Who wrote the gospel attributed to Matthew?

[jeremyp]

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

Disciples referred to in the third person again. Not the author.

[Spud]

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?

Meyer says,

It [his glory] presented itself to the recognition of believers as a reality, in the entire manifestation, work, and history of Him who became man; so that they (not unbelievers) beheld it[98] (intuebantur), because its rays shone forth, so as to be recognised by them, through the veil of the manhood, and thus it revealed itself visibly to them (1 John 1:1; comp. chap. John 2:11)

Which seems to be saying that beholding his glory is the result of the Word becoming flesh, and being seen by them. You're probably right that the 'we' is not just the disciples; it is the community of believers who saw Jesus in the flesh.
This implies the writer was an eyewitness, as per the first point in the list. Note that Meyer says "comp. Chap. John 2:11"

[Spud]

Disciples referred to in the third person again. Not the author.

That doesn't preclude the author being one of the disciples.

[jeremyp]

Meyer says, Which seems to be saying that beholding his glory is the result of the Word becoming flesh, and being seen by them. You're probably right that the 'we' is not just the disciples; it is the community of believers who saw Jesus in the flesh.
This implies the writer was an eyewitness, as per the first point in the list. Note that Meyer says "comp. Chap. John 2:11"

No it doesn’t imply the writer is an eye witness nor does it imply the “we” is the group who saw Jesus before he died. Furthermore, there’s still the problem that the key people, if John is the author, are described in the third person.

[Spud]

No it doesn’t imply the writer is an eye witness nor does it imply the “we” is the group who saw Jesus before he died.

In the context of the incarnation (1:14) and of people believing in Jesus because of his miraculous signs (2:23), which revealed his glory (2:11, 11:40), which is the glory of God (11:40), yes it does imply that the writer is an eyewitness and the we is him and the others who saw Jesus in the flesh.

Furthermore, there’s still the problem that the key people, if John is the author, are described in the third person.

Why is it a problem?

[jeremyp]

In the context of the incarnation (1:14) and of people believing in Jesus because of his miraculous signs (2:23), which revealed his glory (2:11, 11:40), which is the glory of God (11:40), yes it does imply that the writer is an eyewitness and the we is him and the others who saw Jesus in the flesh.Why is it a problem?

You are cherry picking verses. You jump from 1:14 to 2:23 to 2:11 to 11:40 whilst ignoring all the context.

There is nowhere where the author is implied as an eye witness to the life and death of Jesus. Furthermore, the people who are said in the gospel to be eye witnesses are referred to in the third person.

[Spud]

You are cherry picking verses. You jump from 1:14 to 2:23 to 2:11 to 11:40 whilst ignoring all the context.

I'm not cherry picking. The whole book is about how Jesus revealed his glory through miraculous signs (as well as his 'grace and truth'). Those particular verses are consistent with that.

The statement, "we beheld his glory" follows the statement that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. So, to paraphrase Don Carson, "we" can only refer to people who physically saw Jesus.

There is nowhere where the author is implied as an eye witness to the life and death of Jesus. Furthermore, the people who are said in the gospel to be eye witnesses are referred to in the third person.

Isn't "we" inclusive of the first person?

[jeremyp]

I'm not cherry picking. The whole book is about how Jesus revealed his glory through miraculous signs (as well as his 'grace and truth'). Those particular verses are consistent with that.

You picked out three verses in isolation and put them together with no thought about the context in which they appear and whether they should go together.

The statement, "we beheld his glory" follows the statement that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. So, to paraphrase Don Carson, "we" can only refer to people who physically saw Jesus.
Isn't "we" inclusive of the first person?

But as we have discussed, "we beheld his glory" does not mean "we" literally saw him while he was alive. And you still haven't addressed the fact that the disciples are always discussed in the third person.

[Spud]

But as we have discussed, "we beheld his glory" does not mean "we" literally saw him while he was alive.

Yes it does. It's linked with the statement that God became man and lived among us, so it can't be interpreted otherwise.

Regarding the other verses, they define what it means to behold his glory, and nothing about their contexts disproves that, as far as I can tell.

[jeremyp]

Yes it does. It's linked with the statement that God became man and lived among us, so it can't be interpreted otherwise.

Regarding the other verses, they define what it means to behold his glory, and nothing about their contexts disproves that, as far as I can tell.

Nonsense. And you still haven’t addressed the fact that the disciples are referred to in the third person.