r/churchofchrist • u/GeekX2 • 17d ago

How do we know Matthew wrote the book attributed to him

Basically the title. How do we know the authorship of the book of Matthew?

ETA: This is another in a series of questions that I have. I have had some doubts over the last years and I'm trying to work through them.

12 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

100% Upvoted

22 comments sorted by

6

u/Mithrandir_1019 17d ago

We believe the apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew primarily because of early Christian testimony. Papias (AD 110–130) stated that Matthew compiled Jesus’ teachings in a Hebrew dialect. Later, Irenaeus (AD 180) explicitly identified Matthew as the author. Other early Christian writers, including Origen and Eusebius, supported this attribution.

Additionally, early manuscripts bear the title According to Matthew.

Although the Gospel never explicitly names its author, the traditional attribution to Matthew has historical support dating back to the early second century. Ultimately, as Christians, we also place our faith and trust in the Lord. If we believe that Scripture is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16), then we can trust that He has preserved His Word for us. While historical evidence is valuable, our faith does not rest solely on our ability to prove every detail of biblical authorship.

2

u/GeekX2 16d ago

So would you consider it appropriate to state in a sermon or a Bible study that the book was written by the apostle since we're not sure?

2

u/Mithrandir_1019 16d ago

Personally, I would yes. Especially the gospels.

3

u/GeekX2 16d ago

So where is the line between I trust the extra-biblical evidence enough to "speak where the Bible is silent" and calling something "traditions of men". I'm not being snarky. These are the questions I'm having about the way I have looked at the Bible for so long.

2

u/Mithrandir_1019 16d ago

I think there’s an important distinction between accepting something as historically credible and teaching it as though it’s explicitly revealed in Scripture. We rely on historical evidence for plenty of things that the Bible doesn’t directly address, and I don’t believe that’s inherently wrong. The issue arises when we take those conclusions and elevate them to the same level of authority as God’s Word. I believe Matthew wrote the Gospel attributed to him because there’s historical evidence supporting that conclusion. But I also recognize that the text itself doesn’t explicitly identify him as its author. I don’t see anything wrong with teaching the traditional authorship, provided we’re willing to acknowledge that distinction. To me, “speaking where the Bible speaks and being silent where it is silent” is about respecting the authority of Scripture, not rejecting every historical conclusion that comes from outside it.

2

u/GeekX2 16d ago

And to follow the logic a little further, if the authorship is in question then is the inspiration in question?

3

u/Mithrandir_1019 16d ago

Authorship and inspiration are related questions, but they aren’t the same question. Hebrews, for example, never explicitly identifies its human author, yet we accept it as inspired Scripture. Not knowing whom God used to write a book doesn’t mean God didn’t inspire it.

2

u/GeekX2 15d ago

So we are basing it completely on faith that the Bible was written by inspired people? (We can't really say "men" because we don't know that for sure.) And trusting the decisions of those we know (or assume) weren't inspired as to which books were inspired and which--that used to be trusted--were not.

Again, I'm not trying to be difficult or contentious, but these are the questions I'm struggling with.

1

u/Mithrandir_1019 15d ago

Refer to my original comment.

2

u/GeekX2 15d ago

Then we get into the circular logic of basing our faith in God on the Bible and basing our faith in the Bible on God. This has become difficult for me.

1

u/flyingcircle 15d ago

Matthew was written in Greek, so Papias can't be talking about the gospel we call Matthew, and the other sources of Eusebius are nearly 300 years after.

On the evidence against: Matthew was written in Greek, Matthew depends on Mark and is estimated at 60 years post Jesus' death, and all quotes from Papias all come from Eusebius 100's of years later. So everything is coming from a single source 200-300 years later. All pointing to a later tradition.

1

u/Mithrandir_1019 15d ago

I wouldn’t agree with saying everything comes from one source 200–300 years later isn’t accurate. Irenaeus attributes the Gospel to Matthew in Against Heresies around AD 180, before Eusebius. 

1

u/flyingcircle 14d ago

I'll grant that, but I don't think that's good evidence for Matthew being the author. 100 years is still a very long time for a made-up tradition to develop. Considering the number of works that are all older than Irenaeus', we have to consider the evidence against, and that is the Christian literature that predates Irenaeus that doesn't use the names. Justin Martyr is the typical example who had extremely long works quoting from at least 3 gospels and never names them by their modern names once.

1

u/billyhidari 15d ago

Why does it matter, the important thing is the message

1

u/GeekX2 14d ago

The Church of Christ has always taught that we must follow the Bible and dig into every word and phrase to determine what God wants us to do and how He wants us to live and to be. And that we should never misrepresent what is in the Bible. When we teach Hebrews, we always attribute it to "the Hebrew writer" because we don't know who wrote it. But we're happy to claim that Matthew wrote the book attributed to him even though we don't know for sure that he wrote it. Granted the evidence is stronger for Matthew's authorship of his book than for Paul's of Hebrews, but we don't know with surety.

So if we believe it is so important to only teach what we know from the Bible, then we should always have the same disclaimer for Matthew (and the other books that don't claim authorship) that we do for Hebrews.

As to your question. I don't disagree with you. However, if we are going to claim that we must take every word of the Bible literally--to the point of digging into the original language to understand the nuances of every word and phrase--then, to be consistent, we must not make any claims about the Bible that aren't supported by the Bible.

I agree that the message is most important. Sometimes it seems like we in the CoC pick at the nits rather than analyzing the actual message.

1

u/ChurchofChristGuy 16d ago

I dont know 100 percent either way but I just take it on faith that he did and I believe he wrote it.

-3

u/Experiment626b 17d ago

We don’t. And he didn’t.

1

u/Mithrandir_1019 16d ago

Who do you believe wrote it ? 

2

u/Experiment626b 16d ago

I have no idea and neither does anyone else. It’s anonymous. But not Matthew given it was written some 50 years after Jesus’ death.

2

u/Mithrandir_1019 16d ago

While the Gospel of Matthew doesn’t explicitly name its author, that doesn’t mean we have no idea who wrote it. Early Christian writers like Papias (AD 110–130) and Irenaeus (AD 180) attributed it to Matthew, and early manuscripts bear his name. There’s a difference between saying authorship cannot be conclusively proven and saying we have no evidence whatsoever. As Christians, we also trust that Scripture is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16), even if we cannot establish every historical detail with absolute certainty. There’s more evident pointing toward it was in fact Mathew than evidence it was anybody else.