INTRODUCTION to The Gospel According to Matthew

NEW TESTAMENT

COMMENTARY

By

WILLIAM HENDRIKSEN

Exposition

of the

Gospel According to Matthew

BAKER BOOK HOUSE

GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 54–924

ISBN: 0–8010–4066–3

12 volume set, first available 2002

ISBN 0–8010–2606–7

All rights in this book are reserved. No part may be reproduced in any manner without permission in writing from the copyright holder, except brief quotations used in connection with reviews in a magazine or newspaper.

Vol. 9

New Testament commentary : Exposition of the Gospel

INTRODUCTION

to

The Gospel According to Matthew

I. CHARACTERISTICS

These may be summarized as follows. This Gospel is:

Methodical; i.e., characterized by orderliness

The author goes to work according to a definite plan, setting forth that Jesus is, indeed, the Christ. The nature of this plan and the manner in which it differs from that of the other evangelists has been indicated on pp. 25–31.

Appealing

This Gospel has been called “the most important book in the world” (Renan), “the most successful book ever written” (Goodspeed). Besides being important and successful it is also truly beautiful. Reading it from beginning to end at one sitting is a thrilling experience. The book is simply irresistible. At the very beginning one is intrigued by the mystery of the three fourteens (chap. 1). There follows the exciting story of the wise men who came “from the east” in order to render homage to a young child (chap. 2). The Sermon on the Mount (chaps. 5–7), with its beatitudes (5:3–12) and Lord’s Prayer (6:9–14), and with its many other precious passages—such as 5:13–16, 27 ff., 43–48; 6:19–34; and last but not least 7:24–27—gives us an insight into the very heart of the Master. The charge to The Twelve (chap. 10) is characterized by frankness and tenderness: by the former, for the apostles are plainly told that the faithful discharge of their duties will mean persecution (verse 22); and by the latter, for they receive the assurance of the Father’s constant care and of the Son’s abiding closeness (verse 40). The kingdom parables of chapter 13 are both interesting and revealing. The rules governing Christian discipline (chap. 18) have been, and are being, quoted again and again and have already resulted in blessings that can neither be counted nor measured. For our instruction chapter 23—the seven woes—shows that the Savior’s love is not all sweetness and smiles. It has its stern aspect, for how would it be possible for him who urges men to enter his Father’s kingdom to look with special favor upon those who shut that kingdom against men (Matt. 23:13); or for one who helps widows, to take pleasure in those who devour widows’ houses (Mark 12:40)? It is also Matthew’s Gospel that contains the dramatic portrayal of The Final Judgment (chap. 25). The deeply moving account of the Savior’s passion has been given reverential musical expression in Bach’s St. Matthew’s Passion, while Matthew’s unique contribution to the account of the resurrection—I refer particularly to his rather lengthy passage about the guard (see on 27:62–66; 28:2–4, 11–15)—still awaits adequate crystallization in music and on canvas.

Turned toward the past; i.e., toward the Old Testament, with its many Messianic predictions, and proclaiming their fulfilment in the present, namely, in Jesus Christ.

Matthew contains at least forty formal quotations; that is, quotations that are immediately evident as such, often being introduced by words such as “that what was spoken … might be fulfilled,” “You have heard that it was said,” “for so it is written by the prophet,” etc. Note the following:

Reference in Matthew	Old Testament Passage	See also
1:23	Isa. 7:14
2:6	Mic. 5:2
2:15	Hos. 11:1
	(cf. Exod. 4:22)
2:18	Jer. 31:15
2:23	Isa. 11:1?	John 1:46; 7:52
	(cf. Isa. 53:2, 3)
3:3	Isa. 40:3	Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4
4:4	Deut. 8:3	Luke 4:4
4:6	Ps. 91:11, 12	Luke 4:10, 11
4:7	Deut. 6:16	Luke 4:12
4:10	Deut. 5:9; 6:13	Luke 4:8
4:15, 16	Isa. 9:1, 2
5:21	Exod. 20:13; Deut. 5:17
5:27 (cf. 19:18)	Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18	Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; Rom. 2:22; 13:9; James 2:11
5:31 (cf. 19:7)	Deut. 24:1	Mark 10:4
5:33	Lev. 19:12; Num. 30:3; Deut. 23:21, 22
5:38	Exod. 21:24; Lev. 24:20; Deut. 19:21
5:43 (cf. 19:19; 22:39)	Lev. 19:18	Mark 12:31, 33; Luke 10:27; Rom. 13:9;
		Gal. 5:14; James 2:8
8:17	Isa. 53:4
9:13 (cf. 12:7)	Hos. 6:6
11:10	Mal. 3:1	Mark 1:2; Luke 7:27
12:7 (cf. 9:13)	Hos. 6:6
12:18–21	Isa. 42:1–4
13:14, 15	Isa. 6:9, 10	John 12:39–41
13:35	Ps. 78:2
15:4a (cf. 19:19)	Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16	Mark 7:10a; 10:19; Luke 18:20; Eph. 6:2
15:4b	Exod. 21:17; Lev. 20:9; Deut. 27:16; Prov. 20:20; 30:17	Mark 7:10b
15:8, 9	Isa. 29:13	Mark 7:6, 7
19:4	Gen. 1:27	Mark 10:6
19:5	Gen. 2:24	Mark 10:7
19:7 (cf. 5:31)	Deut. 24:1	Mark 10:4
19:18, 19 (cf. 5:43; 22:39)	Exod. 20:12–16; Lev. 19:18; Deut. 5:16–20	For Matt. 19:18, 19a see also Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; and for Matt. 19:19b see the references listed in connection with Matt. 5:43
21:5	Zech. 9:9	John 12:15
21:13a	Isa. 56:7	Mark 11:17a; Luke 19:46a
21:13b	Jer. 7:11	Mark 11:17b; Luke 19:46b
21:16	Ps. 8:2
21:42	Ps. 118:22, 23	Mark 12:10, 11; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; I Peter 2:7
22:24	Deut. 25:5	Mark 12:19; Luke 20:28
22:32	Exod. 3:6	Mark 12:26
22:37	Deut. 6:5	Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27a
22:39 (cf. 5:43; 19:18, 19)	Lev. 19:18	See the references listed in connection with Matt. 5:43
22:44	Ps. 110:1	Mark 12:36; Acts 2:34, 35; Heb. 1:13
23:38, 39	Ps. 118:26; Jer. 22:5	Luke 13:35
24:15	Dan. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11	Mark 13:14
24:29–31	See p. 862
26:31	Zech. 13:7	Mark 14:27
26:64	Ps. 110:1; Dan. 7:13, 14	Mark 14:52; Luke 21:27
27:9, 10	Zech. 11:12, 13 (cf. Jer. 32:6–15)
27:46	Ps. 22:1	Mark 15:34

In addition to the quotations that are definitely designated as such there are others which, though not thus introduced, are immediately recognized as quotations of familiar phrases from the Old Testament. See Matt. 10:35, 36; 11:5, 23; 18:16; 21:9, 33; 26:15, 64; 27:34, 35. Some might not be immediately recognized, and among these there are expressions that may perhaps be better described as allusions than quotations: 8:4; 10:21; 12:4, 40; 27:39, 43, 48.

Turned toward the present, and revealing God’s will for the here and now; and toward the future: his own (suffering, death, resurrection, etc.), that of his people, and that of the world.

In Matthew not only is Jesus the fulfilment of prophecy; he is also himself very definitely the prophet. As such he is greater than Jonah (12:39–41; cf. Luke 11:29–32), reminds one vividly of Isaiah (13:13–15), and answers the prediction given to Moses. He is, in fact, the exalted One, who was to come, and to whom the people must give heed (Deut. 18:15–19; Matt. 17:5).⁸⁶ As God’s prophet he reveals the will of his Father in all he is, says, and does. Whenever we wish to read the great discourses of our Lord and Savior we naturally turn, first of all, to Matthew’s Gospel; for whatever parallels the other Gospels contain, it is the former publican who has given us this material in its fullest and most organized form (chaps 5–7; 10; 13; 18; 23; and 24, 25). It is again Matthew who not only has preserved for us Christ’s predictions concerning himself—these lessons regarding the cross followed by the crown are found also in the other Gospels—, but who has also left us the Master’s most vivid and detailed forecast with respect to the future course of events touching Jerusalem, the church, and the world (23:37–25:30), climaxed by the majestic portraiture of the final judgment, ushering in eternal woe and eternal weal (25:31–46).

Something can be said, therefore, in favor of the view that although in each Gospel Jesus is pictured as the long-awaited Messiah, sent by the Father and anointed by the Spirit to be our Great Prophet, Sympathetic Highpriest, and Eternal King, it is the prophetic office that comes into the foreground in Matthew, the kingly in Mark, the highpriestly in Luke. As to Mark and Luke, the argument belongs to commentaries on these Gospels. As to Matthew, it would appear to the present author that F. W. Grosheide was right when he said:

“According to some, Matthew pictures Jesus especially as king. It cannot be denied that we see him rise out of a royal dynasty, that we hear of the adulteration of his kingship by the Jews and by Pilate, that he vindicates himself as Israel’s true king, and that at the conclusion he functions as king, possessing all authority in heaven and on earth. Nevertheless, as we see it, this is not what distinguishes Matthew’s Gospel from the others.… On the contrary, in no Gospel does the prophetical aspect of Jesus come to the foreground as clearly as it does in the first. Not only is it true that Jesus is the fulfilment of prophecy, but he himself—witness the many connected discourses, more in Matthew than in the others—functions as prophet with respect to his own work, especially as the prophet of his own suffering and death. He is the true prophet, the prophet of Deut. 18:18.… In this Gospel, as is shown both by its content and organization, it is the word of Christ, rather than his work, that receives the emphasis” (Commentaar op het Nieuwe Testament, Kampen, 1954, pp. 14, 15).

Jesus, moreover, is God’s Chief Prophet not only in the discourses but even in the Old Testament predictions which he fulfils! Is this not clearly taught in I Peter 1:10, 11 and in Rev. 19:10b?

Hebraistic, that is, characterized by the thought patterns and spirit of the Hebrews.

According to some,⁸⁷ the four Greek Gospels—with the exception of the last chapter of John and Luke’s prologue—are Aramaic documents that were subsequently translated into Greek. The arguments advanced in confirmation of this view are mainly the following: a. the Greek is marked by Aramaic—or at least by Semitic—style characteristics; b. many passages that are now obscure become clear as soon as they are viewed as mistranslations of the underlying Aramaic, and a correct translation is substituted for the poor one found in the Greek text.

The theory has by no means convinced all scholars.⁸⁸ This is not surprising. It is not denied that Aramaic is the basis of much or all of the contents of the Greek Gospels. That Jesus generally spoke in Aramaic has already become clear (see p. 42). Is it not probable, therefore, that when his words were first reduced to writing they were written in the language (or at least also in the language) in which they had been spoken? Certain idioms that are either characteristically Semitic, or at least occur with greater frequency in Semitic languages than in Greek, also appear again and again in the Gospels.⁸⁹

It cannot be denied that the investigations of Torrey and his allies have brought out clearly the indispensability of the study of Semitic (in this case especially Hebrew and Aramaic) as well as Greek for the proper understanding of the New Testament. The student who specializes in Semitics and is satisfied with a beginner’s knowledge of Greek is in danger of seeing Semitisms everywhere in the New Testament. On the other hand, the one who confines himself largely to the study of Greek will fail to see the Semitic style and flavor of the Gospels. A proper balance of interest should be achieved. When this is accomplished, it will also be recognized that the Semitic or Hebraistic atmosphere of the Gospels proves that “they preserve an early, Palestinian, Semitic tradition” (F. V. Filson). They are not late writings that originated during the second century, as rationalistic critics used to affirm with great confidence, but documents that belong to a very early age, a time when Greek-speaking believers were in close contact with those who spoke Aramaic, and when many were conversant with both (or even all three: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) languages. These Gospels, accordingly, were written at a time when the facts concerning Jesus, his sojourn on earth, miracles, sayings, discourses, atoning death, resurrection, etc., were still fresh in the minds of the disciples and of their immediate followers. Thus God, in his providence, uses the work of one school of higher critics—Torrey and his allies—to combat the theories of another school, the late-daters of New Testament books.

So much for the positive side. The Aramaic theory also has its distinctly negative aspect, as has already been intimated. First, it is now rather generally recognized that this theory has not succeeded in proving that four written Aramaic Gospels underlie our present Greek Gospels. There are, after all, other ways to account for the Semitic flavor of these books. Matthew Mark, and John were Jews, and not only these three but also Luke was in close contact with Jews and used Jewish oral and written sources. When Jews speak or write Greek they do not immediately shed their Hebraistic background. The Semitisms of the New Testament may therefore be partially explained as being regional variations of Hellenistic Greek. Intimate knowledge of the Hebrew Old Testament and of its Septuagint (Greek) translation, as well as acquaintance with Aramaic oral and written source-material no doubt contributed their share toward the end-product. And in all this we do not deny that there may even have been, at one time, an early Aramaic Matthew. We simply do not know. More about this in a moment.

Secondly, not only did Torrey and his group maintain that our Greek Gospels, etc. are translations of Aramaic originals, but in addition they tried to prove that, in many instances, they are poor translations. However, that view also has been decisively refuted. It has been shown, for example, that Torrey’s contention according to which Matt. 5:48 when translated “You therefore, must be perfect …” is an error, and that it should be rendered, “Be, therefore, all-including,” is itself an error.⁹⁰ Even a reader unfamiliar with Greek and Hebrew can see, by comparing Matt. 5:48 with Lev. 19:2 and Deut. 18:13, that the rendering to which he has become accustomed (whether perhaps through the study of A.V., A.R.V., NASB, R.S.V., or Berkeley) is not wrong, and that, as generally rendered, this passage harmonizes with Jesus’ central idea, namely, that as is the Father so should be his children; cf. Luke 6:35. Many similar alleged wrong translations are discussed in Torrey’s writings. When carefully examined, they are found to be not wrong at all. The interesting fact is that in many specific cases the advocates of the Aramaic theory in its extreme form reject each other’s conclusions as to mistranslations, as the literature mentioned on p. 83, footnote 88 indicates.⁹¹

How does all this apply specifically to Matthew’s Gospel? It has been shown that, on the whole, Matthew’s Greek is more fluent than that of Mark and contains less Aramaic words. In view of this, the adjective “Hebraistic” is hardly even applicable to this Gospel, if one defines this adjective in a narrowly linguistic sense. On the other hand, when the word “Hebraistic” is employed in a broader sense, as having reference to the conceptual world of the Jews, the religious ideas that were prominent among them because of their Old Testament background and the phraseology by means of which these ideas were expressed, the adjective is apt.

The Jewishness of Matthew’s Gospel is by no means confined to certain features which, to a greater or lesser extent, it has in common with other Gospels. It reaches much deeper than this. There is, for example, the idea of the divine teleology: God’s plan and its realization in history, a stronger emphasis on prophecy and fulfilment than is found in the other Gospels, as has been shown. There is also the delight which Matthew finds in the concept seven. Already in the very first chapter he represents Christ as the Beginner of the seventh seven, the climax of the three fourteens. Though the Lord’s Prayer, as Matthew records it, has six petitions (6:9–13), yet according to him, Jesus uttered a group of seven kingdom parables (chap. 13), and pronounced seven woes upon Pharisees and scribes (chap. 23).⁹² All this strongly reminds one of the divine ordinance with respect to the seven-day week (Gen. 2:2; Exod. 20:10; Deut. 5:14), the sabbath of weeks (Pentecost, Lev. 23:15), the festival during the seventh month (Lev. 23:24), the seventh year (Lev. 25:4), and the Year of Jubilee at the end of seven times seven years (Lev. 25:8). For other Old Testament sevens see Gen. 4:24; Exod. 25:37; Josh. 6:4, 6, 8, 13, 15; Job 1:2; Dan. 4:16, 23, 25; 9:25; Zech. 4:2; to mention but a few.

Matthew also uses the term “kingdom of heaven” instead of “kingdom of God” employed by the other Gospel-writers. To be sure, he does not avoid the latter term (12:28; 21:31), and there is no essential difference between the two appellations. However, does not the fact that in his far more usual designation the Greek word translated “heaven” is in the plural (cf. Gen. 1:1 in the original) and that the reference to heaven reminds one of Dan. 2:44; 7:13, 14, point to the conclusion that it is a Hebrew who is writing these things? By him Jesus is represented as “the son of David, the son of Abraham” (contrast Matt. 1:1 with Luke 3:38). The fact that the adverb of time τότε (then) occurs in Matthew about 90 times (contrast Mark 6 times; Luke 15 times; John 10 times) is another link with its Semitic equivalent.

Again, does not this Gospel’s constant emphasis on the law (see especially the lengthy section 5:17–48; cf. 7:12; 12:5; 23:23) strengthen this conclusion? And if even more evidence is needed, let it be remembered that this is the only Gospel in which the title “king of the Jews,” referring to Jesus, is not saved for the closing chapters but is found in the very beginning (2:2). It is also the only Gospel in which Jesus is reported to have issued the command, “Into any road of the Gentiles do not turn off, and into any city of the Samaritans do not enter, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (10:5, 6). It is, again, the only Gospel in which these words are recorded: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (15:24). It is the only Gospel that calls Jerusalem “the holy city” (4:5; 27:53; cf. Rev. 21:2). Finally, it is the only Gospel in which Jewish customs do not need to be explained (15:2; contrast Mark 7:3, 4), for the Jews knew their own customs. The statement, “The Gospel of Matthew has a more Jewish aspect than the other Synoptics,”⁹³ is entirely correct. It is in that sense that we call it “Hebraistic.”

Was there ever a Semitic (whether Hebrew or Aramaic) Gospel written by the same author who, according to this view, subsequently produced what is now called the Greek “Gospel according to Matthew”? Eusebius tells us that it was Papias who wrote (in a work⁹⁴ now lost): “Matthew arranged the oracles in (the) Hebrew language, and each translated them as he was able.”⁹⁵

Various divergent appraisals and interpretations of this statement:

1. Papias was obviously mistaken. He based his opinion upon the fact that Matthew wrote first of all for Jews. Besides, he may have confused our Greek Matthew with another document, as did Jerome, who regarded the apocryphal Gospel according to the Hebrews to be the original Hebrew Matthew. An Aramaic Matthew pre-dating Greek Matthew has never been found. Had there been such a Gospel it would, of course, in its quotations from the Old Testament, have followed the Hebrew text. But the very point of Jesus’ charge (Matt. 15:6 ff.; Mark 7:8 ff.) against the Pharisees and scribes, denouncing them for making void the Word of God because of their tradition, would have been lost had the Hebrew text (of Isa. 29:13) been followed. It is clear that both Jesus and Matthew are here following the text of the Old Testament as translated into Greek (i.e., the LXX). The evidence points, therefore, to a Gospel written originally not in Hebrew (or Aramaic) but in Greek.⁹⁶

2. The same as the one just described, with emphasis, however, on the view that the original language in which, according to Papias, the work which he erroneously ascribed to Matthew was written, was definitely Hebrew, and the several translations were into Aramaic, not into Greek.⁹⁷

3. Papias was right. Matthew, after writing his Gospel in the language of the Hebrews—resulting in the fact that in speaking with Greeks each person according to his ability would translate it into his language—having left Palestine to labor elsewhere, produced a Gospel in the Greek language with a view to “the Jews of the Diaspora” (Berkhof), or to “foreign nations” (Thiessen).⁹⁸

4. Papias, in speaking about logia was thinking about “Jesus’ sayings.” Matthew had taken these down in Aramaic. When Mark’s Gospel came into the hands of the former publican, he used almost all of it, transposing its materials wherever he found this necessary, and combining it with the sayings, utterances, or teachings of Jesus which he, Matthew, had himself taken down. The result, in the course of time, became the Greek Gospel according to Matthew.⁹⁹

5. Papias did not mean that Matthew had written a Hebrew Gospel, but that he had written in Hebrew style.¹⁰⁰

I shall not take the time to comment on all these views separately. A few reflections will have to suffice. First, in speaking about Mark and his Gospel¹⁰¹ Papias clearly defines the word “oracles” (logia)¹⁰² as having reference to “the things said or done by the Lord,” not only to the “the things said.” Papias, therefore, is not thinking of words or sayings apart from works or deeds, when he uses this term. He is thinking of the Gospel as a whole. It is therefore logical to assume that also when he says, “Matthew arranged the oracles,” he is speaking about Matthew’s Gospel.

Secondly, we should carefully distinguish between two questions: a. “Is our Greek Matthew a translation of an earlier Semitic (whether Hebrew or Aramaic) work?” and b. “Was there an earlier work, written in the language of the Hebrews, a writing that preceded Greek Matthew, and stood in some relation to it, being a model for it and/or perhaps even, in a sense however restricted, a source for some of its contents?” These two questions must not be confused. Theoretically it should be considered possible to answer the first question negatively, but the second in the affirmative. As to that second question, the possibility of remaining non-committal must also not be excluded.

As to the first question, the position of those who look upon the Gospels and certain other parts of the New Testament as translations from written Aramaic has already been discussed and refuted (pp. 83–85). Greek Matthew, too, is not a mere translation from Aramaic. Throughout, the Greek language and its idioms play too prominent a role in it. The argument based on Matt. 15:8, 9, taken as evidence for the charge found in verse 6 (see above under opinion No. 1), is valid. Though what Jesus is saying may well be implied also in the Hebrew, it is certainly far more clearly expressed in the Septuagint. The fact that by their tradition the Pharisees and scribes had made void the Word of God because they had substituted for it the precepts of men, precepts which they teach the people, reminds one of the Isaiah passage as recorded not so much in the original Hebrew as in the Greek (Septuagint) translation of the Old Testament.

Hebrew (Isa. 29:13):

“Forasmuch as this people draw near with their mouth, and with their lips honor me, but have removed their heart from me, and their fear toward me (is but) acquired precept of men, therefore.…”

Septuagint:

“This people draw near to me (and) with their lips honor me, but their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching precepts of men and (their) doctrines.”

Matt. 15:8, 9 (cf. Mark 7:6, 7):

“This people honor me with their lips but their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching (as their) doctrines precepts of men.”

There is nothing that necessitates the positing of an Aramaic written Gospel underlying Greek Matthew. Such a document has never been found. No ancient witness ever quotes from it. Whether it ever existed cannot now be established with any degree of certainty. The form in which many quotations occur in all three Synoptics indicates a common basis for all. This source could well be Matthew’s notes.¹⁰³ Similar notes written by the same person could very well account also for some of the other (i.e., non-quotation) Gospel material. As has already been shown, Matthew probably also used Mark’s Gospel, which, according to tradition, was derived from Peter’s preaching, which, in turn, in many instances may have depended on Matthew’s notes. Then, there was, of course, Matthew’s own memory of what he himself had seen and heard and of that which others had told him (oral tradition). With all this source material at hand, it would be difficult to demonstrate any necessity for a written Aramaic Gospel underlying the Greek.

This, however, does not absolutely prove that such a Gospel never existed, and that Papias and those who may have followed his lead were in error. They may have been in error, but the final word on this has not been written. The arguments that have been used to prove him wrong have not convinced everyone. Some reason as follows: How the error of Jerome (a.d. 340?–420), a man who lived a very long time after the last of the apostles had died, can be a strong argument against the statement of Papias is hard to understand. This Papias was a very early witness (probably writing sometime between 125 and 140); and by Irenaeus described as a hearer of John (the apostle) and a companion of Polycarp.

The fact that an Aramaic Matthew pre-dating a Greek Matthew has never been found nor quoted would be well-nigh annihilating as an argument against the position that there was at one time such a document, were it not for two considerations: a. the statement of Papias and others after him vouching for its onetime existence, and b. the fact that as time went on there would be less need for such a book, explaining its ultimate disappearance: “The Christian missionaries with an Aramaic book … in their hands would have been powerless to make propaganda in what was in fact a Greek or rather Hellenized world.”¹⁰⁴

Another objection against the theory that Papias was mistaken has been expressed in these words: “Let us remember also that it is inconsistent to believe Papias when he says that Matthew wrote the Gospel, and to discredit his further testimony that the apostle wrote in Hebrew, as some scholars do. It is indeed almost certain that Pantaenus [see Eusebius, op. cit., V. x, 1–4] was mistaken, when he thought that he had found the Hebrew Gospel in India; and that Jerome labored under a delusion when he imagined that he had translated it at Caesarea. What they saw was probably a corruption of the Hebrew original, known as ‘the Gospel according to the Hebrews.’ But this possible mistake does not invalidate the other independent testimony of Jerome and that of all the early fathers to the effect that Matthew wrote the Gospel in Hebrew.”¹⁰⁵ The same author suggests that Greek Matthew was “a new recension of the Gospel.”¹⁰⁶ And in a recent study C. S. Petrie reaches the conclusion that the testimony of Papias regarding Matthew’s Gospel rests on firmer ground than the best guesses of today.¹⁰⁷

It would probably not be too difficult to bring up counter-arguments. It seems to the author of this book that there is no sufficient evidence either to prove or to disprove the onetime existence of an early Gospel according to Matthew in the language of the Hebrews. Did Matthew write a Semitic Gospel? Is Greek Matthew “a new recension”? My answer is, “I do not know.” That it is no translation of a Hebrew or Aramaic written Gospel is clear. For the rest, one thing I do know: Greek Matthew is Hebraistic, in the sense already explained.

Evangelistic, that is having a broad missionary purpose.

Matthew makes it very clear that this Messiah of prophecy stands related to the entire world. In his Family Tree not only a good many direct descendants of Abraham are mentioned but also such “foreigners” as Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth (1:3, 5). Wise men come from the east to worship the Child and to bring him gifts (chap. 2). That the gospel of salvation full and free reaches out even to those outside the boundaries of Israel is evident from the words of Christ: “And I say to you that many shall come from the east and from the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast into outer darkness” (8:11, 12). It is this same Christ who healed the centurion’s servant (8:5–13), praised the faith of the Canaanitish woman and healed her daughter (15:21–28). It is he who said, “The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth its fruits” (21:43). He also said, “As many as you shall find, bid to the marriage feast.… And the wedding was filled with guests” (22:9, 10). What is perhaps the most world-embracing command is found in the final chapter: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations” (28:19, 20).

The question might be asked, “But how is it possible for one and the same evangelist—or for Christ, for the gospel (the good tidings of salvation), or for the Gospel (the book ascribed to Matthew)—to be both Hebraistic and evangelistic?” The answer is found in such passages as Acts 13:46 and Rom. 1:16.

After Golgotha, with a foreglimpse even during the period immediately preceding, there is one chosen race, consisting of all who are “in Christ,” no matter what happens to be their race or nationality. The distinctions that marked the Old Testament era have vanished completely (Rom. 10:12; I Cor. 7:19; Gal. 3:9, 28, 29; Eph. 2:14, 18; Col. 3:11; I Peter 2:9; Rev. 7:9; 22:17).

ritten by a man whose qualifications corresponded with these characteristics. Who was that man? This brings us to the next heading:

II. AUTHORSHIP, DATE, AND PLACE

The opinion of many is that the author of the book which opens the door to the treasure-house of the New Testament was “certainly not Matthew the apostle.”¹⁰⁸ As far as the doctrine of inspiration is concerned, there can be no objection to this opinion. Nowhere does the author reveal his identity. What he wrote is and remains anonymous. It was different with Paul. When he addressed a letter to Philemon he included these words: “I Paul write it.” In fact, in the very first verse of each epistle he names himself as the author. To be sure, Matthew’s name occurs in 9:9 and 10:3 but in neither of these passages does he call himself the writer. Moreover, as has been indicated previously, the title, which, as commonly though not strictly interpreted, ascribes the book to Matthew as author, was not added until about a.d. 125. Hence, it does not belong to the inspired book itself.

The possibility that the title of a Gospel might point to the name of a person who, let it be supposed, was responsible for only part of its contents, must be granted. Excellent conservative scholars find no fault with the title although they reject the traditional view according to which the former publican, Matthew, was the composer of the entire Gospel. As they see it, the relation of Matthew to this Gospel must be understood in the sense that, in addition to what it has in common with the other Synoptics, it also contains much that is original in material, purpose, and structure. In this fresh and independent approach they discern the abiding influence of a definite eye-witness, that is, of the apostle Matthew.¹⁰⁹

Nevertheless, by no means all scholars are satisfied with the idea that the former publican was the author only in the sense that he was responsible for some of its source material. Instead, they believe that in a real sense he was the author or composer of the entire book, though in writing it he made lavish use of sources.¹¹⁰

The arguments¹¹¹ of those who accept a rather remote connection between the former publican and the book credited to him are as follows:

1. The appeal to early tradition in support of the proposition that Matthew was himself the author of the entire first canonical Gospel is not justified, for tradition refers to an Aramaic writing, and Greek Matthew is not even a translation from written Aramaic.

Answer: If the exponents of early tradition viewed Greek Matthew as a free translation so that by them the supposed Aramaic original and the new document were regarded as one book, which they ascribed to Matthew, would not this argument lose its force? If these early witnesses (Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, etc.) did not so regard it, must we not then conclude that some of them, though often quoting Greek Matthew, never discuss its authorship? Besides, does not the title “according to Matthew” embody a very early tradition? For evidence of the title’s early date see Goodspeed, op. cit., pp. 37, 38.

2. It is very doubtful that Matthew, an eye-witness, would have made such extensive use of a Gospel Written by Mark, a man who was not even one of The Twelve.

Answer: This argument has already been answered; see pp. 45, 46.

3. The first canonical Gospel is not nearly as vivid as we would have expected it to be if it had been composed by an eye-witness. In fact, it is not even as vivid as is Mark’s Gospel (or John’s).

Answer: It is immediately granted that among the Synoptics Mark is generally the most vivid, as we would also expect with reference to a Gospel written by Peter’s interpreter. However, in order to account for the presence of vivid portrayal, not only proximity to the scene where the action took place must be considered, but also the character or personality of the writer. Peter was probably a more intense and vibrant individual than Matthew. Mark may have resembled Peter in some of his traits (see pp. 41, 42). Matthew may well have been more calm, more deliberate. Also, this probable difference in vividness must not be exaggerated. Matthew’s Gospel is not lacking in vivid touches: 1:20; chap. 2; 7:24–27; 8:23–27; 14:28–31; 20:1–16; 22:1–14; 23:1–39; chap. 25; 27:3–10, 19–21, 24, 25, 50–56, 62–66; 28:2–4, 11–15.

What has been discussed just now is a conservative position regarding the authorship of the book known as “the Gospel according to Matthew.” Conservatives agree that for one reason or another the title is correct. They also agree in believing that the book is part of the inspired Word of God. The difference among them concerns a relatively minor point. No true conservative, however, will be able to endorse the position of radical scholarship regarding the authorship, character, and content of this Gospel. Since this position is actually an attack upon the reliability of the Gospels, a theme which has already been treated somewhat at length (see pp. 54–76), little need be added here.

A typical example of the radical view with respect to Matthew’s Gospel is found in an article by H. H. Koester of Harvard Divinity School.¹¹² That author regards some of the material contained in this Gospel as being of a legendary character, flatly denies that an immediate disciple of Jesus could have written the book, and expresses it as his opinion that 22:6, 7 regards Jerusalem’s fall as having already occurred. He is also certain that the developed Christological, doctrinal, and liturgical formulations prove that the book was written by a man of the third generation, not earlier than a.d. 75–100.

But rejection of a narrative—for example, the virgin birth—does not prove that the indicated event never happened. The argument based on 22:6, 7 is very weak, as has already been shown (see p. 22). And consistent reasoning would demand that if we are going to reject the possibility of the existence of developed Christological, doctrinal, and liturgical formulations before the year a.d. 75, we would have to deny the authenticity of all of Paul’s epistles (and, in fact, of much of the New Testament) along with it!

Arguments in Defense of the Ascription of “The Gospel according to Matthew” to Matthew, one of The Twelve

1. Matthew (Matt. 9:9; 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), also called Levi (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27, 29), was, as appears from his very names, a Jew.¹¹³ This may account for the Jewishness of his Gospel.

2. When Matthew received the call to follow Jesus he was a publican, that is, a tax collector in Capernaum. The probability is that he was in the service of Herod Antipas. As he labored in “Galilee of the Gentiles,” he had to be at home in Greek as well as in Aramaic.¹¹⁴ The Gospel according to Matthew shows that its author was, indeed, acquainted with more than one language. Thus, the quotations found here often present a kind of paraphrase in which elements from the Greek Septuagint are combined with Aramaic and derivations from the Hebrew.¹¹⁵

Again, as a tax collector Matthew was obliged to make written reports of the moneys he collected. He may even have known shorthand.¹¹⁶ He was therefore the logical person to take notes on Christ’s words and works.

3. Not only was Matthew an intelligent Jew; he was also deeply religious, as appears from the fact that when called by Jesus he obeyed immediately. As such we may well believe that he was thoroughly acquainted with both the Hebrew Old Testament and its Septuagint translation. He was certainly well versed in the Scriptures. Hence, led by the Spirit, he was the kind of a man who would be able to interpret Old Testament passages in such a manner that they would apply to new situations. The Gospel according to Matthew tallies with this ability on the part of Matthew. The writers of the other Gospels, we may well assume, were able to make use of Matthew’s notes. He, in turn, was able to utilize Mark’s Gospel.

4. Tradition is unanimous in pointing to Matthew as the author. It never mentions anyone else:

Eusebius, at the beginning of the fourth century, wrote as follows:

“Matthew, having first preached to Hebrews, when he was on the point of leaving for others transmitted in writing in his native language the Gospel according to himself, and thus, in writing, made up for the lack of his own presence” (op. cit., III.xxiv.6).

A little earlier Origen (fl.210–250) expressed himself similarly, and so, still earlier (about 182–188) did Irenaeus (see above, p. 44, footnotes 41b and 41a respectively). Earliest of all (sometime between 125 and 140) in this series of witnesses, is Papias, whose reference to Matthew and his Gospel has also been quoted and discussed (pp. 87–89). Papias was described by Irenaeus as a hearer of [the apostle] John and a companion of Polycarp.

Use of this Gospel in the earliest patristic writings that have been preserved (those ascribed to Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp) is abundantly attested. The Didache also adds its testimony. In fact, one can say without exaggeration that external evidence of the early use of this Gospel, and of its ascription to Matthew as soon as ascriptions were made, is unanimous.

5. It would be hard to explain how within a period of perhaps sixty years since this Gospel was composed the name of its true author could have been lost and a fictitious name substituted.

6. The author of a work so beautiful in design, so consistent in style, and so majestic in content could hardly have been lost from view.

7. The fact that this Gospel was ascribed to one of the least conspicuous of the twelve apostles, a man concerning whom hardly anything is known, is another argument in favor of the truthfulness of this ascription.

As to the date and place of origin much is uncertain. Matthew’s knowledge of the Hebrew Old Testament and his access to the Hebrew scrolls would seem to call for a

date

when the break with the synagogue where such scrolls were kept was not as yet complete, and for Palestine as the

place

general region

a.d.

117

a.d.

much

earlier, for 27:8 and 28:15 imply that since Calvary a long time has elapsed.

III. PURPOSE

In general it can be said that the purpose of this Gospel was fully to win the Jews for Christ; that is, to gain those still unconverted and to strengthen those already converted. The Hebraistic character of Matthew’s Gospel, as described in the preceding pages, points to this as its goal. In order to achieve it the emphasis throughout is placed on the fact that Jesus is indeed the long awaited Messiah of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Hence, according to God’s providential guidance, the Old Testament prophetical books are followed immediately by the fulfilment-of-prophecy book, Matthew. Also, in harmony with the rule “to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16); and “You shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem … and to the most distant part of the earth” (Acts 1:8; cf. Luke 24:47); the most Jewish Gospel, the Gospel written by a Jew for Jews, is placed first. It is followed by the Gospel according to Mark who, though also a Jew, composed it for the Romans. Luke, not even a Jew, follows with his Gospel directed to the Greeks. Though in all these Gospels Jesus is presented as the sinner’s only Redeemer, yet the sublime truth that this Redeemer is “the Savior of the world,” that is, of God’s elect gathered from every nation under heaven, is stressed in John’s Gospel (1:13; 3:16; 4:42; 10:16; 17:20, 21). Thus the order of the books of our canon proceeds, very beautifully, from the particular to the universal; yet, the particular already includes the universal, and the universal remains, in a sense, always particular: the gospel is the power of God for salvation to all who believe, to them all, to them alone.

In Matthew particular stress is placed on the fact that Jesus is indeed the Christ of prophecy, not only in order that the Jews, by accepting this Son of David as their Savior, may have life in his name, but also in order that they may be able to defend themselves against the attacks of the enemy, and may even gain the Gentiles.

When a person asks, “What is the purpose of this Gospel?” he can best discover the answer by reading and rereading the entire book. In particular, the answer, then, is as follows:

1. Translation from the realm of darkness to that of light: the conversion of those Jews who have not as yet experienced the basic spiritual change. These must be reminded of the great privileges that had been bestowed on them, and also of the dire consequences of refusing to heed God’s call (10:5 ff.; 11:25–29; 23:37–39).

2. Transformation: constant renewal of life on the part of those (mostly) Jews who have already, by the power of the Spirit, surrendered themselves to Christ. These are shown how they should conduct themselves in order to be a blessing to others, for the glory of the Father in heaven (4:19; 5:16, 43–48; 6:19 ff.; 7:1 ff., 24–27; etc.).

3. Vindication of God’s truth against the attack of bitter adversaries (5:17 ff.; 6:2 ff,; chap. 12; 13:10 ff., 54–58; 15:1–20; 16:1–4; chap. 23; etc.).

4. Evangelization of all the nations (8:5–13; 15:21–28; 28:16–20).

IV. THEME AND OUTLINE

As has been pointed out earlier, the sojourn of Jesus on earth must be viewed not primarily as a series of things that happened to him but rather as the accomplishment of a task assigned to him. Other children are born. They are wholly passive in their birth. He, too, was born, but he also came. Moreover, became with a purpose: not to take but to give, to give his soul as a ransom in the place of many (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45), to seek and to save that which was lost (Luke 19:10).

This design aspect of the life of Christ on earth is emphasized in all four Gospels: in Matthew with all its fulfilment of prophecy passages (see also 10:34–36; 20:22); in Mark (10:38); in Luke (9:51; 12:50; 22:22, 42); and in John (4:4, 34; 9:4; 17:4; 19:30). Accordingly, a good theme (see John 17:4b) for the story told in any or all of the Gospels is:

The Work Which Thou Gavest Him to Do

The broad divisions, as already indicated, would be the same for the three Synoptics, namely, this work (or this task):

I. Begun

II. Continued

III. Accomplished

Or, in slightly different phraseology:

I. Its Beginning or Inauguration

II. Its Progress or Continuation

III. Its Climax or Culmination

The subdivisions under each heading will, in many cases, be different for each of these three Gospels. For a more detailed outline see Table of Contents and the Outlines at the opening of the chapters.¹¹⁸

⁸⁶ Cf. R. H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel, Leiden, 1967, a Ph.D. dissertation accepted by the University of Manchester in the Spring of 1961 and brought up to date in the Summer of 1964, p. 210.

⁸⁷

The theory according to which one or all of our Gospels were originally written in Aramaic, a view already advocated in the nineteenth century by J. T. Marshall and J. Wellhausen, was revived with even stronger emphasis in the twentieth. See especially the following books and articles:

C. F. Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, Oxford, 1922.

C. C. Torrey, The Four Gospels, a New Translation, New York, 1933

Our Translated Gospels, New York, 1936

Documents of the Primitive Church, New York, 1941

“The Aramaic of the Gospels,” JBL, 61 (1942), pp. 71–85.

J. A. Montgomery, “Some Aramaisms in the Gospels and Acts,” JBL, 46 (1927), pp. 69–73

“Torrey’s Aramaic Gospels,” JBL, 53 (1934), pp. 79–99.

⁸⁸

The attack on Torrey and his allies was led by the following, among others:

O. T. Allis, “The Alleged Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel,” PTR, 26 (1928), pp. 531–572.

E. C. Colwell, The Greek of the Fourth Gospel, Chicago, 1931.

E. J. Goodspeed, New Solutions of New Testament Problems, Chicago, 1927

New Chapters in New Testament Study, New York, 1937, pp. 141–168.

D. W. Riddle, “The Aramaic Gospels and the Synoptic Problems,” JBL, 54 (1935), pp. 127–138.

A lively debate was carried on between two scholars: one representative of each of the opposing camps: “The Riddle-Torrey Debate,” CC (July 18–Oct. 31, 1934).

⁸⁹ Thus, “Jesus answered and said,” an introductory formula used even when no question precedes (Matt. 4:4; 8:8; 11:4; Mark 6:37; 7:6; 9:5; Luke 1:35; 4:8; 7:43; John 1:48; 2:19; 3:3), reminds us of the identical expression found in Gen. 18:27; 24:50; 27:37, 39; 31:14, 31; Exod. 4:1; etc. (Hebrew); and in Dan. 2:15, 20, 26, 47; 3:9, 14, 25; 4:19; 5:17; 6:13; etc. (Aramaic). Also, the use of the active third person plural where the Greek and we, too, would more commonly use the passive third person singular, and change the object of the active verb into the subject of the sentence (Luke 12:20) parallels similar usage in the Old Testament. To this may be added the very frequent pleonastic use of καί and also the adversative use; see article on this conjunction in L.N.T. (A. and G.), pp. 392–394. As to presence of Semitic words, in addition to those already mentioned (p. 42) see also Matt. 27:16, 20, 46; John 5:2; 16:20. Parallelisms, abounding in the Old Testament (Ps. 1; 19:2; 93:3; Prov. 14:34; etc.) are also of frequent occurrence in the Gospels (Matt. 7:6; 10:24, 32, 33, 39, 40; 11:28, 29; 20:26, 27; Luke 1:46, 47, 52; 2:32; John 1:3; 15:9, 10; etc.). The Hebraistic formula of transition καί ἐγένετο occurs with great frequency both in Matthew (7:28; 9:10; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1) and in Luke (1:23, 41, 59; 2:15, 46; 5:12, 17; 7:11; 8:1; 9:18, 33; 11:1; 14:1; 17:11; 19:15, 29; 20:1; 24:4, 15, 30, 51), where, however, it is often replaced by ἐγένετο δε (1:8; 2:1; 3:21; 6:1; etc.), as we would expect in that Gospel; see p. 39, footnote 37. Finally, another strong reminder of Old Testament usage carried over into the New is lo or behold, occurring in the form of hinnēh or hēn in nearly every book of the Old Testament (about 100 times in Gen.), and in the form of ἰδού or ἴδε in the New, profusely distributed throughout all the Gospels (about 60 times in Matt.).

⁹⁰ See Torrey, Our Translated Gospels, p. 93 ff., and D. Daube’s refutation in BJRL, 29 (1945), p. 31 ff.

A.V. Authorized Version (King James)

A.R.V. American Standard Revised Version

R.S.V. Revised Standard Version

⁹¹ For myself, I can testify that after a rather thorough study of the writings of Torrey and his associates, as well as those of his opponents, a study required as a basis for the writing of a lengthy term-paper on this very subject during my P.G. studies at Princeton Theological Seminary, my faith in Scripture’s infallibility, reasonably interpreted, was not shaken in the least but rather confirmed. Passages such as Rev. 10:7; 15:2; 18:23; and 19:17, all of which according to Torrey are (or contain) mistranslations, fall into line beautifully and make excellent sense as soon as they are interpreted in the light of the context, as I have tried to do in my book, More Than Conquerors, seventeenth printing, Grand Rapids, 1970. None embody mistranslations. The same holds for the Gospels and Acts.

⁹² I have purposely left out of consideration the sevens which Matthew has in common with one or both of the other Synoptics; such as seven other spirits (12:45), seven “loaves” (15:34 f.), seven baskets (15:37), forgiveness seven or seventy times seven times (18:21, 22), and seven brothers (22:25). As was indicated, in Matthew there is enough distinctive seven material to regard this as one of its peculiar features. I have purposely omitted any mention of Matthew’s threes and fives (see the list in W. C. Allen, op. cit., p. lxv. A few items could have been added to that list.) A glance at the appropriate entries in a complete Concordance should convince anyone that these threes and fives are spread rather evenly over the three Synoptics, especially over Matthew and Luke. For the same reason I am not too impressed with Goodspeed’s attempt to link the number emphasis which he detects in the first canonical Gospel with the view that it was accordingly probably written by a tax collector, a man who showed ease in handling numbers and figures; see op. cit., pp. 21, 22, 24, 25, 36, 58, 59, 70, 71, 76, 112, 113, 133–135. For that matter, he himself seems to have sensed the weakness of that argument; see p. 58.

⁹³ L. Berkhof, New Testament Introduction, Grand Rapids, 1915, p. 64.

⁹⁴ Title: Interpretation of the Oracles of the Lord, in five treatises; op. cit., III. xxxix. 3–5.

⁹⁵

Same, III.xxxix.16. The Greek is as follows:

Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνετάξατο, ἡρμήνευσεν δ᾽ αὐτὰ ὡς ἦν δυνατὸς ἕκαστος.

It would almost seem as if each reader of this statement of Papias has also done with it “as he was able,” or, perhaps in some cases, “as suited his view.” Renderings differing from the one suggested above are:

Ἑβραΐδι: “in the Aramaic language,” “in the Hebrew dialect,” and “in Hebrew style.”

τὰ λόγια: “the sayings.”

συνετάξατο: “composed,” “collected,” “noted down.”

ἡρμήνευσεν: “interpreted.”

⁹⁶ For this view see N. B. Stonehouse, Origins of the Synoptic Gospels, pp. 87–92.

⁹⁷ H. Mulder, “Het Synoptisch Vraagstuk,” Exegetica (1952), p. 17.

⁹⁸ L. Berkhof, New Testament Introduction, pp. 66–69; cf. H. C. Thiessen, op. cit., p. 137.

⁹⁹ E. J. Goodspeed, op. cit., pp. 16, 108–110, 144.

¹⁰⁰ J. Kürzinger, BZ 4 (1960), pp. 19–38.

¹⁰¹ Eusebius, op. cit., III.xxxix.15.

¹⁰² On λόγιον see Th.D.N.T., Vol. IV, pp. 137–141, especially p. 140, 141.

¹⁰³ See also pp. 34, 53, 96. Reference to Matthew’s notes can also be found in A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, New York and London, 1930, Vol. I, p. xii; E. J. Goodspeed, op. cit., pp. 80, 86, 88, 108, 142; W. Hendriksen, Bible Survey, Grand Rapids, 1961, p. 384; and R. H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel, pp. xii, 181, 182.

¹⁰⁴ A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (translated from the German by L. R. M. Strachan), New York, 1922, p. 65.

¹⁰⁵ L. Berkhof, New Testament Introduction, pp. 69, 70.

¹⁰⁶ Same, p. 70. R. V. G. Tasker speaks similarly, The Gospel according to St. Matthew, p. 13.

¹⁰⁷ C. S. Petrie, “The Authorship of ‘The Gospel according to Matthew’: a Reconsideration of the External Evidence,” NTStud 14 (1, 1967), pp. 15–32.

¹⁰⁸ A. H. McNeile, The Gospel According to St. Matthew, London, 1915, p. xxviii. The same idea is also expressed by B. M. Metzger, The New Testament, Its Background, Growth, and Content, pp. 96, 97. E. J. Goodspeed, op. cit., p. 20, admits that for a long time he also had been of that opinion. His book indicates a complete turnabout. The view is rather widely held that although Matthew was not the author of the finished work, he did have something to do with it. He had provided the basic structure by jotting down the logia of the Lord, etc. Whatever it was that the real Matthew had written was subsequently utilized, enlarged upon, and organized by a compiler or editor whose name has been lost. The whole was then called “The Gospel according to Matthew.” According to one author, the reason for this ascription was that “there would be an irresistible tendency to find for it Apostolic sanction,” W. C. Allen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew (International Critical Commentary), p. lxxxi. This reason is not very convincing. If the Gospel in question was ascribed to Matthew “to find for it Apostolic sanction,” why was not the longest Gospel ascribed to the apostle Paul instead of to Luke, and the shortest to the apostle Peter instead of to Mark? According to A. Plummer, the author of this Gospel “was not S. Matthew,” but “an early Jewish Christian not sufficiently important to give his name to a Gospel.” This unknown author used Matthew’s earlier logia (“collection of facts concerning Jesus, chiefly consisting of his utterances and the circumstances in which they were spoken”) as a source (An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Matthew, reprint Grand Rapids, 1953, pp. viii–x.

¹⁰⁹ Thus, for example, H. N. Ridderbos, Het Evangelie naar Mattheus (Korte Verklaring der Heilige Schrift), Kampen, 1952, pp. 13–15. From here on when this author’s name is mentioned followed by op. cit., the reference is to his commentary on Matthew.

¹¹⁰ As A. T. Robertson sees it, “There is no real reason why the Apostle Matthew could not have written both the Aramaic Logia and our Greek Matthew, unless one is unwilling to believe that he would make use of Mark’s work on a par with his own” (Word Pictures, Vol. I, p. xi). R. C. H. Lenski considers Matthew the author of the entire book, in which he embodied certain Hebrew logia (Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel, Columbus, Ohio, 1932, p. 18. From here on when this author’s name is mentioned followed by op. cit., the reference is to his commentary on Matthew.) S. Greijdanus considers Matthew the author of the Aramaic Gospel, and believes that someone else translated it into Greek (Bijbelsch Handboek, Kampen, 1935, Vol. II, p. 104). N. B. Stonehouse believes that “the apostolic authorship of Matthew is as strongly attested as any fact of ancient church history,” (Origins of the Synoptic Gospels, pp. 46, 47). As has been stated earlier, this agrees with what Goodspeed has previously written, though not all of the reasons on which the latter based his opinion were accepted by Stonehouse. Finally, R. H. Gundry also defends the view that Matthew was the author of the work ascribed to him (op. cit., pp. 181–185). On p. 182 he gives his estimate of Goodspeed’s arguments. With that estimate I am in full agreement.

¹¹¹ For these arguments see especially H. N. Ridderbos, op. cit., p. 13.

¹¹² “Matthew, Gospel according to Saint,” Encyclopaedia Britanica, Chicago, London, etc., 1969 edition, Vol. XIV, pp. 1117–1118.

¹¹³ His father’s name was Alphaeus (Mark 2:14). This was also the name of the father of James the Less and of Joses (Matt. 10:3; Mark 15:40). Goodspeed identifies this latter Alphaeus with Matthew’s father. As he sees it, the mother in the family was one of the Marys, and was Matthew’s step-mother. He even suggests that Matthew’s presence in this remarkable family may have been the background of the dramatic call to discipleship he received (op. cit., pp. 2, 6, 7). All this sounds a bit fanciful. I cannot find any support for it in Scripture. Since the Gospels do not indicate any family relationship between Matthew and James the Less (as they do between James and John, and between Peter and Andrew), is it not far more probable that there was no such connection? In all likelihood, therefore, just as the Bible speaks of more than one Goliath, Herod, James, Jeroboam, John, Joshua, Judas, Noah, Philip, Simon, etc., so also it recognizes more than one Alphaeus. In some ways I find Goodspeed’s book, Matthew, Apostle and Evangelist very stimulating and informative; in other respects, rather repetitious and fanciful.

¹¹⁴ See E. Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes in Zeitaltar Jesu Christi, Leipzig, 1901–1909, Vol. I, pp. 57 ff.; 84 ff.

¹¹⁵ This is made clear by R. H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel, pp. 174–178.

¹¹⁶ Goodspeed sheds valuable light on this subject, on the basis of discovered papyri, op. cit., pp. 57–76. On the subject of ancient shorthand see also G. Milligan, The N.T. Documents, London, 1913, pp. 241–247. That shorthand was well-known and widespread even before Matthew was born is also confirmed by the fact that already in 63 b.c. Marcus Tullius Tiro, a friend of Cicero, had invented a system of shorthand that was widely taught in the schools of the empire and used by the notarii in the Roman Senate, to take down the speeches of the orators. And the Greek world was not behind in this, as Milligan and others have shown.

¹¹⁷ Much is still obscure: a. When Irenaeus says that this Gospel was published “among the Hebrews in their own language” is this his own original opinion or is he echoing Papias? b. When he states that this writing of the Gospel occurred at the time when “Peter and Paul were establishing the church in Rome,” is this an error, in view of the fact that the church in Rome was not founded by Paul? Or must a more figurative meaning be attached to the words “were establishing,” for example, “greatly strengthening”? See Phil. 1:12–18. c. Was Peter in Rome between Paul’s first and second imprisonments there? See I Peter 5:13.

¹¹⁸ A somewhat similar general plan was followed in the author’s N.T.C. on the Gospel according to John; see Vol. I, pp. 66, 68; Vol. II, pp. 2, 134, 218, 260, 374, and 446.

↑ Back to top