Board index ‹ Jesus

[Judo Jude]

Do you know of a single Bible scholar that thinks "Matthew" the disciple also wrote the gospel of Matthew?

[jimwalton]

Sure. A.T. Robertson. Craig Keener is open to the possibility. Marvin Vincent. Donald Hagner. Jeannine Brown. Craig Blomberg (as far as I know.)

[Judo Jude]

Okay. Would you agree it is the minority view among scholars?

[jimwalton]

Yes, I would, but that means very little to me. I am interested in truth, not majority opinion. Majority opinion has been wrong many many times (geocentric solar system, flat Earth, medical hand washing is unnecessary, etc.). Even now as I write the medical and scientific community is at odds with itself. The majority opinion is that social isolation and radical quarantining of the healthy is the way to safety. But there is a huge groundswell of minority opinion from doctors and scientists saying that we need to be out and about to generate herd immunity and that our isolation is not only unhelpful, but will in itself create a wave of resurgence when we go back in public because we have weakened our immune systems. It's all being worked out, but it may turn out that the majority opinion is the wrong one.

What I'm after is the truth: solid research, reasoning, logic, and evidence. I couldn't give a rat's pitoo about majority opinion.

[Judo Jude]

Of course. I wasn't implying that the majority opinion determines what is or isn't true.

However, I am skeptical about the likelihood that you are correct.

I have not seen any evidence whatsoever that would suggest that "Matthew" actually wrote the book of Matthew. You claimed earlier that the oldest manuscripts for this book all bear his name, but from my reading of Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman, he claims that the oldest manuscripts are without titles.

Can you show me an example of the oldest manuscript for Matthew you can find that also bears his name as the title?

[jimwalton]

I love how leagues of biblical scholars say Matthew is the author, but as soon as Bart Ehrman says he's not, the skeptics latch onto him as if he's the only scholar in the world. It's like, "Finally I found a scholar who says what I wanted to hear!"

So let's talk about Matthew. I already gave you part of the case.

1. If someone were to falsify a document to send around with a fake author's name to give it credibility, "Matthew" is not the name they would put on it. Matthew was a tax collector (respected neither by Rome nor by Jews). Matthew faded away from history somewhere after the beginning of the book of Acts. We have no clue what happened to him. Why would anyone in their right mind, if they were trying to manufacture respect, put Matthew's name on a Gospel if he weren't the author? Many names, if we were going to plant a fake name on it, would make more sense (Peter, James, Philip, Andrew, etc.).

2. In those days, for important documents, multiple initial copies were made and sent to various locations. From those, multiple copies were made and circulated from each of those regions. So how does one explain that the only name that ever ended up on this Gospel was Matthew, if he weren't the author? The titles of all four Gospels were unanimously accepted over a large geographical area even by the 2nd century.

3. Every indication from the ancient world—every evidence we have, and we follow the evidence—is that Matthew wrote it. There is no indication that his authorship was ever doubted. There is no competing claim for a different author. The Church Fathers unanimously attribute it to Matthew, and this evidence cannot be lightly dismissed. Those Church Fathers are Papias (AD 125), Pantaenus, and Irenaeus (180).

4. Everything about the style and content match what we know about Matthew (a Levite): interested in the Law, in ecclesiastical matters, in oral interpretation of law and customs, the spiritual history of Israel as God's chosen people, the internal disputes within Judaism, and the theological implications of God's choice of the ancient Israelites. It contains about 55 quotes from the Tanakh. Everything about it points to a person like Matthew. The quality of Greek fits him, the archaic expressions point to his era and culture. Everything points in his direction.

> Can you show me an example of the oldest manuscript for Matthew you can find that also bears his name as the title?

P4 (late 2nd, early 3rd century): "According to Matthew," is the earliest label. Papias (125) attributes a Gospel to Matthew. Irenaeus (180) says Matthew wrote a Gospel. Tertullian (207) says Matthew wrote a Gospel. Vaticanus (300-325) has the attribution "According to Matthew" as does Sinaiticus (330-360). There is no copy not attributed to him. There are no full (or even partial) manuscripts lacking his name. There is no attribution other than attributing it to Matthew. There are no competing theories, no contrary attributions. All the evidence points to Matthew.

You say Ehrman says the oldest manuscripts are without titles. Let's look at those.

• P104, the oldest fragment of Matthew we have (AD 150). It has portions of Mt. 21.34-37; 21.43 and maybe 45. It's just a fragment.
• Our next oldest copy is P4 with the attribution "According to Matthew". It's a fragment from around 200, but even it has the attribution "According to Matthew," so I don't know what Ehrman is talking about.
• The next chronologically is P21, from AD 200, with a piece of Mt. 12. It's just a fragment.
• P64 (AD 200). Pieces of Mt. 3, 5, & 26.
• P103 (AD 200). A piece containing parts of Mt. 23
• P45 (AD 200-250, Mt. 20-21, 25-26)
• P1 (AD 250, Mt. 1)
• P53 (AD 250, Mt. 26)
• P70 (AD 250, Mt. 2-3, 11-12, 24)
• P101 (AD 250, Mt. 3-4)
• Vaticanus (300-325), a complete manuscript, and the attribution "According to Matthew"
• P37 (AD 300, Mt. 26) Fragment
• P102 (AD 300, Mt. 4) Fragment
• P110 (AD 300, Mt. 10.13-15, 25-27) fragment
• Sinaiticus (330-360), a complete manuscript with the attribution "According to Matthew"
• P25 (AD 350, Mt. 18-19)
• P35 (AD 350?, Mt. 25)
• P62 (AD 350, Mt. 11)
• P86 (AD 350, Mt. 5)

So what in the world is Ehrman talking about? Where are these "oldest manuscripts without titles"? We can't expect these tiny pieces of what were once pages to have "According to Matthew" on them. Btw, you can look any of these up on the Internet and actually see the fragment.

In other words, I disagree with Ehrman on the basis of the evidence at hand. And I think the case is solid for Matthew's authorship, but I'd be pleased to read your rebuttal case and the evidence you will present. The only evidence I've seen against Matthew's authorship is that an eyewitness who was a disciple of Christ wouldn't need to copy so much material from Mark, who wasn't a disciple, but I have several defeaters for that position. Anyway, let me see your case, and why you're so convinced to reject Matthean authorship based on your research.