Did Matthew Write Q?
Third in a Series on the Authors of the Synoptic Gospels
The vast majority of biblical scholars agree that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are interrelated - and that their authors used common sources. Who wrote those sources?
Post-Enlightenment scholarship has challenged traditional authorship of the Synoptic Gospels with the claim that the Gospels, as we have them, were compiled by late first century or early second century editors (who were NOT eyewitnesses). That these editors utilized early records, including the mysterious and unverified “Q” source and probably other strands of oral tradition which increasingly mythologized the Jesus of history.
The Christian church of the third and fourth centuries embraced Augustine’s belief that Matthew was the first of the Synoptics, followed by Mark and Luke. This is why Matthew appears first in the New Testament. Post-Enlightenment scholarship has challenged this view, however, and has done so to the satisfaction of most biblical scholars. The basis of this challenge is that the literary relationship of the Synoptics makes independent authorship highly unlikely and points to Mark as the central document of the three.
There is little question that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are similar and, yet, strangely unique in both content and style. Fundamentalist Christians who lean toward the dictation theory of divine inspiration (the belief that God somehow directly inspired – perhaps audibly - the authors with definite precision in the writing of the biblical books) have countered that this interdependence is due to the Holy Spirit.
This answer may, in fact, be correct. But it is rather elementary. It’s akin to a kid, presented with the question “Why did the British lose at Yorktown?” answering “Because they were supposed to.” Critical scholars have understandably dug deeper for an explanation of what has been called the “Synoptic Problem.”
Most evangelical and conservative scholars have embraced theories of divine inspiration (such as verbal plenary inspiration) that allow for human discretion in word choice and style. Indeed, Luke’s candid explanation of his investigative approach (Luke 1) to Gospel authorship seems to undercut the dictation proponents. Liberal scholars of course see no need to accept or account for such extensive involvement by God in the actual process of drafting the Gospels.
Most scholars agree that all three of the Synoptic Gospels utilized sources, including long-lost written accounts and/or strands of oral tradition. These sources have been called “Q,” “L,” and “M” – with “Q” sometimes standing in as a catch-all. There has been, however, not one discovery of any actual proof of “Q” (or any other source other than the Gospels themselves).
There is good reason, however, to accept the existence of pre-Gospel source material. It was customary in the ancient world for esteemed teachers be accompanied by scribes who would faithfully record their teachings. The modern world can thank such scribes, including one named Plato, for recording the teachings of Socrates. Jesus undoubtedly had one or more disciples performing this task. Interestingly, he was called “Rabbi” by many of those he interacted with in Judeo-Palestine. In the Jewish world, careful attention to detail and exactness was called for with respect to rabbinical scribes. It can be safely assumed then that one or more of Jesus’ disciples recorded his sayings and the significant events of his ministry. These records no doubt comprised the source material which found its way into the Gospels.
Assuming this is the case (and there’s no reason to question this assumption), it is not a stretch to assume that Matthew was one of these scribes. He was a tax collector, meaning he had an eye for detail and precision. He was also educated. And early church fathers Papias and Irenaeus both claim Matthew wrote a Gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic, before any other Gospel was written.
It is possible to reconcile this early church tradition with modern scholarship by postulating that the Apostle Matthew wrote a primitive, rough draft Gospel (based on his own records of Jesus’ life and sayings). Perhaps this was “Q.” This draft was utilized by Mark, who published and circulated his Gospel before Matthew did. Matthew then, while advanced in years, may have updated and edited his Gospel – taking advantage of Mark’s polished Gospel.
Critics of course denounce the idea that Matthew, an eyewitness, would utilize Mark, who was not. This, however, discounts the fact that Peter, another apostle and a close friend of Jesus (closer even than Matthew), stands behind the Gospel of Mark – at least according to early church tradition. It is not at all unlikely that Matthew would turn to Peter.
Alternatively, Matthew may have made use of a scribe or editor in the same way that Paul is known to have done with many of his epistles. All of the apostles were known to have embarked on evangelistic, church-planting ministries. It is certainly possible that, during this time, Matthew enlisted the aid of men and women to help him in these efforts – efforts which may have included the editing and circulation of a Gospel account.
Modern scholarship has shed some interesting light on the literary relationship between Matthew, Mark, and Luke. But it has not demonstrated, in any way and to any degree, a reason to overturn early church tradition associating Matthew with an early Gospel account of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. There is no reason to question that Matthew stands behind the Gospel of Matthew. Indeed, he may very well be the author of "Q."
******
Sources included:
Is the New Testament Reliable? by Paul Barnett
and the following external Internet articles....
and these websites....
"Synoptic Problem" at Wikipedia
"Scribes" (an article on the tradition of scribes)
"Matthew" (an article at EarlyChristianWritings)
"Gospel of Matthew" at Wikipedia
"The Gospel According to Matthew and Q"
