Who Wrote the Gospel of Matthew?

[Adrift]

Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and agnostic/atheist scholars. At that level of scholarship, discussion of faith perspectives or confessional doctrine very rarely occurs and has little to no relevance. Almost none of my training was in a monastic setting, but rather secular university and graduate schools.

If you don't mind me asking, what happened? Why didn't you peruse a career in academia? Or did you, and left for...reasons. If memory serves, you're no longer in that field.

[robrecht]

If you don't mind me asking, what happened? Why didn't you peruse a career in academia? Or did you, and left for...reasons. If memory serves, you're no longer in that field.

I did for a while, but in the long-term celibacy was not very fulfilling at a personal level and I decided I would be happier and more useful to others getting married and having a family so I took a leave of absence and eventually met my wife and we started a family. Needed to make more money to support a family than I could as an academic. I still do a little writing, translating, and editing but more as a hobby than a career. When I retire, I do hope to get back into it full-time.

[shunyadragon]

psstein's point was not that there was not extensive Hebrew scripture and scribal activity at that time, but that there was not much literature being composed in Hebrew at that time as far as we are aware.

Ok! That was not clear from his post.

[psstein]

The Koine Greek Septuagint dates from the 3rd century BCE translated from Hebrew, therefore there must have been extensive Hebrew Old Testament documents available.

Yes, I know. Robrecht has already accurately responded to you, but my point is not that Hebrew/Aramaic documents didn't exist, we know they did. The issue is that, outside of possibly the DSS, we have no Hebrew/Aramaic documents extant from the first century.

[psstein]

If memory serves, and perhaps robrecht is being modest, he's academically trained, having been a monk, and worked under a number of prestigious Catholic scholars. Is that correct robrecht?

I honestly believe that robrecht has a better grasp of many areas of research than I do.

[psstein]

psstein's point was not that there was not extensive Hebrew scripture and scribal activity at that time, but that there was not much literature being composed in Hebrew at that time as far as we are aware.

Exactly, it seems as though most educated Jews would write in Greek, like Josephus and Philo.

I'm not totally sure why that is, but it may have something to do with Greek being the lingua franca of most of the East.

[psstein]

Original and worthwhile is rare, but it does exist, and its value is only proven after many years of difficult testing against centuries of prior scholarship.

Can you provide a (fairly) recent example? I guess Bauckham's work on eyewitnesses has been rather original, but I'm not sure how enduring it's going to be.

[Adrift]

Exactly, it seems as though most educated Jews would write in Greek, like Josephus and Philo.

I'm not totally sure why that is, but it may have something to do with Greek being the lingua franca of most of the East.

Was Juice correct in pointing out that Josephus mentioned writing his histories in Hebrew and then in Greek? If so, even if lost to us, that seems evidence of Hebrew writing in the first century.

[Adrift]

I honestly believe that robrecht has a better grasp of many areas of research than I do.

No doubt. I honestly don't know why robrecht sticks around. Surely there are more intellectually challenging conversations available online than he can find here. Not that I'd rather he move on. He adds so much to the forum, and while I disagree with a number of his views, I've learned much from him.

No diss to you of course. I enjoy much of what you add to the forum as well. You're still in university, though, correct? Honestly, I envy you both. It's been a dream of mine for some time to delve into theology and Christian history academically, but unfortunately finances currently prevent that. Someday hopefully.

[LostSheep]

Was Juice correct in pointing out that Josephus mentioned writing his histories in Hebrew and then in Greek? If so, even if lost to us, that seems evidence of Hebrew writing in the first century.

From what I could find online Josephus wrote his Histories first in Aramaic.This link (go to the answer that scores 8 / has 8 votes: http://http://history.stackexchange....en-by-josephus where it shows (convincingly to me) that the language of Jews in the 1st century AD was Aramaic, not Hebrew.

[Doug Shaver]

I tend to think Papias is more accurate than he's given credit for

What do you know about him that leads you to that opinion?

[Doug Shaver]

Are you equally sceptical of the authorship of secular works where the evidential support is no better?

Yes, if I agree that the evidence is no better.

Name a work from antiquity which you feel the evidence for authorship is so strong there is no reason to doubt it and we can use that work as a baseline to establish whether you are a rampant sceptic or not.

I don't think we're justified in saying, about any ancient document, that there is no reason to doubt who wrote it. I believe that what we can say in some cases is that the evidence for some particular attribution is sufficient to justify a tentative assumption about its authorship. And, I believe that Caesar's authorship of a major portion of the Gallic Wars is an example.

[Adrift]

Yes, if I agree that the evidence is no better.

I don't think we're justified in saying, about any ancient document, that there is no reason to doubt who wrote it. I believe that what we can say in some cases is that the evidence for some particular attribution is sufficient to justify a tentative assumption about its authorship. And, I believe that Caesar's authorship of a major portion of the Gallic Wars is an example.

Doug, just so you know, your version of hyper-skepticism isn't exactly normative. Thankfully for most reasonable individuals, most historians do not think the way you think.

[Doug Shaver]

Doug, just so you know, your version of hyper-skepticism isn't exactly normative.

I never said it was normative, and I don't agree that there is anything hyper about it.

most historians do not think the way you think.

I have read quite a few books and articles in which historians have explained how they think. Can you quote me one reputable historian who says my view is mistaken?

[Adrift]

I never said it was normative, and I don't agree that there is anything hyper about it.

I have read quite a few books and articles in which historians have explained how they think. Can you quote me one reputable historian who says my view is mistaken?

Sure.