The Authorship of the Gospel of Matthew

 

Within the Christian world, it has always been the unanimous tradition to attribute the first Gospel in the New Testament to the apostle Matthew. However, modern liberal scholars and higher critics have questioned this attribution and put forward arguments in favor of the Gospel's complete anonymity. In this article, I wish to set forward a case for the traditional authorship of the Gospel of Matthew.

The Title "according to Matthew"

As D.A. Carson says "Nevertheless, we have no evidence that these gospels ever circulated without an appropriate designation, κατὰ Ματθαῖον (kata Matthaion, “according to Matthew”) or the like." (D.A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament, pg. 140)

R.T. France similarly says "There is no evidence for the gospels ever existing without such a heading. Nor is there any variation in the names of those to whom they are attributed." (Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, pg. 50)

" The nearly unanimous attribution of the Gospels to their traditional authors by about 150 CE better supports the theory that their titles were original rather than the theory that they originally circulated anonymously." (David L. Turner, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament - Matthew, pg. 11)

A lot of scholars have assumed (often without providing any evidence) that the titles of the Gospels were added around 125 AD. However, Martin Hengel (Studies in the Gospel of Mark, pgs. 64-84) has challenged this assumption. He examines book distribution in the ancient world, where titles were necessary for any book which was being referenced or cited by other authors of the time period. Such is the case with the Gospel of Matthew. It is cited by Ignatius (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 1) and alluded to by the Didache. In particular, Hengel points out Tertullian's criticism of Marcion for not giving a title to his mutilated version of Luke, when he says “a work ought not to be recognized, which holds not its head erect . . . which gives no promise of credibility from the fulness of its title and the just profession of its author.” (Against Marcion, Book IV, Chapter 2)

Hengel further points out that as the Gospels (and other Christian writings) began to be circulated, titles with the name of the other would have been necessary to distinguish them from each other. This further points towards the early attribution of the Gospel of Matthew to the apostle Matthew.

The Testimony of Papias

The earliest explicit attribution of the first Gospel to Matthew comes from Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor. Much of our information about him comes from the church historian Eusebius of Caesarea. 

Many have appealed to Eusebius' view of Papias as "extremely weak in intelligence" to say that this means we should discredit Papias' testimony altogether. However, Eusebius spoke this in relation to Papias' eschatological views, not to everything he believed altogether. If Eusebius thought Papias was unreliable in his views on the authorship of Matthew (and Mark), he would not have cited him at all.

Eusebius quotes Irenaeus, who speaking of Papias, says that "These things are attested by Papias, an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book. For five books have been written by him." However, Eusebius tries to cast doubt on this because Papias claims to have gotten his information from friends of the apostles (whom Papias refers to as "the elders", a point which will be especially important in a minute). 

Most scholars today have sided with Eusebius' words, however Robert Gundry points out the following points which go against Eusebius' testimony in this regard:

[1]. In an earlier passage (H.E. 3.36.1-2), Eusebius associates Papias with St. Ignatius of Antioch (who died around 107 AD.), saying that the two of them "at the same time.....became well-known". 

[2]. Bear in mind that Eusebius' church history is writing chronologically (as is expected of a book that is dealing with any type of history). Eusebius' discussion of Papias precedes his account of the persecution of the emperor Trajan (about 110 AD). This would imply that Eusebius understood Papias to have been writing before 110 AD. 

This would mean that Papias is citing an already well-known belief concerning Matthew's gospel, leading D.A. Carson to conclude the following:

"In short, the argument that Matthew was understood to be the author of the first gospel long before Papias wrote his difficult words affirming such a connection seems very strong, even if not unassailable." (An Introduction to the New Testament, pg. 142)

If all of this information is taken into account, along with Robert Gundry's arguments, then it would appear that Papias was giving the tradition of the origins of the Gospels as he had heard it from the apostle John. 

Views of Scholarship

Many Islamic apologists on the internet have said that the "majority of scholars" deny the traditional authorship of the Gospels. While it is true that some scholars (usually more liberal ones) do indeed deny the traditional view, there are plenty of others who have defended the view of Christians for centuries. Here is one such example:

"So I agree...that the apostolic authorship of Matthew should not be regarded as an article of faith; in that sense it does not really matter very much who wrote it. But I happen to believe that it fits the historical and literary data sufficiently comfortably to give us strong reason to accept that the early Christians who saw it as his work were not mistaken." (R.T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, pg. 80)