Who wrote the gospel attributed to Matthew?

[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."

Bart Ehrman says that he thinks the gospels were anonymous until 'there was a manuscript produced probably in Rome that named the four, probably sometime in the 150s or 160s, that it was circulated among church leaders, and everyone bought into it.'

[jeremyp]

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.

That's really weak sauce. We have external corroboration that heretical sects were banned from the synagogues much later. Of course, synagogues in Israel in the first century are something of an anachronism just by themselves. The claim that Luke referred to them in Acts isn't worth much since Acts itself is also late first century.

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?

If the author is this disciple why is he referred to in the third person? Why do you do all these contortions of logic and ignore the obvious basic stuff?

[Spud]

Are the gospels actually named in Papyrus 75?

Yes, it contains Luke 3-24, then, after the ending of Luke, "The gospel according to John", followed by John 1-15.

[Spud]

Bart Ehrman says that he thinks the gospels were anonymous until 'there was a manuscript produced probably in Rome that named the four, probably sometime in the 150s or 160s, that it was circulated among church leaders, and everyone bought into it.'

When you say anonymous, do you mean untitled? They are all anonymous.
If Bart is correct, then that information didn't have long to be distributed to France, Egypt,  Tunisia and Turkey.
The screenshot is from
 this video

[Spud]

If the author is this disciple why is he referred to in the third person? Why do you do all these contortions of logic and ignore the obvious basic stuff?

The most likely reason that I have come across is that the author wanted to make the focus on Jesus.
Other ancient authors referred to themselves in the third person, such as Josephus.

[Maeght]

When you say anonymous, do you mean untitled? They are all anonymous.
If Bart is correct, then that information didn't have long to be distributed to France, Egypt,  Tunisia and Turkey.
The screenshot is from
 this video

Bart said anonymous in answer to when they were named so untitled - yes.

Brant Pitre and Bart Ehrman will have to argue that one out. I presented Ehrman's altrnative view as one which is held by a well respected scholar but not as my own views since I'm not a well respected scholar!

[Spud]

Bart said anonymous in answer to when they were named so untitled - yes.

Brant Pitre and Bart Ehrman will have to argue that one out. I presented Ehrman's altrnative view as one which is held by a well respected scholar but not as my own views since I'm not a well respected scholar!

I think the authors were known to the first few generations in the church, but the documents would have been untitled in line with their inherent anonymity. Later, the need for knowing their names was realised, and there was no need to preserve the writers' anonymity, as they had died, so they added the names, which had been passed down orally, to the manuscripts. Just a theory.

[Maeght]

I think the authors were known to the first few generations in the church, but the documents would have been untitled in line with their inherent anonymity. Later, the need for knowing their names was realised, and there was no need to preserve the writers' anonymity, as they had died, so they added the names, which had been passed down orally, to the manuscripts. Just a theory.

In the colloquial use of the word theory maybe.

[jeremyp]

The most likely reason that I have come across is that the author wanted to make the focus on Jesus.

Don't be silly. The most likely reason is that the author is not the disciple.

Other ancient authors referred to themselves in the third person, such as Josephus.

So what? Don't forget that the author of the gospel is not afraid to use first person pronouns at other times.

[jeremyp]

I think the authors were known to the first few generations in the church

Evidence?

, but the documents would have been untitled in line with their inherent anonymity. Later, the need for knowing their names was realised, and there was no need to preserve the writers' anonymity, as they had died, so they added the names, which had been passed down orally, to the manuscripts. Just a theory.

Just a load of confirmation bias.

[Spud]

Don't be silly. The most likely reason is that the author is not the disciple.

You said "if the author is the disciple why is he referred to in the third person?" "The author is not the disciple" is not a reason why the disciple is referred to in the third person.

[Spud]

So what? Don't forget that the author of the gospel is not afraid to use first person pronouns at other times.

Meyer says of the use of the third person in John 19:35 that it's a "solemn style which fully corresponds to the quite extraordinary importance which John attributes to the phenomenon" (the outflow of blood and water). Likewise of 9:37, Meyer says that using the third person is a way of introducing himself (to the man he cured of blindness) as the Son of Man with special emphasis.

[jeremyp]

You said "if the author is the disciple why is he referred to in the third person?" "The author is not the disciple" is not a reason why the disciple is referred to in the third person.

Yes it is. It's the obvious reason. It's how language works: you talk about somebody in the third person, you mean somebody who is not you and is not me. In fact the clue is in the name "third person". The first person is me. The second person is you. The third person is somebody else.

Seriously, Spud, this just makes you look desperate.

[jeremyp]

Meyer says of the use of the third person in John 19:35 that it's a "solemn style which fully corresponds to the quite extraordinary importance which John attributes to the phenomenon" (the outflow of blood and water). Likewise of 9:37, Meyer says that using the third person is a way of introducing himself (to the man he cured of blindness) as the Son of Man with special emphasis.

No.

This is just more apologetics. You want the author to be John, so you desperately contort everything the way you want it. Try getting some intellectual honesty.

[Spud]

Yes it is. It's the obvious reason. It's how language works: you talk about somebody in the third person, you mean somebody who is not you and is not me. In fact the clue is in the name "third person". The first person is me. The second person is you. The third person is somebody else.

Seriously, Spud, this just makes you look desperate.

How can the author not be the disciple if he is the disciple?

[Spud]

No.

This is just more apologetics. You want the author to be John, so you desperately contort everything the way you want it. Try getting some intellectual honesty.

No, it's answering the question you raised, which was if the author is the disciple, why does he use the third person. We have an example within the narrative where Jesus substitutes a title for the pronoun 'I', so it's not unnatural for the author to do the same thing.

[Nearly Sane]

How can the author not be the disciple if he is the disciple?

I would say this is an actual example of begging the question... but it is dead, the great fallacy is dead.

https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=22239.msg896602;boardseen#new

[jeremyp]

How can the author not be the disciple if he is the disciple?

The author is not the disciple. That should be obvious to you by now.

[Maeght]

Watched an interesting lecture on YouTube from Centreplace about the authorship of John - talking about John 1 (author of the bulk of John) and John 2 (author of the last chapter and editor of John 1). It said how the last chapter seems to be an addition and the writer of that is referring to the writer of the rest of John - and said why John 1 couldn't really be John the apostle. It talks of how John 1 believes in a spiritual interpretation of Jesus's words but John 2 was a literalist. There was more to it than that and was a good watch.

[Spud]

Bart said anonymous in answer to when they were named so untitled - yes.

Brant Pitre and Bart Ehrman will have to argue that one out. I presented Ehrman's altrnative view as one which is held by a well respected scholar but not as my own views since I'm not a well respected scholar!

If we look at the statements about the gospel of Matthew by Papias, Eusebius and Irenaeus, they all say that it was written by Matthew in the Hebrew language, or language of the Hebrews.
Bart's theory that the titles appeared on one manuscript, and were accepted by everybody else, would seem to be contradicted by the additional details in these statements. Papias says that "each one interpreted them (the 'Logia') as he was able". Eusebius says that Matthew gave the Hebrews his gospel when he had decided "to go to others". Irenaeus says that Matthew wrote "while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the church".
These separate details would seem to indicate three independent traditions, all of which agreed that Matthew was the author of the gospel with that title.

[Spud]

Watched an interesting lecture on YouTube from Centreplace about the authorship of John - talking about John 1 (author of the bulk of John) and John 2 (author of the last chapter and editor of John 1). It said how the last chapter seems to be an addition and the writer of that is referring to the writer of the rest of John - and said why John 1 couldn't really be John the apostle. It talks of how John 1 believes in a spiritual interpretation of Jesus's words but John 2 was a literalist. There was more to it than that and was a good watch.

The last chapter could well be a supplement, given that the last verse of the preceding chapter reads like a conclusion to chs. 1-20. Why would ch 21 not be written by the same author as 1-20?  The last verse of ch.21 may be from an editor, being somewhat fantastical in nature.
There are lots of indicators that John was written by an eyewitness - in particular, details that only an eyewitness would know, such as who spoke when; which disciples went fishing with Peter, etc. There is no reason not to believe the tradition of the early church regarding who the author was.

[Maeght]

If we look at the statements about the gospel of Matthew by Papias, Eusebius and Irenaeus, they all say that it was written by Matthew in the Hebrew language, or language of the Hebrews.
Bart's theory that the titles appeared on one manuscript, and were accepted by everybody else, would seem to be contradicted by the additional details in these statements. Papias days that "each one interpreted them (the 'Logia') as he was able". Eusebius says that Matthew gave the Hebrews his gospel when he had decided "to go to others". Irenaeus says that Matthew wrote "while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the church".
These separate details would seem to indicate three independent traditions, all of which agreed that Matthew was the author of the gospel with that title.

I'm sure Bart Ehrman is aware of those points. I could go and look up what he says about it but of course so can you. I'm not saying Ehrman is right but pointing out that respected scholars have a different view or views on this. As i say, I'm not a respected scholar so any post I would make would be based on looking up what respected scholars say.

[Maeght]

The last chapter could well be a supplement, given that the last verse of the preceding chapter reads like a conclusion to chs. 1-20. Why would ch 21 not be written by the same author as 1-20?  The last verse of ch.21 may be from an editor, being somewhat fantastical in nature.
There are lots of indicators that John was written by an eyewitness - in particular, details that only an eyewitness would know, such as who spoke when; which disciples went fishing with Peter, etc. There is no reason not to believe the tradition of the early church regarding who the author was.

Scholars give plenty of reasons why. Have you watched the Youtube clip I referred to? I'll find a link if not.

[jeremyp]

If we look at the statements about the gospel of Matthew by Papias

Well we can't. His writing has only survived as quotations in Eusebius' work.

, Eusebius and Irenaeus, they all say that it was written by Matthew in the Hebrew language, or language of the Hebrews.

Yes, but the gospel that has survived to the present day was written in Greek. If Papias is being reported correctly, then he is saying that the gospel we call "Matthew" is not the one written by Matthew.

Bart's theory that the titles appeared on one manuscript, and were accepted by everybody else, would seem to be contradicted by the additional details in these statements. Papias days that "each one interpreted them (the 'Logia') as he was able". Eusebius says that Matthew gave the Hebrews his gospel when he had decided "to go to others". Irenaeus says that Matthew wrote "while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the church".
These separate details would seem to indicate three independent traditions, all of which agreed that Matthew was the author of the gospel with that title.

We clearly do not have three independent traditions. We only know Papias through Eusebius. How can you possibly claim them as independent?

[Spud]

Yes, but the gospel that has survived to the present day was written in Greek. If Papias is being reported correctly, then he is saying that the gospel we call "Matthew" is not the one written by Matthew.

Hebrew versions of Matthew from around the 14th century have also survived. Do you know of any internal evidence for Matthew being composed in Greek? Peter Williams did a talk on this, citing the Beatitudes as being sort of poetic (in Greek). Apparently the Hebrew versions contain puns, word connections and alliterations (scroll down for examples) that must be part of an original composition, not a translation. This would suggest that the extant manuscripts are copies of a now lost Hebrew original.

We clearly do not have three independent traditions. We only know Papias through Eusebius. How can you possibly claim them as independent?

By assuming Eusebius' quote from Papias is accurate.