Why Matthew Didn't Write Matthew: Part Two
Responding to the Argument from Money
In the first part of this series, I listed several reasons why many scholars are unconvinced of Matthean authorship. Most importantly, the attestation of our Greek text to Matthew is late, and the internal evidence overwhelmingly fails to support the contention that it was written by an eyewitness.
Yet not all are persuaded. In recent decades, scholarly apologists and conservative commentators have raised arguments in defence of its traditional authorship.
So, do they have an argument?
Some evidence for Matthean authorship?
One datum which apologists note is that the first Gospel shows a greater interest than the other Gospels in financial matters.
In his little apologetic, Can We Trust the Gospels? (2018), Peter J. Williams notes:
“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.”1
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 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.
Assessing the Argument
In my view, it is a stretch to appeal to these passages as evidence for Matthean authorship - especially when it goes without any discussion of the data.
Here are the problems as I see them:
1. The evidence is not clear that Matthew was a tax collector.
In the earliest account of Mark - as we noted in our last post - the story of the conversion of a tax-collector is not that of Matthew, but of Levi.
The author of Matthew changes the name to Matthew, who was one of the Twelve. From the outset, then, it is unclear whether Matthew even was a tax-collector.
2. Appealing to financial references is highly subjective.
Imagine we were to have only Mark and Luke. Mark has six references to money, but Luke has quadruple the number of Mark. Would such figures support the idea that the third evangelist was especially interested in finance too?
The problem with this argument is that it is not clear when an author’s inclusion of financial material becomes evidence that they worked with money.
3. It assumes we can read a person’s profession from their writing.
The argument commits what C.S. Lewis called the ‘personal fallacy;’ the idea that we can read behind a text to the mind or personality of the author.
Such a procedure is dangerous in modern texts - let alone ancient works. Reading the works of Marylin Robinson, for instance, we might infer from her manifold biblical references that the author was a Christian. And we would be right.
Yet were we to take the same assumption to the similarly biblically saturated works of Herman Melville, we would be utterly mistaken; Melville was an atheist.2
This should cast doubt on whether the Gospel discloses Matthew’s profession.
4. There are other ways to account for Matthew’s fiscal interest.
Importantly, we can account for Matthew’s financial interest in other ways.
For example, Matthew’s monetary interest may say more about the audience of the Gospel - who apparently needed of its teaching - than about its author.
Significantly, Aaron Gale notes that Matthew uniquely mentions higher denominations and leaves out the lower denominations mentioned in Mark.3
This might reflect that the affluence of Matthew’s audience. Such a theory might also explain some of Matthew’s distinctive teachings on wealth, which make it somewhat easier for those with assets to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.4
5. It is unlikely that Matthew could have composed Matthew’s Gospel.
Finally, if we assume that Matthew was a Galilean tax-collector, it is unlikely that he would have had the education to compose a work like the Greek Gospel of Matthew.
According to Acts, Peter and John were illiterate (Acts 4:13) and literacy rates were incredibly low in the oral culture of first-century Palestine.
Moreover, even if we assume that Matthew was a tax-collector and therefore had a degree of literacy, it is unlikely that an Aramaic-speaking Jew would be able to write a Greek work of Matthew’s literary sophistication.
In sum….
The argument from money is poor evidence that the apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel. In the future, it is likely that it will still have currency only in the eyes of those already persuaded of Matthean authorship.
So why did the Gospel become associated with Matthew? It is to this question which we will turn in the third, and final part of this series.
Peter J. Williams, Can We Trust the Gospels? (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2018).
I thank Josh Parikh, my redactor par excellence, for this point.
Aaron M. Gale, Redefining Ancient Borders: The Jewish Scribal Framework of Matthew’s Gospel (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 72. This point is made in an excellent visual presentation on Matthew’s authorship, which addresses this argument among others. See “Who Wrote the Gospel of Matthew? (A Response to Erik Manning)” on the Hatsoff History YouTube channel.
See Gale, Ancient Borders, 73-74.