WHO WROTE MATTHEW?

[joeLightening]

This topic is controversial, so maybe it belongs here in controversial Christian Theology. As the title suggest, I have been researching to find out if there is any proof that Matthew really wrote Matthew.

At this point the only way I could verify "who", would to have been an eye witness of who wrote it, have verifiable written statements from verifiable eyewitnesses., or God tell me who wrote it.

Some, if not many, claim that the internal evidence of this book proves that Matthew wrote it. What internal evidence? I read through Matthew today and did not find any internal evidence proving that Matthew wrote it.

Feel free to express your take on this and the reasons you believe as you do. THANKS!

 

[All Becomes New]

This is the problem with scholarship that is theologically liberal. They give virtually zero credence to what the history of the Church has to say about this topic. The same goes for the letters of Paul as the theologically liberal only accept 7 of his letters. I wish Evangelical scholars would push against this mindset more.

 

[HTacianas]

This topic is controversial, so maybe it belongs here in controversial Christian Theology. As the title suggest, I have been researching to find out if there is any proof that Matthew really wrote Matthew.

At this point the only way I could verify "who", would to have been an eye witness of who wrote it, have verifiable written statements from verifiable eyewitnesses., or God tell me who wrote it.

Some, if not many, claim that the internal evidence of this book proves that Matthew wrote it. What internal evidence? I read through Matthew today and did not find any internal evidence proving that Matthew wrote it.

Feel free to express your take on this and the reasons you believe as you do. THANKS!

No one knows who wrote Matthew. It is considered "the gospel according to Matthew" but it might well have been written by followers of Matthew himself.

 

[joeLightening]

No one knows who wrote Matthew. It is considered "the gospel according to Matthew" but it might well have been written by followers of Matthew himself.

I like your answer. It is honest and straight forward

 

[joeLightening]

This is the problem with scholarship that is theologically liberal. They give virtually zero credence to what the history of the Church has to say about this topic. The same goes for the letters of Paul as the theologically liberal only accept 7 of his letters. I wish Evangelical scholars would push against this mindset more.

Yes we should not be deceived by liberals. Even so, do we think Early Church leaders living 100 to 250 years after the fact, should be received as reliable witnesses? They had a reputation for Orthodoxy, but sometimes they were not correct. They could quote what someone else said about Matthew, but would we accept it?

 

[joeLightening]

Some have said that Matthew borrowed from the book of Mark. They say Mark learned from the Apostle Peter. The truth is that the 12 Apostles all saw what Jesus did and heard what Jesus said. The Holy Spirit brought this to their memories. They were not dependant on each other for what to write.

 

[PloverWing]

Some have said that Matthew borrowed from the book of Mark. They say Mark learned from the Apostle Peter. The truth is that the 12 Apostles all saw what Jesus did and heard what Jesus said. The Holy Spirit brought this to their memories. They were not dependant on each other for what to write.

Jesus was seen by more than just the Twelve; there were many followers of Jesus, any of whom could have contributed to the writings preserved by the early church.

The idea that Matthew borrowed from Mark comes from the extensive word-for-word agreement between the two books. A number of the stories aren't told by Matthew and Mark with two different wordings, the way you would expect from two separate eyewitnesses; rather, they're told in the exact same words. The idea of Matthew copying from Mark (instead of vice versa) comes because it would be odd for Mark to look at Matthew's gospel and decide the Sermon on the Mount (and similar sermons) weren't important enough to include; the other way has Matthew looking at Mark's gospel and thinking that it's good as far as it goes, but it should also have included some of Jesus' sermons, so Matthew adds them.

This doesn't have to affect your belief in inerrancy. None of the gospels names an author, so nothing is contradicted if the gospel of "Matthew" was written by a group of people, or by a person other than the apostle Matthew.

 

[joeLightening]

Yes there were others who followed Christ. At one time though it was a very small number. Christ, ask them, "Will you leave also?" BTW, I do not claim to know who wrote Matthew. I wrote about the Matthew/Mark comments because someone was trying to say that with Matthew borrowing from Mark, it was another proof that Matthew wrote Matthew. My point was that Matthew did not need Marks' writings. I do believe in the inerrancy of the original scriptures. Each writer had things to say and said it. Sometimes it may not entirely be conveyed in translation.

 

[Guojing]

This topic is controversial, so maybe it belongs here in controversial Christian Theology. As the title suggest, I have been researching to find out if there is any proof that Matthew really wrote Matthew.

At this point the only way I could verify "who", would to have been an eye witness of who wrote it, have verifiable written statements from verifiable eyewitnesses., or God tell me who wrote it.

Some, if not many, claim that the internal evidence of this book proves that Matthew wrote it. What internal evidence? I read through Matthew today and did not find any internal evidence proving that Matthew wrote it.

Feel free to express your take on this and the reasons you believe as you do. THANKS!

Interesting, if you think Matthew is not the author of that book, what do you think about the book of John then?

Isn't it clearer that the actual author of John was Lazarus?

 

[joeLightening]

Interesting, if you think Matthew is not the author of that book, what do you think about the book of John then?

Isn't it clearer that the actual author of John was Lazarus?

The internal evidence in John points to another source other than John himself. All the difference is with the 1st person or 3ard person. John is written in the 3rd person. We can safely say John did not write John. The teachings of John are expressed in the book. So we can say in that respect, John did author it.

 

[Guojing]

We can safely say John did not write John.

The teachings of John are expressed in the book. So we can say in that respect, John did author it.

Are you saying John did not write that gospel, but recited to someone to do so?

 

[joeLightening]

Are you saying John did not write that gospel, but recited to someone to do so?

Someone was familiar with Johns teachings and could have written John. There were lots of writings and John could be a compilation of those writings.

 

[Guojing]

Someone was familiar with Johns teachings and could have written John. There were lots of writings and John could be a compilation of those writings.

Would it be possible that it was actually Lazarus who wrote that gospel, and it has ZERO connection to the apostle John?

 

[Fervent]

The problem with internal evidence is it can only really be useful if there is a large body of known works to compare it against. None of the authors of the Biblical books left enough literature for much to be determined on it alone. That leaves us with the testimony of the early church being the best source for information, even if it is an imperfect one. The uniform attribution of the synoptics to their conventional authors speaks strongly in favor of it being Mark, Matthew, and Luke who wrote the gospels that bear their names, especially considering their main notoriety comes from their authorship and there is little reason such attribution would have been fabricated.

 

[ViaCrucis]

At the end of the day who authored the Gospels is far less important than what those Gospels say, and that it is these four Gospel texts which alone have been preserved, from as early as we can tell, by the Church of Jesus Christ.

These are faithful testimonies of the Gospel Story, the preserved witness received from the beginning of Jesus Christ: His life, His teachings, His passion, death, and resurrection. That is true, that is always true, no matter who put the ink to papyrus. It isn't the name attached to the text that makes it holy nor gospel; it is the true Jesus Christ who is written about that makes these holy and gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Guojing]

At the end of the day who authored the Gospels is far less important than what those Gospels say, and that it is these four Gospel texts which alone have been preserved, from as early as we can tell, by the Church of Jesus Christ.

These are faithful testimonies of the Gospel Story, the preserved witness received from the beginning of Jesus Christ: His life, His teachings, His passion, death, and resurrection. That is true, that is always true, no matter who put the ink to papyrus. It isn't the name attached to the text that makes it holy nor gospel; it is the true Jesus Christ who is written about that makes these holy and gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

It does matter to a certain extent.

How many Christians, thanks to Billy Graham, believe that John wrote John 3:16, and that John is teaching that all one need to do is to believe in Christ and he will get eternal life, no works required.

Then when we come across 1 John verses that actually say things like

1 John 2:28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming. 29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him

1 John 3:
6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

Its easy to get confused, "hey didn't John said that all one needs to do is to believe? Why suddenly he changed his tone and talk about works required for eternal life?"

But if John was not actually the author of John, everything becomes much clearer.

 

[FireDragon76]

It does matter to a certain extent.

How many Christians, thanks to Billy Graham, believe that John wrote John 3:16, and that John is teaching that all one need to do is to believe in Christ and he will get eternal life, no works required.

Then when we come across 1 John verses that actually say things like

1 John 2:28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming. 29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him

1 John 3:
6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

Its easy to get confused, "hey didn't John said that all one needs to do is to believe? Why suddenly he changed his tone and talk about works required for eternal life?"

But if John was not actually the author of John, everything becomes much clearer.

Or maybe your hermeneutical tools aren't up to the job. That doesn't mean necessarily we have to dismiss a book just because it doesn't have a simple message.

 

[Guojing]

Or maybe your hermeneutical tools aren't up to the job. That doesn't mean necessarily we have to dismiss a book just because it doesn't have a simple message.

I was not dismissing the book of John.

I am saying John never meant to teach us that "all one need to do is to believe in Christ and he will get eternal life, no works required."

 

[FireDragon76]

I was not dismissing the book of John.

I am saying John never meant to teach us that "all one need to do is to believe in Christ and he will get eternal life, no works required."

Or maybe your notion of what "belief" entails is incomplete or erroneous.

 

[Guojing]

Or maybe your notion of what "belief" entails is incomplete or erroneous.

Care to share your complete notion of what belief entails then?