Dual Authorship of Matthew: Inspired Hebrew Origins and a Spirit-Led Greek Rewrite in the First Century

Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

$5.00

The Gospel of Matthew stands as a foundational text of Christian scripture, yet its origins spark intrigue and debate. This article argues that Matthew, the tax collector turned Apostle, authored his Gospel twice: first in Hebrew between 40-45 CE, and then again in Koine Greek around 50 CE. Far from being a translation, the Greek version represents a distinct composition, both works guided by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration. Matthew’s Jewish writing style permeates the Greek text, explaining its Semitic influence without requiring a direct Hebrew-to-Greek translation. Historical testimony, theological grounding, and linguistic analysis provide exhaustive evidence for this dual-authorship hypothesis.

The Hebrew Matthew: 40-45 CE under Holy Spirit Inspiration

Early church fathers unanimously attest to Matthew’s initial composition in a Hebrew dialect. Papias of Hierapolis, around 130 CE, declares, “Matthew composed the oracles [logia] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as he was able” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.16). Irenaeus, circa 180 CE, concurs: “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect” (Against Heresies 3.1.1). Origen (Commentary on Matthew, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.25.4) and Jerome (On Illustrious Men 3) reinforce this, suggesting Matthew wrote in Hebrew or Aramaic for a Jewish audience. While no Hebrew manuscript survives, this consistent testimony from the 2nd and 4th centuries points to a lost original.

The timeline of 40-45 CE fits the historical context. Jesus’ crucifixion is dated to 30 or 33 CE, and the early Christian movement spread rapidly among Jews in Judea and the diaspora. Matthew, an eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry, would have been compelled to record these events soon after, especially for Aramaic-speaking believers in Jerusalem. Acts 6:1-7 (circa 35-40 CE) describes tensions between Hebrew and Hellenistic Jews in the church, yet the Jerusalem community remained predominantly Semitic, necessitating a Hebrew or Aramaic Gospel by 40-45 CE—before the Gentile mission gained momentum.

Theologically, Matthew’s Hebrew Gospel aligns with divine inspiration. Second Peter 1:21 states, “Men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” Matthew’s emphasis on Jesus as the Messiah fulfilling Jewish prophecy (e.g., Matt. 1:22-23, 2:15, 5-6) caters to a Jewish audience familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures. This focus suggests a Spirit-led effort to preserve Jesus’ life and teachings for his people, written in their tongue within a decade of the crucifixion.

The Greek Matthew: A Spirit-Led Rewrite in 50 CE

By 50 CE, Christianity’s reach had expanded to Greek-speaking Jews and Gentiles, particularly after the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15, circa 49-50 CE), which affirmed Gentile inclusion. Matthew, bilingual from his tax-collecting career—a role requiring Greek for Roman administration and trade—was well-equipped to address this shift. Rather than translating his Hebrew text, he rewrote his Gospel in Koine Greek, again under the Holy Spirit’s guidance, tailoring it for a Hellenistic audience while retaining his Jewish voice.

Historical evidence supports this 50 CE composition. The Greek Matthew reflects a maturing church, with the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20) emphasizing a universal mission—an urgency more pronounced after 50 CE than in the 40s. The Gospel’s structure, with its five major discourses (e.g., Sermon on the Mount, Matt. 5-7), mirrors Jewish teaching patterns but is rendered in idiomatic Greek, suggesting an intentional adaptation. Matthew’s familiarity with Greek, honed through years of tax records and commerce, enabled him to craft a fresh text without relying on his earlier work.

Theological consistency underpins this rewrite. If the Holy Spirit inspired the Hebrew Gospel, the same divine guidance could produce a Greek version anew. First Corinthians 2:13 notes that Spirit-inspired words are “taught by the Spirit,” not bound to human translation. Matthew’s apostolic authority and divine enablement allowed him to rearticulate Jesus’ story, preserving its truth across languages without the need for a mechanical transfer.

Linguistic Evidence: Semitic Influence, Not Translation

The Greek Matthew’s Semitic flavor is undeniable, yet it lacks the hallmarks of a translated text. Scholars note its polished, idiomatic Greek, free of the awkward syntax or wooden literalism seen in translations like the Septuagint (e.g., Gen. 1:1-5, where Hebrew word order disrupts Greek flow). Matthew’s frequent use of “Kingdom of Heaven”—a Jewish circumlocution for God—parallelisms (e.g., Matt. 7:7-8), and catechetical style (e.g., Matt. 13’s parables) reflect Semitic thought. However, these elements integrate naturally into the Greek, suggesting an author comfortable in both cultures, not a translator wrestling with a foreign source.

Matthew’s Jewish identity explains this. As a Galilean Jew, his writing bore Semitic traits—rhythmic phrasing, scriptural allusions—whether in Hebrew or Greek. The Holy Spirit didn’t dictate verbatim but “moved” him (2 Pet. 1:21), preserving his style. His tax-collector background, requiring Greek proficiency, further equipped him to write fluently, embedding Jewish nuances without translation’s telltale strain. Compare this to Mark’s rougher Greek or Luke’s polished Hellenistic style: Matthew’s text bridges both worlds seamlessly.

Critics might highlight the Synoptic parallels between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, with Mark dated to 60-65 CE and Luke to 56-58 CE, suggesting a shared Greek tradition that challenges Matthew’s Hebrew priority. However, Matthew’s Hebrew composition (40-45 CE) predates both, and his Greek rewrite (50 CE) aligns with the church’s expansion, preceding Luke and Mark. Far from relying on a translated Hebrew text, Matthew’s Greek version could draw from oral traditions or early Markan material, adapted under Holy Spirit inspiration, without contradicting the earlier Hebrew work. The absence of a surviving Hebrew Matthew is easily explained—persecution, such as Jerusalem’s fall in 70 CE, and the dominance of Greek in the early church likely overshadowed it, yet this does not negate its historical existence or Matthew’s dual authorship.

The “Q” Fantasy: Liberal Scholarship’s Higher Criticism Gone Wild

The notion of a so-called “Q” source—dreamed up by 19th-century liberal scholars like Friedrich Schleiermacher and Christian Hermann Weisse—is nothing but higher criticism run amuck, a flimsy house of cards that collapses under its own absurdity. There never was, nor is there now, any physical “Q” document— it’s a phantom conjured by those desperate to explain overlapping material in Matthew and Luke without Mark, imagining a lost sayings collection that strips Jesus of His miracles and deity to peddle a watered-down “human teacher.” This farce, sparked by Schleiermacher’s mangling of Papias and bloated by circular guesswork, stands on zero evidence—no manuscripts, no church father mentions, no hint in early Christian records. Luke 1:1-4 cites eyewitnesses and prior narratives, not some mythical “Q,” leaning instead on oral tradition or Matthew’s Spirit-led works in Hebrew (40-45 CE) and Greek (50 CE) as sources by 56-58 CE. The layered nonsense of “Q1, Q2, Q3″—a Jesus morphing from sage to God— is pure fiction, spun by skeptics like Burton Mack to prop up anti-supernatural biases. Conservative giants like Eta Linnemann, John Wenham, William Farmer, F. David Farnell, and myself shred this drivel, upholding the Gospels’ eyewitness backbone: Matthew’s apostolic record, Mark’s Petrine roots (60-65 CE). Jewish oral tradition’s precision (1 Cor. 15:3-4) explains Synoptic harmony—no invented text required. This “Q” rubbish dares to deny Jesus’ miracles and divinity—truths blazing in Matthew 11:27 and Acts 2:36 from day one—flouting Scripture and prophecy (Isa. 9:6). Acts’ rock-solid historicity, lauded by A. N. Sherwin-White, torches this liberal myth, proving a high Christology by 33 CE. “Q” isn’t scholarship; it’s a speculative sham, unfit to touch the Spirit-breathed, historically anchored Gospels.

Conclusion

Matthew’s Gospel emerged in two inspired phases: a Hebrew text (40-45 CE) for Jews, and a Greek rewrite (50 CE) for a broader audience. Historical testimony, contextual timing, and theological coherence affirm the Hebrew original, while the Greek’s linguistic finesse and universal scope support a Spirit-led recomposition. Matthew’s Jewish style, retained across both, reflects his identity, not a translation’s residue. This dual-authorship model honors his apostolic calling and the Holy Spirit’s dynamic guidance, offering a robust framework for understanding Matthew’s enduring legacy.

You May Also Enjoy

What Is the So-Called Q Document, and How Does It Affect the Authenticity of the Gospels?

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).