The Value of the Gospel of Matthew and the Charge of Forgery

Over the centuries, countless readers of the New Testament have treasured the Gospel of Matthew for its vivid account of Jesus’ ministry. This Gospel highlights Jesus as the promised Messiah who fulfills scores of prophecies recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures, and it emphasizes “the kingdom of the heavens” (Matthew 4:17). However, some modern critics allege that this Gospel was not actually written by Matthew the tax collector who became one of the twelve apostles, raising the serious charge of forgery or false attribution. Before concluding that the attribution to Matthew is inauthentic, one must consider both the internal evidence contained within the Gospel itself and the extensive external testimony dating back to the earliest centuries of Christianity. Careful analysis reveals that traditional Christian belief about the authorship of Matthew is well-founded.

In the realm of contemporary biblical criticism, certain scholars challenge traditional attributions of many New Testament books. The argument holds that ancient writers sometimes composed works under prestigious names to gain wider acceptance. The agnostic scholar Bart D. Ehrman claims that numerous New Testament writings are pseudepigraphical. He uses the term “forgery” to describe early Christian compositions that do not name an author but were eventually ascribed to apostolic figures. He charges that the Gospel of Matthew might be an example of a book later assigned to a well-known apostle. Such an argument implies that the Gospel’s claim to eyewitness authority rests on shaky ground, calling into question the reliability of its content.

Yet contrary to that perspective, careful historians, textual experts, and Christian teachers from ancient times have uniformly testified that Matthew truly wrote this Gospel. The thorough scrutiny of manuscript evidence and patristic citations indicates that Matthew’s authorship was never a late invention but was commonly accepted among Christians who lived closest to the time of the apostles. Moreover, a fair reading of the Gospel of Matthew itself provides strong internal clues that the writer was indeed someone intimately familiar with the details of Jesus’ ministry. Examining both sets of evidence shows that the notion of a spurious authorship for Matthew is unwarranted.

Ancient Preparations for the Messiah’s Arrival

Before exploring the authorship of Matthew’s Gospel, it is worthwhile to recall the historical and spiritual setting into which the Messiah arrived. From the moment humankind fell into sin in Eden, Jehovah set in motion a promise that the Seed of the woman would undo the damages caused by rebellion (Genesis 3:15). Many centuries passed, during which the inspired Hebrew writers elaborated upon this promise. Prophets like Isaiah, Micah, and Zechariah provided details about the coming one who would not only vindicate Jehovah’s name but also bring blessings of deliverance from sin and death. By the close of the Hebrew Scriptures, Jewish anticipation of the Messiah’s coming was intense.

During that same period, world affairs were shaped in such a way as to facilitate the rapid spread of messianic news. The fifth world power, Greece, had provided a common language, Koine Greek, which enabled people across diverse regions to communicate easily. Rome, the sixth world power, established roads and administrative structures that unified a vast empire. Many Jews, longing for the Messiah, were scattered across these territories, further preparing the way for the news that the Seed had appeared. When Jesus embarked on his ministry, the political and cultural environment was uniquely suited for the proclamation of his role as the Messiah. It was in this context that four inspired Gospel writers—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—produced accounts describing the events surrounding Jesus’ life, ministry, sacrificial death, and resurrection.

The Gospel Writers’ Unique Perspectives

Although often treated together, the four Gospels each have distinctive qualities and objectives. The Synoptic Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—cover many of the same incidents, while John’s account differs in style and structure. Nonetheless, each one contributes an authentic portrait of Jesus. From their earliest circulation among Christian congregations, these Gospels were recognized as distinct works, not as derivative copies of one another. The Holy Spirit guided each evangelist to emphasize certain teachings or events, shaped by his background and his intended audience.

Matthew focuses on Jesus as the King of the “kingdom of the heavens.” Repeatedly using the term “kingdom,” Matthew underscores that Jesus is the Messianic ruler fulfilling God’s promises to Israel. Luke places emphasis on Jesus’ humanity and compassion, while Mark highlights action, presenting Jesus as a man of mighty works. John accentuates Jesus’ role as the Son of God, existing in a unique intimacy with the Father. Such unity in diversity attests to the authenticity of the Gospel record. Indeed, no single editor of antiquity could have manufactured these subtle harmonies. Rather, four interlocking portrayals of Christ emerged, each complementing the others, providing a well-rounded account.

The Apostle Matthew: Tax Collector Turned Disciple

Matthew’s name is likely a shortened form of the Hebrew “Mattithiah,” meaning “Gift of Jehovah.” Before his conversion, he served as a tax collector in Roman-occupied Palestine (Matthew 9:9). Jewish people generally despised tax collectors because these officials cooperated with pagan authorities and collected taxes that symbolized Jewish subjugation. Yet, when Jesus passed by Matthew’s booth, he extended the invitation, “Follow me,” and Matthew responded immediately. He later hosted Jesus in his home, inviting many acquaintances to share a meal and meet the teacher who had transformed his life (Matthew 9:10–11; Mark 2:14–15; Luke 5:27–29).

In becoming a disciple, Matthew took on the most demanding commitment—he traveled extensively with Jesus, listened to his preaching, witnessed miracles firsthand, and received personal training from the Son of God. Moreover, Jesus appointed Matthew to be one of the twelve apostles, placing him in a position of extraordinary responsibility to preach the Kingdom (Matthew 10:1–4). Having observed Jesus’ actions daily, the apostle Matthew was exceedingly qualified to write a coherent, eyewitness account of the Master’s life and teachings. Throughout his ministry, Matthew learned to view the promises of the Hebrew Scriptures as finding their fulfillment in Jesus.

The Literary Evidence Within the Gospel of Matthew

It is notable that Matthew’s Gospel does not include an explicit statement at the beginning that says, “I, Matthew, wrote this.” Nonetheless, there are unmistakable internal markers. One is the repeated focus on financial matters or mention of monetary terms, consistent with the vocational background of a former tax collector (Matthew 17:24–27; Matthew 18:23–34; Matthew 27:3–10). Another clue is the genealogical introduction, tracing Jesus’ lineage from Abraham down through the royal line of David (Matthew 1:1–17). This perspective resonates with a Jewish readership who would desire to see how the Messiah was connected to the patriarchs.

Matthew’s familiarity with Jewish customs and the Hebrew Scriptures is evident. The text frequently cites prophecies, then shows how Jesus fulfilled them (Matthew 1:22–23; Matthew 2:14–15; Matthew 4:13–16). Such usage would resonate powerfully with an audience steeped in synagogue teachings. Matthew also highlights Jesus’ condemnation of misplaced reliance on external ritual and underscores the depth of God’s mercy. Illustrations that underscore mercy, such as the parable of the unmerciful slave (Matthew 18:23–35), convey special meaning in light of Matthew’s background. As a tax collector, Matthew had known firsthand what it was like to be despised by many. Thus, the repeated emphasis on compassion rather than sacrifice aligns with the perspective of a man who had personally experienced the power of Christ’s undeserved kindness (Matthew 9:9–13; Matthew 12:7).

In addition, Matthew carefully organizes large discourses of Jesus. This structural tendency could reflect his aptitude in recordkeeping, honed during his earlier professional life. Some of Jesus’ longest recorded sermons and parables appear in Matthew, including the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7), the Kingdom illustrations (Matthew 13), and the prophetic discourse on the conclusion of the system of things (Matthew 24–25). These segments show a coherent sense of arrangement that might well come from someone accustomed to methodically cataloging information.

Testimony from Early Christian Writers

More extensive than any other ancient Gospel, Matthew is buttressed by a strong stream of patristic evidence linking the book to the apostle Matthew. Papias of Hierapolis, writing in the early second century C.E., explained that Matthew “composed the sayings [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language,” and other believers interpreted them. Second-century Christian authors, such as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and Hegesippus, directly or indirectly acknowledged Matthew’s authorship. Although some references are fragmentary, they convey the widespread conviction that Matthew penned this account. No early writer raises a rival tradition that someone else wrote it.

A key voice from the third century C.E. is Origen, who affirmed that “the first [Gospel] was written according to Matthew.” Eusebius of Caesarea cited Origen’s statement as a recognized tradition in the churches. Later, Jerome, active in the late fourth and early fifth centuries, echoed that Matthew first wrote in Hebrew for the Jewish Christians. He even claimed that the Hebrew text was still maintained in a library in Caesarea in his day. While textual historians debate certain aspects of whether a single Hebrew or Aramaic original underlies the Greek text, the consistent theme remains: the church from its earliest period treated Matthew as the author. This broad consensus, continuing across varied geographical regions, strongly argues against the notion of a forged attribution invented centuries later.

Addressing Claims of a Fictitious Attribution

Some critics allege that the naming of Matthew as the author might be a spurious device to lend the Gospel an apostolic aura. Yet ancient historians did not shrug off forgery as harmless. Even classical pagan writers denounced the forging of documents under false names as reprehensible. If a pseudo-author had tried to pass off this writing as that of the apostle, one might expect other early commentators to voice doubts, especially in a religious environment so concerned with doctrinal purity. Instead, the earliest voices consistently link the Gospel to Matthew, with no evidence of debate or controversy regarding its authorship.

Bart Ehrman’s stance that numerous New Testament writings are forgeries has been countered by scholars emphasizing that the earliest Christians recognized genuine apostolic tradition and systematically rejected false texts. Many writings from the second and third centuries, such as the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Peter, were set aside precisely because they were viewed as spurious. In the case of the canonical Gospel of Matthew, the continuous chain of attestation stands in stark contrast to the ephemeral status of apocryphal works. The uniform acceptance of Matthew as part of the biblical canon from the earliest epochs underscores its authenticity and the trust placed in its apostolic foundation.

Date and Context of Writing

A related question concerns the date Matthew composed this Gospel. Some suggest a date even as early as 40 C.E., though many place it slightly later, around the 50s C.E. or early 60s C.E. The claim that the text was produced after 70 C.E. cannot be harmonized with internal references where Matthew describes the destruction of the Temple as a future event (Matthew 24:1–2). Furthermore, at Matthew 24:15, the reference to “the holy place” as still standing suggests that Jerusalem had not yet been razed. The mention of “to this day” regarding certain events, such as the field purchased with the betrayal money (Matthew 27:8) or the rumor about Jesus’ body being stolen (Matthew 28:15), indicates that a brief span had passed, yet not enough for those references to lose relevance.

Luke’s Gospel was likely written by about 56-58 C.E., and he acknowledged “many” others already wrote accounts about Jesus (Luke 1:1–3). Given that Mark and Matthew were recognized as two of the earliest, it is plausible that Matthew’s Gospel predates Luke’s, meaning it must have been in circulation no later than the late 45 C.E. This alignment supports the ancient testimony that Matthew wrote relatively soon after Jesus’ ministry, well within the lifetime of those who witnessed Jesus’ activities. Hence, the chronological setting is consistent with the claim that an eyewitness apostle authored the Gospel.

This author’s position is more certain until evidence presents otherwise. Matthew penned his Gospel in Palestine. Although the precise year remains unknown, some later manuscripts, dating from after the tenth century C.E., suggest it was completed around 41 C.E. There is evidence suggesting that Matthew initially wrote his Gospel in the common Hebrew of his time before translating it into Greek. I say that Matthew wrote his Gospel in 40 C.E. and subsequently translated it into Greek in about 45 C.E. In his work “De viris inlustribus” (Concerning Illustrious Men), chapter III, Jerome states: “Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed.” Jerome further notes that the Hebrew version of this Gospel was still preserved in his time, during the fourth and fifth centuries C.E., in the library collected by Pamphilus in Caesarea.

The Significance of a Jewish Audience

Matthew’s genealogical emphasis on Abraham and David (Matthew 1:1) fits the perspective of a Jewish readership expecting the Messiah to come from David’s royal line. He repeatedly quotes the Hebrew Scriptures, using the phrase “in order to fulfill” (Matthew 1:22; 2:15; 2:23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17). Such formulaic usage strongly supports the conclusion that he wrote primarily for Jews or at least for Jewish Christians. Patristic sources confirm that Matthew originally wrote “in the Hebrew language,” possibly meaning the Aramaic vernacular of first-century Judea. The Greek text we have may well be Matthew’s own translation or an early authorized version produced under his supervision. While some textual details are debated, the overall tradition underscores his direct composition intended for those of Jewish background. It would have been vital for them to see that Jesus was the fulfillment of messianic prophecies.

Matthew’s Emphasis on the Kingdom Message

Among the four Gospels, Matthew’s presentation of the kingdom of the heavens stands out. He uses the word “kingdom” more than fifty times, describing parables and teachings that revolve around the Messiah’s royal authority. Jesus is portrayed as the ultimate teacher whose discourses define Kingdom principles (Matthew 5–7, 10, 13, 18, 23–25). This consistent thread of Kingdom teaching underscores that Matthew sought to prove Jesus as the rightful King. The repeated mention of “the kingdom of the heavens” (Matthew 3:2; 4:17; 5:3, 10, 19, 20; 7:21) resonates with the Jewish hope for God’s theocratic rule. Matthew’s approach is more thematic than strictly chronological for much of his account, though the final chapters follow a chronological order leading to the crucifixion and resurrection. This structure reflects both devotion to the message Jesus preached and a zeal to instruct readers about how the new community of disciples should view God’s sovereignty.

Handling Alleged Contradictions or Illiteracy

In forging a case that the Gospels might be falsely attributed, some critics draw upon alleged contradictions or perplexing statements. One example is found at Acts 4:13, which notes that Peter and John were considered “unlettered,” or not schooled in rabbinical tradition. Yet John’s Gospel and epistles, as well as Peter’s epistles, display a depth of theological insight. Critics suggest this is inconsistent with the idea that ordinary fishermen or untrained men could write scripture. However, the Greek term often rendered “unlettered” simply indicates the absence of specialized rabbinic education, not a literal inability to read or write. Over decades of apostolic activity, men like Peter or John could learn Greek and cultivate the skills needed to communicate effectively in writing (1 Peter 5:12). Such growth is hardly implausible.

In the case of Matthew, critics might reason that an apostle known as Levi wrote the Gospel, not Matthew, or that the entire authorship tradition is a confusion. Yet the Gospels themselves attest that Matthew is also called Levi (Matthew 9:9; Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27), demonstrating that the same individual had two names. This was not unusual in the first century; the apostle Paul is also called Saul in the Book of Acts. Far from being evidence of forgery, it confirms that the same person may be referred to by different designations. The Gospel text does not show the kind of internal contradiction that arises in apocryphal gospels, reinforcing the idea that it originates from a single, authentic author.

Reconciling Modern Scholarship with Traditional Attribution

In modern discussions, the idea that the Gospel of Matthew is derived from Mark is popular, with many scholars insisting that Mark was written first. Some use literary theories to suggest that Matthew, being more refined and more elaborate in discourses, must have built upon Mark. Yet no single textual hypothesis can overshadow the explicit references of earliest Christian sources, which consistently maintain Matthew’s priority. Even if one grants that Mark wrote first, this does not diminish the authenticity of Matthew’s authorship. It may simply indicate that Matthew supplemented Mark’s shorter account with additional teachings of Jesus. However, no conclusive evidence exists to prove that Mark came first. There are plausible arguments for Matthew’s priority in certain circles of scholarship, consistent with earliest church testimony.

The sincere student of the Bible, applying a historical-grammatical approach, recognizes that Scripture does not rest upon modern critical theories but on solid, ancient documentation and the internal integrity of the text. Combined with the surety that an apostle could produce an accurate account, these factors confirm that the claim of Matthew as author is credible.

The Gospel’s Arrangement and Unique Content

Over forty percent of the text found in Matthew is unique compared to the other three Gospels. This includes the parables of the weeds among the wheat (Matthew 13:24–30), the hidden treasure (Matthew 13:44), the pearl of high value (Matthew 13:45–46), and the dragnet (Matthew 13:47–50). Additionally, Matthew is the only writer who records details such as the father and two children (Matthew 21:28–32), the ten virgins (Matthew 25:1–13), and the talents (Matthew 25:14–30). These narratives and parables highlight moral insights and kingdom truths that cannot be found verbatim in Mark, Luke, or John. Such a distinctive voice underscores that Matthew preserved a body of teaching that was especially important to him, reflecting both his memory of Jesus’ discourses and his own viewpoint as a Jewish disciple.

The account also contains subtle references that can be appreciated by readers alert to Matthew’s personal involvement. For instance, Matthew 9:9–10 recounts the calling of the tax collector “sitting in the tax office.” He humbly identifies himself simply as Matthew, without delving into personal detail. In Luke’s parallel passage (Luke 5:27–29), Matthew is called Levi and hosts a large reception. While Luke portrays the occasion’s scale, Matthew’s own Gospel understates it. This understated approach is consistent with the author’s humility, reflecting the transformation wrought by following Jesus. Had the Gospel originated from a later forger, one might expect an inflated portrait of the apostle’s role. Instead, the text is quietly consistent with modest firsthand testimony.

Answering the Question of Falsely Attributed Writings

Considering the internal evidence showing a personal perspective consistent with Matthew’s background, plus the unanimous external testimony tracing back to the second century C.E., there is little reason to suspect that the Gospel of Matthew was composed under false pretenses. Ancient Christian authors took the question of authorship seriously, praising genuine apostolic writings and condemning spurious texts. Books with no genuine roots in apostolic authority, such as the Gospel of Peter or the Gospel of Thomas, were set aside when recognized as inauthentic. Matthew, however, was universally accepted. The earliest believers circulated it with confidence, quoting it as Scripture alongside the Hebrew prophetic writings.

Those who argue that the attributions are forgeries must account for why no early controversy about Matthew’s authorship appears in the historical record. If a major portion of the Christian community had suddenly promoted a new false claim, some pockets of believers with older or contradictory traditions would likely have raised objections or mentioned an alternative. No such dispute surfaces in second- or third-century sources. Instead, we find consistent references to the apostle Matthew as the author, along with acknowledgments that he wrote initially in Hebrew or Aramaic, later made available in Greek for the larger church.

Furthermore, forging an apostolic writing in the first or second century would have risked immediate exposure, since many eyewitnesses or their disciples were still alive. The early congregation’s close community structure facilitated cross-checking claims. This dynamic is seen in how early believers responded to various heretical works, rejecting them as soon as their flawed nature was discovered. The acceptance of Matthew from the start indicates that no such suspicion existed.

Conclusion: Why Matthew’s Authorship Endures

Upon weighing the ample evidence—scriptural, historical, and contextual—one finds the conclusion that the Gospel of Matthew indeed comes from the apostle Matthew, the former tax collector turned intimate associate of Jesus. The text itself displays his careful attention to financial details, structured discourse, and repeated references to Jewish prophecy. The unanimous tradition of early Christian writers from Papias onward and the complete lack of an alternate author tradition confirm that the earliest believers treated this Gospel as authentically apostolic. The allegations that it is a pseudepigraphical forgery cannot stand when confronted with the robust continuity of attestation and the internal marks of an eyewitness account.

Faithful Christians do not view the authorship question as a trivial matter. They recognize that the accuracy and trustworthiness of the Gospels hinge on whether the authors were indeed guided by God’s spirit (2 Timothy 3:16). Jesus stated that the holy spirit would guide his selected disciples in recalling and recording his teachings (John 14:26). While John 16:13 was spoken specifically to the apostles, it indicates how Jesus expected them to be guided accurately. The apostle Matthew, an eyewitness to Christ’s ministry, exemplifies such a guided writer. Thus, every believer can read this Gospel with full confidence that it represents not an anonymous or spurious composition but a carefully documented testament from one who walked closely with the Lord.

Historically grounded and thematically consistent with the rest of Scripture, the Gospel of Matthew stands as an integral part of the New Testament canon. No credible ancient source disputes Matthew’s authorship, and no alternative name emerges to challenge that conclusion. Those who trust in the reliability of Scripture rightly see Matthew’s account as a vital link between the Hebrew prophecies of old and their Messiah’s fulfillment. The spiritual truths he records remain vital, showing how Jesus invited all who are burdened to find refreshment in his kindly yoke (Matthew 11:28–30), urging them to seek first God’s kingdom (Matthew 6:33), and confirming that he is indeed the long-awaited Seed who would bless “all nations of the earth” (Genesis 22:18).

Rather than being a forgery or falsely attributed work, the Gospel of Matthew emerges as a masterpiece of apostolic testimony. Through diligent study of its pages, readers discern the continuing thread of God’s purpose stretching from the Hebrew Scriptures into the heart of the Christian message. The thorough consistency of ancient testimony and the internal witness of the text strengthen the view that we can attribute this Gospel to the humble tax collector who left his booth in order to follow Jesus and share the good news of the Kingdom with the world.

You May Also Enjoy

Was the Epistle to the Hebrews Falsely Attributed, or Does the Evidence Show Otherwise?

About the Author

Online Guided Bible Study Courses

SCROLL THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / BIBLE BACKGROUND / HISTORY OF THE BIBLE/ INTERPRETATION

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY AND THE CHRISTIAN

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

CHRISTIAN DEVOTIONALS

CHRISTIAN FICTION