Did Matthew, the disciple of Jesus, write the Gospel according to Matthew? Most scholars today say that he did not. This series explores the consensus.
The problems are solved when we realize that those who edited and expanded Mark's gospel, to make "Matthew's gospel", continued to give Mark the credit, but used his Semitic name, Matthew. We know that they liked to call him "Matthew" consistently because they changed "Levi" to "Matthew". The author of Mark's gospel would have needed a Semitic name for use in Palestine, because Roman names there would have created opposition. We know of no first century Jesus follower who used a Roman name in Palestine. The names Mark and Matthew sound somewhat similar. Compare Saul/Paul, Silas/Silvanus, Joseph/Justus, Jesus/Justus, Titus/Timothy, and others. Note also that Mark's gospel is the most likely to have been written by someone who collected taxes for Herod Antipas, for, of the synoptics, it is least negative towards Antipas and tax collectors (John mentions neither). Mark did not need to explain that Levi was Matthew because his audience (presumably) knew his names, just as they knew Alexander and Rufus. The authorship of Mark's gospel by Mark/Matthew explains why there is a strong ancient tradition that Matthew wrote first. The Herods had connections with Rome and this would explain why Mark (if indeed he was Matthew, who collected Herod's taxes) likely went to Rome (to escape from the sicarii?). Compare Herodion in Rom 16:11.
What do you make of the possibility that Matthew relied so heavily on Mark because even though Mark wasn't an eyewitness, its putative source (Peter) was, and he deferred to the chief apostle's authority in recounting certain events which also spared him from having to reinvent the wheel?
Thanks for your comment. It is a possibility I have pondered but don't find personally convincing. While Peter's superior authority might initially seem to make sense of Matthew's (rather slavish) integration of Mark, it does not explain the material that is not present in Mark: the written/oral traditions shared with Luke, the redactions which Matthew makes to Mark
- which sometimes seem very much to *want* to reinvent the wheel - and the nature of other Matthean redactions, which do not read to me as eyewitness recollection. Most importantly, it does not explain Matthew's redaction of the story of his call.
Unlike some scholars, I do think there is something to the idea of Mark is - in some sense - a Petrine source. (Please keep your eyes peeled, as I will be writing on this shortly.) However, I do not think that Matthew wrote/was immediately behind the text. I think, if anything, he was behind some of the 'Q' material (a theory I will be considering in part three.)
The problems are solved when we realize that those who edited and expanded Mark's gospel, to make "Matthew's gospel", continued to give Mark the credit, but used his Semitic name, Matthew. We know that they liked to call him "Matthew" consistently because they changed "Levi" to "Matthew". The author of Mark's gospel would have needed a Semitic name for use in Palestine, because Roman names there would have created opposition. We know of no first century Jesus follower who used a Roman name in Palestine. The names Mark and Matthew sound somewhat similar. Compare Saul/Paul, Silas/Silvanus, Joseph/Justus, Jesus/Justus, Titus/Timothy, and others. Note also that Mark's gospel is the most likely to have been written by someone who collected taxes for Herod Antipas, for, of the synoptics, it is least negative towards Antipas and tax collectors (John mentions neither). Mark did not need to explain that Levi was Matthew because his audience (presumably) knew his names, just as they knew Alexander and Rufus. The authorship of Mark's gospel by Mark/Matthew explains why there is a strong ancient tradition that Matthew wrote first. The Herods had connections with Rome and this would explain why Mark (if indeed he was Matthew, who collected Herod's taxes) likely went to Rome (to escape from the sicarii?). Compare Herodion in Rom 16:11.
What do you make of the possibility that Matthew relied so heavily on Mark because even though Mark wasn't an eyewitness, its putative source (Peter) was, and he deferred to the chief apostle's authority in recounting certain events which also spared him from having to reinvent the wheel?
Dear JD,
Thanks for your comment. It is a possibility I have pondered but don't find personally convincing. While Peter's superior authority might initially seem to make sense of Matthew's (rather slavish) integration of Mark, it does not explain the material that is not present in Mark: the written/oral traditions shared with Luke, the redactions which Matthew makes to Mark
- which sometimes seem very much to *want* to reinvent the wheel - and the nature of other Matthean redactions, which do not read to me as eyewitness recollection. Most importantly, it does not explain Matthew's redaction of the story of his call.
Unlike some scholars, I do think there is something to the idea of Mark is - in some sense - a Petrine source. (Please keep your eyes peeled, as I will be writing on this shortly.) However, I do not think that Matthew wrote/was immediately behind the text. I think, if anything, he was behind some of the 'Q' material (a theory I will be considering in part three.)
Thanks for reading!