Who wrote the gospel attributed to Matthew?

[Spud]

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.

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

Unless he was there when it happened, and was writing down what he remembered?
True, passover is a more rigidly kept festival.

[jeremyp]

Unless he was there when it happened, and was writing down what he remembered?
True, passover is a more rigidly kept festival.

If it was some meal other than the Passover Seder, a practising first century Jew would not have described it as such. The author of Matthew is not a practising first century Jew.

[Spud]

If it was some meal other than the Passover Seder, a practising first century Jew would not have described it as such. The author of Matthew is not a practising first century Jew.

Agreed.

[jeremyp]

Agreed.

Whereas the disciple called Matthew clearly was a first century Jew. Hence the author of the gospel is not the disciple.

[Spud]

Whereas the disciple called Matthew clearly was a first century Jew. Hence the author of the gospel is not the disciple.

By the time he wrote, Matthew was no longer a practicing Jew, if he had been previously.

[Maeght]

By the time he wrote, Matthew was no longer a practicing Jew, if he had been previously.

So he forgot about Jewish traditions?

[Dicky Underpants]

By the time he wrote, Matthew was no longer a practicing Jew, if he had been previously.

Yet this same Matthew felt it important to record Jesus saying "Not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away".

You presumably think that this same Matthew (the one you think is the disciple) was around to attend the great Jerusalem debate, centred on whether to retain certain Jewish traditions in the emerging Christian church. That debate did not take place, so it has been argued, till ten years after the events you're discussing here, so early Christian practices were by no means clearly distinguished from Jewish ones, apart from belief in the significance of Jesus and his resurrection. I believe that applies to dietary practices too. "Peter's Dream" had not yet occurred, and the glib insertion of "thus Jesus declared all foods clean" in Mark 7: 18-20 is surely a gloss added as an afterthought.

[jeremyp]

By the time he wrote, Matthew was no longer a practicing Jew, if he had been previously.

So you are saying he forgot the traditions he grew up with and that he practised whilst he was following Jesus. If he can forget things like that, why would you describe his account of the ministry of Jesus as reliable?

[Spud]

Yet this same Matthew felt it important to record Jesus saying "Not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away".

But he isn't saying that all the Levitical rituals would be observed forever.

You presumably think that this same Matthew (the one you think is the disciple) was around to attend the great Jerusalem debate, centred on whether to retain certain Jewish traditions in the emerging Christian church. That debate did not take place, so it has been argued, till ten years after the events you're discussing here, so early Christian practices were by no means clearly distinguished from Jewish ones, apart from belief in the significance of Jesus and his resurrection. I believe that applies to dietary practices too. "Peter's Dream" had not yet occurred, and the glib insertion of "thus Jesus declared all foods clean" in Mark 7: 18-20 is surely a gloss added as an afterthought.

A look at the sermon on the mount or Matthew 15 shows that at the time of writing, the author of Matthew understood that the rituals and observances had been superseded.

[jeremyp]

But he isn't saying that all the Levitical rituals would be observed forever.

That's exactly what he is saying.

A look at the sermon on the mount or Matthew 15 shows that at the time of writing, the author of Matthew understood that the rituals and observances had been superseded.

Quotes please.

[Dicky Underpants]

But he isn't saying that all the Levitical rituals would be observed forever.

I don't think he could have made it clearer, since the text says "till heaven and earth pass away.... and all things are fulfilled".

As far as I'm aware, the earth at least has not passed away, and the Last Judgment has not occurred.

[Spud]

That's exactly what he is saying.

Interesting, I had never looked at it that way. While he is illustrating how he has come to fulfill the law he does mention making an offering at the temple (Mt 5:18). This suggests that at the time of writing, the temple was still in use and that practicing the rituals associated with it was considered acceptable among Christians.

Quotes please.

Not sure why I mentioned the sermon on the mount. But in Mt 15 I was thinking of the section where he is accused of not obeying the traditions of the elders, such as hand washing before eating. But of course this was a ritual that was taught by the elders and wasn't, as far as I know, commanded by Moses.
So I retract my comment about the writer of Matthew understanding that observance of Passover, in the way that the Mosaic law instructed, had been superseded. As Dicky said, this seems to have taken years (and would also point to a very early date for the writing of this part of Matthew). I would point out though that Jesus' criticism of the Jewish leaders in Mt 15:3-9, how they set aside the commands of God in order to follow their own teachings, shows that 'Matthew' had a good understanding of the culture of first century Judea.

Regarding the last supper, I had a thought. When Matthew says "On the first day of Unleavened Bread" did he mean 14th of Nisan or what? If he was talking about the 14th, wouldn't he have called it the day of Passover? Apparently there is a tradition that on the evening of the 13th, they hunt for leaven in the house. So perhaps this is what 'Matthew' means by the first day of unleavened bread?

[jeremyp]

Regarding the last supper, I had a thought. When Matthew says "On the first day of Unleavened Bread" did he mean 14th of Nisan or what? If he was talking about the 14th, wouldn't he have called it the day of Passover? Apparently there is a tradition that on the evening of the 13th, they have a tradition where they hunt for leaven in the house. So perhaps this is what 'Matthew' means by the first day of unleavened bread?

The author of Matthew is clearly confused about how Passover works. The first day of unleavened bread is the 15th. This is the day of the Passover meal (remember, on the Jewish calendar, the day begins in the evening, not at midnight).  Matthew also explicitly claims they were organising the Passover meal on "the first day of unleavened bread". This is utter nonsense. The author didn't know how Passover works. Hence he not the disciple Matthew.

[Spud]

The author of Matthew is clearly confused about how Passover works. The first day of unleavened bread is the 15th. This is the day of the Passover meal (remember, on the Jewish calendar, the day begins in the evening, not at midnight).  Matthew also explicitly claims they were organising the Passover meal on "the first day of unleavened bread". This is utter nonsense. The author didn't know how Passover works. Hence he not the disciple Matthew.

Apparently it's said in the Mishna that in Galilee people would not work on 14th Nisan. This is all I can find in terms of actual evidence, but some articles about the last supper say that they would prepare for passover on the 13th. This was apparently to do with a fast which was held by firstborn males during the day of 14th. They would have a meal, the evening before, similar to the night before the Day of Atonement which was a fast day.
This could explain why Matthew, who was from Galilee, described the events the way he did.

[Spud]

Another piece of evidence is that Matthew, Mark and Luke all use the word artom for bread in their accounts of the last supper. This word always refers to leavened bread. If it had been the official passover meal they would have been eating unleavened bread.

[jeremyp]

Apparently it's said in the Mishna that in Galilee people would not work on 14th Nisan. This is all I can find in terms of actual evidence, but some articles about the last supper say that they would prepare for passover on the 13th. This was apparently to do with a fast which was held by firstborn males during the day of 14th. They would have a meal, the evening before, similar to the night before the Day of Atonement which was a fast day.
This could explain why Matthew, who was from Galilee, described the events the way he did.

You cannot get around the fact that Matthew had Jesus' disciples organising the Passover meal on the first day of unleavened bread which is after the date it should have happened.

There is no evidence that Matthew the disciple wrote the gospel and there's plenty of evidence that he did not.

[Spud]

You cannot get around the fact that Matthew had Jesus' disciples organising the Passover meal on the first day of unleavened bread which is after the date it should have happened.

There is no evidence that Matthew the disciple wrote the gospel and there's plenty of evidence that he did not.

Riley's theory in The Making of Mark is that Matthew seems to be dividing his narrative into consecutive days, starting two days before the Passover. He needs to call day 2, the day in between, something, so he calls it "the first day of unleavened bread". Day 3 ("when morning came" - 27:1) he has already named the Passover. Day 4 he calls "the next day, the one after Preparation Day". Day 5 he calls "in the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week" (kjv).

He doesn't say "the first day of the festival of unleavened bread", as Luke does, which would have been even less accurate, as that is what Exodus 12 refers to. The phrase "first day of unleavened bread" isn't found elsewhere, so Matthew may have used it loosely for convenience.

[jeremyp]

starting two days before the Passover.

The author explicitly calls that the "first day of unleavened bread". That is factually incorrect. Game over.

[Spud]

The author explicitly calls that the "first day of unleavened bread". That is factually incorrect. Game over.

Not sure you got my meaning. The sequence is:
Day 1: Two days before Passover and death of Jesus (12 Nisan)
Day 2: First day of unleavened bread (Preparation for Passover, 13 Nisan)
Day 3: The Passover and death of Jesus (14 Nisan)
Day 4: Day after the Preparation, that is, the Sabbath (guards posted, 15 Nisan)
Day 5: First day of the week (16 Nisan)
Still factually incorrect, but explains the chronological discrepancy with John, and doesn't mean the author wasn't Matthew the disciple.

[jeremyp]

Not sure you got my meaning. The sequence is:
Day 1: Two days before Passover and death of Jesus (12 Nisan)
Day 2: First day of unleavened bread (Preparation for Passover, 13 Nisan)

The first day of unleavened bread is the 15th. Game over.

Day 3: The Passover and death of Jesus (14 Nisan)

The Passover meal always happens in the evening when 14th Nisan changes to 15th Nisan. This fixes the Last Supper (according to Matthew) and the subsequent trial and execution as all being on the 15th (remember the date changes at sunset, not at midnight).

Day 4: Day after the Preparation, that is, the Sabbath (guards posted, 15 Nisan)
Day 5: First day of the week (16 Nisan)
Still factually incorrect, but explains the chronological discrepancy with John, and doesn't mean the author wasn't Matthew the disciple.

Matthew gets in a terrible mess about Passover. Would a Jew from the 1st century do this? No.

There are other reasons to refute the traditional authorship. The first is that Matthew clearly uses Mark as his source and repeats many of tMark's errors.

Against that, the reasoning behind the traditional attribution is extremely weak.

[Spud]

The first day of unleavened bread is the 15th. Game over.

I haven't quite finished. The following is with the help of The Making of Mark:
The first day of the feast of unleavened bread is the 15th, agreed. Matthew isn't referring to that. How do we work out what he was referring to? First, he doesn't use the word Feast. Second, we look at the context. Jesus has said that "the Passover" is coming after two days, which read naturally means the day after tomorrow, in the evening. Then Matthew describes a day on which preparation was made for the Passover. If he meant the day on which they sacrificed the Passover lamb, as Mark states, we might expect Matthew to have called it, as he did to start with, "the Passover". But he does not; so it is possible that he meant the day before that, the 13th. This day was not part of the feast, but as the day when leaven was removed from the house, it wouldn't be unnatural to describe it as the first day of unleavened bread.

A further consideration is that in 26:1-5 Jesus is explaining what will happen in two days' time, and at the same time the chief priests and elders are conspiring to do this, saying "but not during the feast".

On the morning following the last supper, the chief priests and elders conspire to put Jesus to death, and Jesus is delivered up to be crucified. The description of this day contains content and wording first used in 26:1-5. We can assume therefore that this is still "not during the feast", that the Passover was on the evening of that day.

The Passover meal always happens in the evening when 14th Nisan changes to 15th Nisan. This fixes the Last Supper (according to Matthew) and the subsequent trial and execution as all being on the 15th (remember the date changes at sunset, not at midnight).

Matthew gets in a terrible mess about Passover. Would a Jew from the 1st century do this? No.

There are other reasons to refute the traditional authorship. The first is that Matthew clearly uses Mark as his source and repeats many of tMark's errors.

Against that, the reasoning behind the traditional attribution is extremely weak.

Once we get out of the mindset that Matthew was using Mark, it is possible to see his chronology agreeing with John's.

There are two incidental details that suggest a recollection by an eyewitness source: Go into the city to a certain man and tell him that the Teacher says, "My time is near. I will keep the Passover with My disciples at your house."

[jeremyp]

I haven't quite finished. The following is with the help of The Making of Mark:
The first day of the feast of unleavened bread is the 15th, agreed. Matthew isn't referring to that. How do we work out what he was referring to? First, he doesn't use the word Feast. Second, we look at the context. Jesus has said that "the Passover" is coming after two days

He says that at the beginning of Chapter 26. Between then and the preparation stuff, there are several events. When we get to the preparation stuff it is introduced thus:

17 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?’ 18 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.”’ 19 So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the Passover meal.

20 When it was evening, he took his place with the twelve;[c] 21 and while they were eating...

This passage naturally introduces a new day ("on the first day of...)), which Matthew calls "the first day of Unleavened Bread". He gets this wrong, because that would be 15th Nisan and he is now talking about preparations for the Passover meal. Verse 20 onwards are clearly describing events that Matthew thinks occur during the Passover meal.

Incidentally, all that stuff about preparations? The 14th is called the "Day of Preparation".

Once we get out of the mindset that Matthew was using Mark

Why would we when he did use Mark

it is possible to see his chronology agreeing with John's.

No because, in John, Jesus was already dead when it was time to eat the Passover Meal. In Matthew he was very much alive.

There are two incidental details that suggest a recollection by an eyewitness source: Go into the city to a certain man and tell him that the Teacher says, "My time is near. I will keep the Passover with My disciples at your house."

Why do you think those suggest a recollection of an eye witness source?

[Spud]

He says that at the beginning of Chapter 26. Between then and the preparation stuff, there are several events.

John tells us that the anointing at Bethany happened six days before the Passover. The plot to kill Jesus had been underway since the raising of Lazarus (John 11:45-57). So over those two days all that happens is Judas agrees to betray Jesus, which Luke confirms. Matthew has pictured the conspiracy of the Jewish leaders as occurring at the same time. The anointing at Bethany, in Matthew, is an insertion.

When we get to the preparation stuff it is introduced thus:

This passage naturally introduces a new day ("on the first day of...)), which Matthew calls "the first day of Unleavened Bread". He gets this wrong, because that would be 15th Nisan and he is now talking about preparations for the Passover meal. Verse 20 onwards are clearly describing events that Matthew thinks occur during the Passover meal.

I agree, but this doesn't prove that Matthew thought of the last supper as taking place on the official date of Passover. That Matthew time stamps each day suggests that he is thinking of five consecutive days.

Incidentally, all that stuff about preparations? The 14th is called the "Day of Preparation".

We don't know that. The word Paraskeue was definitely used for Friday. Mark explains this. Would the disciples have left the Passover preparations until the 14th, especially if they were required to prepare for the Sabbath as well?

Why would we when he did use Mark

I've explained why I would. From my perspective, Luke and Mark have incorrectly interpreted Matthew's version to mean they ate the Passover on the 14th, and so they define the first day of unleavened bread more specifically, for their readers, as the day when the Passover lamb was sacrificed.

No because, in John, Jesus was already dead when it was time to eat the Passover Meal. In Matthew he was very much alive.
Why do you think those suggest a recollection of an eye witness source?

Riley thinks that the phrase, "My time is at hand" would not carry any meaning for the householder, if it was said on the 14th. But it does if it was said on the 13th, as Jesus would be implying that he cannot wait until the official time because he knows he is about to be betrayed. "A certain man" implies that the man was not to be identified in order to keep the location secret.

[Spud]

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

According to Luke, Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Council, and had not consented to Jesus' conviction.

[Spud]

Sorry to come back to the issue of the relationship between the Synoptics again, but it does affect whether Matthew's source was an eyewitness of Jesus or someone from a later generation.

One particular evidence sometimes cited for Mark's dependence on Matthew and Luke is his use of dualisms: in particular, sentences or phrases in which Matthew has one half and Luke has the other half. A well known example is Mark 1:32, "And evening having come, when the sun had set" (cf Mt 8:16, "And evening having come"; Lk 4:40, "Now when the sun was setting"). If Luke and Matthew were copying from Mark, it would be less likely that on many occasions one of them copied one half while the other of them copied the other half of Mark's sentence than that Mark was conflating the phrases he found in Matthew and Luke.

While reading The Making of Mark I've come across many examples like these, and in Mark 14 we have a few:

Mk 14:1, "Now it would be the Passover and unleavened bread after two days"
Mt 26:1, "You know that after two days the Passover takes place"
Lk 22:1, "Now the feast of unleavened bread, called Passover, was drawing near".

Mk 14:1, "and the chief priests and scribes were seeking how, by stealth..."
Lk 22:2, "and the chief priests and scribes were seeking how..."
Mt 26:4, "...by stealth...

Mk 14:12, "And on the first day of unleavened, when they were to sacrifice the passover lamb"
Mt 26:17, "Now on the first of the unleavened"
Lk 22:7, "Then came the day of the unleavened, on which it was necessary for the passover lamb to be sacrificed"

This happens throughout Mark's gospel, so frequently that it points strongly to Mark conflating Matthew and Luke.

Matthew, then, was the first to write about the Last Supper. And John gives us the correct chronology with regard to its date.

Whether or not Matthew meant that the last supper happened on the evening of the official Passover, his account is the earliest.