The Gospel of Matthew in Search of Its Author - Studies in the Church Fathers and the Canon of the Gospel

 The Gospel of Matthew in Search of its Author – Studies in the Church Fathers and the Canon of the Gospel

Praise be to God, and peace and blessings be upon His chosen servants. Now then:

Introduction :

The books of the New Testament include twenty-seven books, and Christians believe that, as stated in the second letter attributed to Peter , “ Prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”

The first Gospel that we read when reading the Holy Bible is the Gospel attributed to Saint Matthew, the Apostle of Christ, which tells the story of Jesus’ life and sermons until his ascension to heaven. Who is the writer of this Gospel? What is its relationship to the Gospel attributed to him? Is this Gospel the word of God and His revelation?


1- Who is the writer of the Gospel of Matthew?
There is no evidence that the writer of the Gospel of Matthew is Matthew the Apostle, one of the twelve disciples of Christ, contrary to what Christian scholars mentioned in their translation, that he was one of the twelve disciples, and he worked as a tax collector in Capernaum and followed Christ after that.


2- Did the writer of the Gospel identify himself?
When you read any book, you find in the introduction an introduction by the writer about himself, and this is something we do not find in the Gospel of Matthew, as the reader of this Gospel does not find any mention of the writer’s name. Except twice, the first time that In chapter nine, verse nine, it says , “ And as Jesus passed by from there, He saw a man named Matthew sitting at the receipt of custom . And He said to him, ‘Follow Me . ’ And he rose up and followed him . ”The speech about Matthew here is in the third person, so how can Matthew speak about himself in this manner and in the third person? If Matthew was the writer, he would have said , “ And as Jesus passed by from there, He saw me ( or saw me, Matthew ) sitting at the receipt of custom . And he said to me , ‘Follow Me.’ So I rose up and followed Him. ”
Someone might say that this style of speech is what is called in rhetoric the style of turning away. We say : Linguists have defined “ turning away as expressing meaning in one of the three ways: the speaker addressed and the third person - after expressing it in another way from them.”

That is, turning away is the transition from the third person to the speaker, or from the third person to the addressee, and the writer here never spoke about himself in the speaker’s form even once. So which rhetorical style does the writer speak about himself in the third person without speaking about himself once in the speaker’s form ? The second time Matthew’s name is mentioned in the New Testament is in the context of the enumeration of the names of the twelve disciples : “( [1] )

Philip and Bartholomew . Thomas and Matthew the tax collector . James the son of Alphaeus and Lebbaeus, who was called Thaddaeus ” (Matthew 10:3)
“ Matthew and Thomas . James the son of Alphaeus and Simon who was called the Zealot ” (Luke 6:15) .

It is worth noting that Mark and Luke mention that the tax collector whom Christ met at the tax office was Levi the son of Alphaeus, and they did not mention that his name was Matthew. Mark says , “ And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax office . ”And he said to him , “ Follow me . ” So he rose and followed him. ( Mark 2:15)

Luke says, “ After this he went out and saw a tax collector named Levi sitting at the receipt of custom . And he said to him, “Follow me .” ( Luke 5:27)

While the church claims that Levi, the son of Alphaeus, is another name for Matthew the tax collector, that is, they are one person, but there is not the slightest evidence for this claim.


John Fenton , the Bible interpreter and dean of the Theological Seminary in Liverpudlian, says :

“ There is no evidence that Matthew is the Christian name for the Levite, and he thinks it is possible that “ it is a violation of some connection between Matthew the disciple and the church for which he wrote this gospel, and therefore the author of this gospel attributed his work to the founder or teacher of that church, whose name was Matthew. It is possible that the evangelist who wrote the gospel seized the opportunity given to him by Mark when speaking of the calling of one of the disciples, and linked it to that special disciple, one of the twelve, whom he revered as the apostle of the church to which he belonged” ( [2] ).

3- Many ancient and modern Christian scholars deny that the Gospel is authentically attributed to Matthew:
Many ancient and modern Christian scholars deny that the Gospel is authentically attributed to Saint Matthew. We will list some of those statements :

The editors of the translation of the Jesuit order say : ( Introduction to the Gospel of Matthew ): “ As for the author, the Gospel does not mention anything about him, and the oldest church tradition ( Papias , Bishop of Hierapolis in the first half of the second century ) attributes him to the Apostle Matthew, and there are some authors who conclude from this that an early Aramaic or Hebrew version of the Greek Gospel of Matthew can be attributed to the Apostle . But research into the Gospel does not prove these opinions without nevertheless invalidating them decisively, so since we do not know the name of the author with precise knowledge, it is better for us to be content with some of the features drawn in the Gospel itself ” ( [3] )

Father Fahim Aziz says :

About the writer of the Gospel of Matthew : “ We cannot give him a name. He may be Matthew or someone else.” ( [4] )

The interpreter Fenton says :

In his interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew ( p. 136) about the author of the Gospel of Matthew : “ Linking his personality as an author to this disciple is certainly pure fantasy .” And Fastus says in the fourth century : “ The Gospel attributed to Matthew is not his composition .” ( [5] )

J.B. Phillips says in his introduction to the Gospel of Matthew:

“ The ancient tradition attributed this gospel to the apostle Matthew, but most scholars today reject this opinion .” He says that naming the first book in the Gospels the Gospel of Matthew is to save time and choose what is easier for the sake of convenience . “ The writer we now call Matthew is for the sake of convenience and to save time. ” Phillips continues by saying that the writer relied on the mysterious Q, which may have been a collection of oral heritage. Here he means by Q the German word QEULLA, which means sources . ( [6] )

Professor Haring says :

“ The Gospel of Matthew was not written by Matthew the Apostle, but rather by an unknown author who concealed his identity for some purpose ” ( [7] ).

A. Tricot says in his introduction to the New Testament (1960):

“The belief that Matthew was a tax collector in Capernaum who was called by Jesus to learn from him is no longer acceptable, contrary to what the Church Fathers claim” ( [8] )

The author of The Story of Civilization , Will Durant, says :

Critics tend to say that it was written by one of Matthew’s followers, and not by the words of the tax collector. What confirms Matthew’s innocence of writing this gospel himself, that is, Matthew, is that many commentators and investigators believe that the gospel was written after the year 70 AD, which is the year in which Matthew died ( [9] ).

4- Claims of Christian scholars and their response:

First: The editors of the Bible Dictionary present flimsy reasons to suggest that the author of the Gospel of Matthew is Matthew himself.
Based on their strong adherence to tradition, some Christian scholars have tried to prove that the Gospel is attributed to Matthew, as stated in the Bible Dictionary: (It is likely that the author of this Gospel is Matthew himself).

As is known, the word "is likely" means that one opinion is preferred over another, meaning that there are conflicting opinions, each team competes to prefer one of them, so an opinion denies that the Gospel is attributed to Matthew, and an opinion confirms it.. This one prefers his opinion and that one prefers his opinion.. So what does this mean?!! This means that the attribution of the Gospel to Matthew is not a matter of certainty, but rather a matter of research, suspicion and preference. Perhaps Matthew wrote it, or perhaps it was someone else.. Here is the question: Is the doctrine or the word of God based on preference between statements???

Then the dictionary mentions the reasons that led to the preference, which are weak reasons that do not rise to the level of being evidence for the preference, and they are:

1 - Luke mentions that Levi ( Matthew ) made a “great” feast for the Lord Christ at the beginning of his discipleship (Luke 5:29-32), but he (Matthew) mentions it very briefly and modestly (Matthew 9:10-13 ).
2 - The clear evidence and proofs from the writing style that the author was a converted Jew.
3 - It is not reasonable that a serious gospel like this, which is at the forefront of the gospels, be attributed to an unknown person, let alone to one of Christ’s disciples.
4 - Papias mentions in the second century AD that Matthew collected the sayings of Christ.
5 - It is taken for granted that the tax collector usually keeps records because this is one of his most important duties in presenting accounts. Likewise, this evangelist has preserved the sayings of Christ with all precision ( [10] ).

In response to the editors of the Bible Dictionary, Professor Al-Ameed says:

1- The same story was mentioned in brief in the Gospel of Mark, so was Mark writing humbly and was he the writer of the Gospel of Matthew? If it had been mentioned in more detail, would it have been evidence and conclusive proof that Matthew was not the writer? On the contrary, if Matthew had spoken in more detail, it would have been possible that the writer was Matthew because he was the one who hosted the feast, and this contradicts the testimony.

2- The Jews who converted to Christianity were very numerous, so why is Matthew meant and why not any other converted Jew?

3- Is the order of the Gospel among the Gospels what indicates the status of the writer of the Gospel, whether in terms of him being a disciple of Christ or an unknown writer? This statement means that the Gospel of John, being the last Gospel in the order of the Gospels, casts doubt on the status of its writer. 4-

Papias mentioned that Matthew collected the sayings of Christ and did not say that Matthew wrote, and there is a difference between collecting and writing , and what we see today is a story about the life of Christ and not a collection of his sayings. Also, Matthew’s collection of the sayings of Christ does not mean that the Gospel attributed to him today is correct, and there is no evidence that these sayings collected by Matthew are the same as the Gospel of Matthew . Papias says that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew. Let us assume for the sake of argument that the Greek copies we have today are a translation from the Hebrew original. The Gospel of Matthew remains the responsibility of the translator, and we do not know who the translator is or when he died in the first century. Papias is a scholar of the second century and was born in the first century. There is no specification of the time of his birth, and there is no evidence or the slightest indication that Papias saw Matthew or heard from him. Rather, Papias may not have been born until after Matthew’s death, so we do not know how Papias knew this about Matthew. Likewise, Papias’ testimony is flawed, as the historian Eusebius described him as having limited understanding ( Church History, Part 3 , Chapter 39 ). So how can his testimony be accepted here? Also, the testimony of Papias was transmitted by the historian Eusebius, and of course the time is discontinuous between Eusebius and Papias, as the former died in the second century and the latter died in the middle of the fourth century. 5- It is not necessary for the tax collector to write his religious information as he writes what is related to his work” ( [11] )

Priest Munis Abdel Nour and his desperate attempt to prove the chain of transmission of the Gospel of Matthew.

Before responding to what Priest Munis Abdel Nour said, it is appropriate to first provide part of his response.

The unbelieving objector said : There is no continuous support for the Gospel of Matthew . In response, we say, by the grace of God: Barnabas ( who was a companion of Paul ) referred to the Gospel of Matthew in his letter seven times, and Ignatius cited it in his letters in 107 AD seven times, mentioning the miraculous pregnancy of Mary and the appearance of the star that announced the incarnation of Christ . Ignatius was a contemporary of the apostles, and lived about seven years after the Apostle John, so his testimony is one of the strongest proofs of the authenticity of the Gospel of Matthew . Polycarp ( a disciple of the Apostle John ) cited this Gospel in his letter five times, and this Gospel was widespread in the time of Papias ( Bishop of Hierapolis ) , who saw the Apostle John . Many Christian scholars who excelled in the first century also testified that this Gospel is the Gospel of Matthew, and they cited his divine sayings, and the predecessors handed it down to the successors ( [12] ).

In response to what Father Munis Abdel Nour said, Brother Dean says:

Because many Christians do not know what a continuous chain of transmission is, we had to define the continuous chain of transmission of the Gospel of Matthew in a simplified form. For example, Matthew’s disciples - or whoever met Matthew, saw him, or heard from him - should tell him that they saw Matthew writing his Gospel or that he told them about it. Then his disciples should convey this information to their disciples or those below them. The latter must state clearly and unambiguously that they heard from their teachers ( who are Matthew’s disciples ) that Saint Matthew is the writer of this Gospel. Then these people should tell those who come after them. Thus, what the priest mentioned to us does not meet any of the conditions of a continuous chain of transmission, and it does not prove that at least one person says that he saw Matthew writing his Gospel or that the Apostle Matthew told him that he wrote a Gospel . What the priest Munis Abdel Nour said only is that Barnabas and Ignatius cited the Gospel of Matthew to make the reader believe that they had quoted. He mentioned that this quote was from the Gospel of Matthew, as they never mentioned the Gospel of Matthew by name, but rather There were phrases in their letters that were similar to texts in the Gospel of Matthew, without either of them mentioning that this quote was from the Gospel of Matthew. The similarity of some phrases does not necessarily mean that they were quoted from the Gospel of Matthew. It is possible that they all ( the fathers and the writer of the Gospel of Matthew ) quoted from the same source, or it is possible that they were quoted from widespread sayings that were told and repeated on the tongues of some people at that time. ( [13] )

The priest Munis Abdel Nour cited the writer of the Epistle of Barnabas, who is an unknown writer, which is what the Encyclopedia of the Bible confirms, saying that “ its author : It is very unlikely that its writer is the Barnabas mentioned in the Book of Acts, who was a companion of the Apostle Paul on his first missionary journey, as it dates back to a much later date than that” ( [14] ).

As for talking about Polycarp, it is similar to talking about Ignatius, as Polycarp never mentioned the Gospel of Matthew by name, nor did he mention Matthew at all. All the phrases mentioned in Polycarp’s Epistle that are similar to texts from the Gospel of Matthew also have similarities from the Gospel of Luke and Mark. It cannot be confirmed that Polycarp cited from the Gospel of Matthew, but there is a possibility that he quoted it from the Gospels of Luke and Mark and not from Matthew, or it is possible that he did not quote it from either of them, but from widespread sayings known to be passed on by people, and with all these possibilities, the evidence falls .



5- The difference in historical sources regarding determining the date of writing the Gospel of Matthew:
The majority of Christian scholars have agreed that Matthew wrote In Hebrew or Syriac, as they agreed that the oldest known version was in Greek, but the point of disagreement is in the date of its writing.


Father Matta Al-Meskeen says in the introduction to the interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew ( [15] )

" As for the time when St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew language, the Church determines the date of this work as the first Gospel among the canonical Gospels . Origen says this through Eusebius and Epiphanius in his book Against Heretics. Eusebius says that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel before he left the country, that is, Galilee . As for Irenaeus, he says : This was done while Peter and Paul were serving in Rome . But there is a great time gap between these two events . But it is logically known that St. Matthew compiled his Gospel at a very early time than the time of its dissemination in the Church as a canonical Gospel . Then also the appearance of the translated version was a long time after the compilation of the first Hebrew version . This must have been before the destruction of Jerusalem with regard to the translated version, knowing that in the year 66 the signs of war, siege, and threats to attack and take possession of Galilee began.

It was stated in the introduction to the Gospel of Matthew, the Jesuit version:

“ Many authors place the date of the first Gospel between the year 80 and the year 90 , and perhaps a little before that, and it is not possible to reach complete certainty in this matter ” ( 16).

Professor Haring says

“ The Gospel of Matthew was written between 80-100 AD ” (17)

The author of the book “A Guide for Students to the Precious Bible” says:

“ According to the belief of the majority of Christians, Matthew wrote his Gospel before Mark and Luke, and John, Mark and Luke wrote their Gospel before the destruction of Jerusalem, but it is not possible to be certain in which year each of them wrote after the ascension of the Savior because we do not have a divine text on that ” (18)

Fenton, the interpreter of the Bible, believes that it was written close to this period, saying that:

“ It was written around the period 85-105 AD ” (19)

6- The Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew. Who translated it? Where is the original?

Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Jews. This is what Father Tadros Yacoub Malaty says in the introduction to his interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew.

"

Saint Matthew wrote his Gospel to the Jews who were still waiting for the Messiah, the King who would establish a kingdom and control the world (20) .

But the Encyclopedia of the Bible downplays the importance of knowing “to whom” Matthew wrote his Gospel!

“ As for the question of whether the Gospel was originally written for Jewish Christians, or for non-Christian Jews, it is a matter of little importance, since this Gospel - like the Epistle of James - was written in the transitional period in which the Christian communities had not been completely separated from the Jewish communities but were still worshipping together . (21)

There is almost an agreement among the fathers about the language in which the Gospel of Matthew was written, which is Hebrew or Aramaic .

Father Matthew the Poor says :

Matthew began writing his Gospel not in its present form in Greek, but in the language he heard from Christ, that is, in Aramaic and Hebrew. “ The poor Matthew continues, quoting from St. Irenaeus , “ Matthew also wrote a Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language .” He continues his quotation from the Fathers, quoting from Eusebius of Caesarea : “ Because Matthew wrote his Gospel in his native language, as he was about to go to other peoples .” And from Cyril of Jerusalem : “ St. Matthew, who wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, is the one who said this .” And from Epiphanius : “ Matthew is the only one among the writers of the New Testament who recorded the Gospel and preached it among the Hebrews in Hebrew letters .” And from Jerome : “ Matthew, in Judea, wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, primarily for the benefit of the Jews who believe .”

Although the fathers agreed that the Gospel of Matthew was written in the Hebrew language, they differed about who translated it from Hebrew to Greek and whether it was one person or several people (22).

“ As for the translator of the Gospel of Saint Matthew from Hebrew to Greek, according to a careful scientific examination of the reality of the Gospel in the Greek language, it becomes clear that the translator is one person alone because of the single style and pattern of expression that runs throughout all parts of the Gospel. As for who this person is who made this translation, Jerome decides that he has no convincing investigation because the opinions are very many . Some say that it was Saint Matthew himself because he knew the Greek language, and some say that it was his disciples, or one of the apostles, or perhaps St. John the Apostle, or under the care of several apostles . These are conjectures that are not supported by evidence .” (23)

The question remains: Who translated the Gospel of Matthew from Hebrew to Greek ?
If these are the differences between the fathers about the translator of the Gospel of Matthew, then we wonder where is the Hebrew original of the Gospel?

All evidence indicates that the Hebrew original is lost, and it seems that poor Father Matthew found it inevitable to admit, even if timidly, that the Hebrew original was distorted and lost.

“ But the reasons that befell the first copies of this Gospel written in Hebrew, causing it to lose its solidity and legality, and then its existence, are the possession by many heretics of the Gospel of Matthew in distorted Hebrew, which made the Church distance itself from it. This is in addition to the fact that its use among the Jews stopped, so its copying stopped until what was available of it was lost ” (24).

It is worth noting that there are those who say that the Gospel of Matthew that exists now was not the Greek translation of the Hebrew original, and among these is the scholar Stephan Charpentier in his book Introduction to the Gospel of Matthew.

“ When Papias attributed to Matthew the apostle the compilation of the sayings, he apparently meant the entire Gospel. Were there oral or even written translations after them? He did not clarify that our Gospel known as the Gospel of Matthew, which he had read, was one of these translations. He did not express his opinion about its fidelity to Aramaic. In fact, an analysis of the text in our hands excludes the possibility that we are dealing with his translation and supports that it was written in Greek . ” (25)

The first reasons cited by those who deny the Gospel’s attribution to Saint Matthew are:

“ It is that Papias mentions that Matthew wrote in the Hebrew language, but those who know languages ​​say that the current Gospel of Matthew was originally written in the Greek language, and it is easy to distinguish a book translated from one language to another from another written in an original language and not a translation ” (26)

This opinion is confirmed by what was stated by the Encyclopedia of the Bible.

“ What is certain is that whatever this Hebrew ( Aramaic ) Gospel may be , it was not the original copy from which the Greek Gospel in our hands was translated, whether by the Apostle himself or by someone else, as Bengel, Trish, and other scholars say. The Gospel of Matthew, in fact, gives the impression that it was not translated, but was originally written in Greek. It is less Hebrew in its formulation and thought than some other books in the New Testament, such as the Book of Revelation, for example …. Among them is the way in which it uses the Old Testament. Sometimes it uses the Septuagint, and at other times it refers to Hebrew. This is clearly shown in parts 12:18-21, 13:14, and 15, where we find that the Septuagint was sufficient to achieve the purpose of the evangelist. However, he refers to the text in Hebrew, although he uses the Septuagint whenever he finds it adequate for the purpose .”

The external evidence for the use of the Gospel of Matthew originally in Hebrew or Aramaic in the early Church is inconclusive. Eusebius, an expert, reports that Panethnus found, about 170 AD, among the Jewish Christians, probably in southern Arabia, a Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew, left there by Bartholomew. When Jerome was in Syria, he had the opportunity to see such a Gospel as he had found among the Nazarenes, which he at first thought was written by the Apostle Matthew, but later declared that it was not, but was the “ Gospel of the Hebrews ,” also called the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles or the Gospel of the Nazarenes, and was in circulation among the Nazarenes and the Ionians ( see Apocrypha ) . Therefore, the references of Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius to the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew are considered by many scholars to refer to the Hebrew Gospel used by the Jewish Christians, which they thought was from the book of the Evangelist. Thus the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew referred to by Baias remains ( assuming that it was actually found ). , a mystery that has not been solved by the means available to us now , as well as the issue of the relationship between the Hebrew and Greek texts ( 27)




Conclusion:

Dr. Munqidh Al-Saqqar says in his book, Is the New Testament the Word of God?

“The investigators saw that there are matters that prevent saying that this Gospel is the word of God and it concludes with the words of Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahra from the book Lectures on Christianity : “ A Gospel with an unknown author and different in the date of its writing, the language of writing, its place, and the identification of who wrote this Gospel for him, then the personality of the translator and his state of righteousness or otherwise, and his knowledge of the religion and the two languages ​​from which it was translated and into which it was translated, all of this leads to missing links in scientific research. ”

(2) Quoted from the book Is the New Testament the Word of God - by Dr. Munqidh Al-Saqqar

( [3] )Translated by the Jesuit Order, page 35, Dar Al-Mashreq edition, Beirut, third edition

( [4] ) Introduction to the New Testament by Father Fahim Aziz, page 245, Dar Al-Thaqafa edition, deposit number 1980/80

(5) Quoted from the book Is the New Testament the Word of God - by Dr. Munqidh Al-Saqqar

(6) Is the Bible the Word of God - Ahmed Deedat, pages 38-41

(7) Quoted from the book Is the New Testament the Word of God - by Dr. Munqidh Al-Saqqar

(8) From the book Is the New Testament the Word of God - by Dr. Munqidh Al-Saqqar From the book The Torah, the Gospel and the Qur’an - Maurice Bucaille

(9) Quoted from the book Is the New Testament the Word of God - by Dr. Munqidh Al-Saqqar


(10) Dictionary of the Book, Saint Takla website http://st-takla.org/Full-Free-Coptic-Books/FreeCopticBooks-002-Holy-Arabic-Bible-Dictionary/24_M/M_029.html

( [11] ) Quoted from a research by Brother Bilal

(12) Book of Imaginary Doubts by Father Munis Abdul Nour

(13) Quoted from a research by Brother Bilal

( [14] ) The Biblical Encyclopedia Letter B

(15) Introduction to the Interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew by Father Matta Al-Meskeen p. 31 First Edition Deposit No. 13117/99

(16)Introduction to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesuit Monastic Edition, p. 35, Dar Al-Mashreq Edition, Beirut, Third Edition

(17) Quoted from the book Is the New Testament the Word of God - by Dr. Munqidh Al-Saqqar

( 18) Guide for Students to the Precious Bible, p. 217, Beirut Edition 1896

(19)Quoted from the book Is the New Testament the Word of God - by Dr. Munqidh

( 20) Introduction to the interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew by Father Tadros Yacoub Malti(

21)The Biblical Encyclopedia, letter (A)


(22) Introduction to the interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew by Father Matthew El-Meskeen, page 25,first edition, deposit number 13117/99

( 23) Interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew - by Father Matthew El-Meskeen, page 29 , first edition, deposit number 13117/99

(24) Interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew - by Father Matthew El-Meskeen, page 27, first edition, deposit number 13117/99 27

(25) Introduction to the Gospel of Matthew - Stephan Charpentier, page 14, sixth edition, Dar El-Mashreq, Beirut, deposit number
1-4976-7214-2 isbn

(26) Introduction to the New Testament - Fahim Aziz, page 243, deposit number 1980/80

(27) The Biblical Encyclopedia, letter (A) The Gospel of Matthew