Who wrote the gospel attributed to Matthew?

[jeremyp]

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

But he doesn't give names to the authors of any of the gospels and he was writing between 155 and 160, which is roughly 50 years after the last gospel was written (and the evidence that he was aware of the Gospel of John is sketchy).

[Spud]

They are untitled

They are all anonymous, you mean?

[Spud]

But he doesn't give names to the authors of any of the gospels and he was writing between 155 and 160, which is roughly 50 years after the last gospel was written (and the evidence that he was aware of the Gospel of John is sketchy).

He says they were written by the apostles, which rules out later authorship.

[Spud]

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.

'Quite a while' - if you mean after the eyewitnesses died, what's the evidence for this, and how do you explain the author identifying himself as one of the twelve disciples towards the end of the book?

[Nearly Sane]

He says they were written by the apostles, which rules out later authorship.

No, it doesn't.

[Nearly Sane]

They are all anonymous, you mean?

You used the term 'untitled'. Seems a bit odd you asking me what you meant. The earliest manuscripts are scraps with no attribution.

[jeremyp]

He says they were written by the apostles, which rules out later authorship.

No it doesn't. Just because he says they were written by the apostles doesn't mean they were. He was writing perhaps a hundred years later and may have had bad information. Furthermore, the world "apostle" didn't necessarily mean one of the Twelve to the early Christians. Justin Martyr was writing in Greek and in Greek, "apostle" just means "emissary".

[jeremyp]

'Quite a while' - if you mean after the eyewitnesses died, what's the evidence for this,

There's quite a lot of evidence for the late authorship of John (~90CE or a bit later). The theology is quite well developed and there are anachronisms which can only mean a late date.

and how do you explain the author identifying himself as one of the twelve disciples towards the end of the book?

No he doesn't.

[jeremyp]

You used the term 'untitled'. Seems a bit odd you asking me what you meant. The earliest manuscripts are scraps with no attribution.

The title would be "The Gospel According to X" where X is the alleged author. These titles were not originally on the manuscripts as far as we know.

[Spud]

No it doesn't. Just because he says they were written by the apostles doesn't mean they were. He was writing perhaps a hundred years later and may have had bad information. Furthermore, the world "apostle" didn't necessarily mean one of the Twelve to the early Christians. Justin Martyr was writing in Greek and in Greek, "apostle" just means "emissary".

The point is that Justin not naming the authors is not evidence that the names were not attached to the gospels before his time. That he says they were the memoirs of the apostles is evidence for them being attributed to them.

[Spud]

The title would be "The Gospel According to X" where X is the alleged author. These titles were not originally on the manuscripts as far as we know.

How do we know these titles were not originally on the manuacripts?

[Nearly Sane]

How do we know these titles were not originally on the manuacripts?

We din't but your claim was that they were there. So do you accept that you were wrong?

[Spud]

We don't

So why does Jeremy think they weren't originally on the manuscripts? Is the handwriting in the title different from that in the main account, or something?

but your claim was that they were there.

That would be the logical conclusion unless they look like they've been added afterwards.

[jeremyp]

The point is that Justin not naming the authors is not evidence that the names were not attached to the gospels before his time.

Wouldn't he have named them if he knew the names?

That he says they were the memoirs of the apostles is evidence for them being attributed to them.

Except of course, even in tradition, two of the authors were not apostles.

[Spud]

Please note, the point here is that the manuscripts we have that contain the beginning of a gospel all (but one) have a title, which is always, in essence, 'the gospel according to Matthew/Mark/Luke/John'. And I'm assuming those titles were put there by the same copyists that wrote the manuscripts.
If these titles had been made up, why do they all have one, and why is it always the same? If the original copies were untitled, and the titles added a century later, we would expect to have some extant copies (or copies of copies) of those originals which were still untitled, or have a different title.
We also have statements from second century church leaders about who wrote the gospels. These leaders were separated geographically and temporally yet all give the same names for the authors.

[ekim]

You might find the Jesus Seminar site interesting .....  https://virtualreligion.net/forum/complete.html

[jeremyp]

We also have statements from first century church leaders about who wrote the gospels.

No we don't. This is completely false.

[Spud]

No we don't. This is completely false.

Just keeping you on your toes

[Spud]

Papyrus 75 is interesting. Found in Egypt, it contains most of Luke and the beginning of John. Wikipedia says, "An unusual feature of this codex is that when the Gospel of Luke ends, the Gospel of John begins on the same page". So the title of John's gospel in this case was definitely not added to the manuscript later. The geographical separation of this from Irenaeus, from Lyons, France, shows how the author of the 4th gospel was believed by two independent sources to be John.

[Maeght]

Papyrus 75 is interesting. Found in Egypt, it contains most of Luke and the beginning of John. Wikipedia says, "An unusual feature of this codex is that when the Gospel of Luke ends, the Gospel of John begins on the same page". So the title of John's gospel in this case was definitely not added to the manuscript later. The geographical separation of this from Irenaeus, from Lyons, France, shows how the author of the 4th gospel was believed by two independent sources to be John.

In the second century or later.

[jeremyp]

Papyrus 75 is interesting. Found in Egypt, it contains most of Luke and the beginning of John. Wikipedia says, "An unusual feature of this codex is that when the Gospel of Luke ends, the Gospel of John begins on the same page". So the title of John's gospel in this case was definitely not added to the manuscript later.

Yes but it is third century (or possibly late second). Nobody is disputing that the traditional names had been ascribed by then.

I'm not sure if the text includes "The Gospel According to John" or if it just starts. In any case, since this is part of a compilation (maybe there is a lost first volume consisting of Matthew and Mark) it would be natural for the scribe to put "Gospel of John" at the start to differentiate it from the end of Luke.

The geographical separation of this from Irenaeus, from Lyons, France, shows how the author of the 4th gospel was believed by two independent sources to be John.

What? How do you know Irenaeus ascribes the text that we now have to John? Who is the other source? If you are going to say "Papias", you need to think again.

[Gordon]

Papyrus 75 is interesting. Found in Egypt, it contains most of Luke and the beginning of John. Wikipedia says, "An unusual feature of this codex is that when the Gospel of Luke ends, the Gospel of John begins on the same page". So the title of John's gospel in this case was definitely not added to the manuscript later. The geographical separation of this from Irenaeus, from Lyons, France, shows how the author of the 4th gospel was believed by two independent sources to be John.

Spud

Some questions.

1. Why are you content with suppositions?

2. Do you realise that little of this is verifiable, since it is largely indistinguishable from fiction?

3. Why does this matter at all in the 21st Century?

4. These days, who the fuck actually cares anyway?

[Spud]

There's quite a lot of evidence for the late authorship of John (~90CE or a bit later). The theology is quite well developed and there are anachronisms which can only mean a late date.

I looked up 'anachronisms in John's gospel '. One supposed one is 9:22, about a healed blind man's parents' fear of being expelled from the synagogue. Here's a rebuttal.

No he doesn't.

Here is John 19:35:
35He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth—that you also may believe.

If the author was not this disciple, how could he know that the disciple knows he is telling the truth?

[Spud]

In the second century or later.

The information travelled a long way. To quote Brant Pitre in The Case for Jesus, p. 28, "It's utterly implausible that a book circulating around the Roman empire for almost 100 years could somehow at some point be attributed to exactly the same author by scribes throughout the world."

[Maeght]

The information travelled a long way. To quote Brant Pitre in The Case for Jesus, p. 28, "It's utterly implausible that a book circulating around the Roman empire for almost 100 years could somehow at some point be attributed to exactly the same author by scribes throughout the world."

Are the gospels actually named in Papyrus 75?