Loading...In my previous post I showed that the claim that Matthew, the tax-collector, was the author of the Gospel of Matthew (as we continue to call it) cannot be traced earlier than about 180 CE. It is not found in Justin, who lived in Rome in 150 CE and who quotes the Gospel – along with Mark and Luke – without indicating who wrote them. And the evidence of Papias (120-140 CE) is more than just ambiguous: he actually does not appear to be referring to *our* Gospel of Matthew when he says that the disciple Matthew collected the sayings of Jesus in the Hebrew language.
In this post I want to give two reasons for thinking that the Gospel was not in fact written by Jesus’ disciple Matthew (and at every point it needs to be remembered that the Gospel does not *claim* to be written by Matthew; quite the contrary, not only is it anonymous: it speaks of Matthew as one of the characters in the story in the third person).
FIRST point. According to the Gospel of Matthew (chapter 9), Matthew the tax-collector was a Palestinian Jew. As such, his native language was Aramaic. That makes it highly unlikely that he could have written this book.
To begin with, apart from the books written by the extremely highly literarily elite Josephus, we don’t have any literary books composed in written Greek by any Palestinian Jews of the first century. Zero. And as I will be showing in a moment, this book was certainly composed in Greek.
Relatedly, as I have stressed before on this blog, the vast majority of Palestinian Jews in this period were illiterate – probably around 97%. The exceptions were urban elites. There is nothing to suggest that Matthew, the tax collector, was an urban elite who was highly educated.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, GET WITH IT!!!
Makes perfect sense to me. The point about the author of Matthew having to rely on Mark is the strongest point I think. It’s almost inconceivable that an eyewitness would rely so heavily on someone else’s account, almost verbatim at times. And a quickie: Have you dedicated a blog post on why you still hold firm to the Q hypothesis yet (as opposed to, say Mark Goodacre and Richard Carrier’s position, that Luke simply used Mark and Matthew)? If so, can you post the link to it? Or if not, I’d like to put that in as a request for a future post. I’ve only ever seen you summarise the basic grounds, but I’d love to delve a little deeper in the question of the Q hypothesis, in particular why you think the Goodacre/Carrier position is wrong. But hey, take it as just one more of a thousand other requests! haha!
I don’t think I’d name Richard Carrier in the same sentence as Mark Goodacre! Carrier is not a NT scholar by training or expertise. Anyway, it’s a great question. I’ll have to devote a post or two to it…..
Haha. I agree actually. Carrier is not my cup of tea either. And that’s putting it politely. But I named him because he and Goodacre are pretty much on the complete opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to popular literature on historical Jesus, and yet they both reject Q for more or less the same reasons. I have to say, after listening to Goodacre’s podcast on the topic, his argument does sound compelling.
Bart.
Speaking of him whose name I won’t mention (!), do you know whether his claims about the references made by Josephus to Jesus and James have been examined by experts in the field yet?
Experts have worked on the issue for a long time, before the nameless one saw the light of day. Most agree that the *core* of the testimonia are Josephan.
I particularly like the point that an eyewitness would not have copied large portions of Mark.
“How Jesus Became God” is available for pre-order!
http://www.amazon.com/How-Jesus-Became-God-Teacher/dp/0061778184/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1372216181&sr=1-2
wow!
I have what may be an “off the wall question.” Do we really know how to pronounce correctly the names of the early Christians: Papias, Ireneus, etc.? Sometimes I hear them pronounced differently (I think). Moreover, most of us have read about them, but have never or consistently heard them pronounced in a scholarship setting. Thanks.
Well, theree are standard pronunciatiouns that scholars use, based on the way they pronounce ancient languages, esp. Greek and Latin.
I don’t doubt that the author was someone other than Matthew. Are you going to tell us what type of person you think did write it? I’ve believed (based on things I’d read or heard) that this Gospel was intended more for Jewish readers, and was written by someone with a Jewish background. Hostile not toward “the Jews,” as might be assumed from the “His blood be on us and our children” line, but toward the Jewish priests who’d supposedly influenced that crowd.
But when I think about it, why would someone writing in Greek, circa 80 CE, have expected a Jewish or Jewish-background readership? And why, after that lapse of time, would he have cared about the attitude of the Jewish priests?
Yup, I hope to get to that!
The Papias stuff is confusing to me, so let me restate and you correct me please:
Papias was either 1) passing on a rumor and Matthew did not write any sayings down, 2) talking about a book written by Matthew in Aramaic that doesn’t exisit any longer or 3) talking about a book written by someone claiming to be Matthew in Aramaic that doesn’t exisit any longer? In no case, though, was he talking about “our” Matthew?
Thanks for this information; very illuminating!
Yup, those are among the options!
Is it safe to think that Paul would have mentioned the gospel of Matthew or any other gospel besides his good news from old testament scriptures? Paul’s writings are earlier than the earliest gospels. Might we investigate the reason for the accepted canonized gospels cropped up after Paulinian epistles to try and humanize his Jesus? What is wrong in going this direction? Seems Paul should have known about a earthly Jesus and not just keep pointing to the Jesus of old testament scriptures which were revealed to him. And if he knew of a earthly Jesus, wouldn’t the gospels also have been circulating during his life? But, the evidence does not seem to support that concept. In fact, if the people Jesus called to follow him were actually commoners, they would not know how to write or read most likely. To attribute the gospel of Matthew to a well educated Matthew is to attribute it to some other Matthew, not a disciple. Maybe a Matthew from some time after Paul who had Paul’s epistles and humanized the fictitious Christ while having the gospel attributed to a Mark with him. Exciting prospects ….
I’m not *quite* sure what you’re asking. But in any event, Paul did know and talk about an earthly Jesus.
Let me present a conjectural scenario. Maybe the historical Matthew was actually the original compiler of the Q document. In this scenario, Q would originally have been composed in Aramaic. Then someone else translated it into Greek, and finally it was used as a source for what we now call the Gospel according to Matthew. This seems to fit pretty well with what Papias says. Maybe the anonymous author of the Gospel passed on the information that it was partly based on records compiled by Matthew, so the name of Matthew eventually became attached to the Gospel itself.
One piece of evidence for this scenario is that Matthew himself isn’t really such a prominent figure in any of the Gospels. If the point of attributing the Gospel to him was just to give it some sort of apostolic authority, why not go all the way and attribute it to Peter or James?
Also, literacy isn’t an all-or-nothing matter. Even if tax collectors weren’t likely to write sophisticated Aramaic, surely you have to admit they would have been far more likely than fishermen to possess some extremely basic literacy. And Q, as reconstructed, seems like the sort of thing someone with very basic literacy might have produced.
I know that this scenario is pretty much unprovable, but it seems plausible enough to me. I’d be interested in knowing what you think.
Yup, it’s all possible. But then again, most things are! The issue is always whether there is any *evidence*. Q appears to have originated in Greek, and is not probably Palestinian in origin. So that’s a problem.
I’d say the evidence is dead-set against fishermen in rural Galilee being literate. I think we just don’t know about Matthew, but it seems pretty unlikely, given what we know. (Lots of books, by the way, are attributed to apostles other than Peter, James, and Paul! It’s just something Christians did….)
Prof. Ehrman:
Just a question:
1) Surely Josephus’s nemesis, Justus Tiberias was also a Galilean Jew who wrote in literary Greek. I understand your arguments regarding this tax collector fellow but not for Galilean Jews.
2) Can you please address what you think regaring George Howard’s work on the “original Hebrew” version of Matthew. I’ve seen that some scholars accept some of his ideas that Shem Tov Ibn Shaprut was not simply translating from the GK and Latin but had a Hebrew version.
With much thanks!
1. Good question. I don’t know about Justus Tiberias’s language. Why do you think it was Greek? (a genuine question)
2. I don’t think Howard won many converts; Shem Tov is very very late; it can’t really be representative of a text earlier than our Greek. For full introductoin to the issues, you may want to look at Allison/Davies Introduction to their 3-volume commentary on Matthew.
1) Thanks so much for responding! I grant that we can’t be totally sure what language his works were originally in but at least we can say: “Justus came from a respected Tiberian family, and that “he did not lack Greek culture,” as Josephus himself admits. Justus’ name and that of his father (Pistus) also attest Hellenistic influence, and he was, moreover, appointed private secretary to *Agrippa II, a post which obviously demanded a thorough command of Greek. (A. Schalit, Encyclopedia Judaica).
So he knew and could write the language presumably on somewhat of a high level.
2) Thanks for the reference! It’s neat that scholars running from Dr. James Tabor to Craig Evans have recognized that Shem Tov can’t be understood as simply a translation.
Interesting! Thanks.
You mentioned that the Gospel attributed to Matthew is dated “around 80-85 CE.” How do scholars arrive at such relatively precise dating of the Gospels?
Well, it refers to the destruction of the Temple, so it must be some time after 70. It appears to be used by other Christian writings at the very beginning of the 2nd century. So half way in between, just to be safe on one side or the other, 80-85 seems reasonable.
So it could be as late as 90 or 95 ?
Could be!
Apart from the Qumran Scrolls and Josephus, do we have any other extant literary works by Palestinian Jews in the 1st century? Given the paucity of such works in any language, then surely it is not surprising no Greek literary work survives? When the Romans burnt down the Temple, presumably they would have destroyed a lot of literary works – perhaps some of these were in Greek. Some of highly fragmentary Qumran Scrolls are in Greek and do not correspond to any extant Greek texts – presumably the Essenes could have composed these works themselves. What do you think of my theory?
We have some of the apocryphal works by anonymous authors. But the paucity of such works is part of the bigger point: hardly anyone could or did write! some of the Essenes certainly could.
Could the paucity of extant literary works from 1st century Palestine owe more to the destruction of the Temple – the centre of Jewish life and presumably the repository of the nation’s literary works – than the rarity of literacy? Could the Essenes be viewed as a counter-example to the thesis that only the elite of society were literate: they were living on the fringe of Jewish of society and were not aristocratic nor wealthy, yet treasured and wrote their literary works.
Interesting question. But I don’t know of any evidence to suggest that there were books kept in the Temple. It’s say, in fact, that they almost certainly weren’t, given what we know about it. But yes, the Essenes had literate members, as some of them served as scribes.
Is it safe to say that Mathew was writing to a mostly Jewish audience, mostly trying to convert Jews; while John
and his audience were Gentiles or Jewish
outcasts who had given up on Jews?
I’ll be getting to that.
This really clears things up for me on Matthew and Mark according to Papias’ statements. It also helps me to understand that Mark was written originally in Greek, not Aramaic as I had previously assumed. I can also see how and why the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek instead of Hebrew or Aramaic. But I have one question. Why are there traces of Aramaic in the gospels such as “talitha koum” and “Eloi! Eloi! Lama sabachthani”? Could they have been from oral tradition or another source? I’ve probably asked a question along these lines before, but I would appreciate some further clarification on it. Oh, and I appreciate you correcting me in the past on Mark not using the Q source, but Matthew using it. It’s all very helpful.
Where there are traces of Aramaic we have indications that this particular story started out early on in the movement, among Jesus’ followers in Palestine, and that hte story came to be translated later into Greek, where the “punchlines” were left in the original, to pack an even better punch.
What is your general response to the arguments of Richard Bauckham in his book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony`É
My *general* response is that I can’t disagree more! I hope to write a book on it some day.
So everything I learned growing up in Sunday School about the authorship of the Gospels, is a lie. Where *do* fundamentalist Christians (and fund. Christian ‘scholars’) get the idea that the Gospels were actually written by their namesakes??
I’d say there’s a very real and importance difference between a “lie” and an “untruth.”
I have a question to help me understand could it be the Mark is the one copying from Matthew ?
is there any chance of that ?
There’s a *chance*, but not a good one. If Matthew was first, and Mark was copying, then you’d have to explain why he left out so much material. The obvious answer is that he wanted to abbreviate Matthew’s version. But the problem is that when they tell the same story, Mark’s is usually *longer* than Matthew’s version. So he’s clearly not abbreviating. So, well, it doesn’t make sense. More likely Matthew was expanding Mark.
Dr. Ehrman,
When I hear “the Gospel according to Matthew” or something similar, I don’t naturally hear Matthew as the author with someone else giving an otherwise title-less work an appropriate title. I naturally hear that someone has written down Matthew’s version, whether direct from Matthew or through some oral tradition they associated with Matthew, and titled their work accordingly. I then wonder whether such a person could have used other available gospel sources to beef up what might have otherwise been a scant gospel, given maybe limited information available from Matthew. Are you aware of any evidence against such a scenario?
The part that feels the weakest to me is the suggestion that the names (titles) were added between 150ish (Justin) and 180ish (Irenaeus) CE based on Irenaeus being the first surviving source to mention the names and the absence of earlier named manuscripts when all full manuscripts we do have are named and named consistently. I can reasonably see Justin considering the gospels as a collective of a single story (memoirs of the apostles) rather than distinct versions to differentiate between.
What would you say is the strongest evidence for the Gospels being assigned names at some later time?
I suppose the strongest evidence is that the titles on them are not titles, they are not called by these names even when they are quoted at an earlier time, and the alleged authors almost certainly did not write them. The version of events in Matthew’s account almost certainly don’t come from Matthew jesus’ disciple, since much of it comes directly from Mark’s Gospel, and it seems implausible that an eyewitness would not simply tell his own version of events as opposed to copying the accounts found in an earlier version.
I’ve heard people say that luke was a Physician so he would have had the training to write his gospel. Would you just copy paste the argument you use here against Matthew or would you come at it from a different angle?
Also what’s a good source for Jewish literacy of the time?
It’s a different argument for Luke. I deal with it here: https://ehrmanblog.org/so-was-luke-luke/ Source for Literacy: Catherine Hezser’s book Literacy in Roman Palestine.
Dr. Ehrman,
1. Why do you think Irenaeus claimed Matthew wrote the gospel of Matthew? Do you think he is pulling from Papias, or do you think he had other reasons to argue it was Matthew?
2. In addition to Irenaeus, there were quite a few other ECF (Early Church Fathers) who claimed Matthew wrote the gospel of Matthew (e.g., Tertullian, Origen, Pantaenus, John Chrysostom, Jerome, Epiphanius, Augustine, and Leo the Great). Why do you believe they all claimed Matthew wrote the gospel of Matthew?
3. I have met many Christians who argue that the gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic. Aside from (mis)using Papias, they also allude to clear examples of ECF who believe this such as Pantaenus, Epiphanius, Augustine, and Jerome. Why do you think they believed the gospel of Matthew was written not only by Matthew but also in Aramaic. Do you think they are parroting misunderstandings of Papias? I’m just trying to trace why they believed this and where the idea would have possibly originated.
4. Why do you believe the original gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and couldn’t have originally been written in Aramaic and later translated into Greek?
1. I thin he was repeating a tradition that had started in Rome prior to his day; I discuss that a bit in my book Jesus Before the Gospels. 2. Once someone with some authority said “It was Matthew” everyone simply repeated it. Living well over a century later, of course, they had no independent information. Today there are some 2 Billion people who say it, but the fact that they say it isn’t evidence that it’s true. 3. No, it could *not* have been written in Aramaic. Matthew copies the Greek Gospel of Mark *word-for-word* in many places. taht requires him to have been written in Greek. Word for word agreement int he same language requries copying and cannot be reproduced by translation. (Just compare any two separate English translations of Madame Bovary or the Brothers Karamazov. You’ll NEVER find paragraphs the same. Never.)
Dr. Ehrman,
Another follow-up question. You mentioned that Justin Martyr refers to the gospel of Matthew as the memoirs of the apostles, but does not attribute authorship to Matthew. However, it does appear he believes that the apostles wrote the gospels, though. For example, he writes:
” For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by *them*, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon *them.*” (First Apology, Chapter 66). Would this not be evidence that he at least believed the original disciples (regardless of which specific ones) wrote the gospels?
Yes, he believed apostles left behind written records. It’s striking that he does not say which apostles, that he never names Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Taht would be surprising if those nams had been attached to the Gospels by that time. The only Gospel he directly connects with a disciple is the Gospel of … Peter!
Dr. Ehrman,
Thanks! Do you think Justin was referring to the gospel of Mark when he speaks of Peter’s gospel?
Definitely not. He calls it the Memoir of Peter, not the Memoir written by someone else. The best scholarship on this, I’m afraid, is all in German, but it’s very compelling. There are references to the “Memoirs” in Justin that coincide very closely with the account in the Gsopel of Peter but NOT at all with Mark (or any of the other Gospels). I’ve been long convinced by this scholarship that he knew and referred to the Gospel of Peter. The only reason not to think so is that scholars find that hard to believe!
This is incredible! It makes me angry how misinformed my professors were (and how they trained me to be so misinformed). For a religion who prides itself on “truth” and “seeking,” Christians to a lazy job!
Dr. Ehrman,
1. Where does Justin Martyr talk about the Gospel of Peter and where does he attribute Petrine authorship?
2. Doesn’t Justin’s reference about Jesus’ changing the names of the sons of Zebedee (found in the writings of Peter) clearly come from The Gospel of Mark? Justin said: “that he changed the names of others, two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means ‘sons of thunder’….” Isn’t that a direct reference to Mark 3:17? If so, this seems like Justin is clearly identifying Peter with the Gospel of Mark. Your thoughts?
The most important article on this,as I’ve indicated,is, unfortunately, in German: Peter Pilhofer, “Justin und das Petrusevangelium,” ZNW 81 (1990) 60-78.
The passage is in Dialogue with Trypho 106.3, where Justin speaks of “Peter” and then refers to “his Memoire” (after repeatedly referring to the Memoirs of the apostles. Pilhofer points out that any disinterested reading of teh passage would take “his” to refer to the person he had just mentioned “Peter.” Read the passage and see. If instead of “Peter” Justin had said “John” or “Matthew” — would *anyone* think that “his” referred to someone *else*? Certainly not. Why then in the case of Peter? Because people don’t want to believe that Justin is referring to a non-canonical Gospel. (And because they think he’s dependent on Papias. Justin never *mentions* Papias in any of his lengthy writings).
And there’s more and even better evidence. Where Justin overlaps with G.Peter in content, he appears to depend on it in substance.
* When he refers to the he guilt of the Jews in the death of Jesus (heightened, similarly, in both; cf. Dial 85, 2 – Jews actually killed Jesus; also 1 Apol. 35, 6 – not in NT, only in Peter, with Herod taking charge) — as in GPeter more than Mark.
* The role of Herod in the trial: he uses the Greek word:” suneleusiv of Herod and Pilate in Jesus’ death can’t come from Luke, but could come from Peter
* His claim that all the disciples fled after Jesus’ arrest, (Dial. 53, 5); that’s true in G. Peter (vv. 26, 59), but not the NT Gospels (where Peter looks on at the trial; John stands beneath the cross, etc;)
* And two passages in particular:
a. 1 Apol 35, 6: it is the Jews who mock Jesus (in the NT it is the soldiers)
b. ** Dial. 97,3, the dividing of the cloths: the Greek phrases “casting lots” laxmon ballontev – is found *only* in Peter. Jews divide clothes. the key is that the verb laxmon never occurs in Greek lit. before G.Peter and Justin otherwise. But it is used in bot for the same event. How explain? Only if Justin is dependent on Peter.
The Boanerges thing is indeed interesting. But we don’t know if the Gospel of Peter had the account (there is no overlap there) of the calling of the apostles and if so whether he too had Boanerges or not. So it’s not evidence of Mark *instead* of Gospel of Peter.
Dr. Ehrman,
1. When addressing the authorship of Mark, I’ve heard it argued that the differences and uniqueness of information for Petrine authorship found in Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius suggest that their claims and traditions came from different independent original sources than that of Papias and Ireneaus. They argue that this strengthens evidence for Petrine authorship for the Gospel of Mark. What are your thoughts? I can provide the specific quotes if needed.
I’m not sure what that means.