Editing Gospel of Matthew (section)

==={{anchor|Authorship}}Author and date===
[[File:Papyrus BnF Suppl. gr. 1120 ii 3 (Gregory-Aland papyrus P4) - Gospel of Matthew's title, euangelion kata Maththaion.jpg|thumb|upright=1.3|Papyrus {{Papyrus link|4}}, fragment of a flyleaf with the title of the Gospel of Matthew, {{langx|grc|ευαγγελιον κ̣ατ̣α μαθ᾽θαιον|euangelion kata Maththaion|label=none}}. Dated to late 2nd or early 3rd century, it is the earliest manuscript title for Matthew.]]
The gospel is anonymous.{{sfn|Burkett|2002|p=174}} According to church tradition originating with [[Papias of Hierapolis]] ({{c.|60–130 AD}}),{{sfn|Keith|2016|p=92}} it was written by Matthew, the companion of Jesus, but this presents numerous problems,{{sfn|Duling|2010|pp=301–02}} and most scholars reject Matthean authorship of the final gospel, though it is possible that the gospel incorporates a prior source attributed to Matthew.<ref name="n3072"/><ref>{{Cite book |last=Koester |first=Helmut |title=Ancient Christian Gospels |publisher=ScM Press |year=1990 |isbn=978-0334024590 |pages=166–67}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Allison |first=Dale |title=The Gospels |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2010 |isbn=978-0199580255 |pages=27}}</ref> Most modern scholars hold that it was written in the last quarter of the first century by a male Jew who stood on the margin between traditional and nontraditional Jewish values and who was familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time.{{sfn|Davies|Allison|1988|p=128}}{{sfn|Duling|2010|p=302}}{{efn|1=This view is based on three arguments: (a) the setting reflects the final separation of Church and Synagogue, about 85 AD; (b) it reflects the capture of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 AD; (c) it uses Mark, usually dated around 70 AD, as a source. (See [https://books.google.com/books?id=0ruP6J_XPCEC&pg=PA18 R. T. France (2007), ''The Gospel of Matthew'', p. 18].) France himself is not convinced by the majority—see his Commentary, pp. 18–19. Allison adds that "Ignatius of Antioch, the Didache, and Papias—all from the first part of the second century—show knowledge of Matthew, which accordingly must have been composed before 100 CE. (See e.g. Ign., Smyrn. 1; Did. 8.2.)" See Dale Allison, "Matthew" in Muddiman and Barton's The Gospels (Oxford Bible Commentary), Oxford 2010, p.&nbsp;27.}} However, scholars such as [[N. T. Wright]]<ref>{{cite book |last1=Wright |first1=N. T. |last2=Bird |first2=Michael F. |title=The New Testament in its world: an introduction to the history, literature, and theology of the first Christians |date=2019 |publisher=SPCK; Zondervan Academic |location=London : Grand Rapids, Michigan |isbn=978-0310499329 |pages=582–584 |oclc=
1128988591}}</ref> and [[John Wenham]]<ref>{{Cite book |last=Wenham |first=John |author-link=John Wenham |title=Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem |publisher=Wipf and Stock Publishers |orig-date=1992 |isbn=9781725276659 |edition=Reprinted |date=2020 |pages=223–247 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qin4DwAAQBAJ}}</ref> hold there are problems with dating Matthew late in the first century, and argue that it was written in the 40s–50s AD.{{efn|Wenham holds that later dates are based on (a) a belief that the apocalyptic passages in the Synoptics refer to past events rather than future; and (b) a misreading of Irenaeus as claiming that Matthew wrote after Peter and Paul preached in Rome.}} Whether the Gospels were composed before or after 70 AD, according to Bas van Os, the lifetime of various eyewitnesses that includes Jesus's own family through the end of the [[First Century]] is very likely statistically.<ref>{{cite book |last= van Os |first= Bas |year= 2011 |title= Psychological Analyses and the Historical Jesus: New Ways to Explore Christian Origins |publisher= T&T Clark |pages= 57, 83 |isbn= 978-0567269515}}</ref> [[Markus Bockmuehl]] finds this structure of lifetime memory in various early Christian traditions.<ref>{{cite book |last= Bockmuehl |first= Markus |author-link= Markus Bockmuehl |year= 2006 |title= Seeing the Word: Refocusing New Testament Study |publisher= Baker Academic |pages= 178–184 |isbn= 978-0801027611}}</ref>

The majority of scholars believe that Mark was the [[Marcan priority|first gospel to be composed]] and that Matthew and Luke both drew upon it as a major source for their works.{{sfn|Turner|2008|pp=6–7}}{{sfn|Senior|1996|p=22}} The author did not simply copy Mark but used it as a base, emphasizing [[Jesus]]'s place in the Jewish tradition and including details not found in Mark.{{sfn|Harrington|1991|pp=5–6}} This does not necessarily show a linear approach of continual development and addition only, as some of what [[Paul the Apostle]] says is more similar to Matthew's details.<ref>{{cite journal |last= Hurtado |first= Larry |author-link= Larry Hurtado |year= 2013 |title= Interactive Diversity: A Proposed Model of Christian Origins |journal= The Journal of Theological Studies |volume= 64 |issue= 2 |pages= 445–462|doi= 10.1093/jts/flt063 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last= Ferda |first= Tucker |year= 2024 |title= Jesus and His Promised Second Coming: Jewish Eschatology and Christian Origins |publisher= Eerdmans|pages= 521–522 |isbn=9780802879905}}</ref> Writing in a polished Semitic "synagogue Greek", he drew on the [[Gospel of Mark]] as a source, and many scholars posit a hypothetical collection of sayings known as the [[Q source]] (material shared with [[Gospel of Luke|Luke]] but not with Mark) and hypothetical material unique to his own community, called the [[M source]] or "Special Matthew“ as well.{{sfn|Burkett|2002|p=175-176}} <ref name=":0" /> {{sfn|Duling|2010|p=306}} Matthew could have depended on Mark through oral tradition or used memorization rather than simply copying.<ref>{{cite book |last= Derico |first= Travis |year= 2018 |title= Oral Tradition and Synoptic Verbal Agreement: Evaluating the Empirical Evidence for Literary Dependence |publisher= Pickwick Publications, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers |pages= 368–369 |isbn= 978-1620320907}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last= Kirk |first= Alan |year= 2019 |title= Q in Matthew: Ancient Media, Memory, and Early Scribal Transmission of the Jesus Tradition |publisher= T&T Clark |pages= 148–183 |isbn=  978-0567686541}}</ref> Alan Kirk praises Matthew for his "scribal memory competence" and "his high esteem for and careful handling of both Mark and Q", which makes claims the latter two works are significantly different in terms of theology or historical reliability dubious.<ref>{{cite book |last= Kirk |first= Alan |year= 2019 |title= Q in Matthew: Ancient Media, Memory, and Early Scribal Transmission of the Jesus Tradition |publisher= T&T Clark |pages= 298–306 |isbn=  978-0567686541}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last= Rodriguez |first= Rafael |year= 2017 |title= Matthew as Performer, Tradent, Scribe |journal= Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus |volume= 15 |issue= 2–3 |page= 203 |doi= 10.1163/17455197-01502003}}</ref>

Matthew has 600 verses in common with Mark, which is a book of only 661 verses. There are approximately an additional 220 verses shared by Matthew and Luke but not found in Mark. The [[Two-source hypothesis]] considers this a second source, a hypothetical collection of sayings to which scholars give the name {{lang|de|Quelle}} ('source' in the German language), or the [[Q source]].{{sfn|McMahon|2008|p=57}} This view allows for a further body of tradition known as "Special Matthew", or the M source, meaning material unique to Matthew. This may represent a separate source, or it may come from the author's church, or he may have composed these verses himself.{{sfn|Senior|1996|p=22}} A growing number of scholars support alternative hypotheses, such as the [[Farrer hypothesis]] and the [[Matthean Posteriority hypothesis]], which argue for Luke's direct usage of Matthew and Matthew's dependence on Luke, respectively, and dispense with Q.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last=Runesson |first=Anders |title=Jesus, New Testament, Christian Origins |date=2021 |publisher=Eerdmans |isbn=9780802868923}}</ref><ref name="TSP2022">{{Cite book |title=The Synoptic Problem 2022: Proceedings of the Loyola University Conference |publisher=Peeters Pub and Booksellers |year=2023 |isbn=9789042950344}}</ref> The author also had the Greek scriptures at his disposal, both as book-scrolls (Greek translations of [[book of Isaiah|Isaiah]], the [[Psalms]] etc.) and in the form of "testimony collections" (collections of excerpts), and the oral stories of his community.{{sfn|Beaton|2005|p=116}} Many of the quotations of the scriptures in Matthew are more closely matched with the [[Masoretic]],{{sfn|Barber|2023|p=243}} leading many scholars to believe that the author could understand [[Hebrew]].<ref>{{cite journal |last= Ferda |first= Tucker |year= 2020 |title= Doubling Down: Zechariah's Oracle, Judah's Blessing, and the Triumphal Entry in Matthew |journal= The Journal of Theological Studies  |series=New Series |volume= 71 |issue= 2 |pages= 466–512 |doi= 10.1093/jts/flaa088}}</ref>