Who Wrote the Four Gospels? Critics contend that we do not know who really wrote the gospels. In fact, it is argued that the standard titles of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John weren’t added until a century later to give these documents apostolic authority. Does the evidence support the authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?
Scholars wonder if Matthew originally wrote in Hebrew based on a solitary passage mentioned by Papias (AD 140). The passage from Papias says this:
Matthew synetaxeto [composed? compiled? arranged?] the logia [sayings? Gospel?] in hebraïdi dialektō [in the Hebrew (Aramaic?) language? in the Hebrew (Aramaic?) style?]; and everyone hērmēneusen [interpreted? translated? transmitted?] them as he was able [contextually, who is ‘interpreting’ what?].[]
There are a number of reasons for being skeptical of his claim from Papias:
First, Matthew’s gospel often cites from the Septuagint—the Greek translation of the OT. But if Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, why then would he often cite a Greek translation?
Second, Matthew’s gospel cites from Mark. But if Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, why then would he quote a Greek manuscript like Mark? (see “The Synoptic Problem”)
Third, Matthew’s gospel doesn’t read like a translation. Carson and Moo write, “The Greek text of Matthew does not read like translation Greek."[] A translator would need to be excellent to translate Matthew in such a fluid way.
Those who hold to the so-called “Q” source think it’s possible that Matthew had recorded a list of notes during Jesus’ lifetime. This list of sayings (or logia as Papias puts it) could be what we currently refer to as the “Q” source. It could’ve been copied into Greek, and then subsumed into both Matthew and Luke. Of course, this is merely conjecture, but it is a way of validating both Papias’ claim and the “Q” hypothesis.
Evidence for an Early Dating of the Four Gospels: Many historians and commentators date the Gospels between AD 70 and AD 100. This subject is surely up for debate. However, based on the manuscript evidence, the citations of the Church Fathers, the dating of the Book of Acts, and the early citations from Paul, we think there is good evidence for an early dating of the Gospels. We would date Matthew to the early 60’s AD.
Yes and no. Matthew does tailor his Gospel for a Jewish audience in many ways. First, he focuses on the “fulfillment” of OT prophecy (Mt. 1:22-23; 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 5:17; 8:17; 12:17; 13:17, 35; 21:4; 26:54-56; 27:9. Second, he emphasizes Jesus’ lineage from Abraham and David—two very important Jewish patriarchs. Third, he focuses on Jesus’ mission to the nation of Israel—not the Gentiles (Mt. 10:5-6; 15:28). Fourth, he feels no need to explain Jewish practices (compare Matthew 15:1-20 with Mark 7:3-4, 11).[3] Fifth, Matthew uses “kingdom of heaven,” rather than “kingdom of God.” Some commentators argue that he uses this expression because Jews wouldn’t use the holy name for God. However, we don’t find this argument persuasive (see comments on Matthew 3:2 below).
On the other hand, Matthew records how Jesus foresaw and predicted the Gentile mission (Mt. 8:11; 10:18; 21:43; 22:9; 24:14; 28:19). Moreover, Jesus frequently approved of the faith of Gentiles like the Roman centurion (Mt. 8:10) and the Canaanite woman (Mt. 15:28). So, Matthew was not written exclusively to a Jewish audience.
James is an elder at Dwell Community Church, where he teaches classes in theology, apologetics, and weekly Bible studies.
