Who wrote the gospel attributed to Matthew?

[jeremyp]

Hebrew versions of Matthew from around the 14th century have also survived.

This is totally irrelevant. English versions of the gospelalso started appearing around that time. It doesn't mean the gospel was written in English.

Do you know of any internal evidence for Matthew being composed in Greek?

Experts say it appears to have been written in Greek. A lot of the evidence is very technical but two pieces are easy to understand:

1. The early Greek manuscripts are remarkably consistent. If they are translations of an earlier Hebrew document, we would expect huge variation (think of all the different English language translations)

2. Matthew frequently quotes the Old Testament. When he does, it is invariably from the Septuagint which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament. There are variations between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text and Matthew always uses the Septuagint variation.

Nobody, not even most apologists believes Matthew was originally written in Hebrew.

[jeremyp]

By assuming Eusebius' quote from Papias is accurate.

You clearly do not understand the meaning of "independent". If Eusebius agrees with Papias on something, you cannot claim they are independent because Eusebius may have formed his own opinion by reading Papias.

[Spud]

You clearly do not understand the meaning of "independent". If Eusebius agrees with Papias on something, you cannot claim they are independent because Eusebius may have formed his own opinion by reading Papias.

Here's Papias' quote according to Eusebius:

"Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could."

From reading Eusebius' statement does it really look as though that is what he did?

"Matthew at first preached to the Hebrews, and when he planned to go to others also he wrote his Gospel in his own native tongue for those he was leaving".

Here is what Riley says, in a section in which he discusses the language in which Matthew was written:

"Eusebius knew Papias' writings, but there is no reason to assume that it was only the words of Papias that made him so write. Like the detail in Irenaeus that Matthew wrote "while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and founding the church," that of Eusebius about the apostle's decision 'to go to others' appears to be an independent item of tradition." (from the concluding chapter of The First Gospel).

[Spud]

This is totally irrelevant. English versions of the gospelalso started appearing around that time. It doesn't mean the gospel was written in English.
Experts say it appears to have been written in Greek. A lot of the evidence is very technical but two pieces are easy to understand:

1. The early Greek manuscripts are remarkably consistent. If they are translations of an earlier Hebrew document, we would expect huge variation (think of all the different English language translations)

2. Matthew frequently quotes the Old Testament. When he does, it is invariably from the Septuagint which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament. There are variations between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text and Matthew always uses the Septuagint variation.

Nobody, not even most apologists believes Matthew was originally written in Hebrew.

If the Septuagint is a Greek translation of Hebrew, couldn't Greek Matthew be also? If Hebrew translations exist, we should try to work out whether they are direct translations from Greek Matthew or not.

This is new to me. Notwithstanding evidence that parts of Greek Matthew suggest composition in Greek, here's an example of possible evidence for a Hebrew original.

Matthew 7:16
You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
ESV

The two types of plant mentioned here are the thorns and thistles of Genesis 3:18, and the same words are used as in the Septuagint.

In one Hebrew Matthew manuscript, the verse reads,

"By their deeds you will recognize them– for a man is not able to gather
grapes from a bramble, neither figs from thorn bushes."

Here, the word for the first of the two plants is the same as the word for the burning bush that Moses saw. It is literally translated, "bush". The second is the same word for thistle as in Genesis 3:18.

So the question is, which is closer to the original saying by Jesus? Does one version lead to a deeper understanding of the saying than the other?

[jeremyp]

Here's Papias' quote according to Eusebius:

"Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could."

Does that seem like a description of the current Gospel of Matthew? Try being honest with yourself. Is Matthew a list of oracles?

From reading Eusebius' statement does it really look as though that is what he did?

"Matthew at first preached to the Hebrews, and when he planned to go to others also he wrote his Gospel in his own native tongue for those he was leaving".

No. For a start his native tongue would have been Aramaic, not Hebrew and not Greek.

Here is what Riley says, in a section in which he discusses the language in which Matthew was written:

"Eusebius knew Papias' writings, but there is no reason to assume that it was only the words of Papias that made him so write. Like the detail in Irenaeus that Matthew wrote "while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and founding the church," that of Eusebius about the apostle's decision 'to go to others' appears to be an independent item of tradition." (from the concluding chapter of The First Gospel).

So he's handwaving other sources into existence. How do we know he had an independent item of tradition? How can we say how reliable it is?

[jeremyp]

If the Septuagint is a Greek translation of Hebrew, couldn't Greek Matthew be also? If Hebrew translations exist, we should try to work out whether they are direct translations from Greek Matthew or not.

No.

It is beyond doubt that Matthew quotes the Septuagint and not the Hebrew version of the OT.


This is new to me. Notwithstanding evidence that parts of Greek Matthew suggest composition in Greek, here's an example of possible evidence for a Hebrew original.

[Spud]

Does that seem like a description of the current Gospel of Matthew? Try being honest with yourself. Is Matthew a list of oracles?

Not a list; but Papias doesn't say they are. What is evident is that the parables and instruction in Matthew are integrated into a narrative, without which the oracles would be just a list. Is it likely that the apostle Matthew would have written nothing about when and where the 'oracles' were spoken, or about things that Jesus did?

No. For a start his native tongue would have been Aramaic, not Hebrew and not Greek.

The key point being, not Greek.

So he's handwaving other sources into existence.

He's saying there is no reason to assume that it was only Papias' words that made Eusebius mention Matthew's native tongue. 

How do we know he had an independent item of tradition? How can we say how reliable it is?

For the reason given by Riley: that the detail given by Eusebius that Matthew decided "to go to others" appears to be an independent item of tradition. Eusebius would have to have added the words, 'in his own native tongue' to the statement, "and when he planned to go to others also he wrote his Gospel for those he was leaving", if indeed he did get that detail from Papias only.

[jeremyp]

Not a list; but Papias doesn't say they are.

"Oracles". What do you think that is?

What is evident is that the parables and instruction in Matthew are integrated into a narrative, without which the oracles would be just a list. Is it likely that the apostle Matthew would have written nothing about when and where the 'oracles' were spoken, or about things that Jesus did?
The key point being, not Greek.

The key point being that this does not describe the document we call "The Gospel According to Matthew".

He's saying there is no reason to assume that it was only Papias' words that made Eusebius mention Matthew's native tongue. 

Matthew's (as in the disciple) native tongue would most likely be neither Greek nor Hebrew, but Aramaic. The person who wrote the gospel was very proficient in Greek.

For the reason given by Riley: that the detail given by Eusebius that Matthew decided "to go to others" appears to be an independent item of tradition. Eusebius would have to have added the words, 'in his own native tongue' to the statement, "and when he planned to go to others also he wrote his Gospel for those he was leaving", if indeed he did get that detail from Papias only.

You don't understand what "independent" means when talking about historical sources.

[Spud]

"Oracles". What do you think that is?

The 'to teach' component of what Luke describes in Acts 1:1. "All that Jesus began to do and to teach, until the day He was taken up to heaven"
Papias mentioning only Jesus' teaching doesn't preclude Matthew also writing about what Jesus did. I mean, try extracting the teaching from the rest of Matthew. You can't really, because it is an integral part of the narrative.

[jeremyp]

The 'to teach' component of what Luke describes in Acts 1:1. "All that Jesus began to do and to teach, until the day He was taken up to heaven"

OK. So that's not really what we've got now is it.

Papias mentioning only Jesus' teaching doesn't preclude Matthew also writing about what Jesus did. I mean, try extracting the teaching from the rest of Matthew. You can't really, because it is an integral part of the narrative.

Papias is the linchpin of your argument. You can't just pretend he said stuff of which we have no evidence.

[Spud]

OK. So that's not really what we've got now is it.

Papias is the linchpin of your argument. You can't just pretend he said stuff of which we have no evidence.

Papias' book which Eusebius is quoting from is called "Expositions of oracles of the Lord", and Papias seems to be primarily concerned with the true or accurate doctrine taught by the apostles and those who had been in direct contact with them. He is mainly concerned with what Jesus taught, although he mentions 'the things said or done by the Lord' in speaking of Mark. So we can conclude that when Papias mentions with regard to Matthew only the logia, this does not mean that Matthew only wrote down what Jesus said. It's more likely that he mentioned only the logia because they were the subject of his book. Here is the full chapter containing the quotes by Papias:
https://bkv.unifr.ch/de/works/cpg-3495/versions/the-church-history-of-eusebius/divisions/83

[jeremyp]

Papias' book which Eusebius is quoting from is called "Explanation of the sayings of the Lord", and Papias seems to be primarily concerned with the true or accurate doctrine taught by the apostles and those who had been in direct contact with them.

But it's important to understand that we do not have this book. It is no longer extant. The only way we know anything about Papias at all and his writings is through Eusebius. Saying anything about the bits Eusebius hasn't told us about is guesswork. Relying on there bits that Eusebius has told us about is dangerous because, Eusebius is likely to have put his own spin on them.

He is mainly concerned with what Jesus taught, although he mentions 'the things said or done by the Lord' in speaking of Mark. So we can conclude that when Papias mentions with regard to Matthew only the logia, this does not mean that Matthew only wrote down what Jesus said.

"Mark wrote about the things Jesus said and did. Matthew wrote about the things Jesus said" ~ Papias (according to Eusebius).

On what planet is this evidence that Matthew wrote about what Jesus did?

You are inferring facts not in evidence and you are doing it through the lens of your beliefs.

[Spud]

"Mark wrote about the things Jesus said and did. Matthew wrote about the things Jesus said" ~ Papias (according to Eusebius).

This would be a possible interpretation if Papias's original statement about Matthew followed directly on from that about Mark. But it seems fairly clear that the words translated 'so too' do not refer back to the quote about Mark. The contrast you have suggested doesn't exist. Furthermore, the word order in the extract about Mark doesn't support the idea of a contrast.
For more information see towards the end of this link (where it talks about the oracles):
http://www.anglicanlibrary.org/lightfoot/supernatural/6.htm
(Health warning: the above link is a bit brain bending)

[jeremyp]

This would be a possible interpretation if Papias's original statement about Matthew followed directly on from that about Mark. But it seems fairly clear that the words translated 'so too' do not refer back to the quote about Mark. The contrast you have suggested doesn't exist.

It wasn't my contrast, it was yours.


Papias says (according to Eusebius) "and so Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue, and each one interpreted [Or: translated] them to the best of his ability." You cannot infer from that that Matthew also wrote about the things Jesus did.

[Spud]

It wasn't my contrast, it was yours.


Papias says (according to Eusebius) "and so Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue, and each one interpreted [Or: translated] them to the best of his ability." You cannot infer from that that Matthew also wrote about the things Jesus did.

I said Papias was concerned with the oracles, not Matthew. You inferred the latter.

Lightfoot, in the link, gives several examples of the word logia being used where it refers to teaching incorporated into narrative.

[jeremyp]

I said Papias was concerned with the oracles, not Matthew. You inferred the latter.

No I didn't. I inferred that Papias thought Matthew wrote a sayings gospel in Hebrew, not a narrative in Greek.

Lightfoot, in the link, gives several examples of the word logia being used where it refers to teaching incorporated into narrative.

So what? You are still inferring facts not in evidence.