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.

[Spud]

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

I'll quote Don Carson word for word on John 1:14,
"In the context of incarnation, the we who saw the Word's glory must refer to the Evangelist and other Christians who actually saw Jesus in the days of his earthly life". (D. Carson, The Gospel according to John, p 128). Doesn't sound like nonsense to me. That is the natural way to understand it.
Are you saying, why would the author refer to himself and other eyewitnesses as 'we' in one place, but then use the third person, "his disciples", instead of 'we', in another (eg 2:11)? If so, then interpreting 'his disciples' as indicating that he isn't one of the Twelve or the 'we' of 1:14, would thus lead you to interpret 'beholding his glory' in 1:14 in the sense of contemplating his glory instead of seeing it physically.
One reason why I would disagree with you is that John's gospel was written before the Battle Hymn of the Republic. Interpretation of John 1:14 is not dependent on that hymn, but should be based on the immediate context, as Carson indicates.
If the author meant that he witnessed Jesus physically, would it really be unnatural for him to refer to the disciples in the third person, or could there be another reason? Especially if 2:11 is set the day after the calling of Andrew, Simon Peter, Philip and Nathaniel. At that point he has only mentioned those disciples, so it is appropriate to use the third person.
I think it is Meyer who says that the 'us' and 'we' in 1:14 refers to "all who did receive him, who believed in his name" in verse 12. I don't think the author would have used both 'us' and 'we' if he wasn't in that category.

[jeremyp]

I'll quote Don Carson word for word on John 1:14,

Who is he?

"In the context of incarnation, the we who saw the Word's glory must refer to the Evangelist and other Christians who actually saw Jesus in the days of his earthly life".

Nonsense. What's his evidence.

Doesn't sound like nonsense to me. That is the natural way to understand it.

No it isn't. Especially if John is a very late first century / early second century document as most scholars believe. Christians today still claim to have witnessed Christ's glory.

Are you saying, why would the author refer to himself and other eyewitnesses as 'we' in one place, but then use the third person, "his disciples", instead of 'we', in another (eg 2:11)?

No. I'm saying that the author always refers to the disciples and other people around Jesus when he alive in the third person. He clearly wasn't one of them.

Interpretation of John 1:14 is not dependent on that hymn

You want to have your cake and eat it.

Sorry but the evidence against the disciple John or any other eye witness writing the gospel is pretty strong.

[Spud]

Christians today still claim to have witnessed Christ's glory.

This argument is unnecessary. The 'we' in the verse is talking about the 'us' among whom Jesus lived. They beheld his glory as a result of him living among them, not as a result of hearing about him from others.
That the disciples are in the third person doesn't rule out that the author was one of them. The author(s) said "we know that his testimony is true" which points to them having having been eyewitnesses themselves.
What do you think of the statement in 19:35, "35The one who saw it has testified to this, and his testimony is true. He knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe." which reads as if it was the author speaking?

[jeremyp]

This argument is unnecessary. The 'we' in the verse is talking about the 'us' among whom Jesus lived.

But there is no evidence. Your interpretation is just wishful thinking.

[Spud]

But there is no evidence. Your interpretation is just wishful thinking.

As I understand it, you are saying there is no evidence that the author is included in the 'we' of John 1:14. But when we see a statement with 'we' in it, it's natural to assume the 'we' includes the person speaking, unless there is reason to think otherwise. So really, you need to show your evidence that 'we' doesn't include the author. A hymn about the second coming doesn't influence how we interpret a statement about Jesus' first coming.

[jeremyp]

As I understand it, you are saying there is no evidence that the author is included in the 'we' of John 1:14.

No. I'm saying that the "we" in John 1:14 is the body of Christianity as a whole and there is no expectation that any or all of them actually saw Jesus alive. By the time that the gospel was written, it is entirely possible that all of Jesus' companions were dead.

[Spud]

No. I'm saying that the "we" in John 1:14 is the body of Christianity as a whole and there is no expectation that any or all of them actually saw Jesus alive. By the time that the gospel was written, it is entirely possible that all of Jesus' companions were dead.

I agree with you that it means believers, on the basis of its reference back to John 1:12-13, which determines who the 'us' and 'we' are (those who believed).

But what they beheld was his glory, and the rest of the book defines what that means: his miracles, his grace and truth, and his glorification through his death and resurrection. This suggests that the author is speaking of the believers who had seen Jesus physically.

Edit: I was chewing this over a lot yesterday, and concluded that perhaps Carson's view that I quoted was not correct. But having gone back to it this morning I think he is right. The incarnation gives a physical manifestation of God's glory, so the beholding in 1:14 is explained by that.
However, I agree that Christians who have not seen Jesus physically can still see his glory, by reading the accounts of his miraculous signs or through encountering him in prayer

[Dicky Underpants]

I agree with you that it means believers, on the basis of its reference back to John 1:12-13, which determines who the 'us' and 'we' are (those who believed).

But what they beheld was his glory, and the rest of the book defines what that means: his miracles, his grace and truth, and his glorification through his death and resurrection. This suggests that the author is speaking of the believers who had seen Jesus physically.

Edit: I was chewing this over a lot yesterday, and concluded that perhaps Carson's view that I quoted was not correct. But having gone back to it this morning I think he is right. The incarnation gives a physical manifestation of God's glory, so the beholding in 1:14 is explained by that.
However, I agree that Christians who have not seen Jesus physically can still see his glory, by reading the accounts of his miraculous signs or through encountering him in prayer

Off on a tangent, who do you think the 'we' is referring to in Paul's 1st letter to Thessalonians, 4:15?
I mention this because I know that there are many Christians who do not want this to refer to contemporaries of Paul, or to Paul himself. Confirmation bias rules, okay.

[Spud]

Off on a tangent, who do you think the 'we' is referring to in Paul's 1st letter to Thessalonians, 4:15?
I mention this because I know that there are many Christians who do not want this to refer to contemporaries of Paul, or to Paul himself. Confirmation bias rules, okay.

There Paul is saying that according to the word of the Lord, those who are alive at the advent will not precede those who have died. His statement that he would be among those in the former group is not part of the information that he says is from the Lord, and so must be a subjective supposition or hope. He is also aware that people are 'falling asleep' all the time, and so when saying 'we' he must still be open to his own death happening before the advent.

[jeremyp]

There Paul is saying that according to the word of the Lord, those who are alive at the advent will not precede those who have died. His statement that he would be among those in the former group is not part of the information that he says is from the Lord, and so must be a subjective supposition or hope. He is also aware that people are 'falling asleep' all the time, and so when saying 'we' he must still be open to his own death happening before the advent.

So "we" means what you want it to mean.

[Spud]

So "we" means what you want it to mean.

In 1 Thessalonians 4:15 it includes the writer, but isn't he saying that if the advent were to occur now (he is aware of the unknowableness of its timing, see ch 5), he and those believers still living would not be better off than those believers who are dead? Nothing to do with what I want it to mean.

[jeremyp]

In 1 Thessalonians 4:15 it includes the writer, but isn't he saying that if the advent were to occur now (he is aware of the unknowableness of its timing, see ch 5), he and those believers still living would not be better off than those believers who are dead? Nothing to do with what I want it to mean.

Well the gospel of John was written quite a while after 1 Thessalonians, so we can assume that "we" is used in a similar sense. i.e. it's is talking about the Christian church in general, including the author. "we are the witnesses" says John and it's said by Christians to this day.

[Spud]

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.

But he calls them gospels, and also says they were written by the apostles, iirc?

[Spud]

There is no evidence that they were

Among the manuscripts that contain the begining of a gospel account, I think there is one manuscript that is untitled, the rest are all titled 'According to Matthew/Mark etc.' If they were not assigned names until that later time, we would expect at least some of those earliest manuscripts to be untitled.

[Nearly Sane]

Among the manuscripts that contain the begining of a gospel account, I think there is one manuscript that is untitled, the rest are all titled 'According to Matthew/Mark etc.' If they were not assigned names until that later time, we would expect at least some of those earliest manuscripts to be untitled.

They are untitled