Who wrote the Gospel of Matthew?

[Nicea325]

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

Oh by all means, I understand the value and importance of Sacred Scripture. But my point is that Catholicism is not Islam where it revolves around strictly around the Quran.

Christianity is based on Jesus…not soley the Bible-alone as many Protestants and fundamentalist want to convey.

 

[Nicea325]

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.

Actually it is very easy to answer. What many forget,including Christians and Muslims, our concept of writing and having to know the author was not the case in the early church or ancient Judaism. The ancient Jews at times wrote something but used the name of another person. The content of the book is what matters,not so much who wrote it. Case in point, look at the Book of Hebrews? Biblical scholars are uncertain as to who the book. Does it mean it should be discarded because the author is unknown?

 

[Portrait]

Oh by all means, I understand the value and importance of Sacred Scripture. But my point is that Catholicism is not Islam where it revolves around strictly around the Quran.

Christianity is based on Jesus…not soley the Bible-alone as many Protestants and fundamentalist want to convey.

Dear Nicea325,

Hello again and thankyou for your response.

Indeed, point taken my dear friend. As someone once said, “Christianity is Christ”.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[johnnyjones]

Actually it is very easy to answer. What many forget,including Christians and Muslims, our concept of writing and having to know the author was not the case in the early church or ancient Judaism. The ancient Jews at times wrote something but used the name of another person. The content of the book is what matters,not so much who wrote it. Case in point, look at the Book of Hebrews? Biblical scholars are uncertain as to who the book. Does it mean it should be discarded because the author is unknown?

Again you are correct but personally I’m not sure how that mentality evolved. Most in the modern world want to know about the author of a book. The relevant questions. How did they attain what they are writing about? Who are they and how does that influence their writtings? etc.

Of course a modern world outlook did not apply then. I embrace the scriptures by faith and supporting evidence. I do still understand why the question of concrete author-ship would be posed.

 

[johnnyjones]

So if we didn’t know who wrote the gospels, you would find little value in reading them?

We don’t know who wrote the gospels with absolute certainty and millions still read them with great value. Do you need to rephrase your question?

 

[Portrait]

No, I don’t think so. I was asking as per your example about the fitness book. It sounded as though you were saying that if people didn’t know who wrote the gospels, they–you-- would find little value in reading them…as per your example.
But that is not what you are saying?

Your example was for the fitness book, but it didn’t apply to gospels?
(especially since you are indeed saying we don’t know who wrote them with certainty).

?

Dear DaddyGirl,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

My dear friend johnny will no doubt want to respond to you directly, but I think that what he was saying is that probably 99.9% of all the people who have read the Gosples did not worry themselves about the question of authorship. They accepted them as the Good News concerning our Blessed Saviour, Jesus Christ, became convinced that he was the Son of God, and then experienced pardon and peace through believing. As St. Paul says, “the Sacred Writings (which includes the Holy Gospels)… are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ” (II Tim. 3: 15, added parenthesis mine). The Gospels were written that men might believe the Good News concerning Jesus Christ and that believing might have life through His name and be baptized into the Church which He founded.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[johnnyjones]

No, I don’t think so. I was asking as per your example about the fitness book. It sounded as though you were saying that if people didn’t know who wrote the gospels, they–you-- would find little value in reading them…as per your example.
But that is not what you are saying?

Your example was for the fitness book, but it didn’t apply to gospels?
(especially since you are indeed saying we don’t know who wrote them with certainty).

?

Maybe you haven’t been following the thread. To start, my post, that you responded to had in its opening sentence, “the argument could be made by some…”
What some Muslim critics (and others) are saying is if you don’t know who wrote the words why are you following those words. I have a book were Muslims get deep into this issue as well.

The exercise book example still stands. Most people in our modern era want to know who the author of a book is especially if it is a book based in expertise . Do you regularly read books to gain specific knowledge that do not have known authors? As to my original point though, Muslims claim to find little knowledge in the gospels because they state it is unknown who wrote them. I personally don’t embrace the “little knowledge” part but it is true that gospels remain "attributed " to Matthew, Mark…

It would be great if you could provide definitive evidence for the authors of the gospels but right now much of the “evidence”, which in one particular gospel is very strong, is still speculative.

 

[Nicea325]

Again you are correct but personally I’m not sure how that mentality evolved. Most in the modern world want to know about the author of a book. The relevant questions. How did they attain what they are writing about? Who are they and how does that influence their writtings? etc.

Of course a modern world outlook did not apply then. I embrace the scriptures by faith and supporting evidence. I do still understand why the question of concrete author-ship would be posed.

Okay but remember what St.Paul said: We walk by faith,not by SIGHT! Faith come by hearing and hearing the Word of God. The Bible is a book salvation and faith,not a score card keeping track of every detail.

Again…people are trying to apply modern principles to ancient texts. Sorry,but that is not how it works.

 

[Nicea325]

Dear Nicea325,

Hello again and thankyou for your response.

Indeed, point taken my dear friend. As someone once said, “Christianity is Christ”.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[johnnyjones]

Okay but remember what St.Paul said: We walk by faith,not by SIGHT! Faith come by hearing and hearing the Word of God. The Bible is a book salvation and faith,not a score card keeping track of every detail.

Again…people are trying to apply modern principles to ancient texts. Sorry,but that is not how it works.

I understand it “does not work like that”. That does answer the question for the Muslim or others. The majority of what we know about Jesus is contained in books of the bible without clear authors. What if all you had was the epistles? I say that because you know St. Paul said we walk by faith and not sight. You KNOW who wrote those words.

Who wrote the geneology of Jesus with absolute certainty? To me it does not matter but to others who have a hang up with it , it does.

 

[Nicea325]

I understand it “does not work like that”. That does answer the question for the Muslim or others. The majority of what we know about Jesus is contained in books of the bible without clear authors. What if all you had was the epistles? I say that because you know St. Paul said we walk by faith and not sight. You KNOW who wrote those words.

Who wrote the geneology of Jesus with absolute certainty? To me it does not matter but to others who have a hang up with it , it does.

My dear friend,trust me, I perfectly understand what you mean. I am a History major many of my friends have asked the same. I have gone in-depth explaining to them,but to no avail. My advice,let them deal with it and let them believe whatever they wish. I know the answer to such a question and it is sufficient for me.

 

[Evan]

Perhaps one could look into the way a ancient work was signed.

See the book “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony” by Buckmann

He looks at the gospels and concludes, based on internal evidence, that they are eyewitness accounts, and that most (all?) are ‘signed’ in the ancient method by those to whom they are attributed.

 

[InternetWoman]

But as Catholics do we not base our trust and acceptance of Scripture based on the fact that THE CHURCH has said the books included are revealed by God? Regardless of whose pen scratched across the page the Holy Spirit is the ultimate author and HIM we can trust. So whether Matthew himself wrote the Gospel, or a disciple of Matthew wrote it in his name, or some anonymous scribe wrote the pages we trust THE CHURCH (as guided by the Holy Spirit) to have selected the inspired books.

Now, I can certainly see that this argument would hold absolutely no water with non-Catholics. But if we are asked by anyone why we trust any book in Scripture should not our reply be “Because I trust Jesus’ Church and the Holy Spirit.”

 

[johnnyjones]

But as Catholics do we not base our trust and acceptance of Scripture based on the fact that THE CHURCH has said the books included are revealed by God? Regardless of whose pen scratched across the page the Holy Spirit is the ultimate author and HIM we can trust. So whether Matthew himself wrote the Gospel, or a disciple of Matthew wrote it in his name, or some anonymous scribe wrote the pages we trust THE CHURCH (as guided by the Holy Spirit) to have selected the inspired books.

Now, I can certainly see that this argument would hold absolutely no water with non-Catholics. But if we are asked by anyone why we trust any book in Scripture should not our reply be “Because I trust Jesus’ Church and the Holy Spirit.”

Yes you can answer that way. Be prepared for the common responses such as which bible translation do you trust. In the beginning of most bibles there is a lot of boasting to make the public buy their particular version of scripture. Testimonies convincing people they are buying the “right horse”. “Noblest”, “finest version”," product of 32 scholars", “completely fresh version” etc. This is the Muslim argument.

Now you have unauthorized books plus in their view, not ONE bible but hundreds, some with passages removed and continual revisions. When we say bible, they say , which bible? Personally I answer the Rheims from from 1582 which is still the oldest today from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate and reproduced in Douay in 1609. When Protestants started playing with it problems arose

Is Christianity a monolith? I would say no because of the deviations.

 

[wiggbuggie]

if matthew did indeed write his gospel in hebrew/aramiac first and mark being an interpreter of peter wrote his gospel later why would he base his gospel mostly on matthew rather than using what peter said and preached to the crowds in rome?

 

[Portrait]

if matthew did indeed write his gospel in hebrew/aramiac first and mark being an interpreter of peter wrote his gospel later why would he base his gospel mostly on matthew rather than using what peter said and preached to the crowds in rome?

Dear wiggbuggie,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Your remark above, dear friend, pre-supposes that St. Mark had St. Matthew’s Gospel before him when he wrote and made extensive use of it. However, St. Mark would not have to ‘copy’ from St. Matthew’s Gospel since he had access to another wholly reliable eyewitness, namely St. Peter.

What I think we can say, however, is that there is a strong probablilty that St. Matthew’s Gospel was in the hands of the faithful at Rome, who then entreated St. Mark to write what St. Peter has taught so graphically. St. Peter must have surely been acquainted with the full body of Palestinian tradition or original teaching respecting our dear Lord. Now it seems, dear friend, impossible to suppose that in his instructions to his converts he did not preach the doctrine contained in the Sermon on the Mount and those great parables, such as the Wheat and the Tares and the Leaven, which are absent from St. Mark’s Gospel. St. Peter gives us through St. Mark one parable not found in St. Matthew’s Gospel. He of all men could not have been ignorant of the very striking parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard, for it emerged directly out of his very own question, “What shall we have therefore?” (S. Matt. 19: 27). It is almost next to certain that he must have known and taught this.

My own belief is that St. Matthew’s Gospel was in the hands of St. Peter and his converts, that St. Peter preached its contents with additions of his own, not because it was the work of his brother Apostle, but basicly because it comprehended the bulk of the tradition respecting the life, death and teaching of Christ; but, being a tradition, it could only represent the acts of our Lord in a somewhat general and formal manner. However, St. Peter’s mode of describing the incidents of the life of Christ was so jolly vivid and striking, that his converts desired a permanent record of that particular part of his instruction. This St. Mark accomplished, and St. Peter, according to some accounts, with some hesitation gave his approval.

Any hestitation entertained by St. Peter was happily overruled by the Holy Spirit, who made St. Mark His instrument in handing down to us a more lifelike delineation of the principal acts of Christ.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[abucs]

Since there were shorthand writers employed in Rome St Mark’s Gospel could simply be a collection of shorthand notes from St Peter’s preaching of St Matthew’s (and St Luke’s) writings.

 

[minichibi]

65 Spring Nero commences persecution of Christians. Peter martyred. Linus replaces Peter as bishop of Rome. Mark issues second edition of Peter’s talks.
**
66** Jewish rebellion in Palestine. Paul goes to Spain.
**
68 early** Jerusalem surrounded for first time by Romans. **

68 June** Suicide of Emperor Nero followed by civil strife. This leads to the Roman troops surrounding Jerusalem being withdrawn. Paul returns from Spain and visits Asia and Crete. Paul writes an epistle to the Hebrew Christians in Jerusalem. The Hebrew Christians flee from Jerusalem to Pella. Paul again imprisoned in Rome and then martyred.
**
69** Galba, Vitellius and Otho die trying to become emperors.

69 Vespasian becomes emperor and renews war in Palestine. **

69** Romans surround Jerusalem for second time. Clement of Rome replies to Corinthians on behalf of Linus. **

70 Aug** Jerusalem, including its Temple, is destroyed. Linus dies (about 81). Cletus becomes bishop of Rome.
**
91** Domitian starts persecution. Cletus dies (about 92). Clement becomes bishop of Rome. Jewish leaders (about 96) hold a conference at Jamnia. Clement, bishop of Rome, exiled by Romans to the Crimea. John the Apostle (About 96) adds final chapter to his gospel. John the Apostle dies. **

98** Trojan becomes emperor. About 101 Clement dies and Evaristus becomes bishop of Rome. About 130 Papias records that Mark wrote down Peter`s words.

Wish I was as optimistic as you are…

If at least these dates were historically sustainable…

 

[Zenkai]

My Bible says that Matthew(Levi) wrote it between 60 and 65 A.D.