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.

[Spud]

No I didn't.

OK.

I inferred that Papias thought Matthew wrote a sayings gospel in Hebrew, not a narrative in Greek.

OK.

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

So let's see if there is any evidence. The above article by Lightfoot also describes how Papias believed in a literal 1000 year reign of Christ in the future, on earth. Lightfoot cites Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 5, ch. 33. Irenaeus quotes Matthew 26:29 among other scriptures and says that "these things Papias witnesseth in writing in his fourth book". If Papias quoted Matthew 26:29, which is a saying from the last supper, with wording that is distinct to Matthew, then he must have known Matthew's gospel and the context for that saying (the last supper) within it.

We will also find evidence that the oracles of the Lord that Papias says Matthew wrote down, must include narrative, by the fact that Jesus's sayings in Greek Matthew* emerge out of the course of events in the narrative. For example, Mt 12:46 says,

While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. 47Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 48But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
King James Bible

* That Papias knew Greek Matthew is shown by the way he says that "each translated (past tense) the sayings as he was able", not "translates"; here the past tense shows that it was no longer necessary for each person to translate the Hebrew, which must mean that a Greek translation had been accepted at that point

Papias' book was called, 'Exposition of Oracles of the Lord'. That Papias meant the written gospels is suggested in his preface where he says, "But I will not scruple also to give a place for you along with my interpretations to everything that I learnt carefully and remembered carefully in time past from the elders, guaranteeing their truth."

"Along with my interpretations" suggests that he is expounding written work, and supporting this exposition with oral tradition he has received from the Elders.

It's difficult not to think of this written work as being the four gospels as we know them.

[jeremyp]

OK.OK.So let's see if there is any evidence. The above article by Lightfoot also describes how Papias believed in a literal 1000 year reign of Christ in the future, on earth. Lightfoot cites Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 5, ch. 33. Irenaeus quotes Matthew 26:29 among other scriptures and says that "these things Papias witnesseth in writing in his fourth book". If Papias quoted Matthew 26:29, which is a saying from the last supper, with wording that is distinct to Matthew, then he must have known Matthew's gospel and the context for that saying (the last supper) within it.

Here's an English translation of Against Heresies, book 5, chapter 33.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103533.htm

It certainly says Papias bore witness to a lot of things. But your quote is right at the front of the chapter and Papias bearing witness is in fourth paragraph. It certainly doesn't say Papias quoted any of those scriptures nor any of the other alleged sayings of Jesus mentioned that do not appear in any of the current gospels.

You're still cherry picking.

[Spud]

Here's an English translation of Against Heresies, book 5, chapter 33.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103533.htm

It certainly says Papias bore witness to a lot of things. But your quote is right at the front of the chapter and Papias bearing witness is in fourth paragraph. It certainly doesn't say Papias quoted any of those scriptures nor any of the other alleged sayings of Jesus mentioned that do not appear in any of the current gospels.

Agreed.

[Spud]

A little piece of evidence that Matthew's gospel was originally written in Hebrew:

In 1:21 the angel says to Joseph, "She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."

The word Jesus is the English form of the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew word 'Yehoshua' or Joshua.
Joshua means 'Yahweh saves'.
Someone reading Greek Matthew who doesn't speak Hebrew would not understand the reason given by the angel for naming him Jesus.
If the verse was originally written in Hebrew, it would be understood by a Hebrew reader.
Moreover, apparently the Hebrew word translated as "he will save" is  'yoshia', so this is a pun, indicating again that the original was in Hebrew.

[jeremyp]

A little piece of evidence that Matthew's gospel was originally written in Hebrew:

In 1:21 the angel says to Joseph, "She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."

The word Jesus is the English form of the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew word 'Yehoshua' or Joshua.
Joshua means 'Yahweh saves'.
Someone reading Greek Matthew who doesn't speak Hebrew would not understand the reason given by the angel for naming him Jesus.
If the verse was originally written in Hebrew, it would be understood by a Hebrew reader.
Moreover, apparently the Hebrew word translated as "he will save" is  'yoshia', so this is a pun, indicating again that the original was in Hebrew.

Yeshua was a very common name in 1st century Palestine. There's no need to attach any underlying significance to is use where Jesus was concerned and "Jesus" is merely a Greek rendering of the name, much like "Peter" is the English version of "Pierre".

[Spud]

Yeshua was a very common name in 1st century Palestine. There's no need to attach any underlying significance to is use where Jesus was concerned and "Jesus" is merely a Greek rendering of the name, much like "Peter" is the English version of "Pierre".

Right, but what do you think about the pun in Mt 1:21 "for he will save" which only makes sense if it was composed in Hebrew?
Genesis 3:20 is similar:
The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.
Or, Genesis 19:22
Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar. (See verse 20)

[jeremyp]

Right, but what do you think about the pun in Mt 1:21 "for he will save" which only makes sense if it was composed in Hebrew?

Why would it not make sense if it was composed in Greek and everybody knew what it meant.

The whole thing is a little bit embarrassing anyway because the very next verses say

All this took place to fulfil what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: ‘Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel’, which means, ‘God is with us.’

There are multiple problems here. This is a reference to Isaiah 7:14. Leaving aside that this is not a Messianic prophecy and "Jesus" ≠ "Emmanuel", the use of the word "virgin" does not appear in the Hebrew text, only in the Greek Septuagint. Can you explain why Matthew writing in Hebrew would quote from the Greek version of the Bible?

[Spud]

Why would it not make sense if it was composed in Greek and everybody knew what it meant.

It would still make sense as a Hebrew pun, but it would not make sense for an author to compose it in Greek without explaining it. He wouldn't assume that everyone would understand it.

[jeremyp]

It would still make sense as a Hebrew pun, but it would not make sense for an author to compose it in Greek without explaining it.

Absolutely right. That's probably why the author explained it.