Who wrote the gospel attributed to Matthew?

[jeremyp]

I'm hoping you will take this this beyond the "CS Lewis was just a big silly poo" level and justify any issues who have with the trilemma...beyond arguing that it is a quadrilemma that is

No, I'm pointing out that your authority is not very authoritative.

I may be at fault here and should have made it clear that Lewis stated that he detected reportage in the new testament and was not talking about the Bible as a whole.

Can you tell me which bits of the gospel of Matthew (the subject of this thread) he found reportage in and how he decided it was reportage.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, I'm pointing out that your authority is not very authoritative.Can you tell me which bits of the gospel of Matthew (the subject of this thread) he found reportage in and how he decided it was reportage.

That leaves us no clearer on what is meant to be wrong and stupid about the trilemma and moves us back onto you "asking ze qvestions"..I should Co Co. I think Lewis just makes the comment that parts of the new testament read like reportage indeed, I seem to recall you viewing the NT as some kind of historical fiction.

[jeremyp]

That leaves us no clearer on what is meant to be wrong and stupid about the trilemma and moves us back onto you "asking ze qvestions".

This is a thread about the gospel of Matthew. I brought up the trilemma only to point out that CS Lewis was not the sharpest tool in the box. Happy to discuss it elsewhere if you really aren't clear about it.

I should Co Co. I think Lewis just makes the comment that parts of the new testament read like reportage

So he provides no evidence for his view?

indeed, I seem to recall you viewing the NT as some kind of historical fiction.

I have never done that. Well, the gospels and Acts might be historical fiction* but most of the rest of the NT is theology.

* although they may contain some grains of truth.

[Spud]

So back to the agenda of the writer - as I said previously this cannot be ignored. Matthew was writing with an agenda to try to persuade people to join the developing group of early christians at a time when early christians were actively trying to move away from being seen merely as a rather obscure jewish sect. To do so one of the things he needed to do was 'other' the jewish mainstream, specifically to make it seem that god not only was on the side of the christians but also was actively punishing the jewish people for 'betraying' Jesus and not accepting him/rejecting him as the messiah.

But this assumes that the city had already been destroyed. It doesn't prove, or support any theory that it had, which is what you are supposed to be doing.

[ProfessorDavey]

But this assumes that the city had already been destroyed. It doesn't prove that it had, which is what you are supposed to be doing.

Correct - we have no real way of proving whether the gospel was written before or after the destruction. However to my mind (and to many serious bible scholars) the writing makes far more sense if written after the destruction, at a time when the early christians were actively distancing themselves from judaism and were developing a narrative that the jewish people were cursed and were being punished for rejecting Jesus as the messiah.

And also back to another of my themes - specifically that we do not have the original texts, nor anything close to original, for any of the gospels. In the case of Matthew 27:7 if I'm not mistaken the earliest actual text we have is from the 5thC (maybe even later). So we can be 100% sure that the earliest actual version of the text is from long, long after the destruction. We cannot be sure, of course, to what extent this 5thC text may or may not be similar to the original (unknown) text from the late 1stC.

[Spud]

Correct - we have no real way of proving whether the gospel was written before or after the destruction. However to my mind (and to many serious bible scholars) the writing makes far more sense if written after the destruction, at a time when the early christians were actively distancing themselves from judaism and were developing a narrative that the jewish people were cursed and were being punished for rejecting Jesus as the messiah.

Why, though? He could have been warning them of the impending destruction (which is actually what the book does do - it never refers to it as an event that has happened). What you're actually saying is that Jesus is much less likely to have predicted it, and hence Matthew written his warnings, than Matthew was to have known it happened and written to explain why.

[ProfessorDavey]

Why, though? He could have been warning them of the impending destruction (which is actually what the book does do - it never refers to it as an event that has happened). What you're actually saying is that Jesus is much less likely to have predicted it, and hence Matthew written his warnings, than Matthew was to have known it happened and written to explain why.

But you are simply describing the narrative style of the gospels - effectively narrating the claimed story of Jesus as if it is contemporaneous (i.e in the present) when we know that they were written at best decades later and, in reality, discussing something in the past.

So, of course, Matthew needs to allude to the destruction rather than simply say 'hey look what happened 5 years ago in CE70'. But also prophesying is a highly risky game unless you are writing with hindsight - in other words the thing you are prophesying has already happened, which is, of course, what Matthew is doing. Knowing full well that the destruction has happened but writing as if it is some kind of prophetic future event.

So basically what Matthew is doing is creating a narrative as follows: 'Judas rejected and betrayed Jesus and look what happened to him - he was punished and cursed. And now the whole of the jewish people are rejecting Jesus and so they will be punished and cursed' - knowing full well that this had already come to pass through the destruction and the narrative that the early church were creating around that event.

So yes, it only really makes sense if written after the destruction (as basically all serious bible scholars agree).

And I come back to my other point - the earliest actual texts we have on field of blood or prophecy of destruction are from way, way later than CE70 so even if there was some text earlier than the destruction there was plenty of opportunity for this to be revised to take account of the destruction and the purported fulfilled prophecy (actually merely fitting a prophetic narrative to an event that had already happened).

[Spud]

But you are simply describing the narrative style of the gospels - effectively narrating the claimed story of Jesus as if it is contemporaneous (i.e in the present) when we know that they were written at best decades later and, in reality, discussing something in the past.

So, of course, Matthew needs to allude to the destruction rather than simply say 'hey look what happened 5 years ago in CE70'. But also prophesying is a highly risky game unless you are writing with hindsight - in other words the thing you are prophesying has already happened, which is, of course, what Matthew is doing. Knowing full well that the destruction has happened but writing as if it is some kind of prophetic future event.

So basically what Matthew is doing is creating a narrative as follows: 'Judas rejected and betrayed Jesus and look what happened to him - he was punished and cursed. And now the whole of the jewish people are rejecting Jesus and so they will be punished and cursed' - knowing full well that this had already come to pass through the destruction and the narrative that the early church were creating around that event.

So yes, it only really makes sense if written after the destruction (as basically all serious bible scholars agree).

And I come back to my other point - the earliest actual texts we have on field of blood or prophecy of destruction are from way, way later than CE70 so even if there was some text earlier than the destruction there was plenty of opportunity for this to be revised to take account of the destruction and the purported fulfilled prophecy (actually merely fitting a prophetic narrative to an event that had already happened).

Mark and Matthew sometimes write in the present, but that's just their style. It's obvious they are reporting past events. And still you haven't offered any evidence that Matthew was written after AD70, other than that it would be unlikely for him to risk predicting it and being wrong. Your assertion that he had an antisemitic agenda could be true whether he was writing before or after 70. Have you read the link I gave earlier?