Who wrote the Gospel of Matthew?

[johnnyjones]

Yes…but also, scholars who have studied the texts in detail for decades also find other reasons to believe they are not specifically written by Mark, Matthew, etc. It seems the stories were passed down among generations, and someone or a group of people the got together to put them all in one document, as it were.
So they aren’t “anonymous” only in the way that someone wrote them, but didn’t put their name on it. I think your Muslim friends are correct in what they say, we don’t know who wrote them.
Any bible scholar, I believe, will tell you this. But again, it’s the words that are important, not who wrote them down…don’t you think?

Their Muslim “argument” is if we say “according to Matthew” or another name you are saying a particular person wrote it when scholars are saying the writers are unknown. Also if you follow those words you should know who wrote those words.

 

[Portrait]

Their Muslim “argument” is if we say “according to Matthew” or another name you are saying a particular person wrote it when scholars are saying the writers are unknown. Also if you follow those words you should know who wrote those words.

Dear johnnyjones,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Here is some internal evidence, dear brother, that the Apostle Matthew did indeed write the first Gospel, as attested by an unbroken tradition.

The title - ‘kata MATTHAION’ is:

1/ on every MS that we possess. There is no evidence that the book ever existed without it.

2/ it distinguishes the message of St. Matthew from say the message of the prophet of Malachi:

the prophet had a burden to deliver
the apostle had a person to depict;
the prophet wrote from inward intuition
the apostle wrote from outward observation.

3/ it links the the message of St. Matthew with the message of SS Mark, Luke and John.

ONE Gospel - One Lord.

If he had written ‘the Gospel of Matthew’, some might have thought it was a message or doctrine peculiar to St. Matthew (cp. I Cor. 15: 11).

4/ it constitutes a claim to authorship of the actual writing but not the message itself.

Compare Romans 8: 27 in the RSV CE: ‘kata Theon’ = ‘in God’s own way’. Therefore we may safely paraphrase ‘kata Matthaion’ as 'the Gospel of Jesus Christ presented in St. Matthew’s own way’.

If it is objected that ‘kata’ (= according to) means only ‘in the style of’ or ‘as we heard it from’. Then the following should be considered:

1/ It is admitted by all scholars that St. Mark’s Gospel is according to St. Peter’s teaching.

2/ therefore if ‘kata’ means only ‘as we hear it from’, then St. Mark’s Gospel would certainly have been designated ‘kata Petron’.

3/ but it is not ‘kata Petron’, it is ‘kata Markon’.

4/ therefore ‘kata’ must surely denote authorship and not merely some vague connection.

5/ therefore, dear brother, we are certain that the title ‘kata Matthaion’ means that St. Matthew the apostle wrote the Gospel that has been ascribed to him.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[buffalo]

Dear johnnyjones,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Here is some internal evidence, dear brother, that the Apostle Matthew did indeed write the first Gospel, as attested by an unbroken tradition.

The title - ‘kata MATTHAION’ is:

1/ on every MS that we possess. There is no evidence that the book ever existed without it.

2/ it distinguishes the message of St. Matthew from say the message of the prophet of Malachi:

the prophet had a burden to deliver
the apostle had a person to depict;
the prophet wrote from inward intuition
the apostle wrote from outward observation.

3/ it links the the message of St. Matthew with the message of SS Mark, Luke and John.

ONE Gospel - One Lord.

If he had written ‘the Gospel of Matthew’, some might have thought it was a message or doctrine peculiar to St. Matthew (cp. I Cor. 15: 11).

4/ it constitutes a claim to authorship of the actual writing but not the message itself.

Compare Romans 8: 27 in the RSV CE: ‘kata Theon’ = ‘in God’s own way’. Therefore we may safely paraphrase ‘kata Matthaion’ as 'the Gospel of Jesus Christ presented in St. Matthew’s own way’.

If it is objected that ‘kata’ (= according to) means only ‘in the style of’ or ‘as we heard it from’. Then the following should be considered:

1/ It is admitted by all scholars that St. Mark’s Gospel is according to St. Peter’s teaching.

2/ therefore if ‘kata’ means only ‘as we hear it from’, then St. Mark’s Gospel would certainly have been designated ‘kata Petron’.

3/ but it is not ‘kata Petron’, it is ‘kata Markon’.

4/ therefore ‘kata’ must surely denote authorship and not merely some vague connection.

5/ therefore, dear brother, we are certain that the title ‘kata Matthaion’ means that St. Matthew the apostle wrote the Gospel that has been ascribed to him.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Very good, Portrait.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Traditionally there is not much doubt about many of the authors, only the modern so-called scholars have tried to bring doubts about most of the Bible, trying to act as if its not historical and authors claiming to be who they werent. If you stick with traditional Catholic understanding then you wont have much doubts about the Bible or worry about all the meaningless criticisms.

 

[Portrait]

Traditionally there is not much doubt about many of the authors, only the modern so-called scholars have tried to bring doubts about most of the Bible, trying to act as if its not historical and authors claiming to be who they werent. If you stick with traditional Catholic understanding then you wont have much doubts about the Bible or worry about all the meaningless criticisms.

Dear COPLAND 3,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hear, hear and a very hearty Amen to that.

Gospel criticism has been a very destructive force and has only served to undermine people’s faith in Sacred Scripture as the word of God, which our Church venerates as she venerates the Lord’s Body. I like what C.S. Lewis says, “how much source-investigation in our studies of older literature seems solid only because those who knew the facts are dead and can’t contradict it” (in Fern-seed and Elephants). Perhaps that is why modern putative scholars get away with what they do and talk so condescendingly of the “assured results of modern criticism”.

God bless my dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[COPLAND_3]

Dear COPLAND 3,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hear, hear and a very hearty Amen to that.

Gospel criticism has been a very destructive force and has only served to undermine people’s faith in Sacred Scripture as the word of God, which our Church venerates as she venerates the Lord’s Body. I like what C.S. Lewis says, “how much source-investigation in our studies of older literature seems solid only because those who knew the facts are dead and can’t contradict it” (in Fern-seed and Elephants). Perhaps that is why modern putative scholars get away with what they do and talk so condescendingly of the “assured results of modern criticism”.

God bless my dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

I agree! I have a great distaste for the school of thought that tries to make it appear that the books of the Bible are forgeries. It makes it very hard for anyone interested in Christianity to approach the Bible as old folk tales written by unknown authors who pretends to be someone important like a prophet or apostle in order to get readers to think it was written by someone special, but somehow it is worth devoting your life to even though its based on deception. Something about that school of thought makes me sick! And those who teach that garbage are suppose to be the scholars and smart guys! Give me a break!! I’ll take the great minds of the first 1900 years!

 

[LegoGE1947]

I agree! I have a great distaste for the school of thought that tries to make it appear that the books of the Bible are forgeries. It makes it very hard for anyone interested in Christianity to approach the Bible as old folk tales written by unknown authors who pretends to be someone important like a prophet or apostle in order to get readers to think it was written by someone special, but somehow it is worth devoting your life to even though its based on deception. Something about that school of thought makes me sick! And those who teach that garbage are suppose to be the scholars and smart guys! Give me a break!! I’ll take the great minds of the first 1900 years!

The whole thing seems to me to be an effort to discredit Christianity and anything that is not relativistic (“whatever you believe is okay for you but don’t try to dump your beliefs on me”, etc)

 

[Publisher]

The whole thing seems to me to be an effort to discredit Christianity and anything that is not relativistic (“whatever you believe is okay for you but don’t try to dump your beliefs on me”, etc)

For those of us who accept some of the “higher criticism” and look upon the authorship of the gospels as anonymous…we do not do so to “discredit” anything…but to get a much fuller understanding of how the scriptures came to be and WHY they were written and at what time and place in history they gained influence…not to discredit…but to gain a better understanding of the movement of God in history and see His Hand IN history instead of having to attribute “miracles” or such…God works through the natural world and through very very human men.

That the gospels were written both time and location far removed from those who declared the "authorship of them based on tradition does not change the fact that they are anonymously written…that surviving manuscripts may have an authors name upon it…does not mean the original did…since we have only copies of copies of copies of copies of copies preserved by religious instittutions that needed to “fill a vacuum” with information that may not have been accurate…but silenced the questions of the day…“Who wrote this gospel?” “Well, Matthew one of the apostles did of course.”…“Oh…ok, now we know.”…it’s a layer of tradition removed from time and location that names the gospel authors…not the gospels themselves.

 

[buffalo]

Why do you say they are trying to bring doubts? And criticize?

The scholars are merely stating facts as they find them. You don’t want facts? Why are you so afraid of facts?

We didn’t have modern science until recently, we couldn’t test the papers and writing and so forth on the documents until the current century. That is how we found out how old certain transcripts were and when they were written and we could really investigate the specifics of the writings.

Tradition can be based on information at the time that is then found to be incorrect. Therefore, tradition can be incorrect.

You would not want to know more truth and details about the bible if it is found?
You would turn away from it?
You yourself would discredit and criticize the words in the bible if you found out Mark and the others didn’t specifically write those gospels by their own hand?

That doesn’t sound like faith.

The Bible did not just fall out of the sky for modern methods to figure it out. Tradition must be respected. Either the Holy Spirit protects the truth or it doesn’t.

 

[buffalo]

But the holy spirit didn’t attach the names of the devotees to the gospels–which is our topic at this moment…fallible men (and maybe women? Probably not) did that decades–maybe centuries–after they were written.

Why should that change any “truth” of the words inside?

Do you think it would?

Tradition can be respected…until there is a need for change or improvement or correction. The church itself has updated many traditions (altar girls, for example).

There is Tradition and tradition.

 

[abucs]

Sister, the phrase “most scholars think” is not an argument, nor is it fact nor is it truth, especially in the divisive political train wreck that covers much of modern Theology which has been caused not by truth seekers but by dissidents for decades now.

Please give your argument as to why the Gospels were anonymous up to centuries after they were written. (your words).

What is your proof?

P.S. We learned how to carbon-date last century. We are in the 21st now.
Of course we didn’t have modern science until recently. The same way we didn’t have modern transport until recently. ‘Modern’ kind of implies ‘recent’.
There is nothing in modern science which suggests the Gospels were anonymous. In your proofs I would like you to show me any science which suggests otherwise please.

 

[Portrait]

Why do you say they are trying to bring doubts? And criticize?

The scholars are merely stating facts as they find them. You don’t want facts? Why are you so afraid of facts?

Dear DaddyGirl,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Sadly, dear friend, with modern critical scholars it is an article of faith that nothing written about the Gospels by the Early Church Fathers can be accepted at face value - in other words they display what can only be described as an utter contempt for Sacred Tradition. Thus it is hardly surprising that C.S. Lewis said, “While I respect the learning of the great biblical critics, I am not yet persuaded that their judgment is equally to be respected” (C.S. Lewis in Fern-seed and Elelphants).

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[buffalo]

Right. I’m talking about both–upper and lower.

Which are you speaking of?

Capital T

 

[COPLAND_3]

Why do you say they are trying to bring doubts? And criticize?

The scholars are merely stating facts as they find them. You don’t want facts? Why are you so afraid of facts?

We didn’t have modern science until recently, we couldn’t test the papers and writing and so forth on the documents until the current century. That is how we found out how old certain transcripts were and when they were written and we could really investigate the specifics of the writings.

Tradition can be based on information at the time that is then found to be incorrect. Therefore, tradition can be incorrect.

You would not want to know more truth and details about the bible if it is found?
You would turn away from it?
You yourself would discredit and criticize the words in the bible if you found out Mark and the others didn’t specifically write those gospels by their own hand?

That doesn’t sound like faith.

i’m all for accepting the facts, but what I am talking about are the theories. And the theories are being taught as the facts by these scholars. Carbon dating and archeological discoveries reveal the facts, but arguements from a liberal minded scholar does not. That only reveals the system of theories based upon a group of professors who work within their own little box.

 

[zgraf]

Who wrote the Gospel of Matthew.

My father (recently deceased) co-authored a fairly authoritative treatise on this. Basically, St. Matthew’s Gospel was written by the Apostle Matthew (Levi) in approximately 41 AD. This date is validated by (1) testimony of the early Church Fathers, (2) internal and external evidence and (3) acceptance by the Roman Catholic Church for nearly two millennia.

Here is a link to the article (which discusses the authorship and dating of the other gospels as well):

authorshipdatingsynopticgospels.com/images/Authorship_and_Dating_of_Synoptic_Gospels.pdf

Blessings,
-john

 

[Portrait]

Cordial greetings to you, too!

I’ve been reading several books on the topic…and I have to say, I don’t see “utter contempt” at all. Just a curiosity to seek and nail down as many facts and truths as possible.
I’d list all the reasons why almost all the scholars in the last fifty years have come to the conclusion that we cannot know who wrote the gospels (starting off with the logic that they were not written in the language the men used)…but I have a feeling that it doesn’t matter at all what these learned scholars–some Christians, by the way, so they have nothing invested in being “contemptuous”–say they have found in their quest…sounds like no one wants to listen if they just lump them all together with the idea that they are out to disprove something.

But I have to ask you…and no one is answering this…and I’ve asked it a few times now.

Even if Mark and the others did not write it themselves, why would that make such a difference to what the words mean?
Would it change everyone’s belief and faith???
And if so, is that why everyone is so against the idea that these scholars might be right?

I don’t see how it would change anything.
Would it?

Please, cordial friend Portait, answer this one?

Dear DaddyGirl,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your response above.

Certainly, dear sister, with some type of book, authorship matters very little, log tables, for instance, or a French Grammar. What about Shakespeare? Some men still contend that Francis Bacon wrote the plays and I suppose most of us would survive the shock if it were discovered tomorrow that he did, because plays are written to entertain, not to persuade us as to the truth concerning Christ and the cliams of the Church. That is the big difference, dear sister, and so the integrity and trustworthiness of the authors is of fundamental importance.

If you visit any second-hand theological bookshop and pick out a commentary on the Gospels dated 1910 or earlier, ten to one your commentator will allow that St. Matthew the apostle wrote the first Gospel, St. Mark the companion of St. Peter wrote the second Gospel, St. Luke the companion of St. Paul wrote the third Gospel and St. John the apostle wrote the fourth Gospel. Here is what the Protestant Anglican scholar, the Rev. A. Carr M.A., of Oriel College, Oxford, wrote in a commentary dated 1878 concerning the authorship of St. Matthew:

“The authorship of the first Gospel has been ascribed by an unbroken tradition to the apostle Matthew”.

Now if you look at the commentary by A.W. Argyle, a modern critical scholar, on St. Matthew written 1963 he states;

“The Gospel cannot have been written by the apostle Matthew because it is based upon the Gospel of Mark”.

Some men may ask, by way of reply, have not new literary discoveries and archaelogical finds revolutionised Gospel criticism? Surely the clues today are different? If the Reverend Carr were alive now, would he not concur with ‘most reputable modern scholars’ respecting authorship of the first Gospel? Well, dear friend, I am no prophet bu this much can be said: if Mr. Carr were to change his views it would not be because the clues have changed. Since 1878, when he first wrote his commentary, not one shred of historical evidence has emerged which in any way tends to weaken the universal and unbroken tradition of Christendom - that St. Matthew the apostle wrote our first Gospel. The change is not owing to new hard facts but rather to new fashions in thought and what we must needs decide is, does the new fashion fit the evidence better than the old? A resounding no, it does not.

Moreover, this whole silly theory (to resolve the the so called ‘Synoptic Problem’) that any Evangelist borrowed material from another Evangelist is completely untenable. It is inconceivable that any writer borrowing from another writer, in good faith and with approval, should alter his diction so singularly and capriciously as we find the parallel texts of the Gospels ‘altered’. Moreover, dear friend, I just do not see how any theory of mutual interdependence, as the Priority of Mark necessarily demands, will leave to our three Evangelists their credibility as able and trustworthy writers, or even as honest men.

The modern biblical scholars do exhibit contempt for tradtional (and orthodox) scholarship by using such phraseology as “no reputable scholar today upholds this theory”, “the assured results of modern criticism” and “the exploded theories of the old conservative scholars”. If that is not contemptuous and condescending language then, quite frankly, I do not know what is.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Nicea325]

The book of Matthew is attributed to the aposle but it is not fully known who wrote it. I had some Muslims ask me why we believe a book we don’t even know who the author is.

Strangely their faith embraces some elements of the gospels but that’s may be a side issue. I think there are other books who are attributed to certain people without certainty as well.

Well Christianity unlike Islam is not a religion of the book,but of the person: Jesus.

 

[Portrait]

Well Christianity unlike Islam is not a religion of the book,but of the person: Jesus.

Dear Nicea,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Whilst it is true that Catholicism is not a religion of the book, we must never forget that Sacred Scripture teaches the truth and “the church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord’s Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God’s Word and Christ’s Body” (CCC, 103, emphasis mine).

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[johnnyjones]

Cordial greetings to you, too!

I’ve been reading several books on the topic…and I have to say, I don’t see “utter contempt” at all. Just a curiosity to seek and nail down as many facts and truths as possible.
I’d list all the reasons why almost all the scholars in the last fifty years have come to the conclusion that we cannot know who wrote the gospels (starting off with the logic that they were not written in the language the men used)…but I have a feeling that it doesn’t matter at all what these learned scholars–some Christians, by the way, so they have nothing invested in being “contemptuous”–say they have found in their quest…sounds like no one wants to listen if they just lump them all together with the idea that they are out to disprove something.

But I have to ask you…and no one is answering this…and I’ve asked it a few times now.

Even if Mark and the others did not write it themselves, why would that make such a difference to what the words mean?
Would it change everyone’s belief and faith???
And if so, is that why everyone is so against the idea that these scholars might be right?

I don’t see how it would change anything.
Would it?

Please, cordial friend Portait, answer this one?

The argument could be made by some that, if you were given a book about exercise for example and you were a fitness nut, you might strongly want to know the author. If I told you no one knows who wrote it you may find little value it reading a book that has no authoritative author.

 

[johnnyjones]

Well Christianity unlike Islam is not a religion of the book,but of the person: Jesus.

You are very right, that is true. However what we know of Jesus is contained primarily in the scriptures and the source then gets questioned. The claim is if you don’t know the author, why believe an anonymous person.