Matthew the Author = the Apostle?

[flatliner]

Is there anything written by the Church father’s other than papais about the primacy of the gospel according to matthew? I know origen says something about it, but I gather he is just repeating what papais said, perhaps, improperly. Maybe papais was talking abut something else. I have heard some rumors that Matthew copied Mark and that it was probably not written in palestine because it was written greek, and also that it was most likely written after the fall of the temple (70ad) and perhaps not even by the apostle matthew since there are no first person accounts. This, of course, is the stripped down version of the argument, but I gather that it is now the opinion of “leading scholars”. Any help with this would be appreciated. I have checked the Catholic encylopedia, but it isn’t much help. There is something about St. Jerome, but, since I don’t have access to anything Jerome wrote, it isn’t clear what exactly he said. Help.

 

[Fidelis]

(Waiting for our usual, inevitable post from the member with the pet theory about Paul’s letters not being canonical. )

 

[flatliner]

There’s always a few. The thing I’m worried about is that this has become the opinion of “leading scholars”. It basically charges a grande conspiracy on the part of the Church to assert the primacy of Matthew. How could this be a more plausible course of action than just believing what the fathers said?

 

[whowantsumadebo]

Humf,
Well it was widely and pretty much universally accepted that Matthew was the first written. I still think independant tradition explains away the need for dependancy either way. But beware of using Papias and others’ qoutes against critics; they will dismiss it as legend. You’re going to have to dive into the scriptures and become historically indepth(?). Firstly, yes all the N.T. is taken as being written in koine Greek, and at times reaches almost classical Greek in style, a bit. Stray away from “Matthew was written in hebrew” because alot of critical scholarly types act like the early church found the gospels under a rock and had to make up where they came from. So, in Matt. 24 Jesus tells the disciples to “flee to the mountains of Judea” when they see the abomination of desolation. However, when the war with the romans started, Jerusalem was surrounded, you couldn’t escape to the mountains. I lost my notes. Well if it was written after 70 A.D. it wouldn’t make much sense for that to be there. Sorry, “Redating the New Testament” by Anglican guy John A.T. Robinson is a huge help. My point is that parts of the gospel can’t be accounted for under the post 70 A.D. hypothesis. Also Compare Matthew’s language to the didache. Debo has a cold so please don’t request any of him.

 

[flatliner]

As to it not making sense that Matthew be written after the fall of the temple, this critic tells me that the olivet discourse is far better than an “i told you so” ending. And that if there was an agenda to predate the text in order to make it seem as though Jesus prophesized the destruction, it would make more sense to leave it unsaid – that is, to just leave at it, “jesus said the temple WILL be destroyed.”
Now as to the quotes from the fathers, i think it would help since we are sure when they wrote and who they were. I, of course, showed him papias, but he says that papias must be talking about someone else because gmt was written in greek. To show this as well as to deny matthean primacy, he points to the synoptic parrallel:

gMk 4

1. 
   *]And he began again to teach by the sea side: and there was gathered unto him a great multitude, so that he entered into a ship, and sat in the sea; and the whole multitude was by the sea on the land.
   *]And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine,
   *]Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to sow:
   *]And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the fowls of the air came and devoured it up.
   *]And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth:
   *]But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.
   *]And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit.
   *]And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred.
   *]And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

1. 
   gMt 13
   

   1. 
      *]The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side.
      *]And great multitudes were gathered together unto him, so that he went into a ship, and sat; and the whole multitude stood on the shore.
      *]And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
      *]And when he sowed, some [seeds] fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:
      *]Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
      *]And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.
      *]And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
      *]But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
      *]Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

   1. 
      We are talking about more than ‘using the same expressions’.
      
      He says that either Matthew (the author, not the apostle) eitehr copied Mark or they used the same sources. This, of course would mean that there are no eyewitness accounts. Grr.
      I’m sorry you have a cold. When you get better, could you explain what you meant about the language and didache?

 

[whowantsumadebo]

Thank you for your concern Flatliner, may I ask if you are in favor of or opposed to Markan priority? I am undecided. In regards to the didache, there seems to be a unique relationship to it and “Matthew’s community” as we called it in class. It’s a curious document in which the writer(s) seems to either be influenced by or possibly influence Matthew. The Trinitarian baptism, and some quotes of Christ exactly identical as Matthew. A big emphasis on the church. It’s pretty weird. But it’s totally anonymous. The similarities lead some to conclude dependance of one on the other. I just think it’s kind of a cardboards cut-out view on the New Testament. The relative datings and authorships is mostly conjencture on any side. Sorry I can’t concentrate. I’ll return. Debo has left the building.

 

[flatliner]

Well I think that the council was led to canonize matthew as the first gospel infallibly. So I am in favor of Matthean primacy. And I think the similarities can be explained in a more Catholic manner than saying that Matt copied Mark – i.e., oral tradition, holy spirit, etc. I am sure there are other, better, answers as well. I also believe Papias. Who else could he have been talking about?

 

[whowantsumadebo]

I in addition believe Papias and Catholic tradition. Matthew and Mark are set up two completely different ways, in two completely different places for two distinct audiences. Mark is said to have been written in Rome just after Peter’s death. This time frame generally agrees with most liberal scholars, but when it comes to being influenced by Peter, they try to distance it as much as possible from apostolic teaching, which I don’t get. And then I still don’t think that Matthew using Mark rules out the authorship of either. It’s as if critics try to mantain that the apostles had nothing whatsoever to do with the New Testament and didn’t really teach any thing. A typical argument is that the gospels are unanymous documents and therefore aren’t apostolic. This is more of that “found under a rock” outlook. I think that catholic tradition has the benefit of the doubt when it comes to dating and authorship of the bible. I also think that most critics arguments are based on flaws. Jesus predicts the Destruction of the temple, therefore Matthew must have been written afterwards because no one ever thought of that or said that would happen before(?). Hmmm. Sorry I didn’t really say much. But yah, history and scripture is what we have to use against the critics.

 

[flatliner]

Yeah, exactly. It seems to be that the critics start with the supposition that miracles and prophecy don’t happen ever and never can. So if there is a supposed prophecy in the text, it proves it wasn’t a prohpecy and the text must have been written after the supposed prophecy was fulfilled . And these critics want to move authorship as far away from the apostles as is humanly possible. What’s the deal? As if the Church just makes stuff up to iron a place for itself and give what She says credibility. I didn’t really want this to turn into a complaining thread, but I needed to get that off my chest. In anycase, it seems like my complaints are actually fairly good criticisms of the critics. It is just so frustrating to talk to them.

 

[whowantsumadebo]

Yes, alot of the critics call themselves christians, and I feel sorry for them. It’s a christianity without direction, without doctrine, without miracles, without Jesus, without a personal God to call Father. All in all and the end of the day it seems empty. I don’t know of many recent books placing an early date or defending authorship on Matthew, alot of publications are evangelicals writing against the likes of the liberal or “progressive” crowd. I don’t think there’s that much dialogue. I remember in class, arguments for the early dating of the N.T. were regarded as “Fundamentalist” misunderstanding; they weren’t really addressed. So the benefit of the doubt remains in the hands of the Catholic Church. Soon I will try to post some actual notes in favor of Matthean authorship and pre-70 A.D. dating. I’m not just going to rant. Debo gets down to the nitty gritty.

 

[flatliner]

great debo! Looking forward to it.

 

[Todd_Easton]

I don’t know if this is what your are looking for but St. Irenaeus of Lyon, the disciple of the Apostle John’s disciple St. Polycarp, wrote about A.D. 180:
For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. 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. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chap. 1)

 

[flatliner]

I tried him too. Too late, said the critic. How 'bout something from polycarp?

 

[whowantsumadebo]

Ok, I think alot of critics go out of their way to make Matthew not written by Matthew. It seems to me to be mostly “I found this book under a rock” fantasies. It was unusual for an ancient document not to have a name; if Mt. wasn’t written by the apostle then it was believed to have been really early. Remember Papias is writing in the 130’s (am I wrong) so indeed the tradition of authorship, like the tradition behind the gospel itself must have been at least considerably earlier. To suggest he or Matthew were making all of that stuff up is more “under a rock, or out of my (neitherregions)” arguement. Then there is the fact that Matthew or the others were always regarded as such, without any variations, that I know of, in their titles, that is over all the christian world. Also, why would it be the gospel of Matthew as opposed to “the gospel of peter”, the head apostle. Maybe it was written by Matthew or (cop-out) his community, or (aha!) both? The church had to decide what was canonical and what wasn’t. The golden rule was apostolic tradition. The “not-written-by-matthew” people always seem to rule out apostle actually having any sort of authority over the writing of the document whatsoever. He told some folks about Jesus, then they wrote a gospel which everyone believed and the original followers of Jesus vanished. More “under a rock” stuff. This doesn’t have much to do with dates, but it shows how the benefit of the doubt is on the side of the writers and defenders of the gospel, The Holy Catholic Church.
Debo shall return. You may now have suma him.

 

[PilgrimJWT]

I dunno if it was Matthew who wrote the Matthew Gospel or not; I am content to let the scholars fight it out over that one, and in any event it is not a vital question. What is vital is that the Church has declared the gospel an inspired writing.

 

[flatliner]

whowantsumadebo:

Ok, I think alot of critics go out of their way to make Matthew not written by Matthew. It seems to me to be mostly “I found this book under a rock” fantasies. It was unusual for an ancient document not to have a name; if Mt. wasn’t written by the apostle then it was believed to have been really early. Remember Papias is writing in the 130’s (am I wrong) so indeed the tradition of authorship, like the tradition behind the gospel itself must have been at least considerably earlier. To suggest he or Matthew were making all of that stuff up is more “under a rock, or out of my (neitherregions)” arguement. Then there is the fact that Matthew or the others were always regarded as such, without any variations, that I know of, in their titles, that is over all the christian world. Also, why would it be the gospel of Matthew as opposed to “the gospel of peter”, the head apostle. Maybe it was written by Matthew or (cop-out) his community, or (aha!) both? The church had to decide what was canonical and what wasn’t. The golden rule was apostolic tradition. The “not-written-by-matthew” people always seem to rule out apostle actually having any sort of authority over the writing of the document whatsoever. He told some folks about Jesus, then they wrote a gospel which everyone believed and the original followers of Jesus vanished. More “under a rock” stuff. This doesn’t have much to do with dates, but it shows how the benefit of the doubt is on the side of the writers and defenders of the gospel, The Holy Catholic Church.
Debo shall return. You may now have suma him.

Of course, I agree with you debo. But the charge seems to cast doubt on the authority of the Church fathers. If Matthew was written in greek, as has been suggested, then the book Papias was talking about was not gmt. And to build a tradition on a faulty claim is, well, faulty – like building a house on an apparition. The problem is that everyone quotes papias. Everyone accept, of course, Ireneaus. But then the critics claim that Ireneaus is a bad source since Polycarp was questionably a student of the apostle John. Perhaps Ireneaus got his Johns mixed up – John the presbyter vs. john the apostle. If it was John the presbyter Ireneaus was talking about, then that is who authored gJn. Of course, we say they are the same person. etc.
If it wasn’t matthew the apostle, then we have no eyewitness accounts of the life and passion other than Luke which, you guessed it, is called into question as well. And now we are starting to question whether there was any apostolic succession at all. This would be really bad for the Church. If no one in the Church was actually consecrated, what are we left with? There is always Peter, the rock. Shew. I was nearly worried. But did he ever make it to Rome? Those bones they found were just a collection of various pig and cow bones, ya know. Arrrrggggg. The whole thing just drives me nuts. There seems to be no way to make any head way with these “scholars”. They use biased speculation. Whenever there is an option of either going with the Church fathers or claiming a conspiracy, they opt for the conspiracy. and this is objective scholarship? How to beat them at their own game?

 

[whowantsumadebo]

You know what, you’re right. It’s not fair. But that’s the way it goes. And that is what my point was. They get to pick and choose what catholic traditions they think are right and which ones are wrong. I just think they had to put alot of imagination history to make Gmt not written by Matthew. I don’t know of any lefty scholar who doesn’t believe that Peter started or was the head of the Roman church; or that He and Paul died there. In my ultra-spong/crossan inspired class that was acknowledged. Yet that’s no where in writing till a fancy bit later than the N.T. The Authorship of even more ancient or more spurious documents are rarely put into question. But ok, let’s see. Paul is a good source to weigh the dates and what not of the Gospels. He seems to be familiar with the big shot apostles (gal 2:9)
and his theology sometimes seems like a big mix of all their’s. Letters like 1 Thessalonians have been shown to be written around 50 A.D. and Paul has a full christian theology and churchology for lack of a better word. Nothing in Matthew denotes it having to be written around 85. And of course the tradition behind the gospel must be even older, and there’s no telling how much older. And I think the excuse that chrisology developed “with amazing speed” is not a good one on the part of the critics trying to explain away the miracles and what not. Matthew can be shown to be early enough to be written by the apostle. Or it can at least be defended against late composition believing critics. As to the question of Matthew writing it or not, we don’t have a video of him doing it, But I think it’s more reasonable to take the church’s word for it than any one else. More to come, I’ll actually say something soon. Debo’s cold is vanishing.