Matthew

The gospel of Matthew is an introduction to the life and teachings of Jesus. Matthew is a gospel presumably written in the 30s, published ca. CE 41, for Hebrew speaking Judeo-Christians by the apostle Matthew. The use of the phrase "kingdom of Heaven" rather than "kingdom of God" throughout Matthew's gospel is probably conclusive evidence that Matthew�s gospel originally had been written in Hebrew for Judeo- Christians in Judea.

The general placement the gospel of Matthew, both anciently and in present day editions of the New Testament, is as the first of the four gospels. The ancient order of the gospels was Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Origen preserved an early tradition that Matthew was written first, then Mark, then Luke, and finally John. Origen, as quoted by Eusebius, stated in his commentary on Matthew that:

As I have understood from tradition, respecting the four gospels, which are the only undisputed ones in the whole church of God throughout the world. The first is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who having published it for the Jewish converts, wrote it in the Hebrew. The second is according to Mark, who composed it, as Peter explained to him, whom he also acknowledges as his son in his general Epistle, saying, "The elect church in Babylon, salutes you, as also Mark my son." And the third, according to Luke, the gospel commended by Paul, which was written for the converts from the Gentiles, and last of all the gospel according to John. (Eusebius bk. 6 ch. 25, Boyle 1955:245-246.)

. These four works, forming a single section of the New Testament, were generally bound together in a codex form. According to Eusebius:

Matthew, also having first proclaimed the gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the want of his presence to them, by his writings. But after Mark and Luke had already published their gospels, they say, that John, who during all this time was proclaiming the gospel without writing, at length proceeded to write it on the following occasion. The three gospels previously written, having had been distributed among all, and also handed to him, they say that he admitted them, giving his testimony to their truth, but that there was only wanting in the narrative the account of the things done by Christ at the first of his deeds and at the commencement of the gospel. (Eusebius bk. 3 ch. 24, Boyle 1955:108.)

The early church fathers saw Matthew's gospel as the earliest of the four. Perhaps most contemporary scholars regard Mark's gospel as the earliest of the four with the gospels of Matthew and Luke dependant upon Mark. The testimony of the ancient church is contra. The traditions which have become known as Q may have been used by all three gospel writers but Q itself may never have actually existed except as a label for the fund of early oral tradition concerning Jesus.

Our Matthew, however, is not a translation. It is a work rewritten in Greek. Early Matthew (ca. CE 42) was a forerunner. It is plausible that the editing, that is its redaction, and approval of the gospel of Luke as Scripture, together with the gospel of Matthew, occurred some time prior to ca. CE 62 when Paul wrote I Timothy.

As the preferred language throughout the Hellenistic world, the koine Greek became the language in which to preserve the apostolic complement to the Hebrew Scriptures. This necessitated a rewriting, into koine Greek of Matthew�s gospel, which, according to the early church fathers, was originally written and circulated in Mishnaic Hebrew. Concerning Matthew, Papias held that: "Matthew composed his history in the [Mishnaic] Hebrew dialect, and everyone translated it as he was able." The Hebrew dialect cited here was Mishnaic Hebrew as spoken in Judea.

Irenaeus, as reported by Eusebius, wrote that Matthew "indeed produced his gospel written among the Hebrews [meaning the Jews] in their own dialect..." Eusebius tells of Pantaenus who is reported to have traveled as far as the Indies [India]. According to Eusebius:

...he there found his own arrival anticipated by some who there were acquainted with the gospel of Matthew, to whom Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached, and had left them the gospel of Matthew in the [Mishnaic] Hebrew, which was also preserved until this time [ca. CE 180]. (Eusebius bk. 5 ch. 10, Boyle 1955:190.)

When accomplished and by whom is not known, but the gospel text preserved as Matthew became the authorized Greek rendering. The Greek reads so well that some scholars conclude that Matthew�s gospel could not be a translation. Presumably Matthew either wrote in both languages avoiding the need for a translation or he later rewrote his Greek gospel based upon the earlier Mishnaic Hebrew draft. No copy of the Mishnaic Hebrew gospel has survived.

If Matthew�s gospel was originally written in Mishnaic Hebrew intended for non-Greek speaking Judeo-Christians, and Luke�s gospel for Greek-speaking Christians, whether of Jewish or Gentile descent, it would in part explain the confusion at Ephesus concerning the matters of the resurrection of the dead detailed in II Timothy 2:17-18. Presumably Hymenaeus and Philetus had confused the circumstances pertaining to the account of the resurrection of several persons to physical life following the resurrection of Jesus in CE 30. Not knowing the facts nor being well-grounded in the apostles� doctrine, and presumably wanting to be teachers, as others in Ephesus who "without understanding what they say or about what they are making their confident assertions" (I Timothy 1:7 MLV), had erroneously concluded that the general resurrection of the dead was already past. The confusion would have been far less likely, and possibly not at all, if Matthew 27:51-53 had been readily available to the church at Ephesus. The gospel of Luke doesn�t contain the details of Matthew 27:51-53.

There has been some scholarly concern whether or not the Greek version of Matthew is the same as the document recorded in Eusebius� quotation of Papias. The Greek of Matthew�s gospel is polished and consistent and does not read as a translation suggesting if Papias statement is reliable that the gospel in Greek was a rewriting. If so, the Greek version preserved in the New Testament is a professional translation. Many modern scholars believe that the Papias tradition is to be discounted.