The Gospel according to Matthew, written between 80 – 110 AD, is nothing more than a reworking and tune-up of Mark.
See my post on Mark here.
Out of the 661 verses in Marks Gospel, Matthew uses a massive 607 or so (90%)[1]. Because we know Mark is a fabricated and anonymous account it follows therefore that Matthew is the same. The author of Matthew had no original independent sources and no eyewitness accounts. Matthew most certainly isn't a historical record of Jesus Christ.
Where Mark is trying to sell the new cult of Christianity to gentiles by moving away from the Torah observant brand, Matthew swings the pendulum back again by reinstating the Torah rituals (circumcision, dietary laws etc). He has Jesus insist that his followers remain or become practising Jews.[2]
Matthew attempts to fix some of the geographical, scripture and Jewish law mistakes found in Mark. However, some of these fixes end up making the story even more ridiculous. In Mark 11.1-10, Mark has Jesus send his disciples to fetch a young donkey which Jesus then rides triumphantly into Jerusalem. Matthew changes this story so that the disciples not only bring back the young donkey but also its’ mother (Mt 21.1-9). He then has Jesus riding both at once! Clearly an impossible feat. The reason Matthew does this to fulfil more exactly the scripture that Mark originally used for this story.
“Say to Daughter Zion,
‘See, your king comes to you,
Gentle and riding on a donkey,
And on a colt, the foal of a donkey,’” (Zech 9.9 – NIV)
Matthew obviously isn’t doing this rewrite because he has better historical information. He is doing it to make the connection with Zechariah more obvious and literal. As the American New Testament scholar, Marcus Borg says
‘[this] is an instance of prophecy historicized – that is, a passage from the Hebrew Bible regarded as prophecy is generating details in the gospel narrative’ that are then ‘reported as an event in the gospel’. He then goes on to say, ‘[this] is not only a characteristic of Matthew but also a factor shaping the development of the gospel tradition and the New Testament as a whole’[3]
Clearly, Matthew just makes up what he feels he needs to push his agenda.
A further example of how Matthew crafts his gospel with no regard for history is the use of a large chiastic superstructure (where ideas are presented in order and then reversed in an ‘A, B, C, C, B, A’ form) for his Gospel.
A. Genealogy (summary of past times 1.1-17)
B. Mary(1), an angel arrives and the birth of Jesus (1.18-25)
C. Gifts of wealth at birth (magi), attempt to thwart birth (Herod)(2.1-12)
D. Flight to Egypt, woe to the children, Jeremiah laments destruction of the first temple (2.13-21)
E. Judea avoided (2.22-23)
F. Baptism of Jesus (3.1-8.23)
G. Crossing the sea (twice) (8.24-11.1)
H. Johns ministry (11.2-19)
I. Rejection of Jesus (11.20-24)
J. Secrets revealed through Jesus (11.24-30)
K. Attack of Pharisees (12.1-13)
L. Pharisees determine to kill God’s Servant (12.14-21)
K. Condemnation of Pharisees (12.22-45)
J. Secrets revealed through Jesus (13.1-52)
I. Rejection of Jesus (13.53-58)
H. Johns death (14.1-12)
G. Crossing the sea (twice) (14.13-16.12)
F. Transfiguration of Jesus (16.13-18.35)
E. Judea entered (19.1-20.34)
D. March to Jerusalem, woe to the children (24.19), Jesus predicts destruction of the second temple (21.1-27:56 cf. 23-25)
C. Gift of wealth at death (Joseph of Arimathea), attempt to thwart resurrection (Sanhedrin and the guards) (27.57-66)
B. Mary (2), an angel arrives, and the resurrection of Jesus (28.1-15)
A. Commission (summary of future times) (28.16-20) [4]
Matthew also does the same thing with his crucifixion narrative, making it into an elegant chiastic structure.
We could assume that this is how events really happened but history is never this convenient. Matthew takes invented details from Mark, makes up some of his own and invents a totally fictitious narrative.
Matthew also makes up the Sermon on the Mount. This work has a brilliantly crafted triadic structure [5] and relies on the Greek Septuagint text of the Bible for its features and allusions. The Greek text of Deuteronomy and Leviticus are extensively used as are other Greek texts such as Isaiah 50.6-9 which Matthew has redacted to produce the turning of the other cheek narrative (Mt. 5.38-42)[6]. The Sermon also fits known rabbinical debates over how the Torah could be fulfilled after the destruction of the temple cult. A rabbi of the Maccabean period, Simeon the Just, declared three pillars upon which the world stands and that mattered the most when replacing the temple cult: the law, the cult and social or religious acts of benevolence. Matthew has the sermon address these three issues in precisely the same order to (so it seems) create a Christian interpretation of the three classical pillars. [7]
There are many examples of Matthew using literary-historical revisionism. One such example is where Matthew expands Jesus’ forty days in the wilderness mentioned as a two-liner in Mark (Mk. 1.12-13) (which also mirrors the forty years of temptation in the wilderness of Moses and the Jews) into a narrative where Jesus passes every test the Jews failed. According to Dale Allison:-
Israel was in the wilderness for forty years (Dt 8.2); Jesus is there for forty days (Mt. 4.2). Israel was tempted by hunger and fed upon manna (Ex. 16.2-8); the hungry Jesus (Mt. 4.2) is tempted to turn stones into bread (Mt. 4.3-4). Israel was tempted to put God to the test (Ex. 17.1-3); the same thing happens to Jesus (Mt. 4.6-7). And just as Israel was lured into idolatry (Ex. 32), so the devil confronts Jesus with the same temptation to worship something other than Israel’s God (Satan himself: Mt. 4.8-10)[8]
Matthew also makes Jesus more into Moses in this wilderness passage by having Jesus fast for forty days and nights (Mt. 4.2) just as Moses did on Mount Sinai (EX. 34.28). Again this is Matthew crafting a narrative to suit his agenda.
I am limited by space here but there is much more that could be said about the Gospel according to Matthew which shows that it is nothing but a fabricated, literary construct and is in no way historical.
In my next post I will discuss the Gospel according to Luke.
Sources
[1] David Fitzgerald. Jesus: Mything In Action, Vol 1, Chapter 7 – ‘The Gospel Truth’, ‘When Was Mark Written?’
[2] Richard Carrier ‘On the Historicity of Jesus – Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt’ – Chapter 10 – ‘The Evidence of the Gospels’ – Section 5 – The Mythology of Matthew.
[3] Marcus Borg, ‘Historical Study’ p. 135.
[4] Richard Carrier ‘On the Historicity of Jesus – Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt’ – Chapter 10 – ‘The Evidence of the Gospels’ – Section 5 – The Mythology of Matthew.
[5] The analysis of this structure is too involved to go into here but for those of you who may be interested see – Dale Allison, ‘Studies in Matthew’ PP. 173-216
[6] Dale Allison, ‘Studies in Matthew’ pp. 219-222
[7] Dale Allison, ‘Structure of the Sermon’, p. 443.
[8] Dale Allison ‘Q’s New Exodus’ pp. 395-96.
Images
Header image - The Gospel of Matthew
My Previous Posts
The Gospel according to Mark - Clever myth making
The Gospels are not eye-witness accounts
A challenge to all religious believers