The following factors may be cited favoring Matthean authorship:

External evidence. The second-century writer Papias shares the following concerning Matthew:

Matthew made an arrangement of the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each translated them as he was able...

Great debate has attended this phrase in terms of what Papias meant by "oracles" (a collection of sayings? a full narrative Gospel?) and what he meant by "in the Hebrew language." Some say that this may refer to an early Aramaic version of Matthew, which may be the source equal to the mysterious Q document. This is corroborated by the testimony of Irenaeus, who says that Matthew published a gospel among the Hebrews while Peter and Paul were in Rome, and perhaps also by the existence of a Hebrew version of Matthew attested in the 14th century (see George Howard, The Gospel of Matthew According to a Primitive Hebrew Text). In any event, we have here direct testimony that Matthew authored a document. That it is to be considered in some sense equal with or related to our modern Matthew is indicated by the fact that Eusebius, who quotes Papias on this matter, is discussing issues related to the composition of the canonical Gospels. The question of how it might be related, we will discuss shortly.

Excursus: The Reliability of Papias. Now and then it has been objected that we have no reason to regard Papias as a reliable source. Of course for many critics, the mere fact that Papias was a Christian is enough to say that, but it would be their burden to explain why. In Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (24f), Richard Bauckham shows that Papias "deliberately uses the terminology of historiographic practice," and that his language matches that of other classical historians who explained how they did their own research. The steps Papias describes himself going through to compose his work were the same carefully-ordered steps recommended by the ancient historians, as found in Lucian's book instructing on the methods for writing history: Making careful inquiries; collecting eyewitness testimony; setting down the data in the form of notes, and then arranging them into a coherent presentation. His statement that he sought out living voices of testimony in preference to documents -- often misread as some sort of deficiency -- was the same preference as that of the ancient historian, who sought out "indirect autopsy" when direct witnessesing of the events by the historian himself was not possible.

Special touches peculiar to who Matthew was. In line with the criteria that we would expect the claimed author of a document to reflect the vocabulary and interest of that author, there are certain touches that point to the figure we know as Matthew. The story of the fish and the coin (see below) would have been of special interest to Matthew as a tax collector. Matthew also lays special emphasis on monetary amounts (18:21-35, 25:14-30), although not with what can be called an "insiders" knowledge ([CarMoo.Int, 72]; but see [Heib.Int, 60] - Matthew does use a technical monetary term in 22:15-22 where Mark [12:13-17] and Luke [20:20-6] in parallels use a common one).

Subtle self-identification. In the story about a publican called to follow Jesus, the publican is called "Levi" in Mark and Luke, but "Matthew" in Matthew; in the same vein, Mark and Luke refer to "his house" whereas Matthew refers to "THE house" [Stone.OSG, 19-20] as one would when writing of their own house in a third-person narrative context.

Internal evidence. If Matthew was a tax collector, and as suggested by his alternate name a Levite, the content of his Gospel fits with what his expected life experiences would be [see Sen.GM, 80-1; Alb.Mt, clxxvii]. A Levite like Matthew would normally be a Pharisee, and would receive training for Temple service. In line with this, Matthew shows signs of proper Jewish religious training: His "rich use" of OT quotes; his use of typology; his concern with Jewish issues. But because there would be room for only so many Levites at the Temple, someone like Matthew might be forced to seek employment elsewhere -- and if he found work as a tax collector, he would be rejected by his Pharasaic cohorts. (It has not been suggested, but I wonder if perhaps Matthew's choosing to feature controversies with the Pharisees might, in this light, reflect a personal interest rather than problems within his supposed "community" with the Pharisees; see below.) Matthew also shows through his writing that he is a Hellenized Jew: he has good Greek style, and would appear to be "at home" in the Roman world. Again, this fits right in with the idea of Matthew the tax collector as our seminal author.

Often cited against Matthean authorship:

Its dependence on Mark. This is cited by Kümmel [Kumm.Int, 120] and Ridderbos [Ridd.Mt, 7]. It is supposed that an eyewitness of Jesus' ministry such as Matthew would not borrow from a non-apostle like Mark. We may reply that:

Papias is perhaps referring to an early Aramiac edition of Matthew, or to some other early work of Matthew. The "shared material" in Matthew and Luke (assuming here, for the sake of argument only, the veracity of the two-source hypothesis) seems to point towards a sort of notebook put together by Matthew which was distributed among the apostles. (Indeed, two "editions" of Matthew, an initial Aramaic one and a subsequent Greek one [composed not as a translation but as a fully original document, incorporating material from Mark and reflecting Matthew's [a] recognition that the Hellenized Jews needed his message every bit as much as those in Israel, and [b] Matthew's jumping on the bandwagon of broadening the kingdom pioneered by Peter & Paul] would pretty much defuse the Synoptic Problem!) This would explain why Matthew is recognized as the first to write about Jesus, and yet Mark has what some would say is literary priority.

"Borrowing" was not problematic at all in the cultural milieu of the Gospels. It would be absurd to force post-Renaissance notions of authorship and intellectual property onto Ancient Near Eastern culture. "What to us would be disgraceful plagarism might to them an honorable and faithful preservation of tradition." [Wenh.RMML, 125] The apostles were concerned with spreading the message, not reaping royalties and glory from footnotes and attributions; and France adds this caution [Fran.MET, 74]:

...the notion that an apostle would regard himself as somehow a class apart from ordinary mortals shows just how far we have moved away from the value-scale which Jesus himself inculcated into Matthew and his colleagues!

Since the authority of Peter was behind Mark's Gospel, it would be a case of Matthew borrowing from Peter - not Mark. As part of the inner circle of apostles, Peter would have outranked Matthew -- and he would not be borrowing from Mark, thus solving the problem of borrowing from a non-apostle. [Moun.Mt, 2; Hag.Mt, lxxvi] We may also add here that Matthew may not have seen EVERYTHING! He certainly had to rely on someone else's record of the Transfiguration, since he was not there when it happened!

To this we might finally add that the objection assumes the Q/Markan priority hypothesis -- the correlation of events and order in these two Gospels would, within the social context, more likely point to a common oral tradition within the Apostolic circle! Albright and Mann [Alb.Mt, clxxxiv] add that there is an "inherent absurdity" in supposing that Jewish Christians "would have based the first Palestinian gospel on a recent arrival from Rome [Mark]." (For more on this, click here, our continuing series on the QM hypothesis.)

Continuing with objections:

The Greek language of Matthew. Kümmel (ibid.) also cites this against Matthean authorship. We note that:

Matthew, as a tax collector, would know Greek.

Even if he did not, this would not preclude the current Matthew, or some part of it, as being translated or taken from Matthew's original Aramaic. It is generally objected that the Greek in Matthew does not bear the marks of translation. [Ridd.Mt, 7] This is not necessarily relevant; Blomberg points out [Blom.Mt, 40] that "Jewish authors like Josephus, writing in Greek while at times translating Hebrew materials, often leave no linguistic clues to betray their Semitic sources." Even so, given Matthew's likely proficiency in Greek, and the methods of transcription used in his time, it is doubtful that he would have taken his Aramaic original and done a parallel Greek translation. We would suggest that Matthew instead did his Greek version "from scratch" as it were.

Matthew would have been too old at the time of the writing of his Gospel to be the author of it. Pritchard [Pritch.Lit, 66] observes that a tax collector would have been a mature person, so that Matthew would have been too old in AD 85 to write a Gospel. This, of course, assumes a late date for Matthew, which as we shall see is unwarranted; but even if not, the Greek version may have been issued later, and Matthew could have authored his Aramaic version sometime earlier.

The style in which Matthew writes. This one wins my Golden Duh award: Kümmel claims that Matthew could not have authored his Gospel because the style of the Gospel is "systematic and therefore not biographical." To this, I can only reply: "Huh?" Would we not EXPECT a tax collector to be systematic in his writing? [Heib.Int, 57] A more solid objection is that Matthew is not written in the vivid style of an eyewitness [Ridd.Mt, 7]; but again, a tax collector is NOT supposed to be a good writer, but a good organizer - and Matthew's Gospel is well-organized to serve as a teaching tool [Moun.Mt, 2]. (Note, again, that this falls right in line with the criteria of determining authorship that we outlined in our core essay.)

The evidence therefore favors Matthean authorship, or at the very least, production of this Gospel under direct Matthean authority and/or influence.

Critics prefer to date Matthew as late as 85-90. Arguments used for this are:

The alleged dependence on Mark. This is cited by many critics. Of course, this dependence is by no means rock-solid proven; but even if it were, it is dependent on a late date for Mark itself! Thus, if Mark is shown to be early, there is no reason to date Matthew late along with it. Moreover, Kümmel allows for Mark to be as early as 64; if that is so, why can we not suggest that Matthew planned, compiled, and wrote his Greek Gospel within the next 2-6 years following? Why should it have taken 20-30 years for Matthew to put his Greek Gospel together? (However, in regards to dependence, I think it plausible that original stories by Matthew were contained in the Aramaic document referred to by Papias, and that these were later combined with stories from, or also found in, Mark, when Matthew's Gospel was translated into Greek - a position also suggested by Streeter.) The classical scholar Kennedy [Walk.RAG, 151] supports this view: He understands Papias' comment that others translated Matthew's work "as they were able" to suggest that "Matthew's Gospel was known only in Aramaic for a considerable period of time" and that "there was considerable variation in the Greek versions of it that were read out in Christian assembles." In this situation, he argues, a well-known Greek text like Mark would be in a position to exercise literary influence on Matthew.

Knowledge of the war against Rome. Critics cite Matthew 21:41-5, 22:7, 24:15, and 27:25 as betraying knowledge of the Roman War, thus requiring a date after 70. Let's look at these verses:

21:33-45 is the parable of the wicked tenants:

Matt. 21:33-45 "Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit. "The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. Last of all, he sent his son to them. 'They will respect my son,' he said. "But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, 'This is the heir. Come, let's kill him and take his inheritance.' So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.

"Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?" "He will bring those wretches to a wretched end," they replied, "and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time." Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: "'The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone ; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes'? "Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed." When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus' parables, they knew he was talking about them.

There is nothing to the critical objections here except a) a denial of predictive prophecy; and, b) again, a lack of realization that predictions against Jerusalem were a dime a dozen, especially in the OT. Critics either assume the first or else are ignorant of (or ignore the implications of) the second. The bottom line, of course, is that in the first case the grounds of late-dating merely involves bias; whereas the second point renders any argument that any prediction of temple destruction must have been done "after the fact" moot.

Here is the context of the next verse:

Matthew 22:1-7 Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come. "Then he sent some more servants and said, 'Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.' "But they paid no attention and went off--one to his field, another to his business. The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.

The same may be said in reply as for the above. Further, this verse set merely describes "a fixed description of ancient expeditions of punishment" [Robin.RNT, 20], "the standard language of both the Old Testament and the Roman world describing punitive military expeditions against rebellious cities." ([CarMoo.Int, 77]; see also [Fran.MET, 84]) Thus there is no need to date Matthew after 70 AD because of 22:7.

24:15 is a parallel to a verse in Mark which we will discuss in our essay concerning that Gospel. On to the fourth verse cited by Kümmel , and its context:

Matthew 27:24-5 When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!" All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!"

Once again, I think Kümmel has fallen asleep at the wheel and is reading too much into the New Testament. (For more on this verse, see here.)

Theological and community developments appear late. Kümmel [Kumm.Int, 120] cites Matthew 18:15 and 28:19 as being late developments. Let's look at these:

Matt.18:15 If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.

Matt 28:19-20 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

I am frankly at a loss to see why these should be considered late developments. 18:15 is pretty much the same idea as Leviticus 19:17 -

Lev. 19:17 Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt.

- and as for 28:19-20:

• It reflects numerous verses in the OT regarding future blessings for the Gentiles, besides not being anything that Jesus would not have said if He truly were Lord.
• The idea that 28:19-20 suggests a fixed code for baptism [Moun.Mt, 3] and therefore indicates lateness sees rather too much structure in the verse, and in any event forgets that baptism was a process already in use by, among others, John the Baptist!
• Appeal to the concept of the Trinity as a late development must wrestle with Trinitarian-compatible concepts found earlier in Judaism and Paul's Trinitarian concepts in 1 Cor. 12:4-6 and 2 Cor. 13:14.
• The objection that if this verse had been known, then the Apostles would not have debated the legitimacy of the Gentile mission nor assigned it to two non-apostles like Barnabas and Paul, is patently ridiculous: The "legitimacy" of the Gentile mission was not debated, just its methods (i.e., do they need to follow the law?); and with the possible exception of Matthew, who (being a "white collar" worker) may have been unable to stand the rigors of travel, none of the Apostles would have been suited as well to a Gentile mission as Paul and Barnabas (especially Paul, who shows signs of having received a classical education).

References "to this day." In verses 27:8 and 28:15 (some also include 11:12), Matthew refers to things happening in 30 AD that are still as they are "to this day." Critics suggest that this means a late date, and even some traditionalists fall for this one. But how long can we wait before saying "to this day"? Would not 30 years (a 60 date for Matthew) be sufficient? Or 35 (a 65 date)? France, writing in 1989, asked if he could not refer to the building of the Berlin Wall and say that it was still standing "to this day"! [Fran.MET, 85]

Matthew reflects Judaism of the time after 70. This is supposedly because of:

• The Matthean emphasis on the Pharisees, as found in Matthew 23 [Perr.NTI, 171]. But the Saducees are mentioned 7 times in Matthew, which is as many times as in the rest of the NT documents together! They lost power after 70 AD, which means that Matthew's treatment of Judaism reflects a time BEFORE 70! [Robin.RNT, 104] (And, Matthew 23 in particular is written as though the Temple is still standing, which again points to a pre-70 date!) Beyond this, one might also ask how the critics know that this would constitute "excessive" reference to the Pharisees for a pre-70 document if they don't have a pre-70 document to make a comparison to!

  But as it happens, not all agree that what Matthew reflects a post-70 attitude. Some view the picture as one of being "embrolied in a sharp debate" but "still an interfamily conflict." Various rival Jewish groups referred to each other as corrupt and lawless, but remained together under the broad umbrella of Judaism [Sen.GM, 75-6] and certain passages in Matthew would only make sense if some of Matthew's readers still attended the synagogue (Matthew 10:17, 23:34). (Some point to Matthew's use of "their synagogue" as pointing to a break [4:23, 9:35, 10:17, etc.), but I would question whether this is always an "adversarial" their -- it may refer to provenance, as in Matt. 4:23: "And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues..." -- can this not mean simply the Galileeans' synagogues?)

  Similarly, some regard the general Jewish-Christian tension perceived in Matthew as evidence for a late date [Spiv.ANT, 94]; but there was plenty of Jewish-Christian tension in the time of Acts as well, and Jesus certainly caused the Pharisees and other groups some headaches! Tensions between the Jewish establishment and splinter groups (like the Qumranites) did not begin in the mid-first century; and Paul's own testimony of dissonance with the Christians as a Pharisee, and James' death at the hands of the Jewish establishment prior to 70 (as offered by Josephus), indicates that disagreements between the parties existed much earlier than 70 AD. Nor is there is any reason to suppose that Acts is anachronizing and that relations were fully peaceful between the Church and the Jews until after 70.

• The fact that Jesus is called "Teacher" supposedly indicates a post-70 date, for this parallels use in later Judaism; however, we have very little material from first-century rabbinic Judaism from which we can make such a determination. [Gund.Mt, 601]

A date earlier than 70 for Matthew are also favored by:

The special story of the fish and the coin (Mt. 17:24-7). This story would have been highly irrelevant once the Temple had been destroyed [Fran.EvJ, 121], and indeed, highly problematic, since after 70 the Temple tax went to support the pagan temple of Jupiter in Rome. Before 70, however, it would have been seen as a meaningful gesture of solidarity with the Jewish community. ([Wenh.RMML, 266-7] - It might be added that it is this story, and other stories unique to Matthew, that show the best forms of Greek ([Moul.BNT, 278], which may also indicate that their source was with the apostle.)

Other indications that the Temple is still standing. These are found in Matthew 5:23-4, 12:5-7, 23:16-22, and 26:60-1.

Our conclusion: the evidence demands that we recognize that in the Gospel of Matthew, we have "at least a significant deposit of Matthean tradition" [Keen.Mt, 40] -- perhaps edited by a later student of Matthew's, but I think, more likely, by Matthew himself. The evidence points to an original document of some sort in Aramaic, and to a later work (perhaps a translation, but more likely a work "from scratch" by a man competent in both Aramaic and Greek) which equates with our present Gospel of Matthew which may or may not have been influenced by Mark. Critics will have to show good reason why Matthew cannot be the author of this Gospel, and within the time of 30-70 AD; I do not think that they can -- unless they treat Matthew differently than all other ancient documents!