Who wrote Matthew Pt 1

[ebia]

Let's try a little thought experiment.

Let's suppose as a hypothetical that Matthew was not the author of the gospel that bears his name. Let's suppose that it was someone called "Fred". Let's suppose Fred wrote the gospel around 75-80 AD using Mark's gospel as one source. Let's also suppose he had access to Matthew's testimony in some form - maybe he had known Matthew personally and heard it first hand. Maybe Matthew had written some of it down in Aramaic. And perhaps Fred has some other source(s) that Luke also had access to. Fred takes the shape of his gospel from his Matthew source but where Mark covers a particular passage he borrows heavily from that rather than rely on his memory. Fred is a Jewish Christian who knows his Old Testament well and has a Jewish audience at the front of his mind. Fred is aware that this is Matthew's testimony (and to a lesser extent Peters) not his own so he attributes the work to Matthew. Over the next couple of decades the work gets referred to as "the gospel according to Matthew" (which it is, in some sense) and Fred gets forgotten. Fred is quite happy with that because he was never interested in his own glory.

All of that is wild speculation, but is there any early or internal data that it doesn't explain?

 

[pshun2404]

Absolutely! So we agree on two facts.

 

[ebia]

Absolutely! So we agree on two facts.

Okay, we've agreed:
1: Mark's source is Peter
2: either (a) Matthew copies significantly from Mark
Or (b) Mark is largely a summary of Matthew.


It seems completely clear to me that 2b is incompatible with 1; they are mutually exclusive. Mark cannot be both Peter's testimony and largely copied out of Matthew. So 2a must be the case.

 

[Jett Clark]

Frankly, there's not much reason to attribute Matthew to Matthew. The church initially needed to choose an author, and saw that Levi was referred to as Matthew in what we now call Matthew, and so they saw it as an authorial signature. That's why we believe it was written by Matthew.

Matthew must have come after Mark as well. Through the Gospels, you can see the development of tradition. One of my favourite examples is to show how the authors of the Gospels explained questions made by unbelievers.

• In 1 Corinthians, Paul plainly states that Jesus rose on the third day.
• In turn, critics would say "You must have seen a ghost."
• When the Gospel of Mark was written, Mark addressed this by saying "Actually, some of our women saw Jesus's tomb, and it was empty."
• To which the critics would reply, "His disciples must have stolen the body from the tomb." Matthew actually refers to this, calling it a Jewish rumour that "persists to this day."
• Finally, Matthew writes in response to this rumour, saying that guards were posted outside of Jesus's tomb, and that it would have been impossible in that case for Jesus's body to be stolen.

Looking at an example like that, it's plain to see that Matthew's tomb narrative arose in response to Mark, which arose in response to 1 Corinthians. Another example would be Judas, and the embarrassment of trying to get people to believe in a Messiah who was betrayed. You can see Judas evolve from 1 Corinthians, where he's not mentioned (except as part of the 12), to a revolutionary in Mark, to greedy in Matthew, to demon possessed in Luke, and finally, well, more possessed in John. You can see the development of the tradition. In each successive Gospel, Jesus is more in control of His own fate, and Jesus becomes more in control of the ever-evolving Judas.

Furthermore, looking at how traditions evolve, they get more complex, not less. They "expand." Matthew is an expansion of Mark, which attempts to more thoroughly tie it in with prophecy, and to explain more of what Jesus said, etc.

To say that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew is a fallacy. It was written in Greek. There are examples in Matthew where one can see that the author was reading from the Greek Septuagint, and not the Hebrew manuscripts. One example of this is Palm Sunday. In the Septuagint, it's easy to accidentally misread the prophecy that Matthew cites as "a colt and a donkey," but impossible to misread in Hebrew. Thus, instead of having Jesus ride the colt of a donkey, Matthew has Jesus ride a colt and a donkey... at the same time.

This took place to fulfil what had been spoken through the prophet, saying,
‘Tell the daughter of Zion,
Look, your king is coming to you,
humble, and mounted on a donkey,
and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.’
The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them; they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them. (Matthew 21.4-6)

Reading the passage properly, you can see that in Matthew, Jesus is riding the colt and the donkey at the same time. This sort of error is only possible in the Greek Septuagint.

That's just my take on it.

 

[pshun2404]

Ebia, you said. “It seems completely clear to me that 2b is incompatible with 1; they are mutually exclusive. Mark cannot be both Peter's testimony and largely copied out of Matthew. So 2a must be the case.”

First off, b) is not an accurate representation of the view I espoused.

I did not say Mark was “largely a summarization of Matthew”. I said where within the parallel passages there are exact wordings (which in most are small pieces) he could have been summarizing from Matthews version, but that that was not necessary since Peter was also there at the time and received the exact same teachings.

It was not uncommon for Jewish students of prominent Rabbis to memorize (even word for word) the teachings of their masters though I am not claiming dogmatically that this would be the case. However, Jesus was a rather controversial Rabbi.

So I do not think the logic necessarily follows. Besides, why would the early church fathers lie (1st and 2nd generations)? Or perhaps as Jett has said, “The church initially needed to choose an author and saw that Levi was referred to as Matthew in what we now call Matthew, and so they saw it as an authorial signature.” Of course I do not see that anywhere either, not even a mention or indication of such a need (do you), or any evidence that what he suggests actually happened. Please if you have any I would love to see it.

But then again one must make up such possibilities (not Jett personally but the perpetrators of this replacement myth) when one has previously made up a first tale that an otherwise historically validated document is a later evolved pseuedopigraphic forgery by an alleged unfounded yet claimed to be real group of scribal redactors. Having to lie to reinforce another lie is a common practice...it is after all the very thing they accuse these early followers of doing. Sounds like they are creating a Jesus and disples in their own image to me. Or does he mean those who copied the original Hebrew/Aramaic version into Greek as best as they were able?

Well as far as Matthew goes we would agree these translators Greek was not of great quality and they failed to Greekify (if I may also make something up) the Hebraisms and idioms less comprehensible the in Greek. And why merely transliterate certain words from Hebrew if the original was in Greek? Why not just use the Greek equivalent if Greek was their natural language?

As far the diversion into the donkey story that is the substance of another thread, but any astute student knows that in the Greek, Matthew did not use “He sat on them” referring to both the Donkey and her colt, but that "He sat thereon", or elsewhere "they sat Him on them" referring to the garments (plural) which were placed on the colt, just as garments were placed on the mother. Garments (plural) were placed on both animals. So when it literally says they sat Him on them, they are referring to these garments not to two donkeys at once.

He also mis-implies that

This took place to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet, saying,
‘Tell the daughter of Zion,
Look, your king is coming to you,
humble, and mounted on a donkey,
and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.’

Is from the Septuagint, when it is in fact from an unfamiliar Hebrew source (more similar to the Masoretic) not so unlike what we find evidence for in Qumran scrolls. The Septuagint actually says

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion. Proclaim aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem. Behold, the King is coming to you, just, and a Savior; he is meek and riding on an ass, and a young foal.

Which actually could be construed with this two donkey meaning if someone was not reading it correctly. All translators use this phraseology as if the prophet were referring to the King sitting on only one of the two animals (even the Masoretes). This two donkey at once theory is a real stretch (a real johnny come lately last ditch effort), and the critical school of non-believers and make-believers know most who read their materials will assume they are telling the actual truth about this. But what evidence do they have for this understanding? None for over 1800 years, not even from the Jews.

 

[ebia]

Ebia, you said. “It seems completely clear to me that 2b is incompatible with 1; they are mutually exclusive. Mark cannot be both Peter's testimony and largely copied out of Matthew. So 2a must be the case.”

First off, b) is not an accurate representation of the view I espoused.

I did not say Mark was “largely a summarization of Matthew”. I said where within the parallel passages there are exact wordings (which in most are small pieces) he could have been summarizing from Matthews version, but that that was not necessary since Peter was also there at the time and received the exact same teachings.

It was not uncommon for Jewish students of prominent Rabbis to memorize (even word for word) the teachings of their masters though I am not claiming dogmatically that this would be the case. However, Jesus was a rather controversial Rabbi.

If what we were talking about were only the words of Jesus that might be plausible. But the narrative too similar; no two people will tell the story in the same way. Either Mark is fundamentally Peter's narrative, or it's fundamentally "Matthew"'s.

So I do not think the logic necessarily follows. Besides, why would the early church fathers lie (1st and 2nd generations)?

See my hypothetical above - it doesn't need to be a lie. And remember how little data there is from the first and second centuries. Beyond Papias what else solid do you have that could be remotely called 2nd generation, let alone first?

Papias was writing well into the second century. He might have been born 60AD or sometime after. And it's far from certain what exactly he is talking about from the fragment of his writing that we have. Could he have been wrong? More than plausibly.

 

[pshun2404]

See my hypothetical above - it doesn't need to be a lie. And remember how little data there is from the first and second centuries. Beyond Papias what else solid do you have that could be remotely called 2nd generation, let alone first?

Papias was writing well into the second century. He might have been born 60AD or sometime after. And it's far from certain what exactly he is talking about from the fragment of his writing that we have. Could he have been wrong? More than plausibly.

Ebia, your hypothetical is not what I called a lie...I said that if it were true then Church fathers as a witness (the only one) means they were all liars! Papias was a disciple of John as was Polycarp who taught Irenaeus were these men all deluded or liars? Did JOhn support a hoax? This is an important point...why do you think these men just conveniently discredit all the evidence there is in order to suppport a very recent assumtion based hypothesis originally proposed by those we know have traditionally stood opposed to all that Christians believe in (GreenKnight might say the principle doctrines set down on the Apostles creed).

They have no evidence only conjecture so why should we believe them? You have done an outstanding job defending this possibility and I have great respect for your answers in other posts as well, and I do not call you a liar, just that if they are correct then all of Christian history from the beginning is a big hoax or lie. Could Papias have been wrong? I do not think the Apostles still alive at the time, or their immediate disciples, would have let him get away with that. This was not like a matter of politics. These men believed they were carrying the most important message ever to the world (they were willing to die for it and see their loved ones tortured and killed for it). Why would they do this for what they knew was false?

Also you asked..."Beyond Papias what else solid do you have that could be remotely called 2nd generation, let alone first?"

I provided historical testimony (non-exhaistive since I was already being longwinded) going all the way up to the 4th century (Jerome). This is in fact more evidence than we have for Alexander the Great yet no one doubts his historicity. This whole attack against all of our beliefs is because it is Jesus. The lord of this world will not rest until he can drag as many as possible into perdition with him. I was hoping someone would actually come up with something other than these mens conjecture as real evidence (discounting the rolling of colored stones by the likes of Crossan, Borg, and Funk). Again I know you have never once used this ilk's contrived totally unfounded notions to support your position.


In His name...

Paul

 

[ebia]

See my hypothetical above - it doesn't need to be a lie.

So is there any data my hypothetical is not coherent with?



And remember how little data there is from the first and second centuries. Beyond Papias what else solid do you have that could be remotely called 2nd generation, let alone first?

Papias was writing well into the second century. He might have been born 60AD or sometime after. And it's far from certain what exactly he is talking about from the fragment of his writing that we have. Could he have been wrong? More than plausibly.

Ebia, your hypothetical is not what I called a lie...I said that if it were true then Church fathers as a witness (the only one) means they were all liars!
[/quote]
No, it would just mean they were wrong. Given that Papias is the only one remotely close to it - the only one that could be called 1st or 2nd generation - that's highly plausible. There are other issues where we know they got their history muddled; eg the conflagration of John the Elder and John son of Zebidee.

Papias was a disciple of John as was Polycarp who taught Irenaeus were these men all deluded or liars?

We don't know that Papias got this information from John the Elder. Nor do we know that he is talking about the text we call Matthew -or plausibly if he did get it from John that that's what John is talking about.

I've argued above that Markan priority is much more strongly evidenced. Whatever text Papias is talking about he says was written in "Hebrew" (most likely Aramaic). That's incompatible with Markan priority and not backed up by the text itself. While Matthew is very Jewish, and may well draw on an Aramaic source, it shows no signs of having been translated from Aramaic and a good number of being authored in Greek (eg quoting from the LXX).

Did JOhn support a hoax?

There's no hoax involved in my hypothetical. Please stop addressing that straw man.

 

[pshun2404]

Sorry, I am not convinced Ebia. The testimonials of all these apostolic men are just too consistent no matter where or what apostle started their faith community. It is apparent this is what was passed down. You say they were wrong but based on what? There is nothing for 1800 years that even hints at what these modern guys claim is true. So we will have to agree to disagree.

Unless I can see even at least one accusation of these claims from somewhere in the first few hundreds of years then it is just conjecture as far as I am concerned. Why isn't some contender pointing the finger...even one of the gnostics...nah, I will stand with the history on this one for now until I see a close to equal adequate set of evidences against it.

Someones opinion, even that of a whole group, a couple of 1,000s of years after the facts, is meaningless to me.

In His name...

Paul

 

[ebia]

Sorry, I am not convinced Ebia. The testimonials of all these apostolic men are just too consistent no matter where or what apostle started their faith community. It is apparent this is what was passed down. You say they were wrong but based on what? There is nothing for 1800 years that even hints at what these modern guys claim is true. So we will have to agree to disagree.

Unless I can see even at least one accusation of these claims from somewhere in the first few hundreds of years then it is just conjecture as far as I am concerned. Why isn't some contender pointing the finger...even one of the gnostics...nah, I will stand with the history on this one for now until I see a close to equal adequate set of evidences against it.

Someones opinion, even that of a whole group, a couple of 1,000s of years after the facts, is meaningless to me.

In His name...

Paul

Let's be clear - this is your thread to "prove" who the author of the 1st gospel is. The burden of proof is therefore on you, not on me. I've explained why I don't think the evidence - which really only amounts to one fragment of Papias - is remotely sufficient given the difficulties with the hypothesis in the light of the synoptic problem.

 

[pshun2404]

No...this was my post and I was asking for some evidence that Matthew (who allegedly is not Matthew) some time later copied from the gospel of Mark all though historical records tell another story.

Paul

 

[ebia]

No...this was my post and I was asking for some evidence that Matthew (who allegedly is not Matthew) some time later copied from the gospel of Mark all though historical records tell another story.

Paul

Well, that's how I took it. As I said early on, I found the OP rather rambling so I certainly lost track of where it was going at several points.

I've made my case that:
Mark is Peter's Testimony, written in Rome around 65 AD
"Matthew" uses Mark and therefore must be written in Greek sometime after AD70.
That the only really early evidence is the Papias fragment, which is not consistent with the above and either is inaccurate or is talking about a different text. I've explained why I think the overlap between the two gospels means Papias cannot be "right" about Mark and Matthew and the case for Mark is much stronger.

I've given a hypothetical scenario that I think would adequately explain the data.

BTW, I just noticed that the OP dates Papias' writings at just before 100Ad. I believe the normal dating is 110-125AD

 

[pshun2404]

Okay Bro, I uderstand your reasoning though I disagree. So how would you explain if Matthew was written after 70 A.D. that these intuited writers would not have used the destruction of the Temple thus proving this Jesus to actually be a prophet which would have made a much stronger case to the remaining unbelieving Jewish communities? If inventing a version why not use this most excellent test of a true Prophet?

And you keep saying the only piece is Papias, but I gave other testimonies even up to Jerome (non-exhaustive) who said the Hebrew version (which the Syriacs had used...which also agrees with their tradition) was still in existence in the 4th century within the Library of Caesarea. On what basis can we just discard these witnesses?

These are important questions when we look at history for the rules of evidence and proof demand that if two or more witnesses agree on a particular fact that we cannot impeach their testimony without an equal and adequate set of evidences, but there is not so much as a rebuttal, anywhere!

So why not use the obviously fulfilled prophecy if this late dating is correct? And on what basis do we just disregard the strem of testimonies all the way up to four centuries later?

Seriously! I await you explanations.

In Christ

Paul

 

[Jett Clark]

Are you trying to say that Matthew doesn't reference the destruction of the temple? It most certainly hints at it. In fact, by looking at the four gospels, it's easy to see the evolution of "the blame." That is, who is blamed for Christ's death. In every gospel, it's the Jews who are ultimately blamed for Christ's death, but more and more responsibility is taken off the Romans in each evolution of the story.

Since Matthew was written for a Jewish audience, you can see that the blame was shifted off of Pilate as much as reasonably possible and placed onto the Jews. Thus, the author of Matthew was trying to assert that it was through their condemnation of the Messiah that the temple was destroyed. In each successive gospel, Pilate becomes more and more passive, and the Jews become more and more aggressive. John borders on outright anti-Semitism, whereas Matthew seeks only to gain repentance from the Jews.

If Jesus had come right forth in Matthew and said "The temple will be destroyed in 70 AD," it would have been not only a lie, but an obvious one. Instead, through the skewing of un-knowable details, Matthew subtly shifts the blame onto the Jews.

For reference, we know that Pilate was a lascivious blood-thirsty monster who killed literally thousands of insurrectionists in drive-by trials. There's no way that the historical description of Pilate matches up with Matthew's more passive version of him.

 

[pshun2404]

Jett, you asked “Are you trying to say that Matthew doesn't reference the destruction of the temple?”

No! In fact I said that because he has Jesus predicting it (allegedly presciently, prophetically) why not show His prophecy was fulfilled? This would be a sign to many unbelievers (especially Jewish ones). If this was not written until after the fulfillment of Daniel 9 then if making up a later version why not use this to your advantage…it makes no sense not to.

The gospels indicate “it's the Jews who are ultimately blamed for Christ's death”

No I disagree. The specific groups of Jewish people who played a part were motivated by Ciaphas and Ananias who were not the legitimate High Priests anyway (they were appointed by Rome as was the semi-Edomite false King Herod). It is the gospels which tell us Jesus (as the Christ sent from God) takes His own life and makes it clear it is because of the sins of world. In the gospels It is clear it was His intent and purpose, and that if there is blame then we are all to blame…the Romans and the Jewish apostate leadership (which are hardly represented as all the Jewish people…or as you imply by saying “the Jews&#8221 are instrumental but not to “blame”. They did not cause it, sin did all the way back to Eden…and He was determined to be crucified under whatever circumstances it was necessary to make that happen. It is the gospels that tell us Jesus, all the 120, and all the immediate followers were Jewish. Being Jewish was never the problem, it was not accepting the offer of Redemption no matter who you were. Besides this point is yet another attempt at diversion. Go back and read my post to Ebia…

Paul

 

[ebia]

Okay Bro, I uderstand your reasoning though I disagree. So how would you explain if Matthew was written after 70 A.D. that these intuited writers would not have used the destruction of the Temple thus proving this Jesus to actually be a prophet which would have made a much stronger case to the remaining unbelieving Jewish communities? If inventing a version why not use this most excellent test of a true Prophet?

They are faithful to their sources, not crass prooftexters. I see absolutely no reason to think that a writer after AD70 would make any more of the fall of the Temple than the actual gospels do.

And you keep saying the only piece is Papias, but I gave other testimonies even up to Jerome (non-exhaustive) who said the Hebrew version (which the Syriacs had used...which also agrees with their tradition) was still in existence in the 4th century within the Library of Caesarea. On what basis can we just discard these witnesses?

None of them are very close in date, and many (all) of them are probably dependent on Papias. If you want a more detailed comment I need a clearer list.

 

[Jett Clark]

Well, you need to take another look at context. In 1 Corinthians (or is it Romans?) Paul laments the difficulty of trying to convince people to believe in a crucified Messiah. In Paul's letters, we see essentially that Jesus was crucified, came back, appeared before the 12 (which must mean Judas as well) and then went to Heaven. That makes up the bulk of what we know about Jesus's story from Paul (aside from the Last Supper).

You can see what is called an "argument from embarrassment" developing throughout the gospels. Jesus becomes more and more in control in each successive gospel. In Mark, Jesus arguably only finds out He's the Son of God only when He's baptised, and Judas is portrayed not as a betrayer, but as a would-be revolutionary spurring Jesus to action. In Matthew, Judas is taken by freed. In Luke, Satan. In John, even more so by Satan. By the time we reach John, we begin to see Jesus as the divine logos, pre-existent with God since time immemorial. This is the first time this concept is brought into play, and it's something Christians have read into the other gospels since Christianity began. In order to eliminate the embarrassment of a crucified Messiah who was betrayed by His own friend, Jesus is portrayed with a greater degree of control in each successive gospel, thereby showing that He intended everything to happen as it did.

Remember that the gospels were written with xenophobia in mind as a key topic. Ultimately, Satan is not necessarily always a personified figure, but "evil from within." The evil, in this case, does not always come from within the person (but that is true as well) but from within the group. The Tanakh has a great deal of focus on evil from outside, such as the surrounding Canaanite tribes, the Babylonians, the Persians, etc. It's only in the New Testament that the focus is shifted to evil from within--within the Jewish group.

In fact, nowhere in recorded history up to the point of John's writing do we find such stern accusations of a group, as the Jews are paralleled with Satan himself. By John, Pilate does almost nothing to Jesus, and actually gives them multiple chances to let Him go. He even asks them what they want done with Him, taking the responsibility of setting up the idea of the crucifixion off of himself.

The seeds for this are planted all the way back in Mark, where we see Jesus come before the council not once, but twice. The first scenario, where Jesus is dragged in and questioned at night, most likely never happened. They pass judgement, and then in the morning hold a consultation and only then do they send Jesus to Pilate. That first trial most likely represents a tradition added by the author of Mark to show Jewish guilt, and add to the notion that "evil comes from within." There would have been no reason to hold a second meeting if judgement had already been passed, and furthermore, there's no historical evidence that the Jewish council ever met at night. It's a theological construct designed to pin the blame on the Jews rather than the Romans.

Matthew furthers this idea. Whereas Luke (written independent of Matthew) shows Satan entering Luke, in Matthew, Satan is represented by greed rather than a physical form. This "satan" of greed is given its chance to work only through the Jewish priests.

Remember that the gospels were not written as literal historical narratives, but with theological intentions in mind. Each gospel was written for its own audience, with its own purposes in mind, and they did intend to show certain things. In the case of all four gospels, one thing they chose to show more and more as time went on was the xenophobic nature of the Jewish scribes and Pharisees.

Furthermore, what evidence is there that Matthew wrote Matthew except that it's called Matthew? We know it wasn't originally called Matthew, but that a name was attributed to it later on, so where is the evidence?

 

[pshun2404]

Wow! Amazing...how craftily cunning of them all. I guess we all have been fooled by their devices all these centuries. Do you think that perhaps Jesus was just a man who His dispairing followers tried to deify by the time of John? Satan and his host are just creatively applied literary device? After all, such is the evolvement of a good myth. Such claims could easily manipulate these ignorant oppressed fishermen.

Paul

 

[Jett Clark]

He's deified in Mark, and even in Thomas to an extent. The argument is what degree of involvement Christ had in manipulating His own destiny. Was it the Father working behind the scenes, or Jesus? It depends on how connected you see Jesus to Heaven at all times. It's up for debate exactly how omniscient Christ was while on Earth, isn't it?

 

[pshun2404]

Well I suppose it would be for you guys...for me He is God manifest in the flesh...

Paul