Overview

For convenience, the book can be divided into its four structurally distinct sections: Two introductory sections; the main section, which can be further broken into five sections, each with a narrative component followed by a long discourse of Jesus, and finally the Passion and Resurrection section.

1. Containing the genealogy, the birth, and the infancy of Jesus (1; 2).
2. The discourses and actions of John the Baptist preparatory to Christ's public ministry (3; 4:11).
3. The discourses and actions of Christ in Galilee (4:12–20:16).
   1. The Sermon on the Mount- Concerning morality (Ch. 5-7)
   2. The Missionary Discourse- Concerning the mission Jesus gave his disciples. (Ch. 10)
   3. The Parable Discourse- Stories that teach about the Kingdom of Heaven (Ch. 13)
   4. The "Church Order" Discourse- Concerning relationships among Christians. (Ch. 18)
   5. The Escatological Discourse, also called the Olivet Discourse- Concerning his Second Coming and the end of the age. (Ch. 24-25)
4. The sufferings, death and Resurrection of Jesus, the Great Commission (20:17–28).

The one aim pervading the book is to show that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah — he "of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write" — and that in him the ancient prophecies had their fulfillment. This book is full of allusions to passages of the Old Testament which the book interprets as predicting and foreshadowing Jesus' life and mission. This Gospel contains no fewer than sixty-five references to the Old Testament, forty-three of these being direct verbal citations, thus greatly outnumbering those found in the other Gospels. The main feature of this Gospel may be expressed in the motto "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill" (Matthew 5:17).

This Gospel sets forth a view of Jesus as Christ and portrays him as an heir to King David's throne.

The cast of thought and the forms of expression employed by the writer show that this Gospel was written by Jewish Christians of Judea.

Authorship

Although the document is anonymous, the authorship of this Gospel is traditionally ascribed to St. Matthew, a tax collector who became an apostle of Jesus. Of the twelve Apostles, Matthew would have made the most unpopular candidate for authorship aside from Judas Iscariot because he held the hated office of tax collector.^{[citation needed]} However, early Church tradition unanimously agreed to Matthew's authorship.

The relation of the gospels to one another is the subject of some debate. Like the authors of the other gospels, the author of Matthew wrote according to his own plans and aims and from his own point of view, while at the same time borrowing from other sources. According to the two-source hypothesis, the most commonly accepted solution to the synoptic problem, Matthew borrowed from both Mark and a hypothetical sayings collection, known by scholars as Q (for the German Quelle, meaning "source"). However, some scholars believe that Matthew was written first and that Mark borrowed from Matthew (see: Augustinian hypothesis and Griesbach hypothesis). Out of a total of 1071 verses, Matthew has 387 in common with Mark and the Gospel of Luke, 130 with Mark, 184 with Luke; only 370 being unique to itself.

In The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (1924), Burnett Hillman Streeter argued that a third source, referred to as M and also hypothetical, lies behind the material in Matthew that has no parallel in Mark or Luke. Through the remainder of the 20th century, there were various challenges and refinements of Streeter's hypothesis. For example, in his 1953 book The Gospel Before Mark, Pierson Parker posited an early version of Matthew (proto-Matthew) as the primary source of both Matthew and Mark, and Q source used by Matthew.

Critical biblical scholars, like Herman N. Ridderbos in his book Matthew, do not consider the apostle Matthew to be the author of this Gospel. He cites a number of reasons such as the text being in Greek, not Aramaic, the Gospel's heavy reliance on Mark, and the lack of characteristics usually attributed to an eyewitness account [1]. Francis Write Beare agrees, and goes on to say in his book The Gospel according to Matthew "there are clear indications that it is a product of the second or third Christian generation. The traditional name of Matthew is retained in modern discussion only for convenience."[2]

Date of Gospel

There is little in the gospel itself to indicate the date of its composition. Some conservative scholars argue that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt 24), probably between the years 60 and 65, while liberal scholars would date it between the years 80 and 100. Most scholars agree that the writings of Ignatius reference, but do not quote, the Gospel of Matthew, suggesting the gospel was completed at the very latest by the turn of the 2nd century.

In recent times, John Wenham, one of the biggest supporters of the Augustinian hypothesis, is considered to be among the more notable defenders of an early date for the Gospel of Matthew. He cites almost unanimous agreement by the Chuch Fathers in placing Matthew before Mark, in addition to internal evidence within the gospels. Furthermore, Carsten Peter Thiede in Eyewitness to Jesus argues for redating the Magdalen papyrus and the Gospel of Matthew to before 70. His writings have been hotly contested. Scholars who defend a later date for the gospel cite multiple reasons for their view, such as the time required for the theological views to develop between Mark and Matthew (assuming Markan priority), references to historic figures and events circa 70, and a later social context.

A Hebrew Gospel of Matthew?

There are numerous testimonies, starting from Papias and Irenaeus, that Matthew originally wrote in the Hebrew tongue, which could also refer to Aramaic. The sixteenth-century Erasmus was the first to express doubts on the subject of an original Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew: "It does not seem probable to me that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, since no one testifies that he has seen any trace of such a volume." Here Erasmus distinguishes between a Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew and the lost apocryphal Gospel of the Hebrews and Gospel of the Nazoraeans, from which patristic writers do quote. The vast majority of contemporary scholars, based on analysis of the Greek of canonical Gospel of Matthew and use of sources such as the Greek Gospel of Mark, conclude that the book we have today was written originally in Greek and is not a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic (per Rev. Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, p. 210). If they are correct, then writers such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Jerome referred to a document or documents distinct from the present Gospel of Matthew, as confirmed by the fact that Nicephorus lists the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of the Hebrews separately in his Stichometry. All of the aforementioned texts are distinct from the Gospel of the Ebionites, Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, and Shem-Tov Matthew.

An alternative to this conclusion is Aramaic primacy.

Biblical scholar Stephen L. Harris mentions that the claims of Matthew Levi being the author could actually be references to “an early Christian, perhaps named Matthew, who assembled a list of messianic prophecies in the Hebrew Bible, a collection that the creator of our present gospel may have used” (Stephen L. Harris, Understanding the Bible. 6th ed. Boston/Toronto: McGraw Hill, 2003, p. 424). The Jesus narrative would then have been assembled around these Tanakh verses.

Theology of canonical Matthew

According to R.T. France: "Matthew's gospel, more clearly than the others, presents the view of Jesus as himself the true Israel, and of those who have responded to his mission as the true remnant of the people of God . . . to be the true people of God is thus no longer a matter of nationality but of relationship to Jesus" (New Bible Commentary, Inter Varsity Press).

Of note is the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven" (βασιλεια ουρανος) used so often in the gospel of Matthew, as opposed to the phrase "Kingdom of God" used in other synoptic gospels such as Luke. The phrase "Kingdom of Heaven" is used 32 times in 31 verses in the Gospel of Matthew. It is speculated that this indicates that this particular Gospel was written to a primarily Jewish audience, as many Jewish people of the time felt the name of God was too holy to be written. Matthew's abundance of Old Testament references also supports this theory.

The theme "Kingdom of Heaven" as discussed in Matthew seems to be at odds with what was a circulating Jewish expectation -- that the Messiah would overthrow Roman rulership and establish a new reign as the new King of the Jews. Christian scholars, including N. T. Wright, The Challenge of Jesus, have long discussed the ways in which certain 1st century Jews (including Zealots) misunderstood the sayings of Jesus -- that while Jesus had been discussing a spiritual kingdom, certain Jews expected a physical kingdom.

The relationship between Jesus Christ and the "Kingdom" is also mentioned in the other gospels. Jesus had said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but My kingdom is not of this realm." (John 18:36 NASB)