Did St. Matthew Really Write the Gospel According To Matthew?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Scott84
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Scott84

Guest
I have been studying biblical scholarship, and I know it has been longstanding Church tradition that says Saint Matthew was the author of the first Gospel in the New Testament. I was raised for example to believe Saint Matthew did indeed write that Gospel.

However, in the modern era there is evidence that says Saint Matthew was not the author, and the name of this Gospel is simply attributed to him for the sake of convenience (as the introduction to Saint Matthew’s Gospel says in the New American Bible).

I have read some scholars who say this Gospel was written after the Romans destroyed the Second Temple, and hence why Our Lord makes a reference to this event. But if this was written after the fact, wouldn’t that make the destruction of the Second Temple in the past tense rather than the future tense?

Additionally this Gospel draws heavily upon the first Gospel written; Saint Mark’s Gospel. And another argument says it is very doubtful an Apostle close to Jesus would ever draw so heavily upon another Gospel authored by someone who did not know Our Lord personally.

I really don’t know what to think here. What does the real modern day evidence say? Did Saint Matthew really write the Gospel of his namesake, or did someone else write it?

I have heard scholars say Saint Matthew’ Gospel is just a creative reinterpretation of Saint Mark’s Gospel.

If Saint Matthew really is not the author of this Gospel, I don’t know what to think. I honestly feel it would make me question aspects of my Faith. I have believed for the longest time that Saint Matthew himself was the author of this Gospel. If this turns out to not be true, it would devastate me on a Faith level, as from my point of view I would felt like I was lied to.
 
It’s one of those many cases in which there’s no such thing as certain knowledge. There are only judgments based on the balance of probabilities. Nothing to be devastated about.
 
Good question. Maybe it was written by him or the community he founded. They would have first hand knowledge if whet he preached.

ZP
 
Scott84 said:
If Saint Matthew really is not the author of this Gospel, I don’t know what to think. I honestly feel it would make me question aspects of my Faith. I have believed for the longest time that Saint Matthew himself was the author of this Gospel. If this turns out to not be true, it would devastate me on a Faith level, as from my point of view I would felt like I was lied to.
Click to expand...
First, you’re going to have to accept that you will not get a definitive answer to the authorship question, at least not in this earthly life. You will simply get a lot of different theories of scholars.

Second, faith means just that, FAITH. It does not mean you’re going to be able to disprove every doubt you have with evidence.

Third, I think you need to look at why the authorship of a particular Gospel is so important to you that it would make you turn away from Jesus Christ. Frankly, that’s a little odd. I personally think that St. Matthew either adapted this gospel himself from St. Mark’s earlier Gospel, or alternatively that the gospel as we know it today was the product of a group effort in which St. Matthew played a large part. But if it was somehow revealed tomorrow that some other disciple actually wrote it and it got wrongly attributed to St. Matthew somehow, it wouldn’t make the material in it any less true or any less divinely inspired. Authorship of works that the Church has accepted as being canonical and divinely inspired is simply not that important.
 
As has been said previously, it isn’t the biggest issue, unless you are part of a denomination that rests reliability of the document on its human authorship, rather than on the authority of the Church.

At my institution, for example, I have one professor who holds to the modern critical theory, including Markan priority, and another who holds to the traditional theory, including Matthean priority.

The former argues that the documentary evidence we have points to his position, as well as how texts develop over time; the latter likes to point out that the writers were Jews who took the law seriously and to whom tax collectors at the time were of ill-repute, and since Matthew is the only Gospel that stresses Matthew being a tax collector, it means that Matthew or someone closely associated with him likely wrote the Gospel.

Personally, I hold to the Historical-critical position in regards to the formation of the texts, but like to maintain the traditional iconography and terminology.
 
You have been reading the introductions and footnotes in the NAB/RE. For some reason, the USCCB allowed those notes and intros without agreeing with all of them. I say to ignore them. Why should so-called scholars, (some of who are modernists), over 1,900 years after the fact, presume to know more than those who were eyewitnesses?

Modernism, and the “historical-critical” method of exegesis, has some value, but also has great limitations. It tends to dismiss the Sacred Tradition (Apostolic tradition/oral tradition) in favor of limiting opinions solely to physical evidence. which still exists.

Rather, get a Douay-Confraternity bible, or the 1941 Confraternity New Testament. Compare the following introduction - consistent for 1,937 years, with the “new” opinions.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
I agree that we will never know with certainty who wrote any of the Gospels.

From what I understand…and please correct me if I’m wrong…it shouldn’t matter to a believer because the Church has declared that the Gospels as we have them are the conical ones and inspired. Thus, even if Shlomo wrote them, they are still the correct and inspired words meant to be used.

Besides, it isn’t the Gospel by Matthew…it’s the Gospel according to Matthew if that helps relieve some anxiety.
 
We know with certainty that it was St. Matthew who authored the Gospel of Matthew because the Catholic Church tells us so.

These modern biblical scholars throw everything into doubt. Some of them even doubt that Jesus really walked the earth. Ignore them. Follow the Catholic Church.
 
It should be common sense, and quite evident to any faithful Catholic, that Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the authors of the Gospels bearing their names. That does not necessarily mean they put the “pen to the paper” completely alone, but the Gospels are certainly the products of their collected notes and sayings, presumably with the assistance of the other Apostle and disciples of Jesus (and the Holy Spirit of course) - people who knew and witnessed Him.
 
Scott84 said:
If Saint Matthew really is not the author of this Gospel, I don’t know what to think. I honestly feel it would make me question aspects of my Faith. I have believed for the longest time that Saint Matthew himself was the author of this Gospel. If this turns out to not be true, it would devastate me on a Faith level, as from my point of view I would felt like I was lied to.
Click to expand...
Really? Is your faith so brittle that it would be devastated? No one is lying to you about the authorship - it was written through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Man was just the tool.
 
Last edited:
Scott84 said:
Did Saint Matthew really write the Gospel of his namesake, or did someone else write it?
Click to expand...
Only St. Matthew records the, magi, the Sermon on the mount. He evidences being an eye witness because he along with only St. John got his chronology correct which makes sense because they were the only two evangelists who were eye witnesses. Many of these “scholars” question the resurrection etc. calling into question why we would believe anything they have to say. See my article on the Chronology of Jesus for some additional arguments for St. Matthew being the author from early Christian sources. http://www.scripturescholar.com/ChronologyJesus.pdf
 
po18guy said:
You have been reading the introductions and footnotes in the NAB/RE. For some reason, the USCCB allowed those notes and intros without agreeing with all of them. I say to ignore them. Why should so-called scholars, (some of who are modernists), over 1,900 years after the fact, presume to know more than those who were eyewitnesses?
Click to expand...
Why should non-scholars, some of whom are fideists, over 1,900 years after the fact, presume to know more than the scholars who have examined the text and the testimonies about it in great detail? I say ignore those non-scholars.

The NABRE was sponsored by, and approved by the USCCB. The notes and introductions are meant to support the reader in understanding the Scriptures in a truly Catholic way. I have no idea what you mean when you say the USCCB “allowed those notes and intros without agreeing with all of them.” That sounds like anti-catholic prejudice, even though I know it comes from a devoted Catholic!
 
You can dismiss and pooh pooh all you want. I side with Pope Emeritus Benedict XVBI regarding the certain values - but more importantly the profound liimitations of the historical-critical method of textual examination. I note that the best of the best of the modern critics have no answers- only more questions. That is not leadership; it is not the advancement of the discipline. It strikes me more as derision, or perhaps confusion.

Without that Sacred Tradition (you do believe in that, don’t you?) we would have no faith at all. I don’t get your point, unless it is to default to agreement with historical-critical persons who seem to be attempting to redefine the faith.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to clear that up?
 
As @BartholomewB said, there is no certain knowledge in that case.

To me, though, it is not that unsettling. If the gospel wasn’t written by St Matthew (and I think the historical-critical exegesis has a convincing case that it wasn’t), it was probably written by people who were his disciples, benefitted from his teaching and transmitted it.

I think I have said this before, but when dealing with texts from Antiquity, we should forget our modern notions of authorship and intellectual property, and remember that oral transmission is surprisingly reliable.

I see no problem in both admitting the conclusions of modern exegesis about the datation and sources of the gospel of Matthew as we know it, and also recognizing that there are elements in it which point to traditions originating in someone who was a Jew and had a particular sensitivity for socio-economical injustice, which is coherent with what we know about St Matthew as a repented tax collector.
 
The historical-critical method is the indispensable method for the scientific study of the meaning of ancient texts. Holy Scripture, inasmuch as it is the “word of God in human language,” hs been composed by human authors in all its various parts and in all the sources that lie behind them. Because of this, its proper understanding not only admits the use of this method but actually requires it.
Pontifical Biblical Commission The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. 1993.
Click to expand...
At the time The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church was issued, Cardinal Ratzinger was the head of the PBC. If you stand with him, I am fine with that. I certainly agree it has limitations. You just do not sound like you agree with him.
po18guy said:
I note that the best of the best of the modern critics have no answers- only more questions. That is not leadership; it is not the advancement of the discipline. It strikes me more as derision, or perhaps confusion.
Click to expand...
Obviously you are looking for something different from what I seek. That may be why you accept “answers” and certainty in this area. I happily side with scholars and critics who always find more questions when investigating Scripture, uncovering more of what has been revealed. This may be the pivotal issue, but I do not really see it being resolved in this discussion.
po18guy said:
Without that Sacred Tradition (you do believe in that, don’t you?) we would have no faith at all. I don’t get your point, unless it is to default to agreement with historical-critical persons who seem to be attempting to redefine the faith.
Click to expand...
Sacred Tradition is nearly everything to me. That is why I defend the bible translation handed to us by our bishops. I resist those who misrepresent what the Vatican or Pope Benedict XVI says about historical criticism. This seems to me to be the faith as it has been taught. I have no idea why it seems different to you.
 
Good point. They didn’t willy-nilly slap names on texts after they were written by unknown authors. There’s a logical connection to Matthew even if it wasn’t written by his hand. It’s evidenced, as Bruce pointed out, by what it contains that Matthew’s gospel contains information of a first-hand account, and Matthew being the “Apostle to the East” in a sense further bears out the logic of his gospel being the one to record things like the visiting magi that the others omit.
 
‘Scholars’ have agendas, so tread carefully. St Luke wrote both his gospel and Acts of the Apostles. There are scholars who agree that Matthew was already in circulation, from some cross references. Because Acts ends in the early 60s AD, and the Second Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, IMO there is no ground to conclude that Matthew was written after its destruction. A thousand difficulties do not a doubt make.
 
There is not a single “autograph” copy of any manuscript. Not even Saint Jerome in 380 had one, as they had all perished do the fragility of the papyrus. Even then, he had copies of copies of copies. Thus, the dedicated and diligent work of the copyists, under the watchful eye of the Church, is even more important.

Except for the constant tradition of the Church, we have no idea whose quill was actually put to papyrus to draft the "originals. None at all. Ah, but in the scriptures themselves is substantial evidence that the oral tradition was quite efficacious.

Do we trust the Church? Do we trust Christ’s promise that the Holy Spirit would lead her into all truth? Do we trust His promise that the gates of hell (current distressing events notwithstanding) would not prevail?

Unless we can answer “yes”, we may want to search for another belief system.
 
You might also want to remember, Matthew’s gospel was orginally penned in Aramaic (language of the Hebrews) and not even a copy in that language exists. We only have the Greek translation (and copies of that). So Matthew originally preached to Hebrew Christians and when he left them to preach to the wider world he left a Gospel. Later translated to Greek. who did the translation? The Church teaches that the Greek Matthew we have is inspired.

See Was Matthew's Gospel First Written in Aramaic or Hebrew? | Catholic Answers
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top