Who wrote the gospel attributed to Matthew?

[jeremyp]

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.
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.
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?
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.
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.

Just accept that the author of Matthew referred to the Last Supper as The Passover Meal. Either he was wrong about that or he was wrong about the subsequent events. Either way, He is not a first century Jew who knew Jesus.

Have you got any positive arguments in favour of Matthew having written the gospel?

[Spud]

Have you got any positive arguments in favour of Matthew having written the gospel?

The tradition of the early church, and this is supported by the evidence you have been given which shows that Matthew didn't rely on Mark or any other known source. If Luke and Mark both used Matthew, and other editors added material to it, they considered it a reliable account.

[Maeght]

The tradition of the early church, and this is supported by the evidence you have been given which shows that Matthew didn't rely on Mark or any other known source. If Luke and Mark both used Matthew, and other editors added material to it, they considered it a reliable account.

The names were assigned in the second century, so nearly 100 years without names being attached. Doesn't sound like great supporting evidence to me. Do you think they would really know for certain who wrote them 100 years later? Do you think they might have had other reasons for assigning names of people close to Jesus and his time frame such as to strengthen the claims made in those gospels?

[Spud]

The names were assigned in the second century, so nearly 100 years without names being attached. Doesn't sound like great supporting evidence to me. Do you think they would really know for certain who wrote them 100 years later? Do you think they might have had other reasons for assigning names of people close to Jesus and his time frame such as to strengthen the claims made in those gospels?

The names are found in writings from the second century, yes, but that doesn't mean they were not attached before that.

[jeremyp]

The tradition of the early church,

Would you like to expand on what that tradition is and how it came about? "Because people in the second century thought so" is not a compelling argument.

and this is supported by the evidence you have been given which shows that Matthew didn't rely on Mark

You are still in fantasy land. It's almost certain that Matthew relied on Mark, rather than the other way around.

[Maeght]

The names are found in writings from the second century, yes, but that doesn't mean they were not attached before that.

There is no evidence that they were and there is some evidence they weren't, Justin Martyr for example seems very familiar with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke but never refers to them by those names.

[Spud]

Would you like to expand on what that tradition is and how it came about? "Because people in the second century thought so" is not a compelling argument.
You are still in fantasy land. It's almost certain that Matthew relied on Mark, rather than the other way around.

There is a chain of custody from John, an eyewitness, through to the earliest bishops.
Fantasy land is where St Matthew and St Luke once met to discuss how they were going to distribute the details in Mark 14:1-2 between them.

[Nearly Sane]

There is a chain of custody from John, an eyewitness, through to the earliest bishops.
Fantasy land is where St Matthew and St Luke once met to discuss how they were going to distribute the details in Mark 14:1-2 between them.

No, there isn't

[Maeght]

There is a chain of custody from John, an eyewitness, through to the earliest bishops.
Fantasy land is where St Matthew and St Luke once met to discuss how they were going to distribute the details in Mark 14:1-2 between them.

Evidence please.

[Spud]

Evidence please.

Their writings show that they affirm the content and authorship of the four gospels. I get muddled up when it comes to the early church, so here is an article that explains who taught who:
https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/testing-the-gospels-from-john-to-hippolytus/

[Dicky Underpants]

Their writings show that they affirm the content and authorship of the four gospels. I get muddled up when it comes to the early church, so here is an article that explains who taught who:
https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/testing-the-gospels-from-john-to-hippolytus/

If that's critical thinking, then I'm a banana.
How does this guy get to the conclusion that 'John' was a witness to Jesus' miracles and resurrection?. We hear some talk about "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (unnamed, and spoken of as another party). Who 'we' may be in the final episodes of the gospel is unclear. Maybe that writer had royal delusions and meant it to refer to him or herself.

[Nearly Sane]

If that's critical thinking, then I'm a banana.
How does this guy get to the conclusion that 'John' was a witness to Jesus' miracles and resurrection?. We hear some talk about "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (unnamed, and spoken of as another party). Who 'we' may be in the final episodes of the gospel is unclear. Maybe that writer had royal delusions and meant it to refer to him or herself.

As a chain of custody, it isn't even close. It's a chain of assertedy

[Maeght]

Their writings show that they affirm the content and authorship of the four gospels. I get muddled up when it comes to the early church, so here is an article that explains who taught who:
https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/testing-the-gospels-from-john-to-hippolytus/

No they don't.

I've read stuff from cold case Christianity before and am not convinced. Lots of assertions in there but no actual evidence, which is what I asked for.

[Gordon]

I have this image of a small group of anoraks, and no doubt Spud is among them, who think that 'who wrote what' in unprovenanced anecdotes from antiquity has relevance currently - it doesn't.

[jeremyp]

Their writings show that they affirm the content and authorship of the four gospels. I get muddled up when it comes to the early church, so here is an article that explains who taught who:
https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/testing-the-gospels-from-john-to-hippolytus/

I'm afraid that article is complete drivel. J Warner Wallace seems totally clueless which means I worry about the criminal cases he was involved in.

For a start, he doesn't know what an eye witness account is. John's gospel does not read like eye witness testimony (not that we are talking about John's gospel in this thread). I would be interested to have a separate thread where we take this article apart though.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm afraid that article is complete drivel. J Warner Wallace seems totally clueless which means I worry about the criminal cases he was involved in.

For a start, he doesn't know what an eye witness account is. John's gospel does not read like eye witness testimony (not that we are talking about John's gospel in this thread). I would be interested to have a separate thread where we take this article apart though.

Not its first appearance on the board

https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12570.msg636401#msg636401

[jeremyp]

Not its first appearance on the board

https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12570.msg636401#msg636401

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

[Nearly Sane]

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

The website is almost funny in its lack of understanding about what it's claiming.

[Spud]

If that's critical thinking, then I'm a banana.
How does this guy get to the conclusion that 'John' was a witness to Jesus' miracles and resurrection?. We hear some talk about "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (unnamed, and spoken of as another party). Who 'we' may be in the final episodes of the gospel is unclear. Maybe that writer had royal delusions and meant it to refer to him or herself.

I had a read of one of the article's links: The Circumstantial Case For John’s Authorship. He sets out the reasoning of Max Andrews on who wrote John.
It starts with 1:14 "we have seen his glory", then 2:11 "[by turning water into wine] he thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him". So the "we" is his disciples: as the reference to 'his glory' shows.
He then continues to identify John as the probable author by a process of elimination of the other disciples, using references to 'the disciple whom Jesus loved'.

[jeremyp]

I had a read of one of the article's links: The Circumstantial Case For John’s Authorship. He sets out the reasoning of Max Andrews on who wrote John.
It starts with 1:14 "we have seen his glory", then 2:11 "[by turning water into wine] he thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him". So the "we" is his disciples: as the reference to 'his glory' shows.

No.

It talks about the disciples in the third person. Clearly "we" are not the disciples.

He then continues to identify John as the probable author by a process of elimination of the other disciples, using references to 'the disciple whom Jesus loved'.

Since we know it wasn't a disciple that wrote John, this step is erroneous.

[Spud]

No.

It talks about the disciples in the third person. Clearly "we" are not the disciples.

Since we know it wasn't a disciple that wrote John, this step is erroneous.

"We have seen his glory". Who do you think 'we' is, then? The Pharisees? The Romans?
He refers to the disciple who Jesus loved in the third person as well.
The point is that 'his glory' is manifested by his miracles. So 'we' is some people who saw his miracles.

[Maeght]

"We have seen his glory". Who do you think 'we' is, then? The Pharisees? The Romans?
He refers to the disciple who Jesus loved in the third person as well.
The point is that 'his glory' is manifested by his miracles. So 'we' is some people who saw his miracles.

Where does it say that?

[Spud]

Where does it say that?

John 2:11 "This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him". ESV

[Maeght]

John 2:11 "This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him". ESV

Thanks.

[jeremyp]

"We have seen his glory". Who do you think 'we' is, then? The Pharisees? The Romans?

Christians. You keep banging on about it all the time.

The first line of the Battle Hymn of the Republic "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord". Do you think Julia Ward Howe was one of the disciples?

He refers to the disciple who Jesus loved in the third person as well.

Yes he does and that is perfectly natural, given that he is not the disciple whom Jesus loved.

The point is that 'his glory' is manifested by his miracles. So 'we' is some people who saw his miracles.

Nonsense.