“the earliest surviving attribution is Papias – that doesn’t mean it started with Papias.”
Right, the earliest evidence we actually have of this attribution is Papias. It is possible that he got it from somewhere else, but we have no evidence of that.

“Papias is attempting to defend Mark from criticism. This is exactly what we would expect from a gospel which seems to leave out so much material. Papias’s defence is that Mark only wrote down what he heard Peter say. That Mark was not trying to write an ordered account of the life of Jesus but only what he hear Peter preach.”

Yes, Papias is defending his Mark from criticism, but he is pretty clear what the charge is that he is defending Mark against: a defect of order, not a defect in exhaustiveness. He repeatedly insists that Mark was not interested in the order of what he recorded, and he draws the conclusion that the lack of order shouldn’t be accounted a defect.

“What would Matthew change the name “Levi” to “Matthew” in the “calling of Levi”?”

Who knows? But I can guess: In Mark, Levi is mentioned exactly once–in the short narration of his calling. He comes out of nowhere and is never seen again. That is easily seen (rightly or wrongly) as a literary imperfection. Similarly, Matthew is listed as one of the twelve, but we are told nothing about him. The author of Matthew may have thought it a literary improvement on Mark to combine these figures, rather have this short episode about a random Levi that has no evident purpose.

“Just because someone is an eyewitness of Jesus doesn’t mean they can’t be wrong about what happened to Judas.”
You are right of course, but still. Matthew was there–at least he would have been alive at the time, in the right part of the world–and he would have know Judas personally. One wonders what better source Papias might think he had than a contemporary and personal acquaintance of the subject for knowing how that subject died. At any rate, do you think Papias’ story about Judas is credible? That Judas got so fat that not even his head could could fit through a gate that a wagon could pass through? That he exploded and the stench was so foul that even to Papias’ own day (something like a century later) people have to hold their nose when they pass by the place? I think it would say a lot about his judgement as an historian if he did know both stories and decided that it was more likely that Judas swelled to unheard-of proportion until he popped than that he simply hanged himself out of shame.

“Where does Josephus say the jews thought of James as being “the Just”?”
Thank you for the correction. I was mistaken and he does not; that title is recorded later. But to a not entirely dissimilar effect, he does say that the most lawful of the Jews viewed his execution as such an outrage that they protested to the Roman authorities over what the high priest had done and successfully had him removed from office.

@Porphyry

“Right, the earliest evidence we actually have of this attribution is Papias. It is possible that he got it from somewhere else, but we have no evidence of that.”

Well we do have evidence – the evidence is that no attribution is ever given to any else but Matthew. So its unlikely the attribution just starts with one person. And we can’t just say the “attribution starts with Papias”.

“Yes, Papias is defending his Mark from criticism, but he is pretty clear what the charge is that he is defending Mark against: a defect of order, not a defect in exhaustiveness. He repeatedly insists that Mark was not interested in the order of what he recorded, and he draws the conclusion that the lack of order shouldn’t be accounted a defect.”

‘Ordered’ can mean lots of things in the context, not just temporally ordered. What Papias says is that Mark “was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.” ie his defence of Mark is that he was careful to only write what he heard Peter say (so don’t judge Mark for leaving so much out).

“Who knows? But I can guess: In Mark, Levi is mentioned exactly once–in the short narration of his calling. He comes out of nowhere and is never seen again. That is easily seen (rightly or wrongly) as a literary imperfection. Similarly, Matthew is listed as one of the twelve, but we are told nothing about him. The author of Matthew may have thought it a literary improvement on Mark to combine these figures, rather have this short episode about a random Levi that has no evident purpose.”

But why would “Matthew” chose Matthew out of the twelve? Why not James son of Alphaeus to be Levi son of Alphaeus. And why did Luke leave out “son of Alphaeus”? Better to think of Luke/Mark changing “Matthew” to “levi” and in so doing leaving a hint as to who the original author was.

“You are right of course, but still. Matthew was there–at least he would have been alive at the time, in the right part of the world–and he would have know Judas personally. One wonders what better source Papias might think he had than a contemporary and personal acquaintance of the subject for knowing how that subject died. At any rate, do you think Papias’ story about Judas is credible? That Judas got so fat that not even his head could could fit through a gate that a wagon could pass through? That he exploded and the stench was so foul that even to Papias’ own day (something like a century later) people have to hold their nose when they pass by the place? I think it would say a lot about his judgement as an historian if he did know both stories and decided that it was more likely that Judas swelled to unheard-of proportion until he popped than that he simply hanged himself out of shame.”

Papias spoke to the followers of the presbyters so he needn’t have relied on the writings of Matthew when he can hear and question directly people who knew the apostles. The worst story about Judas was probably the one told to him.

“Thank you for the correction. I was mistaken and he does not; that title is recorded later. But to a not entirely dissimilar effect, he does say that the most lawful of the Jews viewed his execution as such an outrage that they protested to the Roman authorities over what the high priest had done and successfully had him removed from office.”

Its difficult to know exactly what Josephus is saying (who is objecting and what are they objecting to) in this passage but he’s on the side Ananus the high-priest. Josephus is a fierce critic of Albinus in the Jewish wars Book 2 XIV “then Albinus, .. did not only, in his political capacity, steal and plunder every one’s substance, nor did he only burden the whole nation with taxes, but he permitted the relations of such as were in prison for robbery, and had been laid there, either by the senate of every city, or by the former procurators, to redeem them for money; and no body remained in the prisons as a malefactor but he who gave him nothing. At this time it was that the enterprises of the seditious at Jerusalem were very formidable; the principal men among them purchasing leave of Albinus to go on with their seditious practices; while that part of the people who delighted in disturbances joined themselves to such as had fellowship with Albinus; and every one of these wicked wretches were encompassed with his own band of robbers, while he himself, like an arch-robber, or a tyrant, made a figure among his company, and abused his authority over those about him, in order to plunder those that lived quietly.”

Of Ananus he says he was bold and brave and strict in judgement and that he took advantage of the break before Albinus arrived to have James and his companions executed as law breakers. This Albinus then threatened to have Ananus punished.

I think most of the disciples were dead by the time the gospels were written, and all of them were dead before anyone started attributing the gospels to them.

@Porphyry

“The fact that no one cites them as being anyone else cuts both ways. Other early authors do cite these gospels, and they do not attribute them to Matthew and Mark. The Didache quotes Mt on several occasions, and cites it as “the gospel” but never attributes it to Matthew. Justin Martyr cites Mathew and Mark, but simply calls them the memoirs of the apostles, without attributing them to any particular apostle (which stands in contrast to his usual habit of naming the authors he is citing).”

The didache quotes the words of Jesus. Why would it feel the need to say its getting these words from a tax collector for the Romans.

Justin Martyr will name those he is citing if he expects his audience to know who they are. He writes to Caesar and the senate, they’d have no idea who matthew the tax collector is. Better to just tell them he’s quoting the memoirs of the apostles.

“Papias may very well have gotten the attribution from someone else, but it stands that the evidence suggests that, even if he is referring to the gospels we know as Mt and Mk, the attribution he offers was not generally shared among Christian authors at the time.

The idea that these works were generally know, by some primitive tradition, to have been authored by Matthew and Mark and that Papias just happens to be the first surviving source to mention that primitive tradition in writing just doesn’t fit well with the evidence we have.”

Why do you think that? The best explanation for the eventual universal attribution of “Matthew” to the first gospel is that this attribution was passed around as the gospel was being copied. Not following many decades later.

“Who knows? If he just wanted to patch up the inelegance of having a story about the calling of a random person who is mentioned no where else, the choice of which other underdeveloped character he was going to make that story about may simply have come down to a coin flip: James son of Alphaeus might have been just as good a candidate for accomplishing what the author of Matthew was trying to do. I don’t see why it is incumbent on me to offer an explanation for the outcome of what may well have been little more than a coin toss.”

But why didn’t Luke also do that? why did Luke remove “son of alphaeus” from Mark? Why did Mark have a “calling of a random person who is mentioned nowhere else” in the first place?

Is this random result of a coin toss entirely coincidental to the fact that the authorship of the gospel would be attributed to this very same apostle?

“I don’t see how this is better or how this constitues a hint about the original author.”

The hint is in Malach 2:4-7. The last book before Matthew.

**Know, then, that I have sent this command to you, so that my covenant with Levi may hold, says the Lord of hosts. My covenant with him was a covenant of life and well-being, which I gave him; this called for reverence, and he revered me and stood in awe of my name. True instruction was in his mouth, and no wrong was found on his lips. He walked with me in integrity and uprightness, and he turned many from iniquity. For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and people should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts**

Mark and Luke call Matthew “Levi” – later Papias would say of him “So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.” If he did indeed write the logia and everyone interpreted them as they were able then he would be playing the part of the new Levi.

“So you are saying that Papias preferred to the second-hand oral relation of what the apostles had said to others, rather than trust what he himself believed to be an actual apostle’s actual written testimony? I really enjoy how you added “directly”: He didn’t need to trust an apostle’s actual written records–that would be too mediated; he could go directly to . . . . a derived testimony.”

Well would you rather read a biography written by someone who knew Kennedy or talk directly to someone who knew his inner circle?

This is exactly what Papias says “If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders — what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice.”