence, textual analysis, and oral traditions points to the likelihood that the apostle Matthew did not author the current text. Instead, Matthew’s Gospel appears to be a combination of existing Sayings-lists and additional material written by an author who was skilled in combining the teachings of Jesus with existing Christian beliefs and practices.