Scholars believe the author of the Gospel of Matthew was not the apostle Matthew for which reason?

• A. It was written in Aramaic
• B. It contains only childhood stories
• C. It was authored by a fisherman
• D. Because he relied heavily on secondary sources

Answer: (D)

Scholars focus on how a gospel was put together to assess authorship. The strongest point is that the Gospel of Matthew shows signs of compiling and editing material from other sources rather than presenting events as an eyewitness account by the Apostle Matthew. It relies heavily on Mark’s gospel and other early Christian writings, shaping the narrative for a specific audience and theological purpose. That pattern—using and rearranging existing sources rather than producing a work from personal experience—fits the profile of a later, non-eyewitness author, which is why this reason is considered the best explanation.

The other ideas don’t fit as well. It’s not supported that it was written in Aramaic; most scholars think it was composed in Greek. The book certainly isn’t just childhood stories; it covers extensive teaching, miracles, and passion. The traditional label of Matthew the fisherman belongs to a longstanding tradition about authorship, but the scholarly concern centers on source use and composition, not the author’s former profession.