Matthew

Authorship: Did Matthew write this Gospel?

Who Wrote the Four Gospels? Critics contend that we do not know who really wrote the gospels. In fact, it is argued that the standard titles of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John weren’t added until a century later to give these documents apostolic authority. Does the evidence support the authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

Did Matthew originally write his Gospel in Hebrew?

Scholars wonder if Matthew originally wrote in Hebrew based on a solitary passage mentioned by Papias (AD 140). The passage from Papias says this:

Matthew synetaxeto [composed? compiled? arranged?] the logia [sayings? Gospel?] in hebraïdi dialektō [in the Hebrew (Aramaic?) language? in the Hebrew (Aramaic?) style?]; and everyone hērmēneusen [interpreted? translated? transmitted?] them as he was able [contextually, who is ‘interpreting’ what?].^[1]

There are a number of reasons for being skeptical of his claim from Papias:

First, Matthew’s gospel often cites from the Septuagint—the Greek translation of the OT. But if Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, why then would he often cite a Greek translation?

Second, Matthew’s gospel cites from Mark. But if Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, why then would he quote a Greek manuscript like Mark? (see “The Synoptic Problem”)

Third, Matthew’s gospel doesn’t read like a translation. Carson and Moo write, “The Greek text of Matthew does not read like translation Greek.”[2] A translator would need to be excellent to translate Matthew in such a fluid way.

Those who hold to the so-called “Q” source think it’s possible that Matthew had recorded a list of notes during Jesus’ lifetime. This list of sayings (or logia as Papias puts it) could be what we currently refer to as the “Q” source. It could’ve been copied into Greek, and then subsumed into both Matthew and Luke. Of course, this is merely conjecture, but it is a way of validating both Papias’ claim and the “Q” hypothesis.

Date: When did Matthew write his Gospel?

Evidence for an Early Dating of the Four Gospels: Many historians and commentators date the Gospels between AD 70 and AD 100. This subject is surely up for debate. However, based on the manuscript evidence, the citations of the Church Fathers, the dating of the Book of Acts, and the early citations from Paul, we think there is good evidence for an early dating of the Gospels. We would date Matthew to the early 60’s AD.

Audience: Did Matthew only write his Gospel for the Jews?

Yes and no. Matthew does tailor his Gospel for a Jewish audience in many ways. First, he focuses on the “fulfillment” of OT prophecy (Mt. 1:22-23; 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 5:17; 8:17; 12:17; 13:17, 35; 21:4; 26:54-56; 27:9. Second, he emphasizes Jesus’ lineage from Abraham and David—two very important Jewish patriarchs. Third, he focuses on Jesus’ mission to the nation of Israel—not the Gentiles (Mt. 10:5-6; 15:28). Fourth, he feels no need to explain Jewish practices (compare Matthew 15:1-20 with Mark 7:3-4, 11).[3] Fifth, Matthew uses “kingdom of heaven,” rather than “kingdom of God.” Some commentators argue that he uses this expression because Jews wouldn’t use the holy name for God. However, we don’t find this argument persuasive (see comments on Matthew 3:2 below).

On the other hand, Matthew records how Jesus foresaw and predicted the Gentile mission (Mt. 8:11; 10:18; 21:43; 22:9; 24:14; 28:19). Moreover, Jesus frequently approved of the faith of Gentiles like the Roman centurion (Mt. 8:10) and the Canaanite woman (Mt. 15:28). So, Matthew was not written exclusively to a Jewish audience.

Review of Commentaries

Craig Blomberg, Matthew: The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992).

Blomberg’s focuses on history in this commentary, and he gives a well-reasoned historical defense of the text.

D.A. Carson, Matthew: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984).

Carson gives various interpretations of the text before offering his own. If you are looking for a commentary that gives a wide range of views, Carson is excellent. Even when you disagree with Carson’s interpretation, he at least explains alternative views well before giving his own. This commentary is also far more technical than others in the Expositor’s series. One word of caution is that Carson routinely criticizes John Walvoord’s commentary on Matthew. Indeed, Walvoord is Carson’s punching bag in his commentary. The reader will need to determine for himself or herself whether his criticisms are valid.

Craig Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009).

Keener’s historical insight into the Greco-Roman and Jewish literature is in a league of its own. The footnotes alone are worth the price of the book. He also engages modern interpreters well, and argues for the historicity of the text at various points. This commentary is long and technical, but very well done.

R.T. France, Matthew: Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985).

France has chosen to specialize in the gospel according to Matthew, and he has a later commentary listed below that is more technical (2007). This earlier commentary is quite readable, and it has a good balance of history and theology.

David L. Turner, Matthew: Baker Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008).

We were honestly disappointed with Turner’s commentary. The Baker Exegetical Commentary series is designed to go deep into the text. However, Turner routinely would “punt” to other commentaries (e.g. Carson, Blomberg, France, etc.) for the reader to get an explanation. But why did we buy Turner’s $50 commentary if he was simply going to point us to others who actually give the research? That said, Turner did give some quality insights into the text, which we included in our work below. However, in our estimation, his work was overall underwhelming.

Steve W. Lemke, The Academic Use of Gospel Harmonies (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007).

This is an excellent academic resource for harmonizing the Gospel accounts, and well worth the money.

Additional Commentaries

We haven’t read these commentaries in their entirety, so we can’t vouch for them. However, we did appeal to them at times to explore and research difficult passages. Thus, as with all study, READER DISCRETION IS ADVISED.

R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew: NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publication Co., 2007).

Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1992).

Craig A. Evans, Matthew: New Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge University Press, 2012).

Ben Witherington III, Matthew (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2006).

^[1] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.16. Cited in D.A. Carson, Matthew: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), 11.

[2] D.A. Carson and Douglas Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 143.

[3] Also compare Matthew 26:17 with Mark 14:12; Matthew 27:57 and Mark 15:42; John 19:40.