Apostle or Impostor: The Surprising Authorship of the Gospel of Matthew
Digging deep into the history of the first Gospel
Hello friends!
I’m experimenting with a new format for this blog. Each day carries a new theme:
Apologetics Mondays
Testimony Tuesdays
Freebie Wednesdays
Thursday and Friday Q&A
We’ll give this a shot and see how it works. Please send your feedback and let me know how we can make it better!
Now for the first Apologetics Monday, let’s begin with the beginning of the New Testament: Who wrote the Gospel of Matthew?
Visit most college classrooms or Wikipedia pages and they’ll repeat the same claim: that no one knows who wrote the Gospel of Matthew. The idea has spread so wide that few seem to question it.
But are we really left without a clue?
Is there no way to know who wrote the first book of the New Testament?
We find two surprising allies
Every bit of evidence in history states that Matthew is the first Gospel.
Matthew was trained as a tax collector for Rome, giving him exceptional literacy and literary skills. He renounced tax collecting when Jesus recruited him, asking Matthew to become one of Jesus’ closest disciples.
After Jesus’ death, Resurrection, and ascension back to Heaven, in the early years of the church, Matthew wrote down the life of Jesus. He wrote while the disciples still lived, compiling their unified testimony to give the early church a reliable record of what Jesus did and said.
We don’t have to appeal to the Bible to support such ideas. We can look to the evidence outside the Bible — the clear records of history.
History, Not Mystery
Our first mention of Matthew in the historical record comes from Papias, who wrote clearly:
“Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew style, and each one interpreted them as best he could.”
— Papias (ca. 60–130, Fragments of Papias)
It’s short but powerful. As our earliest witness, it establishes that Matthew himself is the author of his Gospel, that he wrote in the Hebrew style (meaning either in the Hebrew language itself, or in Greek, but in a Hebrew manner of speech), and that the early church used it widely as their authority.
Next we have Irenaeus:
“So Matthew brought out a written gospel among the Jews in their own style, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel at Rome and founding the church. But after their demise Mark himself, the disciple and recorder of Peter, has also handed on to us in writing what had been proclaimed by Peter. And Luke, the follower of Paul, set forth in a book the gospel that was proclaimed by him. Later John, the disciple of the Lord and the one who leaned against his chest, also put out a Gospel while residing in Ephesus of Asia.”
— Irenaeus (ca. 130–200; Against Heresies 3.1.1–2; cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History5.8.1–4)
This gives us a clear timeline for Matthew’s composition. Peter died a martyr’s death in Rome during the persecution of Nero, sometime within 54–68 A.D./C.E. Matthew thus wrote his Gospel sometime in the late 40’s or early 50’s in the first century.
These two examples, our very earliest witnesses, contain so many details that skeptics claim arose “late”:
Matthew wrote his Gospel first, while Peter and Paul were both preaching, making it incredibly early
Mark wrote his Gospel second, recording the speeches of Peter
Luke wrote his Gospel as he followed Paul
John wrote his Gospel last while he lived in Ephesus.
There is simply no evidence that these Gospels were ever anonymous.
Origen adds his voice to the growing choir of witnesses:
“[Origen] testifies that he knows only four Gospels. . . . The first written was that according to the onetime tax collector but later apostle of Jesus Christ, Matthew, who published it for the believers from Judaism, composed in the Hebrew manner. And second, that according to Mark, composed as Peter guided. . . . And third, that according to Luke, the Gospel praised by Paul, composed for those from the Gentiles. After them all, that according to John.”
— Origen (ca. 185–254; quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.25.3–6)
Given that Luke composed his Gospel while following Paul, and that Paul died no later than 68 A.D./C.E. in Rome, we can safely assign the Gospel of Luke a date in the early-to-mid 60’s, at the latest. Matthew and Mark would therefore be much earlier.
Tertullian chimes in, saying:
“I lay it down to begin with that the documents of the gospel have the apostles for their authors, and that this task of promulgating the gospel was imposed upon them by the Lord himself. . . . In short, from among the apostles, John and Matthew implant in us the faith, while from among the apostolic men Luke and Mark reaffirm it.”
— Tertullian (ca. 160–225; Against Marcion 4.2.1–2)
Let’s close with Origen again:
“For Matthew did not ‘take in hand’ but wrote by the Holy Spirit, and so did Mark and John and also equally Luke. . . . For there is also the gospel ‘according to Thomas,’ and that ‘according to Matthias,’ and many others. These are the ones ‘that have been taken in hand.’ But the church of God accepts only the four.”
— Origen (ca. 185–254; Homilies on Luke 1)
If Matthew, Why Mark?
Every bit of evidence from history testifies that Matthew wrote first.
Modern voices suggest that Mark came first, prompted in large part by two unproven assumptions:
The Gospel stories grew in their telling
Mark is shortest, therefore Mark is first
There are numerous problems with this theory, chief among them that the historical evidence clashes with it.
But let’s rephrase the question:
Why would Mark write a shorter Gospel that restates much of Matthew if Matthew wrote first?
The answer is simple: Mark wasn’t trying to write a Gospel. He only recorded Peter’s notes as everyone urged him to do.
History provides this testimony:
“Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter was publicly preaching the gospel at Rome in the presence of some of Caesar’s knights and uttering many testimonies about Christ, on their asking him to let them have a record of the things that had been said, wrote the Gospel that is called the Gospel of Mark from the things said by Peter
— Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–215; Adumbrationes in Epistolas Canonicas on 1 Peter 5:13)
Once Peter was martyred, Mark published his notes as a Gospel, to preserve Peter‘s testimony.
As to why many places in Mark copy Matthew, that part is also easy to answer: Mark was taking notes while Peter was talking. That requires writing in shorthand, often missing words or details here or there, because speakers usually talk faster than scribes can write.
It makes every bit of sense that Mark would consult the previously published Gospel of Matthew to smooth out his shorthand notes, to fill in any gaps and to check that he had recorded his words accurately.
This would not be viewed as plagiarism. They were both attempting to record the words and deeds of Jesus accurately. If Matthew reported Jesus’ words accurately, then Mark would have to record the same words, to be accurate as well.