Matthew
Author: Matthew, son of Alphaeus
Papias: "Matthew composed his history in the Hebrew dialect, and everyone translated it as he was able" (Book 3, Chapter 39). (1)
* Some points of clarification about Eusebius of Caesarea are near bottom of page next to the asterisk!
Origen: "The first is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who having published it for the Jewish converts, wrote it in the Hebrew" (Book 6, Chapter 25). (2)
This quote from Origen was around 244 A.D.
Irenaeus: "Matthew, indeed, produced his gospel written among the Hebrews in their own dialect..." (Book 5, Chapter 8). (3)
This quote from Irenaeus was before 191 A.D.
Notice that Origen states that Matthew was the first gospel. Scholars who claim that Matthew, or some unknown person, copied part of Mark, are making that claim in spite of historical evidence. If you followed Jesus, and you decided to write a first hand account, why would you copy part of another person's eyewitness account? Always keep in mind that Matthew was an eyewitness, and was perfectly capable of writing the Scripture we still have!
Date: Around the 50's A.D. since Peter and Paul were still alive according to Irenaeus.
Language: Aramaic, most likely.
In the quotes from early historians given under the topic of the author of Matthew, they all said the language used by Matthew was Hebrew. However, once the Israelites came back from the exile in Babylon, the popular language was Aramaic rather than Hebrew. Yet for Gentiles, they often lumped the two together, just as many back then still referred to Israelites as Hebrews, rather than the more recent term of Jews. Yet most "modern" scholars think Greek was the language of the autographe, and concerning this dispute, see the reflection at the bottom of this page.
Place: Jerusalem is highly likely.
Eusebius: "Matthew also having first proclaimed the gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his writings" (Book 3, Chapter 24). (4)
Purpose: Just as the ancient historians refer to Matthew as a "gospel," Matthew was giving a history about Jesus the Messiah so that people would know the "good news," the translation of "gospel," about the offer by Jesus for eternal life. I think Matthew hopes that readers will do what he did, which was to follow Jesus.
What kind of book: A historical ancient biography of Jesus.
Reflection: Dr. Keener states, "... the same tradition also claims that the original Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew, which is not true of our First Gospel)." (5)
For someone like me who is use to advocating the accuracy of the New Testament Scriptures in the face of bitter opposition, even though we do not have any of the original manuscripts, it seems ironic I now have to emphasize we do not have any of the original New Testament manuscripts.
Here is a quote from an incredible book from a Professor of New Testament at Cincinnati Bible Seminary from 1938: "The earliest copies of the Gospels were doubtless made of papyrus. The immensely important find of a papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John which dates from the first part of the second century has already been discussed on page 106. The autograph copies doubtless perished in the early centuries, and there is slight chance that any of them will ever be recovered." (6)
I do add that we have oodles of manuscripts, unlike any of the classics I read in my "Humanities" classes in high school or at Virginia Tech. And there have been some exciting manuscript finds in the past one hundred years. But the only argument that some make to refute the ancient Christian historians is that the ancient Greek texts we have now do not look to them like a translation. This is no ground to make a claim with certainty.
Let me make an illustration. One major hero for me is Abraham Lincoln! Once in the basement of the CCU library, a book that gives a list and a description of the "best" books on Lincoln caught my eye, and I browsed through it. I add I do not agree with the person's list. Yet listen to what was said in the book about the two classic books written by Carl Sandburg about Abraham Lincoln: "There are two parts to Carl Sandburg's massive biography of Lincoln. The first part, Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years, came out in two volumes in 1926, and the second, Abraham Lincoln: The War Years, came out more than a decade later. The two works are so dissimilar, they could be from different authors." (7) Why are two book written by the same person do dissimilar? Some people are capable of writing in different manners and ways.
The same is true of translating. Because of different manners and ways, you cannot always identify a translation, especially if you do not have the original to make a comparison. I'll tell you what we do have. We have fantastic quotes from ancient Christian theologians who have preserved history. Obviously the accuracy of their statements is open to scrutiny just like any history. Yet the more Christians there are who affirm a certain point, considering I give credence to Christians, the more weight I advocate we should give to it.
I am learning more and more at CCU that a number of "modern" Biblical scholars are ignoring history.
Hunter Irvine
* Eusebius of Caesarea, also called Eusebius Pamphilus, was the first person to research and compose a major history of Christianity to that juncture. To spare you the story, from approximately June of 2006 to January of 2007, I read and studied most of Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius. His writing is rough! I now have a folded sheet of paper slipped between pages of the book with a note I wrote which states: "Eusebius was a crummy writer, yet a good researcher!" And I am not the sole person to express this opinion.
Since Eusebius is going to be cited so much in this personal New Testament overview, I want to make a few clarifications to start off.
First, I state my conviction that Eusebius was a genuine historian. He obviously spent much library time at the special ancient library there in Caesarea.
Second, I also state I do not agree with all of his doctrinal statements. To his credit, he shifted his view of one major Bible interpretation. Eusebius originally had a view which was more in line with Arius, though rather unique, as he expressed in the early part of his history book. Yet Eusebius ended up shifting to a view which fit with the majority of bishops in attendance at the Council of Nicaea.
(I add there was more than one bishop named Eusebius at the Council of Nicaea, so we must also sort that out; studying history is always a challenge.)
Third, I in no way concur with his adamant view that the reason for Jerusalem being ransacked in 70 A.D., a ransacking that involved many Jewish people being killed, was that many Jewish people had persecuted Jesus. I do not believe that God was in any way getting what could be classified as revenge. Rather, it was a consequence of the fact that many Jewish people did not enter the new covenant in that time period, which was necessary for the survival of Israel in the face of Roman domination and oppression.
When it comes to terrible generalizations which are made on this subject by Eusebius, Constantine, and others, keep in mind that a number of Jewish people did turn to Jesus! Most of the folks who were followers of Jesus at the conception of the "Church" were Jewish. And all of the authors of the Scriptures of the New Testament, our sacred writings, were Jewish, except for one.
(1) Eusebius, Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History: Complete and Unabridged, trans. C.F. Cruse (1955; repr., Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998), 106.
(2) Ibid., 215.
(3) Ibid., 164.
(4) Ibid., 89.
(5) Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1993), 43.
(6) R.C. Foster, An Introduction to the Life of Christ (Cincinnati: The Standard Publishing Company, 1938), 180-181.
(7) Michael Burkhimer, 100 Essential Lincoln Books (Nashville: Cumberland House Publishing, Inc., 2003), 48.