Who was the author of Matthew?

[jd01]

Who was the author of Matthew? There is almost no information on him.

[TRANSPONDER]

Ok Tam. That would not be enough for me to conclude that "John"... edited it heavily to add his own preaching and arguments put into Jesus' mouth. Maybe "John" has the most detail because he was an eyewitness to most of these accounts. Or for whatever reason, maybe he remembers more clearly and in more detail. Perhaps because - as promised - he was reminded in the spirit of what Christ said and did. A non-believer is unlikely to accept that last part, but since my Lord has done the same with me, I cannot discount it.

The point is - what you have is a question, not evidence that "John" made stuff up. That question being, "why are there things in 'John' that are not recorded in the other three gospels'.

So "John" wrote a more detailed account. I am sorry, but that is not evidence that "john" made stuff up."

That won't do. My argument is that John includes stuff that the synoptics don't have - the sermons and rows with the 'Jews; the raising of Lazarus. This is important stuff and you need a good reason why they didn't even hint at it. John was supposedly an eyewitness or using an eyewitness account. But so were the other gospels. Mathew was supposed to be eyewitness (but demonstrably isn't) and Mark and Luke supposedly talked to people who were eyewitnesses. So how to explain the omission of important theological speeches and the raising of Lazarus? They forgot, is your argument? Mine has always been that it is not a credible explanation to claim that all three eyewitnesses forgot it. Not even a hint or mention of it. So even if John was magically reminded of something the others had forgotten, that won't do for really important things. It works the other way. John apparently has never heard a single parable, nor does he know about the transfiguration. If this is John son of Zebedee, he was supposed to be there.

This is just a few items of contradiction, discrepancy and omission in the gospels and the usual excuses won't wash anymore, if they ever did.

This assumes you know what motivated them all. The only person who tells us his motivation is Luke - he was writing an orderly account of things that happened for a specific person. And Luke states himself that he was not an eyewitness.

It is as plain as a pikestaff what motivated them - to tell everyone about what Jesus did, said and taught, plus the 'signs' that showed who he was. It makes no sense that they leftout important teachings, and doings or to suggest that they didn't know or had forgotten.

"It is one thing to be willing to die yourself, for your faith. Quite another thing to be willing to put someone else in the spotlight so that they can die for their faith."
Ok, so you argue that the synoptics didn't mention that stunning miracle because it might draw attention to Lazarus. But the Sanhedrin were already well aware of it and the dangers. John 11.45-8. There was nothing to hide anymore. And of course that doesn't stop the synoptics pointing up other people involved in miracles. This is without even the evidence that the reason for discrepancies is fiddlement, addition and alteration and not eyewitness discrepancy, forgetfulness or not thinking a resurrection or transfiguration important enough to mention.

1 - Are you suggesting the Septuagint was not known by the Jews of that time?
2 - What is the issue? Because the Septuagint says 'praise' and the Masoratic text says 'strength'? What do you think the strength is here from the mouths of babes and sucklings, if not praise?

Whether the Septuagint was known to Jesus or not, (It is a supposed specific Jesus quote we are talking about here), he would know the Hebrew and know the Septuagint was wrong and would not quote it. Could not. Can you imagine what the Sadducees would say if Jesus misquoted the Scripture to them based on a Greek translation? The context is quite different. Praise' comes from an enemy. In Matthew it is from a chorus of schoolkids (1). The original Script implies military strength to defend against enemies, even from Babes and infants' mouths. The Septuagint turns that into an enemy somehow praising their enemy in a way not quite clear, but Matthew misrepresents even that to have kiddies praising someone, which turns out to be a prophecy of Jesus. But, like all these 'prophecies' is not related to Jesus at all. On top of that nobody but Matthew reports that. Matthew invented it and it is far from the last time he invents stuff.
(1) a bunch if inexplicable kiddies, invented (as not uncommon) by Matthew as a fulfilment of some mistranslated Prophecy he'd dredged out of the OT.

(Trans)Matthew did not read Hebrew nor understand the OT, but brought his own Greek Christian views,

(Tam) How can something written in the Septuagint be a Greek Christian view if it was written well before Christians came on the scene?

It isn't, that's the point. These "prophecies" have to be fiddled, altered and misrepresented to make them Christian prophecies.

(Trans)Yes, King of the Jews is agreed by them all. The crucifixion for (effectively) rebellion of a Jewish pretender (failed messiah) is what we have there and Matthew having Herod see that as a being to be 'worshipped' and prophecied in scripture is very much the Christian view, not the Jewish.
{Tam}Since King of the Jews is agreed by them all, it cannot be used to suggest that Matthew was not Jewish.

Yes it can. You are using one argument to apply to a totally different one. "King of the Jews" is common to all four, original part of the story, and I suspect, true. But that it was misunderstood in a particularly Christian way where 'King of the Jews' (or Messiah/Christ) pretty much meant a divine being to be worshipped by mortals. This particular Christian view (which is shared by all the writers in that absurd 'Blasphemy' charge) (1) and Matthew shows his hand in a particular way by talking of going to worship this king, and rushing to scripture to find out about him.

And again, the Jewish view is not as united as you are making it appear, not then (or before then) or now. Are you suggesting that there were never any Jewish Christians, never Jews who followed Jaheshua? No Jewish disciples or apostles? Perhaps you are suggesting that there was no such Jewish person as Jaheshua (the one also called 'the Christ' or 'the Messiah')?

Not at the time Jesus was crucified. I'm saying the ideas (not to mention the prophecies) would not have worked or made sense in Jesus time. They would know that 'Messiah' was not a divine title, and they would know that Babes and sucklings praising Jesus was not what their scripture prophwecies, even if they knew the Greek translation had got it wrong.

(1) it would be like someone claiming to be king of America. You'd laugh at him, but you wouldn't try him for Blasphemy, not until in the future 2000 years an American Theocracy had made the lifetime president a king.

[TRANSPONDER]

Let's start a fresreply to wrap this response up

We see it again in the Blasphemy charge nonsense. Messiah did not claim to be a divine being pretty much identical with God. That would only be the view of Greek, Paulinist, Christians.
Yeah, because religious people never utter nonsense, right?

They utter it all the time, Tammy but the point here is that the interpretation of 'Messiah' and 'Son of God' as Blasphemy is not an understanding that the Jews of the time would have had (or so I gather from reading experts). This identification with a divine being was something that only (Later) Christians had. Upshot is that the Sanhedrin could not have come up with this charge, but it has to be invented by later Christian writers, even though it is basic to the original story. Matthew's nativity isn't it is an individual error, but still reflect the Christian view that is basic to the whole NT and which makes it not possible (in great part) as a reliable account of what was said and done.

I disagree that Matthew did not 'have it in' for the Jews as a whole. They all did. John has Jesus slamming and damning all the Jews,

(Tam) Well except of course for all the Jews He healed, that He had compassion upon, that He taught and fed, forgave and showed mercy toward, and of course except for His disciples (Jews and Samaritans <- both of whom were physical Israel), the apostles (who were all Jews), Mary, Martha (Jews)... all those He asked forgiveness for on the cross...

Right?

**

Question?

Observation, rather. Apart from the marked partiality of Jesus towards Gentiles (reflecting the Pauline view that Gentiles were more worthy to be God's people than the Jews were) Jesus was friendly, even loving, with the Jews around him. I think this was a question for the early Christians - why did Jesus go to the Jews at all? It was pretty much part of the plan that the Jews would reject Jesus and he would be killed. Judas and the Sanhedrin were the mechanics of God's plan while Peter and Pilate were trying to stop it. Matthew sees that well enough when he slaps Peter down for saying that Jesus should not die. Matthew may not have known Hebrew but he knew Christian theology.

This explains a thing that always puzzled me. the ambivalent representation of the disciples. They may have been his chosen companions, but they were weak, stupid and let him down, particularly Peter. His own family, his mother, were shown as being worth less than his followers. If Christians wrote this, it would explain why they were shown in this manner.

( Tam)Do you suppose the prophets (at least some of whom were Jews) were also anti-Semitic (which appears to be what you are suggesting of the gospel writers)? Because the prophets speak some pretty harsh words for Jerusalem (and Samaria). Such as likening them to Oholah and Oholibah (both lewd women, adulteresses, prostitutes, unfaithful). What in the NT is out of character from the descriptions in the OT?

(Trans) Luke changed Paul's account of escaping the Nabatean army approaching Damascus to escaping a plot by the Jews to kill him because he was a Christian. True, it is mainly the 'teachers of the law' who are the targets, but the synoptics are fine with sending all the Jews to Hell,


Now that is just not true. Not unless you understand that hell simply means sheol/world of the dead, where the dead go to await the resurrection OF the dead (and even then, that would not mean all Jews, because those Jews who are also in Christ go under the altar to await the first resurrection.) And Paul even says outright that all Israel will be saved, that they are loved on account of the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob).

Isn't it interesting that you seem to give more credence to a religious interpretation (an erroneous one at that), than I do?

A good question. Now Paul was in no doubt that the OT provided many quotes (or misquotes) that showed that God had turned his back on the Jews and made 'a people that are not my people' his people. The attitude was there even amongst non - Christians. But that didn't mean anti semitic, because neither Paul nor the OT prophets saw Jews being damned and their Children for ever while the Gentiles would be saved. The OT was wanting to see backsliders punished to bring them back to God, not damned forever, and the whole of Jewry with them, because they killed God. But that is what we see in Matthew.

As to Hell, if you reject the notion of Hell (eternal torment after death) I agree with you Now, I can't be sure whether the Gospel -writers thought in terms of a refuse -tip for the resurrected unworthy after the Last Trump (1) or Eternal Torment after death. But clear damnation one way or the others for the Jews because they called for Jesus' death is what Matthew wrote. As to whether Hell is wrong or not, take it up with the churches, not me.

And finally (my God, we can't say you shortchange us)

(Trans)even to having Jesus talk in parables so they would not understand and possibly be saved. The writers wanted to see the Jews damned, and Christians saw to it that they were if they did not convert (and didn't like them much even if they did), and this persecution is not vanished even today. Nice job Christians.
{Tam) That was religion, and the people who belonged to it (people who may have claimed to be Christian, though that does not mean that they WERE Christian). That wasn't anyone listening to Christ or following Him. Who did He force to believe in Him? Who did He kill or torture or persecute if they did not 'convert'? As I recall, He asked forgiveness for the people who did these things TO Him: "Father forgive them, they know not what they do"... and that is recorded in the gospels... He also said 'forgive and you will be forgiven'... and that is recorded in the gospels. He also said "BLESS those who curse you, do good to those who persecute you, love your enemies that you may be sons of your father in heaven "... and that is recorded in the gospels.

Nobody was Christian in Jesus' day and (assuming fsoa the gospel as true) Some of the gospels imply that the Jews were already earmarked to not be saved - they did not listen because God had made it so they couldnoty understand. They were pre -dammed for what ever damning followed death or the Last Days (whichever doctrine you pick)

You can't look at the religion that calls itself "Christian" or "Christianity" and expect it to show you who Christ is and what He was about. That religion is not from Him and does not know Him. The proof is there in the history books, a history that commits and even orders acts that are in direct contradiction with the commands of Christ. It's also there in the teachings - but they also teach a little truth to 'gloss over' the falsehood (because how else to mislead those who are seeking truth)?

Sorry, Tam, you will have to take it up with those Other Christians. I am not to blame for the DMC (Doctrinal Mainstream of the Church.)
(1) or let us hope it's the last.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Ok Tam. That would not be enough for me to conclude that "John"... edited it heavily to add his own preaching and arguments put into Jesus' mouth. Maybe "John" has the most detail because he was an eyewitness to most of these accounts. Or for whatever reason, maybe he remembers more clearly and in more detail. Perhaps because - as promised - he was reminded in the spirit of what Christ said and did. A non-believer is unlikely to accept that last part, but since my Lord has done the same with me, I cannot discount it.

The point is - what you have is a question, not evidence that "John" made stuff up. That question being, "why are there things in 'John' that are not recorded in the other three gospels'.

So "John" wrote a more detailed account. I am sorry, but that is not evidence that "john" made stuff up."

That won't do. My argument is that John includes stuff that the synoptics don't have - the sermons and rows with the 'Jews; the raising of Lazarus. This is important stuff and you need a good reason why they didn't even hint at it.

But since you don't know the reason - good or bad, you cannot logically conclude that they had no good reason.

John was supposedly an eyewitness or using an eyewitness account. But so were the other gospels. Mathew was supposed to be eyewitness (but demonstrably isn't) and Mark and Luke supposedly talked to people who were eyewitnesses.

I don't like to make assumptions (and I don't care much about tradition).

The author of John claims to be an eyewitness (the disciple Christ loved), and this has been confirmed to me as Lazarus, so I accept that. There is also no evidence refuting it. Lazarus is a Jew.
The author of Luke states upfront that he is not an eyewitness, but instead investigated things and wrote an orderly account for a single person, based on testimonies handed down from those who were eyewitnesses.
The author of Mark makes no statement about himself (I can accept that this is Peter's son, Mark, but am open to being corrected - with actual evidence, not just conjecture).
The author of Matthew makes no statement about himself (tradition states Levi/Matthew... and that might be correct... but I do not know, myself).

So how to explain the omission of important theological speeches and the raising of Lazarus? They forgot, is your argument?

I have suggested multiple reasons - the point of which is to show you that more than just the reason you give exists - but never suggested that they forgot about the raising of Lazarus. As for forgetting some details, what man doesn't forget details? I don't know how many times I write something, and then later remember something that I should have included, but did not at the time.

Mine has always been that it is not a credible explanation to claim that all three eyewitnesses forgot it. Not even a hint or mention of it. So even if John was magically reminded of something the others had forgotten, that won't do for really important things. It works the other way. John apparently has never heard a single parable, nor does he know about the transfiguration. If this is John son of Zebedee, he was supposed to be there.

Really important things like what specifically? And if the author of "John" wrote his account as late as many scholars suggest, then he would have known the other accounts were already out there in the mix. What would be the point in covering all that stuff again, especially considering that he said at the end of the book that Christ did more than just these things.

(and the author of "John" wasn't John, son of Zebedee)

This assumes you know what motivated them all. The only person who tells us his motivation is Luke - he was writing an orderly account of things that happened for a specific person. And Luke states himself that he was not an eyewitness.

It is as plain as a pikestaff what motivated them - to tell everyone about what Jesus did, said and taught, plus the 'signs' that showed who he was. It makes no sense that they leftout important teachings, and doings or to suggest that they didn't know or had forgotten.

Well then they accomplished what motivated them with the accounts that we have.

(What important teachings are you referring to specifically?)

"It is one thing to be willing to die yourself, for your faith. Quite another thing to be willing to put someone else in the spotlight so that they can die for their faith."
Ok, so you argue that the synoptics didn't mention that stunning miracle because it might draw attention to Lazarus. But the Sanhedrin were already well aware of it and the dangers. John 11.45-8. There was nothing to hide anymore.

Lazarus might have fallen off the radar at the point that others wrote their gospels. Regardless, it may simply have been regarded as his story to tell. If you look for a nefarious reason, you'll probably find one, but that doesn't mean a nefarious reason actually exists.

1 - Are you suggesting the Septuagint was not known by the Jews of that time?
2 - What is the issue? Because the Septuagint says 'praise' and the Masoratic text says 'strength'? What do you think the strength is here from the mouths of babes and sucklings, if not praise?

Whether the Septuagint was known to Jesus or not, (It is a supposed specific Jesus quote we are talking about here), he would know the Hebrew and know the Septuagint was wrong and would not quote it.

What if it is not wrong? If it is saying the same thing, then what makes it wrong?

Could not. Can you imagine what the Sadducees would say if Jesus misquoted the Scripture to them based on a Greek translation? The context is quite different. Praise' comes from an enemy. In Matthew it is from a chorus of schoolkids (1).

I don't see that praise comes from an enemy in either text:

Translation from the Masoratic: Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings You have established strength because of Your adversaries, in order to put an end to enemy and avenger.

Translation from the Septuagint: Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou perfected praise, because of thine enemies; that thou mightest put down the enemy and avenger.

When I was trying to figure out what you were referring to, I found this on stackexchange:

Ordained strength . . .—At the first glance, the LXX. translation, as quoted in Matthew 21:16 (see Note, New Testament Commentary), “Thou hast perfected praise,” seems to be correct, from a comparison with Psalm 29:1, where strength translates the same Hebrew word, and plainly means homage. This expresses, doubtless, part of the thought of the poet, that in a child’s simple and innocent wonder lies the truest worship; that God accomplishes the greatest things and reveals His glory by means of the weakest instruments—a thought which was seized upon by our Lord to condemn the want of spirituality in the scribes and Pharisees. But the context, speaking the language of war, seems to demand the primitive meaning, stronghold or defence. The truth which the Bible proclaims of the innate divinity of man, his essential likeness to God, is the principal subject of the poet; and in the princely heart of innocence of an unspoilt child he sees, as Wordsworth saw, its confirmation. “Trailing clouds of glory do we come, From God who is our home.” Such a proof is strong even against the noisy clamour of apostate men, who rebel against the Divine government, and lay upon God the blame of their aberration from His order. “His merry babbling mouth provides a defence of the Creator against all the calumnies of the foe” (Ewald). Others think rather of the faculty of speech, and the wonder and glory of it.

Benson and Barnes offer a similar explanation.

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/ ... e-psalm-82

The original Script implies military strength to defend against enemies, even from Babes and infants' mouths.

Well now that is an interpretation, and there are always various and conflicting interpretations out there. How do you know which one is correct?

The Septuagint turns that into an enemy somehow praising their enemy in a way not quite clear,

I don't see that at all. Praise from the mouths of infants and babes is putting to shame/defeating the enemy.

but Matthew misrepresents even that to have kiddies praising someone, which turns out to be a prophecy of Jesus. But, like all these 'prophecies' is not related to Jesus at all.

I responded to that earlier:

Not sure how that's a misread, but I do know that some things can also be prophecy, even if they don't appear that way at first glance. Remember that Christ had to open the apostles' minds to understand the scriptures. Sometimes I have not seen the connection either... BUT... my Lord has opened my mind to see something written in the OT that I had no idea was applying to Him. Not until He showed it to me.

But children were praising Christ (which means they were also praising His Father), and the enemies were the chief priests, Pharisees, etc.

On top of that nobody but Matthew reports that. Matthew invented it and it is far from the last time he invents stuff.

The only fact in this statement is in the bold (assuming there are no other reports not included in the bible, that did report it).

So if no one but Matthew reported it, that leaves the question of 'why'? You have suggested one possibility, but that is certainly not the only possibility (personal choice, audience, did not witness the event oneself/or interview a person who heard that account, mistaken memory, did not realize this was from something written, etc. Even the disciple Christ loved said that there were many other things that Christ had said and written, that could not possibly all be recorded). Unless you knew that was his reason, for sure, I don't know how you can make such a definitive statement.

(1) a bunch if inexplicable kiddies, invented (as not uncommon) by Matthew as a fulfilment of some mistranslated Prophecy he'd dredged out of the OT.

I don't think it is all that inexplicable for there to be a bunch of kiddies singing praises to Christ. People would bring their children to be blessed by Him, and he was gentle and kind to them.

(Trans)Matthew did not read Hebrew nor understand the OT, but brought his own Greek Christian views,

(Tam) How can something written in the Septuagint be a Greek Christian view if it was written well before Christians came on the scene?

It isn't, that's the point. These "prophecies" have to be fiddled, altered and misrepresented to make them Christian prophecies.

But the Septuagint was written before Christians could have misrepresented it.

Is the issue here that you think Matthew honed in on a verse that said 'the virgin would give birth to a child' (in the Septuagint) because Mary was a virgin who had given birth to a child? Or are you suggesting that he just made everything up?

(Trans)Yes, King of the Jews is agreed by them all. The crucifixion for (effectively) rebellion of a Jewish pretender (failed messiah) is what we have there and Matthew having Herod see that as a being to be 'worshipped' and prophecied in scripture is very much the Christian view, not the Jewish.
{Tam}Since King of the Jews is agreed by them all, it cannot be used to suggest that Matthew was not Jewish.

Yes it can. You are using one argument to apply to a totally different one. "King of the Jews" is common to all four, original part of the story, and I suspect, true. But that it was misunderstood in a particularly Christian way where 'King of the Jews' (or Messiah/Christ) pretty much meant a divine being to be worshipped by mortals. This particular Christian view (which is shared by all the writers in that absurd 'Blasphemy' charge) (1) and Matthew shows his hand in a particular way by talking of going to worship this king, and rushing to scripture to find out about him.

And again, the Jewish view is not as united as you are making it appear, not then (or before then) or now. Are you suggesting that there were never any Jewish Christians, never Jews who followed Jaheshua? No Jewish disciples or apostles? Perhaps you are suggesting that there was no such Jewish person as Jaheshua (the one also called 'the Christ' or 'the Messiah')?

Not at the time Jesus was crucified.

There were no Jewish Christians at the time Jaheshua was crucified, that is true, because He had yet to anoint anyone with holy spirit (the thing that makes a person a Christian... aka... an anointed one). But I am surprised to hear you say that there were no Jews who followed Him before that time; no Jewish disciples or apostles. That would mean the entire story is fictional, and that is one great big (modern) conspiracy theory, based only upon conjecture, opinion, interpretation.

I'm saying the ideas (not to mention the prophecies) would not have worked or made sense in Jesus time. They would know that 'Messiah' was not a divine title,

Messiah means Chosen One of JAH. It does not mean that the Chosen One IS JAH.

That being said, just because some - even many - did not understand something, does not mean that it is not true. Same today as in days long past.


Peace again to you!

[tam]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #52]

I just want to quickly say thank you for your good-natured response through our exchange. I appreciated the emojies : )

(and Difflugia, I did not forget your post, just not enough time... but thank you also for taking the time to respond)


Peace again to you and to you all!

[Difflugia]

(and Difflugia, I did not forget your post, just not enough time... but thank you also for taking the time to respond)

It's not like I'm not guilty of the same thing, so I've little room to complain.

[TRANSPONDER]

Re: Who was the author of Matthew?
Post #53
Post by tam » Thu Sep 08, 2022 11:32 pm

Peace to you,
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 3:40 pm
Ok Tam. That would not be enough for me to conclude that "John"... edited it heavily to add his own preaching and arguments put into Jesus' mouth. Maybe "John" has the most detail because he was an eyewitness to most of these accounts. Or for whatever reason, maybe he remembers more clearly and in more detail. Perhaps because - as promised - he was reminded in the spirit of what Christ said and did. A non-believer is unlikely to accept that last part, but since my Lord has done the same with me, I cannot discount it.

The point is - what you have is a question, not evidence that "John" made stuff up. That question being, "why are there things in 'John' that are not recorded in the other three gospels'.

So "John" wrote a more detailed account. I am sorry, but that is not evidence that "john" made stuff up."

That won't do. My argument is that John includes stuff that the synoptics don't have - the sermons and rows with the 'Jews; the raising of Lazarus. This is important stuff and you need a good reason why they didn't even hint at it.
But since you don't know the reason - good or bad, you cannot logically conclude that they had no good reason.
John was supposedly an eyewitness or using an eyewitness account. But so were the other gospels. Mathew was supposed to be eyewitness (but demonstrably isn't) and Mark and Luke supposedly talked to people who were eyewitnesses.
I don't like to make assumptions (and I don't care much about tradition).

The author of John claims to be an eyewitness (the disciple Christ loved), and this has been confirmed to me as Lazarus, so I accept that. There is also no evidence refuting it. Lazarus is a Jew.
The author of Luke states upfront that he is not an eyewitness, but instead investigated things and wrote an orderly account for a single person, based on testimonies handed down from those who were eyewitnesses.
The author of Mark makes no statement about himself (I can accept that this is Peter's son, Mark, but am open to being corrected - with actual evidence, not just conjecture).
The author of Matthew makes no statement about himself (tradition states Levi/Matthew... and that might be correct... but I do not know, myself).

I'm not claiming to know their mind, I'm claiming to know what makes sense. Supose there is a court case and a lawyer is trying to prove his client innicent. Is it reasonabler to suppose that if there was a good alibi, he wouldn't present it? Of course he would.

So you have a resurrection of a dead friend, and John mentions it (not bothering about putting his witness in the crosshairs) but not one of the synoptics even gives it a couple of lines.

Various excuses are presented. I have mention some I have heard. I'm not claim that Tam here made those excuses. Those one made (not to point to Lazarus) is unlikely since everyone knoew anyway, other miracles are described, and if John wasn't himself the eyewitness, he isn't bothered about iDing Lazarus. I could argue that the actual person (John) is disguised as Lazarus as a false name. One can make all manner of hypotheses, but the bottom line is that for such a stunning miracle, the synoptics would have wangled a mention somehow, not just all three ignore it (apart from that use of the name by Luke).

We can get nowhere by looking at the Bible and trying to prove the disciples were who is claimed or the writers of the gospels, or their informants. What we can do is pay attention to clues that show that they cannot be eyewitnesses. One of the nativities has to be a lie. And both of them probably. The resurrections are teminally contradictory and would have the evangelists thrown into the gutter. I have argued that Matthew reflects a Christian viewpoint foreign to a Jew. I have shown that he repeatedly misquotes the OT and can identify why - he uses the Septuagint. I can see no reason why he would use a translation that wasn't as Hebrew- speakers would have it. Why not use God's word rather than a Greek paraphrase of it even if (as you say) it is a reasonable interpretation? I don't think it is - it is a quotemine out of context and (as we often find) the Sadducees should have jumped on him and at least argues that the quote is out of context and not as per the hebrew anyway.

On top of that, nobody but Matthew reports it (I'll check) Yep - like the Jews cursing themselves, nobody else has that passage. Nobody but Matthew knew of it? It's a smart quote, you'd think that Luke hearing it from some source) would put it in. In addition, the similarities in wording and order suggests that the synoptics were based on a common original (usually taken to be mark) so all that other stuff has to be additions...So the end is that Bible apologists can come up with all sorts of excuses, but what they are doing is not pointing to evidence that supports them but explaning away evidence that debunks them.

Bottom line - unbelievers will surely go with the evidence - Jesus could not have used the Septuagint to quote the Bible, and it isn't in the other Synoptics anyway, and matthew does this several times. They will not accept the Believer arguments for crediting the passage to Jesus or not agreeing that Matthew could not be a Jew.

I trust that the more reasonable of believers will see the weight of evidence and would not prefer fauthbased denial. But it's their choice - reason and evidence or faith, and dismissal of evidence.

[TRANSPONDER]

Re: Who was the author of Matthew?
Post #53
Post by tam » Thu Sep 08, 2022 11:32 pm

Peace to you,
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 3:40 pm
Ok Tam. That would not be enough for me to conclude that "John"... edited it heavily to add his own preaching and arguments put into Jesus' mouth. Maybe "John" has the most detail because he was an eyewitness to most of these accounts. Or for whatever reason, maybe he remembers more clearly and in more detail. Perhaps because - as promised - he was reminded in the spirit of what Christ said and did. A non-believer is unlikely to accept that last part, but since my Lord has done the same with me, I cannot discount it.

The point is - what you have is a question, not evidence that "John" made stuff up. That question being, "why are there things in 'John' that are not recorded in the other three gospels'.

So "John" wrote a more detailed account. I am sorry, but that is not evidence that "john" made stuff up."

That won't do. My argument is that John includes stuff that the synoptics don't have - the sermons and rows with the 'Jews; the raising of Lazarus. This is important stuff and you need a good reason why they didn't even hint at it.
But since you don't know the reason - good or bad, you cannot logically conclude that they had no good reason.
John was supposedly an eyewitness or using an eyewitness account. But so were the other gospels. Mathew was supposed to be eyewitness (but demonstrably isn't) and Mark and Luke supposedly talked to people who were eyewitnesses.
I don't like to make assumptions (and I don't care much about tradition).

The author of John claims to be an eyewitness (the disciple Christ loved), and this has been confirmed to me as Lazarus, so I accept that. There is also no evidence refuting it. Lazarus is a Jew.
The author of Luke states upfront that he is not an eyewitness, but instead investigated things and wrote an orderly account for a single person, based on testimonies handed down from those who were eyewitnesses.
The author of Mark makes no statement about himself (I can accept that this is Peter's son, Mark, but am open to being corrected - with actual evidence, not just conjecture).
The author of Matthew makes no statement about himself (tradition states Levi/Matthew... and that might be correct... but I do not know, myself).

I'm not claiming to know their mind, I'm claiming to know what makes sense. Suppose there is a court case and a lawyer is trying to prove his client innocent. Is it reasonable to suppose that if there was a good alibi, he wouldn't present it? Of course he would. I don't need to read his mind to know what any reasonable person would do.

So you have a resurrection of a dead friend, and John mentions it (not bothering about putting his witness in the crosshairs) but not one of the synoptics, even gives it a couple of lines.

Various excuses are presented. I have mentioned some I have heard. I'm not claiming that Tam here made those excuses. Those one made (not to point to Lazarus) is unlikely since everyone knew anyway, other miracles are described, and if John wasn't himself the eyewitness, he isn't bothered about I-Dinging Lazarus. I could argue that the actual person (John) is disguised as Lazarus as a false name. One can make all manner of hypotheses, but the bottom line is that for such a stunning miracle, the synoptics would have wangled a mention somehow, not just all three ignore it (apart from that use of the name by Luke).

We can get nowhere by looking at the Bible and trying to prove the disciples were who is claimed or the writers of the gospels, or their informants. What we can do is pay attention to clues that show that they cannot be eyewitnesses. One of the nativities has to be a lie. And both of them probably. The resurrections are teminally contradictory and would have the evangelists giving evidence in court thrown into the gutter. I have argued that Matthew reflects a Christian viewpoint foreign to a Jew. I have shown that he repeatedly misquotes the OT and can identify why - he uses the Septuagint. I can see no reason why he would use a translation that wasn't as Hebrew (as a liturgical language) - speakers would have known it. Why not use God's word rather than a Greek paraphrase of it even if (as you say) it is a reasonable interpretation? I don't think it is - it is a quotemine out of context and (as we often find) the Sadducees should have jumped on him and at least argued that the quote is out of context and not as per the Hebrew anyway. But as usual, the Christian writer has them struck silent.

On top of that, nobody but Matthew reports it (I'll check) Yep - like the Jews cursing themselves, nobody else has that passage. Nobody but Matthew knew of it? It's a smart quote, you'd think that Luke hearing it from some source) would put it in. In addition, the similarities in wording and order suggests that the synoptics were based on a common original (usually taken to be mark) so all that other stuff has to be additions...So the end is that Bible apologists can come up with all sorts of excuses, but what they are doing is not pointing to evidence that supports them but explaining away evidence that debunks them. And I'd say with excuses that aren't very convincing.

Bottom line - unbelievers will surely go with the evidence - Jesus could not have used the Septuagint to quote the Bible, and it isn't in the other Synoptics anyway, and Matthew does this several times. They will not accept the Believer arguments for crediting the passage to Jesus or not agreeing that Matthew could not be a Jew. I trust that the more reasonable of believers will see the weight of evidence and would not prefer faithbased denial. But it's their choice - reason and evidence or faith, and dismissal of evidence.



P.s I'll get round to the rest of Tam's post but I do have other things to do...pipe to smoke, boose to drink, a monarch to bury and other to install as Charles III and I have to track down and lock up anyone called Cromwell or Gwynne...

[TRANSPONDER]

Ok. More of Tam's post

" (Trans) So how to explain the omission of important theological speeches and the raising of Lazarus? They forgot, is your argument?
(Tam) I have suggested multiple reasons - the point of which is to show you that more than just the reason you give exists - but never suggested that they forgot about the raising of Lazarus. As for forgetting some details, what man doesn't forget details? I don't know how many times I write something, and then later remember something that I should have included, but did not at the time.
(Tam) Mine has always been that it is not a credible explanation to claim that all three eyewitnesses forgot it. Not even a hint or mention of it. So even if John was magically reminded of something the others had forgotten, that won't do for really important things. It works the other way. John apparently has never heard a single parable, nor does he know about the transfiguration. If this is John son of Zebedee, he was supposed to be there.
Really important things like what specifically? And if the author of "John" wrote his account as late as many scholars suggest, then he would have known the other accounts were already out there in the mix. What would be the point in covering all that stuff again, especially considering that he said at the end of the book that Christ did more than just these things.

(and the author of "John" wasn't John, son of Zebedee)
This assumes you know what motivated them all. The only person who tells us his motivation is Luke - he was writing an orderly account of things that happened for a specific person. And Luke states himself that he was not an eyewitness.
It is as plain as a pikestaff what motivated them - to tell everyone about what Jesus did, said and taught, plus the 'signs' that showed who he was. It makes no sense that they leftout important teachings, and doings or to suggest that they didn't know or had forgotten.
Well then they accomplished what motivated them with the accounts that we have".

You rather set up your own strawman (I'm supposed to be claiming I know what motivates the writers - I already responded to that) but you claim to know what motivates them as you then say they accomplished that motivation. So why shouldn't I make a guess at their motivation?

(What important teachings are you referring to specifically[/i]?)"

forgetting minor details is not the point. It is a strawman excuse by apologists. I have already dismissed the 'one angel or two?' apologetic wich gets overload airing mainly (I suspect) because it's easy to refute. The 'Biggies' get ignored - as you are ignoring them and pretending that it's little things they forgot to write down.

You don't forget things like a man raised to life. You don't forget Jesus announcing his messiahship in his home town and an attempt made to to murder him You don't forget that when Jesus called you, there was no more fishing to be done, because the net had been full to bursting; you don't forget that one Thief repented and was saved and accept without doubt that the other gospels state that both thieves reviled Jesus. And you don't forget that the women ran smack into Jesus who spoke to them, and have them running back to the disciples and say that they don't know what happened to Jesus' body. You cannot dismiss or excuse these with appeal to forgetfulness or not having heard it, or copyists errors. The most credible explanation (but one that Believers won't like, of course) is that someone made it up. That would be the best explanation even without slam dunk evidence of alteration, omission, fabrication and fiddling. Ignorance is forgivable - people do not appear to read their Bibles; but once it has been explained, fingers in the ears denial is inexcusable.

What more? The author of John wasn't John son of Zebedee? He's the only 'John' in the 12, so John wasn't written by 'John' at all?

Important doctrine? Do I have to tell you what's in your own Bible? Just take the last supper in John. They were all there and Jesus (supposedly) tells them to do a footwashing ceremony as by his example, yet this is ignored in the synoptics. Right after telling of Peter's denial, he tells them about preparing a place for them (in heaven I suppose) and none of that long sermon was worth mentioning? No, whatever you believe, Tammy, I trust that you cannot tell anyone who has an open mind that this can be explained away as slips of memory.

P.s. ..... .. Perhaps you can tell me as I have often wanted to know, but none have ever said (other than otseng, perhaps) where you got your apologetics from. Did you come up with 'slips of memory' out of you own head? Or did you hear it somewhere? If so I'd love to know where. Is there a Secret Book of "150 questions that Atheists won't be able to answer" ?

[TRANSPONDER]

let's deal with the final bit.
"
I don't see that at all. Praise from the mouths of infants and babes is putting to shame/defeating the enemy.
but Matthew misrepresents even that to have kiddies praising someone, which turns out to be a prophecy of Jesus. But, like all these 'prophecies' is not related to Jesus at all.
I responded to that earlier:

Not sure how that's a misread, but I do know that some things can also be prophecy, even if they don't appear that way at first glance. Remember that Christ had to open the apostles' minds to understand the scriptures. Sometimes I have not seen the connection either... BUT... my Lord has opened my mind to see something written in the OT that I had no idea was applying to Him. Not until He showed it to me.

But children were praising Christ (which means they were also praising His Father), and the enemies were the chief priests, Pharisees, etc.
On top of that nobody but Matthew reports that. Matthew invented it and it is far from the last time he invents stuff.
The only fact in this statement is in the bold (assuming there are no other reports not included in the bible, that did report it).

So if no one but Matthew reported it, that leaves the question of 'why'? You have suggested one possibility, but that is certainly not the only possibility (personal choice, audience, did not witness the event oneself/or interview a person who heard that account, mistaken memory, did not realize this was from something written, etc. Even the disciple Christ loved said that there were many other things that Christ had said and written, that could not possibly all be recorded). Unless you knew that was his reason, for sure, I don't know how you can make such a definitive statement.

(1) a bunch if inexplicable kiddies, invented (as not uncommon) by Matthew as a fulfilment of some mistranslated Prophecy he'd dredged out of the OT.
I don't think it is all that inexplicable for there to be a bunch of kiddies singing praises to Christ. People would bring their children to be blessed by Him, and he was gentle and kind to them.
(Trans)Matthew did not read Hebrew nor understand the OT, but brought his own Greek Christian views,

(Tam) How can something written in the Septuagint be a Greek Christian view if it was written well before Christians came on the scene?
It isn't, that's the point. These "prophecies" have to be fiddled, altered and misrepresented to make them Christian prophecies.
But the Septuagint was written before Christians could have misrepresented it.

Is the issue here that you think Matthew honed in on a verse that said 'the virgin would give birth to a child' (in the Septuagint) because Mary was a virgin who had given birth to a child? Or are you suggesting that he just made everything up?
(Trans)Yes, King of the Jews is agreed by them all. The crucifixion for (effectively) rebellion of a Jewish pretender (failed messiah) is what we have there and Matthew having Herod see that as a being to be 'worshipped' and prophecied in scripture is very much the Christian view, not the Jewish.
{Tam}Since King of the Jews is agreed by them all, it cannot be used to suggest that Matthew was not Jewish.
Yes it can. You are using one argument to apply to a totally different one. "King of the Jews" is common to all four, original part of the story, and I suspect, true. But that it was misunderstood in a particularly Christian way where 'King of the Jews' (or Messiah/Christ) pretty much meant a divine being to be worshipped by mortals. This particular Christian view (which is shared by all the writers in that absurd 'Blasphemy' charge) (1) and Matthew shows his hand in a particular way by talking of going to worship this king, and rushing to scripture to find out about him.
And again, the Jewish view is not as united as you are making it appear, not then (or before then) or now. Are you suggesting that there were never any Jewish Christians, never Jews who followed Jaheshua? No Jewish disciples or apostles? Perhaps you are suggesting that there was no such Jewish person as Jaheshua (the one also called 'the Christ' or 'the Messiah')?
Not at the time Jesus was crucified.


There were no Jewish Christians at the time Jaheshua was crucified, that is true, because He had yet to anoint anyone with holy spirit (the thing that makes a person a Christian... aka... an anointed one). But I am surprised to hear you say that there were no Jews who followed Him before that time; no Jewish disciples or apostles. That would mean the entire story is fictional, and that is one great big (modern) conspiracy theory, based only upon conjecture, opinion, interpretation.
I'm saying the ideas (not to mention the prophecies) would not have worked or made sense in Jesus time. They would know that 'Messiah' was not a divine title,
Messiah means Chosen One of JAH. It does not mean that the Chosen One IS JAH.

That being said, just because some - even many - did not understand something, does not mean that it is not true. Same today as in days long past.


Peace again to you!"

You seem to be missing the point about the 'Babes and sucklings' event. It doesn't matter whether kiddies were chanting praise or not, nor does it matter whether the meaning of the OT passage can be made to relate to the situation there. The point is that Jesus could not have used the Greek translation when he would know that the Hebrew read differently. Not to the Sadducees, who knew the Hebrew. It is not credible that he would have used the Septuagint even if one could argue that it means the same, more or less. The Jesus quote is surely based on the Septuagint and the OT on the Hebrew. The evidence points to the writer using a Greek translation that Jesus could not credibly have quoted - not to experts in scripture. And thus (especially with the similar Septuagint errors of the virgin, two donkeys and Rachel's children) is hard evidence that Matthew did not and probably could not get the OT other than in Greek.

"I am surprised to hear you say that there were no Jews who followed Him before that time;" You have missed the point again, but I can't blame you for that. Sure, there were Jews who followed him at that time, sure, (I'm assuming there was a real Jesus) and the Sanhedrin would know what he was telling them. The point is they were not Christians. Not the kind of Christians that identifies the Messiah - claim with claiming to be God. That was the only way the Blasphemy charge makes sense, and it is anachronistic; no Jewish Christians understanding that doctrine existed at the time. The Gospels labour the point that they did not understand and would not until after the resurrection when it was all revealed to them The 'Blasphemy' charge make no sense without a Christian mindset - which is what the writers must have had. Even if it was written by Jews who now understood the Dogma, it is surely wrong to backdate this understanding to a time before they understood it.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

And to you. Thank you.

I don't think it is the same reasoning, because the word translated as young woman can also be referring to a virgin.

Not, as I think you mean, a virgin as opposed to a non-virgin.

I mean a young woman who would almost certainly also be a virgin.

Someone must have thought so even before Christ came in the flesh, because that is how it was translated in the Septuagint (as virgin).

That's the mistranslation that we're talking about.

I am not in the translator's head, so perhaps the person thought that is what was being implied (a young woman would almost certainly have been a virgin), and he translated it thus.

The word "alma" is also only used 7 times (that I saw, from blue letter bible), and does refer to maidens who are virgins (for certain in most cases, though a case or two might be in dispute).

The word is the feminine noun form of a verb that means "to be sexually mature." There's a corresponding male form of the noun (ʿelem) that means "young man." Neither the verb nor male noun implies virginity, so there's no reason to think that the female form does, either.

Except that a young, sexually mature female was highly expected to be a virgin. (unless she was married)

Did you know that the same word translated as 'them' can be (and is also) translated as 'he, she, it'?

Autos is the word used for 'them' in the Matthew passage:

Autos is the root word. It changes based on case and gender. In Mark 11:7, Jesus sat on αὐτόν, accusative male singular. In Matthew 21:7, Jesus sat on αὐτῶν, genitive masculine plural.

It's not a translation error because the Greek's about as straightforward as it gets.

Obviously not. See above.

You misunderstood.

Thank you for that.

So it would appear that someone made an error somewhere, a scribal error of some sort, misunderstanding that there is just one donkey being ridden upon (the colt) even though two donkeys are mentioned. Unless error crept in through some other translation issue. It just seems like such an unlikely error to make, considering the other two gospels mention just the one animal being ridden upon; and the Septuagint translation is fine. If the author was not an eyewitness and had not read the other accounts, okay maybe. But I'm pretty sure people believe Matthew based his work off Mark (or some other "Q" version). So it seems an unlikely error for him to have made.

Someone suggested that the 'them' is referring to the cloaks that were placed upon the colt: brought the ass and the colt, and did put on them their garments, and set him upon them;


That may raise other questions though.



Peace again to you!