Who wrote the gospel attributed to Matthew?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

I think there is plenty of evidence to substantiate the claim that Jerusalem was largely destroyed around 70CE and thereafter a roman garrison was based there, with Aelia Capitolina established about 50 years later.

However it is naive to think that the only people living there in the area in those intervening years were roman soldiers. There would have been all kinds of support structures needed to maintain the garrison, which would have involved the local population. So it may have been that, in theory, no civilians were living in Jerusalem during the period, but in practice there would have been plenty of people living close to the garrison, visiting to do business etc throughout those 50 years. 

[jeremyp]

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.

If you want me to make my best guess, I'd say that neither the Acts tradition nor the Matthew tradition has any basis in fact (note that they are mutually contradictory). The Field of Blood is a real place but I don't think there is any evidence for how it was named outside of the New Testament. I think that there was some garbled oral tradition associating Judas with that field - maybe he really did hang himself there - and Matthew and Luke wove it into their stories in different ways.

[Spud]

If you want me to make my best guess, I'd say that neither the Acts tradition nor the Matthew tradition has any basis in fact (note that they are mutually contradictory). The Field of Blood is a real place but I don't think there is any evidence for how it was named outside of the New Testament. I think that there was some garbled oral tradition associating Judas with that field - maybe he really did hang himself there - and Matthew and Luke wove it into their stories in different ways.

Did the priests buy the field or did Judas? Either way, both state it was bought with the money he was given. They both mention the potter's field becoming known as the field of blood, as well as Judas dying a violent death.

[ProfessorDavey]

Did the priests buy the field or did Judas? Either way, both state it was bought with the money he was given. They both mention the potter's field becoming known as the field of blood, as well as Judas dying a violent death.

Nope, the accounts are radically different - in one Judas simply hangs himself, committing suicide which is a perfectly plausible explanation for someone who may be wracked with remorse, requiring no kind of divine intervention. In the other account Judas when buying the land with the money he'd received was immediately struck down - 'falling headfirst he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out', in other words some kind of direct and violent divine retribution.

And there are also discrepancies as to who bought the land - in Matthew it is the jewish authorities while in Acts it is Judas himself.

What is clear in both accounts is that this cements the notion of 'blood money' a slur used to support persecution of jewish people for thousands of years.

[Spud]

The destruction of an area would have no impact on whether a tradition of naming an area in a particular manner persists.

Correct, but it would impact on whether a writer would have reason to mention that it was still called that. If the city was in ruins, then Matthew would be referring to people who lived far away from the city. This is possible, but he would more naturally be referring to people living in the city at the time, which implies a date earlier than AD70. If I wrote an account of my time in London, I might say that the pub we went to became known as the Traff. I would not write that it is still known as the Traff, because I no longer live there and I've unfortunately lost touch with the people.

[ProfessorDavey]

Correct, but it would impact on whether a writer would have reason to mention that it was still called that. If the city was in ruins, then Matthew would be referring to people who lived far away from the city. This is possible, but he would more naturally be referring to people living in the city at the time, which implies a date earlier than AD70. If I wrote an account of my time in London, I might say that the pub we went to became known as the Traff. I would not write that it is still known as the Traff, because I no longer live there and I've unfortunately lost touch with the people.

I think you need to consider the context of the time.

The destruction of Jerusalem marks a point at which traditional judaism and developing christianity began to radically diverge. And with it the development of a narrative from the proto-christian church that the jewish people were cursed, with the destruction of Jerusalem seen as an act of divine punishment for the jews. So in this context it would have been easy to slot in an earlier claim of divine retribution towards an individual seen as jewish, rather than christian and to add to the narrative that the jews and their sacred city of jerusalem were cursed.

History is littered with ancient tropes and traditions being trotted out as propaganda to divide the 'good' us from the 'bad' them.

[Spud]

I think you need to consider the context of the time.

The destruction of Jerusalem marks a point at which traditional judaism and developing christianity began to radically diverge. And with it the development of a narrative from the proto-christian church that the jewish people were cursed, with the destruction of Jerusalem seen as an act of divine punishment for the jews. So in this context it would have been easy to slot in an earlier claim of divine retribution towards an individual seen as jewish, rather than christian and to add to the narrative that the jews and their sacred city of jerusalem were cursed.

History is littered with ancient tropes and traditions being trotted out as propaganda to divide the 'good' us from the 'bad' them.

Overthinking it. Maybe Matthew added the bit about the field as evidence for his claim that Jesus is the Messiah? How would that work - the field was named after the blood money used to pay for it. That fulfilled the messianic prophecy.

[Maeght]

Overthinking it. Maybe Matthew added the bit about the field as evidence for his claim that Jesus is the Messiah? How would that work - the field was named after the blood money used to pay for it. That fulfilled the messianic prophecy.

There was no Messianic prophecy.