Smoodock's Blog

In our previous study we determined that, according to Papias (AD 60 to AD 130), the bishop of Hierapolis,[1] a late 1^st or early 2^nd century witness, a man named Matthew wrote the Gospel, known by that name in our Bibles. There is little doubt that Papias’ Matthew is Matthew, the Apostle. However, some modern skeptics try to argue that Papias’ Matthew is, another Matthew, or, if he really intends to describe the Apostle’s work, Papias is simply wrong, because, according to Papias Matthew wrote about the **oracles** or sayings of the Lord, and our Matthew wrote about events, as well as sayings. Moreover, Papias’ Matthew originally wrote his work in Hebrew, but clearly our Matthew wrote his Gospel narrative in Greek.

There are several problems with such arguments, coming from the skeptics. First of all, their assumption that Matthew was originally written in Greek, assumes a Markan priority, vis-à-vis Mark was written first, which we know was written in Greek, and Matthew copied most of Mark. Therefore, he originally wrote in Greek. Nevertheless, this argument lacks substance. Obviously, the assumption of Markan priority is not proof of Markan priority. For centuries scholars believed Matthew was written first. Secondly, it is common knowledge among Biblical scholars that the Gospel of Mark is written in poor Greek. That is, it doesn’t follow normal Grecian syntax. That would be like folks in America hearing someone say: “Throw the horse over the fence some hay!” Most Americans would understand that the person wants them to throw hay over the fence to the horse, but it would be humorous to hear the syntax faux pas! The point is, according to historical accounts, Mark was translating Peter sermons, which he had given before the Roman Church, at the request of the Roman church authorities. Mark’s version in the Greek preserves the Hebrew or Aramaic syntax in the translation. In other words, if one would translate Mark’s Greek into Aramaic, he would have no problem arranging the words, because Aramaic syntax was already preserved in the Greek. The point is, Mark’s Gospel was originally written in Aramaic.

Concerning Markan priority, according to Papias “Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.” In other words, Matthew had written a text, but all twelve of the Apostles critiqued it, making certain the sayings were accurate and fit the context of the events in which they were spoken by the Lord. This means that Peter, probably, would have had great influence over Matthew’s final transcript. In other words, Peter preached much of what Matthew had written down. So, which came first, the chicken or the egg? As far as written accounts are concerned, Matthew comes first, because Mark wasn’t written down in Greek until cir. AD 55. Nevertheless, Mark’s Gospel existed for decades prior to it being written down for the Roman Church, because it is the Gospel that Peter preached, and it was the basis for Matthew’s written account.

According to the text, Matthew was a tax collector who performed his duties near Capernaum (cp. Matthew 9:9), so he collected taxes for Herod Antipas who governed that area. From this understanding, we can assume that Matthew was literate, organized, was used to keeping records, and probably knew an ancient form of shorthand for his record-keeping. Therefore, it is at least reasonable that Matthew, the Apostle, is the author of the Gospel named after him. Moreover, it is also reasonable to conclude he kept a running record of what Jesus said and did before the crowds that followed him, and privately with his disciples. Moreover, what he wrote down at the time, would most likely have been written in Aramaic.

Secondly, anyone who did business along any of the international trade routes going through Judea, Samaria and Galilee, almost had to be multilingual. Even illiterate folks can be multilingual. Yet, Matthew was an educated man living and working on one of the major trade routes going through Galilee. It was necessary for him to know the two commercial languages of the world, Greek and Aramaic. The language of the synagogues was Hebrew, meaning the scriptures were read in Hebrew, but afterward or during the reading, the Targumist responsible for interpreting the reading, did so by reading or reciting the passage from memory in the Aramaic, which is closely related to the Hebrew language.

So, what do we know so far, as this relates to Papias’ statement mentioned above? Being literate, organized and used to keeping records, Matthew put together the sayings of Jesus, as he preached throughout Galilee and Judea. He wrote in Aramaic, which Papias probably mistook as Hebrew in his citation. “…and each interpreted as best he could.” That is, each of the Apostles contributed their understanding of what Matthew had written down in his records of what Jesus said. Thus, Matthew is the original author, but the other Apostles also offered their understanding before completing the Gospel narrative that we know today.

What else can be said to support the conclusion that Matthew wrote the first book in the New Covenant text? As I mentioned above, the text shows us that Matthew was a tax collector, and his message was primarily to and for Jews. Nevertheless, tax collectors were not held in high esteem among the Jews (Matthew 9:11; 11:19; 21:31-32), and clearly Matthew’s Gospel was written particularly to Jews, because the author was intent on proving Jesus was, indeed, the Messiah who was to come in their time (cp. Matthew 1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14 etc.). While Luke was written with gentiles in mind, Matthew was written to solve Jewish questions about Jesus. The point is that, if the Jews hated tax collectors, why have Matthew be the author of the first Gospel, unless he truly is its author? If someone is trying to fake authorship, why not choose a more popular figure?

______________________________________

[1] A city in modern Turkey