Gospel of Matthew
The
Gospel of Matthew (literally: according to Matthew,
Greek: Κατά Μαθθαίον or Κατά Ματθαίον ) is one of the four
Gospel accounts of the
New Testament. The Gospel accounts are traditionally printed with Matthew first, followed in order by
Mark,
Luke and
John. It is traditionally ascribed to
Matthew the Evangelist.
For convenience, the book can be divided into its four structurally distinct sections: Two introductory sections; the main section, which can be further broken into five sections, each with a narrative component followed by a long discourse of Jesus, and finally the Passion and Resurrection section.
# Containing the genealogy, the birth, and the infancy of Jesus (
1; 2). # The discourses and actions of
John the Baptist preparatory to Christ's public ministry (3; 4:11).# The discourses and actions of Christ in
Galilee (4:12–26:1).## The
Sermon on the Mount- Concerning morality (Ch. 5-7)## The Missionary Discourse- Concerning the mission Jesus gave his disciples. (Ch. 10-11:1)## The Parable Discourse- Stories that teach about the Kingdom of Heaven (Ch. 13)## The "Church Order" Discourse- Concerning relationships among Christians. (Ch. 18-19:1)## The Eschatological Discourse, also called the
Olivet Discourse - Concerning his
Second Coming and the
end of the age. (Ch. 24-26:1)# The sufferings, death and
Resurrection of Jesus, the
Great Commission (28:16–20).
The one aim pervading the book is to show that
Jesus of Nazareth was the promised
Messiah — he "of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write" — and that in him the ancient prophecies had their fulfillment. This book is full of allusions to passages of the
Old Testament which the book interprets as predicting and foreshadowing Jesus' life and mission. This Gospel contains no fewer than sixty-five references to the Old Testament, forty-three of these being direct verbal citations, thus greatly outnumbering those found in the other Gospels. The main feature of this Gospel may be expressed in the motto "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" ().
This Gospel sets forth a view of Jesus as Christ and portrays him as an heir to King
David's throne.
The cast of thought and the forms of expression employed by the writer show that this Gospel was written by
Jewish Christians of
Judea.
Detailed Contents
The approximate contents of the Gospel, in order, are as follows:
*
Genealogy of Jesus*
Nativity of Jesus*
Biblical Magi*
Flight into Egypt*
Baptism of Jesus*
Temptation of Jesus*Recruiting four of the
Twelve Apostles*
Sermon on the Mount*Recruiting the tax collector (
Matthew/
Levi) to be one of the
Twelve Apostles*Parable of
the Patch and the Wineskins*The saying about
The Strong Man Bound*The saying about
Jesus' True Relatives*
Parable of the Sower (and explanation)
*
Parable of the Weeds (and explanation)
*
Parable of the Mustard Seed*
Parable of the Yeast*
Parable of the Hidden Treasure*
Parable of the Pearl*
Parable of Drawing in the Net*
Feeding the 5000*
Walking on water*
Feeding the 4000*
Peter's confession*
Transfiguration of Jesus*Parable of
the Little Children*Parable of
the Lost Sheep*Parable of the
Unmerciful Servant*
Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard*
Jesus and the Money Changers*Parable of
The Two Sons*Parable of
The Wicked Husbandman*Parable of
The Great Supper*Parable of
The Leafing Fig Tree*Parable of
The Faithful Servant*Parable of
The Ten Virgins*
Parable of the talents*Parable of
The Sheep and the Goats*The
Last Supper*
Passion*
Crucifixion*
Empty tomb*
Resurrection appearances of Jesus*
Great CommissionAlthough the document is internally anonymous, the authorship of this Gospel is traditionally ascribed to
St. Matthew, a tax collector who became an
Apostle of Jesus. The early
church fathers were unanimous in this view. Results of modern critical scholarship, however, have departed from that tradition, with the vast majority of experts agreeing
Matthew the Apostle could not have written the Gospel which today bears his name.
The relationship of Matthew to the Gospels of Mark and Luke is an open question known as the
synoptic problem. The three together are referred to as the
Synoptic Gospels and have a great deal of overlap in sentence structure and word choice. Out of a total of 1071 verses, Matthew has 387 in common with Mark and the
Gospel of Luke, 130 with Mark alone, 184 with Luke alone; only 370 being unique to itself. It is generally agreed among scholars that the author of Matthew wrote his Gospel in Greek, independently of Luke, using the Gospel of Mark and an unknown second document as literary sources (this scenario is called the
two-source hypothesis).
Like the authors of the other Gospels, the author of Matthew wrote according to his own plans and aims and from his own point of view. Many speculate the author borrowed from other sources. The most popular of these views in modern scholarship is the
two-source hypothesis, which speculates that Matthew borrowed from both
Mark and a hypothetical sayings collection, called
Q (for the German
Quelle, meaning "source"). A similar but less common view that accepts
Markan priority but rejects Q is the
Farrer hypothesis, which theorizes that Matthew used Mark for a general outline while adding information for the audience he wished to reach. Still others believe the testimony of the church fathers and postulate that Matthew was written first before Mark or Luke. Under this scenario Mark and Luke both borrowed from Matthew or Luke borrowed from Mark who borrowed from Matthew (see:
Augustinian hypothesis and
Griesbach hypothesis).
In
The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (
1924),
Burnett Hillman Streeter argued that a third source, referred to as
M and also hypothetical, lies behind the material in Matthew that has no parallel in Mark or Luke.
[Streeter, Burnett H. The Four Gospels. A Study of Origins Treating the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship, & Dates. London: MacMillian and Co., Ltd., 1924.] Through the remainder of the 20th century, there were various challenges and refinements of Streeter's hypothesis. For example, in his
1953 book
The Gospel Before Mark,
Pierson Parker posited an early version of Matthew (proto-Matthew) as the primary source of both Matthew and Mark, and the Q source used by Matthew.
[Pierson Parker. The Gospel Before Mark. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953.]Critical biblical scholars, like
Herman N. Ridderbos in his book
Matthew, do not consider the apostle Matthew to be the author of this Gospel. He cites a number of reasons such as the text being in
Greek, not
Aramaic, the Gospel's heavy reliance on Mark, and the lack of characteristics usually attributed to an eyewitness account.
[Ridderbos, Herman N. Matthew: Bible student's commentary. Zondervan, 1987. p. 7; from earlychristianwritings.com] Francis Write Beare agrees, and goes on to say in his book
The Gospel according to Matthew "there are clear indications that it is a product of the second or third Christian generation. The traditional name of Matthew is retained in modern discussion only for convenience."
[Beare, Francis Write. The Gospel according to Matthew. p. 7; from earlychristianwritings.com]There is little in the gospel itself to indicate with clarity the date of its composition. Some conservative scholars argue that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, probably between the years
60 and
65, in part because the
Second Temple's
destruction is believed to be
prophesized by Jesus while there is no reference to this event actually being fulfilled. (Matt ). Liberal scholars usually date the gospel between the years
80 and
100, in part because they believe the reference to the temple's impending destruction shows it actually was written after the fact. Most scholars agree that the writings of
Ignatius reference, but do not quote, the Gospel of Matthew, suggesting the gospel was completed at the very latest by the turn of the
2nd century.
A minority of conservative Christian scholars argue for an even earlier date, as seen in the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia: "Catholic critics, in general, favor the years 40-45..."
[Gospel of St. Matthew. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume X. Copyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight.] In recent times,
John Wenham, one of the biggest supporters of the
Augustinian hypothesis, is considered to be among the more notable defenders of an early date for the Gospel of Matthew. He cites almost unanimous agreement by the Church Fathers in placing Matthew before Mark, in addition to internal evidence within the gospels. Furthermore,
Carsten Peter Thiede in
Eyewitness to Jesus argues for redating the
Magdalen papyrus and the Gospel of Matthew to before the year 70. Another reason for an early view is the Jewish emphasis of Matthew which could point toward a time period before Gentile belief in Jesus became prominent. This would place it in the pre-destruction time period, possibly the
50's.
[NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985.] Scholars who defend a later date for the gospel cite multiple reasons for their view, such as the time required for the theological views to develop between Mark and Matthew (assuming
Markan priority), references to historic figures and events circa 70, and a later social context.
There are numerous testimonies, starting from
Papias and
Irenaeus, that Matthew originally wrote in
Hebrew letters, which is thought to refer to
Aramaic. The sixteenth-century
Erasmus was the first to express doubts on the subject of an original Aramaic or Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew: "It does not seem probable to me that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, since no one testifies that he has seen any trace of such a volume." Here Erasmus distinguishes between a Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew letters and the partly lost
Gospel of the Hebrews and
Gospel of the Nazoraeans, from which patristic writers do quote, and which appear to have some relationship to Matthew, but are not identical to it. The
Gospel of the Ebionites also has a close relationship to the Gospel of the Hebrews and Gospel of the Nazoraeans, and hence some connection to Matthew. The similarly named
Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew has almost nothing to do with Matthew, however, and instead is a combination of two
earlier infancy Gospels.
Most contemporary scholars, based on analysis of the Greek in the Gospel of Matthew and use of sources such as the Greek Gospel of Mark, conclude that the New Testament Book of Matthew was written originally in Greek and is not a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic.
[per Rev. Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, p. 210] If they are correct, then the
Church Fathers such as
Clement of Alexandria,
Origen, and
Jerome possibly referred to a document or documents distinct from the present Gospel of Matthew. A smaller number of scholars believe the ancient writings that Matthew was originally in Aramaic, arguing for
Aramaic primacy. These scholars normally consider the
Peshitta and Old
Syriac versions of the New Testament closest to the original autographs.
Biblical scholar Stephen L. Harris mentions that the claims of Matthew Levi being the author could actually be references to "an early Christian, perhaps named Matthew, who assembled a list of messianic prophecies in the Hebrew Bible, a collection that the creator of our present gospel may have used."
[Stephen L. Harris, Understanding the Bible. 6th ed. Boston/Toronto: McGraw Hill, 2003, p. 424] The Jesus narrative would then have been assembled around these
Tanakh (
Old Testament) verses.
According to R.T. France:"Matthew's gospel, more clearly than the others, presents the view of Jesus as himself the true Israel, and of those who have responded to his mission as the true remnant of the people of God . . to be the true people of God is thus no longer a matter of nationality but of relationship to Jesus."
[New Bible Commentary, Inter Varsity Press.]Of note is the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven" (βασιλεια ουρανος) used so often in the gospel of Matthew, as opposed to the phrase "Kingdom of God" used in other synoptic gospels such as Luke. The phrase "Kingdom of Heaven" is used 32 times in 31 verses in the Gospel of Matthew. It is speculated that this indicates that this particular Gospel was written to a primarily Jewish audience, as many Jewish people of the time felt the name of God was too holy to be written. Matthew's abundance of Old Testament references also supports this theory.
The theme "Kingdom of Heaven" as discussed in Matthew seems to be at odds with what was a circulating Jewish expectation that while Jesus had been discussing a spiritual kingdom, certain Jews expected a physical kingdom.
The relationship between Jesus Christ and the "Kingdom" is also mentioned in the other gospels. Jesus had said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but My kingdom is not of this realm." (John 18:36 NASB)
Muslims refer to different parts of the gospel with different views, some positive, some negative:
*12:38-40: These verses are regarded as unfullfilled prophecies, arguing that according to the bible, he simply spent one day and two nights "in the heart of the earth"
[http://www.geocities.com/noorullahwebsite/shamoun-false.html]*21:43: "another nation" is considered to refer to Arabs rather than the Jews.
*
Sermon on the Mount*
Olivet discourse*
Great Commission*
Nazarene Prophecy*
Gospel of the Hebrews*
Gospel of the Nazoraeans*
Gospel of the Ebionites*
Il vangelo secondo Matteo, a film by
Pier Paolo PasoliniOnline translations of the Gospel of Matthew:
*
Unbound Bible 100+ languages/versions at Biola University*
Online Bibles at gospelhall.org: six English translations
*
Online Bibles at biblegateway.com: 70 translations in 31 languages, including 19 in English
*
New American Bible: a Roman Catholic translation in contemporary English
*
Douay-Rheims Bible and the
Latin Vulgate: older Roman Catholic translations
*
NRSV:
from devotions.net and
oremus Bible Browser*
Early Christian Writings Gospel of Matthew: introductions and e-texts
Other external links:
*
James W.Deardorff, "Dependence of Mark upon Matthew" a synopsis of the evidence
*
Article from the Catholic Encyclopedia*
Matthew, Gospel of St. in the 1911
Encyclopædia Britannica*
Original Language of Matthew's Gospel? an 1877 argument for a Hebrew original
*
Downloadable Bibles, including Bibles for Palm OS, Pocket PC, Blackberry, etc. (many of them free), from OliveTree.com
Related articles:
*
A textual commentary on the Gospel of Matthew Detailed text-critical discussion of the 300 most important variants of the Greek text (PDF, 438 pages)
*
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint Matthew An interpretation of the inner, practical meaning of the Gospel, by Swami Nirmalananda Giri (Hindu perspective).
*Deardorff, James W. The Problems of New Testament Gospel Origins (1992) ISBN 0-7734-9807-9
