Of all the books in the New Testament, the 'Gospel of Matthew' must rate as the worst in the way it presents Jesus and the main events in his alleged life. Whoever wrote 'Matthew' - and there is nothing to suggest it was Matthew the legendary tax collector and disciple of Jesus - appears to have drawn on sources available to both Mark and Luke (the hypothetical and assumed lost 'Q' source) plus an earlier different source (the 'M' source).
It was also probably written by at least two people, as there is some evidence that the first two chapters were added later. Some authorities think elements of 'Matthew' may be based on an Ebionite gospel (i.e. a statement of dogma) and that the Ebionites may have been successors to the ultra-orthodox Jewish Nazarene sect led by James 'the brother of Jesus' and possibly the first 'bishop' (i.e. leader of the sect) in Jerusalem, hence his emphasis on the Jewishness of Jesus, the fulfillment of Jewish prophecies, and on obedience to the Mosaic Law.
The reason 'Matthew' was included in the final version of the Bible was because people had become convinced that it was written by Jesus' disciple of that name and it didn't deviate too far from the Pauline Orthodox view.
The author's over-riding intent appears to have been to show the Jewishness of Jesus and how just about everything about him was a fulfilment of Jewish prophesy. He clearly is trying to establish that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. In pursuit of this end he often stretches credulity beyond breaking point and loses sight of the fact that he should also have been presenting Jesus as a wise man. In some of his stories, Jesus frankly comes across as a bit of a nutter.
Of course, the author of 'Matthew' can't be blamed for what the other 'Gospel' authors said but 'Matthew' often flatly contradicts other writers and so raises serious questions about the authenticity of all the 'Gospels'. Clearly, if the different versions of stories don't line up and there is no way to resolve the differences into one coherent narrative, there is no reason to believe one over another, and, if one version can be wrong and a clear invention - the product of its authors creative imagination - then so can all of them. Revealing an underlying political motive, as 'Matthew' often does, calls the entire New Testament into question too, since it was compiled by the winners of this political struggle.
Pull The Other One Matthew!. How 'Matthew' looked for a prophesy of a virgin birth and was either mislead by a bad translation from Hebrew into Greek, or mistranslated it himself. This blunder occurs in one of the first two chapters, which may have been added later to an earlier version.
Hey Christians! Is Matthew For Real? How 'Matthew' effectively debunks any claim that his account of the resurrection of Jesus was that of an eye-witness to the events.
Foolish Jesus And The Ravening Wolves. Where 'Matthew' presents Jesus as a foolish man and false prophet.
Christians - Try Not To Think About Matthew. The thought is equal to the deed, so we're all done for then.
Are These The Silliest Verses In The Bible? Thomas Paine's destruction of Matthew's account of the crucifixion.
Now It's Jesus The False Prophet! Matthew blunders again. He relates how Jesus said his 12 disciples would judge the 12 tribes, forgetting about Judas.
Matthew Makes An Ass Of Jesus. Matthew bends over too far to make a prophesy fit the story of the 'Triumphal Entry Into Jerusalem' and makes Jesus look like the village idiot.