Who Wrote Gospel of Matthew?

[Seagirt]

Do the major Catholic commentaries agree on who wrote what we call the Gospel of Matthew ? The Oxford companion to the Bible says that Matthew was written by an unknown christian about 85-90 a.d. at a home church near Antioch of Syria. Is the Apostle Matthew, the tax collector, even involved in the writing of this ?

 

[Della]

Any speculation that Matthew didn’t write his Gospel is just that–speculation. The traditional belief is that Matthew, and all the Gospels, were written by the ones named as their authors: the Gospel According to St. John, St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. Mark.

 

[Genesis315]

Certain modernist historical critics place the Gospel of Matthew at a later date because they say in order to be accurate, the prophecies had to be written after the prophecized event. That takes God and the supernatural completely out of the equation and therefore should be rejected.

 

[lak611]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia

The following answers have been given by the Biblical Commission to inquiries about the Gospel of St. Matthew: In view of the universal and constant agreement of the Church, as shown by the testimony of the Fathers, the inscription of Gospel codices, most ancient versions of the Sacred Books and lists handed down by the Holy Fathers, ecclesiastical writers, popes and councils, and finally by liturgical usage in the Eastern and Western Church, it may and should be held that Matthew, an Apostle of Christ, is really the author of the Gospel that goes by his name. The belief that Matthew preceded the other Evangelists in writing, and that the first Gospel was written in the native language of the Jews then in Palestine, is to be considered as based on Tradition.

newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm

 

[cpayne]

Certain modernist historical critics place the Gospel of Matthew at a later date because they say in order to be accurate, the prophecies had to be written after the prophecized event. That takes God and the supernatural completely out of the equation and therefore should be rejected.

Yep.

The apocalyptic prophecies of Jesus in Mt. 24 seem so explicit (even down to dating: “this generation”) about the A.D. 70 siege of Jerusalem, that critics who for a priori reasons disbelieve in supernatural prophecy held that the Gospel had to be written after A.D. 70, by someone other than an eyewitness of what Jesus actually said. As Genesis315 says, these a priori assumptions should be rejected (although, of course, they will continue to show up in publications open to these assumptions).

By the way, the exact same assumptions inform a lot of writing about the Book of Daniel. It HAD to be a late composition, they think, because it’s so accurate.

 

[Seagirt]

Yep.

The apocalyptic prophecies of Jesus in Mt. 24 seem so explicit (even down to dating: “this generation”) about the A.D. 70 siege of Jerusalem, that critics who for a priori reasons disbelieve in supernatural prophecy held that the Gospel had to be written after A.D. 70, by someone other than an eyewitness of what Jesus actually said. As Genesis315 says, these a priori assumptions should be rejected (although, of course, they will continue to show up in publications open to these assumptions).

By the way, the exact same assumptions inform a lot of writing about the Book of Daniel. It HAD to be a late composition, they think, because it’s so accurate.

THANKS for the info, guys. BTW, what commentaries do you recommended for college level Bible Study ? I know the NewJerome is considered modernist by many. What others are there.? Can they be listed as from higher critical-historical method to more traditional ?

 

[lak611]

THANKS for the info, guys. BTW, what commentaries do you recommended for college level Bible Study ? I know the NewJerome is considered modernist by many. What others are there.? Can they be listed as from higher critical-historical method to more traditional ?

If you want something very traditional, you might like the Haydock Commentary. It is available free on-line. The Old Testament is about 1/2 complete, and the New Testament is complete. Here’s the link. haydock1859.tripod.com/index.html

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yep.

The apocalyptic prophecies of Jesus in Mt. 24 seem so explicit (even down to dating: “this generation”) about the A.D. 70 siege of Jerusalem, that critics who for a priori reasons disbelieve in supernatural prophecy held that the Gospel had to be written after A.D. 70, by someone other than an eyewitness of what Jesus actually said. As Genesis315 says, these a priori assumptions should be rejected (although, of course, they will continue to show up in publications open to these assumptions).

By the way, the exact same assumptions inform a lot of writing about the Book of Daniel. It HAD to be a late composition, they think, because it’s so accurate.

(My emphasis)

This seems compelling, because a generation was reckonned at 20 years, and destruction of the Temple was a bit more that** 40** years after the Crucifixion. A person writing after the destuction of the Temple would have said, “two generations.”

 

[MH84]

Certain modernist historical critics place the Gospel of Matthew at a later date because they say in order to be accurate, the prophecies had to be written after the prophecized event. That takes God and the supernatural completely out of the equation and therefore should be rejected.

This is so annoying. Are they Catholic (or Christian) or not! But I guess they are trying to balance faith and reason.

 

[vern_humphrey]

This is so annoying. Are they Catholic (or Christian) or not! But I guess they are trying to balance faith and reason.

The original claim for Markan priority was based on the fact that Mark’s gospel is shorter than Matthew or Luke, and written in less gramatical Greek – someone who was copying from another document, the German critics reasoned, would have cleaned up the grammar. Matthew (and Luke) they said, copied from Mark.

However, they were unable to explain the parts of correspondence between Matthew and Luke which do not appear in Mark. So they invented the “Q” (for “quelle,” German for “source”) document.

The problem is, there is no “Q” document. They were unable to cite any document that would match the requirements for “Q” and no ancient writer mentions any such document. So “Q” is a violation of Occam’s Razor – invented to make their theory work.

 

[rwoehmke]

This is so annoying. Are they Catholic (or Christian) or not! But I guess they are trying to balance faith and reason.

They are trying to publish or perish. Most of the ideas about the Gospels being written later by unknown authors had their start in Germany, the land of many innovative Biblical scholars.

 

[Johenz]

I found an excellent website that has several articles refuting Markan Priority theory a la Bernard Orchard at www.churchinhistory.org. I think Karl Keating mentioned it in one of his e-newsletters.

One of the papers there runs to over one hindred pages, but is absolutely awesome.

 

[MH84]

Any speculation that Matthew didn’t write his Gospel is just that–speculation. The traditional belief is that Matthew, and all the Gospels, were written by the ones named as their authors: the Gospel According to St. John, St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. Mark.

In regards to authorships of the different books etc. isn’t the modern scholarship (often respected) just based on noticing tht that certain parts of the books/letters sound different to other parts or that certain themes of the epistles are have been copied from other authors. For example, I am lucky to have a copy of the 1965 translation of the Jerusalem Bible, which is not on me at this point, but as I recall, in the introduction part there is doubts to whether St. Peter wrote the 2nd epistle, and that the 2nd chapter is basically copied from St. James.

Is this what typical modern exegesis is about; just presenting theories about justifying changes in styles halfway through texts by assuming multiple or unknown authorship etc? Or is there often other methods being used.

I also want to add something which would be scoffed at by most. I don’t know about you but reading written work from previous years such as high school work makes me cringe at what I wrote, but it highlights how even one author can change perpectives or styles over a time period. Even my signature is not exactly the same each time I sign it!

 

[NoelFitz]

Q:* Do the major Catholic commentaries agree on who wrote what we call the Gospel of Matthew?*
A: Probably.

NJBC (Viviano OP): It is improbable that in its present form it is the work of an eyewitness apostle.

Collegevill (Harrington SJ): The Gospel is basically an anonymous composition.