Was Matthew written based on Paul's first letter to the Corinthians?

Question

There's many allusions to the teaching of Paul as recorded in his first letter to the Corinthians in the gospel of Matthew. There's a passage in the sermon on the mount which seems to come from the letter and the eucharist formula seems have been lifted straight from Paul. Is it possible that Matthew was written in Corinth by a believer who was just putting the words of Paul into the mouth of Jesus as a way of preserving the teaching of Paul and honouring him?

Example:

If I have all faith, so as to remove mountains . . . (1 Cor 13:2)

If you have faith . . . you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. (Matt 17:20)

Answer 1

All of the early historical evidence points in the opposite direction -- that if there was dependence by one document upon the other, it is 1 Corinthians that is quoting Matthew.

Eusebius recorded:

For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence. (*Ecclesiastical History 3.24.5)

This is consistent with the records of Papias, Irenaeus, Pantaneus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen--all major scholars of their time.

In his chronology, Eusebius reported that the Gospel of Matthew was published 12 years after Easter. Even allowing for some approximation, this is well before the composition of 1 Corinthians in AD 54 or 55.

My own work on the Synoptic Gospels corroborates the essential conclusion established by Eusebius: the Gospel of Matthew was treated as the primary source by the early church because it was the primary source of the early Christian movement.

I suggest Paul's epistles (especially 1 Thessalonians) show familiarity with the concepts & wording of the Gospel of Matthew for the very simple reason that Paul was familiar with the Gospel of Matthew.

---

^{But wasn't Mark first?? Please see this post on the site, critiquing the arguments for Markan Priority, and showing each of the major arguments for Markan Priority to be circular, reversible, or both.}

Answer 2

Your original question doesn't list examples; however, in a follow-up post you did cite a few in the comments section. So this post is going to interact (at least in part) with the few examples you listed:

• 1 Cor. 13:2 & Matt. 17:20
• 1 Cor. 13:3 & Matt. 19:21
• 2 Cor. 1:17 & Matt. 5:37

It should be pointed out that some of the references you are making are from the same context. For example, in the first two sets of passages, you cite 1 Cor. 13:2, but then in the second set of passages you cite 1 Cor. 13:3. Since they are drawing from the same Pauline letter (even the very same chapter), I will respond to those two sets of texts succinctly in this way:

You draw a connection between 1 Cor. 13:3 and Matt. 19:21, suggesting that Matthew may be placing Paul’s words onto the lips of Jesus.

But pay attention to Paul's words in 1 Cor. 13:3. The devil is in the details,

καὶ ἐὰν ψωμίσω πάντα τὰ ὑπάρχοντά μου καὶ ἐὰν παραδῶ τὸ σῶμά μου ἵνα καυθήσομαι ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω οὐδὲν ὠφελοῦμαι

And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing. (1 Cor. 13:3, NASB95)

To the careful reader, the verbal affinities should be quite striking.

The Greek term ὑπάρχοντά (“possessions”) is routinely found in Paul, particularly in contexts where Christ is the prototype (i.e., Phil. 2:6). It is my proposal that rather than Paul being the “prototype” to the Matthean account (Matt. 19:21), it is Christ who is the “prototype” that lays behind the Pauline account (1 Cor. 13:3). Thus, your argument is quite lopsided, backwards even!

τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be exploited, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. (Phil. 2:5-7)

In Phil. 2:5, we are called to, “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus.” Thus, when Paul pens the words in 1 Cor. 13:3, it is Phil. 2:5-6 that is on his conscience. So impacted by “the Christ-event” (the incarnation), that Paul was moved to imitate Christ in every way. Christ “emptied” Himself of His former glory and riches by “taking the form of a servant, and being made in the likeness of men” (Phil. 2:7),

γινώσκετε γὰρ τὴν χάριν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὅτι δι᾽ ὑμᾶς ἐπτώχευσεν πλούσιος ὤν ἵνα ὑμεῖς τῇ ἐκείνου πτωχείᾳ πλουτήσητε

For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich. (2 Cor. 8:9, NASB95)

Not only does Paul allude to Phil. 2:5-6 in 1 Cor. 13:3, but also in 2 Cor. 8:9. All three texts closely correspond. And what's rather interesting, is you actually allude to 2 Cor. in another one of the examples you cited (namely, 2 Cor 1:17), yet missed the connections!

In addition to what I've stated above, Paul was a Jew familiar with his OT (Prov. 28:27, Deut. 15:7-8, Isaiah 58:7), and followed apostolic tradition (Gal. 2:9-10), which was taught by Christ and passed down through the apostles (Lk. 12:33, Lk. 18:18-23, Mk. 10:17-31). Christ's teachings were passed down through tradition, probably being recited on the Lord's day, and most certainly was widely circulated among the Christian community, hence the reason we find it in multiple gospel accounts.

Thus, in every way, Christ is the archetype for Paul.

This provides just one (very good) reason that the first two (sub)sets of texts that you cited do not work. Further, just as a cursory level observation to the first set of texts (1 Cor. 13:2 and Matt. 17:20), it may be that this could be understood as a common Jewish axiom or form of expression, cf. Matt. 17:20, 21:21, Lk. 17:6, Mk. 9:21-23, 11:22-25.

Answer 3

The long version of the OP question asks: "Is it possible that Matthew was written in Corinth by a believer who was just putting the words of Paul into the mouth of Jesus as a way of preserving the teaching of Paul and honouring him?" If Matthew was written by the apostle of that name, then no. Since we don't have contemporary manuscripts, the original title of the Gospel relies on later traditions, so I would answer "yes" to "possible" but "no" to "likely."

A more plausible scenario would be that Pauline influence in Matthew is due to Paul's letters having circulated prior to Matthew's writing. If we assume Markan priority, the author, like Luke, was looking for authentic sayings of Jesus to supplement Mark's narrative. Paul's letters were one such source. This idea also holds even if Matthew was the first Gospel written, unless one believes that it was written prior to Corinthians.

The relationship of Paul to Matthew is a thorny question. Paul consistently argues against the Law as a means to achieve eternal life. But Matthew presents Jesus as a special sort of "teacher of the Law" who says that eternal life is achieved by keeping certain commandments. In the Sermon on the Mount (5:20), Jesus instructs his disciples to be more strict about about this than the Pharisees. ("Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.") And in chapter 19, we are told:

16 Now someone approached him and said, “Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?” 17 He answered him, “Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” 18 The man asked him, “Which ones?” And Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; 19 honor your father and your mother’; and ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”

Paul taught that eternal life is achieved not by the works of the law but by faith in Christ's atoning death and resurrection. Thus, while it may be theoretically possible that the author of Matthew's Gospel wanted to honor Paul by including some of Paul's quotations of Jesus, it is not likely. The inclusion of these quotes probably represents the author's need for quotations of Jesus' sayings, rather than a desire to give Paul honor.