Who wrote St Mathew's Gospel?

[Alma]

I am about to begin a course on the Gospel of Matthew and I bought some books on the subject. They are written by Catholic priests that teach in Universities in Europe.
Some say that the author of that Gospel is St. Matthew the Apostle, who before following Jesus worked collecting taxes.
Others say the author is a scribe that lived in Antioch and that he wrote the Gospel in Greek based on an early Aramaic text written by St Mathew the Apostle.
I find it very confusing.
Would you be kind enough to tell me what the Catholic Church says officially about this?

I thank you in advance.
:tiphat:
Alma

 

[Genesis315]

St. Matthew wrote the original–the Fathers tend to agree the original was in Aramaic or Hebrew. Then someone (the scribe you mention?) translated it to Greek. The Greek is all we have now, the original was lost to history.

 

[Godhead]

I am about to begin a course on the Gospel of Matthew and I bought some books on the subject. They are written by Catholic priests that teach in Universities in Europe.
Some say that the author of that Gospel is St. Matthew the Apostle, who before following Jesus worked collecting taxes.
Others say the author is a scribe that lived in Antioch and that he wrote the Gospel in Greek based on an early Aramaic text written by St Mathew the Apostle.
I find it very confusing.
Would you be kind enough to tell me what the Catholic Church says officially about this?

I thank you in advance.
:tiphat:
Alma

It is also believed that the gospels were written from a source which is called “Q” which is short for “Quelle” which in German means source. Matthew was written around 80 a.d.
Q is a hypothesis which explains things that do exist that each gospel correlates with the other, however there are differences within each gospel.

 

[thistle]

It is also believed that the gospels were written from a source which is called “Q” which is short for “Quelle” which in German means source. Matthew was written around 80 a.d.
Q is a hypothesis which explains things that do exist that each gospel correlates with the other, however there are differences within each gospel.

It is NOT believed by most scholars that the Gospels were written from a source called Q. That is only speculation by some.

 

[tjoe]

Hello and Peace be with you,

On good advise from Fr. Bob Levis (EWTN Q&A forum) take a black marker and scratch out the source Q’s and 3 source theory mess, it’s bad theology being sold under the guise of “consensus”. Fr. Eckert also show how the Gospels themseves disprove the so called 3 source theory, Q and the late dating mess. :dts:

:yup: Rest assured on sound tradition, Matthew a Jewish convert to the faith, wrote the first Gospel in Aramaic to a Jewish/Christian community, it was later on translated to Greek. This Matthew is the same tax collector named Levi the disciple of Jesus. It was written in the late 30’s, more the early to mid 40’s AD. Although “modern experts” will disagree:tsktsk: . The Church teaches by a higher Authority

 

[Contarini]

I am about to begin a course on the Gospel of Matthew and I bought some books on the subject. They are written by Catholic priests that teach in Universities in Europe.
Some say that the author of that Gospel is St. Matthew the Apostle, who before following Jesus worked collecting taxes.
Others say the author is a scribe that lived in Antioch and that he wrote the Gospel in Greek based on an early Aramaic text written by St Mathew the Apostle.
I find it very confusing.
Would you be kind enough to tell me what the Catholic Church says officially about this?

I thank you in advance.
:tiphat:
Alma

I don’t believe there is any official teaching on this. Traditionally Matthew was seen as the author but I do not believe this is dogma.

However, the Catholic Church does affirm that the Gospels are authentic records of what Jesus said and did and do not simply (as some liberal scholars claim) reflect the beliefs of the early Church.

Edwin

 

[levi86]

It is NOT believed by most scholars that the Gospels were written from a source called Q. That is only speculation by some.

It is true that it is only a theory, but it is a theory that is held by the majority of modern Biblical scholars.

I don’t see any negative theological implication for such a theory, as long as one holds to the Catholic dogma of biblical inspiration.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

It is true that it is only a theory, but it is a theory that is held by the majority of modern Biblical scholars.

I don’t see any negative theological implication for such a theory, as long as one holds to the Catholic dogma of biblical inspiration.

Why does not anyone accept the obvious, namely, rhat ‘Q’ is the remanent of the rough notes made by Levi/Matthew, during the mission.

 

[CatholismRox]

Saint Matthew!!

 

[John_Hiner]

It is safest to believe that St. Matthew, the Apostle, wrote the Gospel of Matthew and that he wrote the Greek text of it. He may also have written a Hebrew or Aramaic version, but it is unclear whether these were earlier or simultaneous with the Greek.

The Ecumenical Councils of the Church and the Magisterium’s writings have always referred to the Gospel of Matthew as having been written by the Apostle Matthew. This is also consistent with the current Catechism and the statements in *Dei Verbum *of the Second Vatican Council: “The commission was fulfilled, too, by those Apostles and apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing.” (Dei Verbum, art. 7; footnote citing to Council of Trent, loc. cit.; First Vatican Council, session III, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chap. 2, “On revelation:” Denzinger 1787 (3005).)

For an easy-to-read overview of these matters see Mr. Denis Barton’s book, “The Authors of the Gospels.” It is a free to download, or can be read it online.

Pax Christi tecum.

John Hiner

 

[jimmy]

It is true that it is only a theory, but it is a theory that is held by the majority of modern Biblical scholars.

I don’t see any negative theological implication for such a theory, as long as one holds to the Catholic dogma of biblical inspiration.

It is completely speculative. It implies that the gospels were not reliable. It implies that the only truth they have is gathered from this Q source. It is heresy as far as I see.

 

[patg]

It is completely speculative.

No, it is based on extensive analysis by scholars.

It implies that the gospels were not reliable.

No, it merely helps define the sources. It says nothing about the reliability.

It implies that the only truth they have is gathered from this Q source.

No, there is the entire gospel of Mark along with non-Q material in Matthew and Luke. There is also John, but it is a quite a different animal…

It is heresy as far as I see.

No, this has nothing to do with heresy no matter what the status of Q is. There is no doctrine or dogma of gospel authorship.

 

[jimmy]

No, it is based on extensive analysis by scholars.

Yes, 100% speculation by scholars. The Q source has not one strand of historical support. It is the result of so called internal evidence from the gospels. It is weak.

No, it merely helps define the sources. It says nothing about the reliability.

It is heresy. It says the gospels were simply coppied from Q. One scholar proposed a “L” source because Luke contains things that Matthew and Mark don’t contain, therefore there must be another gospel that he copied from. Matthew couldn’t possibly be the apostle because that would give him too much credibility. Yes, there is obviously interdependance among them, but that in no way implies a Q source.

No, there is the entire gospel of Mark along with non-Q material in Matthew and Luke. There is also John, but it is a quite a different animal…

I think that Matthew predates Mark. The Q source idea, as I said, implies that they could not have actually known the apostles or Christ. These Q source supporters believe Mark used Q as well. Mark is not a source seperate from Q. As I mentioned above, one scholar proposed a L source. I just looked at my notes from biblical studies and found that it was BH Streeter who proposed this L source for the gospel of Luke. Amazingly, Streeter also proposed an M source for the gospel of Matthew for the parts that were only in Matthews gospel. So, as I said, the heretics like Streeter who developed this theology of Q reject that the evangelists could know anything about Christ. They reject any authority that they had. The only thing the evangelists did according to these ‘scholars’ is to compile the gospels.

No, this has nothing to do with heresy no matter what the status of Q is. There is no doctrine or dogma of gospel authorship.

Yes it does. The Church has declared that all the NT is written by either apostles or their direct students. If this is not taught by the Q source supporters then they are flat out heretics.

 

[123rock]

No, it is based on extensive analysis by scholars.

The first thing that the critical scholar needs to be reminded about Q is that not a SINGLE layer of it has been found through either archaeology or stylistics. The suggested existence of Q was due to the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas in the 1960’s and its obscure arrangement of sayings of Jesus. Other than that, it deals with the synoptic problem that the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke have. 91% of Mark is found in Matthew, and 53 in Luke.

The problems with Q, or a single Q for that matter is that Matthew and Luke both have totally different narratives and endings. The synoptic problem can be explained by oral tradition, but critical scholars don’t find that plausible due to “events being recollected in flashbacks (i.e. Matthew and Mark’s of the death of John the Baptist).” However, when one realizes that the only reason Q is speculated to be anything but oral tradition, it is because of the immediate rejection of miracles, which would date Matthew and Luke post 70 AD, and in that case would make them pseudonymous, disallowing for the type of oral tradition that is needed in order to explain why such a close relationship exists.

 

[jimmy]

The first thing that the critical scholar needs to be reminded about Q is that not a SINGLE layer of it has been found through either archaeology or stylistics. The suggested existence of Q was due to the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas in the 1960’s and its obscure arrangement of sayings of Jesus. Other than that, it deals with the synoptic problem that the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke have. 91% of Mark is found in Matthew, and 53 in Luke.

The problems with Q, or a single Q for that matter is that Matthew and Luke both have totally different narratives and endings. The synoptic problem can largely be explained by oral tradition, but not all, due to events being recollected in flashbacks (i.e. Matthew and Mark’s of the death of John the Baptist). However, when one realizes that the only reason Q is speculated to be anything but oral tradition, it is because of the immediate rejection of miracles, which would date Matthew and Luke post 70 AD, and in that case would make them pseudonymous, disallowing for the type of oral tradition that is needed in order to explain why such a close relationship exists.

Very good point 123rock. You just reminded me of that. The gospels had to be written later than AD 70 because Jesus couldn’t have actually predicted the sack of Jerusalem and the destruction of Jerusalem as He did in Matt.24. This is the mentality that the source, form and redaction critics come from. They deny the truth of miracles and also consequently the truth of the faith. This leads them to deny the apostolic authorship of the gospels.

 

[paarsurrey]

I am about to begin a course on the Gospel of Matthew and I bought some books on the subject. They are written by Catholic priests that teach in Universities in Europe.
Some say that the author of that Gospel is St. Matthew the Apostle, who before following Jesus worked collecting taxes.
Others say the author is a scribe that lived in Antioch and that he wrote the Gospel in Greek based on an early Aramaic text written by St Mathew the Apostle.
I find it very confusing.
Would you be kind enough to tell me what the Catholic Church says officially about this?

I thank you in advance.
:tiphat:
Alma

Hi
Sorry for a little interception.
Does anybody know where is the grave of Matthew?
One of my friends says (just an opinion) it is near Peshawar in Pakistan. Jesus grave/tomb is in Sirinagar,Kashmir, India so it is likely that Matthew’s grave is in Peshawar or perhaps one of his namesake.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi - a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics

 

[jimmy]

Hi
Sorry for a little interception.
Does anybody know where is the grave of Matthew?
One of my friends says (just an opinion) it is near Peshawar in Pakistan. Jesus grave/tomb is in Sirinagar,Kashmir, India so it is likely that Matthew’s grave is in Peshawar or perhaps one of his namesake.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi - a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics

There is no record of Matthews grave as there is no record of Jesus’ grave. These modern people on tv grab at whatever they can to discaim religion. I don’t think there has been any claim to having found the grave of Matthew.

Welcome to the forum and I hope your experience here is good.

 

[Corki]

**The gospels had to be written later than AD 70 because Jesus couldn’t have actually predicted the sack of Jerusalem and the destruction of Jerusalem as He did in Matt.24. ** This is the mentality that the source, form and redaction critics come from. They deny the truth of miracles and also consequently the truth of the faith. This leads them to deny the apostolic authorship of the gospels.

I hope you are putting words in the mouth of the so-called scripture scholars and not presenting this as your own opion.

 

[adrift]

There is no record of Matthews grave as there is no record of Jesus’ grave. These modern people on tv grab at whatever they can to discaim religion. I don’t think there has been any claim to having found the grave of Matthew.

Welcome to the forum and I hope your experience here is good.

He has posted this in other threads. Jesus’ grave, in Jerusalem, is empty because He died, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven.

 

[jimmy]

I hope you are putting words in the mouth of the so-called scripture scholars and not presenting this as your own opion.

Did you read my other posts before that one? I am talking about the proponents of historical criticism. That is what they say. And that is why I called them heretics in my above posts. I believe that the books of the NT were written by who the Church says they were written by and they were written early, pre AD70. In my opinion the Apocalypse was written pre 70 too.