The so-called scholars and activists in our time perpetrating the intuited idea of a "Q" sayings source, say that the alleged author(s) of Matthew, wasn’t Matthew the Apostle, that is, if his or their real name even was Matthew, and that this person, or persons, many years later (some like Trowbridge imply as much as 100 years later), actually borrowed from an early edition of the gospel of Mark. The typical hypothesis of the Critical school is there are possibly as many as three stages for this Gospel according to Mark, and that, if so, this would resolve their problem, although up until now there never was one, or even the 2nd century gnostic Gospel of Thomas, or else both later sets of redactors, that of the evolved traditions called “Matthew“, and those of the “Markan” Q-community, borrowed from an even earlier “common sayings source”! They intentionally fail to tell you that the Gospel According to Thomas, was always refuted by the early church. But do we need to replace the only actual historical evidence? If there is actual evidence Matthew was not Matthew and the Author where is there evidence (other than modern conjecture or consensus)?
I am going to present a historical line of evidence for Matthew in three parts and would invite others to produce the opposing view from an equal and adequate set of evidences or proofs. Which we can hopefully discuss…
The historic tradition of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church of India (not to be confused with Roman Catholicism), that has been diligently handed down, generation to generation, Bishop to Bishop, since the Apostle Thomas allegedly founded and developed this ancient rite (52-75 A.D) with no other book than a Gospel written in his own tongue! In confirmation, this is the very area the historian Heggisipus indicated that this Apostle went. It was here in India, where the once doubting Apostle was allegedly martyred for his faith in the risen Christ, whom he himself had seen raised up with his own eyes, and whose wounds he had handled with his very own hands. There also are recent indicators that Thaddeus and Bartholomew, may also have been there later also preaching from a Hebrew version of Matthew. It is truly a miracle that this most ancient church even survived after nearly 2000 years of unprecedented persecution and martyrdom at the hands of both zealous Hindus, and later by the Moslems!
This ancient church tells the story of their founding 2000 plus years ago, and declares that the Apostle Thomas came there to preach, having with him “the Gospel of Matthew which was written in his native tongue“ (Hebrew/Aramaic), just as western history has recorded that Matthew wrote it in. You see which gospel was never the issue, but rather which Apostle, yet this tradition indirectly demonstrates that the Gospel according to Matthew was in existence, and being preached from, far outside of Jerusalem, within 40 years following the death, burial, and resurrection of Y’shua/Jesus, and well before the end of the first century!
We can deduce from this if true that an obvious earlier copy, was in circulation elsewhere, and being preached from, from which Thomas derived his copy. There had to be an autograph copy, from which Thomas derived his own copy. Also please note that this would have been true while witnesses of these alleged events were still alive to refute them (if these events were in fact not true)! But if they were true, could the Roman appointee and sympathizer Ciaphas and his associates, falsely accuse the Apostles, while the witnessing generation was still alive? No of course they couldn’t, and history nowhere shows that they did. If they had done so falsely and if caught at such a plot, they themselves could have been jailed or even killed for false witness, and that would only validate the very movement they hated so passionately! History truly lacks any rebuttal.
We find another historical witness regarding Matthean authorship in the extant fragments of the writings of Papias (a student of John) from just before 100 A.D.! Papias tells us that “Matthew“, had composed in Aramaic, “the oracles of our Lord, which were translated into Greek by each man as he was able!“ If some John “Q” community was in competition against the Matthew “Q” community, as the Q-bots imply, then why on earth would the John community redactors allow such a witness to be supported by one of their own? But alas history lacks any witness ir evidence for such separate communities.
In Papias what we see is a second confirmation of the same history, from a different source, which again agrees with the tradition handed down in the church throughout the centuries. This testimony is significant, because again, it is a first century confirmation of the Apostle Matthew having written his gospel version, at an even earlier date.
Also note that historical recognition of Matthew’s Gospel is not the central subject of the work of Papias, as if he were trying to persuade others of an event which may or may not have happened yet (he has no axe to grind, as the intuited replacement myth would not be invented for nearly 2 millennia). If his alleged “Q” community was in competition with the Matthew “Q” community why give it credence. After all, Papias was of the John community. So now this gives us three historical supporters of Matthean authorship with no contention.
This testimony is simply a statement presented ‘matter-of-factly’ amidst a more general historical account! It is precisely these types of casual inferences outside of an extant text which confirm or negate many events of the ancient past! If it were any other subject matter this would be considered an excellent witness.
As regards the rules of evidences and proofs as upheld in modern Courts of Law, we have absolutely no reason to impeach the credibility of such an entirely unrelated dual witness. For if two apparently disconnected or unrelated testimonies confirm the same event or fact, that event or fact is considered to be true, unless otherwise proven to be false by an equally adequate set of evidences and proofs, and there just haven’t been any! If there has been then please by all means produce them.
This implies that Papias and the Apostle John, his teacher, mentor, and friend, bear witness to the same history as the Church of India founded by Thomas. Matthean authorship!
In His name
Paul
I am going to present a historical line of evidence for Matthew in three parts and would invite others to produce the opposing view from an equal and adequate set of evidences or proofs. Which we can hopefully discuss…
The historic tradition of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church of India (not to be confused with Roman Catholicism), that has been diligently handed down, generation to generation, Bishop to Bishop, since the Apostle Thomas allegedly founded and developed this ancient rite (52-75 A.D) with no other book than a Gospel written in his own tongue! In confirmation, this is the very area the historian Heggisipus indicated that this Apostle went. It was here in India, where the once doubting Apostle was allegedly martyred for his faith in the risen Christ, whom he himself had seen raised up with his own eyes, and whose wounds he had handled with his very own hands. There also are recent indicators that Thaddeus and Bartholomew, may also have been there later also preaching from a Hebrew version of Matthew. It is truly a miracle that this most ancient church even survived after nearly 2000 years of unprecedented persecution and martyrdom at the hands of both zealous Hindus, and later by the Moslems!
This ancient church tells the story of their founding 2000 plus years ago, and declares that the Apostle Thomas came there to preach, having with him “the Gospel of Matthew which was written in his native tongue“ (Hebrew/Aramaic), just as western history has recorded that Matthew wrote it in. You see which gospel was never the issue, but rather which Apostle, yet this tradition indirectly demonstrates that the Gospel according to Matthew was in existence, and being preached from, far outside of Jerusalem, within 40 years following the death, burial, and resurrection of Y’shua/Jesus, and well before the end of the first century!
We can deduce from this if true that an obvious earlier copy, was in circulation elsewhere, and being preached from, from which Thomas derived his copy. There had to be an autograph copy, from which Thomas derived his own copy. Also please note that this would have been true while witnesses of these alleged events were still alive to refute them (if these events were in fact not true)! But if they were true, could the Roman appointee and sympathizer Ciaphas and his associates, falsely accuse the Apostles, while the witnessing generation was still alive? No of course they couldn’t, and history nowhere shows that they did. If they had done so falsely and if caught at such a plot, they themselves could have been jailed or even killed for false witness, and that would only validate the very movement they hated so passionately! History truly lacks any rebuttal.
We find another historical witness regarding Matthean authorship in the extant fragments of the writings of Papias (a student of John) from just before 100 A.D.! Papias tells us that “Matthew“, had composed in Aramaic, “the oracles of our Lord, which were translated into Greek by each man as he was able!“ If some John “Q” community was in competition against the Matthew “Q” community, as the Q-bots imply, then why on earth would the John community redactors allow such a witness to be supported by one of their own? But alas history lacks any witness ir evidence for such separate communities.
In Papias what we see is a second confirmation of the same history, from a different source, which again agrees with the tradition handed down in the church throughout the centuries. This testimony is significant, because again, it is a first century confirmation of the Apostle Matthew having written his gospel version, at an even earlier date.
Also note that historical recognition of Matthew’s Gospel is not the central subject of the work of Papias, as if he were trying to persuade others of an event which may or may not have happened yet (he has no axe to grind, as the intuited replacement myth would not be invented for nearly 2 millennia). If his alleged “Q” community was in competition with the Matthew “Q” community why give it credence. After all, Papias was of the John community. So now this gives us three historical supporters of Matthean authorship with no contention.
This testimony is simply a statement presented ‘matter-of-factly’ amidst a more general historical account! It is precisely these types of casual inferences outside of an extant text which confirm or negate many events of the ancient past! If it were any other subject matter this would be considered an excellent witness.
As regards the rules of evidences and proofs as upheld in modern Courts of Law, we have absolutely no reason to impeach the credibility of such an entirely unrelated dual witness. For if two apparently disconnected or unrelated testimonies confirm the same event or fact, that event or fact is considered to be true, unless otherwise proven to be false by an equally adequate set of evidences and proofs, and there just haven’t been any! If there has been then please by all means produce them.
This implies that Papias and the Apostle John, his teacher, mentor, and friend, bear witness to the same history as the Church of India founded by Thomas. Matthean authorship!
In His name
Paul
