Who wrote the gospel attributed to Matthew?

[Maeght]

So three assumptions. Compare that with the strength of the evidence pointing towards the gospels being true. For example, that Jesus died is a claim backed up with lots of evidence from the NT. Likewise that the tomb was empty. Also, the body wasn't ever produced. The numerous times the accounts of the appearances agree (eg 2 gospels say there was an appearance in Galilee, two of them say at least two appearances in Jerusalem, all say he appeared to women first, two say they touched him and saw his hands and feet, and he ate fish. Acts cites multiple ones, Paul cites one to 500 people. NT describes persecution for their belief.)

No strong evidence there.

[Gordon]

Moderator:

Since a discussion on the Resurrection occurred on this thread, the relevant posts have been moved to a separate thread, and further discussion of the Resurrection should be in this new thread.

https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=22800.new#new

[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?

Can I give you an example:
Mt 5:31 says, "It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' 32But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery"
Compare this with Mt 19:9
"9And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."
This saying about divorce is in both chapters 5 and 19.
In 19:9 the context is a dispute with the religious leaders about divorce, and the saying fits naturally into its context.
5:31-32 however seems to have been tagged onto the previous saying in 5:27-28 which is specifically about the commandment against adultery, and conforms to the formula "you have heard that it was said...but I say to you". It appears likely that Jesus originally talked specifically about divorce during the dispute with the Pharisees, recorded in chapter 19. Mark also records the dispute.
Like lots of other examples there seems to have been editing. Whether this was done as part of the process of writing the original text I'm not sure.

[Spud]

I've been looking at the story of John the Baptist's death in the Synoptic gospels. All three start by noting that Herod had become interested in Jesus. In Luke and Mark, the story comes after the sending out of the Twelve, and is followed by a note about their return. But in Matthew it is preceded by the rejection at Nazareth, and followed directly by Jesus' withdrawal by boat to a quiet place after hearing of John's death; the crowds follow on foot, and Jesus feeds the 5000. Luke and Mark also continue after John's death with the feeding of the 5000.

The question is, why are Luke and Mark different from Matthew?

A little later in his gospel, Luke has a similar 'sending out' story involving 72 disciples; this is absent from Matthew and Lk Mark. Luke 10:17-20 contains a short description of their return, for which he has an independent source. It seems that this is where he gets the idea to include the return of the Twelve, even though Matthew has been his source for that story.

Matthew's sequence makes sense because Herod Antipas has become a threat to Jesus, and so Jesus leaves and goes into the region governed by Philip the Tetrarch. (Luke tells us the feeding of the 5000 was near Bethsaida, in that region).

Thus Matthew is the original version of this story.

[Spud]

Apologies for the error in the above post, which I've now corrected ("Lk" should have read "Mark").