Looked at on the basis of the normal level that we should expect for historical evidence the basic authorship of the Gospel by Matthew the Apostle should be accepted. There was never any dissentient voice to the idea in the early church and there can be no real doubt that by the late part of 2nd century AD the four Gospels known to us were accepted by the churches as authentic and as having been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John respectively, something which was received everywhere and was accepted on the basis of the unanimous testimony of the early church. No other authors were ever suggested. The Gospels were certainly by this time headed ‘kata Matthaion’, etc. and we have no grounds for doubting that they were so from the beginning. We have absolutely no reason for thinking that the major churches, headed by people who knew the Apostles and revered them as sources for the life and teaching of Jesus, would have accepted anonymous works, for the early church was ever alive to the dangers of heresies and false prophets. And they would certainly have needed to tag what they did have in order to identify one scroll from another. Yet no other tag is known for this Gospel apart from kata Matthaion, and according to our evidence this was universally accepted. All therefore knew its source. We should note in this regard how careful the church was from the beginning to check on and authenticate what was taking place (Acts 8.14; 11.22; 15.2; Galatians 2.1-2, 9 ff;). Apostolic authority was constantly required, a requirement that the early church continued with the result that heretical works sought to use the names of Apostles but still failed because the church was vigilant. And we should further note in this regard how careful Papias was to find out from ear-witnesses exactly what the Apostles had said because to him they were the all important witnesses.

The authorship ascribed to the Gospels was specifically testified to by the Muratorian canon and by Irenaeus and they were authenticated by Tatian’s use of them in the Diatessaron (a combined Gospel based on the four known to us) indicating widespread acceptance before 200 AD. Both Irenaeus’ and Tatian’s work make quite clear that these four Gospels, and they alone, were accepted by all the churches. Clement of Alexandria in the early 3rd century AD also speaks of ‘the four Gospels which have been handed down to us’.

Irenaeus says, ‘Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own ‘dialektos’ (dialect, language, idiom, style) while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church’ (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1). Now Irenaeus certainly knew the Greek Gospel of Matthew, and recognised it as authoritative, so this could only indicate one of two things, either that Irenaeus knew and believed that Matthew also wrote a Gospel in Aramaic that paralleled the Greek Gospel, but did not see fit to mention the latter even though it was so important to the church (a very unlikely scenario), or that he was indicating that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Greek but in the known idiom/style of the Jews, for it is certain that he knew of the Gospel as we have it in Greek and considered it to be written by Matthew. The latter alternative is clearly the more probable as it was basically the Greek Gospel of Matthew that he would have in mind, for he mentions Mark and the other Gospels almost in the same breath. The four Gospels in Greek would have been in use in his church. He could thus hardly have alluded to Matthew’s Gospel in this way without qualification had he meant any other than the Greek Gospel in common use, which would tend to confirm that in his case ‘dialektos’ indicated the ‘way of speaking’ (type of ‘language’ used so as to be clear to Jews) in which the Gospel was written rather than the actual language (it is equally apparent today that it is very much a ‘Jewish’ Gospel). And we should recognise that as a boy Irenaeus, who came from Lyons, knew the ancient Polycarp who was a disciple of John and would probably have been contemporary with bishops in Rome, who would have been known to him, and would have been contemporary with people who knew the Apostles. All were clearly satisfied as to who wrote the Gospel.

It is perhaps worth citing Irenaeus’ words in full. ‘So then Matthew issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own dialektos while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome, and laying the foundations of the church. After their departure (or ‘decease’) Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, has himself handed down to us the subjects of Peter’s preaching. And Luke, the companion of Paul, put down in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on His breast, likewise published his Gospel while he dwelt at Ephesus in Asia.’ In view of these comparisons can we really believe that Irenaeus spoke of an Aramaic Gospel which was unknown to his readers and ignored the Greek Gospel of Matthew with which they were all familiar? This determines the meaning of dialektos. He was not talking about books that were unknown to them, but about books that they had to hand, and all knew that Matthew was written in Greek! Matthew is therefore seen as providing to the Jews in their own idiom and style the same foundations as Peter and Paul were laying in Rome.

But well prior to this, in the early part of 2nd century AD an elder and bishop, Papias, (cited by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History) had also spoken of the Gospel, writing ‘Matthew collected the logia (words, oracles) in the Hebrew (Aramaic) dialektos, and each interpreted (or ‘translated’) them as best he could’. While this is notoriously ambiguous there can be no doubt that he is saying that Matthew certainly put something in writing related to the Lord’s life and/or teaching. It is also noteworthy that elsewhere in Papias the word ‘logia’ refers to both deeds and words.

Speaking more generally we can go back even before this, for the existence of an authoritative ‘written Gospel’ is indicated as early as the Didache (110 AD at the latest), while in the writings of Ignatius, the martyred bishop of Antioch (c. 110/15 AD), Matthew is probably extensively made use of, although not referred to by name. Thus he makes what some see as unmistakable use of it in his letter to the Ephesians, chapter 19, where he refers to the virginity of Mary, the star, and the end of magic which is seen as indicated by the adoration of the Magi (Smyrnaeans, chapter 1, etc). The following allusions have also been suggested as indicating Ignatius’ knowledge of Matthew’s Gospel, and the authority that it was seen to have at Antioch, Ephesians 5:2 (Mt 18:19-20), 6:1 (Mt 10:40; 21:33-41), 10:3 (Mt 13:25), 11:1 (Mt 3:7), 14:2 (Mt 12:33), 15:1 (Mt 23:8), 16:2 (Mt 3:12), 17:1 (Mt 26:6-13), 19 (Mt 2:2, 9); Magnesians 5:2 (Mt 22:19), 8:2 (Mt 5:11-12), 9:1 (Mt 27:52); Trallians 9:1 (Mt 11:19); 11:1 (Mt 15:13), Romans 9:3 (Mt 10:41-42, 18:5); Philadephians 2:1-2 (Mt 7:15), 3:1 (Mt 15:13), 6:1 (Mt 23:27), 7:2 (Mt 16:17), Smyrnaeans proem (Mt 12:18), 1:1 (3:15), 6:1 (Mt 19:12), 6:2 (Mt 6:28); Polycarp 1:1 (Mt 7:25), 1:2-3 (Mt 8:17), 2:2 (Mt 10:16). We should note also that the ‘Epistle of Barnabas’ (c.130 AD) quotes Matthew 22.14 with the formula, "It is written", suggesting that it was already seen as Scripture, demonstrating the supreme authority that was given to it. Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians (115-135 AD) also shows clear knowledge of, and respect for, Matthew’ Gospel.

And even earlier than this there are suggested allusions in Revelation such that Rev. 1:3 reflects Matt. 28:18; Rev. 1:16 resembles Matt. 17:2; Rev. 3:3 reflects Matt. 24:42-44, and 25:13; Rev. 3:5 reflects Matt. 10:32, perhaps combined with Luke 12:8; Rev. 13:10 repeats the substance of Matt. 26:52; and Rev. 19:9 reflects Matt. 22:1-14.

Thus there is consistent testimony among the writings of the early church that a recognised written ‘Gospel’ had been firmly established and that Matthew was an established writer in respect of Jesus’ life and words, (the problem is more concerning what he wrote), and that Matthew’s Gospel was cited as authoritative early on. As we have seen above Matthew’s activities as a writer are borne witness to in the first part of the 2nd century AD in the writings of Papias, who was thus alive at a time when he could speak with many people who had known Matthew and the other Apostles. It is also confirmed towards the end of the century by Irenaeus. Furthermore when we further discover that the Gospel that we have was regularly headed ‘kata Matthaion’ from the earliest days, at least from 125 AD, (and probably even from well before that, if not from the very beginning), the strong presumption must be that the early church saw Matthew as the author or prime source of his Gospel. In this regard any church which had a number of scrolls would have had a tag on each of them indicating content, and we have no reason to doubt that in the case of Matthew’s Gospel this would have been ‘kata Matthaion’ from the beginning, for who would have dared to alter it? Depending on how we translate ‘dialektos’ there may also be a strong tradition that he wrote something in Aramaic, but even if this were so it does not preclude him from also having written in Greek, for he would have been bilingual. It may well be that having written his Gospel in Greek, he was then asked to translate it into Aramaic for the benefit of the Jewish churches.

All this is supported by the fact that of all the Apostles Matthew is the best candidate for being a Gospel writer. As a former tax collector he would be used to meticulous recording of information, and would be equally at home in Aramaic and Greek. Indeed we may well see that one reason why Jesus chose him was so that he could use these abilities in keeping a record of what Jesus said and did. This would go a long way to explain why Matthew’s Gospel contains so much of the detailed teaching of Jesus, and why in the narratives concerning the final days he is able to give us the actual words spoken where Mark is more general. And we might expect a man trained in preparing official reports to reveal something of the same methods in writing this report, thus appearing to be impersonal and somewhat wooden.

There are also a number of indications in the text of eyewitness testimony (some mentioned in the commentary), not least the fact that he always notices the extra facts not mentioned in the other Gospel such as the fact that the Gerasene demoniac had a companion, the fact that blind men who were healed often went around in twos, and the fact that the untried ass ridden by Jesus was accompanied by its mother (such a sight was a common one in the Middle East). So he noticed the detail that others do not mention. We should remember that even demoniacs and blind men needed human companionship, while a mother ass would never desert its colt. But only Matthew noted the fact.

Matthew’s Gospel is also the only Gospel in which ‘Matthew’ is identified as a tax collector, which may be seen as an indication of his willingness to identify himself with his scurrilous origins, and it is noticeable that it is more pragmatic about the kind of entertainment that Matthew put on for Jesus after his first call. Matthew called his feast for Jesus a dinner (Matthew 9.9-10), whereas Luke referred to it as a great banquet (Luke 5.29). Furthermore the Gospel reveals someone who was at home in financial matters, was familiar with local currencies, and took an interest in the payment of taxes.

Another factor to be born in mind is that if his parallel name of Levi indicated that he was a lapsed Levite we can appreciate why he can be so antagonistic against the kinds of people who must often have pilloried him, the Chief Priests and the Scribes and Pharisees.

One objection raised against Matthaean authorship is that he made use of Mark’s Gospel, but if for a moment we assume that he did so, and did not simply rely on a parallel tradition, the fact that he did it with such freedom and with such a willingness to alter it and make the words his own, changing it and regularly also introducing new information, is something that we might consider that only an Apostle would have dared to do with such confidence to a work that was already being treated with reverence because of its connection with Peter. Making free use of other people’s writings was not frowned on in those days, and Mark’s Gospel did have behind it the authority of Peter. Thus there is absolutely no reason why Matthew should not have been willing to make use of Mark’s material and outline, knowing it to be accurate and recognising that it provided him with a useful model on which to base his own work. He then combined what he extracted both with the information that he himself had earlier recorded, and with what he recollected as an eyewitness, while feeling free to abbreviate Mark drastically. His supposedly wooden style also fits in with his prosaic background.

We should consider that it might well have been the receipt of a copy of Mark’s Gospel by his church that prompted him to use it as a basis for a fuller presentation which included his own records of Jesus’ teaching taken down as He was preaching. This would explain why he abbreviates Mark so drastically (another reason might be shortage of space) because he knows that the full details re already available to the churches.

Dating of the Gospel.

The first question to consider in dating a Gospel is the latest possible date at which it could have been written. Its use and acceptance by Ignatius of Antioch (martyred 110 AD) suggests that in the case of Matthew the latest possible date is around 100 AD. Another factor that might assist in coming to an opinion is the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD which would tend to affect what the writer selected as being important.

There are a number of things which point to the writing of the Gospel as having been completed before 70 AD:

• 1). The Chief Priests and Sadducees ceased to be important in Jewish affairs as a result of the fall of Jerusalem. In view of his careful selection of material Matthew’s vivid interest in them suggests therefore a date before then, for after that date their views ceased to be important.
• 2). In the parable of the wedding of the king’s son the destruction of ‘the city’ is referred to as being by fire. This is probably based on Jeremiah’s prophecies concerning Jerusalem being destroyed by fire in his day, and it is significant that in fact that was not how Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD, even though the Temple itself, and no doubt some other buildings, were set on fire. All that really proves, however, is that the parable itself was made up before 70 AD which if it was spoken by Jesus is what we would expect. What may, however, be significant is the lack of any real hint in Matthew of that destruction having taken place. See for example 4.5; 5.24-25; 12.5-7; 23.16-22; 26.60-61; 27.53. The overall impression that the reader would get from these verses would be that the Temple was still standing.
• 3). Although he could have mentioned them in the context Matthew has opted to make the Scribes and Pharisees less prominent in the final three chapters of the Gospel as compared with Mark. As with 1). this suggests a date before they came to supreme prominence as rivals of Christianity after 70 AD.

References in the text to the customs of the Jews continuing "to this day" (27.8; 28.15) must be seen as neutral. This was an expression common in the Old Testament. In Jeremiah 25.3 it indicates either a period of ten years, or one of twenty three years, depending on how we translate. See also Jeremiah 36.2; and especially Numbers 22.30 where the period ‘to this day’ is quite short (less than the lifetime of an ass).

On the other hand if Matthew did have a copy of Mark available to him, and it is by no means certain that he used Mark rather than the church traditions on which Mark was based, then it would have been written after Mark’s Gospel was written (although quite possibly not long after). However, while the majority undoubtedly give Mark priority, quite a few scholars consider that Matthew was written before Mark (the question is a complex one). We might on the basis of his using Mark tentatively see it as having been written between 60-70 AD. That does not, however, indicate that nothing was in writing before that date, for it is very probable that a man like Matthew would have kept notes of Jesus’ words taken down, possibly in shorthand, right from the beginning, while Luke also indicates that there were a number of written accounts before he wrote his Gospel.

Amazingly many scholars seem to base their main conclusions on the fact that in their view Jesus could not have foreseen the coming destruction of Jerusalem. But even ignoring His special abilities, which we are hardly justified in doing, it is hard to see how Jesus, with His knowledge of the Old Testament and its warnings of coming hardships and tribulations, the example of a previous destruction of Jerusalem before Him which resulted from a similar pig-headedness to that which He constantly came across, and His awareness of the fanaticism of so many of the Jewish people, could not have clearly foreseen it even on a natural level. Judea and Galilee were powder kegs waiting to explode. Indeed once He was aware that they were going to put Him to death, even if only as the greatest of all the prophets, we might feel that He saw its destruction as then inevitable. Consider for example Amos 9.11-12; Daniel 9.26-27; 12.9-13; Zechariah 14.2. He would not have been the only one at the time to have seen things in this way. The community at Qumran expected similar things. We do not therefore consider that this particular question can help us to determine the date when the Gospels were written. There is nothing said about the destruction of Jerusalem that could not have been said prior to its happening by any astute observer.

Return to Home Page

Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.

IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?