Who Wrote the Gospel of Matthew?

[robrecht]

Here is a quick summary of the current scholarly consensus:

The overwhelming majority of world-class critical scholars agree on Marcan priority. Mark certainly wrote in Greek, around 70 CE, and 'though his style was rather common, he had a clear plot and plan for the whole of his literary work. There are many theories about hypothetical source documents but too many theories for there to be any real consensus about Mark's sources. He likely had some kind of source(s), perhaps a written passion narrative, but he was certainly enough of an author and master of his material that we cannot with confidence reconstruct any sources in any detail, 'though many have tried. Matthew was clearly dependent upon Mark's Greek and perhaps a hypothetical Greek Q document, which is usually thought to predate Mark's gospel, 'though not by much. Parts of Q and some of Mark's sources may well have been originally composed in Aramaic, but the great majority of scholars believe that both Matthew and Luke used a Greek version of Q along with Mark's gospel substantially as we still have it today. Lost Aramaic sources of Mark and Q might have been dependent on oral traditions that date back ultimately to apostolic times but such oral traditions also cannot be reconstructed in detail. The author of Matthew was clearly well acquainted with what has traditionally been referred to as 'Jewish Christianity', but it is now realized by a growing number of scholars that Mark also was completely immersed in Jewish literature, as were Luke and John. There are strong polemical currents opposed to Judean authorities evidenced in most of the early Christian writings, as would be expected from the early followers of Jesus, who was killed by Judean authorities who served their Roman benefactors and overlords. There were other reasons for strong Jewish sectarian polemics against the Judean authorities earlier, subsequent, and unrelated to the execution of Jesus as is obvious from the literature from Qumran and Josephus. So, long story short, while it is certainly possible that Papias knew of some earlier Aramaic source documents, it would not have resembled much what we now know of as Matthew's Greek gospel.

[psstein]

Here is a quick summary of the current scholarly consensus:

The overwhelming majority of world-class critical scholars agree on Marcan priority. Mark certainly wrote in Greek, around 70 CE, and 'though his style was rather common, he had a clear plot and plan for the whole of his literary work. There are many theories about hypothetical source documents but too many theories for there to be any real consensus about Mark's sources. He likely had some kind of source(s), perhaps a written passion narrative, but he was certainly enough of an author and master of his material that we cannot with confidence reconstruct any sources in any detail, 'though many have tried. Matthew was clearly dependent upon Mark's Greek and perhaps a hypothetical Greek Q document, which is usually thought to predate Mark's gospel, 'though not by much. Parts of Q and some of Mark's sources may well have been originally composed in Aramaic, but the great majority of scholars believe that both Matthew and Luke used a Greek version of Q along with Mark's gospel substantially as we still have it today. Lost Aramaic sources of Mark and Q might have been dependent on oral traditions that date back ultimately to apostolic times but such oral traditions also cannot be reconstructed in detail. The author of Matthew was clearly well acquainted with what has traditionally been referred to as 'Jewish Christianity', but it is now realized by a growing number of scholars that Mark also was completely immersed in Jewish literature, as were Luke and John. There are strong polemical currents opposed to Judean authorities evidenced in most of the early Christian writings, as would be expected from the early followers of Jesus, who was killed by Judean authorities who served their Roman benefactors and overlords. There were other reasons for strong Jewish sectarian polemics against the Judean authorities earlier, subsequent, and unrelated to the execution of Jesus as is obvious from the literature from Qumran and Josephus. So, long story short, while it is certainly possible that Papias knew of some earlier Aramaic source documents, it would not have resembled much what we now know of as Matthew's Greek gospel.

Is this your own work, or are you quoting from something?

[Mountain Man]

So you argument is:

There is no convincing evidence for any author in antiquity
Therefore there is no credible dispute concerning gospel authorship

Is that right?

No.

What I'm saying is that if the skeptics are right and we cannot confidently determine who wrote the gospels despite the wealth of internal and external evidence, then we can not confidently determine who wrote any historical document, including many drafted within the last few hundred years.

Which is to say that in trying to undermine the gospels, the skeptics overreach as usual and are stuck with a conclusion that no reputable scholar would ever agree with.

[psstein]

Oh, thank God, an interesting thread.

Matthew was not written by Matthew the disciple. It is written by a Jewish Christian around the year 80 who was clearly familiar with Mark and (if it exists) Q. The author is clearly not an eyewitness, as he follows Mark in knowing things for which none of the disciples were present. The author used a technique known as Midrash, where the OT was interpreted to fit events in Jesus' ministry.

The attribution to Matthew comes from a cryptic report in Papias, who refers to a gospel written "in the Hebrew way," either in Hebrew or Aramaic.

[Juice]

What evidence, please cite?

Patently False? Bogus, Hokus. Pokus.

The skepticism of authorship and questions of original content of documents has always been open to question concerning ancient sources. Citing on reference does not change the academic skeptical view in general.

No.

Reference to Lucretius poetry;

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucretius

In a letter by Cicero to his brother Quintus in February 54 BC, Cicero said : "The poems of Lucretius are as you write: they exhibit many flashes of genius, and yet show great mastership."[8] By this time, both Cicero and his brother had read De rerum natura, and so might have many other Romans. A literary evaluation of Lucretius's work, however, reveals some repetition and a sudden end to Book 6 during a description of the plague at Athens. The poem appears to have been published without a final revision, possibly due to its author's death. If this is true, Lucretius must have been dead by 54 BC.

© Copyright Original Source

So basically we have Cicero saying Lucretius wrote some poetry. Okay. Now how do you know Cicero was taking about the De rerum natura ?

[shunyadragon]

Wikipedia

So what? You need to do better to respond with substance if you believe it incorrect. It is a fallacy to condemn the messenger with addressing the message.

[robrecht]

Is this your own work, or are you quoting from something?

It's my summary of scholarly opinions.

[Juice]

That is an interesting one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commen...e_Bello_Civili

"Caesar's authorship of the Commentarii de Bello Civili is not disputed. However, its continuations on the Alexandrian, African and Hispanic wars are believed to have been written by others: the 2nd-century historian Suetonius suggested Aulus Hirtius and Gaius Oppius as possible authors."

So yes, that book is not disputed, but others are. Authorship of classic work clearly can be questioned, just as Gospel authorship is questioned. How the evidence compares... well, that is the question.

Well let's see. The first direct attribution of the Gallic Wars to Caesar comes to us from Suetonius writing about 165 years after.

”[Caesar] left memoirs too of his deeds in the Gallic war and in the civil strife with Pompey; for the author of the Alexandrian, African, and Spanish Wars is unknown; some think it was Oppius, others Hirtius, who also supplied the final book of the Gallic War, which Caesar left unwritten.” – Suetonius, Life of Caesar

Prior to this there are a few passing mentions of Caesar's "memoirs" from Cicero (Brutus 262) a few years later and Plutarch (Parallel Lives, Caesar 22) about 120 years later.

That's about it really.

It all rests on Suetonius but he is reporting conflicting hearsay and doesn’t seem sure himself.

Then there's the internal inconsistencies which do not line up with Caesar writing a first hand account.

”Lucius Domitius and Appius Claudius being consuls, Caesar, when departing from his winter quarters into Italy, as he had been accustomed to do yearly, commands the lieutenants whom he appointed over the legions to take care that during the winter as many ships as possible should be built, and the old repaired. He plans the size and shape of them. For dispatch of lading, and for drawing them on shore, he makes them a little lower than those which we have been accustomed to use in our sea; and that so much the more, because he knew that, on account of the frequent changes of the tide, less swells occurred there; for the purpose of transporting burdens and a great number of horses, [he makes them] a little broader than those which we use in other seas.” - Gallic Wars 5.1

The evidence for the Gallic Wars really isn't any better by comparison yet it's authorship is considered a virtual axiom among Classical scholars.

So either those who accept Caesar's authorship aren't sceptical enough or those who reject the traditional authorship of Matthew (and the other three Gosples) are hyper sceptical. Following the hyper sceptical reasoning would cause us to reject the authorship of works like the Gallic Wars.

[psstein]

It's my summary of scholarly opinions.

It was well done. You have a promising future writing NT introductions.

[robrecht]

It was well done. You have a promising future writing NT introductions.

Ha! Thanks, but I think I have a future paying college tuition for my kids and that requires more gainful employment than writing NT introductions. Still, whenever I'm able to retire, I do have a book in me.

[shunyadragon]

So basically we have Cicero saying Lucretius wrote some poetry. Okay. Now how do you know Cicero was taking about the De rerum natura ?

De rerum natura was Lucretius's only literary work. Cicero and Lucretius lived at the same time.

[The Pixie]

No.

What I'm saying is that if the skeptics are right and we cannot confidently determine who wrote the gospels despite the wealth of internal and external evidence, then we can not confidently determine who wrote any historical document, including many drafted within the last few hundred years.

Which is to say that in trying to undermine the gospels, the skeptics overreach as usual and are stuck with a conclusion that no reputable scholar would ever agree with.

So do you have any argument for Matthew as the author of the Gospel? You have presented zero so far, which is odd when you are so insistent that there is not even any grounds for dispute.

[The Pixie]

Well let's see. The first direct attribution of the Gallic Wars to Caesar comes to us from Suetonius writing about 165 years after.

”[Caesar] left memoirs too of his deeds in the Gallic war and in the civil strife with Pompey; for the author of the Alexandrian, African, and Spanish Wars is unknown; some think it was Oppius, others Hirtius, who also supplied the final book of the Gallic War, which Caesar left unwritten.” – Suetonius, Life of Caesar

Prior to this there are a few passing mentions of Caesar's "memoirs" from Cicero (Brutus 262) a few years later and Plutarch (Parallel Lives, Caesar 22) about 120 years later.

That's about it really.

It all rests on Suetonius but he is reporting conflicting hearsay and doesn’t seem sure himself.

Then there's the internal inconsistencies which do not line up with Caesar writing a first hand account.

”Lucius Domitius and Appius Claudius being consuls, Caesar, when departing from his winter quarters into Italy, as he had been accustomed to do yearly, commands the lieutenants whom he appointed over the legions to take care that during the winter as many ships as possible should be built, and the old repaired. He plans the size and shape of them. For dispatch of lading, and for drawing them on shore, he makes them a little lower than those which we have been accustomed to use in our sea; and that so much the more, because he knew that, on account of the frequent changes of the tide, less swells occurred there; for the purpose of transporting burdens and a great number of horses, [he makes them] a little broader than those which we use in other seas.” - Gallic Wars 5.1

The evidence for the Gallic Wars really isn't any better by comparison yet it's authorship is considered a virtual axiom among Classical scholars.

So either those who accept Caesar's authorship aren't sceptical enough or those who reject the traditional authorship of Matthew (and the other three Gosples) are hyper sceptical. Following the hyper sceptical reasoning would cause us to reject the authorship of works like the Gallic Wars.

Interesting. So rather than address my points in post #8 about the actual evidence for Matthew writing the gospel that bears his name, you write a long post about another work entirely.

Bit of a poor showing all around, isn't it? Mountain Man sounded so certain when he said:

"First of all, there is no credible dispute concerning gospel authorship. Based on multiple points of evidence, we know who wrote them, and we know when they were written within a couple of decades. There's no reason to question it outside of rampant skepticism."

... and now it seems that really the evidence for Matthew as an author is slight to say the least, and the best argument anyone can find is that there is not good evidence for the authorship of other ancient works.

[Roy]

I don't recall endorsing MM's position. In his opinion, it is enough.

But he wasn't giving his opinion. He was (mis)describing the views of others and the available evidence.

[One Bad Pig]

But he wasn't giving his opinion. He was (mis)describing the views of others and the available evidence.

Whatever floats your boat.