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.

[Spud]

There was no Messianic prophecy.

Thanks for this comment! Seriously, thanks. I looked at it yesterday and found nothing convincing, until last night on YouTube and here's the link:
https://youtu.be/On_H9kyVlA8?si=gQCLsXwqRYTAn2hG
I haven't checked out the guy speaking regarding his background, but what he says is mind-blowing. Basically the prophecy Matthew quotes is indeed from Jeremiah, even though it appears to be from Zechariah.
If you don't believe that, the point for this conversation is that Matthew thought prophecy was being fulfilled, and this is why he included the account about Judas. He wasn't trotting out propaganda.

[ProfessorDavey]

Thanks for this comment! Seriously, thanks. I looked at it yesterday and found nothing convincing, until last night on YouTube and here's the link:
https://youtu.be/On_H9kyVlA8?si=gQCLsXwqRYTAn2hG
I haven't checked out the guy speaking regarding his background, but what he says is mind-blowing. Basically the prophecy Matthew quotes is indeed from Jeremiah, even though it appears to be from Zechariah.
If you don't believe that, the point for this conversation is that Matthew thought prophecy was being fulfilled, and this is why he included the account about Judas. He wasn't trotting out propaganda.

I suspect that you and Maeght are talking at cross purposes.

Of course there were claimed prophecies and of course later writers attempted to shoehorn actual or claimed events into a narrative that the earlier prophecies had been fulfilled. But that isn't the same as there actually being prophecy (except in the minds of earlier writers) not that they were actually fulfilled. It is, of course, very easy to 'reverse engineer' and cherry pick later events or traditions to appear to be the fulfilment of some earlier claim, but that doesn't mean it is real.

It is also easier to make that claim of fulfilled prophecy when the audience were not there at the time and were not first hand eye witnesses to the claimed events. And here I come back to a regular narrative of mine, effectively that the overwhelming majority of those who were there at the time (the actual eye witnesses to the claimed events) did not follow Jesus, effectively meaning they did not believe the later claims. Rather they rejected the notion of Jesus as the messiah and remained steadfast in their existing jewish belief that a messiah would come, but had not come yet.

If your eyewitnesses by and large weren't impressed (and there are claims in the NT that there were many thousands of witnesses to claimed 'miracles') there are really only two conclusions. Either that miracles of the type claimed were ten a penny and nothing to write home about (which seems exceptionally unlikely) or that the 'miracles' simply didn't happen as claimed. Realistically had you been a witness to the numerous claimed miracles in the NT (as claimed) then is stretches credibility to the limit that your conclusion would be 'nothing to see here, not the messiah'.

[Maeght]

Thanks for this comment! Seriously, thanks. I looked at it yesterday and found nothing convincing, until last night on YouTube and here's the link:
https://youtu.be/On_H9kyVlA8?si=gQCLsXwqRYTAn2hG
I haven't checked out the guy speaking regarding his background, but what he says is mind-blowing. Basically the prophecy Matthew quotes is indeed from Jeremiah, even though it appears to be from Zechariah.
If you don't believe that, the point for this conversation is that Matthew thought prophecy was being fulfilled, and this is why he included the account about Judas. He wasn't trotting out propaganda.

My view is that there are Messianic prophecies in the bible but Jesus didn't fulfill any of them as far as I can see. The supposed prophecies he is claimed to have fulfilled were not prophecies about him.

I accept that Matthew got it wrong and quoted the wrong person thinking it applied to Jesus but it didn't.

[ProfessorDavey]

He wasn't trotting out propaganda.

Depends on how you define propaganda, which is often determined by whether a person believes it or not. But to my mind much of the NT is classic propaganda - claims which are devoid of any independent corroboration, written with the claim of authority which are aimed at people changing their behaviours (in this case becoming followers of Jesus) where the readers will have absolutely no ability to verify or falsify those claim.

From Wiki:

'Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented.'

Seems to perfectly fit the bill for the gospels.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Depends on how you define propaganda, which is often determined by whether a person believes it or not. But to my mind much of the NT is classic propaganda - claims which are devoid of any independent corroboration, written with the claim of authority which are aimed at people changing their behaviours (in this case becoming followers of Jesus) where the readers will have absolutely no ability to verify or falsify those claim.

From Wiki:

'Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented.'

Seems to perfectly fit the bill for the gospels.

Aside from your hyperbole eg "perfectly" and that you are saying "propaganda" as if it is a bad thing because facts are left out....what facts are you alleging have been left out of the gospel which, in your view render the gospel propaganda.

You seem to presume shady motives, if not exclusively to people who don't share your view, then universally.

What do you see also, as the agenda of the gospel writers?

[jeremyp]

Aside from your hyperbole eg "perfectly" and that you are saying "propaganda" as if it is a bad thing because facts are left out....what facts are you alleging have been left out of the gospel which, in your view render the gospel propaganda.

You seem to presume shady motives, if not exclusively to people who don't share your view, then universally.

What do you see also, as the agenda of the gospel writers?

"Propaganda" is a strong term but not inappropriate. The gospels were certainly not written as history (despite what the author of Luke might claim) but as religious tracts promoting the "good news" of Jesus and the resurrection. Their purpose is not to inform us as to the historical events of Jesus' life but to make more Christians.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

"Propaganda" is a strong term but not inappropriate. The gospels were certainly not written as history (despite what the author of Luke might claim) but as religious tracts promoting the "good news" of Jesus and the resurrection. Their purpose is not to inform us as to the historical events of Jesus' life but to make more Christians.

CS Lewis a professional handler of mythic literature detected reportage in the gospel. I think you yourself suggested the bible could have been written in a factual, historical style.

[Spud]

Depends on how you define propaganda
...

Propaganda aside, we were discussing which is more likely: that Matthew would write 'to this day' before the destruction of Jerusalem, or after.

I was hoping people might agree that it is more naturally understood as written while the city was still inhabited.

My plan was to show that the author was someone who was associated with Jesus, having narrowed the date of writing down to pre-70.

[Dicky Underpants]

My view is that there are Messianic prophecies in the bible but Jesus didn't fulfill any of them as far as I can see. The supposed prophecies he is claimed to have fulfilled were not prophecies about him.

I accept that Matthew got it wrong and quoted the wrong person thinking it applied to Jesus but it didn't.

The author of the YouTube clip appears to be a Mormon, which does not immediately inspire confidence. He seems to be suggesting that Matthew attributed the specific details of the prophecy (incorrectly) to Jeremiah, whereas the closest parallels to what he is alluding to are in Zechariah. This, he says, is ostensibly a mistake. But he goes on to suggest that Matthew was deliberately alluding to another scripture behind all this at Jeremiah 19:4, which refers to the "shedding of innocent blood" (which would most likely in the original instance have been child sacrifice to 'false gods'). This is then claimed to be a foreshadowing of the crucifixion of the innocent Jesus.
Well, maybe. I hardly think the differing attribution of the appropriate prophecy by Matthew was deliberate, though. He might have had a shadowy memory of some text about 'innocent blood' in Jeremiah, but no doubt you can find any number of texts anywhere about shedding innocent blood if you look long enough. I really can't see any true parallel between this text and the crucifixion of Christ: the former sacrifices were made by misguided people who thought that such sacrifices might appease their fearsome gods to allow their tribes to prosper. The latter was supposed to be made by an innocent who voluntarily gave his life, not to appease a bloodthirsty deity, but somehow to reestablish a connection between humanity and that deity (at-one-ment).
Anyway, don't ask me to give an exposition of the meaning of the atonement, since this doctrine has always seemed to me such a mixed-up and mangled affair with endless interpretations, that I can't for the life of me see how anyone could believe it meant anything.

Just so everyone can see the context, here is the scripture in question:

Thus saith the LORD, Go and get a potter's earthen bottle, and take of the ancients of the people, and of the ancients of the priests; 2And go forth unto the valley of the son of Hinnom, which is by the entry of the east gate, and proclaim there the words that I shall tell thee, 3And say, Hear ye the word of the LORD, O kings of Judah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem; Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, the which whosoever heareth, his ears shall tingle. 4Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents; 5They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind: 6Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter. 7And I will make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place; and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies, and by the hands of them that seek their lives: and their carcases will I give to be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth.

There is a reference to "a potter's earthen bottle", but that's the extent of references to pottering matters.

[Spud]

The author of the YouTube clip
....

He points out four similarities between Matthew 27 and Jeremiah 19:
-The chief priests and elders
-Innocent blood
-Burial place
-For foreigners (Matthew) / a foreign place.(Jeremiah)

[Maeght]

Propaganda aside, we were discussing which is more likely: that Matthew would write 'to this day' before the destruction of Jerusalem, or after.

I was hoping people might agree that it is more naturally understood as written while the city was still inhabited.

My plan was to show that the author was someone who was associated with Jesus, having narrowed the date of writing down to pre-70.

Yes, sure that was your plan. It failed.