The Gospel of Matthew is one of the four canonical gospels, one of the three synoptic gospels, and the first book of the New Testament. The current scholarly consensus is that the Gospel of Matthew was composed in the period AD 80 to 90, that it was written in Koine Greek by a person that was not Matthew the Apostle, and that it was written some time after the Gospel of Mark. It was traditionally viewed as the first of the canonical Gospels to be written, and to have been initially composed in Aramaic or Hebrew.
Traditional views edit
Matthew as first Gospel edit
Augustine of Hippo proposed that Matthew was the first Gospel, and that the Gospel of Mark and then Gospel of Luke were written later.
Matthew the Apostle as writer of the Gospel of Matthew edit
Matthew the Apostle was traditionally viewed as the writer of the Gospel of Matthew
Composition of Matthew in Aramaic or Hebrew edit
Papias may have indicated that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic
Modern alternate views edit
Some modern scholars[who?] contest the current scholarly consensus. While not necessarily contesting that Mark was the first canonical written, they identify an Aramaic substrate to Matthew and the other Synoptic Gospels, amongst other contentions.
- Philippe Rolland is a major proponent of a Hebrew Matthew as a source document for both the Gospel of Mark and the canonical Gospel of Matthew. His work is not cited anywhere on Wikipedia that I know of, including the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis, probably because most of his publications are in French. Keep in mind that some editors who are resisting inclusion define the original autograph as a complete Gospel of Mathew in Hebrew that was later translated into Greek. Rolland is not saying that; the Hebrew Matthew he postulates would have been a primitive proto-gospel. Ignocrates (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- These modern views aren't alternate, they're mainstream. The alternate views are that there's a single Aramaic gospel behind all three synoptics (but not John), or that the gospels were composed from fragmentary texts and oral traditions. The first of these is the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis - for which we already have an article, and in which case, what's Aramaic New Testament doing? Looks like the same subject to me: "The hypothesis of an Aramaic original for the New Testament holds that the original text of the New Testament was not written in Greek, as held by the majority of scholars, but in the Aramaic language, which was the primary language of Jesus and his Twelve Apostles." PiCo (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- The Aramaic New Testament article is primarily about the Peshitta from the 5th century, which it largely duplicates. It should probably be expanded into an umbrella article which includes the Harclean version and the Philoxenian version as well as the Curetonian Gospels and the Syriac Sinaiticus. All of these versions are based on earlier Greek texts. However, they are not necessarily the same Greek text-types that survive today, and there are many unique individual readings that may come from the Diatessaron and even older harmonistic traditions. Ignocrates (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- These modern views aren't alternate, they're mainstream. The alternate views are that there's a single Aramaic gospel behind all three synoptics (but not John), or that the gospels were composed from fragmentary texts and oral traditions. The first of these is the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis - for which we already have an article, and in which case, what's Aramaic New Testament doing? Looks like the same subject to me: "The hypothesis of an Aramaic original for the New Testament holds that the original text of the New Testament was not written in Greek, as held by the majority of scholars, but in the Aramaic language, which was the primary language of Jesus and his Twelve Apostles." PiCo (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ignocrates is right to point to the way Rolland sees the HGH - there's no single HGH. The HGH springs from Papias's testimony, which simply doesn't make sense if you try to match it to the gospel of Matthew as it stands today - Papias talks about Matthew compiling "sayings", and the gospel of Matthew isn't a collection of sayings. HGH is actually a family of theories, all revolving round attempts to solve Papias. PiCo (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Btw, I just found out that I misspoke about Philippe Rolland. He is mentioned in a new article (Nov. 2013) on the Multi-source hypothesis. That conjecture has been missing for a long time. Ignocrates (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ignocrates is right to point to the way Rolland sees the HGH - there's no single HGH. The HGH springs from Papias's testimony, which simply doesn't make sense if you try to match it to the gospel of Matthew as it stands today - Papias talks about Matthew compiling "sayings", and the gospel of Matthew isn't a collection of sayings. HGH is actually a family of theories, all revolving round attempts to solve Papias. PiCo (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
@User:Shirt58, could you explain to me what you're trying to do with this page? If it's to draft a new article on "historical and alternative views on Matthew", I think that article already exists, as Hebrew Gospel hypothesis. I think also that that article could do with some work and could be turned into something quite useful, if rather arcane. PiCo (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)