Did Matthew write the gospel of Matthew

[NewCreation435]

How important is it to you and why that the disciple of Jesus named Matthew really wrote the gospel of Matthew?
What if it wasn't one of the 12 disciples at all? Does that make it any less valid?

 

[Origen]

How important is it to you and why that the disciple of Jesus named Matthew really wrote the gospel of Matthew?
What if it wasn't one of the 12 disciples at all? Does that make it any less valid?

Neither Mark nor Luke was one of the 12. Being one of the 12 was not a requirement for writing a Gospel.

The earliest sources unanimous name Matthew as the author of the Gospel.

 

[Andrew]

My understanding was that the "Gospel according to...." were written by the disciples of said apostle and not by the actual apostles themselves.
Not including the letters btw.
As for Luke who was a later disciple but not an apostle, I believe it was written by him.
All Gospels preach the same Gospel, these are individual testimonies of The Gospel.

 

[Josiah]

How important is it to you and why that the disciple of Jesus named Matthew really wrote the gospel of Matthew?
What if it wasn't one of the 12 disciples at all? Does that make it any less valid?

Little...

Nope....

Tradition says Matthew was the penman. There's nothing in the book that makes that problematic. But in my opinion, God is the author and that's what matters.



.

 

[hedrick]

The early sources say that Matthew wrote something in Hebrew. Its more likely one source for what we have than the final form.

Neither Mark nor Luke was one of the 12. Being one of the 12 was not a requirement for writing a Gospel.

The earliest sources unanimous name Matthew as the author of the Gospel.

I believe the earliest witness is that Matthew wrote a Gospel in the Hebrew language. It's unclear what the relationship between that and the current Gospel is.

 

[Origen]

The early sources say that Matthew wrote something in Hebrew. Its more likely one source for what we have than the final form.

I believe the earliest witness is that Matthew wrote a Gospel in the Hebrew language. It's unclear what the relationship between that and the current Gospel is.

The earliest source is Papias. He is cited by Eusebius (See Ecclesiastical History 39.16).

The phrase in Greek is very ambiguous.

Here is the first half of the sentence.
Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνετάξατο.

τὰ λόγια = the words, the sayings (It does not say Gospel).

συνετάξατο - is a verb and could be understood to mean "compose," however it does not necessarily need to be understood in that sense. As you can see below such an understanding is not required (see red highlight citation below).

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Ed., p. 974


While it by no means impossible that Matthew composed a Gospel in Hebrew there is zero physical evidence. No early source cites such a Gospel\document, and there is no manuscript evidence.

Now a few other church fathers do pass on the same kind of information found in Papias but is likely they are simply following the tradition.

 

[JRT]

I don't think that any of the four were eyewitnesses to the events they describe.

 

[hedrick]

The earliest source is Papias. He is cited by Eusebius (See Ecclesiastical History 39.16).

The phrase in Greek is very ambiguous.

Here is the first half of the sentence.
Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνετάξατο.

τὰ λόγια = the words, the sayings (It does not say Gospel).

συνετάξατο - is a verb and could be understood to mean "compose," however it does not necessarily need to be understood in that sense. As you can see below such an understanding is not required (see red highlight citation below).
View attachment 1348
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Ed., p. 974


While it by no means impossible that Matthew composed a Gospel in Hebrew there is zero physical evidence. No early source cites such a Gospel\document, and there is no manuscript evidence.

Now a few other church fathers do pass on the same kind of information found in Papias but is likely they are simply following the tradition.

Right. My only point was that the early tradition doesn't make Matthew the author of the current Gospel attached to his name. What it means is unclear. I've also seen a suggestion in a commentary that it didn't mean in the Hebrew language, but in the manner of Hebrew writing. Really, it's very unclear what the sentence means. But it is not, as a previous poster suggested, a statement that the Apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel.

 

[Origen]

My only point was that the early tradition doesn't make Matthew the author of the current Gospel attached to his name.

I understand your point but cannot agree.

(1) In every canon list the Greek Gospel is always listed as belonging to Matthew (some of those lists date to the second century).

(2) The Gospel of Matthew is often cited by church fathers with introductory phrases such as "Matthew says." Then it is follow by the Greek text as found in Gospel. There are examples which date as early as the second century.

(3) The Greek Gospel is never attribute to anyone other than Matthew. There are numerous commentaries by church fathers attesting to this (e.g. Origen).

(4) 𝔓4 is a second century fragment of a manuscripts containing the title “The Gospel according to Matthew. While this is the earliest, it is by no mean the only one.

Even when it comes to the Greek Gospel, the earliest sources are unanimous.

 

[NewCreation435]

Neither Mark nor Luke was one of the 12. Being one of the 12 was not a requirement for writing a Gospel.

The earliest sources unanimous name Matthew as the author of the Gospel.

You really didn't answer my question at all. Is it important at all that it was written by Matthew?

 

[Origen]

You really didn't answer my question at all. Is it important at all that it was written by Matthew?

I clearly stated "being one of the 12 was not a requirement for writing a Gospel."

 

[Josiah]

I understand your point but cannot agree.

(1) In every canon list the Greek Gospel is always listed as belonging to Matthew (some of those lists date to the second century).

(2) The Gospel of Matthew is often cited by church fathers with introductory phrases such as "Matthew says." Then it is follow by the Greek text as found in Gospel. There are examples which date as early as the second century.

(3) The Greek Gospel is never attribute to anyone other than Matthew. There are numerous commentaries by church fathers attesting to this (e.g. Origen).

(4) 𝔓4 is a second century fragment of a manuscripts containing the title “The Gospel according to Matthew. While this is the earliest it is by no mean the only one.

Even when it comes to the Greek Gospel, the earliest sources are unanimous.

Thank you.

YES, as you note, the TRADITION of Matthew's penmanship is very early and solid. There is absolutely nothing about any other penmen. Does this PROVE anything? No. But this is a lot more substantiation that any other possible opinion.

The modern liberal THEORY that Matthew penned this in Aramaic rather than Greek has nothing to support it; not one fragment in Aramaic predating any Greek one exists. And it's irrelevant; the words we have - the only words it seems any has ever had - are in koine Greek. It's absurd (and dangerous) to replace the known with some theoretical, invisible, non-existent unknown (Mormons could claim that Jesus said Joe would re-establish His church but it was in the lost Aramaic version).



.

 

[Origen]

Thank you.

YES, as you note, the TRADITION of Matthew's penmanship is very early and solid. There is absolutely nothing about any other penmen.

You are absolutely correct. Even liberal scholars, who does not accept Matthean authorship, readily admit there was one and only one candidate, Matthew.