Jesus, the Jewish Messiah

The Gospel according to

Matthew

The Gospel of Matthew was one of

the most highly treasured accounts of Jesus' life among

the early Christians.

This may explain why it was given

pride of place as the first Gospel in the New Testament

canon.

As we have learned already, we do not know the names of the authors of the Gospel and: the title found in our English versions ( "The Gospel according to Matthew") was added long after the document's original composition.

It is true that according to an old tradition the author was none other than Matthew, the tax collector named in Matthew 9:9.

AUTHORSHIP

This tradition, however, arose some decades after the Gospel itself had been published, and scholar today have reasons to doubt its accuracy. For one thing, the author never identifies himself as Matthew, either in 9:9 or anywhere else.

Also, certain features of this Gospel make it difficult to believe that this Matthew could have been the author.

AUTHORSHIP

1.Why, for example, would someone who had been with Jesus rely on another author (Mark) for nearly two thirds of his stories, often repeating the word for word (including the story of his own call to discipleship; 9:9-13) ?

2.And why would he never authenticate his account by indicating that he himself had seen these things take place?

AUTHORSHIP

Nevertheless, we have no evidence that these gospels ever circulated without an appropriate designation,kata Maqqaion (kata Matthaion, “according to Matthew”) or the like. How early are these titles?

Most scholars tacitly assumed that the four gospels first circulated anonymously and that the present titles were first attached to themabout A.D. 125.

AUTHORSHIP

There is little evidence to support this date as the decisive turning point; it is little more than an educated guess, based only on the presupposition that the gospels were originally entirely anonymous and on the fact that by about 140, and perhaps earlier, the traditional attributions were widely known, without significant variation.

AUTHORSHIP

Even though critical scholars today are not as certain about the author's precise identity, there are a few general things that we can say about him. Since he produced his Gospel in Greek, presumably for a Greek-speaking community, he was probably located some where outside of Palestine (since most early Christians in Palestine would have spoken Aramaic as their native tongue ).

AUTHORSHIP

To construct his narrative about Jesus, he made use of a variety of sources available to him, both written documents and oral reports that he had heard, possibly from Christian evangelists and teachers within his own community. Among his written sources were Mark's Gospel and the collection of traditions that scholars designate as Q.

AUTHORSHIP

We note several other factors in the contemporary debate over the authorship of Matthew:1. Only this gospel refers to “Matthew the tax collector” (10:3). On the assumption of apostolic authorship, this is best seen as gentle self-deprecation, an allusive expression of gratitude for the freedom of grace (see 9:9–13). Those who deny apostolic authorship of this book are inclined to interpret the same evidence as the reason why the unknown author(s) chose to associate the book with Matthew as opposed to some other apostle.

AUTHORSHIP

2. In Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27, the man whom Jesus calls from his role as tax collector is identified as Levi. In what is transparently the same story, Matthew 9:9–13 identifies the man as Matthew. All three Synoptic Gospels, in their respective lists of the apostles (Matt. 10:2–4; Mark 3:16–18; Luke 6:13–16; cf. Acts 1:13), name a “Matthew,” and Matthew 10:3 identifies this Matthew as the tax collector. The reasonable assumption is that Matthew and Levi are one and the same person. “Matthew” and “Levi” are alternative Semitic names for one person—a phenomenon found not only in Simon/Cephas (= Peter) but also in inscriptional evidence.

AUTHORSHIP

3. The assumption that Matthew was a tax collector (essentially a minor customs official collecting tariff on goods in transit) and was the author of this gospel makes sense of a number of details. Not all the evidence cited is equally convincing. A number of peculiarly Matthean pericopes do depict financial transactions (17:24–27; 18:23–35; 20:1–16; 26:15; 27:3–10; 28:11–15), but none of them betrays an insider’s knowledge of the customs system.

AUTHORSHIP

Certainly a customs official in Matthew’s position would have had to be fluent in both Aramaic and Greek, and such fluency must have been important when the gospel was first crossing racial barriers: indeed, it squares with the notion of a gospel written in Greek that nevertheless could draw on Semitic sources.

AUTHORSHIP

From the time of the influential work of Kilpatrick, many have held that this book is not the work of an individual author but the product of a Christian community. Whoever wrote it was simply putting down the materials, liturgical and otherwise, that were circulating in his church.

AUTHORSHIP

Doubtless this unknown writer ordered the material in various ways, but the book as a whole is best seen as the product of community thought and catechesis, rather than the theological and literary contribution of a single author. Indeed, Kilpatrick argues that the community deliberately and pseudonymously assigned the work to Matthew in order to ensure its wider acceptance in the Christian church.

AUTHORSHIP

Whether this gospel is understood to be the product of a single author or a community of thought, one must try to hazard a guess as to its geographic provenance.Because the Fathers held the work to have been written first in Aramaic, quite naturally they also presupposed that it was written in Palestine

PROVENANCE

Indeed, Jerome specifically ties it to Judea (De vir. iii. 3). Certainly, a Palestinian origin makes sense of many features: the inclusion of Aramaic words without translation (see 5:22; 6:24; 27:46), the assumption of some Jewish customs, the bilingual character of the text forms when the Old Testament is cited, and the adoption for literary purpose of forms of speech that are more typically Semitic than Greek.

PROVENANCE

Most scholars today, however, opt for Syria as the place of origin. This choice depends primarily on two factors: (1) the adoption of a date after A.D. 70, by which time most of Palestine was destroyed; (2) the influence of Streeter, who argued for Antioch as the provenance of this gospel. Other centers have been suggested: Alexandria, Caesarea Maritima, Edessa, and Phoenicia all have their champions.

PROVENANCE

The most plausible alternative to Syria is the Transjordan, defended by Slingerland, who notes that both 4:25 and 19:1 seem to view Jesus’ presence in Palestine from the east side of the Jordan. That is possible, though Davies and Allison cautiously argue against such a reading of the text. In short, we cannot be certain of the geographic provenance of this gospel. Syria is perhaps the most likely suggestion, but nothing of importance hangs on the decision.

PROVENANCE

If Mark was produced a round 65 or 70 C.E., then Matthew was obviously written later, but it is difficult to know how much later. Most scholars are content to date the book sometime during the latter part of the first century, possibly, as a rough guess, around 80 or 85 C.E. Though, the modern consensus approaches that limit: most hold that Matthew was written during the period C.E. 80–100.

DATE

The usual assumption is that the evangelist wrote this gospel to meet the needs of believers in his own area. There is a prima facie realism to this assumption if we hold that Matthew was working in centers of large Jewish population, whether in Palestine or Syria. Since the book betrays so many Jewish features, it is not easy to imagine that the author had a predominantly Gentile audience in mind.

AUDIENCE

But it is not implausible to suggest that Matthew wrote his gospel with certain kinds of readers in mind, rather than readers in a particular location. Moreover, the strong arguments of Bauckham and others, to the effect that the gospels were first written to be read by all Christians, should not be lightly set aside.

AUDIENCE

Matthew includes no direct statement of his purpose in writing, all attempts at delineating it are inferences drawn from his themes and from the way he treats certain topics as compared with the way the other gospels treat similar topics. Matthew devotes so much space to Old Testament quotations, some have suggested that he wrote his gospel to teach Christians how to read their Bibles—what we refer to as the Old Testament. Others appeal to the same evidence to infer that he was trying to evangelize Jews.

PURPOSE

Or perhaps he wrote to train Christians to sharpen their apologetics as they wrestled with the Pharisaic Judaism of their own day. Because Matthew devotes many passages to Jesus’ teaching on the law, some have thought he was aiming to confute incipient antinomianism, or even Paulinism.

Others have appealed to the same evidence to argue that Matthew was a master churchman, struggling to develop a distinctively Christian ethical structure and to do so in a way that retains the unique place assigned to Jesus without offending too many Jewish sensitivities over the law.

PURPOSE

Conversely, others suppose that Matthew was trying to head off too rapid an institutionalization of the church, returning to an earlier, more charismatic emphasis while retaining some of the gains that a few decades of church experience had brought. Or did he write his work to train leaders, or as a catechesis for new converts?

PURPOSE

Still others find contradictory strands in Matthew—for example, between Jewish exclusivism and worldwide mission, or between recognition of the place of law and the assumption that the law has been fulfilled in Christ—and conclude that no unitary purpose is possible: the conflicting emphases reflect different strands of tradition that have been brought together by incompetent redactors.

PURPOSE

That Matthew was a skilled literary craftsman no one denies. Disagreements over the structure of this gospel arise because there are so many overlapping and competing structural pointers that it appears impossible to establish a consensus on their relative importance.

CONTENT

Superimposing on these literary markers the transparent development of the plot, we have a seven-part outline:

• The prologue (1:1–2:23).• The gospel of the kingdom (3:1–7:29).• The kingdom extended under Jesus’

authority (8:1–11:1).• Teaching and preaching the gospel of the

kingdom: rising opposition (11:2–13:53).• The glory and the shadow: progressive

polarization (13:54–19:2).• Opposition and eschatology: the triumph

of grace (19:3–26:5).• The passion and resurrection of Jesus

(26:6–28:20).

CONTENT