![\"Marko](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/Marko-Marina-Author-Bart-Ehrman.png\" "\\"Marko")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Written by Marko Marina, Ph.D.<\/a><\/p>\n Author | \u00a0Historian<\/p>\n Author |\u00a0 Historian | \u00a0BE Contributor<\/p>\n Verified! \u00a0See our guidelines<\/a><\/p>\n Verified! \u00a0See our editorial guidelines<\/a><\/p>\n\nDate written: April 24th, 2025\n\nDate written: April 24th, 2025\n Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. – Dr. Bart D. Ehrman<\/p>\n Most readers assume that the Gospel of Matthew is the earliest of the four Gospels simply because it appears first in the New Testament<\/a>. However, this order reflects not chronology but status. The Gospel of Matthew gained immense popularity in the early Church due to its careful structure, extensive teaching content, andJewish-Christian orientation.<\/p>\n But behind its prestige lies a deeper mystery: Who was Matthew in the Bible? What can we, as historians, say about his life, identity, and the tradition that connects him to this foundational text?<\/p>\n In what follows, we\u2019ll explore Matthew in the Bible in two dimensions<\/strong>: As a figure who briefly appears in the New Testament narrative and as the name traditionally attached to one of Christianity\u2019s most influential texts.<\/p>\n We\u2019ll trace how the early Church came to associate the apostle with the Gospel, examine why modern scholars reject that attribution, and review what historical evidence (if any) exists for Matthew\u2019s life and death.<\/p>\n In the end, the story of Matthew (both the man and the Gospel) is as much about the shaping of cultural memory as it is about history.<\/p>\n However, before we embark on our pursuit to uncover the identity of Matthew, readers<\/strong> interested in the broader landscape of Gospel origins should check out Dr. Bart D. Ehrman\u2019s course<\/strong> The Unknown Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John<\/a>. In eight engaging 30-minute lessons, Dr. Ehrman explores how these foundational texts emerged, navigating the boundaries between history, myth, and tradition.<\/p>\n Matthew in the Bible is mentioned only a handful of times, yet his name has become one of the most recognizable in Christian tradition.<\/p>\n In the Gospel of Matthew<\/a> (9:9), he is introduced as a tax collector sitting at a toll booth<\/strong>, whom Jesus calls to follow him: \u201cAs Jesus was walking along, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth; and he said to him, \u2018Follow me.\u2019 And he got up and followed him.\u201d<\/p>\n Matthew is then listed among the twelve disciples in Matthew 10:3. Interestingly, the Gospel of Mark (2:14) and the Gospel of Luke (5:27-29) narrate the same calling story but refer to the tax collector as \u201cLevi,\u201d not Matthew. Both of these Gospels also include lists of the Twelve, and in those lists, the name Matthew appears, but without any mention of Levi.<\/p>\n This discrepancy has long puzzled scholars and sparked debates about whether Matthew and Levi were the same person, different individuals, or the result of redactional decisions made by later Gospel writers.<\/p>\n John P. Meier<\/a> favors the last option. He notes:<\/p>\n (Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!<\/em>)<\/p>\n Both the Marcann and the Lucan Gospels distinguish between Levi, a toll collector whom Jesus calls to be a disciple (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27), and Matthew, who appears in the lists of the Twelve, who has no description after his name, and about whom nothing else is known (Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15). It is the Matthean Gospel that creates a cross-reference and identification, first by changing Levi’s name to Matthew in the story of Jesus’ call of a toll collector (Matt 9:9) and then by adding to Matthew’s name in the list of the Twelve the description \u2018the toll collector\u2019 (Matt 10:3). Whatever reasons the First Evangelist may have had for his editorial alterations, the change of names is a redactional intervention<\/strong> of a Christian evangelist toward the end of the 1st century and tells us nothing about an original member of the Twelve named Matthew.<\/p>\n Despite the level of uncertainty that Meier affirms, the Matthew-Levi identification became largely accepted within Christian tradition, which brings us to our next question: How did St. Matthew become the evangelist?<\/p>\n The traditional attribution<\/a> of the first Gospel to Matthew the apostle arises not from the Gospel text itself but from early Christian writings, particularly those of the 2nd century.<\/p>\n One of the earliest (possible) references is found in the writings of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, whose statement is preserved by the 4th century historian Eusebius<\/a>. As Mark A. Powell explains in Introducing the New Testament<\/a>:<\/p>\n [Gospel’s] attribution to Matthew may owe in part to a mistaken or misunderstood<\/strong> comment from an early Christian leader. Around the middle of the second century, the church leader Papias said that Matthew the tax collector, one of Jesus\u2019 twelve disciples, \u2018collected the sayings in the Hebrew (or Aramaic) language and each one interpreted (or translated) them as he was able\u2019… Subsequent church leaders took this comment as an indication that Matthew the tax collector wrote the book that now bears his name; and indeed, this is probably what Papias meant.<\/p>\n Papias\u2019 comment was interpreted by later figures such as Irenaeus, writing toward the end of the 2nd century, as solid evidence that the apostle Matthew had composed the only of the four Gospels that mention \u201cMatthew\u201d as the tax collector.<\/p>\n In his work Against Heresies<\/a> (3.1.1), Irenaeus confidently stated that \u201cMatthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.\u201d<\/p>\n Such affirmations reflect an emerging tendency in the early Church to ascribe apostolic authorship to texts that held theological and liturgical authority within the community. The association between Matthew the apostle and the Gospel attributed to him would become foundational for centuries of Christian thought. However, that wouldn\u2019t last forever!<\/p>\n At the end of the 16th century, as Europe was shaken by profound social and religious transformations, the French philosopher Michel de Montaigne perceptively documented the rising tensions within society. Reflecting on the religious wars that tore through families and communities, he wrote<\/a>:<\/p>\n \u201cFor in times of civil war, your servant might belong to the faction you fear. When religion is used as a pretext, one can no longer trust even family ties, which cloak themselves in the appearance of justice.\u201d (my translation).<\/p>\n The centuries that followed (particularly the Enlightenment) saw the rise of secular approaches to religious texts. For the first time, Christian Scripture was subjected to historical and literary scrutiny, and long-standing assumptions, such as the apostolic authorship of the Gospel of Matthew, began to be questioned in earnest.<\/p>\n Today, most critical scholars reject the traditional theory<\/strong> that Matthew in the Bible \u2014 the tax collector \u2014 was the author of the Gospel that bears his name.<\/p>\n One of the most basic but essential observations is that the Gospel itself is anonymous. Nowhere does the text identify its author by name, not even in the passage that introduces Matthew as a character (Matt. 9:9). The narrative remains in the third person throughout.<\/p>\n A key turning point in modern scholarship came with the recognition that the Gospel of Matthew used the Gospel of Mark<\/a> as one of its primary sources. Through careful redactional and literary analysis, scholars such as A. M. Honore<\/a> and Robert H. Stein<\/a> have demonstrated that over 90% of Mark\u2019s content appears in the Gospel of Matthew, often with high levels of verbal agreement.<\/p>\n This raises a significant question: Could someone who personally followed Jesus rely so heavily on a text written by someone like Mark \u2014 who, according to tradition, wasn\u2019t an eyewitness? In other words, it seems improbable<\/strong> that an eyewitness would borrow so extensively from a second-hand source.<\/p>\n The tradition, as noted in the previous section, traces back to Papias, who stated that Matthew compiled the sayings of Jesus in the \u201cHebrew dialect.\u201d However, our current Gospel of Matthew wasn\u2019t written in Hebrew or Aramaic but in Greek.<\/p>\n Moreover, it\u2019s not a mere collection of sayings (like the hypothetical Q source might have been) but a fully developed narrative Gospel, complete with infancy stories, a structured passion account, and carefully arranged teaching blocks.<\/p>\n Did You Know?<\/strong><\/p>\n From Scrolls to Salerno: The Journey of Matthew\u2019s Bones<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n According to a popular medieval legend, the relics of St. Matthew <\/strong>were miraculously transported from Ethiopia to Salerno, Italy, in the 10th century. As the legend goes, they were secretly smuggled out of the East by a group of sailors and monks fleeing persecution.<\/em><\/p>\n Upon arriving in Salerno, the relics were solemnly enshrined in the newly constructed Cathedral of St. Matthew<\/strong>, which still bears his name today. The story became so influential that Salerno emerged as a major pilgrimage site in medieval Europe, and the city\u2019s identity became inseparably tied to the apostle. While contemporary historians reject its historical veracity, the cult of St. Matthew in Salerno is a fascinating example of how relics shaped local identities and religious devotion throughout the Middle Ages.<\/em><\/p>\n Additionally, the style and vocabulary indicate that the author was a highly literate Greek-speaking Christian with a deep understanding of Jewish scripture in its Greek form (the Septuagint).<\/p>\n This is difficult to reconcile with what we know (or rather, what little we know) about Matthew in the Bible.<\/p>\n He was a tel\u014dn\u0113s, a tax collector likely tasked with door-to-door revenue collection or toll booth duties in Roman Galilee. There is no historical basis to assume that such a person would have received the kind of literary education required to compose a sophisticated Greek narrative of this magnitude.<\/p>\n Dutch Reformed theologian Herman N. Ridderbos<\/a> summed up the arguments in the following way:<\/p>\n We can no longer accept the traditional view of Matthew’s authorship<\/strong>. At least two things forbid us to do so. First, the tradition maintains that Matthew authored an Aramaic writing, while the standpoint I have adopted does not allow us to regard our Greek text as a translation of an Aramaic original. Second, it is extremely doubtful that an eyewitness like the apostle Matthew would have made such extensive use of material as a comparison of the two Gospels indicates. Mark, after all, did not even belong to the circle of the apostles. Indeed, Matthew’s Gospel surpasses those of the other synoptic writers neither in vividness of presentation nor in detail, as we would expect in an eyewitness report, yet neither Mark nor Luke had been among those who had followed Jesus from the beginning of His public ministry.<\/p>\n While the traditional theory linking the apostle to the Gospel has been largely set aside, this doesn\u2019t mean we are left entirely in the dark. In the next section, we\u2019ll explore what can be said <\/strong>about the author of the Gospel of Matthew, not the tax collector mentioned in the Bible, but the anonymous writer who shaped one of Christianity\u2019s most influential texts.<\/p>\n FREE COURSE!<\/p>\n WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN<\/p>\n Raw, honest, and enlightening. Bart’s story of why he deconverted from the Christian faith.<\/p>\n __CONFIG_colors_palette__{“active_palette”:0,”config”:{“colors”:{“10c55”:{“name”:”Main Accent”,”parent”:-1}},”gradients”:[]},”palettes”:[{“name”:”Default”,”value”:{“colors”:{“10c55”:{“val”:”rgb(255, 133, 34)”}},”gradients”:[]},”original”:{“colors”:{“10c55”:{“val”:”rgb(19, 114, 211)”,”hsl”:{“h”:210,”s”:0.83,”l”:0.45,”a”:1}}},”gradients”:[]}}]}__CONFIG_colors_palette__ GET FREE ACCESS!<\/strong> <\/a><\/p>\n Over 6,000 enrolled!<\/em><\/p>\n The name \u201cMatthew\u201d became associated not only with one of Jesus\u2019 twelve disciples but also with one of the most influential Gospels in the New Testament. Yet, beyond his fleeting appearances in the biblical text, what do we truly know about him?<\/p>\n In what follows, we\u2019ll explore what can be known (or at least plausibly inferred) about the life and death of Matthew in the Bible, drawing on both biblical references and early Christian traditions.<\/p>\n When it comes to the birth of the author of the Gospel of Matthew, the historical record is silent. Unlike some key figures in early Christianity (such as Paul<\/a>, whose background is partially accessible through both his letters and Acts), there are no biographical details<\/strong> in the New Testament about where the author of Matthew was born or raised.<\/p>\n Later traditions attempted to fill in this void, locating his origins in places such as Capernaum or even Antioch, but these accounts are speculative and stem from much later centuries. As such, scholars today uniformly agree that there is no reliable historical data regarding the birthplace or early life of the person responsible for the Gospel of Matthew.<\/p>\n Regardless of the naming issue (Matthew-Levi?), the story of Matthew\u2019s acceptance of Jesus\u2019 call is very memorable: Matthew is a tax collector, a profession regarded with suspicion and even contempt in 1st century Jewish society. Yet, Jesus\u2019 call overrides social stigma<\/strong> and draws him into the circle of followers.<\/p>\n This raises an important question: Was Matthew merely a disciple<\/a>, or was he also an apostle? As John P. Meier explains in A Marginal Jew<\/a>, the category of \u201cdisciple\u201d in the Gospels refers broadly to those whom Jesus calls and who choose to follow him.<\/p>\n Meier outlines two basic conditions <\/strong>for becoming a disciple:<\/p>\n #1 \u2013 Jesus must take the initiative in calling the individual.#2 \u2013 The person must literally leave behind home and possessions to follow.<\/p>\n The category \u201capostle\u201d is more specific, referring to the twelve men chosen by Jesus to represent the twelve tribes of Israel and to participate in his mission symbolically and organizationally.<\/p>\n Matthew, listed among the Twelve in all three Synoptic Gospels (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15), is thus considered both a disciple and an apostle.<\/p>\n What can we say, then, about his cultural background and the broader contours of his life? Virtually all scholars agree that the Matthew who appears in the Bible was of Jewish origin. So was the author of the Gospel!<\/p>\n As William Davies and Dale Allison<\/a> emphasize in their commentary, the Gospel of Matthew displays a pervasive Jewish character: It\u2019s saturated with quotations from the Hebrew Bible, it shows a deep concern for the Law, and its theological motifs often emerge from debates within Jewish tradition.<\/p>\n R. T. France, in his book Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher<\/a>, likewise highlights the Gospel\u2019s profound engagement with Jewish identity and its tensions with emerging Christian self-understanding.<\/p>\n Though there are harsh criticisms of the Pharisees and Jewish leadership, these shouldn\u2019t be taken as evidence of Gentile authorship. Rather, they reflect the polemical tone of intra-Jewish disputes in the late 1st century.<\/p>\n As for the Gospel\u2019s place of composition, scholarly opinion has varied over time, but the most likely candidates are cities with vibrant Jewish-Christian communities<\/strong> in the Eastern Mediterranean. Antioch in Syria has long been favored due to its early Christian prominence and proximity to Judaism, though, as R. T. France notes, the evidence remains circumstantial.<\/p>\n When it comes to biblical clues about the death of the author of the Gospel of Matthew, historians find none. The New Testament offers no indication of how or where this individual died, nor does it provide any information about the later stages of his life.<\/p>\n Unlike figures such as Paul or Peter<\/a>, whose deaths are at least hinted at, the Gospel writer known as Matthew leaves no biographical trace beyond the text itself. As a result, we have no historical data<\/strong> concerning his fate.<\/p>\n However, later Christian tradition didn\u2019t remain content with this silence. Over the centuries, a number of legends emerged surrounding the death of St. Matthew. These legends, of course, (wrongly) assume that the apostle and the Gospel author were one and the same.<\/p>\n The most widespread version of the story appears in hagiographical texts such as the Acts of Matthew<\/a> and in later medieval compilations like the Golden Legend. According to these accounts, Matthew traveled to distant lands (often named as Ethiopia or Persia) to preach the Gospel.<\/p>\n In one popular version, he is said to have converted the daughter and wife of a local king, which enraged the ruler. As a result, Matthew was martyred while celebrating the Eucharist at the altar. Referring to this narrative, Hans-Josef Klauck<\/a> explains:<\/p>\n The apostle\u2019s martyrdom takes a long time. His hands and feet are nailed to the earth. First, paper soaked in oil, asphalt, and tar are poured over him, then glowing coals; but the fire cannot do him any harm. He breathes his last of his own free will, with a Hebrew prayer on his lips.<\/p>\n While these stories are rich in narrative detail and reflect the theological values of the communities that produced them, they aren\u2019t historically reliable<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Scholars agree that these legends were written many generations after Matthew’s time and contain numerous anachronisms, miraculous embellishments, and literary tropes common to other apostolic martyrdom stories.<\/p>\n The figure of Matthew in the Bible remains enigmatic. While he appears briefly in the Gospel narratives as a tax collector called to discipleship and listed among the Twelve, the historical trail quickly fades. The Gospel attributed to him, though central to Christian tradition, offers no internal claim to apostolic authorship.<\/p>\n Modern scholarship has shown that the Gospel\u2019s sophisticated literary structure, reliance on Greek sources like Mark, and theological depth all point to a highly educated, anonymous Jewish-Christian author writing in the latter part of the 1st century.<\/p>\n And yet, the memory of Matthew the apostle endured and evolved through tradition, legend, and liturgical devotion.<\/p>\n What we encounter in both text and tradition isn\u2019t a fully recoverable biography, but a layered figure shaped by tradition, legends, and the early Church\u2019s desire to root its foundational texts in apostolic witness. In the end, the historical Matthew didn\u2019t end up making history. The remembered Matthew did!<\/p>\n FREE COURSE!<\/p>\n WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN<\/p>\n Raw, honest, and enlightening. Bart’s story of why he deconverted from the Christian faith.<\/p>\n __CONFIG_colors_palette__{“active_palette”:0,”config”:{“colors”:{“10c55”:{“name”:”Main Accent”,”parent”:-1}},”gradients”:[]},”palettes”:[{“name”:”Default”,”value”:{“colors”:{“10c55”:{“val”:”rgb(255, 133, 34)”}},”gradients”:[]},”original”:{“colors”:{“10c55”:{“val”:”rgb(19, 114, 211)”,”hsl”:{“h”:210,”s”:0.83,”l”:0.45,”a”:1}}},”gradients”:[]}}]}__CONFIG_colors_palette__ GET FREE ACCESS!<\/strong> <\/a><\/p>\n Over 6,000 enrolled!<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Matthew in the Bible: Life, Death & Interesting Facts Written by Marko Marina, Ph.D. Author | \u00a0Historian Author |\u00a0 Historian | \u00a0BE Contributor Verified! \u00a0See our guidelines Verified! \u00a0See our editorial guidelines Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. – Dr. Bart […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":19680,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","tve_updated_post":" Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman<\/p><\/div> Most readers assume that the Gospel of Matthew is the earliest of the four Gospels simply because it appears first in the New Testament<\/a>. However, this order reflects not chronology but status. The Gospel of Matthew gained immense popularity in the early Church due to its careful structure, extensive teaching content, andJewish-Christian orientation. <\/p> But behind its prestige lies a deeper mystery: Who was Matthew in the Bible? What can we, as historians, say about his life, identity, and the tradition that connects him to this foundational text?<\/p> In what follows, we\u2019ll explore Matthew in the Bible in two dimensions<\/strong>: As a figure who briefly appears in the New Testament narrative and as the name traditionally attached to one of Christianity\u2019s most influential texts. <\/p> We\u2019ll trace how the early Church came to associate the apostle with the Gospel, examine why modern scholars reject that attribution, and review what historical evidence (if any) exists for Matthew\u2019s life and death.<\/p> In the end, the story of Matthew (both the man and the Gospel) is as much about the shaping of cultural memory as it is about history.<\/p> However, before we embark on our pursuit to uncover the identity of Matthew, readers<\/strong> interested in the broader landscape of Gospel origins should check out Dr. Bart D. Ehrman\u2019s course<\/strong> The Unknown Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John<\/a>. In eight engaging 30-minute lessons, Dr. Ehrman explores how these foundational texts emerged, navigating the boundaries between history, myth, and tradition.<\/p><\/div> Matthew in the Bible is mentioned only a handful of times, yet his name has become one of the most recognizable in Christian tradition. <\/p> In the Gospel of Matthew<\/a> (9:9), he is introduced as a tax collector sitting at a toll booth<\/strong>, whom Jesus calls to follow him: \u201cAs Jesus was walking along, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth; and he said to him, \u2018Follow me.\u2019 And he got up and followed him.\u201d<\/p> Matthew is then listed among the twelve disciples in Matthew 10:3. Interestingly, the Gospel of Mark (2:14) and the Gospel of Luke (5:27-29) narrate the same calling story but refer to the tax collector as \u201cLevi,\u201d not Matthew. Both of these Gospels also include lists of the Twelve, and in those lists, the name Matthew appears, but without any mention of Levi.<\/p> This discrepancy has long puzzled scholars and sparked debates about whether Matthew and Levi were the same person, different individuals, or the result of redactional decisions made by later Gospel writers.<\/p> John P. Meier<\/a> favors the last option. He notes:<\/p> (Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!<\/em>) <\/p><\/div> Both the Marcann and the Lucan Gospels distinguish between Levi, a toll collector whom Jesus calls to be a disciple (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27), and Matthew, who appears in the lists of the Twelve, who has no description after his name, and about whom nothing else is known (Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15). It is the Matthean Gospel that creates a cross-reference and identification, first by changing Levi's name to Matthew in the story of Jesus' call of a toll collector (Matt 9:9) and then by adding to Matthew's name in the list of the Twelve the description \u2018the toll collector\u2019 (Matt 10:3). Whatever reasons the First Evangelist may have had for his editorial alterations, the change of names is a redactional intervention<\/strong> of a Christian evangelist toward the end of the 1st century and tells us nothing about an original member of the Twelve named Matthew.<\/p><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div> Despite the level of uncertainty that Meier affirms, the Matthew-Levi identification became largely accepted within Christian tradition, which brings us to our next question: How did St. Matthew become the evangelist? <\/p> The traditional attribution<\/a> of the first Gospel to Matthew the apostle arises not from the Gospel text itself but from early Christian writings, particularly those of the 2nd century.<\/p> One of the earliest (possible) references is found in the writings of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, whose statement is preserved by the 4th century historian Eusebius<\/a>. As Mark A. Powell explains in Introducing the New Testament<\/a>: <\/p><\/div> [Gospel's] attribution to Matthew may owe in part to a mistaken or misunderstood<\/strong> comment from an early Christian leader. Around the middle of the second century, the church leader Papias said that Matthew the tax collector, one of Jesus\u2019 twelve disciples, \u2018collected the sayings in the Hebrew (or Aramaic) language and each one interpreted (or translated) them as he was able\u2019... Subsequent church leaders took this comment as an indication that Matthew the tax collector wrote the book that now bears his name; and indeed, this is probably what Papias meant.<\/p><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div> Papias\u2019 comment was interpreted by later figures such as Irenaeus, writing toward the end of the 2nd century, as solid evidence that the apostle Matthew had composed the only of the four Gospels that mention \u201cMatthew\u201d as the tax collector. <\/p> In his work Against Heresies<\/a> (3.1.1), Irenaeus confidently stated that \u201cMatthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.\u201d<\/p> Such affirmations reflect an emerging tendency in the early Church to ascribe apostolic authorship to texts that held theological and liturgical authority within the community. The association between Matthew the apostle and the Gospel attributed to him would become foundational for centuries of Christian thought. However, that wouldn\u2019t last forever!<\/p><\/div> At the end of the 16th century, as Europe was shaken by profound social and religious transformations, the French philosopher Michel de Montaigne perceptively documented the rising tensions within society. Reflecting on the religious wars that tore through families and communities, he wrote<\/a>:<\/p><\/div> \u201cFor in times of civil war, your servant might belong to the faction you fear. When religion is used as a pretext, one can no longer trust even family ties, which cloak themselves in the appearance of justice.\u201d (my translation).<\/p><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div> The centuries that followed (particularly the Enlightenment) saw the rise of secular approaches to religious texts. For the first time, Christian Scripture was subjected to historical and literary scrutiny, and long-standing assumptions, such as the apostolic authorship of the Gospel of Matthew, began to be questioned in earnest.<\/p> Today, most critical scholars reject the traditional theory<\/strong> that Matthew in the Bible \u2014 the tax collector \u2014 was the author of the Gospel that bears his name. <\/p> One of the most basic but essential observations is that the Gospel itself is anonymous. Nowhere does the text identify its author by name, not even in the passage that introduces Matthew as a character (Matt. 9:9). The narrative remains in the third person throughout.<\/p> A key turning point in modern scholarship came with the recognition that the Gospel of Matthew used the Gospel of Mark<\/a> as one of its primary sources. Through careful redactional and literary analysis, scholars such as A. M. Honore<\/a> and Robert H. Stein<\/a> have demonstrated that over 90% of Mark\u2019s content appears in the Gospel of Matthew, often with high levels of verbal agreement.<\/p> This raises a significant question: Could someone who personally followed Jesus rely so heavily on a text written by someone like Mark \u2014 who, according to tradition, wasn\u2019t an eyewitness? In other words, it seems improbable<\/strong> that an eyewitness would borrow so extensively from a second-hand source.<\/p> The tradition, as noted in the previous section, traces back to Papias, who stated that Matthew compiled the sayings of Jesus in the \u201cHebrew dialect.\u201d However, our current Gospel of Matthew wasn\u2019t written in Hebrew or Aramaic but in Greek.<\/p> Moreover, it\u2019s not a mere collection of sayings (like the hypothetical Q source might have been) but a fully developed narrative Gospel, complete with infancy stories, a structured passion account, and carefully arranged teaching blocks.<\/p><\/div>![\"Matthew](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/Matthew-in-the-Bible.png\" "\\"Matthew")
<\/p>\nWho Was Matthew in the Bible: A Brief Overview<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/quote-down.png\" "\\"quote")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/quote-up.png\" "\\"quote")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nMatthew in the Bible: Assessing the Traditional Theory<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nWho Was Matthew in the Bible?<\/h2>\n
Matthew in the Bible: Birth and Life<\/h3>\n
![\"Who](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/Who-was-Matthew-in-the-Bible_.png\" "\\"Who")
<\/p>\nHow Did Matthew Die?<\/h3>\n
<\/p>\nConclusion<\/h2>\n
\n\t__CONFIG_colors_palette__{\"active_palette\":0,\"config\":{\"colors\":{\"62516\":{\"name\":\"Main Accent\",\"parent\":-1}},\"gradients\":[]},\"palettes\":[{\"name\":\"Default Palette\",\"value\":{\"colors\":{\"62516\":{\"val\":\"var(--tcb-skin-color-0)\"}},\"gradients\":[]}}]}__CONFIG_colors_palette__<\/div>\n\t\n\t\tGospels<\/span><\/span>\n\t<\/a>\n<\/div><\/div>Matthew in the Bible: Life, Death & Interesting Facts<\/h2><\/div>
__CONFIG_post_symbol__{\"id\":\"17827\"}__CONFIG_post_symbol__<\/div><\/div><\/span><\/div>Who Was Matthew in the Bible: A Brief Overview<\/h2><\/div>
\t\n\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<\/div>\n\t<\/span><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n\t<\/span><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\t\n\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<\/div>\n\t<\/span><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n\t<\/span><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\tMatthew in the Bible: Assessing the Traditional Theory<\/h2><\/div>
\t\n\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<\/div>\n\t<\/span><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n\t<\/span><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\t\n\t<\/div>\n\t