In my previous post we took the first step in understanding the Gospel of Matthew, grasping its major themes and emphases. It is also important to situate the book in its own historical context. For that we need to know something about the author, the approximate time he was writing it, and why he appears to have taken on the task. In short: Who, When, and Why?
We start with the “who.”
Our oldest full manuscripts of the Gospel call it “According to Matthew.” These manuscripts date from around 375 CE, and so were created about three hundred years after the book was in circulation. We wish we had earlier manuscripts to help us gauge when it was first called this. This designation (“according to Matthew”) is obviously not the original title. When I write a book, I don’t title it “According to Bart.” I give it a title. Whoever wrote this book either gave it a title that is lost (that seems unlikely), or simply published it anonymously (which happened a good deal in the Bible, both Old and even the New Testaments). When readers later started calling it “according to Matthew” they were indicating who, in their judgment/opinion, was its author. That would happen when there were a number of anonymous Gospels floating around with different versions of Jesus’ life, and readers would want to know “whose version is this?”
Long before any of our surviving manuscripts of the book were produced it was thought that Jesus’ disciple Matthew had written an account of Jesus. The first reference is in a church father named Papias, who around 130 CE indicated that Matthew had produced a book of Jesus’ sayings in Hebrew. That does not describe our Gospel – which is a full narrative, not a list of sayings, and which was not written in Hebrew but Greek.
Dr. Ehrman, the facts that you present in posts like these are surely considered heretical by today’s Christian Nationalists. If you are targeted by such increasingly empowered groups, how much are you prepared to risk to continue publishing your blogs, courses, books, etc. – your job, your pension, your liberty, your life?
Don’t know. I take a day at a time.
USA Christian nationalists ARE NOT Christian- they don’t follow Christ! Dr Ehrman knows the Bible & early Christian church far better than almost all Christians!
Christians need to mind their own relationship with God before others!
Dr Bart Ehrman; Both Matthew in a nutshell and Matthew who, when, why are wonderful. So much information. I’ve learned more here in these two posts than in any church. Why may I ask did the author fail to assign their name? Were they afraid of Roman persecution? Was the Catholic Church established at this time? Were any of the original disciples still alive working with a early church father or someone with the ability to write such a book like Matthew?
My guess is that the author was writing for his local Christian community and they all knew who he was. There was no Catholic Church in any recognizable sense for seeral centuries. And I doubt if any of Jesus’ own disciples could have been alive in 80 CE or so….
Good summary. I lean towards the first half of the 70-110 window between Mark and Ignatius because of the imminent eschatology in Matt 10:23; 16:28. But theological progression is less precise for dating since different circles at different times express different theology that’s not necessarily linear in development. And we also don’t know if Matthew as we know it today was published all at once, or were parts added at several stages before the initial copy behind the manuscript tradition became mostly fixed. Intriguingly, Irenaeus says the Ebionites used Matthew but thought Jesus was begotten from Joseph.
We can go a little earlier with tangible evidence for gospel titles in P66 and P75. P4 has a stand-alone fragment, “Gospel according to Matthew,” but too tiny for any accompanying text. But like you said, even these papyri don’t take us back to the origins of these titles being used, which was probably when the four were collected together and started circulating as a set.
Fwiw, I suspect Mark 1:1 and Matt 1:1 were probably the intended titles for those two books, but for uniformity and brevity, “Gospel According to [name]” quickly became standard with four-Gospel codices to easily distinguish one from another.
Dr. Ehrman,
Greetings and hope this message finds you well. I was hoping you could give me the name of a good book on the early Church Fathers. I have read your book on this subject and was hoping to find something like a survey type of book of Church Fathers from the second century to St. Augustine. Thank you for all that you do and enlightening people like me.
You might check out the new book by Paula Fredriksen, Ancient Chritianities.
Were the words, “and upon this rock I will build my church” plausibly written for churches of Jewish Christians founded by Peter in Syria? Was the gospel of Matthew written by Mark, the interpreter of Peter, who ordered his material thematically, not in order?
Where can I find scholarship on the literacy of tax collectors?
1. I can’t think of any particular reason to think so. 2. Was Matthew written by Mark? Seems unlikely. I don’t know of any solid evidence that Mark was actually Peter’s interpreter, apart from the statement in Papias (who of course does not attribute Matthew to him.
3. Tax collectors. I’m not sure where you can find discussions of their literacy, but we do konw a good bit about tax collection. For starters I’d suggest lookin at the Cambridge Comapnion to the Roman Economy (ed. Walter Scheidel) and the Campbridge Economic Hisory of the Greco-Roman World, ed. Scheidel, Ian Morris, and Richard Saller. Lost of interesting material there (and in other scholarship on Roman taxation)
1. I can’t think of any particular reason to think so. 2. Was Matthew written by Mark? Seems unlikely. I don’t know of any solid evidence that Mark was actually Peter’s interpreter, apart from the statement in Papias (who of course does not attribute Matthew to him.
3. Tax collectors. I’m not sure where you can find discussions of their literacy, but we do konw a good bit about tax collection. For starters I’d suggest lookin at the Cambridge Comapnion to the Roman Economy (ed. Walter Scheidel) and the Campbridge Economic Hisory of the Greco-Roman World, ed. Scheidel, Ian Morris, and Richard Saller. Lost of interesting material there (and in other scholarship on Roman taxation)
I think Mark, the interpreter of Peter, compiled Mt, and that Matthew wrote Mk. Papias may have been the one who carelessly reversed the attributions, since he was not very interested in books at the time. You may be right that the later tradition is entirely dependent on Papias. Does this make sense of the elder’s words? Any counter-arguments?
Thanks for the references. I spend the day in the library reading them, but could find no evidence that tax collectors were illiterate. Are there any primary sources that support your view that Matthew was illiterate?
Just work out what tax collectors who were not managers of the tax-farming corporations were doing. THere would have been multitudes more of them than the executives. (The executives were not banging on doors)
I don’t see any suggestions in Papias that Mark compiled Matthew or that matthew wrote Mark — what is it that is making you think so?
Matthew was sitting at his tax booth by the lake. He was on the edge of Antipas’s territory, and was likely taxing goods being transported through the harbour at Capernaum. Harbour taxes were ubiquitous (though tariffs piss of neighbours, put up prices for consumers, and risk trade wars). What makes you think that he was banging on doors, rather than writing tax receipts at the harbour?
The elder said that Mark wrote out of order, because he got the disordered material from Peter’s preaching. Mt has its non-Mk material arranged thematically and out of order, according to Luke. As I said, Mt seems crafted for Peter’s churches (Upon this rock I will build my church). The elder said that Mark did not want to leave anything out, and this fits Mt better than Mk.
Mk gets detailed only after Jesus arrives in Capernaum, and it gives insider information only after Matthew is called to follow Jesus. It seems to be written from the perspective of one of the twelve, with its plural verbs of travel. This tendency begins after the calling of Matthew, not Peter. Mt puts Matthew down in multiple ways, presumably because Matthew wrote a rival gospel (Mk).
Makes sense?
It’s interesting. But as I think you’d suspect, most scholars would think it’s a very large stretch. ON the other hand, stretching is good for you!
Concerning the hypothesis that Matthew wrote Mk, and Mark compiled Mt, you wrote:
“It’s interesting. But as I think you’d suspect, most scholars would think it’s a very large stretch. ON the other hand, stretching is good for you!”
I agree that scholars will suffer from inertia, but we need to be open to new ideas.
Do YOU think it is a stretch? If so, why? The hypothesis explains the words of the elder. What data is the theory in tension with?
Yes, I think it’s a huge stretch. Why? Because it concludes what none of the evidence says. Papias says the opposite. And if you use Papias to establish the “truth” that is the opposite of what he says, on the assumption that there’s some truth back there behind it (kind of like Heinrich Paulus and others did with the miracles of Jesus, assuming they were historical but not miracles since th edisciples didn’t understand what they reported) I’d say that’s highly problematic, in no small measure because I don’t think we can trust Papias on much of anything when it comes to history. (What he says about Matthew being a collection of sayings; written in Hebrew; about Judas’s death; about the oh-so-productive vines in the kingdom, etc. etc.)
Concerning the theory that Matthew wrote Mk and Mark compiled Mt, you wrote, “Because it concludes what none of the evidence says.”
You seem to have forgotten that I starting giving you evidence from the gospels themselves.
You wrote, “Papias says the opposite.”
No he doesn’t. In any case, Papias completely contradicts your theory. Carlson believes that we should take the words of the elder seriously. How do you explain his words? They don’t sound like something that Papias would fabricate.
I’m not sure how you know what Papias would fabricate. In any event, I’ve never said he fabricated them. It may simply be what he heard or misunderstood.
Please read carefully.
You wrote “It may simply be what he [Papias] heard or misunderstood.”
But that is exactly what I am saying! The elder says that Mark compiled a work about Jesus, but he does not say that Mark compiled the work that begins “Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου”. Nor does he say which gospel Matthew wrote. Papias may have been mistaken when he assumed that the elder meant that Mark compiled the gospel that begins “Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου”, and that Matthew wrote the gospel that begins “Βίβλος γενέσεως”. As you know, Papias took a lot of interest in the “living voice”, so he may have remembered the elder’s words correctly. Papias took little interest in books at the time, so we should not be surprised if he mapped the writers Mark and Matthew onto the wrong gospels. You and others have convinced me that all of the later tradition about the authorship of Mk and Mt may be dependent on Papias (who may have revealed his mapping elsewhere in his writings).
So, shouldn’t we explore the idea that Matthew wrote Mark, and Mark compiled Matthew? It seems that your views on Papias are very compatible with this idea.
Yup, you should explore it. But I can’t imagine you’ll find any evidence for it!
You wrote, “Yup, you should explore it. But I can’t imagine you’ll find any evidence for it!”
It seems you have made up your mind before considering the evidence. You forget AGAIN that I have already given you some evidence for it:
“The elder said that Mark wrote out of order, because he got the disordered material from Peter’s preaching. Mt has its non-Mk material arranged thematically and out of order, according to Luke. As I said, Mt seems crafted for Peter’s churches (Upon this rock I will build my church). The elder said that Mark did not want to leave anything out, and this fits Mt better than Mk.
Mk gets detailed only after Jesus arrives in Capernaum, and it gives insider information only after Matthew is called to follow Jesus. It seems to be written from the perspective of one of the twelve, with its plural verbs of travel. This tendency begins after the calling of Matthew, not Peter. Mt puts Matthew down in multiple ways, presumably because Matthew wrote a rival gospel (Mk).”
In short, Mk seems to be written by Matthew, and Mt seems to be compiled by Peter’s interpreter, confirming the elder. Any questions?
No questions. I’ve thought about these passages from Papias for forty years, and as you know, I’ve produced an edition of them. I’ve thought about every angle I could think of and have read the literature extensively. I don’t think there’s evidence for your position. But you’re welcome to have it!
You seem to be dodging the questions. What evidence do you have that GMatthew was not written by Mark, the interpreter of Peter?
What evidence to you have that it was not written by Barnabas? Or Silvanus? Or Timothy? Or pick your name of someone who was an early Christian that is never said to have written it. Since it is anonymous, it could have been written by any Christian that could write at the time. Anyone who wants to propose a candidate simply has to make a case. If you make a case and publish it, or don’t publish it, and experts as a rule aren’t persuaded, welcome to the world of scholarship! disabledupes{13b2c8948855d91408d09d2b1a63d841}disabledupes
You wrote, “What evidence to you have that it was not written by Barnabas? Or Silvanus? Or Timothy?”
Mt was written for churches of Jewish Christians. Barnabas, however, was appointed to go to Gentiles (Gal 2:9), so he did not write Mt. Similarly, Silvanus and Timothy went with Paul to Gentiles, and they went to the Aegean, which is a long way from Syria, which is the likely location of the intended audience of Mt. Also, Papias’s elder did not attribute any gospel to Barnabas, Silvanus, or Timothy.
Peter, on the other hand, was sent to the circumcised and was in Syria (Gal 2:8, 11), so Mark, his interpreter, could have written Mt for churches of Jews established by Peter there. Mt seems crafted for Peter’s churches, for it adds “upon this rock I will build my church.” It fits, doesn’t it?
The elder said that Mark wrote down everything that he remembered, and this fits Mt better than Mk, which is brief.
The elder said that Mark wrote out of order. This does not fit Mk, because the other gospel writers largely agree with its order. It fits Mt because Luke rearranges its order.
If Mark did not write Mt, what did he write?
He didn’t write anything. Like most everyone else, he was illiterate.
You wrote “He didn’t write anything. Like most everyone else, he was illiterate.”
Your logic seems to be as follows:
The elder said that Mark wrote.
Mark was a person.
Most people could not write.
Therefore Mark could not write.
Therefore the elder was wrong.
By this logic nobody wrote anything! You are assuming your own conclusion. Also, this Mark may have been John Mark, who was likely a wealthy Roman citizen, as I mentioned before. Also, Paul and his missionary partners were educated, as far as we can tell. Paul wrote, Barnabas was a Levite, and Luke wrote Luke-Acts. The missionaries in Paul’s teams were atypical of the congregations who sent them. They tended to be male, Jewish, Greek-speaking, educated Roman citizens who had learned about Jesus from the 12.
Could you answer the other question I asked:
Peter, on the other hand, was sent to the circumcised and was in Syria (Gal 2:8, 11), so Mark, his interpreter, could have written Mt for churches of Jews established by Peter there. Mt seems crafted for Peter’s churches, for it adds “upon this rock I will build my church.” It fits, doesn’t it?
If I said most people couldn’t write I’m not sure why your concluding that I think no one could write. I do think that Mark could not write literary Greek, but that ain’t the same thing. Why do you keep drawing conclusions I don’t draw?
I’ve answered your other question. Papias says Mark was Peter’s secretary. Fair enough. He also says Judas swelled up to be so large that he could not fit down a narrow street, even his head wouldn’t fit. To see if that’s true about Judas, I look to see if there’s any supporting evidence from before his time or independently of him afterward. To see if it’s true about Peter, the same thing. I don’t see any about either.
You seem determined to misunderstand me. I said that the elder said that Mark wrote an account. You then said that this Mark wrote nothing because most people could not write. I then questioned your logic. That is all. I did not say that you thought that no one could write.
Anyway, on Jan 30 you wrote that the elder’s words, as recorded by Papias, “may simply be what he [Papias] heard”. Do you still think that? Or are you now convinced that the elder said nothing of the sort? Or something else? There was a chain of communication between 1) the original gospel authors, 2) knowledge about authorship received by the elder, 3) words of the elder received by Papias, and 4) the understanding of Eusebius (who was wrong about attributing Mt to Matthew). I am trying to understand where in this chain you think the error occurred. Please clarify. Thanks.
There is a lot of scholarship on gossip and rumor. In the vast majority of cases, no time, place, or person can be specificed as the “origin”
How do scholars infer that almost certainly the author of Matthew lived and wrote from outside the land of Israel? What are the clues that lead to such an interesting conclusion?
He shows no knowledge of Aramaic; he quotest the Bible in the Greek translation; he copies a Greek text (Mark) for most of his story; he is a highly educated Greek author who shows no evidence of writing in a second language. We have the writings of only one author in the entire first century from the land of Israel who wrote treatises in Greek — Josephus. And he was highly unusual, as he himself admits, and it took him years to master the craft. So unless there’s good evidence to the contrary, it’s hard to think that this author was from the land itself.
Dr Ehrman, could the author of Matthew have been part of a Christian community in the way that we think the author of John was?
Yup. Different community, but still an educated literate Christian writing in and for his local church probably.
Dear Bart, I’d like to ask some questions unrelated to this post.
I, evangelical-raised, am starting to question my faith after discovering Orthodox Christianity. I was discouraged by reading online about people leaving the faith because they question the fact that Christianity split into 3 (Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant). Some of them were unhappy being Orthodox but they couldn’t believe in Protestantism either as its only around 500 years old.
I’m struggling about my faith, which of Orthodoxy, Catholic and Protestant I will eventually choose, and if I stay Protestant, what kind of faith I will subscribe to (Lutheran/Calvin) or will I be able to be a non-Calvinist Protestant (though that sounds even younger than 500 years old?)
I’d like to ask:
1. Have you written anything about this topic? and what do you think about the claims of Orthodoxy being closest to the early Christianity?
2. Was Metzger a Calvinist? This is just me asking for reassurance and really struggling of what to believe but I find hope in reading your stories about him, that I could find some inconsistencies in the Bible but still choose to believe in it like Metzger did
Thank you so much for sharing your life journey and being honest
1. I don’t think any of the modern forms of Christianity are much like early Christianity. 2. Yes, he was an ordained Presbyterian minister and Presbyterians, especially in his era, were almost always Calvinists in one way or another . But as you probably know, there are a lot of differences among Calvinists.
Thank you Bart for replying. What do you mean by modern forms of Christianity? Does that include Orthodoxy?
It depends what you mean by Orthodoxy. Do you mean Eastern Orthodoxy (Greek/Russian/etc)? Yes, that’s a modern form of Christianity. If a Christian from the city of Rome in 60 CE were to walk into an Orthodox church service today, he would have no idea what was going on….
I would like to ask, is there any early church Father that encourages the Marian tradition (praying to Mary, the idea that she is able to persuade Jesus to give salvation, etc.)? I want to learn more about the church fathers but haven’t gotten into it, and interested to learn about Marian tradition, its origins, whether it would be something I believe in, whether its something that early Christians practice
Not until the Middle Ages, I believe.
How do we know that the manuscript written around 375 CE is a truthful copy of the original “Matthew’s document”?
Are you asking whether we know that the wording in this manuscript is exactly word-for-word the same as the original? The answer is no, absolutely not. IT’s not really a debated issues since this manuscript has obvious mistakes in it, as do all manuscripts. But it does appear to be one of the best manuscripts we have. If you’re interested in knowing about all that, it’s the topic of my book Misquoting Jesus.
Dating of Gospel of Mathew (comment 1)
Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius all believed the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (or Aramaic), then later translated to Greek. Papias indicated a logia gospel If so, then quotes in Didache that match Greek Matthew Gospel much more likely were quotes from original Hebrew “logia” Gospel. Epistle of Barnabas also had quotes of Jesus (Barnabas 4:14/Matt 22:14) only found in Greek Matthew which suggest to me, that in that time in early 1st century Papias’s hebrew logia gospel of Mathew had been wide spread. I have no doubt, that such early sayings gospel of Mathew in Hebrew ane also the “Gospel of the Hebrews” mentioned by Papais may have been a key source in our greek Gospel of Matthew, and “why”it is called the “Gospel” of Mathew. The “fact” that the Greek Mathew has Judas hanging himself, and Papias portraying a totally different account cements for me, that Papias did not have any Greek Matthew. Although I first believed in a “Q” source my own research has led me away from a Greek source as there were many other sources to draw from.
Dating of Gospel of Mathew (comment 2)
Continuing from my previous comment, due to the reasons expressed plus a multitude of other reasons, I cannot see where the present Greek Gospel of Matthew we have could have been written prior to 135ce.In fact I even have some suspicion that the Greek “Luke” we have (or Marcion’s Gospel) could have proceeded the Greek Matthew. I’m heavily leaning to a date past 135ce following the Bar Kokhba revolt where the Jews were banned from Jerusalem and most surviving jews forced out of Judea relocating to primarily Greek speeking centers. The 2nd generation going forward of these displaced Jews would have little use of Aramaic/Hebrew gospels,thus a need for Greek Gospels became paramount and the copying of those past Hebrew/Aramaic writings were no longer of any use. I accept that the early church fathers such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna as well as the Didache contain quotes from the cannon Gospels, there were plenty of other sources that could have contained those quotes, The cannon Gospels were written as polished Greek Biographys thus not just Greek translations of proceeding Hebrew texts. Those texts were the Source..
Matthew appears to be quoted in the Didache and to be known by Ignatius of Antioch. Unless there’s reason for thinking that repeated word for word quotatoins that match Matthew come from some other source, I’d say the probability remains strong for a compositoin well before 135.
As for Ignatius, what word for word quotes from Greek Mathew are found in Ignatius’s writings. The earliest word for word out of Mathew I find is from Theophilus’s 3rd letter to Autolycus quoting Matthew 5:32 then followed with 5:44-46. Theophilus is definately quoting out of our greek Mathew. I don’t think there is any possiblity that Theophilus had any understanding of Hebrew/Aramaic. It is during the time leading up to Theophilus that I think our Greek Mathew was written as there became a real need.
I still believe that the Theophilus of Luke/Acts is the Theophilus of Antioch as well. I believe that Luke/Acts was commissioned to represent a softening of theology in including a universal rather than Jewish Messiah with more influence entered in of greek philosophy. Therophilus was obviously trying to convert philosophical greeks. Also explains why Acts was centered on the inclusion of the Gentiles. Luke/Acts was the transition gospel for a more universal christianity.
As for Didache.. it does not quote Mathew, but it does convey the same sayings of Jesus. If not quoting word for word then not our greek Mathew, but from the sayings source used for our greek Mathew,
He knows the story of hte star of Bethlehem, otherwise attested in Matthew. The Didache does have word for word agreements with Matthew but doesn’t call his source Matthew. He may well have had another source, but since Matthew is the only source that has these sayings and many of them are in the same *sequence* as in Matthew, it seems likely that’s where he got them from. Not necessarily though, you’re right. But makig these kinds of literary-historical judgments is always a matter of probability not certainty.
This is getting to my whole point. Only if you discard Papias’s attestment of a Hebrew Mathew can anyone make the assumption that the greek Mathew was written in the late 1st century. It is also to my point of a bias in mainstream scholarship to assert the earliest dates possible to the cannon gospels. The mainstream scholarship are people much like yourself, Dale Martin etc who began their scholarship quest from a point (lens/view) of deeply held conservative Christianity requireing that to extend the dates of the gospels, a more exacting proof is required than the proof to place the gospels at the earlier 1st century. It “begins” with the “assumption/baseline” that all the gospels were written by authors with first hand accounts then moves to later dates as such really cannot be supported historically. Scholars giviing later dating to Gospels did not originate their scholarship from deeply held conservative christianity thus using “logic” as the “lens” of the starting point/dates of the greek gospel cannon. Such logic as Theophilus had earliest copy of Mathew as baseline date. Ones undergraduate education/faith point is what creates the “lens” in which set the baseline of the Gospels authorship date.
In continuation…
This is why I have suggested you may have an un self-realized bias in yours, as well as many other scholars, fundamentalist conservate christian backgrounds scholarship views. Those are views that an author of a text is holding the same fundamentalist conservative view in the passage. In other words, a fundamentalist conservative christian theology is the baseline of how such scholars approach the writings.
By far, the number of mainline scholars/sholarship originates out of this fundamentalist conservative chistian baseline lens and undergraduate institutions. This is slowly changing in many of the newer scholars emerging out of more secular undergraduate institutions not previously holding the fundamentalist conservative christian beliefs. Thus why I have mentioned to you that the further a scholars background and education is from such, the later they give for the dating of the writings, We see this in how the “majority consensus” moves back in time over the years as more scholars with liberal origens are slowly entering the mainline scholarship. Mainline Scholarship is much more to the “Left” today than it was in the 18th/19th centuries and way “left” from that previously, It;s not new information but rather a less conservative baseline of Scholars affecting the move
Bart
Back to Ignatius reference to a “star” but never directly links it to Bethlehem. Why would Scholars assume Ignatius is referencing Matthew, by just a reference to a star? Origen (184–253 AD) is the first father to definitively connect the Star and Bethlehem.
The connection of a Star and Messiah originates in 4Q252 of the dead sea scrolls Genesis Comentary. where the messianic interpretation suggests a belief that a kingly figure (Messiah) would come from Judah’s line, fulfilling both Genesis 49:10 and Numbers 24:17.
It is a huge leap in “faith” to “assume” the mention of the Star by Ignatius was from our Greek Matthew rather than the story about a Shinning Star noted in Judea was floating around and Ignatius himself did not make the same connctions as the essense had earlier. The author of Matthew surly did, but nothing suggests that the Author of Matthew predated Ignatius. It is not till 2 generations later that is confirmed of a writting joining the Star, Messiah and Bethlehem exists.
The earliest confirmable date range for Matthew is between Ignatious and Theophilus of Antioch .. (110 – 170ce) Anything earlier is religious faith based. (bias)
I’m not sure why you keep saying I’m basing historical judgments on faith? What faith? In any event, if you study the Ignatius reference closely and don’t think there are striking parallels to the Matthean account, fair enough. It looks to me that Ignatius is riffing on a known motif. In any event, I do think the Didache knows Matthew as well. And I think it’s problematic to indicate that a certain belief (any belief) “originated” in a fragment of writing that just happened to survive from antiquity. I don’t think we can determine that the author of that writing invented the idea…
Bart…
If community from which Didache originated indeed had our Matthew, I would expect “equal” Hellonistic influence in it as Matthew overall, if it was including text from Matthew. Matthew more likely used Didache or sources creating the Didache. Looks more like Matthew integrated the Didache into his more Hellonistic Jewish theology. If you removed the belief that Mathew predated the Didache, then the Didache could easily be moved to the earlier part of the date range.
What i mean by “Faith” is an indoctrintion of the Christian Faith prior to, or instigating Biblical Scholarship. That indoctrination determines the baseline approach to the history. Faith bias starting point for gosple dates are based on the named writers writting them. Then correcting for later dataing based on feasabiliy.. i.e degree of literacy, events etc within the text.
True Secular, baseline is earliest confirmed date text is recorded by a witness. i.e Theophilus of Antioch. If Theophilus had written in 3rd letter “The Play says” then quoted lines from “Julius Ceasar”, then now how would you determine authorship and date written of the (Shakespeare?) play?
Since the 90’s with the release of DSC’s emerging Scholars (like D. Litwa) date them later.
With the release of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 90’s Scholars have found themes as:
Star (of Bethlehem) associated to announce new king.
Duel Messiahs Priest in line of Aaron and David King
Messiah as a 2nd Moses…
and most all of the roots of the synoptic gospel theology… Therefore, the idea of an early church fathers writing “hinting” of first hand knowlege of one of our gospels themes carrys little to no weight since we know those themes predate Jesus. The doctrine and commentary of the Essenes of the Dead Sea Scrolls seems more like the common sorce of the Synoptics.
Now based on that view.. I really question both the (real) relationship of Jesus and John the Baptist.. And the crucifixion being over the passover.. They both seem to be constructs of Essene theology.. The “Duel Messiahs” and the 2nd Moses.
So if the birth narative and the passover narative are Essene based contructs, the dating of the birth in confict on the census and other conflicts, makes perfect sense. Jesus’s birth and death may be 20-30 years later with death much closer to 70 ce…
Your Thoughts???
The fact that similar ideas can be found in two bodies of literature that happen to survive is not evidence that one of them derived them from the other, espeically when 99% of the literature from the time does not survive.
More realistically and less problemanatic is that Herod Agrippa is much more likely the ruler when the crucifixion occured (44-46ce). Meaning, that except for the actual crucifixion the narratives are fabricated accounts. Such solves many issues such as how Jesus was laid in the tomb rather to rot on the cross.. Agrippa would have be much more accomodating such a jewish practice than Pilot. Pilot would have been a great scapegoat to deflect that a Jew was ultimately responsible for the death of Jesus.. Paul specifically claims Jesus’s death by Jews, and he also claims rulers are annointed by God to punish the lawless. That contradicts a belief by him that Pilot was who killed Jesus… Additionally moving the crucifixion to 44-46ce removes the uncomfortable gap between Jesus’s death and Pauls conversion.. In searching if any scholar has this same suspicion, I believe Dr Tabor may have also floated this idea, however I’m currently unaware on what basis..
I’m aware of references by Josephus and Tacitus to pilot.. but as for Josephus, the text “by Pilot” has substantial doubt of authenticity, and Tacitus likely having no official records based his statement on rumors.
continued..
If according to Josephus, Ananus had authority to kill James, then surely if Pilot is not ruler, Caiaphas would have authority to kill Jesus. Pilots reputation does not lend substance of him allowing the Jews to conduct executions, even the stoning of woman caught in adultry. Pilot personally hated the jews and samaritans which led to him being removed from Judea by his actions. A stoning event would more likely cause him to execute those stoning. Pilot was probably the reason for Jesus not entering into Judea and his removal would explain why Jesus would venture into Judea. Jesus then would have been taken by surprise of his arrest and crucifixion.
Take Pilot out of the gospels death narrative and the accounts of Jesus fit much better. Both the Birth and Death narratives seem highly likely to be constucts of the theology of the gospels rather than historical. You yourself argue against the historicity of both narratives. If contructs, then Harrods slaughter of the innocents give more fuel of Harrods reign at birth is a contruct.
Remove both narratives then historically recalculate the likely timeline of Jesus. That will be the most historically reliable timeline.
Hi Bart, new blog member…what is the process to assign a year to a text? For example, where do you get 375 CE? Do the authors write the year? Thanks!
I htink you’re not asking when the text of Matthew was written (which was 80-85 or so) but when this particular manuscript was produced. There’s a discipline called Palaeography (literally “ancient writing) that dates manuscripts, mainly on the bases of hand writing analysis. Since everything in antiquity was written by hand (no photocopiers!) and since the styles of writing in ancient languages changed over the course of decades/generations, and since some (not many!) manuscripts in, say, Greek and Latin have dates attached to them, then we know what hand writing generally looked like in this generation and htat. Expert Greek palaeographers can date a manuscript within about 50 years, so this one would have probably written somewhere between 350 and 400 or in 375 plus or minus 25 years. As you can imagine, though, different palaeographers come up with different dates and they are rarely definitive. (You can also carbon 14 date the writing material — in this case parchment — but that requires using small pieces of it that are destroyed in the analysis and in any event that tells you when the animal whose skin is eing used died, but not when the skin which has now been processed into a writing material was written on.)
Such an enjoyable read, thank you so much!
I have 2 questions (it’s been so long since the last time I asked one, so you can permit it 😂):
1. What is your response to those who say that Matthew did not identify himself as the writer of the Gospel out of humility? I don’t know if you’ve ever heard of this explanation, but here in Greece I can remember people saying that since I was a little kid. (Here most [orthodox] Christians would rather fall under the fundamentalist rubric.)
2 (and more significant). If Q is the oldest Christian source and it says nothing about Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, is it plausible for one to deduce that maybe Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection narratives were later intentions?
3 (OK, I cheated). Do you agree with me that it’s a tad arrogant to call youself “orthodox”? I mean, I’ve always thought that growing up in Greece given the etymology of the word 😂.
1. Whoever wrote it may have done it out of humility, I’d agree. But that doesn’t mean his name was Matthew. (My view is that whoever the author was didn’t identify himself because he was writing for his local community and they all knew perfectly well who he as.
2. No, I don’t think so. We know of Christian Gnostics in the 2nd and 3rd centuries who do not think Jesus’ death and resurrection matter for salvation or even that mentoin them — but it doesn’t mean they were living a century or two earlier.
3. In antiquity “orthodox” had no association with the Greek churh, so I guess not. But it sometimes does strike me as strange when Protestants claim “I’m orthodox,” as if that means “I’m the one who is right”
“1. What is your response to those who say that Matthew did not identify himself as the writer of the Gospel out of humility?”
First, apologists don’t know humility was the author’s motive in refusing to identify himself, so that hypothesis carries no apologetics force in the first place.
Second, if humility was the reason, then we can’t be unreasonable in crediting Paul with the sin of pride during composition of his own epistles, since he clearly identifies himself therein.
Third, it doesn’t matter if an eyewitness could plausibly write in the third-person. That is NOT what we would typically expect.
Fourth, an earlier form of Matthew was written in the first person. See the story of the mason in the Gospel to the Hebrews. Jerome said “many” thought GoH was “authentic Matthew”.
Fifth, even supposing apostle Matthew wrote it, and even accepting an absurdly early date for it like 45 a.d., Matthew’s silence about his own post-resurrection ministry, is a silence that screams. The more apologists say Matthew was “amazingly transformed” seeing the risen Christ, the louder Matthew’s silence about his own subsequent ministry screams.
“he was probably Jewish, given his overarching concerns to stress to his readers that they were not to abandon the Jewish law but to keep it.”
Ok, but some passages in Matthew are the most antisemitic in the entire New Testament. I can’t figure out how a Jew could write Matthew 23:31-33 or Matthew 27:24-26.
“And it almost certainly could not have been written later than 100 CE because it appears to be known to the author of the non-canonical book the Didache, which was written about then, and that appears to quote Matthew’s text word for word in places.”
Why not the other way around? Matthew based on the Didache!
Take, for instance, the last ‘chapter’ of the Didache—the one about the ‘last days.’ There are a lot of ideas and expressions that we also find in Matthew.
So we have:
“For in the last days, FALSE PROPHETS and seducers shall be MULTIPLIED, and the SHEEP shall be turned into WOLVES, and LOVE shall be turned into HATE; and because LAWLESSNESS abounds they shall HATE EACH OTHER.”
(Didache 16:3-4)
Alternatively, to use an analogy from a certain movie, as a member of Judean People’s Front, he was openly opposed to and willing to write nasty things about the People’s Front of Judea. 2000 years later, in a very different context, this looks like blatant anti-semitism.
My students will be watching the movie this semester. Fantastic!
“And then many will fall away and betray one another and HATE ONE ANOTHER. And many FALSE PROPHETS will arise and lead many astray. And because LAWLESSNESS will be increased, the LOVE of many will grow cold.”
(Matthew 24:10-12)
“Beware of FALSE PROPHETS, who come to you in SHEEP’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous WOLVES.”
(Matthew 7:15)
Who came first?
It’s interesting that while in Matthew, those passages are presented as Jesus’s own words, in the Didache, they are not.
Did the Didache’s writer take Jesus’s words from Matthew and present them as if they were not? Or was it Matthew who put the Didache’s signs of the end times into Jesus’s mouth?
How late could the canonical Matthew have been written?
One thing about Matthew that has always intrigued me is how well-fitted it is for countering Marcion’s ‘heresy.’ Very well-fitted indeed.
Hi Bart,
Isn’t it weird that one of the main themes in Matthew’s gospel is that “Jesus is for the Jews” and that the “Jews for Jesus need to follow the scripture to the letter”,, then this theme was totally and dramatically overturned at the last two lines (28:19-20) of the last chapter of this Gospel!
Have you ever seen a dramatic-shift in a main theme that was overturned just at the last line of the last chapter of any of the ancient books?
Furthermore, in these two last lines, Jesus is commanding his disciples to baptize people in his Father’s name and his name and the name of the holly spirit, but Jesus has never been attributed to baptize anyone during is missionary!
Isn’t this weird!
Furthermore, from a historical perspective, the blessing by the trio (The Father, the Son and the Spirit) was introduced to the Christian world at the time of Justin (about 150 AD), but it is here in this Gospel at the last two lines of the last Chapter of it.
Would all the above provide a good argument that these two last lines (28:19-20) were not part of the original Gospel??
I think one of the major points of Matthew is that Jesus is the Jewish messiah who brings the correct interpretatoin of the Jewish law to the Jewish world and insists they keep this law BUT, they reject him, precisely so the message now will go outside the Jewish realm. I don’t see 28:19-20 as contrary to the Gospel but one of the major themes of hte Gospel.
In Matthew 22:1-14, the King represents God, inviting guests to a wedding banquet symbolizing the end-time utopia. This motif is common in Jewish eschatology, depicting God’s reunification with creation. Given this understanding, it’s unlikely the early Christian community associated Jesus’ prediction of the Temple’s destruction with this parable. The Temple’s destruction in 70 AD didn’t usher in the end-time utopia.
The persecuted slaves represent prophets, including Jesus, mistreated by the Jewish aristocracy. The King’s armies represent the angelic host accompanying God’s final judgment. The reference to fire alludes to the purifying fire associated with God’s judgment.
The parable’s focus on God’s final judgment on violent leaders is consistent with pre-70 AD Qumran community predictions:
“from the day of the gathering in of the Teacher of the Community until the end of all men of war who deserted to the Liar there shall pass about forty years.” (4Q265-73, The Damascus Document)
Given Jesus’ conflicts with the High Priest, these predictions could be seen as wishful thinking rather than a prophecy after the event. The parable’s themes and motifs are consistent with pre-70 AD Jewish prophetic literature, theology, and eschatology.
I think you have an interesting point, Charrua. The author of Matthew not taking pride in being Jewish sounds atypical.
As Dr. Ehrman awesomely points out, *Jewishness* is the selling point here.
Is Jesus acting Jewish? (touching the unclean, no strongman traits.)
The Herods in power aren’t Jewish. Zealots and Sicarri arise when they want ethnic representation back, like the Hasmoneans (Jewish/Nabataean marital alliance, btw.) Ituraeans want Galilee back. This is challenging the flow of commerce THRU the ancient crossroads to the ports.
Enter 1/4 Jewish Agrippa, through the female Hasmonean line Mariamne. Luckily, the Pharisees made royal succession through the maternal line legal.
Jesus might be cosplaying Ea/Enki/Hayya — preserved in Mandaean as Hayyi. The first healer god via his 8 medicinal plants mneumonic, the Sumerian word for physician connected to water is loaned into Akkadian.
Enki’s the Creator God in Genesis too, imo.
“God of the Ruler” is a title of DuShara, the god of Galilee’s queen Phaesalis, and look at his horned cap, extra-curlies, astral symbol friends and bathing complex — it’s so Ea/Enki/Hayyi coded. Eblaites avoided using names, and that’s how Ea becomes Hayya, it means The Living (God).
As always, a great article. I’m curious about your statement that there are good arguments against the existence of Q. Do you have an author or book to recommend on that?
Well, I may have overstated it if I said I thought the arguments are *really* good. But there are certainly arguments, including the places where Luke and Matthew have very small agreements against Mark (the “minor agreements” as they are called) and the fact that without Q you are getting rid of a hypothetical source (Ockham’s razor). But getting rid of it causes more problems than it solves, as I’ll be explaining in a post soon. The best person to read supporting the non-existence of Q is Mark Goodacre.
I have a question. When the 27 books of the New Testament were compiled, did any early church fathers believe that there was a contradiction between the understanding of the law in the letters of Paul and the Gospel of Matthew? I am referring to the orthodox faction, not those designated as heretics.
Nope, I don’t think so.
Bart..
What do you think about how Jesus is portrayed in all of the canon gospels as a mosaic figure as well as the linkage of his crucifixion and resurrection over the passover… Do you think the crucifixion story is a contruct in the quest to create a legacy of Jesus as the new moses, rather than a remotely true story? Because if is really a true account, then that adds weight to whether Jesus is actually who the Gospels make him to be. Sent by God to be the New Moses…. I find the sermon on the mount/plain an allegory of Moses on the mount bringing down the tablets.
The Essenes are the most logical sect to create this construct of Jesus based on readings from the dead sea scrolls.. If so.. then could Jesus’s interactions with John the Baptist also be an Essene construct inserted into the Gospels since John is widely speculated to be Essene?
Lastly.. Since the texts of the dead sea scrolls was not widespread until the 1990s.. Do you think that will substantially change the mainstream scholarship view of the Gospels?
Matthew certainly portrays Jesus as the new Moses, yes. But the crucifixion certainly does not appear to be a Mosaic image. We do not have any historical evidence to connect Jesus with the Essenes, let alone a Gospel with them.