(8 votes, average: 4.75 out of 5)
Loading...I have now gotten to a point where I can discuss why the four Gospels were specifically given the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Recall the most important points of my preceding posts on the blog so far: the Gospels were all written anonymously and they circulated anonymously, for years and decades; we have no certain evidence that they – these particular Gospels — were called by their familiar names until around 180 CE, in sources connected with Rome (Irenaeus and the Muratorian Fragment); my hypothesis is that an edition of these four Gospels was published in Rome sometime between Justin in 150-60 CE (he quotes the Gospels but does not name them) and Irenaeus in 180-85 CE. That edition gave these Gospels their now-familiar names.
If all that is correct, then there is no reason to think that people widely associated them with their familiar names before that. The reason this became a widespread tradition is that it was started by a single editor – possibly based, of course, on things being said in his church or the wider Christian community (on that we have no evidence); once this edition took root, its views proved completely amenable to Christians in Rome, and the tradition spread from there.
So why call the books “according to Matthew,” “according to Mark,” “according to Luke,” and “according to John”? The first point to note is the obvious one. Two of these books are assigned to disciples of Jesus, and two to companions of the apostles who are then “representatives’ of these apostles – strikingly, Peter and Paul, the two most important figures in the early church (Mark was thought to be Peter’s companion and secretary; Luke was Paul’s traveling companion), and thought, by tradition, to be the principal apostles precisely of Rome, where this edition was created. And so, in these two Gospels, we have the witness of Jesus’ disciples and of Peter and Paul.
But what more can we say? First I’ll talk about the two disciples, Matthew and John.
In my view …
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN WHILE YOU HAVE THE CHANCE!!!
Are you going to address the question of why anyone would attribute two of the gospels to the somewhat lesser authority of the buddies of the eyewitnesses (or buddies of non-witnesses in the case of Luke!) when they didn’t hesitate to attribute the other two to actual disciples of Jesus?
Yup!! It’s where I’m headin’.
Just curious… I haven’t seen you mention the Diatessaron in your scenario about a mid-II Roman four-gospel canon. Do you think Tatian did this before or after your scenario?… and in what language?… and where?
I’m a dilettante when it comes to Diatessaronic studies. It’s a hugely complicated field. I suspect Tatian’s work was at about the same time or just after the edition I’m imagining. One of the big questions is whether he used other sources in addition to the four, and if he did it in Rome or back in Syria. My hunch is that it was originally in Greek, but the matter is debated.
It still baffles me that Jesus himself didn’t write anything. He supposedly came down from heaven with a message of such importance for mankind, yet left it up to others to spread his message. How was the population of the planet any different the day after the crucifixion?, life went on none the wiser all over the world for hundreds and hundreds of years.
When you say other Gospels mention the tax collector disciple as “Levi” rather than Matthew, which specific Gospels are you referring to?
Mark 2:13-14; Luke 5:27-32.
What would it really mean for an edition to be “published” between 150-190 CE? How many copies of a version of a collection would that include, and would it be seen as a special discrete version of a scripture yet, or would it be more like “the copy Zack made of the book Ismail had?”
Being “published” simply meant having a copy made and distributed to someone else.
The possibility has already been discussed here that maybe what Matthew “wrote” was what we now know as Q. It’s not clear to me that Matthew would have needed to be literate to be the source of Q. I can picture an elderly Matthew sitting down with a young scribe and reminiscing about all the things he’d heard Jesus say. It would be natural for the resulting document to resemble Q–a lot of rather disconnected sayings with no narrative framework. Anyway, that scenario sounds more plausible to me than a rumor arising about Matthew’s authorship for no reason whatsoever.
On a semi-related note, do you buy the theory that the author(s) of the Didache actually had a copy of Q and used it as their scripture?
No, I don’t think the Didachist(s) had Q.
A basic reason for rejecting the first Gospel as being written by the tax collector Matthew is that tax collectors ought to be able to count. If you read “Matthew’s” genealogy of Jesus he supposedly records 3 sets of 14 generations. But the numbers don’t add up! No matter how you try to slice it, he comes up either one short in one set, one too many in another. Some tax collector!
Hi Bart,
At some point, will you also go over why critical scholars believe that the original 4 gospels were written, when they were?
John
Explain a bit more what the question is?
Hi Bart,
Why do scholars believe that Mark was written roughly around 65CE and why do scholars believe that John, which comes from a separate tradition, was written later?
Thanks.
John
Ah, that would take a long post. In fact, I’ve devoted one to it: https://ehrmanblog.org/dates-of-the-gospels/ It may not give you all you want, but it’s a start.
Hi Bart,
Thanks for your response. This was exactly what I was looking for 🙂
In your comments on this subject on May 07 2012, you said, “There are solid reasons, that I won’t go into here, for thinking that Mark was the first Gospel to be written. ”
Is this topic covered in one of your Blog posts or perhaps in one of your books? For some time now I’ve been curious as to why scholars came to believe that Mark was first.
Thanks again.
John
I don’t think I’ve commented on this on the Blog. I’ll add it to my list of things to talk about!
I’m with you, but I can imagine some wondering if an illiterate Aramaic-speaking person could dictate what he wanted his text to be to an Aramaic-and-Greek-speaking scribe, who would write down the dictated text in Aramaic and then translate it into Greek writing. I can image you saying this is possible in theory, but where’s the evidence that this ever occurred in antiquity? Do you know of any?
I’ve looked for evidence of this kind of thing happening, and haven’t been able to find it.
I find the traditions that Luke was a travelling companion of Paul and Mark an interpreter of Peter quite odd. I have read many places that when Luke quotes Paul (or reproduces a speech) he usually has Paul say something quite different than we can find in Paul’s own letters. Besides, as you have pointed out, Luke/Acts does not have a Pauline idea of Jesus’ death as an atoning sacrifice, but that Mark does! I noted that James Tabor in his book on Paul and Jesus states that Mark is quite heavily in debt to Paul on his own perspective on Jesus’ death. I also saw that De Gruyter Press has recently published a 2 volume study on the influence of Paul on Mark’s Gospel: http://www.degruyter.com/viewbooktoc/product/206432
Strange how Paul shows little influence on Luke, yet a great deal on Mark, though Mark is believed to be the interpreter of Peter, and Luke of Paul. How is this possible?
Yes, it’s a very intriguing question! But sometimes one’s best advocates are not the best representatives of one’s views!
This comment may be entitled finding personal bias! I had for years “jumped to the conclusion” that a 1st century Tax Collector could not only count… but write – at least enough to record his collection activities as proof of his diligence to his .. treasurer. Guess that’s an ooops!
One thing is for sure: that Christian who first attributed that anonymous gospel to Matthew, the tax collector, wasn’t a Republican.
This is really a great series of posts and I like the logic you use step-by-step. It once again raises the issue of how people make stuff up and then that stuff is considered to be absolute truth. This seems to happen again and again.
Have you read Fabian Udoh’s “To Caesar what is Caesar’s: Tribute, Taxes and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine (63 B.C.E.-70 C.E.),” Dr. Ehrman?
In it, he discusses how Matthew the τελώνης (typically translated “tax collector”) was more specifically a “toll collector.” Now, Zacchaeus in Lk. 19:2 is described as a ἀρχιτελώνης (“chief toll collector”) and πλούσιος (“wealthy”), which means that Zacchaeus probably a higher level tax official (probably the wealthy man who bought the right to collect tolls).
But, Matthew is just a regular τελώνης (“toll collector”), and, as you note, is described in Mt 9:9 to be working at the τελώνιον (“toll booth”). This would cast Matthew in the lesser of these occupational roles.
Udoh also discusses how the collection of tolls in 1st century Galilee was leased out to Jewish contractors and agents, meaning that they almost certainly spoke Aramaic and used Aramaic for their records. The Gospel of Matthew, in contrast, was probably written in the Jewish Diaspora outside of Palestine (probably in Antioch), which is why it is Koine Greek.
I think it would be very likely for a low level toll collector to have authored this text half a century after he described (very briefly) to have met Jesus in Galilee. Makes much more sense that the text was misattributed to claim apostolic authorship and authority.
Sorry, typos:
“which is why it is *in* Koine Greek.”
“I *don’t* think it would be very likely for a low level toll collector to have authored this text half a century after he *is* described (very briefly) to have met Jesus in Galilee.”
I’m afraid I haven’t read it.
My best guess is that Q was originally believed to have been compiled by Matthew, and the Gospel of Matthew was attributed to Matthew because it was recognised to include that material (unlike Mark). I.e. It started off as being known as the Gospel that included the Matthean sayings (in order to distinguish it from Mark), but ended up being confused with the whole thing being composed by Matthew.
Matthew could not have read the Gospel of Mark written in Greek. Why would an eyewitness to the life of Jesus compose an account of his recollections of Jesus’ life by borrowing on a book he could not even read? The book was not in written form until 80-85 C.E., anyway.
In Matthew we have “Take and eat; this is my body. …Drink… this is my blood…” The key to understanding this metaphor is to consult Jewish scripture. Four keys open the door to understanding the metaphor: Leviticus 17: 10, Deuteronomy 28: 53-57, Jeremiah 19: 9, and Lamentations 4: 10.
Leviticus 17: 10
Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood—I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.
If Jesus made the metaphor, he was turning his disciples away from God’s face and separating them from God’s people.
Jeremiah 19: 9
I [the Lord Almighty] will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters and they will eat one another’s flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives.
Lamentations 4: 10
With their own hands compassionate women have cooked their own children who became their food *when my people were destroyed.*
Why would Jesus turn his disciples away from God when there was no siege, when the Jews were not being destroyed?
The Jews were under siege *and* were being destroyed in AD 70. This is when the Lord’s Last Supper historically took place; or, you can go with a supernatural explanation that Jesus prophesied the siege and the destruction. However, already, scholars have said, no, Jesus did not prophesy the destruction of the Temple: the gospels were written during or after the Revolt. Therefore, the Last Supper also was written in time when Jerusalem was sieged and destroyed by rebels and Romans, not in AD30 but 40 years later.
So, it is unlikely that a Matthew or a Levi from 30 C.E. recited for oral tradition or wrote the Last Supper segment of the Gospel of Matthew.
Dr. Ehrman, I do not believe your argument holds up to scrutiny: 1) Hellenists and 2) Matthew/Levi and his oral tradition.
We know there were Hellenists who were followers of Jesus. What? Four of them had Greek first names? Why couldn’t these four be the honor students of the 12 Disciples who hung out at Sepphoris? Who’s to say Jesus and his adopted father Joseph didn’t help on construction projects in Sephhoris before the gospel picks up Jesus’ life in his late 20s? People from “the country” can befriend intelligent people who can mentor them and cherish them. There are plenty of people who collect people.
Stephen which means king can be an indicator that the martyred Stephen was actually a Hellenist king. He would have had the means to preserve biographical information, sayings of Jesus, wonders of Jesus in writing. This king certainly would have been an acquaintance of other royals in Jerusalem or in nearby regions: Queen Helena, Prince Izates, his brothers, maybe his sisters; Queen Ourania of Auranitis and her family tree. Queen Ourania is related to Cleopatra’s bloodline because it appears Cleopatra and Julius Caesar had a daughter in addition to the son who was assassinated.
It is highly likely that while Jesus hung out with undesirables, he also hung out with the Hellenists who had begun to meet in their own groups and one was murdered for being a fan of Jesus. The New Testament gives an account of how a fan of Jesus “bothered” the disciples with questions until Jesus instructed a reply.
True, the Jerusalem church did not step in to stop the stoning of Stephen but Stephen was speaking the business of Hellenists (we don’t need the Temple) not the tenets of Jewish Christians.
As Jesus was a purist, Queen Helena and her son Prince Izaates were purists. The former took at least a 14 year vow in Judaism. The lives of Jesus, Queen Helena, and Prince Izaates crossed. In fact (in my book, The Greatest Bible Study in Historical Accuracy, 1st Edition), Jesus references Queen Helena’s husband, King Monobazus when he speaks of not storing earthly treasures where moths and thieves can get to them but store your treasures in heaven. Then how could Queen Helena turn her back on the mother of Jesus, in her sorrow, after Jesus’ crucifixion? Queen Helena would have come forth with sympathies, doing whatever she could to preserve the legacy of Jesus.
Second, according to Acts, the disciples surviving Jesus’ ascension continued to meet at the Temple. There was an oral tradition of the gospel preserved there. Matthew’s memories were given testimony by Matthew then.
I’m rereading these earlier posts on the various attributions. I recall that I had a question about this; but because I don’t doubt for a moment that you’re correct in saying “Matthew” didn’t write the Gospel, I didn’t ask my (rather silly) question. It’s still bugging me, though! So I’m going to ask it now.
If Matthew was sitting in a booth collecting taxes, he obviously received payments from more than one person. If he was illiterate, how could he keep track of who was paying him what sum, so he could pass the information (along with the money) on to his superior?
Let’s say he collected from twenty people. Ten owed the same amount; the others didn’t (if only because they owed back taxes – which they may or may not have been prepared to pay in their entirety). Five of the ten who owed the same amount didn’t have it all – and each one had a different portion of what he owed.
Matthew could surely keep the twenty payments separate. But how could he possibly keep track of who’d paid each of those sums, if neither he nor the taxpayers could write?
I think your question is really one of how *anyone* who was illiterate in the ancient world could be engaged in business. They had ways of coping, since business was done, and it was done without massive literacy. What his actual method would have been is anyone’s guess.
Dr. Ehrman,
Have we discovered any early gospel manuscripts without authorial attribution?
No we haven’t. The earliest manuscripts with titles are around 200 CE; earlier ones are too fragmentary and so don’t have the beginnings and ends .
Dr. Herman, Do you know the name or ID number of the “earliest” manuscripts found that had the name of the gospel in it (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
Thank you
I’m out of the country and away from my books, so maybe someone can correct me, but I believe Matthew, Mark, and Luke are first named in their titles in the fourth century in Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, but John is named in the beginning of the 3rd century (around 200 cE) in P66 and P75 (both of them known as “Bodmer Papyri”)
First: Dr. Herman, thank you very much for your respond and I hope that you are having a good holidays.
Second: I apologize for the following question; I have not been able to find previous responses from you in the internet about why we accept the authorship of the books of Plutarch if the early manuscripts of Plutarch did Not had his name? (Some of the scholars make use of this statement in order to counter-answer the issues of the gospel authorship).
So, My Question Is: Why we do accept Plutarch authorship and we do Not accept the gospel authorship of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, when neither one have the authors names in their manuscripts??
Third: I wish you, your family, and everyone in this group a healthy and successful year!
Thank you for your help!!
I’m not familiar with the manuscript tradition of Plutarch. Do they not attribute the Lives and Moralia to Plutarch?
It is said… if the gospels were not written by the apostles because their signatures do not appear in the manuscripts, then… why do we say that Plutarch wrote his manuscripts if his name does not appear?
I did a little more homework and I was lucky to find in “Michael Licona, “Fish Tales: Bart Ehrman’s Red Herrings and the Resurrection of Jesus” in Come Let Us Reason. Paul Copan and William Lane Craig Eds (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2012). 140.” the following:
(Webpage: http://christianworldviewpress.com/are-the-gospels-anonymous/) …………… Sorry for the long link.
THE TEXT: “It was not unusual for ancient authors to leave their names out of their works. Plutarch was a Greek author who penned more than 50 biographies during the late first to early second centuries. Plutarch’s name is absent from all of them. It is the tradition that has been passed down through the centuries that gives us information pertaining to who wrote these biographies. And no one questions that Plutarch is the author.”
QUESTION: Why is the authorship of the Gospels in doubt; however, people accept the authorship of Plutarch when his name is absent from all documents?
I much appreciate you help and educational instruction.
My sense is that lots of ancient texts are questioned as to authorship. On Plutarch: does Licona give you the names and dates of the manuscripts so that we can check to see whether Plutarch’s name occurs on them? What is his basis for saying that Plutarch’s name is absent? I really don’t know, but if he doesn’t give a footnote with the information, how do we know if he knows? These are genuine questions.
Dr. Bart,
One of your question above is;… “Does Licona give you the names and dates of the manuscripts so that we can check to see whether Plutarch’s name occurs on them?”
Dr. Licona provided me the following information;… “Plutarch’s Lives is represented by the letter “U” and is named Vaticanus 138 veteris manus saec. It is dated to the X/XI century”
Let’s make the assumption that all earliest Plutarch’s writings do not have Plutarch’s name in them. Then; should we accept Plutarch as author of his writing? And if we do, then why we do not accept the gospel’s authors (Mark, Mathew, Luke, and John)?
I am trying to understand this predicament and your help is much appreciated
Thank you!!
As I imagine Licona knows, but most people don’t, there are scholars who have devoted their entire lives to the study of Plutarch, and they establish the authenticity of the writings ascribed to him on very detailed and technical analyses of his works. Licona himself, of course, has no training in this field.
Bart could you please comment on following:
If I understood studies of the relationship between qutations from apostolic fathers and canonical Gospels, it can not be shown that they really had in hands our gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) because a) they don’t say ‘this is from the Gospel of Mark”…and then quote…. and b) when one starts to really compare those passages from Apostolic fathers in greek where they allegedly quote canonical gospels with our Matthew, Mark, Luke and Johne, one finds big differences in vocabulary, construction of sentence etc. In another words, there aren’t any verbatim quotations.
Did I get it right or? And If I did, does that mean that they are actually quoting some oral or maybe written sources that were floating around in those years?
Thanks!
AS it turns out, scholars have heated disagreements on just this point. Did (some of) the apostolic fathers have access to the actual written texts of our Gospels or not? My view is … I’m not sure!
I m sorry if I m being to boring but I have one more rather peculiar question. Why scholars tend to think that Matthew was written in Greek instead of saying that it’s a translation from (for example) aramaic? Could you cite an argument or two? Thanks!
For one thing, we have it only in Greek copies (none in Aramaic). For another, it agrees word for word with Mark, which served as its source. Since Mark, the source, is in Greek, so too with the book based on Mark. Had to be in Greek. (Otherwise you wouldn’t get word for word agreements)
Dr. Ehrman,
My understanding is that Eusebius quotes Papias who repeats what John the Elder notes from his time with the Disciples (is that right?) with the passage that relays that Matthew was in written in a Hebrew dialect (presumably Aramaic). A lot of ways in which what was originally said can get distorted in this telephone game from Antiquity. That said, whatever first century writing (named Matthew or something else) that John the Elder spoke of to Papias, is it possible this is the Q-source from which the synoptic gospels are based off of?
Also, what are your thoughts on the Gospel of Thomas being a translation or edited version of what John the Elder was referring to?
Close. Papias is repeating what those who were disciples of the apostles said. It’s not clear how John the Elder fits int that sequence. Eusebius, who repeates the material took Papias to say that he was a different person from John the apostle. In any event, it’s *possible* that Papias had something like our Q in mind, but if so he would be wrong to say it was cmomposed in Aramaic.
Dear Dr. Ehrman,
I couldn’t find this elsewhere on the blog, so thought this could be the best place to ask: What is your “solve” so-to-speak about the tax collector Levi in Mk 2:14/Lk 5:27 vs. Matthew in Mt. 9:9 (or James in some MSS)? Are Levi & Matthew (and James) different names for the same person, or is this just a simple contradiction?
Thank you for your time! 😀
– Rob
My view is that Matthew simply changed the name, possibly because he had heard a similar story with a different character. I don’t think the person in the story actually had two names. People didn’t back then, unless they had a nickname.
Dr. Ehrman,
Sorry I am hitting you up with so many questions about the authorship of Matthew! I have been doing a deep dive into the authorship of the gospels and you’re the best source for this stuff! 🙂 But I have a few more:
I have been reading a lot of Daniel Wallace, and he makes several claims I would love to hear you address.
1. He, and many others, emphatically claim that tax collectors would have been literate (and that there is no reason to believe Matthew would have been a low-level tax collector; and even if he was, he would have most certainly been literate) – See Robert Gundry’s, B. Ward Powers. and so on. They even argue he would have known both Aramaic and Greek. If there is no evidence, why do they believe this?
2. Daniel Wallace argues that there is a lot of internal evidence for Matthew being the author (e.g., unique and frequent use of money and numbers, familiarity with the Jewish world, OT, and semitsms. Depreciation of Matthew in subtle ways (tax-collector, following Jesus as opposed to “leaving everything to follow Jesus” in other accounts, etc.). What is your response to this?
1. Once more, I’m afraid they need to do a bit more research. “Tax Collectors” is a category that covers everyone from the elite owners of the tax collecting corporations who won the bids from the Roman authorities to the guy who banged on your door demanding your denarii or he’ll bust your knee caps. (I’m speaking roughly here. 🙂 ) To imagine there was ONE thing that was a “tax collector” is like saying there is ONE thing that is a teacher, and that therefore Sunday school teachers must be well trained in ancient Greek. 2. Yeah, he’s just making that stuff up. I by the way, talk a lot about money and I can assure you, it doesn’t make me an employee of the IRS.
Dr. Ehrman,
A couple of more questions for the night regarding the authorship of Matthew:
1. Daniel Wallace argues that, at best, the author seems to be Jewish because of his familiarity with the OT, Jewish teachings, words, semitsms, and so on. He argues that if a non-Jew wrote this, they would have had to have help from someone who was a Jew and who knew the law and the customs very well (something a Gentile/Greek/Roman would have not). What are your thoughts?
2. Even if Irenaeus’ source/tradition was incorrect, why would anybody claim Matthew wrote the gospel? Out of everybody, Matthew seems to be an unlikely pick. He wasn’t well known, and certainly not a “big-name” apostle. Moreover, none of them had the stigma of having been in league with the Romans. I mean, if I am going to try and push the authority of this gospel by saying it was written by an apostle, why choose Matthew? This puzzles me because it wouldn’t make sense to claim Matthew wrote Matthew (and pass on that tradition) unless you were certain. Maybe I am missing something? But this does seem to be a good point. Your thoughts?
As always, thanks!
1. Really? OK then. What a strange argument. I think part of the problem is that scholars who say things like that have studied the New Testament but are not widely aware of the broader literature of Christianity. Does someone want to argue that the authors of 1 Clement or the Epistle of Barnabas must be Jewish because they are intimately familiar with the OT, in incredible detail, including the Jewish laws? Or that Mark has to be a Jew because he uses semiticisms (quoting Aramaic far more than Matthew, even though he clearly is uninformed about Jewish “laws” of handwashing, etd.)? I have no trouble imagining Matthew was Jewish, but for these reasons? Would someone argue that the recipients of 1 Corinthians must be Jewish because Paul presupposes their deep knowledge of subtle interpretations of Scripture (such as the rock in the wildernness)? Ai ya yai.
2. I’ve heard that argument before and it’s always struck me as odd. In what sense was Matthew not well known? He was, uh, one of the twelve disciples. How well-known can a person be? Is the argument that unless someone was named Peter or John they wouldn’t have a Gospel ascribed to them? Then why were Gospels ascribed to Mark and Luke (who were not even earthly followers of Jesus)? More than that — way more than that — why were Gospels ascribed to Philip, Bartholomew, Barnabas, Nicodemus, Judas Didymus Thomas, Abgar, etc…?? You pick Matthew because you pick one of the twelve, one who was explicitly hand-picked by Jesus to accompany him during his mission.
Dr. Ehrman,
1. In regard to tax collectors and literacy rates; from my understanding, you are saying that scholars are making a categorical error in assuming that since some tax collectors (and the higher-ups) were literate, then *all* must have been. In other words, since it’s such a broad category, one cannot assume that all were literate. Is that correct?
2. If so, then, for argument’s sake, how do we know Matthew was not one of the educated tax collectors? Since we have little to no evidence to go off, could it not be the case that he could have been a “higher-up,” or, if not a higher-up, couldn’t he at least be one of the ones who was educated and literate? In other words, wouldn’t this be one of those “we just don’t know either way” scenarios? Or, is there reason to believe that Matthew wouldn’t have been educated?
3. Why do scholars like Gundry and Wallace believe and teach so emphatically that Matthew *was* educated and not lower class? Do they have any reasons? Alternatively, why do you believe Matthew would have been lower class?
1. Yup. 2 We don’t. The argument that I’m refuting is that he *probably* was literate. Why not say “some Jews were literate and since he’s a Jew, he was probably literate.” Or “engineers design skyscrapers and he’s an engineer, so he designs skyscrapers” 3. Because they have always believed and always will believe that he wrote the Gospel, and so he has to be literate.
As to Matthew, we have zero information about him, apart from the passage in Matthew 9. Read if for yourself. Does it tell you anything about his prior life? Or is there a single thing in the passage that would make you think the author is talking about himself?
Dr. Ehrman,
In regards to authorship,
1. I’ve heard it argued that when ancient writers were speaking of themselves, they often used a construction as if speaking of another (e.g., Caesar, Josephus, Xenophon). What’s your thoughts?
2. What specific portions of Mark does Matthew copy word for word? Could it be the case he copied some things word-for-word from Mark because he was including something he wasn’t a witness to?
1. If you actually look at these instances, they are nothing like Matthew 9. 2. Get a Gospels Parallel (maybe the one by Kurt Aland, Synopsis of the Four Gospels) and see for yourself. It’s estensive, and involves lots of passages that the disciples would have been present for .
Dr. Ehrman,
I heard someone make this argument below and I was curious to hear your thoughts. He said:
“Even if one anonymous gospel could have been written and circulated and then somehow miraculously attributed by the same person by Christians living in Rome, Africa, Italy, and Syria, am I really supposed to believe that the same thing happened not once, not twice, but with four different books, over and over again, throughout the known world? How did unknown scribes who added the titles know whom to ascribe the books to? How did they communicate so that all the copies ended up with the same titles circulating around the Roman empire where as before they were without a title for almost a hundred years but somehow at some time be attributed to precisely the same author by scribes throughout the empire and yet leave zero trace of disagreement in any manuscripts?”
Is it true scribes we’re independently attributing authorship as this quote assumes?
Yes, these are good questions. But it’s clearly not asked in a way soliciting an answer but slanted in a way to make you think the whole situation would be ridiculous if true. I lay out the plausible historical scenario in my book Jesus Before the Gospels, where I show that before the end of the second century the Gospels were never nemaed; when they are, they are attributed to the same four persons by two sources — one of them widely read — connected with the city of Rome. (Muratorian Fragment and Ireaneaus). Justin, 30 years earlier, also in Rome, does not appear to know the names. My hypothesis — one could think of others, possibly many others) is that an edition widely circulatyed in Rome in the years after Justin provided ascriptions to these four authors; that ms was copied and widely put into circulation. No other names had ever been proposed, and no one saw any reason not to accept these names. (One piece of evidence — a very compelling one — that the titles were not “original” to the texts is that they were simply called “According to Matthew,” “According to Mark” etc. — that is, they were given “titles” that weren’t really titles. They were *ascriptions* so readers would know which version this wass. That was necessary as soon as they aree all collected together into a single manuscript so you would know which account you were reading. There being no alternative ascriptions, these spread far and wide so withint decades/centureies, they became widly accepted, much as later Herews came to ba accepted as Paul’s even though it makes no such claim, and Revelatino to be by John the son of Zebedee even though, again, it doesn’t make that claim (the guy’s name is just John)
Dr. Ehrman,
In reality, then, these were not popping up as independent sources from different streams, but were probably all coming from the same source(s) (Muratorian Fragment and Ireaneaus; who probably got his wrong assumption about Matthew and Mark from the misinformation from Papias)?
In other words, if I made a claim and others heard it and repeated it, others repeated it, and so on, it really all came from me; not a bunch of independent sources? I am assuming this is why all the Gospels have the scribal titles. Because they were just copying from the same earlier sources?
Just because it is a tradition doesn’t make it a true tradition.
Are there any parallels of non-canonical/pseudepigrapha writings (such as the Gospel of Peter) that can be shown where virtually all people attributed the same authorship and that has the same scribal attestation? If so, this would demonstrate that this is not a good argument for evangelists to use! At best, it would show how selective they are with it.
It is definitely a tradition. But yes, since it doesn’t occur before the end of the second century as known in two sources connected to Rome, and even earlier Roman sources don’t know of it, let alone anyone else, it seems unlikely to me to be historical. And yes, the Gospel of Peter is attributed to no one but Peter — and strikingly, unlike the NT Gospels, it’s author actually *claims* to be Peter….
Dr. Ehrman,
In re: to Xenophon, Caesar, Josephus, and others, from the little I know, would it be fair to say those authors were either self identified in other passages (something the author of Matthew never did) or there was corroborating evidence and multuple attestation for authorship (something the authorship of Matthew does not have)?
In those cases there are highly detailed discussions of what the person did, was thinking, and so on; the authorship is quite transparent. Just read the Gallic Wars or the Anabasis and you’ll see. They are nothing like Matthew (in regard to the author’s relationship to the character)
Would Jesus himself (having come from the countryside) have understood the nature of the Pharisees so well that he knew of their hypocrisy, or was it Matthew who understood (or felt that way) and wrote as if Jesus had such understanding?
It’s often thought that the polemic aginast Pharisees in Matthew comes from Matthew, based on his own community’s controversies not from Jesus himself)