Objection about Gospels of St Matthew and St Mark

The Apostolic Authorship of the Gospel

According to Saint Matthew:

A Response to Three Common Objections

Concerning Its Relation to the Gospel of Saint Mark

 

Table of Contents

 

1. Introduction  
2. The Extensive Verbal Agreement Between the Gospels of Matthew and Mark  
3. The Identification of Matthew with Levi  
4. The Statement of Papias Concerning a Hebrew Composition  
5. The Consistent Witness of the Early Fathers  
6. Conclusion  
7. List of Sources  

 

 

1. Introduction

 

The Catholic Church, in her constant teaching prior to the modern crisis, has always attributed the first Gospel to the Apostle Matthew, one of the Twelve. This attribution rests upon the unanimous testimony of Christian antiquity and upon the internal character of the text itself. Muslims and certain modern skeptics frequently raise three particular difficulties against this traditional authorship. These difficulties concern the close verbal agreement between Matthew and Mark, the dual name of the author, and the report of Papias that Matthew wrote in the Hebrew dialect. None of these difficulties, when examined according to the evidence of history and the practice of the ancient world, overturns the apostolic origin of the Gospel. The following pages address each point in turn, drawing upon the earliest available witnesses and upon the ordinary historical sense employed by the Fathers.

 

2. The Extensive Verbal Agreement Between the Gospels of Matthew and Mark

 

It is a fact of high certainty that approximately ninety percent of the material found in the Gospel of Mark appears also in the Gospel of Matthew, and that in many passages the Greek wording is nearly identical. In other passages Matthew expands, shortens, or rearranges the material. The precise literary process that produced this agreement is not known with certainty.

 

Several explanations remain fully compatible with the traditional authorship by the Apostle Matthew. First, Matthew may have composed an earlier account in Hebrew or Aramaic for the Jewish Christians of Palestine; the Greek form that has come down to us would then be either a later edition prepared by Matthew himself or a carefully made translation that made use of the already circulating Greek text of Mark. Second, Matthew, writing in Greek, may have deliberately retained the wording of Mark because that Gospel was already received in the churches as an accurate record of the preaching of Saint Peter and therefore of the words and deeds of Christ. Third, an inspired amanuensis may have assisted in the final Greek composition while remaining faithful to the substance of Matthew’s own testimony.

 

In the ancient world the modern ideal of literary originality held little value. When an earlier and trustworthy account already existed, an author was free to reproduce it with exactness. The purpose of the sacred writer was historical fidelity under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, not the display of independent literary invention. The extensive agreement with Mark therefore raises questions about the precise order of composition, yet it does not contradict the apostolic origin of the first Gospel.

 

3. The Identification of Matthew with Levi

 

It is a fact of very high certainty that the same man is called both Matthew and Levi in the Gospels. In Matthew 9:9 we read that Jesus saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax office. In Mark 2:14 the parallel account speaks of Levi the son of Alphaeus. In Luke 5:27 the same individual is named Levi. The early Church universally recognized these references as concerning one and the same person.

 

Jews of the first century commonly bore two names. Simon was also called Peter; Saul was also called Paul; Thomas was also called Didymus. The name Matthew, meaning “gift of God,” may well have been the name by which the former tax collector became known after his call by Christ. There is therefore no contradiction. The dual nomenclature is an ordinary feature of the period and of the culture in which the events took place.

 

4. The Statement of Papias Concerning a Hebrew Composition

 

Papias of Hierapolis, writing in the early second century, is reported by Eusebius of Caesarea to have said: “Matthew composed the logia in the Hebrew dialect, and each interpreted them as he was able.” The fact that Papias made this statement is of very high certainty; the precise meaning of the term “logia” and the exact relation of any Hebrew composition to the Greek Gospel we possess are of lower certainty.

 

Three explanations have been offered from antiquity. Matthew may first have written a Hebrew or Aramaic account for Jewish believers and later produced or supervised a Greek edition. Papias may have been referring only to a collection of the sayings of Christ rather than to the complete narrative Gospel. The Greek Gospel may be Matthew’s own later and expanded edition of an earlier Semitic work. In none of these cases does Papias cast doubt upon the authenticity of the Greek text that the Church has always received as the Gospel of Matthew. He simply records the existence of an earlier form in the Hebrew dialect.

 

5. The Consistent Witness of the Early Fathers

 

The tradition that the Apostle Matthew is the author of the first Gospel is unbroken. Irenaeus of Lyons states that Matthew published a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome. Origen, as reported by Eusebius, declares that Matthew wrote first for the Jewish believers and composed the Gospel in the Hebrew language. Jerome affirms that he had seen a Hebrew text of Matthew used among certain Jewish Christians and repeatedly attributes the Gospel to the Apostle writing in Hebrew.

 

No ancient Christian source attributes the first Gospel to any other author. The testimony is early, widespread, and uncontradicted. This consensus of the Fathers constitutes a historical fact of the highest weight in determining the question of authorship.

 

6. Conclusion

 

Three facts stand established: the extensive verbal agreement between Matthew and Mark, the dual name Matthew and Levi, and the report of Papias that Matthew composed the logia in the Hebrew dialect. None of these facts disproves the traditional attribution of the Gospel to the Apostle Matthew. They concern the literary process by which the inspired text reached its final Greek form, a process that remains partially obscure. The earliest and most consistent Christian tradition, however, attributes the Gospel solely to Matthew, and no competing ancient claim exists. The Church has therefore rightly received the first Gospel as the authentic work of the Apostle under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

 

7. List of Sources

 

Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia Ecclesiastica, Book III, Chapter 39. Greek text; English translation by Arthur Cushman McGiffert in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume 1, Christian Literature Publishing Company, Buffalo, New York, 1890.

 

Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus Haereses, Book III, Chapter 1. Greek and Latin text; English translation in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1, Christian Literature Publishing Company, Buffalo, New York, 1885.

 

Origen, as quoted by Eusebius of Caesarea in Historia Ecclesiastica, Book VI, Chapter 25. Greek text; English translation by Arthur Cushman McGiffert in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume 1, Christian Literature Publishing Company, Buffalo, New York, 1890.

 

Jerome, De Viris Illustribus, Chapter 3. Latin text; English translation by Ernest Cushing Richardson in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume 3, Christian Literature Publishing Company, Buffalo, New York, 1892.

 

The Holy Gospels according to Saint Matthew, Saint Mark, and Saint Luke, in the traditional Latin Vulgate text of Saint Jerome (various editions prior to 1964) and in the corresponding Greek manuscripts received by the Church.