Matthew's Money – An Eyewitness Tell?

Why the argument from money doesn't cash out

A few weeks ago, I wrote a piece on the authorship of Luke-Acts, considering whether the Doppelwerk should be attributed to Luke, the beloved physician.

One of the older arguments I came across for this view is that medical terminology is strewn across Luke-Acts.¹ This provides what we might call ‘internal evidence’ for the traditional view that its author, Luke, was a physician.

This argument still has a few contemporary advocates. Most notably, Luuk van de Weghe has recently revived the argument in a paper for the evangelical Tyndale Bulletin.² Yet most modern commentators today do not find this argument compelling, even if they otherwise accept Lukan authorship.³

Some key problems were spelt out long ago by Henry Cadbury, who is said to have earned his doctorate by ridding Luke of his. In his note, “Luke and the Horse-Doctors” Cadbury subjected the argument to a reductio ad absurdum, comparing Luke’s wording to a corpus of veterinary literature.⁴ In his view, the same arguments from medical terminology could be used to show that Luke was not a doctor but a vet.

In this short piece, I look at a parallel argument that is sometimes made for Matthew.

According to second-century tradition, our Greek gospel was written by Jesus’ disciple Matthew, whom the gospels identify as a tax collector. Since tax collectors know about money, and Matthew seems to know about money, Matthew’s references to money are sometimes taken as evidence Matthew wrote the gospel.

Money in Matthew

I came across this argument a while ago when I was reading Peter J. Williams’ little book, Can We Trust the Gospels? (2018). There Williams writes:

“Matthew himself was traditionally identified as a tax collector, and Matthew’s Gospel shows the greatest level of financial interest, including numerous references to money and treasure that Matthew alone records.”⁵

Williams points to:

• Matthew’s unique parables about hidden treasure (13:44), the discovered pearl (13:45-46), the workers in the vineyard (20:1-16) and the talents (25:14-30); and his comparison of scribe to someone bringing out old and new treasures (13:52).

• The mention of money in specific narrative episodes: the expensive gifts of the magi (2:11); Peter and the temple tax collectors (17:24-27); Judas’ betrayal money and its use (27:3); and chief priests’ bride to the guards at Jesus’ tomb (28:12).

• Matthew’s mention of corban (Mt. 27:6), the offering of money to the temple. This term is spelt slightly differently from its use in Mark 7:11 and used in different episodes in each Gospel, suggesting an independent familiarity with the term.

Does the argument cash out?

There are several reasons why most scholars working on the gospel do not think that Matthew composed it. Arguments which are undiscussed by Williams. (If you want to read about them, see my piece, Is Matthew an Eyewitness Text?) In this piece, however, I want to focus on the argument from money. Does it cash out?

Was Matthew a Tax Collector?