ITO ang bahagi PAGSUSURI na ginawa ni
DANIEL B. WALLACE na may pamagat na
"Matthew: Introduction, Argument, and Outline".
Diyan po ay MAKIKITA NATIN ang mga EBIDENSIYA na MAGPAPATUNAY na ang APOSTOL na si MATTHEW ang GUMAWA o BUMUO sa EBANGHELYO na INIUUGNAY sa KANYA.
INILALABAS po NATIN ang ISINULAT ni WALLACE bilang SAGOT sa PANINIRA ng isang BALIK ISLAM na PILIT na MINAMALIIT ang BIBLIYA.
Ang ginagamit po nitong BALIK ISLAM na si kareembill@yahoo.com ay ang Mt 9:9 kung saan INAAKALA niya na porke gumamit ng THIRD PERSON NARRATIVE si MATTHEW ay HINDI na SIYA ang GUMAWA ng BINUO NIYANG EBANGHELYO.
Para po sa ARTIKULO kaugnay sa PAGGAMIT ng THIRD PERSON NARRATIVE sa PANULAT ni MATTHEW ay paki CLICK po ang LINK na ito:
Matthew hindi nagsulat ng Ebanghelyo?.
HAPPY READING po.
Matthew: Introduction, Argument, and Outline
A. The Author
There are three pieces of evidence to consider if we are to arrive at any conclusion about the authorship of the first gospel: (1) the title, (2) external evidence, and (3) internal evidence. As will soon become apparent, not all of these categories bear equal weight.
1. The Title
The titles of NT books were not part of the autograph, but were added later on the basis of tradition. Still, the tradition in this case is universal: every MS which contains Matthew has some sort of ascription to Matthew.1 Some scholars suggest that this title was added as early as 125 CE.2 The fact that every inscription to this gospel affirms that Matthew was the author coupled with the fact that nowhere does the author identify himself makes the tradition quite strong, but still short of proof.
2. External Evidence
The earliest statement that Matthew wrote something is by Papias: “Instead [of writing in Greek], Matthew arranged the oracles in the Hebrew dialect, and each man interpreted them as he was able.”3 We have already discussed some of the possibilities of what Papias referred to in this statement.4 It may be helpful, in this place, to outline the general views: (1) “the oracles” (taV logiva) = the Gospel of Matthew; (2) “the oracles” = a sayings source (like Q); (3) Papias is not speaking about the Hebrew dialect, but he uses dialevkto" to mean “literary fashion”; thus, Matthew arranged his Gospel along Jewish-Christian lines; (4) Papias was wrong.
Although it is quite impossible to decide conclusively what Papias meant since we are wholly dependent on Eusebius for any excerpts from this early second century writer, some general considerations are in order: (1) Papias probably was not referring to the Gospel, since we have no trace of it in Hebrew or Aramaic until the medieval ages (all of which are clearly translations of the Greek, at least as far as most scholars are concerned). This view, therefore, is shipwrecked on early textual evidence. Further, Matthew does not show strong evidence of being translation Greek. (2) Some have suggested therefore (as an expedient to salvage the first view) that Papias was referring to Matthew’s literary method, rather than linguistics, but such is by no means a natural interpretation of dialevkto". (3) Although Papias could have been wrong—and he was a man of meager intelligence (according to Eusebius)!—he is sufficiently early and well-connected with apostolic Christianity that he ought to be given the benefit of the doubt. (4) The best option, in our view, is that Papias was referring to a sayings source which Matthew wrote. If so, then Matthew in all probability incorporated this source into his gospel, after rearranging it.5 As we suggested in our section on the Synoptic Problem, this sayings source may well have constituted a portion of Q.6 In any event, the great probability is that Papias is referring to the apostle Matthew as an author of material on the life of Jesus. Whether this is proto-Matthew, Q, or Matthew, Matthean authorship of the first gospel is either directly or indirectly supported by the statement.
After Papias, Irenaeus wrote: “Now Matthew published also a book of the Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the Church.”7 It is obvious that Irenaeus got the gist of this information from Papias (since he was acquainted with his work), though he does add two interesting points: (1) the audience of Matthew’s work was the Jews (or Jewish Christians); (2) the time when this work was written was during Peter and Paul’s tenure in Rome. In light of Irenaeus’ dependence on Papias (as well as his interpretation of his statement), this part of the tradition does not receive an independent testimony.8 But Irenaeus adds the interesting point that the time when Matthew wrote this was when Peter and Paul were in Rome. This may be no more than a guess, for other information in the statement seems false.9 On the other hand, since Peter and Paul were not in Rome together until the early 60s, this may well help us to fix a date for Matthew’s Gospel, provided that this tradition has other corroborative evidence.
Still later, Origen assumed that Matthew penned his Gospel originally in Hebrew. However, Origen adds nothing to what Papias has said, and may well have assumed that Papias was speaking about the Gospel rather than a sayings source. After Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Augustine and others echoed the opinion of Matthean authorship.
The early external testimony is universal on two points: (1) Matthew wrote something related to the life of Jesus Christ; and (2) Matthew wrote in a Semitic tongue. Little, if any, independent testimony exists however for the supposition that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew/Aramaic. Nevertheless, the attachment of the name of Matthew to the first gospel may well indicate that it ultimately goes back to him, even if completed by a later compiler.
Added to this explicit testimony are the quotations of Matthew’s Gospel in the early patristic writers. It is quoted as early as 110 CE (by Ignatius), with a steady stream of patristic citations afterward. In fact, Matthew’s Gospel was quoted (and copied) far more often than either Mark or Luke. From earliest times, then, it was treated as canonical and authoritative on the life of Jesus Christ, regardless of authorship.
One final comment about external evidence should be added. Although there is always the possibility of a vested interest on the part of patristic writers to seek apostolic authorship for the anonymous books of the NT, this does not explain why Matthew and no other apostle was ever suggested for the first gospel. Indeed, not only was Matthew by no means the most prominent of the apostles, but he also would not seem to be as qualified as some others to write to Jewish Christians, in light of his former occupation. Would not Andrew or Philip or Bartholomew have been more likely candidates if an apostolic author were merely a figment of the early church? None of them had the stigma of having been in league with the Romans, and all figured more prominently in the gospel narratives. What is especially impressive is that Matthew and Matthew alone was suggested as the author of the first gospel.
3. Internal Evidence
The following are seven pieces of internal evidence which suggest, first, that the author was a Jew, and second, that he was Matthew.10
a. Familiarity with the Nation
The author was familiar with geography (2:23), Jewish customs (cf. 1:18-19), Jewish history (he calls Herod Antipas “tetrarch” instead of “king”). He displays a concern for the OT law (5:17-20) and puts an emphasis on the evangelistic mission to the Jewish nation as well (ch. 10). The evidence is quite strong for authorship by a Jew.11
b. Hints of Semitisms in his Language
There are relatively few Semitic traces in Matthew, though one might note the heavy use of tovte (89 times), as compared with Mark (6) and Luke (15), perhaps harking back to the Hebrew za.12 Beyond this, there is the occasional asyndeton13 (a mark of Aramaic influence), use of the indefinite plural (1:23; 7:16), etc. Although Matthew’s Greek is less Semitic than Mark’s, it does betray traces of Semitisms at times—even where none exists in the Markan parallel. If Matthew did write this gospel, one might not expect many Semitisms since Matthew was a tax-collector and would therefore have to be conversant in Greek as well as Hebrew/Aramaic. But the fact of some Semitisms suggests either that the writer was a Jew or that his sources were Semitic. Yet, some of these are so much a part of the fabric of his gospel (e.g., tovte) that it is more reasonable to suppose that the author was himself a Jew.
c. His Use of Scripture
Gundry has ably pointed out how the author used the OT, especially in his formula quotations. Although there are many OT citations which correspond to the LXX rendering, his own introductory formulae (which are not found in either Mark or Luke) all seem to be free translations of the Hebrew.14 If so, then the author most probably is a Jew. Further, he shows great familiarity with contemporary Jewish exegesis in how he uses the scriptures.15
d. Attack on Pharisees
Matthew’s Gospel attacks the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders more than Mark or Luke do (cf. 3:7 16:6, 11, 12; ch. 23). Perhaps the reason for this was, in part, due to how hard these religious leaders were on the tax-collectors (they associated them with sinners and Gentiles). Not much can be made of this however.
e. Frequent Use of Numbers
The author’s frequent use of numbers would be natural for a tax-collector. He divides things into three parts: the genealogy, the trilogies of miracles in chapters 8-9; five parts: five great sermons of Jesus, all with the same closing formula (7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1); six corrections on the misuse of the Law (in chapter 5); seven woes, parables (ch. 13); etc. Again, not much can be made of this argument, else one would have to say that a tax-collector wrote the Apocalypse! But at least it is consistent with who Matthew was.
f. His Mention of Money
A more weighty argument is the author’s frequent reference to money—more frequent than the other gospel writers in fact. He uses unique monetary terms (drachma in 17:24; stater in 17:25; talent in 18:24, 25); he alone of the synoptists speaks of gold and silver; Matthew contains the only two parables on talents (chs. 18, 25); and he uses tax-collector-type terminology (“debts” in 6:12 where the Lukan parallel has “sins”); “bankers” (25:27), etc. Especially when one compares the synoptic parallels, Matthew’s use of monetary terms seems significant. The most reasonable hypothesis for this is that the author was quite familiar with money.
g. The Calling of Levi
Both Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27-28 speak of the calling of “Levi” while Matthew 9:9 calls him “Matthew.” But all the lists of the apostles refer to him as Matthew (Matt 10, Mark 3, Luke 6, Acts 1).16 Yet, what is remarkable is that only in the first gospel is Matthew called “the tax-collector” in the list of apostles. It may well be that the author is showing humility in this reference. In the least, however, Matthew’s Gospel is the only one which identifies the tax-collector whom Jesus called with Matthew the apostle. The most logical reason that the writer felt such liberty with his Markan source was because he knew of the identification personally.
Thus he could either be Matthew himself or an associate who later compiled the work. Against the compiler theory is Matt 9:9, which records the calling of Matthew: “it is significant that it is more self-deprecating than Luke’s account, which says that Matthew ‘left everything’ and followed Jesus”17 while Matthew simply says that he got up and followed Jesus. If the first gospel were not by Matthew, one would be at a loss to explain why the author seemed to deprecate Matthew in such subtle ways. A later compiler who knew and respected Matthew (probably a disciple of his), or worse, a “school of St. Matthew,” simply does not fit the bill.18
In sum, each piece of evidence is hardly weighty on its own. But taken together, there is a cumulative impression made on the reader that a bilingual Palestinian Jew, well acquainted with money, wrote this gospel. External testimony has already suggested Matthew as the author; the internal evidence does nothing to shake this impression. There is, therefore, little reason to doubt Matthean authorship.
4. Objections to Matthean Authorship
There are three primary objections to Matthean authorship, listed in descending order of value: (1) the improbable use of Mark by an apostle; (2) the high quality of the Greek of the gospel; and (3) the nonbiographical structure of the book.
(1) Assuming Markan priority, would an apostle use a gospel written by a non-apostle, or even any written source? This is not as weighty an argument as it appears, for “if Matthew thought Mark’s account reliable and generally suited to his purposes (and he may have known that Peter stood behind it), there can be no objection to the view that an apostle depended on a nonapostolic document.”19
This is analogous to the Revised Version translators (1881) using the King James Version. They intentionally supported the tradition of the KJV, and in fact wanted to emulate its translation wherever possible. However, they deviated from it in three distinct ways: (a) they wanted the new work to be based on more ancient MSS; (b) they had a better grasp of the Greek than did the KJV translators and sought to make a more accurate translation even where the textual basis was identical; (c) they wanted to remove archaisms which were no longer clearly understood. The motivation behind the RV was “to make a good thing better.” What is most significant for our purposes is the fact that even though the RV translators knew Greek much better than did the KJV translators and had earlier MSS to work with, they still wanted to keep in line with the KJV tradition as much as possible. The analogy with Matthew and Mark is obvious: even though Matthew was an eyewitness, he wanted to use Mark’s Gospel as much as possible, both to affirm its reliability and as a ready framework for the sermons of Jesus; but he also wanted to correct its grammar in places, and supplement it with pertinent information in other places.20
(2) Kümmel adds three other arguments: “the systematic and therefore nonbiographical form of the structure of Mt, the late-apostolic theological position, and the Greek language of Mt make this proposal completely impossible.”21 Of these, only the first and third are really weighty, for the lateness of the theology is so intertwined with the supposedly late dates of other NT books and assumptions of uniformly linear development that it carries little conviction.22 Of the other two considerations, one will be dealt with here and the other will take up our last point.
The high quality of the Greek is hardly an argument against Matthean authorship, for Matthew would have to have known both Aramaic and Greek in order to collect taxes from the Jews and work for the Romans.23 Further, there is a growing consensus that Galilee of the first century was thoroughly bilingual—so much so that Greek was probably the native tongue of most Jews. 24
(3) “The systematic and nonbiographical” structure of Matthew25 does not preclude Matthean authorship. Such is a non sequitur because “(1) a topically ordered account can yield biographical facts as easily as a strictly chronological account, and (2) Kümmel wrongly supposes that apostolicity is for some reason incapable of choosing anything other than a chronological framework.”26
5. Conclusion on Authorship
Although there are some difficulties with Matthean authorship, none of them presents major obstacles, in spite of some scholars calling Matthean authorship “impossible.” On the positive side, the universal external evidence which seems to lack motivation for the choice of Matthew (as opposed to any other apostle), coupled with the subtle internal evidence, makes the traditional view still the most plausible one.27
NOTES:
1 The simplest inscription is kataV Maqqaivon, found in Aleph B (“according to Matthew”). As time progressed this became more elaborate: in the fifth century the title was customarily eujaggevlion kataV Maqqaivon (D W [“The Gospel according to Matthew”), while still later it was called a{gion eujaggevlion kataV Maqqaivon (Byzantine MSS and others [“the Holy Gospel according to Matthew”).
2 So Guthrie, 43.
3 Fragments of Papias 2:16 (my translation).
4 Cf. our discussion under the “Synoptic Problem” (which has been previously posted).
5 This rearrangement suggests that the Matthean sermons may not have been literary units originally. Such indeed seems to be the case except for the Olivet Discourse. This is due to two factors: (1) The Olivet Discourse is found in Mark intact, suggesting that it at least circulated as a unit in the oral period (and further that it is not due to Matthew’s rearranging of material); (2) on the analogy of the Gospel of Thomas, there would be little interest in prophecy in a sayings source (probably because prophecy cannot be laid out easily in isolated aphorisms). Hence, in spite of critical scholarship’s dissecting of the Olivet Discourse into separate pericopae which melted into one literary unit before the gospels were written, this sermon at least has all the earmarks of going back to the historical Jesus en toto, in situ. (Incidentally, this view of the Olivet Discourse finds indirect confirmation in a recent work on Q. Ronald A. Piper, Wisdom in the Q-Traditions: The Aphoristic Teaching of Jesus [SNTSMS 61, 1989] points out that “collections of aphoristic sayings . . . [are] relatively free of domination by strongly eschatological motifs” [9]. Thus the Olivet Discourse probably did not circulate as isolated sayings.)
6 One substantial problem for this view is that in the earlier fragment (2:15) Papias speaks of Mark recording Peter’s sermons on taV logiva kuriakw'n. But the context clearly indicates that both the Lord’s deeds and words are in view. If so, this would seem to make logiva in 2:16 (Papias’ comment on Matthew’s literary endeavors) also refer to the Lord’s words and deeds, precluding the meaning of a sayings source like Q. However, Papias could be using the genitive objectively in 2:15 and subjectively in 2:16, and logiva would retain the same meaning each time: “the sayings about the Lord” (which Peter spoke), “the sayings by the Lord” (which Matthew recorded).
7 Eusebius, HE 5.8.2.
8 However, it should be stressed again that Irenaeus’ words ought not necessarily be taken to mean that Matthew wrote a Gospel in a Semitic tongue, for Irenaeus says that he wrote a “book about the gospel,” or perhaps, “a book about the good news,” In light of this, Irenaeus may well mean that Matthew wrote something other than a gospel in Hebrew (Aramaic).
9 Specifically, Peter and Paul did not “found” the church in Rome.
10 For the most part, this material is taken from class notes on the NT course “The Gospel of Matthew,” taught by Dr. Harold Hoehner, fall 1977. It should be noted, however, that Hoehner most likely gathered most of his material from Stanley D. Toussaint’s dissertation, “The Argument of Matthew,” (Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Seminary, 1957), 10-13.
11 So strong is this evidence that even Ernst von Dobschütz, who disputed Matthean authorship, felt that the work was written by a Rabbi! Cf. his article in ZNW 27 (1928) 338-48, later translated (“Matthew as Rabbi and Catechest”) and incorporated into The Interpretation of Matthew, ed. G. Stanton (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), pp. 19-29.
12 H. C. Thiessen, Introduction to the New Testament (139), however makes way too much of this when he suggests that Matthew was thinking in a Semitic tongue, though writing in Greek. Such a view could be cogently argued for the Apocalypse, but hardly for Matthew (indeed, most scholars find very few Semitisms in Matthew).
13 “There are still 21 instances of asyndeta in Matthew’s Markan sections where Mark has no asyndeton,” N. Turner, Style, 31.
14 Cf. R. H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament by St. Matthew.
15 Cf. R. N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. Against Longenecker, cf. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament by St. Matthew (although Gundry would say that Matthew did not get his hermeneutics from rabbinic circles, he still argues cogently that Matthew learned it from the Lord Jesus himself).
16 Guthrie (52) queries, “Could it be that for the author of this gospel the name Matthew came to have greater significance than the name Levi, from the time of his dramatic call to follow Jesus? It is not impossible that this is a conscious personal touch.” It is further possible that Matthew used this name, rather than Levi, just as Paul referred to himself as “Paul” rather than “Saul,” even though both names are used of him in Acts. Hagner adds a helpful insight here as well: “It is virtually certain that the Gospel of Matthew is dependent on Mark in this passage [9:9]. Mark and Luke, had they been dependent upon Matthew, would hardly have felt free to substitute the name of an otherwise unknown person, Levi, for the name of an apostle. It is thus very probable that the author of the Gospel of Matthew changed the name Levi to Matthew in this passage. Also, as though to alert the readers to the intended equation of the two names, when in the next chapter (10:3) the Evangelist lists the Twelve, he alone adds ‘the tax collector’ to Matthew’s name. But why did the Evangelist change the name Levi to Matthew? The most natural conclusion is that the tax collector Levi came to be called Matthew (a name so appropriate to the situation) after his conversion, and that this new name, now the name of an apostle, was significant to the author of the Gospel—a Gospel that, according to tradition, derived from that very Matthew” (D. A. Hagner, “Matthew,” in ISBE 3:280).
17 D. A. Carson, Matthew (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8), 224.
18 This is not analogous to Mark’s explicit and overt virtual belittling of Peter in his gospel, for he got the substance of his gospel from Peter’s own sermons in which Peter no doubt had said these self-deprecating remarks. There is absolutely no ancient testimony which suggests that Matthew was written by disciples of Matthew, however, rendering the compiler view improbable.
19 Carson, Matthew, 18.
20 We could add further that the ancient world did not have the same view of plagiarism as does the modern (western) world. Thus, 2 Peter could utilize Jude (or Jude, 2 Peter) without giving any credit. Not only this, but in spite of F. C. Baur’s protests, the early Christian community probably had greater harmony on the top levels than we have been led to believe in the last 150+ years. If so, then Matthew may well have intended to write his gospel, in part, to affirm Mark’s reliability.
21 Kümmel, 121.
22 Indeed, some scholars who are not predisposed toward Markan priority would date Matthew as early as the 40s (so Hoehner, perhaps Reicke; even Robinson entertains this idea). Carson, who is predisposed toward Markan priority, still can say, “the alleged lateness of the theological position may be disputed at every point” (Matthew, 18).
23 Cf. Gundry, Use of the Old Testament by St. Matthew, 178-85.
24 See our extended discussion of the bilingualism of first century Palestine in Exegetical Syntax.
25 Part and parcel to this is the less vivid style of Matthew (as opposed to Mark). Cf. Turner, Style, 40-41. This, however, may well be a matter of one’s personality: Peter was well-known as giving stirring messages (and Mark apparently based his gospel on Peter’s messages), while we know next to nothing about Matthew’s style. However, if modern analogies are worth anything, accountants and tax-collectors are usually detail-oriented people, not given to exaggeration nor excessive emotion (indeed, most of the ones I know are fairly boring!). This less vivid, more systematic style, may well be in keeping with Matthew’s personality—and in fact might be an argument in favor of Matthean authorship!
26 Carson, Matthew, 18.
27 For perhaps the best defense of Matthean authorship of this gospel, cf. Gundry’s Matthew, 609-622.
