Scholarly Reflections
Wenham, John. "Chapter Five: Ancient Testimony to Matthew's Gospel." Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1992, 116-135.
Wenham observes that early testimony to Matthew's primacy is virtually unanimous, reaching back as far as Papias, who "had direct contact with two of Jesus' actual followers" (Wenham 1992, 116). Matthew the tax collector was seen as the author, with his gospel being the first to be written, and possibly being originally written in Hebrew (Wenham 1992, 117). Wenham quotes Papias, Irenaeus, Jerome's account of second century missionary Pantaenus, Origen (Wenham 1992, 117), Eusebius, and Cyril of Jerusalem (Wenham 1992, 118) in support of this thesis.
The tradition of Matthean primacy has faced criticism. Wenham notes that Jerome seems to refer to the Gospel under several titles, which causes some confusion. Jerome also cites come content in a text which seems to be Matthew in Hebrew, but the content is not present in the Greek Matthew (Wenham 1992, 120). Wenham considers it important to defend Papias and his proximity to Matthew's Gospel. Citing Gundry at length he takes Papias' comments about the primacy of Matthew to date no later than 110, as opposed to much opinion which places him about 135 (Wenham 1992, 122). Of note is Eusebius' view (HE 3.39.1-4) that Papias had a decided preference for firsthand testimony rather than literary remains. These witnesses included apostolic voices (Wenham 1992, 123).
Papias' testimony has been discounted through four basic means. Wenham sees these four means as "1.) insistence on Matthew's deviation from Mark; 2.) emphasis on the ambivalence of Eusebius; 3.) attempted explanations of how Papias got it wrong; 4.) attempted reinterpretations of Papias" (Wenham 1992, 125). Basing Matthew on Mark, rather than the other way around, indicates that Papias was incorrect. However, we have seen numerous reasons to believe Matthew was at least largely independent of Mark. While Eusebius does not consider Papias to be infallible, he recognizes that Papias' scholarship is rightly influential (Wenham 1992, 127). This is consistent with his mentions of much of Papias' information without attempted refutation. The attempts to explain how Papias went astray are based on our failure to find a Hebrew version of Matthew. This suggests to scholars that the Gospel was not written by Matthew the tax collector, or Papias would have brought two documents to light (Wenham 1992, 129). Finally, Papias' reference to Ἑβραίδι διαλέκτῳ has been re-interpreted. The term διάλεκτος as used in the New Testament uniformly means "language" (Wenham 1992, 131). To re-interpret it as "style" strikes Wenham as an attempt to force Papias to say something he never said.
Finally, Wenham considers the nature of titles provided for works in antiquity (Wenham 1992, 134). Normally, the author's name would be present in the genitive, followed by a title indicating the content. However, the Gospels are routinely referred to as Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ name. The testimony of these titles is unanimous from the earliest copies onward. Wenham thus sees very early attribution of authorship, prior to the year 100, possibly as early as 69 or 70 (Wenham 1992, 135). The uniformity of title as well as the early witness of a standard order suggests that Papias' view was recognized before Papias wrote and represents the actual historic point of view.