Who Wrote the Gospel of Matthew?

[Mountain Man]

So do you have any argument for Matthew as the author of the Gospel? You have presented zero so far, which is odd when you are so insistent that there is not even any grounds for dispute.

Hmmm? I would think the burden would be on the one disputing the consensus of historical scholars.

Anyway, here are a few good articles to get you started:

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.php
http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/mattdef.php
https://carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-whom

[shunyadragon]

A possible scenario is that Matthew wrote a sayings document in Hebrew, and this is what the ECFs refered to. Later, some unknow author writes a new gospel that incorporates Mark and this work by Matthew, and it becomes know as Matthew because what sets it apart from Mark, what gives it authority over Mark, is the bits taken from Matthew.

This probably is a description of one of the widely accepted views of the evolution of the content and nature of the gospels. They did likely evolve from early oral testimony, and simpler writings possibly by the apostles and others close to Jesus Christ. The stories and accounts of the gospels did not come out of thin air after ~50-70 AD. The argument is are there one specific author for each of the gospels that may be dates to first hand testimony, such as the apostles at the time of the life of Jesus Christ. Based on the evidence of the evolved and related progressive nature of the gospels, this is unlikely.

[shunyadragon]

Hmmm? I would think the burden would be on the one disputing the consensus of historical scholars.

Anyway, here are a few good articles to get you started:

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.php
http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/mattdef.php
https://carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-whom

The bottom line is that the one proposing the argument has the burden to demonstrate and/or prove their argument.

For example: The Carm argument proposes a number of IF possible scenarios, which upon examination by most scholars does not hold up based on the evidence. The apologetic Tektonics references make the same assumptions. Considering the evolved over lapping progressive nature of the gospels these scenarios are unlikely and not supported by actual evidence. It is more likely that the gospels did evolve from earlier simpler writings and oral traditions that could be traced to the time of Christ and the lives of the apostles, but specific arguments for original eye witness arguments are weak at best.

Source: https://carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-whom

Dating the gospels is very important. If it can be established that the gospels were written early, say before the year 70 A.D., then we would have good reason for believing that they were written by the disciples of Jesus Himself. If they were written by the disciples, then their reliability, authenticity, and accuracy are better substantiated. Also, if they were written early, this would mean that there would not have been enough time for myth to creep into the gospel accounts since it was the eyewitnesses to Christ's life that wrote them. Furthermore, those who were alive at the time of the events could have countered the gospel accounts and since we have no contradictory writings to the gospels, their early authorship as well as apostolic authorship becomes even more critical.

© Copyright Original Source

[The Pixie]

Hmmm? I would think the burden would be on the one disputing the consensus of historical scholars.

Really? You think you can make statements that something is so well established that there is "no credible dispute", and then say the burden of proof is on others to show that that is not so? That is some shifting you have going on there.

Anyway, here are a few good articles to get you started:

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.php
http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/mattdef.php
https://carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-whom

That is a curious definition of "consensus of historical scholars". I wonder if you can find articles by historians who do not run web sites promoting Christian apologetics who also support your position.

See, I found I bunch of web sites to support my position too, but I managed to find sites that were not as flagrantly biased to my position. See if you can do that. If the consensus of historical scholars is really on your side, should be easy.


Anyway, let us see what these Christian apologetic articles say we have in the way of evidence...

I will skip the first Tektonics as it is about the gospels in general, and look at the second. The article by Slick only briefly addresses this, and cites only the early church fathers, which Holding does in more detail anyway.

"The manuscript evidence does universally name Matthew as author of his Gospel, in the ascription at the beginning - with one possible exception."

He neglects to mention how late this evidence is, or indeed the fact that the supposed author was added at a later date. Even if Matthew wrote the gospel, the original did not have his name on it. A real historical scholar would hsve made this clear.
https://adversusapologetica.wordpres...f-the-gospels/

"The early second-century church writer Papias (c. 125 A.D.) shares the following concerning Matthew:
Matthew made an arrangement of the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each translated them as he was able..."

This was discussed at length in the OP. Holding claims the gospel was first written in Hebrew (or a derivative), but that flies in the face of modern scholarship, which holds that the gospel we have was not originally written in Hebrew (again, Holding neglects to mention this vital fact). This statement by Papias is evidence that what we have was not written by Matthew.

Holding cites several other early church fathers, but all are referring to the Hebrew document, not the gospel we have.

Then we get to the internal evidence. The publican is called Levi in other gospels, but Matthew in this one, and the text says "the house" not "his house". These are the trivial details upon which Holding claims we can be certain that Matthew is the author; he is, apparently, unable to envisage any one else saying "the house" other than Matthew.

Oh, wait, there is also that the author is familiar with the Hebrew Bible and fluent in Greek. Because that musy have been unique back then, right? Oh no, wait. As psstein has already alluded to, pretty much everyone knew Greek in that region at that time.

That is not a lot of evidence for you to be certain that Matthew was the author ("no credible dispute concerning gospel authorship"), and I saw nothing to suggest this "consensus of historical scholars" that you are claiming. Any evidence of that at all?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

The bottom line is that the one proposing the argument has the burden to demonstrate and/or prove their argument.

For example: The Carm argument proposes a number of IF possible scenarios, which upon examination by most scholars does not hold up based on the evidence. The apologetic Tektonics references make the same assumptions. Considering the evolved over lapping progressive nature of the gospels these scenarios are unlikely and not supported by actual evidence. It is more likely that the gospels did evolve from earlier simpler writings and oral traditions that could be traced to the time of Christ and the lives of the apostles, but specific arguments for original eye witness arguments are weak at best.

Source: https://carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-whom

Dating the gospels is very important. If it can be established that the gospels were written early, say before the year 70 A.D., then we would have good reason for believing that they were written by the disciples of Jesus Himself. If they were written by the disciples, then their reliability, authenticity, and accuracy are better substantiated. Also, if they were written early, this would mean that there would not have been enough time for myth to creep into the gospel accounts since it was the eyewitnesses to Christ's life that wrote them. Furthermore, those who were alive at the time of the events could have countered the gospel accounts and since we have no contradictory writings to the gospels, their early authorship as well as apostolic authorship becomes even more critical.

© Copyright Original Source

Yes, this is the problem with apologetics. Determine your conclusion first then work backwards from that and only pay attention to the evidence that seemingly supports said conclusion while ignoring all the evidence that contradicts said conclusion. It's the complete antithesis of honest inquiry.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Because they weren't illiterate, they knew Greek, and the chiastic structure (which is a great way to structure things for memorization) was probably crafted by the writers.

Oh so I guess Acts 4:13 is wrong then?

"As they looked on Peter and John so fearlessly outspoken--and also discovered that they were illiterate persons, untrained in the schools--they were surprised; and now they recognized them as having been with Jesus."

There's a big difference between knowing a little Greek and being able to write down formal chiastic structure. If the sayings were "crafted by the authors" then that begs the question how much was crafted and how accurately does it represent what the original speakers said?

Because maybe, just maybe, the disciples talked amongst themselves.

But there are scenes where none of the disciples were present...

Because it was based on Peter's teaching, who was a preeminent witness, and it's only just possible that Matthew concurred with it as a fellow witness.

No, it makes no sense for Matthew to borrow so much material from Mark if he experienced the events himself. And unfortunately, Papias' descriptions don't match the canonical accounts as I showed above. Try again.

Any more softballs you'd like to lob my way?

Looks like you've struck out again Mr. Dunning-Kruger.

[psstein]

Hmmm? I would think the burden would be on the one disputing the consensus of historical scholars.

Anyway, here are a few good articles to get you started:

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.php
http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/mattdef.php
https://carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-whom

These are three apologetics sites. Apologetics is fine, but it's not the majority of scholars.

The vast majority of critical scholars today do not believe that Matthew the Apostle wrote the Gospel of Matthew.

[psstein]

That's very interesting speculation. I like it. I wonder if anyone has advanced this idea before. I suspect so. It'seems almost impossible to come up with something original (and worthwhile) in NT scholarship. If I get a chance, I'll take a look.

Maurice Casey's Jesus of Nazareth suggested it as well.

Also, don't remind me that there's nothing original in scholarship... it's one of the biggest nightmares of being involved in the field.

[psstein]

Oh, wait, there is also that the author is familiar with the Hebrew Bible and fluent in Greek. Because that musy have been unique back then, right? Oh no, wait. As psstein has already alluded to, pretty much everyone knew Greek in that region at that time.

I think you missed a fine distinction. Jesus and his apostles knew Greek (in some limited way). However, it seems very unlikely that any of them knew enough Greek to write anything close to what we have in the gospels.

[psstein]

No, it makes no sense for Matthew to borrow so much material from Mark if he experienced the events himself. And unfortunately, Papias' descriptions don't match the canonical accounts as I showed above. Try again.

I tend to think Papias is more accurate than he's given credit for, but with Matthew, it's very clear that the extant gospel was not a translation into Greek from Aramaic or Hebrew (and if I remember correctly, there aren't many 1st century writings in Hebrew- maybe a few of the DSS?).

[shunyadragon]

I tend to think Papias is more accurate than he's given credit for, but with Matthew, it's very clear that the extant gospel was not a translation into Greek from Aramaic or Hebrew (and if I remember correctly, there aren't many 1st century writings in Hebrew- maybe a few of the DSS?).

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

[Adrift]

It was well done. You have a promising future writing NT introductions.

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?

[robrecht]

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?

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.

[robrecht]

Maurice Casey's Jesus of Nazareth suggested it as well.

Also, don't remind me that there's nothing original in scholarship... it's one of the biggest nightmares of being involved in the field.

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.

[robrecht]

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

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.