Jesus of Matthew

2. Jesus, the
Jewish Messiah
The Gospel according to Matthew

3. 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.

5. 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

6. 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

7. 1.Why, for example, would someone
who had been with Jesus rely on
another author (Mark) for nearly
twothirds 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

8. 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 them
about A.D. 125.
AUTHORSHIP

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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