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).

I really can't imagine how it would help an author who wants to persuade his readers to reject Judaism and embrace Christianity, to create the narrative that the Jews have recently been punished for rejecting Jesus, yet pretend that it hasn't yet happened.

[Spud]

I intended to talk about why the author of Matthew must have been one of the twelve disciples. Most people believe that the author used Mark as the source for his narrative, and that he could not have been Matthew, because it would be unlikely that an apostle would rely on an account written by someone who wasn't an apostle.

But Matthew's narrative has its own distinct structure, such that that it cannot have been derived from Mark. And each section of his teaching material is set in a definite context within the narrative, and follows naturally from that context. Additional material has been added to both the narrative and teaching material either by the original author or a later editor.

The contents of the pre-edited text of Matthew show signs of direct association with Jesus during his ministry.

For example, Mark states simply that after John the Baptist was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee and began to preach. Matthew however gives the reason for Jesus' move to Galilee, saying that "When Jesus heard that John had been imprisoned, He withdrew to Galilee" and "From that time on Jesus began to preach". Then, after John's execution, Mark, like Luke, explains Jesus' withdrawal from the public eye as due to a need for rest, whereas Matthew says that it was because Jesus heard about John. In both instances Matthew links Jesus' withdrawal to Herod's actions towards John. This is what we would expect if the author was one of the twelve disciples, who would have had this kind of inside information about Jesus' ministry, in contrast with Mark for whom that detail was apparently not important. For another example, the author of Matthew (but not Luke or Mark) mentions flute players at Jairus' house when Jesus arrived there, typical of eyewitness recollection.

[Maeght]

Or Matthew takes mark and adds material from other sources and writes in a way as to tell the story and give the message he wanted to.

[Spud]

Or Matthew takes mark and adds material from other sources and writes in a way as to tell the story and give the message he wanted to.

Comparing the two, it seems obvious that the author of Matthew had a more extensive knowledge and deeper understanding of what happened.than the author of Mark. Surely this indicates that Matthew was closer to the source than Mark, and therefore written nearer in time?

[Maeght]

Comparing the two, it seems obvious that the author of Matthew had a more extensive knowledge and deeper understanding of what happened.than the author of Mark. Surely this indicates that Matthew was closer to the source than Mark, and therefore written nearer in time?

Added details but not necessarily knowledge. The details could be inaccurate. Later stories could have been added by the author based on circulating stories or he could have just invented them.

[Dicky Underpants]

Comparing the two, it seems obvious that the author of Matthew had a more extensive knowledge and deeper understanding of what happened.than the author of Mark. Surely this indicates that Matthew was closer to the source than Mark, and therefore written nearer in time?

Or perhaps he simply took Mark's account as the basic structure, did some further research or was aware of other oral traditions and added them to the narrative. And I'd say it's obvious he made certain details up to add a bit of extra drama to the narrative - such as the zombie apocalypse and the  description of the angel descending to roll away the stone.

[Spud]

Or perhaps he simply took Mark's account as the basic structure, did some further research or was aware of other oral traditions and added them to the narrative. And I'd say it's obvious he made certain details up to add a bit of extra drama to the narrative - such as the zombie apocalypse and the  description of the angel descending to roll away the stone.

But is it also possible that Mark was using an earlier edition of Matthew which didn't contain those additional traditions?

[Maeght]

But is it also possible that Mark was using an earlier edition of Matthew which didn't contain those additional traditions?

Possible but no evidence for an earlier version of Matthew is there?

[Spud]

Possible but no evidence for an earlier version of Matthew is there?

From what I've read, there definitely is; there are lots of sentences, paragraphs or occasionally an entire section that that appear not to fit into their context well. However I think it's not the same issue as where you have a story that's common to Matthew and Mark, and Matthew's version is part of the original text, but is longer. Eg John the Baptist's preaching, or the temptation in the wilderness. Neither of these stories in Matthew show signs of editing but we could still ask whether it is Matthew who has expanded Mark or Mark who has shortened Matthew.

[Spud]

Added details but not necessarily knowledge. The details could be inaccurate. Later stories could have been added by the author based on circulating stories or he could have just invented them.

But in the examples of John the Baptist's preaching and Jesus' temptation in the wilderness, the extra information in Matthew fits naturally into its context. John's description of the winnowing fork of the one who was coming after him, and the detail that Jesus fasted in the desert, explaining the reason for saying that Jesus was tempted, suggest that Matthew's structure was not derived from Mark's, since Matthew's additional information explains the information he has in common with Mark. This must mean that Mark has abbreviated Matthew.

[Maeght]

From what I've read, there definitely is; there are lots of sentences, paragraphs or occasionally an entire section that that appear not to fit into their context well. However I think it's not the same issue as where you have a story that's common to Matthew and Mark, and Matthew's version is part of the original text, but is longer. Eg John the Baptist's preaching, or the temptation in the wilderness. Neither of these stories in Matthew show signs of editing but we could still ask whether it is Matthew who has expanded Mark or Mark who has shortened Matthew.

I believe it is thought possible that Matthew had access to writings of an apostle, but that doesn't mean he wrote an earlier version doesn't it?

[Spud]

I believe it is thought possible that Matthew had access to writings of an apostle, but that doesn't mean he wrote an earlier version doesn't it?

This seems the same as saying that the later editor(s) expanded the writings of an apostle?

[Spud]

I believe it is thought possible that Matthew had access to writings of an apostle, but that doesn't mean he wrote an earlier version doesn't it?

Matthew has to be the first written: think back to when you have read in Mark that Jesus was tempted in the wilderness. If you hadn't read Matthew's account, you would have no idea in what way Jesus was tempted, or why.
Also Matthew makes sense of the sequence (Jesus baptism is followed by his temptation), because in the first God says "this is my Son", in the second the devil tries to make him doubt, saying "if you are the Son of God...". We wouldn't understand why the two are in sequence from just reading Mark.

[Maeght]

Matthew has to be the first written: think back to when you have read in Mark that Jesus was tempted in the wilderness. If you hadn't read Matthew's account, you would have no idea in what way Jesus was tempted, or why.
Also Matthew makes sense of the sequence (Jesus baptism is followed by his temptation), because in the first God says "this is my Son", in the second the devil tries to make him doubt, saying "if you are the Son of God...". We wouldn't understand why the two are in sequence from just reading Mark.

Why do most scholars not think that then?

[ProfessorDavey]

From what I've read, there definitely is; there are lots of sentences, paragraphs or occasionally an entire section that that appear not to fit into their context well.

But the text we actually have (rather than the hypothetic 'original' which is unavailable to us) is largely from the 3rd-6thC CE. So surely a more plausible explanation for 'sentences, paragraphs or occasionally an entire section that that appear not to fit into their context well' is that the text has been edited, added to, had section removed over the 2-300 years after it was purported to have been written. Accordingly what we actually have available to us as text is a highly edited and 'curated' version deemed suitable to be considered as 'orthodox' by the early church.

[Spud]

But the text we actually have (rather than the hypothetic 'original' which is unavailable to us) is largely from the 3rd-6thC CE. So surely a more plausible explanation for 'sentences, paragraphs or occasionally an entire section that that appear not to fit into their context well' is that the text has been edited, added to, had section removed over the 2-300 years after it was purported to have been written. Accordingly what we actually have available to us as text is a highly edited and 'curated' version deemed suitable to be considered as 'orthodox' by the early church.

If "to this day" is a comment by an editor, it suggests a date for the additional material earlier than AD70, although I know you have your own theory about that, involving anti-Semitism of the author.
Agreed, minor textual variances have appeared over the centuries.

[ProfessorDavey]

If "to this day" is a comment by an editor, it suggests a date for the additional material earlier than AD70, although I know you have your own theory about that, involving anti-Semitism of the author.

Yup we've been through this, and we all agree that the gospels weren't contemporaneously written and therefore are written in the form of a current account but written decades or centuries later. This gives amply opportunity to create 'reverse' prophecy - in other words imply something to be a prophesy in the future when it actually alludes to something that had already happened at the time of writing to claim that the prophecy had been fulfilled. Well of course it had as they were writing after the event.
 

Agreed, minor textual variances have appeared over the centuries.

There are literally thousands of minor textural variations between earlier version of the bible - indeed I think there are more variations that there are actually words in the gospels.

But there are also some humdinger changes (that we know about) - the most notable being the edited end to Mark which changes the narrative from 'no resurrection' to 'resurrection'. But we only know about this because we have before/after versions. For most texts we have nothing until hundreds of years after they were written and therefore we do not know and cannot know how these 3rd/6thC 'first' versions we have compare to the original and whether they varied in only minor respects or (as in the ending of Mark) in day/night variations.

[Spud]

Yup we've been through this, and we all agree that the gospels weren't contemporaneously written and therefore are written in the form of a current account but written decades or centuries later.

In the past tense but could still have been pre - AD70.

This gives amply opportunity to create 'reverse' prophecy - in other words imply something to be a prophesy in the future when it actually alludes to something that had already happened at the time of writing to claim that the prophecy had been fulfilled.

How did that help their cause? Why didn't they just say it had been fulfilled, as Matthew did so often in the text regarding old testament prophecy?

Well of course it had as they were writing after the event.

There are many verses that suggest otherwise. Matthew sometimes mentions aspects of temple worship as though they were still being practiced, such as offering a gift at the altar, or swearing by the temple.

There are literally thousands of minor textural variations between earlier version of the bible - indeed I think there are more variations that there are actually words in the gospels.

But there are also some humdinger changes (that we know about) - the most notable being the edited end to Mark which changes the narrative from 'no resurrection' to 'resurrection'. But we only know about this because we have before/after versions. For most texts we have nothing until hundreds of years after they were written and therefore we do not know and cannot know how these 3rd/6thC 'first' versions we have compare to the original and whether they varied in only minor respects or (as in the ending of Mark) in day/night variations.

We have recently been talking about the changes made to Matthew. Once identified, a coherent underlying narrative with integrated discourses is seen.
Mark 16:8 is similar in form to Matthew 28:8, but with marked differences - we don't know why Mark changed it to say that the women told no-one; however, they must have broken their silence at some point for Mark to know what they had seen. This also prompts the question as to whether Matthew 28:8 was the final verse of his original narrative.
I don't disagree that it's possible the resurrection appearances were recorded later than the first edition of the first published gospel. There may be reasons for that other than "therefore they made it up".