Who wrote the gospel attributed to Matthew?

[Spud]

Really? What's the evidence?

Okay let's take a shorter saying: "Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them! For the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
If you separate this from it's context, it's meaningless.

Then little children were brought to Jesus for Him to place His hands on them and pray for them. And the disciples rebuked those who brought them. 14But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them! For the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 15And after He had placed His hands on them, He went on from there.

[jeremyp]

Okay let's take a shorter saying: "Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them! For the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
If you separate this from it's context, it's meaningless.

I don't think so. And even if so, you can't show that Matthew the Apostle wrote that or the context in which it appears.

[Dicky Underpants]

What language was the Catalan version translated from?

On further investigation, it seems probable that the Catalan version and Shem-Tob ben Isaac's version were both translated from Jerome's Latin version, which in turn was translated from the Greek. And by all accounts, the Catalan version is an appallingly bad translation.
Have you heard of Chinese whispers, Spud?

[Spud]

I don't think so.

Maybe not meaningless, but it's difficult to imagine it originating outside the context of people bringing their kids to Jesus, and the disciples rebuking them.

And even if so, you can't show that Matthew the Apostle wrote that or the context in which it appears.

Papias' statement suggests it.
Of course you could argue that it originated in Mark's account, along with many other sayings, but that brings us back to the relationship between the Synoptics again.

[jeremyp]

Maybe not meaningless, but it's difficult to imagine it originating outside the context of people bringing their kids to Jesus, and the disciples rebuking them.

But that doesn't mean anything in terms of who wrote it down. Even if it refers to a real event, it doesn't mean that it was written by a witness.

Papias' statement suggests it.

There's nothing that has survived from Papias that suggests the gospel he refers to is the one we have. There's not even anything in there to suggest that what he referred to is Q, although Q fits the description a little better - ignoring the fact it was written in Greek.

If you want Papias's testimony to be relevant, you have to show he was talking about the gospel we have. You haven't done that and all the evidence from Papias suggests he is talking about a different document - a sayings gospel written in Hebrew.

[Spud]

But that doesn't mean anything in terms of who wrote it down. Even if it refers to a real event, it doesn't mean that it was written by a witness.
There's nothing that has survived from Papias that suggests the gospel he refers to is the one we have. There's not even anything in there to suggest that what he referred to is Q, although Q fits the description a little better - ignoring the fact it was written in Greek.

If you want Papias's testimony to be relevant, you have to show he was talking about the gospel we have. You haven't done that and all the evidence from Papias suggests he is talking about a different document - a sayings gospel written in Hebrew.

A sayings gospel does describe our Matthew quite well, and yes, reading the quotes from Papias it appears that he hadn't read our Matthew. But he says he got information by word of mouth from the disciples of the apostles, so perhaps they described it to him as a book containing Jesus' oracles, and that's why he doesn't mention things Jesus did along with what Jesus said?

[jeremyp]

A sayings gospel does describe our Matthew quite well,

No it doesn't. There's quite a bit of narrative in the gospel.

and yes, reading the quotes from Papias it appears that he hadn't read our Matthew. But he says he got information by word of mouth from the disciples of the apostles,

Third hand at least then.

And, of course, we have only got Papias at second hand.

so perhaps they described it to him as a book containing Jesus' oracles

Speculation

[Spud]

There's quite a bit of narrative in the gospel.

The narrative in Matthew is more concise than in Luke and Mark, though.
Can a sayings gospel not have narrative?

[Dicky Underpants]

The narrative in Matthew is more concise than in Luke and Mark, though.
Can a sayings gospel not have narrative?

Matthew concise? As in an angel being seen to descend and roll away the stone, and zombies wandering through Jerusalem after the Resurrection?

[jeremyp]

The narrative in Matthew is more concise than in Luke and Mark, though.

No it isn't. Consider that about 90% of Mark is in Matthew.

Can a sayings gospel not have narrative?

You wouldn't call it a sayings gospel if it had lots of narrative.

[Spud]

Matthew concise? As in an angel being seen to descend and roll away the stone, and zombies wandering through Jerusalem after the Resurrection?

Those events may be later additions to Matthew's first edition. They appear to have been absent from Luke and Mark's copies of Matthew. If we assume, based on general evidence, that Luke used Matthew and then Mark used both Mt and Lk, then when we find a section in Matthew which Luke and Mark omit, we should consider the possibility that it was added to Matthew's original text. An example is Peter walking on the water, or the parables of Mt 25. Much of the material which appears to have been added, relates to the Gentiles, while the original narrative is concerned with Jesus' ministry to Israel. A very good example is in Mt 10, where Jesus sends out the twelve, instructing them not to go to the Gentiles but to the lost sheep of Israel. Half way through the chapter, he begins to warn them that they will face persecution; this didn't happen until after the ascension; therefore it must have been added to the original account of the sending out of the twelve.
I was referring to material like the accounts of the paralytic and the synagogue ruler's daughter, which are less detailed than Mark and Luke.
There are five discourses in Matthew, each of which concludes with "after Jesus had finished instructing his disciples". Luke  only has this statement in one place, which suggests (see above) that its use after the Sermon on the Mount was adapted as a formula for the second to fifth discourses, which were expanded by the editor.

[Spud]

No it isn't. Consider that about 90% of Mark is in Matthew.You wouldn't call it a sayings gospel if it had lots of narrative.

We could use Romans 3:2 to define the meaning of "logia":
What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision?  Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words [logia] of God.
Did the Jews write the logia of God in a list without any narrative?

[Dicky Underpants]

We could use Romans 3:2 to define the meaning of "logia":
What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision?  Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words [logia] of God.
Did the Jews write the logia of God in a list without any narrative?

You could use John 1:1 as well. As can be seen, the Greek 'logos' has multiple meanings. I've seen it translated as 'expression', 'creative energy' etc as well as 'word'. Not something to make a mathematically precise argument with.

[jeremyp]

Those events may be later additions to Matthew's first edition. They appear to have been absent from Luke and Mark's copies of Matthew.

And yet nobody who has studied the subject critically and honestly thinks Mark could possibly have had a copy of Matthew because Matthew copied Mark, not the other way around.

If we assume, based on general evidence, that Luke used Matthew and then Mark used both Mt and Lk,

The "general evidence" refutes this.

[jeremyp]

We could use Romans 3:2 to define the meaning of "logia":
What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision?  Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words [logia] of God.
Did the Jews write the logia of God in a list without any narrative?

Which translation are you using?

NRSV has "oracles". But so what?

[Nearly Sane]

You could use John 1:1 as well. As can be seen, the Greek 'logos' has multiple meanings. I've seen it translated as 'expression', 'creative energy' etc as well as 'word'. Not something to make a mathematically precise argument with.

And of course means that God is Grease

[Spud]

Which translation are you using?

NRSV has "oracles". But so what?

The word logia is used four times in the NT, as well as by other writers. The 10 commandments are referred to by Philo as the Decalogue (Ten words). I agree that logia means divine oracles, but you are saying that we should assume Papias is talking about them in isolation from any narrative. We could say that the Ten Commandments are logia. But they are embedded in the story of the Exodus, and Moses on Mount Sinai. To say that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God (Romans 3:2) means that they preserved them in writing, within the story of how they came to receive them. This fits Papias' description of what Matthew did with Jesus' oracles, exactly.

[jeremyp]

The word logia is used four times in the NT, as well as by other writers. The 10 commandments are referred to by Philo as the Decalogue (Ten words). I agree that logia means divine oracles, but you are saying that we should assume Papias is talking about them in isolation from any narrative.

No. I'm saying you should not assume that Papias is talking about a narrative just because you can twist the facts to pretend it is a narrative to shore up a failed argument.

This is what Papias says

And so Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue, and each one interpreted them to the best of his ability.

He is talking a bout a document that is a "sayings" gospel and is written in Hebrew. The first gospel we have is a narrative written in Greek. No reasonable person would conclude that Papias is referring to the first gospel here. Instead of discarding this as evidence for your assertion (which you would do if you were intellectually honest), you try to find ways to massage it to fit your purpose.

[Spud]

The first gospel we have is a narrative written in Greek.

Presumably you're referring to Mark. Yes the earliest copies we have are of a Greek narrative. But we don't have the originals, so it would be unreasonable to discard Papias as evidence that Matthew was written by the apostle.

No reasonable person would conclude that Papias is referring to the first gospel here

Eusebius must have concluded that he was, since he says elsewhere: "For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence."
Link
And Irenaeus would also  have thought Papias was referring to a gospel: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome"
So Eusebius and Irenaeus were not reasonable people?

[Spud]

Just accept that the author of Matthew referred to the Last Supper as The Passover Meal. Either he was wrong about that or he was wrong about the subsequent events. Either way, He is not a first century Jew who knew Jesus.

Have you got any positive arguments in favour of Matthew having written the gospel?

Just to say, there is no mention of a lamb being bought, prepared or eaten in any of the accounts of the Last Supper. So this suggests that it was the 13th Nisan. The Pulpit commentary agrees with this:

We may observe in passing that there is no mention of the lamb in the celebration; Peter and John were not enjoined to provide one, nor are they said to have visited the temple - which, indeed, on the 13th would have been useless: and yet to obtain the lamb in any other way would have been a breach of the Law, which we cannot suppose Christ would sanction.

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/pulpit/matthew/26.htm

[Gordon]

Just to say, there is no mention of a lamb being bought, prepared or eaten in any of the accounts of the Last Supper. So this suggests that it was the 13th Nisan. The Pulpit commentary agrees with this: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/pulpit/matthew/26.htm

Perhaps they all went to McDonalds - give it up, Spud.

I doubt that many really care anyway, and unless you have the CCTV to hand it could all be fiction, and you have no way to exclude the risk of fiction.

[Spud]

Perhaps they all went to McDonalds - give it up, Spud.

I doubt that many really care anyway, and unless you have the CCTV to hand it could all be fiction, and you have no way to exclude the risk of fiction.

Sorry, I don't like to mention it, I just do mention it.

Jeremy has been trying to show that the author of Matthew could not have been the disciple Matthew, saying that his language betrays a poor knowledge of the Passover festival.

A closer look at Matthew 26 shows that Jesus connected his death with the Passover. In verse 2 he says: "you know that after two days is the Passover, and the Son of Man is betrayed to be crucified". Matthew adds a few verses later that the Jewish leaders were planning to arrest Jesus and kill him "not during the feast". From these statements we know that the author regarded Jesus' arrest and trial as happening before the Passover began. This is confirmed by the fact that in his narration at 26:17 he does not use the word 'feast' when giving the day on which the last supper took place. He only says "on the first day of the unleavened bread".

So although he states that the disciples prepared for the Passover, he doesn't say anything to indicate that they ate it at the official time.

One other question is, what is the relevance of Jesus saying in his message to the owner of the house, "my time is at hand"? If he was to die the day following the Passover, why would he need to add this? It doesn't add any force to the instruction; it does however reinforce the connection between the Passover and the time of his death.

So it is not unlikely that the author of Matthew was a first century Jew who understood how the festival was celebrated, and thus could have been the disciple Matthew.