Legion near Judea at time of Jesus

[Crispvs]

Possibly, but probably not, as Matthew the apostle and the Matthew who wrote the gospel were two different people who share the same name. Although this is not what you will hear from most people, examination of the texts of both the gospel of Matthew and that of Luke leaves little or no room for the possibility that they could have been the same man. Parts of these two gospels are word for word the same, not just in modern translation but in the original Greek as well (the 'Q' passages). It could be suggested that one of them copied the other's work, as they both copied passages from Mark's gospel, but this suggestion would not stand up under proper examination. Enough of the things contained within each are independent of the other to show that neither could have seen the other's work before writing his own. Thus (for example) Luke mentions shepherds coming to see the newborn Jesus, while Matthew mentions the Magi, who may have visited as much as two years later.

As neither gospel could have been copied from the other, that has led to the realisation that the identical passages in Matthew and Luke must stem from a lost work that both are independently quoting from, which has become known as 'Q'. In fact, more of 'Q' may be preserved in these two gospels than we are aware, but it is only where they have quoted the same pieces that we con identify them as originating in 'Q'.

Whatever the case, if Matthew had been writing a first hand account (as Matthew the apostle would have been able to do) he would not need to quote another work to do so. His own experience would inform him. Therefore, the 'Q' passages effectively prove that we are dealing with two different Matthews. There is, of course, the possibility that Matthew the gospel writer was a member of the wider group of Jesus' disciples, like Nathaniel or Levi, to name two. If so, he would have some first hand knowledge, but would be unlikely to write the detailed account that one of the chosen twelve could. Whether or not he was a disciple, it still begs the question then of who the author of 'Q' might have been. It is not outside the realm of possibility to think that it might have been the work of one the twelve, meaning the the 'Q' passages might indeed be parts of a first hand account. Without a surviving copy though, we cannot know the answer to that.

Crispvs