Who wrote the gospel attributed to Matthew?

[Spud]

The author of Matthew underscores the apostle's background. His record of the calling of Matthew is the basis for the inclusion of 'Matthew the tax collector' in his list of the twelve apostles. However, Mark and Luke deliberately, it seems, obscure this connection.

I came across this comment somewhere:

Quote: "Mark 14:51 makes mention of a young man. Many believe this young man is Mark the Gospel writer as it was a vehicle of writing for the author of a writing not to mention themselves by name but by a reference that others would know. We see this in John 21:20 where John references himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved."

Could the phrase 'Matthew the tax collector' be the author's reference to himself? Taking Matthew in isolation, this doesn't have to be the case. But Mark and Luke call him Levi in their accounts of his calling, and do not have '...the tax collector' after 'Matthew' in their lists of the Twelve. Why would they do this? Perhaps they did not know that Levi and Matthew were the same person? However, if Matthew was their primary source, were they protecting his identity?

[Maeght]

The author of Matthew underscores the apostle's background. His record of the calling of Matthew is the basis for the inclusion of 'Matthew the tax collector' in his list of the twelve apostles. However, Mark and Luke deliberately, it seems, obscure this connection.

I came across this comment somewhere:

Quote: "Mark 14:51 makes mention of a young man. Many believe this young man is Mark the Gospel writer as it was a vehicle of writing for the author of a writing not to mention themselves by name but by a reference that others would know. We see this in John 21:20 where John references himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved."

Could the phrase 'Matthew the tax collector' be the author's reference to himself? Taking Matthew in isolation, this doesn't have to be the case. But Mark and Luke call him Levi in their accounts of his calling, and do not have '...the tax collector' after 'Matthew' in their lists of the Twelve. Why would they do this? Perhaps they did not know that Levi and Matthew were the same person? However, if Matthew was their primary source, were they protecting his identity?

We don't know.

[ProfessorDavey]

We don't know.

I agree. And it is more complicated than the question implies as the text we now have available to us is undoubtedly the result of many authors.

While we tend to consider there to be a single author and a single point in time (usually about 80-90CE), this is simplistic. Firstly scholarly analysis suggests that there may be multiple sources for the gospels prior to their 'writing'. But as significant is the timeline from their original version (which we do not have) to the versions we do have, typically from hundreds of years after their claimed original date. These later version is what we know as the gospel and will have had many 'hands' involved - for example in accurate or inaccurate copying, and more active editing through the decades that may have resulted in chunks being changed, added or deleted.

So what we actually have - and what we would now consider to be orthodox gospel text - is in fact the product of writing, editing, curating etc etc by many people over hundreds of years. And importantly what was considered to be 'orthodox' or otherwise is effectively a political decision by the early church in about the 4thC.

[jeremyp]

The author of Matthew underscores the apostle's background. His record of the calling of Matthew is the basis for the inclusion of 'Matthew the tax collector' in his list of the twelve apostles. However, Mark and Luke deliberately, it seems, obscure this connection.

I came across this comment somewhere:

Quote: "Mark 14:51 makes mention of a young man. Many believe this young man is Mark the Gospel writer as it was a vehicle of writing for the author of a writing not to mention themselves by name but by a reference that others would know. We see this in John 21:20 where John references himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved."

Could the phrase 'Matthew the tax collector' be the author's reference to himself? Taking Matthew in isolation, this doesn't have to be the case. But Mark and Luke call him Levi in their accounts of his calling, and do not have '...the tax collector' after 'Matthew' in their lists of the Twelve. Why would they do this? Perhaps they did not know that Levi and Matthew were the same person? However, if Matthew was their primary source, were they protecting his identity?

The person who wrote the gospel of Matthew displays a lack of knowledge of the culture of 1st century Judea. He also talks about the disciple in the third person and his account does not read like an eye witness account. The disciple Matthew did not write the gospel. The chain of "reasoning" that led to the traditional attribution is flimsy at best.

[ekim]

 We see this in John 21:20 where John references himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved."

It's surprising that 'John' could reference himself in writing at all when described as 'an uneducated and common man' in Acts 4:13

[jeremyp]

It's surprising that 'John' could reference himself in writing at all when described as 'an uneducated and common man' in Acts 4:13

There's no evidence whatsoever that the beloved disciple is the writer of the gospel or even that the beloved disciples John. Spud's reasoning is flimsy at best. The gospels refer to lots of people in the third person but it is only argued that this is a "vehicle for the author" when it suits the arguer.

[Spud]

I agree. And it is more complicated than the question implies as the text we now have available to us is undoubtedly the result of many authors.

While we tend to consider there to be a single author and a single point in time (usually about 80-90CE), this is simplistic. Firstly scholarly analysis suggests that there may be multiple sources for the gospels prior to their 'writing'.

I agree. Harold Riley has found within the text of Canonical Matthew, what he calls 'proto Matthew', to which has been added other material, which he identifies by looking for signs of interruption in the narrative. For example, Matthew 9:27-34 has the healing of two blind men, and then a mute spirit is driven out from another man. Riley says that these two incidents are doublets of Matthew 20:29-34 and 12:22-24, the latter two being embedded in the original narrative.
So it looks like 9:27-34 is a later addition. (There is more evidence for this. The section in chapter 9 before the miracles involving blindness and demon possession, which is the raising of Jairus' daughter, makes a fitting climax for a larger section, 4:12-9:26, which expounds the author's quote from Isaiah 9 in Mt 4:14-16. The quote finishes with "on those living in the land of the shadow of death, a light has dawned").

But as significant is the timeline from their original version (which we do not have) to the versions we do have, typically from hundreds of years after their claimed original date. These later version is what we know as the gospel and will have had many 'hands' involved - for example in accurate or inaccurate copying, and more active editing through the decades that may have resulted in chunks being changed, added or deleted.

In the context of the sections containing the call of Matthew and the list of the disciples, the three Synoptics are similar in format and wording, indicating a degree of copying between them. But as you say, alterations have been made by later copyists. For example, Matthew 9:13 has "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners". Textus Receptus and Byzantine have "but sinners, to repentance" which is in Luke's version but not Mark's. It looks as if "to repentance" has been added into Matthew by TR and Byz due to a recollection of Luke.

So what we actually have - and what we would now consider to be orthodox gospel text - is in fact the product of writing, editing, curating etc etc by many people over hundreds of years. And importantly what was considered to be 'orthodox' or otherwise is effectively a political decision by the early church in about the 4thC.

Equally the original texts can to a large extent, it seems, be deduced through analysis.

[Spud]

There's no evidence whatsoever that the beloved disciple is the writer of the gospel or even that the beloved disciples John. Spud's reasoning is flimsy at best. The gospels refer to lots of people in the third person but it is only argued that this is a "vehicle for the author" when it suits the arguer.

The author of John clearly states that the beloved disciple was the one who wrote everything down.
Mark's 'young man who fled' is an incidental detail, which is why it was suggested he was the source or author.

[jeremyp]

The author of John clearly states that the beloved disciple was the one who wrote everything down.

But it doesn't say he wrote the Gospel of John. In fact, he refers to the beloved disciple in the third person, so definitely not the author.

Mark's 'young man who fled' is an incidental detail, which is why it was suggested he was the source or author.

So every character who appears in an incidental detail is the author of the work. Can you support that assertion?

[Spud]

But it doesn't say he wrote the Gospel of John. In fact, he refers to the beloved disciple in the third person, so definitely not the author.
So every character who appears in an incidental detail is the author of the work. Can you support that assertion?

Sure, but whoever the final author is ('we'), says that the beloved disciple wrote it all down.
I can't think of any other incidental details in Mark in which a character appears, but will have a look.

[Spud]

There's no evidence whatsoever that the beloved disciple is the writer of the gospel or even that the beloved disciples John. Spud's reasoning is flimsy at best. The gospels refer to lots of people in the third person but it is only argued that this is a "vehicle for the author" when it suits the arguer.

I think the point was that for one particular character to flee naked is a very memorable detail, more so than something like 'they were fishermen'.
'Matthew the tax collector' is quite memorable, but my idea was that it is enhanced as a self identifier if Luke and Mark deliberately obscured Matthew's previous profession, in order to not interfere with his self-identification. Maybe Mt and Lk do not mention the young man who fled naked because they had no reason to, whereas Mark did.

[jeremyp]

Sure, but whoever the final author is ('we'), says that the beloved disciple wrote it all down.
I can't think of any other incidental details in Mark in which a character appears, but will have a look.

Yes but the point is that "we" is not the beloved disciple, if it was, they would say "I" and they wouldn't refer to the beloved disciple in the third person.

[Spud]

Yes but the point is that "we" is not the beloved disciple, if it was, they would say "I" and they wouldn't refer to the beloved disciple in the third person.

I'm not disagreeing with that, and it still means that the source was an eyewitness. But the beloved disciple could also behave been using the pronoun 'we' to refer to himself.

The person who wrote the gospel of Matthew displays a lack of knowledge of the culture of 1st century Judea.

Any examples of this?

He also talks about the disciple in the third person and his account does not read like an eye witness account.

This must be the most convincing argument that

The disciple Matthew did not write the gospel.

[jeremyp]

I'm not disagreeing with that, and it still means that the source was an eyewitness.

No it doesn't. It could just be that the author of John wanted to give his version of events some legitimacy.

But the beloved disciple could also behave been using the pronoun 'we' to refer to himself.

Read the text. It's clearly referring to the beloved disciple in the third person.

Any examples of this?

A particularly egregious one would be the account of the events following the arrest of Jesus. These all take place on the first day of Passover (according to Matthew). Clearly this writer has no real understanding of Passover because there is no way the priests and Sanhedrin would have bee prosecuting Jesus on a holiday which has the same restrictions as an ordinary sabbath.

[Spud]

No it doesn't. It could just be that the author of John wanted to give his version of events some legitimacy.

I doubt it. The narrative flows too smoothly for that. The final verse about writing all the other things Jesus did, is continuous with the idea in the verse before of writing them down. To you that may not seem difficult to make up but to me it looks genuine.

Read the text. It's clearly referring to the beloved disciple in the third person.

I think you are right but wouldn't rule out it's refering to himself.

A particularly egregious one would be the account of the events following the arrest of Jesus. These all take place on the first day of Passover (according to Matthew). Clearly this writer has no real understanding of Passover because there is no way the priests and Sanhedrin would have bee prosecuting Jesus on a holiday which has the same restrictions as an ordinary sabbath.

According to Matthew it was the first day of the unleavened when they ate the Passover. Luke interprets this as the day when the passover lamb was sacrificed; Mark copies this from Luke. However, the context of Matthew's version points to the last supper being on 13th Nisan.
In 26:2 Jesus says "the passover is two days away, and the son of man will be handed over to be crucified".
If 'the passover' here means the day of the passover meal, then it means 14th Nisan. Jesus is saying he will die in two days time, at passover, which was on 14th. So he must have said this on 12th. If 27:1 marks the begining of 14th,  then when 26:17 says "on the first of the unleavened" this is referring to the day in between when he said it's two days away, and the actual day. So according to Matthew the last supper was on 13th.
Luke and Mark misinterpret the phrasing in Matthew and as a result give the impression that Jesus died on the day after Passover.

[jeremyp]

I doubt it. The narrative flows too smoothly for that. The final verse about writing all the other things Jesus did, is continuous with the idea in the verse before of writing them down. To you that may not seem difficult to make up but to me it looks genuine.

The narrative in the Lord of the Rings flows smoothly. You can write fiction in a smooth style, you know.

I think you are right but wouldn't rule out it's refering to himself.According to Matthew it was the first day of the unleavened when they ate the Passover. Luke interprets this as the day when the passover lamb was sacrificed; Mark copies this from Luke. However, the context of Matthew's version points to the last supper being on 13th Nisan.
In 26:2 Jesus says "the passover is two days away, and the son of man will be handed over to be crucified".
If 'the passover' here means the day of the passover meal, then it means 14th Nisan. Jesus is saying he will die in two days time, at passover, which was on 14th. So he must have said this on 12th. If 27:1 marks the begining of 14th,  then when 26:17 says "on the first of the unleavened" this is referring to the day in between when he said it's two days away, and the actual day. So according to Matthew the last supper was on 13th.
Luke and Mark misinterpret the phrasing in Matthew and as a result give the impression that Jesus died on the day after Passover.

Are you serious? Matthew explicitly states that the Last Supper is the Passover meal. The Passover meal always happens in the evening of the first day of Passover which is 15 Nisan (the day starts in the evening). From the Passover meal for the whole of 15 Nisan, the same restrictions apply as on a normal Sabbath. There is absolutely no way the members of the Sanhedrin would congregate at the high priest’s house for a trial on that day.

[Spud]

There is absolutely no way the members of the Sanhedrin would congregate at the high priest’s house for a trial on that day.

So for 26:17 to refer to Nisan 13 is consistent with verse 5 where the Jewish leaders resolve not to kill him during the feast.

[jeremyp]

So for 26:17 to refer to Nisan 13 is consistent with verse 5 where the Jewish leaders resolve not to kill him during the feast.

No!

This is what it says:

On the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, ‘Where do you want us to make the preparations for you to eat the Passover?’ He said, ‘Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, “The Teacher says, My time is near; I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples.”’

See. It explicitly talks about the Passover meal. This is the meal that unambiguously happens at the beginning of 15th Nisan. According to Matthew Jesus ate the meal, went out to Gethsemene, got betrayed and then was put on trial and executed all on the 15th Nisan. This is simply not how it would have been done which means that writer of Matthew cannot have been a disciple of Jesus because he obviously wasn't there and displays a lack of knowledge of Jewish customs.

[SteveH]

Is it possible to know?
Does it matter?
"Il n'y a pas de hors-texte."

[Spud]

No!

This is what it says:

See. It explicitly talks about the Passover meal. This is the meal that unambiguously happens at the beginning of 15th Nisan. According to Matthew Jesus ate the meal, went out to Gethsemene, got betrayed and then was put on trial and executed all on the 15th Nisan. This is simply not how it would have been done which means that writer of Matthew cannot have been a disciple of Jesus because he obviously wasn't there and displays a lack of knowledge of Jewish customs.

Do you think the writer of Matthew could record this,  “But not during the festival,” they said, “or there may be a riot among the people.” and not be aware that what he recorded them as saying was the reality?
Can we not infer that Jesus himself also knew that they wouldn't try him and have him killed during the festival, and therefore that when he said “As you know, the Passover is two days away—and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.” he actually meant that he would be killed on the day of passover, the 14th.
Bear in mind also that the actual first day of unleavened bread was the 15th. So Matthew was not using the phrase "the first of the unleavened" in its literal sense. He could have chosen it to describe the day in between his prediction of his death and his actual death on the 14th. If so, he then has a series of five consecutive days, begining in 26:2 and ending with the day of his resurrection.

[jeremyp]

Do you think the writer of Matthew could record this,  “But not during the festival,” they said, “or there may be a riot among the people.” and not be aware that what he recorded them as saying was the reality?

That was clearly made up. There's no way that anybody not in the Sanhedrin had access to the private meetings of the Sanhedrin.

Can we not infer that Jesus himself also knew that they wouldn't try him and have him killed during the festival, and therefore that when he said “As you know, the Passover is two days away—and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.” he actually meant that he would be killed on the day of passover, the 14th.

That is plausible. You are suggesting that John got the date right and all of the synoptics got it wrong.

Bear in mind also that the actual first day of unleavened bread was the 15th. So Matthew was not using the phrase "the first of the unleavened" in its literal sense. He could have chosen it to describe the day in between his prediction of his death and his actual death on the 14th. If so, he then has a series of five consecutive days, begining in 26:2 and ending with the day of his resurrection.

What you are saying is that the writer of Matthew had no clue how Passover works. It is more plausible that the events of Jesus' arrest and trial happened before the Passover meal but that is not what Matthew says. Matthew says unambiguously that the Last Supper was the Passover meal.

Other things you should know about trials before the Sanhedrin: they never held the trial and had the sentencing on the same day according to the Talmud and Josephus and neither could be on a Sabbath.

[Dicky Underpants]

That is plausible. You are suggesting that John got the date right and all of the synoptics got it wrong.

I think that this is one of the very few occasions when John's gospel is more likely to be historically accurate. Not that there is much verifiable historical truth in any gospel, and practically none in John, but in this instance the details stack up. The dates also (conveniently) support John's idea of presenting Jesus as the Sacrificial Lamb. Of course, in this gospel, the Last Supper is not a passover meal.

What you are saying is that the writer of Matthew had no clue how Passover works. It is more plausible that the events of Jesus' arrest and trial happened before the Passover meal but that is not what Matthew says. Matthew says unambiguously that the Last Supper was the Passover meal.

There's no way of getting round this. Matthew says the last supper was Passover, John says it wasn't.

[Spud]

There's no way of getting round this. Matthew says the last supper was Passover, John says it wasn't.

Matthew says unambiguously that the Last Supper was the Passover meal.

Matthew saying it was the passover meal doesn't prove that he thought of it as being eaten at the official time.
Imagine you were working on Christmas day: would you have Christmas dinner the day before or the day after?

[Spud]

I think that this is one of the very few occasions when John's gospel is more likely to be historically accurate. Not that there is much verifiable historical truth in any gospel, and practically none in John, but in this instance the details stack up. The dates also (conveniently) support John's idea of presenting Jesus as the Sacrificial Lamb. Of course, in this gospel, the Last Supper is not a passover meal.

There's no way of getting round this. Matthew says the last supper was Passover, John says it wasn't.

There are other examples where John is the accurate version. For example, in Matthew, the cleansing of the temple and the annointing at Bethany both interrupt the flow of the narrative, suggesting that they are insertions at convenient points in the narrative. According to John, the annointing at Bethany was six days before the passover. This means that Matthew's account moves from 2 days before passover, straight to the day of the last supper, and then to the day of passover when Jesus dies.
The statement of the Jewish leaders about not arresting Jesus during the feast controls the subsequent actions of the people in the narrative. Judas would not have led them to Gethsemane during the official Passover night after what they are quoted as having said.

[jeremyp]

Matthew saying it was the passover meal doesn't prove that he thought of it as being eaten at the official time.

If he didn't think of it being at the official time, he could not have been a first century Jew and could not have been the eponymous disciple of Jesus.

Imagine you were working on Christmas day: would you have Christmas dinner the day before or the day after?

Christmas dinner is not the Passover Seder. The latter is an integral part of the Jewish holiday of Passover and is a religious ritual.