Writings of apostle Matthew?

[abucs]

I would just like to ask posters what they think the chances are of the apostle Matthew writing very early the occurrences of Jesus’ actions and preaching - and of it then feeding into the writings (either directly or indirectly) in the Gospels.

It seems that just about everyone accepts Jesus was a great Jewish figure of the 1st century who inspired many people to follow him including 12 apostles of whom at least one was a tax collector (Matthew).

If someone felt inspired enough to have left their job to follow Jesus where that job was to meticulously write down and record facts and figures - would that person hearing, seeing and taking part in the life of Jesus not write something down as he was following Jesus?

Even afterwards with St Paul (who rearranged his whole life because of an encounter with Jesus) visited the apostles, if nothing was written down, wouldn’t Paul, a very literary man, insist on something being written down?

I am having a hard time accepting that it is possible for such events to have not been written down extremely early, even during the lifetime of Jesus, and that these writings would not then form main source of the Gospels.

It seems Papias comments that Matthew wrote things down about Jesus in the Jewish style and then others copied as best they could, would make perfect sense to what we would expect to have happened.

What do people think? Am i missing something?

 

[NotWorthy]

It seems you are missing the fact that oral means of spreading the Gospel was the norm back then, not written. Paul only used writing methods when he couldn’t present his message orally.

Hence, I don’t think there was a need to write these things down immediately. Jesus certainly didn’t seem to indicate that this was a pressing issue.

 

[patg]

I suggest you read the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels (available online) for insight as to how the church views the development of the gospels. The associated document by the translator, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., is also interesting.

 

[NHInsider]

What do people think? Am i missing something?

Yes, you’re missing the difference between the ancient world, where very little was recorded in writing, and the modern world, where nearly everything is.

You’re also missing the fact that the first-generation Christians did not anticipate a Church that would carry on long after the eyewitnesses to Jesus had passed into eternity, and therefore need an authoritative written record.

 

[abucs]

Thanks guys. I understand the modern belief system about biblical oral traditions but i can’t seem to accept that the belief atually represents what would have happened.

If you were Matthew, and were inspired religiously by Jesus and followed him around to different towns and witnessed great sights and teachings, would you not write anything down at all, given that your actual job is to write things down and you are steeped in the written culture of the Hebrews religiously? This seems a bridge too far for me to believe.
Why should i believe that?

 

[NotWorthy]

Thanks guys. I understand the modern belief system about biblical oral traditions but i can’t seem to accept that the belief atually represents what would have happened.

If you were Matthew, and were inspired religiously by Jesus and followed him around to different towns and witnessed great sights and teachings, would you not write anything down at all, given that your actual job is to write things down and you are steeped in the written culture of the Hebrews religiously? This seems a bridge too far for me to believe.
Why should i believe that?

I look at it a different way.

If you were Matthew and you knew you would not be able to continue your ministry of spreading the Gospel orally for very much longer, wouldn’t you decide its time to write it down to insure that the Gospel will continue to be spread even after your dead?

 

[abucs]

I would agree with you Notworthy that in the finished form, you would want to have it written down properly, i am just thinking that it would have been based from initial notes that Matthew would have written from an earlier period.

That’s the way i would see it but of course i have no monopoly on ideas about what did happen. I am interested in the evidence of why Matthew would not have written down any earlier notes at all as i would have thought it would have been natural for him to do so.

Thanks again.

 

[patg]

I am interested in the evidence of why Matthew would not have written down any earlier notes at all as i would have thought it would have been natural for him to do so.

He might have done as you suggest but I think for this theory to matter that first you would have to somehow verify that the author was really Matthew and that this Matthew was an apostle and was a tax collector, etc. While one can point to traditions related to this, these are not dogmatic teachings of the church.

 

[NotWorthy]

He might have done as you suggest but I think for this theory to matter that first you would have to somehow verify that the author was really Matthew and that this Matthew was an apostle and was a tax collector, etc. While one can point to traditions related to this, these are not dogmatic teachings of the church.

I thought the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1903 made this statement and they were given the authority of infallible teaching on this matter.

 

[patg]

I thought the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1903 made this statement and they were given the authority of infallible teaching on this matter.

I’m not sure about 1903 but Dei Verbum states:

*The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. *

“Apostolic origin” is not the same as “written by an actual apostle”. Actually, it’s not too definitive at all as it merely states that the stories in the gospels originated with actual apostles.

The Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels also refrains from settling authorship questions:
*
This primitive instruction, which was at first passed on by word of mouth and then in writing–for it soon happened that many tried “to compile a narrative of the things”* which concerned the Lord Jesus–was committed to writing by the *sacred authors in four Gospels for the benefit of the churches, with a method suited to the peculiar purpose which each (author) set for himself. *

Anyway, this has been argued here quite adequately and I’m not aware of any dogmatic statement which explicitly identifies authors.

 

[abucs]

Hi patg,

i make no comment on whether Matthew’s Gospel as we know it in its final form is the work of Matthew in its entirity.

I am looking at it not backwards in time but forwards in time.

We know that Jesus had a group of 12 disciples of whom one was a tax collector whose job it was to write things down for record. Would it not be natural for him to do so regarding Jesus as he was following Him around? Would it not be extremely unnatural for him to refrain from doing so?

Does not then the early Christian tradition expressed by Papias that Matthew did write things down and others worked from his writings as best they could, represent exactly what we would expect - naturally?

And by extension, wouldn’t the unsubstantiated theory of exclusive non written oral tradition be both unnecessary and unnatural?

 

[simspt]

Hi patg,

i make no comment on whether Matthew’s Gospel as we know it in its final form is the work of Matthew in its entirity.

I am looking at it not backwards in time but forwards in time.

We know that Jesus had a group of 12 disciples of whom one was a tax collector whose job it was to write things down for record. Would it not be natural for him to do so regarding Jesus as he was following Him around? Would it not be extremely unnatural for him to refrain from doing so?

Does not then the early Christian tradition expressed by Papias that Matthew did write things down and others worked from his writings as best they could, represent exactly what we would expect - naturally?

And by extension, wouldn’t the unsubstantiated theory of exclusive non written oral tradition be both unnecessary and unnatural?

Papias wrote in the early second century

“When Mark became Peter’s interpreter, he wrote down, though by no means verbatim, as much as he remebered of the works and words of the Lord, for he had neither heard the Lord nor been in His company, but he subsequently joined Peter, as I said. Now, Peter did not intend to give a complete exposition of the Lord’s ministry, but delivered his instruction to meet the needs of the moment. It follows, then, that Mark was guilty of no blunder if he wrote, simply to the best of his recollections, an incomplete account.”

If one accepts this description of the Gospel formation it implies that the the Gospels originated from the preaching and teaching of the Apostles, preserved by churches and put together by the Evangelists to provide a theological understanding of Jesus vs. the view that the Evangelists were impartial observers concerced strictly with chronological and biographical history of Jesus.

Lack of chronological sequence and verbatim accuracy are mentioned by Papias as well as the existence of oral transmission and adaptation to the needs of the Church.

I found this book helpful in understanding why and how scholars view how the early texts came about.
amazon.com/Books-Readers-Early-Church-Christian/dp/0300069189/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_2/179-5342007-6686664