Tackling Tradition 77: Who Wrote Matthew?

In skeptical circles these days, it is not at all unusual to hear that the Gospels are anonymous works.  The implication is that the ascriptions are fabrications. If / When you run across this assertion, pay careful attention to the way it is often argued.   You’ll get a range of opinions, some of which argue against this Levi person being the author because nobody writes themselves into the story that way,  Others argue that the people who added the ascription “Kata Matthaion” were motivated by the need to render the text authoritative in light of competing claims of authenticity of any number of works, as if doing so means the traditional authorship is inaccurate,  Bart Ehrman has been known to assert that nobody writes in “Title according to author name” form.

1. Authors throughout history have written in 3rd person / 3rd person omniscient form.  The issue therefore isn’t whether or not an author would do such a thing.  The issue is whether or not Matthew’s author does such a thing.  Besides, it isn’t as if Luke doesn’t write himself into Luke-Acts using his own name. 

2. Just because someone may have added the “Kata Matthaion” ascription, it doesn’t therefore follow they had invidious or otherwise dismissal (by skeptics) reasons for doing so.  The issue is that there is no paper trail demonstrating that the 4 Gospels have ever been known by another name, nor that the ascriptions were added for iffy reasons if they were ever added at all.   That sort of thinking is 100 % conjecture on the part of skeptics  

3. Every book that Dr. Ehrman has ever written is titled “Title by Bart Ehrman,’” which means “Tie according to Bart Ehrman.”

The truth of the matter is that the text of Mathew’s Gospel gives us more than enough internal evidence for us to properly deduce the identity of its author. 

Matthew indicts the Sanhedrin.   Given the lengths to which the Sanhedrin would go to destroy their enemies, why would the author name himself the way Paul did? 

Paul names himself because the churches to whom his letters are addressed struggled with internal & external threats to Apostolic authority.   The Corinthian letters are written with the “superapostles” in mind.  Galatians targets Judaizers.   Philippians mentions peddlers of the gospel.  Jude writes in the face of false teachers.   

By way of contrast, Matthew indicts the Sanhedrin.   Given the lengths to which the Sanhedrin would go to destroy their enemies, why would the author name himself the way Paul did?   He’d be putting a target on his back. 

That said, he doesn’t write altogether anonymously for the same reason.   A truly anonymous text is just say-so.  Jewish audiences were accustomed to a measure of personal (rabbinical) authority behind the message.   

Ask yourself what you would do.   You don’t dare put your own personal name in it like Paul was doing because that invites the persecution of the Sanhedrin & their agents.  Acts is full of information about the more radical opponents of the Way, particularly those who persecuted Peter & John, who stoned Stephen, Saul prior to his conversion, & opposition to the Way in multiple cities along the Mediterranean Basin. 

On the other hand, you can’t write altogether anonymously to people who are accustomed to a measure of rabbinical authority behind the claims being made, especially claims that indict certain individuals in Jerusalem itself. 

Matthew avails himself of the tools at hand by writing himself into the story using Hebrew naming convention.  

• Matthew calls himself Levi. His name means “Joined.”

• Matt 22 - 24 is linked to Isaiah 22.  Just as Isaiah prophesied over the valley of vision, so Yeshua does Jerusalem.   Isaiah 22 also speaks of a holder of the key of David associated with a tomb.  That would be the lawyer in Mt. 22, Joseph of Arimathea.  

• Matthew means Gift of God. 

• Joseph means God will add.  

• Thaddeus means Gift of God.     

That’s more than enough to deduce the author of Matthew’s identity - a composite Matthew, Matthew (Levi), & either Thaddeus/Joseph individually or a composite Thaddeus.  Together they constitute “Matthew.”  These two are also joined together in Acts.  Matthew was chosen as keeper of the money bag.  Thaddeus (Judas, Justus, Joseph, Barsabbas) continued as a lawyer, teacher, prophet of/to the people.    

Skeptics might reply that the writers were Aramaic speaking peasants & the Greek in these works is more polished.   By way of reply, 

there is no evidence that the disciples were illiterate, uneducated Aramaic speaking peasants.  That’s just conjecture.  

Acts records the Sanhedrin accusing term of being uneducated, not illiterate.   What proves to be the case when accusations drop out of the mouths of Accusers of the Way in the NT? They prove false.   The fact that the Greek in  Mark is quite polished is proof that skeptics’ assumptions about the level on which the author was working is just that.   Besides, John Mark was an associate of Barnabas a Levite, an educated person.   Matthew & Thaddeus were educated men.   Luke was a physician, an educated man.  

The Bible was designed with regular people in mind.  We really don’t need a lot of literary theory to deduce who the author of Matthew is.  We just need to read & understand the text itself.   Once we do that, it becomes clear that the skeptics aren’t nearly as clever as they think they are. 

O LORD, Hear our prayer(s)!