Who wrote the gospel attributed to Matthew?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yep - what 'matters' to people, and also what doesn't matter, can often be subjective.

I can't see that there is anything profoundly objective about the NT, given its lack of provenance, so that it matters to some is subjective. I'm just surprised that they would take it seriously at all.

I look to historians regarding provenance.
You are I'm sure aware that my own view of the NT is that the only element of the NT that needed to reach us is the notion of the need of salvation and that salvation has been offered.

[Gordon]

I look to historians regarding provenance.
You are I'm sure aware that my own view of the NT is that the only element of the NT that needed to reach us is the notion of the need of salvation and that salvation has been offered.

Those are indeed notions, albeit not credible ones.

[Dicky Underpants]

I look to historians regarding provenance.
You are I'm sure aware that my own view of the NT is that the only element of the NT that needed to reach us is the notion of the need of salvation and that salvation has been offered.

You can get that from just one of Paul's letters - written by a man who never met a flesh and blood Jesus. Nothing else that might interest us?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Those are indeed notions, albeit not credible ones.

And I remain hopeful of a full justification of that that does not involve a bum understanding of history or induction or an appeal to numbers in some population.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You can get that from just one of Paul's letters - written by a man who never met a flesh and blood Jesus. Nothing else that might interest us?

And yet most history which you accept is written by people who they never met the people they write about.

[Gordon]

And I remain hopeful of a full justification of that that does not involve a bum understanding of history or induction or an appeal to numbers in some population.

I'm not the one who thinks that 'salvation' involves a character who has been dead these last 2,000 years: but that is your notion, Vlad, so the burden of proof is all yours.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not the one who thinks that 'salvation' involves a character who has been dead these last 2,000 years: but that is your notion, Vlad, so the burden of proof is all yours.

No, You are the one suggesting that these things are impossible so you also have a burden.

[Gordon]

No, You are the one suggesting that these things are impossible so you also have a burden.

No I don't: I haven't said they are 'impossible' but that notion of 'salvation' via a long-dead character is not 'credible'. For it to be credible I'd need to see an explanation and that, dear boy, is your problem and not mine. If you can't show how it is credibly possible then there is nothing to take seriously.

Your problem is that if you want people to accept metaphysical notions of supernatural agency then you need a means to explain how these notions are 'possibility-apt', and that is where you guys fall to pieces. If you can't show how such a thing is possible, then 'impossibility' is surely moot.

[Spud]

Don't know:

Put another way, would it be appropriate to include it in the sermon on the mount, if Jerusalem and the temple had been burnt to the ground and there was no longer a sacrificial system?

[Spud]

Matthew 27 and Acts 1 speak about the "field of blood" bought with the money paid to Judas for betraying Jesus. It was where Judas died, and his death became known to all who lived in Jerusalem. Matthew says it was called the field of blood "to this day", and Luke tells us who called it that: "all who lived in Jerusalem".

After AD70 no Jews lived in Jerusalem, as they had all been killed or enslaved.

So this passage from Matthew 27 as well as the account of the rumour spread by the guards at the tomb, in which the same time stamp is given, had to have been written before AD70.

I wanted to show this, because it narrows down the possibilities for the author of Matthew to someone who would have been either an eyewitness himself, or would have received his information from eyewitnesses.

[ProfessorDavey]

So this passage from Matthew 27 as well as the account of the rumour spread by the guards at the tomb, in which the same time stamp is given, had to have been written before AD70.

No it doesn't - all it may mean is that the author is referring to a tradition that might, or might not, have been swirling around earlier than 70CE.

But the comment itself reads as classic hyperbole - "all who lived in Jerusalem", really?!? So not a single person in Jerusalem didn't call it that. But even if "all who lived in Jerusalem" called it that it really means nothing - we have a road in my town called Holywell Hill - legend suggests that a well sprang up where the head of an executed martyr landed. Sure everyone in St Albans calls it Holywell Hill (interestingly pronounced Hollywell), but that doesn't mean that someone writing as such must have been writing earlier than a particular date (as the legend persists), and nor, of course, that the legend has one iota of truth associated with it.

[ProfessorDavey]

I wanted to show this, because it narrows down the possibilities for the author of Matthew to someone who would have been either an eyewitness himself, or would have received his information from eyewitnesses.

No - it narrows it down to a person who was aware of a legend or tradition, regardless of whether or not that legend or tradition was based on factual events.

[Spud]

No it doesn't - all it may mean is that the author is referring to a tradition that might, or might not, have been swirling around earlier than 70CE.

But the comment itself reads as classic hyperbole - "all who lived in Jerusalem", really?!? So not a single person in Jerusalem didn't call it that. But even if "all who lived in Jerusalem" called it that it really means nothing - we have a road in my town called Holywell Hill - legend suggests that a well sprang up where the head of an executed martyr landed. Sure everyone in St Albans calls it Holywell Hill (interestingly pronounced Hollywell), but that doesn't mean that someone writing as such must have been writing earlier than a particular date (as the legend persists), and nor, of course, that the legend has one iota of truth associated with it.

If you were to take Acts 1 on its own then yes that could have been written post-AD70. But there is also the reference to the same field in Matthew 27. Matthew says it was called the field of blood "to this day". That means at the time of writing it was still called that. After AD70 there was no-one living there to call it that, so he must have been writing before that date.

[Maeght]

AI says

'While the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD significantly impacted the Jewish population, it did not result in the complete absence of Jews in the city. A Jewish presence, though diminished, persisted in Jerusalem and the surrounding region.'

[ProfessorDavey]

If you were to take Acts 1 on its own then yes that could have been written post-AD70. But there is also the reference to the same field in Matthew 27. Matthew says it was called the field of blood "to this day". That means at the time of writing it was still called that. After AD70 there was no-one living there to call it that, so he must have been writing before that date.

I'm sorry Spud - you are talking complete nonsense.

The whole point about legends and traditions is that they persist long, long after any eye witnesses to the perceived founding event have long died out. In the case of Holywell Hill in St Albans the legend and tradition and the naming convention remain some 1800 years after the claimed 'miracle'.

All that a reference to a transition or legend tells us is that the writer was writing at some point after that legend or tradition first arose - it tells us nothing about how long afterwards as long as the legend or tradition persists.

[ProfessorDavey]

AI says

'While the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD significantly impacted the Jewish population, it did not result in the complete absence of Jews in the city. A Jewish presence, though diminished, persisted in Jerusalem and the surrounding region.'

True - and the tradition wouldn't necessarily have persisted amongst the jewish population alone. Indeed, given its provenance it is more likely to have persisted in communities other that the orthodox jewish population, who, of course, did not ascribe to the claims of the NT.

Also remember that there is no evidence that the authors were writing in Jerusalem and plenty of evidence that they weer writing elsewhere, so if there were a jewish diaspora (who had been excluded from Jerusalem) those may have been the people who the authors tapped into for their legends/tradition.

[Spud]

Your assertion that it's a legend is based on your preconception, not on the natural way to understand it in the light of the destruction of Jerusalem.

Riley comments that the words "that field has been called the field of blood to this day" would hardly have been appropriate if written in the period immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem, and suggest a date prior to AD70.

If the field was no longer in use, as would have been the case for some time after AD70, the author would have no reason to include the words "to this day".

[ProfessorDavey]

Your assertion that it's a legend is based on your preconception, not on the natural way to understand it in the light of the destruction of Jerusalem.

Firstly, nice bit of misrepresentation of what I said. Note I talked of legends and traditions. Now, there is no evidence that this piece of land actually turned into blood, so in that context we are talking of a tradition of naming this area as such by people who considered Judas to be a figure of infamy (which, let's be clear would be a small subset of those living in Jerusalem at the time). Were there to be a (completely unevidenced) claim that the area really did spout blood then that would be a legend. So legends and traditions are exactly the correct terms to use and show no bias or preconception on my part.

Riley comments that the words "that field has been called the field of blood to this day" would hardly have been appropriate of written in the period immediately after the destruction Jerusalem, and suggest a date prior to AD70.

If the field was no longer in use, as would have been the case for some time after AD70, the author would have no reason to include the words "to this day".

I have no idea who Riley is but if his suggestion is that naming traditions about an area of a city always die out if that area is destroyed or reconfigured then he is talking demonstrable non-sense. The whole point about such traditions is that the naming persists long, long after the area itself may have been totally destroyed or reconfigured beyond recognition.

Back to St Albans as another excellent example. The area where the roman city of Verulamium used to exist, 2000 years ago is still known 'to this day' universally as Verulamium, despite the fact that the city was completely destroyed over 1500 years ago. Now the area is a park with a lake and with a couple of short stretches of roman wall. Yet it is still known 'to this day' universally as Verulamium.

So realistically all we can say is that there was a tradition that arose amongst some of the population in Jerusalem (those that considered Judas to be a figure of infamy) to name this area the field of blood. And that someone writing about this must have been writing after the tradition arose and before the tradition disappeared, which as I've pointed out can easily be centuries or longer later (and in this case the tradition persists to this day). The destruction of an area would have no impact on whether a tradition of naming an area in a particular manner persists.

[jeremyp]

AI says

Yes, let's not put any weight onto anything AI says please.

'While the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD significantly impacted the Jewish population, it did not result in the complete absence of Jews in the city. A Jewish presence, though diminished, persisted in Jerusalem and the surrounding region.'

That's probably correct even though it was said by AI. However, even if everybody died or left, there would be memories of the places in Jerusalem amongst the refugees. Also, Matthew, writing in Syria, probably just heard the Field of Blood thing as a tradition and he probably wouldn't have bothered to go to Jerusalem and check its veracity.

[ProfessorDavey]

That's probably correct even though it was said by AI. However, even if everybody died or left, there would be memories of the places in Jerusalem amongst the refugees. Also, Matthew, writing in Syria, probably just heard the Field of Blood thing as a tradition and he probably wouldn't have bothered to go to Jerusalem and check its veracity.

True - so Spud's notion that the tradition of naming of this area would have died out following the (partial) destruction of Jerusalem is complete nonsense, given that the people who appeared to be aware of the tradition and wrote about weren't writing in Jerusalem but elsewhere. Indeed the dispersal of people from Jerusalem throughout the region would have helped the tradition of Field of Blood to come to the attention of the writers.

But the very fact that we are discussing this tradition 2000 years on demonstrates that the notion that the tradition could only have been known to someone in Jerusalem before the time of the destruction is totally bonkers.

[Maeght]

Your assertion that it's a legend is based on your preconception, not on the natural way to understand it in the light of the destruction of Jerusalem.

Riley comments that the words "that field has been called the field of blood to this day" would hardly have been appropriate if written in the period immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem, and suggest a date prior to AD70.

If the field was no longer in use, as would have been the case for some time after AD70, the author would have no reason to include the words "to this day".

My home town has a blood fields. Comes from being a traditional place for people to fight in Victorian times.

[Spud]

Thanks for your replies. I have lots of thoughts in response, but the important one is to do with Matthew's wording. "To this day" suggests that, although some time had elapsed, it was known by occupants of the city at the time of writing.

For example, if the writer was writing after AD70, a long way from the city, a more appropriate way to put it would be simply, "that field became known as the field of blood" and leave it at that. 30 years ago my college friends used to meet in a pub called "The Battle of Trafalgar". It became known as "The Traff". I probably wouldn't make a point of stating that it is still known as that, if I were to write about it (especially if London was in ruins). Matthew's point is more to do with the prophecy being fulfilled. Why would he point out that it was still known as the field of blood, when it was derelict and nobody lived there?

Again, who is he referring to if it's post-70? Not the residents of Jerusalem - only the Roman garrison remained. His Christian circle of friends, or his Jewish acquaintances? To know something by a name implies knowing the thing itself. Nobody would be talking about it enough to merit a mention, if they did remember it. It wasn't an important detail unless the time of writing the account is pre-70.

[Spud]

AI says

'While the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD significantly impacted the Jewish population, it did not result in the complete absence of Jews in the city. A Jewish presence, though diminished, persisted in Jerusalem and the surrounding region.'

Not sure where AI gets this - I can't find any website that says anyone except the Roman 10th legion lived in the city after the siege. Wiki's page on the siege of Jerusalem indicates that the Romans basically killed or took prisoner everyone in the city, which was reduced to ash and rubble.

[ProfessorDavey]

Thanks for your replies. I have lots of thoughts in response, but the important one is to do with Matthew's wording. "To this day" suggests that, although some time had elapsed, it was known by occupants of the city at the time of writing.

For example, if the writer was writing after AD70, a long way from the city, a more appropriate way to put it would be simply, "that field became known as the field of blood" and leave it at that. 30 years ago my college friends used to meet in a pub called "The Battle of Trafalgar". It became known as "The Traff". I probably wouldn't make a point of stating that it is still known as that, if I were to write about it (especially if London was in ruins). Matthew's point is more to do with the prophecy being fulfilled. Why would he point out that it was still known as the field of blood, when it was derelict and nobody lived there?

Why would he say that? Well to cement a view that Judas should be considered to be a figure of disrepute. He emphasises this using the classic hyperbole that all people called it that (really!?! I very much doubt it) and until this day - to reinforce that the tradition persisted (albeit only likely persisted amongst the porto-christian minorities).

Again, who is he referring to if it's post-70? Not the residents of Jerusalem - only the Roman garrison remained. His Christian circle of friends, or his Jewish acquaintances? To know something by a name implies knowing the thing itself. Nobody would be talking about it enough to merit a mention, if they did remember it. It wasn't an important detail unless the time of writing the account is pre-70.

Well given that we don't know who wrote Matthew, nor exactly when or where it was written it is, of course, also speculation as to the audience. However we can certainly consider that the section would have been aimed at those for whom Judas was a hate figure, a betrayer, a figure of disrepute. So who would that be, and who wouldn't it be?

Well it is unlikely to be either the Romans nor those who resolutely rejected the claims of Jesus and stayed with their traditional Jewish religion. Firstly because these groups would have considered Jesus to have been (at best) a somewhat awkward agitator who might have caused instability in the region and challenge to their authorities. So they's probably have considered Judas to have acted in a responsible and praise-worthy manner in helping bring Jesus to justice. So I cannot see how Judas would be a figure of disrepute in their eyes. But also remember that Matthew was writing maybe 50 year after the events, so I doubt these groups would have still been thinking about Jesus/Judas in any serious manner at all. They would have moved on well beyond this.

So that leaves the most likely audience - the proto-christian communities. Those who may be early followers of Jesus but likely would not have been around at the time and place where Jesus was. So to cement a view that Judas (and by inference, and I'll come back to this, the broader Jewish authorities) were disreputable would have been important to help persuade these people that they'd picked the 'good guys' rather than the 'bad guys'. Classic propaganda that has remained unchanged across centuries. And actually this tiny section with its references to betrayal and blood money aimed at the jews is the kernel of thousands of years of disreputable stereotyping and persecution of the jewish peoples.

[Maeght]

Not sure where AI gets this - I can't find any website that says anyone except the Roman 10th legion lived in the city after the siege. Wiki's page on the siege of Jerusalem indicates that the Romans basically killed or took prisoner everyone in the city, which was reduced to ash and rubble.

Aelia Capitolina was formed in around 130AD and Jews were banned from the city. Doesn't that suggest that Jews were in the area before that date? Not having really looked into it.