Jump to content

Gospel of Matthew

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.14.217.204 (talk) at 05:11, 11 October 2006 (→Detailed Contents: m). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Part of a series on
Books of the
New Testament
Papyrus 46, one of the oldest New Testament papyri, showing 2 Cor 11:33–12:9
Gospels and Acts
Four Evangelists
Lukan Acts
Epistles and Apocalypse
Pauline epistles
Catholic epistles
Apocalypse
Authorship
Related topics

The Gospel of Matthew (literally, "according to Matthew"; Greek, Κατά Μαθθαίον or Κατά Ματθαίον) is one of the four Gospel accounts of the New Testament. The Gospel accounts are traditionally printed with Matthew first, followed in order by Mark, Luke and John. It is traditionally ascribed to Matthew the Evangelist.

Overview

For convenience, the book can be divided into its four structurally distinct sections: Two introductory sections; the main section, which can be further broken into five sections, each with a narrative component followed by a long discourse of Jesus; and finally, the Passion and Resurrection section.

  1. Containing the genealogy, the birth, and the infancy of Jesus (1; 2).
  2. The discourses and actions of John the Baptist preparatory to Christ's public ministry (3; 4:11).
  3. The discourses and actions of Christ in Galilee (4:12–26:1).
    1. The Sermon on the Mount, concerning morality (Ch. 5–7)
    2. The Missionary Discourse, concerning the mission Jesus gave his disciples. (10–11:1)
    3. The Parable Discourse, stories that teach about the Kingdom of Heaven (13).
    4. The "Church Order" Discourse, concerning relationships among Christians (18–19:1).
    5. The Eschatological Discourse, also called the Olivet Discourse, concerning his Second Coming and the end of the age (24–26:1).
  4. The sufferings, death and Resurrection of Jesus, the Great Commission (28:16–20).

The one aim pervading the book is to show that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah—he "of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write"—and that in him the ancient prophecies had their fulfillment. This book is full of allusions to passages of the Old Testament which the book interprets as predicting and foreshadowing Jesus' life and mission. This Gospel contains no fewer than sixty-five references to the Old Testament, forty-three of these being direct verbal citations, thus greatly outnumbering those found in the other Gospels. The main feature of this Gospel may be expressed in the motto "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill" (5:17Template:Bibleverse with invalid book).

This Gospel sets forth a view of Jesus as Christ and portrays him as an heir to King David's throne.

The cast of thought and the forms of expression employed by the writer show that this Gospel was written by Jewish Christians of Judea.

Detailed Contents

The approximate contents of the Gospel, in order, are as follows:

Authorship

Although the document is internally anonymous, the authorship of this Gospel has been traditionally ascribed to St. Matthew, a tax collector who became an Apostle of Jesus. The surviving testimony of the church fathers is unanimous in this view, and the tradition had been accepted by Christians at least as early as the 2nd century up to modern times. In addition, the title "According to Matthew" is found in the earliest manuscripts.[1] Beginning in the 18th century, however, scholars have increasingly questioned that traditional view, and today the majority agree Matthew did not write the Gospel which bears his name.

The relationship of Matthew to the Gospels of Mark and Luke is an open question known as the synoptic problem. The three together are referred to as the Synoptic Gospels and have a great deal of overlap in sentence structure and word choice. Out of a total of 1,071 verses, Matthew has 387 in common with Mark and the Gospel of Luke, 130 with Mark alone, 184 with Luke alone; only 370 being unique to itself.

Although the author of Matthew wrote according to his own plans and aims and from his own point of view, most scholars believe he borrowed extensively from Mark, and possibly another source or sources as well. The most popular view in modern scholarship is the two-source hypothesis, which speculates that Matthew borrowed from both Mark and a hypothetical sayings collection, called Q (for the German Quelle, meaning "source"). A similar but less common view is the Farrer hypothesis, which theorizes that Matthew borrowed material only from Mark, and that Luke wrote last, using both earlier Synoptics. A minority of scholars subscribe to early Christian tradition, which asserts Matthean priority, with Mark borrowing from Matthew (see: Augustinian hypothesis and Griesbach hypothesis).

In The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (1924), Burnett Hillman Streeter argued that a third source, referred to as M and also hypothetical, lies behind the material in Matthew that has no parallel in Mark or Luke.[2] Through the remainder of the 20th century, there were various challenges and refinements of Streeter's hypothesis. For example, in his 1953 book The Gospel Before Mark, Pierson Parker posited an early version of Matthew (proto-Matthew) as the primary source of both Matthew and Mark, and the Q source used by Matthew.[3]

Critical biblical scholars, like Herman N. Ridderbos in his book Matthew, do not consider the apostle Matthew to be the author of this Gospel. He cites a number of reasons such as the text being in Greek, not Aramaic, the Gospel's heavy reliance on Mark, and the lack of characteristics usually attributed to an eyewitness account.[4] Francis Write Beare goes on to say "there are clear indications that it is a product of the second or third Christian generation. The traditional name of Matthew is retained in modern discussion only for convenience."[5]

Date of gospel

There is little in the gospel itself to indicate with clarity the date of its composition. Some conservative scholars, such as John Wenham and Norman Geisler, argue that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, probably between the years 60 and 65, in part because the Second Temple's destruction is believed to be prophesied by Jesus, while there is no reference to this event actually being fulfilled (Matt 24Template:Bibleverse with invalid book).[citation needed] Liberal scholars usually date the gospel between the years 80 and 100, in part because they believe the reference to the temple's impending destruction shows it actually was written after the fact. Most scholars agree that the writings of Ignatius reference, but do not quote, the Gospel of Matthew, suggesting the gospel was completed at the very latest by the turn of the 2nd century.

A minority of conservative Christian scholars argue for an even earlier date, as seen in the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia: "Catholic critics, in general, favor the years 40–45..."[6] In recent times, John Wenham, one of the biggest supporters of the Augustinian hypothesis, is considered to be among the more notable defenders of an early date for the Gospel of Matthew. He cites almost unanimous agreement by the Church Fathers in placing Matthew before Mark, in addition to internal evidence within the gospels. Furthermore, Carsten Peter Thiede in Eyewitness to Jesus argues for redating the Magdalen papyrus and the Gospel of Matthew to before the year 70. Another reason for an early view is the Jewish emphasis of Matthew which could point toward a time period before Gentile belief in Jesus became prominent. This would place it in the pre-destruction time period, possibly the 50s. [7] Scholars who defend a later date for the gospel cite multiple reasons for their view, such as the time required for the theological views to develop between Mark and Matthew (assuming Markan priority), references to historic figures and events circa 70, and a later social context.

Possible Aramaic gospel of Matthew

There are numerous testimonies, starting from Papias and Irenaeus, that Matthew originally wrote in Hebrew letters, which is thought to refer to Aramaic. The 16th-century Erasmus was the first to express doubts on the subject of an original Aramaic or Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew: "It does not seem probable to me that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, since no one testifies that he has seen any trace of such a volume." Here Erasmus distinguishes between a Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew letters and the partly lost Gospel of the Hebrews and Gospel of the Nazoraeans, from which patristic writers do quote, and which appear to have some relationship to Matthew, but are not identical to it. The Gospel of the Ebionites also has a close relationship to the Gospel of the Hebrews and Gospel of the Nazoraeans, and hence some connection to Matthew. The similarly named Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew has almost nothing to do with Matthew, however, and instead is a combination of two earlier infancy Gospels.

Most contemporary scholars, based on analysis of the Greek in the Gospel of Matthew and use of sources such as the Greek Gospel of Mark, conclude that the New Testament Book of Matthew was written originally in Greek and is not a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic.[8] If they are correct, then the Church Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Jerome possibly referred to a document or documents distinct from the present Gospel of Matthew. A smaller number of scholars believe the ancient writings that Matthew was originally in Aramaic, arguing for Aramaic primacy. These scholars normally consider the Peshitta and Old Syriac versions of the New Testament closest to the original autographs.

Biblical scholar Stephen L. Harris mentions that the claims of Matthew Levi being the author could actually be references to "an early Christian, perhaps named Matthew, who assembled a list of messianic prophecies in the Hebrew Bible, a collection that the creator of our present gospel may have used."[9] The Jesus narrative would then have been assembled around these Tanakh (Old Testament) verses.

Theology of canonical Matthew

According to R.T. France: "Matthew's gospel, more clearly than the others, presents the view of Jesus as himself the true Israel, and of those who have responded to his mission as the true remnant of the people of God . . . to be the true people of God is thus no longer a matter of nationality but of relationship to Jesus."[10]

Of note is the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven" (βασιλεια ουρανος) used so often in the gospel of Matthew, as opposed to the phrase "Kingdom of God" used in other synoptic gospels such as Luke. The phrase "Kingdom of Heaven" is used 32 times in 31 verses in the Gospel of Matthew. It is speculated that this indicates that this particular Gospel was written to a primarily Jewish audience, as many Jewish people of the time felt the name of God was too holy to be written. Matthew's abundance of Old Testament references also supports this theory.

The theme "Kingdom of Heaven" as discussed in Matthew seems to be at odds with what was a circulating Jewish expectation—that the Messiah would overthrow Roman rulership and establish a new reign as the new King of the Jews. Christian scholars, including N. T. Wright (The Challenge of Jesus) have long discussed the ways in which certain 1st-century Jews (including Zealots) misunderstood the sayings of Jesus—that while Jesus had been discussing a spiritual kingdom, certain Jews expected a physical kingdom.

The relationship between Jesus Christ and the "Kingdom" is also mentioned in the other gospels. Jesus had said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but My kingdom is not of this realm" (John 18:36 NASB).

Islamic view

Muslims refer to different parts of the Gospel with different views, some positive, some negative:

  • 12:38–40: These verses are regarded as unfulfilled prophecies, arguing that according to the Bible, he simply spent one day and two nights "in the heart of the earth".[11]
  • 21:43: "Another nation" is considered to refer to Arabs rather than the Jews.

See also

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Online translations of the Gospel of Matthew:


Other external links:

Related articles:

References

  1. ^ "Template:Polytonic" is found in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Nestle-Aland. Novum Testamentum Graece. 27th ed. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Druck: 1996, p. 1.
  2. ^ Streeter, Burnett H. The Four Gospels. A Study of Origins Treating the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship, & Dates. London: MacMillian and Co., Ltd., 1924.
  3. ^ Pierson Parker. The Gospel Before Mark. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953.
  4. ^ Ridderbos, Herman N. Matthew: Bible student's commentary. Zondervan, 1987. p. 7; from earlychristianwritings.com
  5. ^ Beare, Francis Write. The Gospel according to Matthew. p. 7; from earlychristianwritings.com
  6. ^ Gospel of St. Matthew. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume X. Copyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight.
  7. ^ NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985.
  8. ^ per Rev. Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, p. 210
  9. ^ Stephen L. Harris, Understanding the Bible. 6th ed. Boston/Toronto: McGraw Hill, 2003, p. 424
  10. ^ New Bible Commentary, Inter Varsity Press.
  11. ^ http://www.geocities.com/noorullahwebsite/shamoun-false.html
  • Deardorff, James W. The Problems of New Testament Gospel Origins (1992) ISBN 0-7734-9807-9
Preceded by
Malachi
(2 Maccabees in the Catholic Bible)
 Books of the Bible Succeeded by
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gospel_of_Matthew&oldid=80761264"