Gospel of Matthew

Author and date According to church tradition originating with Papias of Hierapolis (), it was written by Matthew, the companion of Jesus, but the large majority view the gospel as an anonymous composition, as was common for bios; biographies by Plutarch and Suetonius were originally anonymous as well, though the "traditional authorship still has its defenders." It is possible that the gospel incorporates a lost prior source attributable to Matthew. Regardless, the gospel was attributed to Matthew very early, Most 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. Other scholars, such as N. T. Wright and John Wenham, hold there are problems with dating Matthew late in the first century, and argue that it was written in the 40s–50s 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 likely. Markus Bockmuehl finds this structure of lifetime memory in various early Christian traditions. Mark was the first gospel to be composed and was later used by Matthew. The author used Mark as a base, emphasizing Jesus's place in the Jewish tradition and including details not found in Mark. Luke and Matthew treat their sources more conservatively than other ancient historians like Diodorus Siculus, though the parallels and variations of the Synoptic gospels are typical of ancient historical biographies. 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. Matthew could have depended on Mark through oral tradition or used memorization rather than simply copying. 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. Matthew has 600 verses in common with Mark, which is a book of only 661 verses. There are approximately 220 verses shared by Matthew and Luke but not found in Mark. While the Two-source hypothesis considers this to be drawn from a hypothetical Q source, 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, and a unified M source is largely rejected by scholarship today. Michael Goulder argued that non-Markan material in Matthew were mostly authorial creations, but modern advocates of the Farrer hypothesis have abandoned this idea. The author also had the Greek scriptures at his disposal, both as book-scrolls (Greek translations of Isaiah, the Psalms etc.), "testimony collections", and the oral stories of his community. Many of the quotations of the scriptures in Matthew are more closely matched with the Masoretic, leading many scholars to believe that the author could understand Hebrew. Setting Most scholars view the gospel of Matthew as a work of the second generation of Christians, though it draws on the memory of the first generation of Jesus's disciples. For these early Christians the defining event was the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans in 70 AD in the course of the First Jewish–Roman War (66–73 AD); from this point on, what had begun with Jesus of Nazareth as a Jewish messianic movement became an increasingly gentile phenomenon which would evolve in time into a separate religion. The author appears to have written for a community of Greek-speaking Jewish Christians located probably in Syria; Antioch, the largest city in Roman Syria and the third largest city in the empire, is often proposed. Other scholars hold that the historical Jesus had already predicted that the Jerusalem Temple would be destroyed. The community to which Matthew belonged, like many 1st-century Christians, was still part of the larger Jewish community. The relationship of Matthew to this wider world of Judaism remains a subject of study and contention, the principal question being to what extent, if any, Matthew's community had cut itself off from its Jewish roots. It is evident from the gospel that there was conflict between Matthew's group and other Jewish groups, and it is generally agreed that the root of the conflict was the Matthew community's belief in Jesus as the Messiah and authoritative interpreter of the law, as one risen from the dead and uniquely endowed with divine authority. The divine nature of Jesus was a major issue for the Matthaean community, the crucial element separating the early Christians from their Jewish neighbors; while Mark begins with Jesus's baptism and temptations, Matthew goes back to Jesus's origins, showing him as the Son of God from his birth, the supposed fulfillment of messianic prophecies of the Old Testament. The title Son of David, used exclusively in relation to miracles, identifies Jesus as the healing and miracle-working Messiah sent to Israel alone; the reason for disregarding the gentiles and Samaritans is not due to prejudice but the immediate needs of God’s people: Israel. As Son of Man he will return to judge the world, an expectation which his disciples recognize but of which his enemies are unaware. As Son of God, God is revealing himself through his son, and Jesus proving his sonship through his obedience and example. Unlike Mark, Matthew never bothers to explain Jewish customs, since his intended audience was a Jewish one; unlike Luke, who traces Jesus's ancestry back to Adam, father of the human race, he traces it only to Abraham, father of the Jews. Writing from within a Jewish-Christian community growing increasingly distant from other Jews and becoming increasingly gentile in its membership and outlook, Matthew put down in his gospel his vision "of an assembly or church in which both Jew and Gentile would flourish together". ==Structure and content==