Matthew's Authorship In Light Of That Gospel's Early Prominence
Martin Hengel referred to the "unique success" of the gospel of Matthew (The Four Gospels And The One Gospel Of Jesus Christ [Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 2000], 71). He notes that the gospel "already established itself quickly and tenaciously in the church at the beginning of the second century" (71-72). He quotes the comments of another scholar:
"But as far as we can go back, Matthew is the most-used book, not merely in Jewish Christianity which was turning into the church, but also with the scriptural representatives of the Gentile church. The predilection for it made the use of the two others [the other two Synoptics] more difficult." (n. 296 on 255)
Clayton Jefford writes:
"[Matthew was] widely recognized among the numerous churches of the early second century...A careful reading of the Ignatian correspondence reveals that the bishop is very familiar with this particular gospel in comparison with remaining texts. Though he makes only rare reference to passages from the text of Matthew itself, he uses the work as the springboard for a variety of comments, thus to reveal a close familiarity with Matthean concerns and the ideas that are characteristic of the Matthean mindset. We can easily find a number of these usages....Ignatius makes use of phrases that appear to be unique to the text of Matthew...The potential parallels between Ignatius and the Gospel of Matthew would seem to be endless....it is clear that the Gospel of Matthew, both as a literary source and as a foundation for faith, gained an early status as the most widely known and utilized of our gospel texts through the churches of the early Christian world. The apostolic fathers attest to this fact on a wide scale. Connections to Matthew are evident in the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, throughout the letters of Ignatius, in 1-2 Clement, and in the Martyrdom of Polycarp. This suggests that the text of Matthew circulated quickly around the Mediterranean and gained an authoritative status quite readily among disparate churches in different locations." (The Apostolic Fathers And The New Testament [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006], 110, 140-143)
As I discuss in my previous posts linked above, the gospel of Matthew isn't just prominent in early Christian sources, but also among early non-Christians (a Jewish tradition attributed to the first century that responds to Matthew's gospel, the Gospel Of Thomas' response to Matthew, Celsus' use of Matthew more than any other gospel, etc.).
See, also, C.E. Hill's discussion of the early use of the gospels in his Who Chose The Gospels? (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010). He notes, for example, that Clement of Alexandria uses Matthew's gospel almost as much as he uses the other three gospels combined (71-72). Craig Keener refers to Matthew as "the favorite of the second-century church" (Acts, Vol. 1 [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2012], 390).
If the gospel attributed to Matthew was composed by and attributed to the apostle around the middle of the first century, about thirty years before another gospel was written by an apostle, then the later prominence of Matthew's gospel makes a lot of sense. It makes less sense if the gospel originated late in the first century, didn't come from the apostle, and circulated anonymously in its earliest years. If Matthew's gospel was composed by the apostle, was attributed to the apostle earlier than in the other scenario, was circulating longer, and had a longer period of time as the only gospel composed by an apostle, then the prominent reception of that gospel is more coherent.
No comments:
Post a Comment