M11a
The Gospel of Matthew
Introduction
​
Appearing first in the New Testament canon, the Gospel of Matthew has taken a prominent role among the Gospels throughout the history of the Church. Matthew is a little shorter in length than Luke and over fifty percent longer than Mark. Although Matthew shares numerous similarities with Mark and Luke, it contains episodes and sayings that make it distinct. For example only Matthew includes the Magi in the Christmas story, powerful proclamations about discipleship, resurrection of dead saints, and the Great Commission. Matthew has a distinctly Jewish character, portraying Jesus as a devout advocate of the Law, a fulfillment of Jewish prophecy, and as rabbi par excellence. Matthew is also known for containing some of the strongest language directed against Jewish religious leaders—so much so that some have even speculated that the Gospel is anti-Semitic.
​
Evangelist Matthew writing his Gospel. Lindisfarne Gospels, early 8th century. British Library, London.
Matthew’s Sources
​
Did the author of Matthew use any sources in the composition of his Gospel? The majority of scholars answer this question in the affirmative by confidently pointing to three major sources. The first, and most important, source is the Gospel of Mark, whose relationship to Matthew was discussed in chapter nine. Most of Mark’s content is found in Matthew, albeit in edited form. Mark not only provided many of the episodes and sayings, but also the structure and chronology of events. Mark lays the foundation for a one-year ministry that begins in Galilee and ends in Jerusalem.
Info Box 11.1: Material Matthew Omitted
Although Matthew used Mark as a source, he did not utilize all of the material. Matthew was selective. The following sections are found in Mark, but omitted by Matthew.
1:21–28 Exorcism of unclean spirit from man in synagogue
1:35–38 Morning prayer interrupted
4:26–29 Parable of seed growing secretly (“automatic growth”)
7:31–37 Healing of deaf and dumb man
8:22–26 Healing of blind man of Bethsaida
9:38–40 Disciples rebuke an exorcist who does not follow them
12:41–44 Story of the widow’s mite
14:51–52 Flight of young man in the garden
​
Second, the author of Matthew relies on the Q material, which is sometimes called the Q Gospel. To review, the material that is common to only Matthew and Luke is called Q (for the German Quelle, which means “source”). The content of Q is made up of Jesus sayings that are firmly rooted in Judaism. Q does not contain narrative portions, the birth account, or the resurrection account. Some Matthew scholars like Ulrich Luz argue that the Q sayings of Jesus can be dated to the 40s CE and stem from a group of evangelistic Jewish Christians who eventually founded Matthew’s community. The author of Matthew used Q extensively. For example, the Q material is the basis for Jesus’ main discourses. For a list of the contents of Q, see http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q-contents.html
​
​
“Jesus’ Temptation on the Mountain” by Duccio di Buoninsegna, c. 1310, Frick Collection, New York City Museum. The extended temptation accounts in Matthew and Luke are part of the Q material because they very similar, in contrast to Mark. Note, however, how the last two temptations are reversed.
​
​
The third source is variously called “special Matthean material,” “Matthew’s special sayings material,” “M Source” or simply designated as the letter “M.” This is the material that is unique to Matthew, and is not included in Mark or Luke. The origin of this material is not restricted to the author. It could have originated in the early church, among Jesus’ disciples, or possibly even with Jesus. Several scholars have speculated that the M material should be dated around 30-50 CE.
​
​
​
​
Info Box 11.2: The M Material
If M were a written document it would have included the following sections.
1:2-25 Genealogy to Abraham; Joseph in birth narrative
2:1-21 Visit of the Magi from the East; Flight to Egypt
5:17-20 Fulfilling the Law
7:6 Pearls before Swine
10:5-6 Limited mission to Israel
11:28-30 Invitation to rest
13:24-30; 36-52 Parables: weeds, treasure, pearl, and net
14:28-31 Peter’s attempt to walk on water
16:17-19 Peter’s blessing as Church leader
17:24-27 Peter paying the temple tax
18:15-35 Church policy; Peter’s question; Parable of the servant
20:1-6 Parable of the labourers in the vineyard
21:28-32 Parable of the two sons
23:7-22 Prohibition against authority; Critique of Pharisees
25:1-13 Parable of the Bridesmaids
25:31-46 Description of the last Judgment
27:3-10 Death of Judas
27:24-25 Pilate washes his hands
27:52-53 Awakening of the sleeping saints
27:62-66; 28:11-20 Guard at the Tomb; The Great Commission
​
​
​
Authorship
​
The author of Matthew does not identify himself. The title at the top of the Gospel, which is today found in every modern translation, was probably not included in the original autograph. The titles of all the Gospels were most likely added when they began to circulate together in the second century. Throughout the history of the church, Matthew’s Gospel was attributed to the tax collector Matthew, also known as Levi, who became one of Jesus’ disciples (Matt 9:9-13). Today, scholars express diverse opinions about the authorship of Matthew. Some even argue that Matthew’s name was attributed to this Gospel posthumously by his followers in order to give it apostolic authority.
​
​
11.3.1 Matthean Authorship - The Papias Tradition
​
The earliest reference to Matthew as the author of the First Gospel comes from Papias, who was the bishop of Hierapolis (in today’s Turkey) in the early part of the second century. This is the same bishop we encountered in the previous chapter on Mark. Unfortunately, we do not have the writings of Papias. However, his testimony about the authorship of Matthew is preserved by the fourth century church historian Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History. According to Eusebius, Papias writes (in c. 120 CE), “Matthew composed the sayings [of Jesus] in the Hebrew language and each interpreted them as best as he could” (Eccl. Hist. 3.39.16).
​
The testimony of Papias, however, is very difficult to translate because some of the original Greek terms can convey more than one meaning. The term “composed” can also be translated as “compiled” or “arranged.” The term “sayings,” logia in Greek, can also be translated as “gospels” or “accounts.” The Greek word for “Hebrew” is also the same word for “Aramaic.” The word “interpreted” can also mean “translated.” Finally, the term for “language” can also be translated as “style.” With so much ambiguity, we are not exactly what Papias meant.
​
The second century Church Father Irenaeus (130-200 CE) affirms much of what Papias says, writing, “Now Matthew brought forth among the Hebrews a written gospel in their language, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the church” (Against Heresies 3.1.1; also quoted by Eusebius in Eccl. Hist. 5.8.2). Since the language is so similar to Papias, many scholars believe that Irenaeus depended on him or that both men relied on a common source. Irenaeus’ use of “Hebrews” is most likely a reference to Jews living in Palestine.
​
Later Church Fathers echo the same tradition. Many of these are also recorded by Eusebius. For example, Origen (185-254 CE) writes, “Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew [or Aramaic] language” (Eccl. Hist. 6.25.3-4). Eusebius himself follows the same tradition, writing, “For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence” (Eccl. Hist. 3.24.6).
​
​
​
While both Hebrew and Aramaic fragments of manuscripts have been discovered, such as the above Book of War (11Q Sefer ha-Milhama), dated to about 50 CE, none are of the New Testament. Our earliest and best manuscripts are in Greek.
Courtesy of the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library.
​
​
A handful of scholars today still hold that Matthew the tax collector wrote the Gospel. Although they do not endorse the traditional view that Matthew wrote the Gospel in a Semitic language, be it Hebrew or Aramaic, they nevertheless speculate that as a tax collector, Matthew could have been fluent in Greek. Since the Gospel is dated to the mid 80s (which would have made Matthew quite old), it is also speculated that Matthew could have been a teenager when he began to follow Jesus. Several decades ago a few scholars proposed that Matthew may have been responsible for an early Aramaic edition of the Gospel, which was later edited and translated into Greek.
​
​
11.3.2 Non-Matthean Authorship
​
With the rise of historical criticism, most Gospels scholars have been skeptical that Matthew the tax collector wrote the First Gospel and that it was written in Aramaic or Hebrew. After approximately1800 years of unchanged thinking about the authorship of Matthew, a shift occurred for several reasons. Three of the most common objections to Matthean authorship are as follows.
​
​
“Calling of Matthew,” by Vittore Carpaccio, 1502. Scuoloa di San Giorgio degli Schiavoni, Venice.
First, since Mark’s Gospel appears to have been the primary source for Matthew, it is unthinkable for many scholars to imagine that an Apostle, like Matthew, would have relied on the writing of a non-Apostle, namely Mark. Even if Mark relied on the Apostle Peter as his main source, why wouldn’t Matthew simply rely on the recollection of his own experiences of Jesus. Why copy and rework Mark?
It is particularly interesting to compare the two versions of the calling of the tax collector, who is called Levi in Mark’s Gospel and Matthew in Matthew’s Gospel. The author of Matthew seems to agree with much of what Mark says, which raises questions for historians.
​
If Mark’s account is second hand, should we not expect some changes in the details of the calling by the person who was actually there? The main difference in the accounts is that Matthew’s Gospel includes a theological meaning of the event by having Jesus say, “Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’” which explains his cryptic saying “I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.”
​
Matthew and Mark’s accounts of the calling of Matthew/Levi, read as follows:
​
​
​
Second, the theological perspectives and the nature of the dialogues in Matthew reflect the concerns of a second-generation Christian rather than those of Jesus’ disciples. For example, the author seems to be comfortable with Trinitarian terminology, which is a later development according to the best estimates (Matt 28:19). The author also uses the term “church” in the context of an institutional structure, which again points to at least a second generation Christian setting.
​
In addition, many scholars have attempted to locate the fierce debates between Jesus and the religious leaders, which have come to characterize this Gospel, within the context of Jewish-Christian hostility that occurred around the time of the Jewish council of Jamnia (or Yavneh), held sometime between 80 and 90 CE. The documents that emerged from this council express very tense relationships, and even hatred, between Jews and Christians. As a result the council often serves as a touchstone for the dating of Matthew.
​
Jamnia, known as also as Yavneh.
One of the most important discoveries from Jamnia was this inscription from the Seleucid period period, which is written in Greek. The inscription contains a request to Antiochus V by the Sidonians. Archaeological Museum Beit Miriam in kibutz Palmahim, Israel. Photo courtesy of Hanay.
​
​
Third, it is commonly argued that the author did not write the Gospel in Aramaic or Hebrew, but in Greek. None of our early extant manuscripts are written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Our earliest and best textual evidence is in Greek. In addition, grammarians have found little evidence to indicate that Matthew is a translation. The Gospel contains word plays that only function in Greek (e.g. 6:16; 21:41; 24:30), and most of the quotations from scripture are taken from the Septuagint (e.g. 1:23; 11:10; 12:21; 13:14–15; 21:16), which is indicative of the author’s familiarity with the Greek language.
​
In the end, it is unlikely that Matthew the Apostle was the author of the Gospel as we have it today. There is a caveat here, however. It is conceivable that the Apostle Matthew may have been connected with a group of Jewish Christians responsible for the writing of Q. If Q was originally written in Aramaic or Aramaic style, it may well be the very “sayings” (logia) of Jesus to which Papias referred. So, while the Apostle may not have written the final form, he may have played a preliminary role in the compositional history of this Gospel. In the end, we simply do not know.
​
​
Date of Writing
​
As with the other Gospels, the dating of Matthew is difficult to determine. The evidence is often circumstantial and the arguments are usually based on inference. However, in comparison to contemporary literature from the Roman period, we are in a much better position to offer hypotheses due to the amount of later testimonies about the evangelist and his Gospel, even if they are indirect.
11.4.1 Post-70 CE Dating
​
Roman Sestertius with Emperor Vespasian on one side and the depiction of the Roman victory over the Jews on the other, 71CE. The Latin phrase IVDEA CAPTA is translated “Judea Conquered.”
The Gospel of Matthew is usually dated somewhere between 85-90 CE. Several reasons are offered for making this determination. None of these reasons, however, stands alone. The weight of the arguments rests on their cumulative force. First, and perhaps foremost, is the dating of Mark, Matthew’s most important source. Mark is often dated around the time of the Jewish war with Rome (66-70 CE). Allowing sufficient time for Mark to circulate and gain popularity, Matthew’s earliest possible dating would be the mid 70s.
​
Second, Matthew depicts particularly hostile relations between the protagonists of the story (which include Jesus, the disciples, and John the Baptist) and the antagonists (the Jewish religious leaders). Scholars often see the hostilities between these two groups as representative of the conflict in Matthew’s setting. In other words, the views of the protagonists in the story represent the views of Matthew’s Christian community and the views of the antagonists represent the views of the Jewish opponents of that community. Such representations are commonplace in history. Anyone who is familiar, for example, with medieval art will immediately notice that biblical scenes are portrayed from the perspective of the artist’s contexts. Biblical characters are dressed in medieval garb and set alongside medieval architecture.
​
From this vantage point, scholars try to pinpoint when and where such strained relations may have been particularly intense during the first century. By comparing the Jewish-Christian conflicts in the first century with those depicted in Matthew, scholars are better able to date and locate the Gospel. Most reconstructions of Matthew situate the conflict between 85-90 CE. As was mentioned above, the council of Jamnia is often used as a touchstone for locating the hostile relations between Jews and Christians in that period. If Matthew’s Gospel represents an intense conflict between Jews and Christians, then it most likely arose in synagogue settings where Jews would have intensely debated the messianic identity of Jesus. At the root of the conflict was the question “If Jesus was the messiah, why was he not crowned in Jerusalem; but was instead crucified outside its gates?” What we don’t know, however, is whether Matthew is writing before, during, or after a conflict that most likely led to a schism within the synagogue.
​
The third reason why so many scholars date Matthew between 85-90 CE is that Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of the temple in Matthew 24 is viewed as a post-eventu prophecy. In other words, the predictions appearing in Matthew 24 are regarded as “foretelling after the event,” which was a common practice in early Jewish and Christian literature when a writer wanted to demonstrate the authoritative identity of his subject. This may at first seem strange or even controversial to modern readers, but it is important to step back for a moment and appreciate that Matthew, like the other evangelists, is fusing the past story of Jesus with the present conflicts that face his community. In a genre that is probably Greco-Roman biography, he is arguing for the messianic identity of Jesus in the context of hostile Jewish antagonism.
Ruins from the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, Jerusalem.
​
​
11.4.2 Pre-70 CE Dating
​
A few scholars have resisted dating Matthew in the 80s. They have instead argued for a pre-70 dating, which requires an even earlier date for Mark. One of the main reasons why some opt for an earlier dating is that Jesus’ prediction of the Temple’s destruction is viewed as a pre-event prediction. This is certainly a legitimate reason. If Jesus was calling the people of Israel to repentance and they were rejecting his call, it seems reasonable to assume that Jesus might predict the destruction of the Temple as a symbol for the coming judgment, in much the same way that the prophets before him had done. After all, Jewish history was no stranger to Temple destructions.
​
​
The Half Shekel, which was used for the Temple tax, 36-37 CE.
​
​
There is another argument that is sometimes presented in favor of a pre-70 dating. The evangelist writes his Gospel with an assumption that the Temple is still in operation. A few examples appear to indicate this. First, in 5:23-24 Jesus commands his listeners to heal their relationships before presenting an offering at the Temple altar. Second, in 17:24-27 it is implied that Jesus supports the payment of the Temple tax. Third, in 23:16-22 Jesus commands that one is not to swear by the sanctuary of the Temple. It is assumed that the evangelists would not have included these stipulations if the Temple were already destroyed.
​
Many scholars are, however, uncomfortable with arguments like these because the setting of the story is in Jesus’ lifetime, when the Temple was in full operation.
​
11.5 Place of Writing
​
Since the author does not say where he is writing the Gospel, historians have to resort to educated guesses or theories that are based on clues from the text, called internal evidence, and testimonies from later Christian writers, called external evidence. Over the last two centuries, a variety of options have been proposed, such as Jerusalem, Caesarea Maritima, Edessa, and Alexandria. Most scholars today, however, argue that the evidence leads toward Syria or even more specifically to its capital in the first century, Antioch.
​
​
11.5.1 External Evidence
​
Scholars usually point to four external factors in support of Antioch as the place of writing. Each is consistent with historical and social reconstructions of the Gospel. Again, it is the accumulation of evidence that gives the theory of Antioch its weight. First, since Matthew was widely know throughout the eastern Mediterranean basin in a relatively short period of time, it must have been written in a large city with close access to a major land route. Antioch was not the only city in Syria with access to roads, but it was centrally connected with all the other nearby towns of Syria. Second, Antioch was well known for its large Jewish population, which attracted Jewish refugees during and after the war. Third, Peter’s position in Matthew reflects his prominence in Antioch. We know from Gal 2:11 that he visited Antioch. Early tradition even records him as the first bishop of Antioch. Also, Simon’s name change to Peter was found in early Syrian-Christian traditions. Fourth, the earliest references to Matthew in the church are found in the writings of Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch. Ignatius was martyred in Rome some time between 98 and 117 CE, which makes his references to Matthew very early.
​
Antioch (modern Antakya, Turkey) is labelled in red. Click on the image to expand.
Info Box 11.3: Ignatius’ familiarity with Matthew
In the Letter to the Smyrnaeans (1.1), Ignatius writes, “I glorify Jesus Christ, the God who made you so wise, for I observed that you are established in an unshakable faith, having been nailed, as it were, to the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ in both body and spirit, and firmly established in love by the blood of Christ, totally convinced with regard to our Lord that he is truly of the family of David with respect to human descent, Son of God with respect to the divine will and power, truly born of a virgin, baptized by John in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by him.” The italicized words sound very much like Matt 3:15 (“But Jesus answered him, ‘Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness’”). In the Letter to the Philadelphians (3.1), Ignatius writes, “Stay away from the evil plants, which are not cultivated by Jesus Christ, because they are not the Father’s planting. Not that I found any division among you: instead, I found that there had been a purification.” Once again, this language is reminiscent of Matthew. In 15:13, Jesus says, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted.”
​
​
​
Martyrdom of Ignatius of Antioch, Monologion of Basil II illuminated manuscript of Orthodox liturgy, c 1000, Vatican Library.
​
​
Internal Evidence
​
The evidence from within the Gospel is meager, but there are hints that support the external evidence. First, the evangelist includes material that implies a Jewish audience living in an urban centre. For example, Matthew is fond of the term “city” (polis). He refers to it twenty-seven times, whereas Mark only uses it eight times. Does this suggest that Matthew is writing to an audience living in an urban centre? We are not certain, but it does not detract from the hypothesis.
​
Second, scholars have repeatedly pointed out that the Gospel was written for people living in much more prosperous conditions than Jesus and his disciples. The living conditions of Matthew’s audience/community appear to be on a higher level when compared to Luke and Mark, which is indicative of an urban setting. Note, for example, the difference between these two versions of the same parable.
​
​
​
​
In Luke’s version the value of a “pound” was equivalent to about three months’ wages for a labourer, whereas in Matthew’s version, a “talent” was worth more than fifteen years’ wages.
​
Other examples are also noteworthy. In Mark 6:8, Jesus tells his disciples before sending them on their evangelistic mission to take nothing “except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts.” In Matt 10:9, Jesus tells them, “Take no gold, or silver, or copper in your belts.” The description of Joseph of Arimathea is particularly interesting in light of Matthew’s pattern. In Mark, he is “a respected member of the Council” (Mark 15:43); in Luke, he is “a good and righteous man” (Luke 23:50); and in Matthew, he is “a rich man” (Matt 27:57).
​
Floor mosaic found at Daphne-Harbiye in 1937 near Antioch, 2nd century. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. The image is of a wealthy woman, which may symbolize the affluence of the household.
Third, several historians have pointed to Antioch as one of the most important Christian missionary centres after the Jewish war with Rome. If it was the hub for missionaries and prophets, then it may explain some of Matthew’s evangelistic comments, such as Matt 4:23-24.
​
Syria receives special treatment when compared to Mark, even though it used to indicate the whole region. In Matt 4:24, we read that the news about Jesus spread “into all Syria.” Mark does not mention Syria, but instead writes that Jesus’ “fame began to spread throughout the surrounding region of Galilee” (Mark 1:28).
​
The Great Commission, which is unique to Matthew (28:19-20), has also been viewed as a reflection of the centrality of Antioch in early Christian mission. Generations later, Antioch remained an important centre for Christian life. Later Church Fathers refer to Antioch as an intellectual centre, influential in the practice of scriptural interpretation.
​
​
Info Box 11.4: Antioch in the Book of Acts
Antioch is also an important location in Acts, which was probably written within a decade after Matthew. According to this tradition, it was the location where the followers of Jesus were first called “Christians.” Acts 11:25-30 reads, “Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for an entire year they met with the church and taught a great many people, and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called ‘Christians.’ At that time prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. One of them named Agabus stood up and predicted by the Spirit that there would be a severe famine over all the world; and this took place during the reign of Claudius. The disciples determined that according to their ability, each would send relief to the believers living in Judea; this they did, sending it to the elders by Barnabas and Saul” (NRSV).
​
​
​
​
11.6 Purpose
​
Why did the author of Matthew write his Gospel? The answer to this foundational question informs how we interpret the writing. Since there is no explicit statement provided by the author, historians engage in reconstructive work, trying to isolate the issues, problems, or conflicts that may have led to the composition.
Reconstructions of Matthew’s community are approximate because the Gospel only gives us the author’s response to issues or conflicts he is addressing. Imagine, for example, trying to reconstruct the topic of conversation from only the text or voice messages of the sender in today’s culture. Words, names, phrases, and entire arguments would have no explanations or definitions attached to them because they are assumed in the strands of conversation. So it is with Matthew’s Gospel (and indeed all the writings of the New Testament).
​
Reconstructions of Matthew’s Gospel and the community wherein it was written have not always been consistent. Since scholars differ on what is regarded as the best evidence in their reconstructions, multiple options have been proposed. In the search for the purpose, scholars try to isolate the editorial patterns found in Matthew, by applying the insights of redaction criticism (see Module 9). Since the author of Matthew used both Mark and Q as his primary sources, scholars focus on those parts that are unique to Matthew—his alterations, additions and omissions. These parts are believed to convey the evangelist’s perspective, and hence his aim.
When compared to the other Gospels, there are two distinguishing patterns in Matthew that play a key role in determining the purpose. On the surface they are antithetical to one another. The first is Matthew’s strong Jewish character. The second is the apparent anti-Jewish tone.
Matthew has often been said to be the most Jewish of the Gospels. The others certainly contain Jewish features, but for Matthew’s author they are emphasized. Consider a few examples. (1) Jesus is compared to biblical figures, especially Moses and David. Like Moses, Jesus delivers the (new) law on a mountain in the Sermon on the Mount. (2) Jesus’ genealogy is creatively associated with David.
​
​
​
Christ portrayed in the figure of Orpheus playing his lyre, 3rd century. Catacomb of Domitilla, Rome. Some scholars have argued that the image of David is also implied. This Orpheus-David-Christ parallel has been found on several 3rd and 4th century sarcophigi and catacomb walls. The figure may symblize Jesus’ ability to tame the wild beasts and the human heart.
​
​
​
Info Box 11.5: Jesus as the New David
In Matthew’s version of the genealogy, there are three sets of fourteen generations. In Jewish numbering, called gemetria, letters are given numerical value. David’s name has three consonants which add up to “fourteen.” Moreover, David’s name appears in the fourteenth position in the genealogy, appears at the beginning of the genealogy, and then twice at the end.
​
​