The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (46 page)

Such texts make a Hebrew/Aramaic original of the Gospel plausible despite the high quality of the Greek in the extant version. Since Aramaic quickly ceased to be the language of the early church as the church expanded into Gentile territories and this required the Gospel to circulate in Greek translation, the absence of ancient Hebrew/ Aramaic texts of Matthew is not surprising.

Nevertheless, other evidence speaks against the theory that Matthews Gospel was originally penned in Hebrew or Aramaic. As Carson and Moo note, the numerous OT quotations in Matthew do not reflect a single text form.
¹⁰
The lack of uniformity of text forms in Matthew's OT citations may suggest an author who wrote in Greek but knew Hebrew and thus was able to vary the form of his quotes. Also, if Matthew wrote after Mark (as many believe), it is unlikely that Matthew's Gospel, while using Mark's Gospel, was first written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Third, to some at least, the Greek text of Matthew's Gospel does not read as if it were the product of translation from Hebrew or Aramaic (though others disagree). Fortunately, while vigorously debated among scholars, the question of a Hebrew or Aramaic original of Matthew's Gospel is of little (if any) doctrinal consequence and has yet to be settled conclusively.
¹¹

_____________________

¹
.Gundry,
Matthew
, 614. Bauckham (
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
, 222) suggested that Eusebius may have omitted material with which he disagreed. But the several verbal parallels between the statements regarding Mark and Matthew suggest a close relationship between the two statements. Unfortunately only a new discovery of this portion of Papias's work would indicate the precise relationship between the two statements.

²
Eusebius,
Eccl. Hist.
3.39.14–16. See J. Kürzinger,
Papias von Hierapolis und die Evangelien des Neuen Testaments
(Regensburg: Pustet, 1983), 45.

³
A. J. Köstenberger and S. O. Stout, “The Disciple Jesus Loved: Witness, Author, Apostle: A Response to Richard Bauckham's Jesus
and the Eyewitnesses” BBR
18 (2008): 209–31.

⁴
Other church fathers also described Matthew as originally writing in Hebrew, including Irenaeus (c. 130–c. 200;
Against Heresies
3.1.1), Pantaenus (died c. 190), Origen (c. 185-c. 254;
Commentary on the Gospel of John
1.6; 6.32), Eusebius (c. 260–c. 340;
Eccl. Hist.
3.24.6), Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315–387;
Catecheses
14), Epiphanius (c. 315–403;
Against Heresies
2.1.51), Jerome (c. 345–420; Prologue in
Commentary on Matthew Book IV
), and Augustine (354–430;
Harmony of the Gospels
1.2.4). For a more complete list of references, see Davies and Allison,
Matthew
, 1:8–9.

⁵
Kürzinger,
Papias von Hierapolis
, 9–24. Gundry
(Matthew
, 619–20) posited a similar view (relying in part on preliminary research published by Kürzinger in 1960) and equated Hebrew style with midrashic style.

⁶
This is implied especially by the combination of the noun
dialektos
(“language”) and the verb
hermeneuō
(“translate”). For a succinct discussion of some of the relevant linguistic data, see C. A. Evans, “Hebrew Matthew,” in
Dictionary of New Testament Background
, 463–64.

⁷
E.g., the arguments adduced against Matthean authorship in J. Nolland,
The Gospel of Matthew
, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 3.

⁸
Davies and Allison,
Matthew
, 1:12.

⁹
The name
David
in the consonantal Hebrew text is made up of the three letters
daleth, waw
, and
daleth
. Since
daleth
is the fourth letter in the Hebrew alphabet (as “d” is in the English), and
waw
is the sixth letter, 4 + 6 + 4 = 14.

¹⁰
Carson and Moo,
Introduction to the New Testament
, 143–44.

¹¹
See ibid., 102: “All in all, the hypothesis of an earlier, Semitic-language edition of Matthew cannot certainly be either proven or disproven.”

After carefully reviewing two recent extensive treatments of Papias's account, D. Allison correctly observed, “In light of the general considerations adduced and of the work of Kennedy and Kürzinger, the simplistic understanding of Papias which dismisses him out of hand must be questioned if not abandoned.”
¹²
The early church unanimously affirmed that the Gospel was authored by the apostle Matthew. This view was not seriously challenged until the late nineteenth century.

Clues from the Gospel itself (internal evidence) tend to confirm the early church's ascription to Matthew. Based on the internal evidence of the Gospel, most scholars recognize that the author was a Jewish Christian. Although the internal evidence is not specific enough to trace the identity of the author, it is compatible with and suggestive of Matthean authorship as affirmed by Papias. First, Matthew affirmed that the tax collector named “Levi” whom Jesus appointed to be one of the 12 apostles (see Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27) was also called “Matthew” (Matt 9:9). Matthew, a Hebrew name meaning “gift of Yahweh” or “gift of the Lord,” appears to be the apostolic name that Jesus gave to the tax collector after he chose to follow Christ much like Jesus renamed Simon “Peter” (John 1:42; reaffirmed in Matt 16:18). The use of the name here may be Matthew's personal touch.

Some scholars have explained this feature as a mark of pseudonymity.
¹³
But an examination of other pseudepigrapha suggests that an author seeking to gain credibility for his work by attributing it to an apostle would likely have focused more attention on that apostle in his Gospel than the Gospel of Matthew does. Matthew is mentioned in this Gospel only twice (9: 9; 10: 3). The Gospel does not describe Matthew as the recipient of special revelations in either reference. They simply refer to his call to discipleship and name him as one of the 12 apostles. These brief references are not likely a mark of pseudonymity.

Second, in the discussion of the payment of the imperial taxes (Matt 22:15–22), Mark and Luke both used the Greek term
denarion
, but Matthew also included the more precise term
nomisma
(“state coin”). The use of more precise terminology in referring to currency may suggest the expertise of a former tax collector.
¹⁴
Similarly, among the Gospels only Matthew includes the pericope about Jesus and Peter paying the temple tax (17:24–27). Although this evidence is inconclusive, it does lend support to the strong tradition of authorship preserved by the early church. Based on the impressive external and internal evidence for Matthean authorship, modern readers may confidently affirm Matthew's authorship of this Gospel and recognize it as a testimony to the life of Jesus written by both an eyewitness and an apostle.
¹⁵

Date

Internal Evidence
Most contemporary NT scholars date the Gospel of Matthew to the mid- to late 80s.
¹⁶
R. Schnackenburg succinctly stated the rationale for this late date:

Matthew wrote after the Jewish War and the destruction of Jerusalem (22:7). The break with Judaism, which had become strong under the leadership of the Pharisaic scribes, had occurred (see 27:25; 10:17; 23:34). The tension with these circles who now lived according to the strict interpretation of the law is discernible (see chap. 23), and the self-awareness of the church as the true “people of God” has been reinforced (21:43). Accordingly, the composition of this work is to be dated around A.D. 85–90.
¹⁷

Schnackenburg assumed that Jesus' reference to the fall of Jerusalem in Matt 22:7 was not possible unless the fall of Jerusalem had already occurred. This assumption is based on the modernist presupposition that Jesus was not capable of predicting the future. Since Jesus “predicted” the fall of Jerusalem in Matt 24:2 and elsewhere, some scholars argue that Matthew must have written this “prediction” after the fall
(vaticinium ex eventu)
and deceptively presented it to his readers as “prophecy.” J. Nolland recently challenged this assumption:

NT critical scholarship has a curious capacity to identify as “genuine” prophecy that which failed to be fulfilled and, all too often, to insist that fulfilled prophecy is only after-the-event description dressed up as prophecy.…The possibility of “touched up” prophecy is quite real, but to base the dating of Matthew on an assumption that the text could not have spoken so confidently of the coming judgment on Jerusalem and the temple if these had not already take place represents an uncalled-for imposition.
¹⁸

If one believes that Jesus was capable of predictive prophecy (and abundant evidence supports this conviction), a date prior to 70 is plausible.

Schnackenburg also claimed that references to strong tensions between Jews and Christians in Matthew implied a complete break of the church from the synagogue. He listed 85 as the earliest possible date for the Gospel since this was the approximate time that the curse against heretics was added to the Eighteen Benedictions
(Shemoneh Esreh)
of the Jewish
Tefillah
, a prayer to be recited by faithful Jews three times a day. The Twelfth Benediction is called the
Birkath ha-minim
or “Curses Against the Heretics” and says:

And for apostates let there be no hope; and may the insolent kingdom be quickly uprooted, in our days. And may the
notsrim
and the
minim
perish quickly; and may they be erased from the Book of Life and may they not be inscribed with the righteous. Blessed are you, Lord, who humbles the insolent.
¹⁹

However, even if this Twelfth Benediction was focused on Christians (which is possible but not certain), this does not support the claim that frequent references to Jewish persecution of Christians in Matthew require a post-85 date for the Gospel. Such a conclusion fails to take into account the references to Jewish persecution of believers in the book of Acts very early in the history of the church which demonstrate that intense anti-Christian persecution occurred and prompted some Christians to separate from the synagogue half a century before 85.

Schnackenburg also suggested that the belief that the disciples of Jesus constituted the true people of God requires a late date for the Gospel. He specifically cited Matt 21:43 as evidence. This passage teaches that the kingdom of God will be taken from the Jewish leaders and be entrusted to others who produce the fruits of the kingdom. But this affirmation coheres with NT teaching elsewhere (see Acts 13:46; 18:5–6; 1 Pet 2:9). Jesus' selection of 12 disciples is one of the deeds of Jesus that has been verified by historical Jesus research.
²⁰

The selection of 12 disciples expresses Jesus' intention to build a new Israel from a faithful remnant. The assumption that Christians began to regard themselves as the true people of God only in the final decades of the first century is simply false and is poor evidence for a late Matthean date.

External Evidence
External evidence requires a first-century date of composition. Although it is possible that the authors of John's Gospel and 1 Peter may have known Matthew's Gospel, the earliest definite allusions to Matthew appear in the writings of Ignatius
(c. 35–110) and the
Didache
(second half of first or early second century).
²¹
Polycarp (c. 69–155) knew and quoted Matthew in the first half of the second century.
²²
The Epistle of Pseudo-Barnabas (c. 135?) quoted Matthew and described the Gospel as inspired Scripture with authority comparable to the OT.
²³
The author of the Gospel of Peter also knew and used Matthew's Gospel, probably in the mid-second century.
²⁴
External evidence alone, however, cannot guide interpreters to a more specific date of composition.

Determining the date of composition of the first Gospel depends largely on the relationship of the Gospels to one another. Most scholars believe that Matthew used Mark's Gospel in writing his.
²⁵
If this is correct, Matthew's Gospel must postdate Mark. But the date of Mark's Gospel is also ambiguous. Irenaeus (c. 130–200) apparently claimed that Mark wrote his Gospel after Peter's death in the mid-60s. Yet Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215), who wrote only 20 years after Irenaeus, claimed that Mark wrote his Gospel while Peter was still alive. Given the ambiguity of the historical evidence concerning a Markan date, a decision must be based on other factors.

The date of composition for Mark is best inferred from the date of Luke-Acts. The abrupt ending of Acts, which leaves Paul under house arrest in Rome, implies that Acts was written before Paul's release. Since one of the major themes of Acts is the legality of Christianity in the Roman Empire, one would have expected Luke to mention Paul's release by the emperor if it had already occurred. This evidence dates Acts to the early 60s. Luke and Acts were two volumes of a single work as the prologues to these books demonstrate. Luke was clearly written before Acts (Acts 1:1). Given the amount of research that Luke invested in writing Acts and the travel that eyewitness interviews probably required, a completion date in the late 50s for the Gospel is reasonable. If Luke used Mark in writing his own Gospel, Mark was written sometime before the late 50s, perhaps in the early to mid-50s. Thus, if Matthew used Mark's Gospel, Matthew may have written his Gospel anytime beginning in the mid-50s or, perhaps more likely, in the early 60s. The earliest historical evidence is consistent with
this opinion since Irenaeus (c. 130–200) claimed that Matthew wrote his Gospel while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome (early 60s).
²⁶

Other evidence in Matthew suggests that the Gospel was written before 70 when Roman armies destroyed the Jerusalem temple and devastated the Holy City. Matthew 17:24–27 contains Jesus' instruction regarding the payment of the two-drachma temple tax. Jesus taught that his disciples should pay the tax in order to avoid off ending fellow Jews. However, after the destruction of the temple, the temple tax was collected by the Romans in order to support the pagan temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome.
²⁷
It is doubtful that Matthew would have included the account in his Gospel at a date at which it would have been interpreted as support for pagan idolatry (see Matt 4:10).
²⁸
Moreover, Jesus taught Peter that although Christian disciples should pay the tax for social reasons, they were not obligated to do so since kings demanded taxes from their subjects but not their sons. This implies that Jesus' disciples were sons of the great divine King to whom the taxes were paid. But the same argument after 70 might be taken as identifying the disciples as sons of Jupiter who were exempt from the tax but should pay it to pacify the Romans!