Gospel of Matthew Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.Anti-spam check. Do not fill this in! ==={{anchor|Authorship}}Author and date=== [[File:Papyrus BnF Suppl. gr. 1120 ii 3 (Gregory-Aland papyrus P4) - Gospel of Matthew's title, euangelion kata Maththaion.jpg|thumb|upright=1.3|Papyrus {{Papyrus link|4}}, fragment of a flyleaf with the title of the Gospel of Matthew, {{lang-grc|ευαγγελιον κ̣ατ̣α μαθ᾽θαιον|euangelion kata Maththaion|label=none}}. Dated to late 2nd or early 3rd century, it is the earliest manuscript title for Matthew.]] According to early church tradition, originating with [[Papias of Hierapolis]] ({{c.|60–130 AD}}),{{sfn|Keith|2016|p=92}} the gospel was written by Matthew the companion of Jesus, but this presents numerous problems.{{sfn|Duling|2010|pp=301–02}} Most modern scholars hold that it was written anonymously{{sfn|Burkett|2002|p=174}} in the last quarter of the first century by a male Jew who stood on the margin between traditional and nontraditional Jewish values and who was familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time.{{sfn|Davies|Allison|1988|p=128}}{{sfn|Duling|2010|p=302}}{{NoteTag|name=Date|1=This view is based on three arguments: (a) the setting reflects the final separation of Church and Synagogue, about 85 AD; (b) it reflects the capture of [[Jerusalem]] and destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 AD; (c) it uses Mark, usually dated around 70 AD, as a source. (See [https://books.google.com/books?id=0ruP6J_XPCEC&pg=PA18 R. T. France (2007), ''The Gospel of Matthew'', p. 18].) France himself is not convinced by the majority—see his Commentary, pp. 18–19. Allison adds that "Ignatius of Antioch, the Didache, and Papias—all from the first part of the second century—show knowledge of Matthew, which accordingly must have been composed before 100 CE. (See e.g. Ign., Smyrn. 1; Did. 8.2.)" See Dale Allison, "Matthew" in Muddiman and Barton's The Gospels (Oxford Bible Commentary), Oxford 2010, p. 27.}} However, scholars such as [[N. T. Wright]]<ref>{{cite book |last1=Wright |first1=N. T. |last2=Bird |first2=Michael F. |title=The New Testament in its world: an introduction to the history, literature, and theology of the first Christians |date=2019 |publisher=SPCK ; Zondervan Academic |location=London : Grand Rapids, Michigan |isbn=0310499321 |pages=582-584 |oclc= 1128988591}}</ref> and [[John Wenham]]<ref>{{Cite book |last=Wenham |first=John |author-link=John Wenham |title=Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem |publisher=Wipf and Stock Publishers |orig-date=1992 |isbn=9781725276659 |edition=Reprinted |date=2020 |pages=223-247 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qin4DwAAQBAJ}}</ref> postulates that there are problems with dating Matthew late in the first century, and argues that it was written in the 40s-50s AD. Wenham believes that later dates can be proven using,(a) a belief that the apocalyptic passages in the Synoptics refer to past events rather than future and,(b) a misreading of Irenaeus as claiming that Matthew wrote after Peter and Paul preached in Rome.{{citation needed|date=April 2024}} German scholar [[Adolf Jülicher]] argued that the gospel "cannot possibly be the translation of a Hebrew original" and that it most likely dates from "about the year 100."<ref>[[Adolf Jülicher]], ''An Introduction to the New Testament'' ([[Janet Trevelyan|Janet Penrose Ward]], transl.), [https://archive.org/details/introductiontone00jlrich/page/303/mode/1up?view=theater pp.303-308], (London: [[Smith, Elder & Co.]], 1904).</ref> The majority of scholars believe that Mark was the [[Marcan priority|first gospel to be composed]] and that Matthew and Luke both drew upon it as a major source for their works.{{sfn|Turner|2008|pp=6–7}}{{sfn|Senior|1996|p=22}} The author did not simply copy Mark but used it as a base, emphasizing [[Jesus]]'s place in the Jewish tradition and including details not found in Mark.{{sfn|Harrington|1991|pp=5–6}} Writing in a polished Semitic "synagogue Greek", he drew on the [[Gospel of Mark]] as a source, plus a hypothetical collection of sayings known as the [[Q source]] (material shared with [[Gospel of Luke|Luke]] but not with Mark) and hypothetical material unique to his own community, called the [[M source]] or "Special Matthew."{{sfn|Duling|2010|p=306}}{{sfn|Burkett|2002|p=175-176}} Matthew has 600 verses in common with Mark, which is a book of only 661 verses. There is approximately an additional 220 verses shared by Matthew and Luke but not found in Mark, from a second source, a hypothetical collection of sayings to which scholars give the name {{lang|de|Quelle}} ('source' in the German language), or the [[Q source]].{{sfn|McMahon|2008|p=57}} This view, known as the [[two-source hypothesis]] (Mark and Q), allows for a further body of tradition known as "Special Matthew", or the M source, meaning material unique to Matthew. This may represent a separate source, or it may come from the author's church, or he may have composed these verses himself.{{sfn|Senior|1996|p=22}} The author also had the Greek scriptures at his disposal, both as book-scrolls (Greek translations of [[book of Isaiah|Isaiah]], the [[Psalms]] etc.) and in the form of "testimony collections" (collections of excerpts), and the oral stories of his community.{{sfn|Beaton|2005|p=116}} Summary: Please note that all contributions to Christianpedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Christianpedia:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission! Cancel Editing help (opens in new window) Discuss this page