Gospel of Matthew
Home > New Testament > Gospel of Matthew Gospel of Matthew At a Glance Gospel Genre: (4/5) **** Reliability of Dating: (3/5) *** Length of Text: Greek Original Language: Ancient Translations: Modern Translations: English Estimated Range of Dating: 80-100 A.D. Chronological List of Early Christian Writings Discuss this text on the Early Writings forum. Text Gospel of Matthew: American Standard Version Gospel of Matthew: King James Version Gospel of Matthew: World English Bible Resources e-Catena: References to the New Testament in the Church Fathers Patristic References to Matthew, Chapters 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Priority of Mark Alfred Loisy: The Gospel According to Matthew Edgar Goodspeed: The Gospel of Matthew Catholic Encyclopedia: Gospel of Matthew Offsite Links Gospel of Matthew: Perseus NT (English/Greek/Latin) The Five Gospels Parallels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Thomas; English) Parallel Synoptic Table (Matthew, Mark, Luke; Greek) IVP Commentary Matthews Good News: An EasyEnglish Commentary The Synoptic Problem (Defense of the Two-Source Hypothesis) The Synoptic Problem Website Gospel of Matthew: NAB Introduction Gospel of Matthew: Daniel Wallace's Introduction An Introduction to the New Testament: The Gospel of Matthew A Historical Introduction to the New Testament: The Gospel of Matthew Synoptic Gospels Primer / Glossary: P64 & P67 Media Papyri: Examining Carsten Thiede's Rediscovered Fragments Review: Carsten Peter Thiede, Rekindling the Word: In Search of Gospel Jesus as Anointed and Healing Son of David in the Gospel of Matthew Matt.
xxviii 16-20 by Swete The Sermon on the Mount by Joachim Jeremias The Sermon on the Mount by Roger Shinn The Gospel of Matthew by William Cannon Books Daniel J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew (Liturgical Press 1991) Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (T&t Clark Ltd 1989) Burton L. Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament? : The Making of the Christian Myth (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 1996), pp. 161-167. Raymond Edward Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), pp. 171-224. Udo Schnelle, translated by M. Eugene Boring, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), pp.
217-237. Recommended Books for the Study of Early Christian Writings Information on Gospel of Matthew It is the near-universal position of scholarship that the Gospel of Matthew is dependent upon the Gospel of Mark. This position is accepted whether one subscribes to the dominant Two-Source Hypothesis or instead prefers the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis. It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. Such an idea is based on the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus. As quoted by Eusebius in Hist. Eccl. 3.39, Papias states: "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." In Adv.
Haer. 3.1.1, Irenaeus says: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." We know that Irenaeus had read Papias, and it is most likely that Irenaeus was guided by the statement he found there. That statement in Papias itself is considered to be unfounded because the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and relied largely upon Mark, not the author's first-hand experience. Herman N. Ridderbos writes (Matthew, p. 7): This means, however, that we can no longer accept the traditional view of Matthew's authorship. At least two things forbid us to do so. First, the tradition maintains that Matthew authored an Aramaic writing, while the standpoint I have adopted does not allow us to regard our Greek text as a translation of an Aramaic original.
Second, it is extremely doubtful that an eyewitness like the apostle Matthew would have made such extensive use of material as a comparison of the two Gospels indicates. Mark, after all, did not even belong to the circle of the apostles. Indeed Matthew's Gospel surpasses those of the other synoptic writers neither in vividness of presentation nor in detail, as we would expect in an eyewitness report, yet neither Mark nor Luke had been among those who had followed Jesus from the beginning of His public ministry. J. C. Fenton argues (The Gospel of Saint Matthew, p. 12): It is usually thought that Mark's Gospel was written about A.D. 65 and that the author of it was neither one of the apostles nor an eyewitness of the majority of the events recorded in his Gospel.