Why Jesus Apologetics

Why This Post?

In our previous blog post titled “Can Jesus Bear Our Sins?” we responded to a claim made by a certain lady who attempted to pit Jeremiah 31:29–30 against Romans 3:23. Her argument was weak and misleading, but it gave us an opportunity to clarify what the Scriptures actually teach.

This same lady has now raised another objection—this time about the Gospel of Matthew (See the Screenshot here). Normally, we would have answered her directly on her Facebook page. However, we have chosen instead to write here on our blog. Why? Because of her unfortunate tendency to delete responses that expose her misuse of biblical texts while continuing to repost her objections, tagging opponents as though no one could answer her. Such tactics are not only unfair but also misleading to unsuspecting readers.

That said, the questions she raises are indeed important and deserve clear answers. Even if she herself may not be willing to learn, we want to use this space to equip our readers so that when they encounter similar arguments, they will be ready to respond with truth, clarity, and confidence.

Introduction

In most online discussions, particularly in interfaith debates, a common critique leveled against the Christian New Testament is the claim that the Gospel of Matthew could not have been written by Matthew himself because it refers to him in the third person. Just as the the lady, a critic might point to Matthew 9:9, which states:

“As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. ‘Follow me,’ he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.”

The argument goes something like this: If Matthew were the author, why wouldn’t he say “me” instead of “him”? This, the critic suggests, proves the Gospel is not an eyewitness account but a later fabrication.

This objection, while superficially appealing, ignores the well-established conventions of ancient literature. In the Greco-Roman world, authors frequently wrote about themselves in the third person, especially in historical and biographical works. This was not a sign of impersonation but a stylistic choice for objectivity, humility, or narrative flow. Far from disproving Matthew’s authorship, the third-person reference aligns perfectly with how ancient writers, including historians and biographers we still trust today, composed their texts. Dismissing Matthew’s Gospel on this basis while accepting other ancient works is indeed inconsistent—hypocrisy on the part of the critics.

In this post, we’ll examine the evidence step by step, drawing on scholarly quotations and historical examples to refute the claim. We’ll show how these sources buttress the traditional attribution of the Gospel to Matthew the tax collector, an eyewitness disciple of Jesus.

Ancient Writing Conventions

To understand why Matthew’s third-person mention of himself doesn’t undermine his authorship, we must first look at the broader context of ancient literature. Biographies, histories, and even autobiographies were often narrated in the third person. This illeism (referring to oneself by name or in the third person) was a rhetorical device used by respected authors to maintain an air of detachment and authority, much like modern historians avoid first-person pronouns to emphasize objectivity.

Consider Xenophon, the fourth-century BCE Greek historian and soldier, who wrote the Anabasis (also known as The Expedition of Cyrus), an account of his own military adventures. Xenophon introduces himself not as “I” but as a character in the story:

Xenophon

“There was a man in the army named Xenophon, an Athenian, who was neither general nor captain nor private, but had accompanied the expedition because Proxenus, an old friend of his, had sent him at his home an invitation to go with him; Proxenus had also promised him that, if he would go, he would make him a friend of Cyrus, whom he himself regarded, so he said, as worth more to him than was his native state.”

Anabasis 3.1.4

This quotation directly supports our argument by demonstrating that an eyewitness author like Xenophon could narrate his own involvement in events using third-person language. Just as Xenophon doesn’t switch to first person to describe his own actions, Matthew’s brief, factual reference to his calling fits the convention of ancient memoir-style writing. If we accept Xenophon’s Anabasis as his authentic work despite this style, consistency demands we do the same for Matthew.

Similarly, Flavius Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, wrote extensively about his own life and experiences in the third person in his Jewish War. For instance, he describes his role during the Jewish-Roman War without ever using “I”:

Josephus

“However, in this extreme distress, he was not destitute of his usual sagacity; but trusting himself to the providence of God, he put his life into hazard [in the manner following]: ‘And now,’ said he, ‘since it is resolved among you that you will die, come on, let us commit our mutual deaths to determination by lot…’ This proposal appeared to them to be very just; and when he had prevailed with them to determine this matter by lots, he drew one of the lots for himself also…”

Jewish War, Book 3, Chapter 8, Section 7

Here, Josephus narrates his own dramatic escape and leadership in a suicidal standoff, referring to himself obliquely as “he.” This example buttresses the case for Matthew because Josephus was a contemporary of the New Testament era, writing in Greek (the same language as Matthew’s Gospel) about events he personally witnessed. Critics who question Matthew’s authorship on third-person grounds would have to reject Josephus’ Jewish War too—a position no serious historian takes.

Julius Caesar provides another clear parallel in his Commentaries on the Gallic War and Civil War, where he consistently describes his own military campaigns in the third person to project impartiality:

Julius Caesar

Julius Caesar, who consistently referred to himself in the third person in his Gallic Wars, is one of the earliest and best-known examples of illeism. As a military commander and statesman, Caesar had the authority—and perhaps the ego—to narrate his actions in this way. Cicero admired his style, commenting:

 “The Gallic War is splendid. It is bare, straight, and handsome, stripped of rhetorical ornament like an athlete of his clothes.” Caesar’s third-person usage became so distinctive that it was later parodied in the Asterix comic books.

Commentaries on the Civil War, Book 3

Scholars note that Caesar’s style is not merely occasional but systematic. For example, in Civil War 3.17.1 he narrates his decision-making with phrases like “Caesar… ordered…” before rarely shifting into the first person. Such examples underscore that third-person self-reference was a recognized literary convention in antiquity, not an indication of different authorship.

Caesar’s approach reinforces the argument: As a key participant, he chose third-person narration for rhetorical effect, not to hide his authorship. Matthew, called directly by Jesus (Matthew 9:9), likely employed the same technique to focus on Christ rather than himself.

Even earlier, Thucydides, the fifth-century BCE Greek historian, refers to himself in the third person in his History of the Peloponnesian War:

Thucydides

(At 4.104.4, Thucydides describes his own exile and command without first-person pronouns, naming himself explicitly as the author in the introduction at 1.1.)

History of the Peloponnesian War, Book 4, Section 104.4

These examples from Xenophon, Josephus, Caesar, and Thucydides collectively illustrate a widespread ancient practice. They buttress our refutation by showing that third-person self-reference was not suspicious but standard, especially in works blending personal experience with historical reporting. Matthew’s Gospel, as a theological biography of Jesus, follows this tradition seamlessly.

Early Christian Testimony: Augustine’s Timely Rebuttal

The objection raised by the critic isn’t new; it dates back to the fourth century, when the Manichaean heretic Faustus used the exact same argument against Matthew’s authorship. Fortunately, Augustine of Hippo, one of the greatest early Christian scholars, dismantled it thoroughly:

Augustine of Hippo

“Faustus thinks himself wonderfully clever in proving that Matthew was not the writer of this Gospel, because, when speaking of his own election, he says not, He saw me, and said to me, Follow me; but, He saw him, and said to him, Follow me. This must have been said either in ignorance or from a design to mislead. Faustus can hardly be so ignorant as not to have read or heard that narrators, when speaking of themselves, often use a construction as if speaking of another. It is needless to resort to other writings to quote examples of this construction from profane authors for the information of our friends, and for the refutation of Faustus.”

Contra Faustum, 17.4

Augustine’s response directly counters the critic’s claim by affirming that third-person narration was a known convention among “profane authors” (i.e., non-Christian writers). He didn’t need to cite examples because they were so obvious—much like today, where we’d point to Caesar or Xenophon. This quotation strengthens our position by showing that even in antiquity, informed readers recognized the style and attributed the Gospel to Matthew without issue. Dismissing it now ignores 1,700 years of scholarly consensus rooted in this understanding.

Modern Scholarly Defenses — Aligning with Ancient Biographical Styles

Scholars who defend traditional Gospel authorship echo these ancient insights, emphasizing how the third-person style fits the genre of Greco-Roman biography (bioi), which focused on the subject’s life rather than the author’s ego.

When Muslims argue that Matthew could not have written his Gospel because he refers to himself in the third person, they reveal a lack of familiarity with ancient literary practices. As Richard Bauckham, a respected biblical scholar and Cambridge historian of early Christianity observes,

“Ancient historians and biographers, such as Xenophon or Josephus, quite often referred to themselves in the third person. It was a conventional way of writing and carried no implication that they were not the authors.”

Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 114.

Furthermore, the Gospels were not expected to carry an internal author claim. As Craig Keener notes,

“The Gospels, like other ancient biographies, are anonymous in the sense that the author does not begin by naming himself, but the titles ‘according to Matthew,’ ‘according to Mark,’ etc., were fixed by the early church and never seriously disputed. Such uniformity would be inexplicable if these titles were not rooted in genuine memory of their authorship.”

Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 40.

In fact, Matthew humbly calling himself “the tax collector” is an argument for authenticity, not against it. F. F. Bruce rightly explains that this third-person reference is “more naturally taken as a note of humility than as a device of fiction”

“The use of the third person in reference to oneself was not unusual in antiquity. Caesar does this throughout his Gallic War. The evangelist’s reference to himself as ‘Matthew the tax collector’ is more naturally taken as a note of humility than as a device of fiction.”
F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? 6th ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 34.

If the Gospel were a forgery written much later, the author would likely have glorified Matthew more or omitted the tax collector shame. Instead, Matthew humbly records his past as a despised tax collector—without exaggerating his role. That humility is a mark of authenticity.

Why the Gospels Use Third Person

Beyond examples, the third-person style served practical purposes in the Gospels. As biographies of Jesus, they aimed for historical reliability and theological focus, not autobiography. Matthew, an eyewitness to many events, wrote for a Jewish-Christian audience to prove Jesus as Messiah, using a detached voice to let the facts speak. This is akin to how modern biographies avoid “I saw this” to build credibility.

Critics who demand first-person narration impose a modern expectation on ancient texts. As one apologetic resource notes, rejecting the Gospels on this basis would invalidate countless trusted histories.

Conclusion

The critic’s argument crumbles under scrutiny. Ancient authors like Xenophon, Josephus, Caesar, and Thucydides routinely used third-person self-reference, as did early Christian thinkers such as Augustine. Modern scholars including Richard Bauckham, Craig S. Keener, and F. F. Bruce affirm that this literary style bolsters, rather than weakens, Matthew’s authorship. To accept other ancient histories that employ this convention while rejecting Matthew on the same grounds is not intellectual honesty but selective skepticism—hypocrisy indeed.

The Gospel of Matthew stands as a reliable eyewitness testimony, its third-person humility a mark of authenticity within its cultural and literary context. The lady’s questioning simply does not add up. It is based on a modern misunderstanding of ancient writing conventions and fails when measured against the historical evidence. The criticism itself is an invention of later skeptics who ignore how biographies and histories were composed in antiquity.

Rather than critiquing what she does not understand, she—and those who raise similar objections—would do well to learn from history, from the literary practices of the ancient world, and from the careful scholarship that continues to affirm the integrity of Matthew’s Gospel. For readers sincerely seeking truth, this evidence should invite deeper confidence in how the evangelists conveyed the message of Christ.