Authorship of the Gospels of Matthew and John

[BartholomewB]

you might read Richard Burridge’s or Richard Bauckham’s works on the subject.

Since you accept Richard Bauckham as an authority, let’s see what he has to say about the authorship of Matthew’s Gospel.

“The most plausible explanation of the occurrence of the name Matthew in 9:9 is that the author of this Gospel, knowing that Matthew was a tax collector and wishing to narrate the call of Matthew in the Gospel that was associated with him, but not knowing a story of Matthew’s call, transferred Mark’s story from Levi to Matthew.

“ … If this explanation of the name Matthew in Matt 9:9 is correct, it has one significant implication: that the author of Matthew’s Gospel intended to associate the Gospel with the apostle Matthew but was not himself the apostle Matthew. Matthew himself could have described his own call without having to take over the way Mark described Levi’s call.” (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, pp. 111-112).

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

you might read Richard Burridge’s or Richard Bauckham’s works on the subject.

Since you accept Richard Bauckham as an authority, let’s see what he has to say about the authorship of Matthew’s Gospel.

“The most plausible explanation of the occurrence of the name Matthew in 9:9 is that the author of this Gospel, knowing that Matthew was a tax collector and wishing to narrate the call of Matthew in the Gospel that was associated with him, but not knowing a story of Matthew’s call, transferred Mark’s story from Levi to Matthew.

“ … If this explanation of the name Matthew in Matt 9:9 is correct, it has one significant implication: that the author of Matthew’s Gospel intended to associate the Gospel with the apostle Matthew but was not himself the apostle Matthew. Matthew himself could have described his own call without having to take over the way Mark described Levi’s call.” (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, pp. 111-112).

Bauckham’s discussion in that section is quite tentative and he draws no hard conclusions. Phrasing such as: “The most plausible conclusion…” and “If this explanation…is correct…” implies that the evidence, as far as it is available, doesn’t prove anything. Bauckham uses that same tone throughout this section. He also states in that same section…

However, this may not be entirely decisive, since Mark may have drawn his story about Levi and his list of the Twelve from different sources and not known that Levi and Matthew were the same person.

I can’t provide exact page numbers since I am reading from a Kindle version of the book, but it is from the section you cited.

Bauckham also proposes a thesis that the Apostle John was not the author of the Gospel. I suspect he is doing, as a scholar, what he ought to do, which is present the strongest case for various hypotheses as he can, with the proviso that his own actual view isn’t necessarily one of those he details. He doesn’t appear to be completely behind any of the views he details, although – if my memory serves since it has been over two years since I read his book – he does push John, the elder, as author of the Gospel quite hard.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

By statistical average, if 20-30% of individuals die in early childhood, to get a lifespan mean of 35 years, you need a similar percentage of individuals living to 70 years, or proportionately larger numbers of people living to lesser ages. Given that high death rates in childbirth and early childhood were a feature of ancient societies, that had to be offset by the number living well beyond the mean age.

Since the child death rates were so high, all the available figures calculate average lifespan from a given point (e.g. 15 years) rather than birth, otherwise the figure would be meaningless. Therefore, you are factually incorrect in your statement. The population of the world in Jesus time that were over 70 was less than 2%.

It is not clear that you are correct. It would depend upon whether the statistics are about “life expectancy at birth” or something else.

StatsCan (the statistics branch of the Canadian government,) for example, states:

Life expectancy in Canada has improved considerably since early in the 20th century. Women’s life expectancy at birth has increased from 60.6 years in 1920–19224 to 83.0 years in 2005–2007, and men’s from 58.8 to 78.3 years in the same period—increases of 22.4 years for women and 19.5 for men (Chart 2).

The lower life expectancy of earlier decades was, in part, a reflection of high levels of infant mortality—about 1 in 10 children died within the first year of life in 1921. Because of high levels of infant mortality, life expectancy at age 1 was actually higher than life expectancy at birth until the 1980-to-1982 period, when infant mortality lowered enough to reduce this trend.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-624-x/2011001/article/11427-eng.htm

This implies that many of these statistics are typically from birth and not “a given point,” as you claim. Could you provide some hard evidence of your claim that these statistics do not generally count infant mortality? That would help.

Furthermore, in this paper from the National Academy of Sciences (p.1718), Caleb Finch makes it clear that statistics from prior to about the 1700s and, in particular from Greco-Roman times, are notoriously unreliable.

Before the 18th century, there are no national or regional statistical data on mortality rates by age group or causes of death. In the ancient Greco-Roman world, demographic reconstructions agree on short LE0 ranging 20–35 years. These calculations are based on tombstone epitaphs and graveyard samples, which are notoriously unrepresentative.

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

One thing about me is that I trust in the intelligence of the average forum reader, i’m not really writing to persuade you because I don’t think anyone can convince you to change your mind. I think the flaws in your arguement are incredibly evident to the point that it’s not really worth continuing the conversation with you if you can’t see them, although if anyone wants them explained they can message me.

 

[HarryStotle]

Here is more information regarding life span…

Please note: "Life expectancy increased dramatically for those who survived the early danger years and the total span of life appears to have been NOT significantly different than today.

This may seem surprising on learning that, according to modern demographers, the average life-expectancy in Rome was around the age of 25. This figure is, however, very misleading, mainly because of a very high rate of infant and child mortality. It is estimated that as many as 50% of children may have died before the age of ten. Life expectancy increased dramatically for those who survived the early danger years and the total span of life appears to have been not significantly different than today. But there is a difference in the number of old people. As I mentioned earlier, today, in Britain, the aged represent circa 20% of the total population and this figure is rising rapidly. In Rome this figure is likely to have been between 6 and 8%, which is comparable to that of the UK in the mid to late 19th century.
Dr Karen Cokayne
The University of Reading
https://www.brlsi.org/events-proceedings/proceedings/25020

So just when I begin to provide strong evidence that your position is unfounded and the “flaws in your arguement are incredibly evident,” YOU back away.

One thing about me is that I trust in the intelligence of the average forum reader, i’m not really writing to persuade you because I don’t think anyone can convince you to change your mind. I think the flaws in your arguement are incredibly evident to the point that it’s not really worth continuing the conversation with you if you can’t see them, although if anyone wants them explained they can message me.

Interesting.

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

So we’ve gone from:

if 20-30% of individuals die in early childhood, to get a lifespan mean of 35 years, you need a similar percentage of individuals living to 70 years

to;

there is a difference in the number of old people. As I mentioned earlier, today, in Britain, the aged represent circa 20% of the total population and this figure is rising rapidly. In Rome this figure is likely to have been between 6 and 8%

So which is it, 6-8% or 20-30%?

i back away because you don’t understand that a median life expectancy of 35-45 calculated from age 15 is worse than a median life expectancy of of 85 calculated from birth! Nothing you are bringing to the table supports your arguement!!!

I have no idea why you put the life span comment in bold, that doesn’t help your case at all. It’s a matter of probability not possibility.

 

[HarryStotle]

So we’ve gone from:

stupidisasstupiddoes:

if 20-30% of individuals die in early childhood, to get a lifespan mean of 35 years, you need a similar percentage of individuals living to 70 years

to;

there is a difference in the number of old people. As I mentioned earlier, today, in Britain, the aged represent circa 20% of the total population and this figure is rising rapidly. In Rome this figure is likely to have been between 6 and 8%

So which is it, 6-8% or 20-30%?

Your quoting seems a bit inaccurate, but I get the point you are trying to make.

First off, we weren’t speaking of Rome when referring to the witnesses to Jesus’ life. We were speaking of Palestine. Since the regional statistical data on mortality rates from Rome do not transfer to Palestine, and given that whatever data we do have is notoriously unreliable based as it is on tombstone epitaphs and graveyard samples, it is pretty difficult to arrive at any kind of solid conclusion. So the difference between 6-8% and 20-30% is largely contrived in any case.

Secondly, my 20-30% was simply a statistical “what if,” it wasn’t intended to be a claim about actual reality. Reread my post.

Thirdly, what was referred to in Dr. Cokayne’s article as “…in Britain, the aged represent circa 20% of the total population and this figure is rising rapidly. In Rome this figure is likely to have been between 6 and 8%,…” is not significant. The proportion of aged to the rest of the population is a function of the distribution across the populace. Rome may have had a very high fecundity rate, much higher than Britain, which means there may have been large numbers of children running around the city and proportionately fewer older people (6-8%), and with most of those (30-50%+) dying before leaving childhood, that demonstrates nada in terms of what you are trying to show.

Continued…

 

[HarryStotle]

i back away because you don’t understand that a median life expectancy of 35-45 calculated from age 15 is worse than a median life expectancy of of 85 calculated from birth! Nothing you are bringing to the table supports your arguement!!!

Whether it is worse or not isn’t the crucial issue. The important point is how accurate is any of the basis from which you came up with the life expectancy to begin with? We have no idea what proportion of adults, after living past infancy lived well into their sixties or seventies. Since eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life would have been those who were past infancy, then the actual proportion of those who lived to when the Gospels were written (roughly between 50 and 90 AD) is an important piece of data to support your point.

You didn’t provide any solid grounds for claiming most of those witnesses would have been dead by then, so your claim just doesn’t hold water.

Two critical pieces of data argue against you:

1. There are no national or regional statistical data on mortality rates by age group or causes of death before the 18th century. Any speculative data isn’t strong enough to support your conclusion.
2. Even if the average life-expectancy in Rome was around the age of 25. This figure would be very misleading, (to quote Dr Karen Cokayne) "because of a very high rate of infant and child mortality. It is estimated that as many as 50% of children may have died before the age of ten. Life expectancy increased dramatically for those who survived the early danger years and the total span of life appears to have been not significantly different than today.

Given that the data from Rome is really not transferable to the ancient world and that, past “the danger years” of infancy, “…the total span of life appears to have been not significantly different than today…” your point is simply without substantiation.

I have no idea why you put the life span comment in bold, that doesn’t help your case at all. It’s a matter of probability not possibility.

And since you haven’t proven anything with regard to probability, Dr Cokayne’s comment stands: "…for those who survived the early danger years… the total span of life appears to have been not significantly different than today.

What was the probable lifespan of those who survived past childhood? How long was that cohort expected to live and what proportion of them lived to 60 or 70 years. That is the critical data. Dr. Cokayne’s point “not significantly different than today” implies that it was probably much higher than 50%, which means it is likely that well over half of the eyewitnesses to events in Jesus’ life were still alive when the Gospels were written.

Unless you can provide something more substantive, I’ll stick to that assumption.

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

What was the probable lifespan of those who survived past childhood? How long was that cohort expected to live and what proportion of them lived to 60 or 70 years. That is the critical data. Dr. Cokayne’s point “not significantly different than today” implies that it was probably much higher than 50%, which means it is likely that well over half of the eyewitnesses to events in Jesus’ life were still alive when the Gospels were written.

This is the problem with trying to discuss anything with you. You don’t really understand statistics and therefore just make things up. Lifespan and life expectancy are not the same thing. Dr. Cokayne didn’t contradict himself but you did.

Sorry but i can’t be your educator on statistics because you manipulate words past their original meaning. Again, i couldn’t find a true statement in what you wrote and find you insincere in the sense you are not really seeking truth, just trying to defend your pre-concieved position.

 

[BartholomewB]

However, this may not be entirely decisive, since Mark may have drawn his story about Levi and his list of the Twelve from different sources and not known that Levi and Matthew were the same person.

Yes, that’s on p. 108, in the second paragraph of the section titled “A Note on Matthew and Levi.” The excerpts I quoted are from the last two paragraphs of the same section. I agree with you that Bauckham’s tone throughout this section implies that the evidence, as far as it is available, doesn’t lead to any single incontrovertible conclusion. After all, he is an academic and he writes like one. He never loses sight of the fact that he is dealing with probabilities, not certainties.

 

[HarryStotle]

This is the problem with trying to discuss anything with you. You don’t really understand statistics and therefore just make things up. Lifespan and life expectancy are not the same thing. Dr. Cokayne didn’t contradict himself but you did.

Sorry but i can’t be your educator on statistics because you manipulate words past their original meaning. Again, i couldn’t find a true statement in what you wrote and find you insincere in the sense you are not really seeking truth, just trying to defend your pre-concieved position.

I also have a pre-conceived notion about how ‘pre-conceived’ is to be spelled. Merely because it is preconceived does not mean it is incorrect – unless, of course, it isn’t well thought out to begin with.

My point stands. You have NO firm grounds in lifespan data to claim with any kind of assurance that most of the eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life would have been dead by the time the Gospels were written.

By the way, Dr Karen Cokayne, I think, is a woman (although in the times we live, there is no longer any assurance to be had in that regard.)

With regard to being my educator: thanks for the offer, but I’ll fumble along on my own.

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

My point stands. You have NO firm grounds in lifespan data to claim with any kind of assurance that most of the eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life would have been dead by the time the Gospels were written.

Just an open offer that if any reasonably intelligent, unbiased people are following the conversation and want to know reliable data sources for why there’s an exceptionally high probability that the vast majority (if not all) of eye witnesses to Jesus ministry were dead by the time Luke’s gospel was being written, let me know.

 

[Jimbo]

I think Pitre deals with that to an extent.

Scholarship changes, as we have seen in many of these posts. Originally it was held that the Gospels were attributed as written. Then, as you’ve seen, it swung to the ‘Q’ theory and then anonymity of the original authors. Now I think you see it start to swing back; and Pitre makes many valid reasons for this.

Why is it important? It’s not on one level; if you accept the Gospels as inerrant in faith and morals and inspired by God who cares? On the other, I suppose, it’s academically interesting, And it’s useful in countering those who try to undercut Christianity by saying the gospels were writeen hundreds of years later and that many things (like Christ’s divinity) were invented.

How many people were suckered by Dan Brown because they didn’t have a keen grasp on the truth of the gospels and their historicity?

 

[HarryStotle]

Just an open offer that if any reasonably intelligent, unbiased people are following the conversation and want to know reliable data sources for why there’s an exceptionally high probability that the vast majority (if not all) of eye witnesses to Jesus ministry were dead by the time Luke’s gospel was being written, let me know.

And the reason you haven’t put forth those “reliable data sources” in this thread, is?

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

And the reason you haven’t put forth those “reliable data sources” in this thread, is?

Because your biases inhibit you from comprehending them. You even misrepresented the source you quoted! You totally contradicted yourself by claiming there were lot’s of old people who your own source told you just 6-8% of the population was old. You confuse lifespan and life expectancy. You don’t understand the implication of a life expectancy calculated from birth and one calculated from 15. You never answered my question about probability. Then you already laid the foundation for your inevitable dismissal of whatever i put forward by claiming there are no reliable figures from that period anyway. There’s simply no point presenting further evidence to you.

 

[HarryStotle]

Why is it important? It’s not on one level; if you accept the Gospels as inerrant in faith and morals and inspired by God who cares? On the other, I suppose, it’s academically interesting,

I think you are missing a key point here. It isn’t just “interesting” academically, it is far more than that. If God is, in reality, the inerrant guide for Scripture, then the Gospels WILL BE historically reliable. We can take that, as well as morality and faith, as part of faith.

That means they will be eminently defensible as historical documents because God himself has vouched for them.

Does that mean we close our eyes and just blindly trust them? No, it means we open our eyes wide and look deeper into every detail than anyone else dares because we can trust in the One who is behind it all.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Apparently such is not a settled case. See the article.

The Matthew fragments redated by Thiede are at Magdalen College (Oxford). They are called The Magdalen Papyrus (listed as Greek 17 and p64). There are three fragments written on both sides, together representing 24 lines from Matthew 26:7-33. Two of the three fragments are a little larger than 4 x 1 cm.; the other is smaller, 1.6 x 1.6 cm. Another two fragments, located in Spain, are called the Barcelona Papyrus (P. Barc. inv. 1/p67) and contain portions of Matthew 3:9, 15; 5:20-22, 25-28.

The Magdalen Papyrus surfaced in the modern world in 1901, when Charles B. Huleatt purchased it from an antiquities dealer in Luxor, Egypt. Nothing is known of the fragment’s preservation before that time. Huleatt donated the fragments to Magdalen College, where they were given a cursory examination by Magdalen scholar Arthur Hunt, who tentatively dated them to the fourth century. In 1953, Colin Roberts redated the Magdalen Papyrus to the later second century and established their connection to the Barcelona fragments.

More than 40 years later Thiede reexamined the fragments, using state-of–the-art electronic scanners with close analysis of the paper, ink, letter formation, line length, and other factors to redate the fragments to around A.D. 60. Thiede’s tests and skill appear to be well within responsible papyrology, although his conclusions have met with strong opposition from critics.

http://www.equip.org/article/eyewit...ipt-evidence-about-the-origin-of-the-gospels/

I tried doing a search on the issue and nothing confirms your statement that scholars still claim the fragments at Magdalen U are from 200AD.

Jim

 

[Spyridon]

You must not have searched very hard. The Oxford website itself says:

"Our fragments have always attracted scholarly attention, and shot to public fame on Christmas Eve 1994, when The Times reported that Carsten Peter Thiede had re-dated the fragments to the first century, providing ‘the first material evidence that the Gospel according to St Matthew is an eyewitness account written by contemporaries of Christ’. If Thiede was correct, they would be the oldest surviving text of the New Testament and pieces of a codex. Thiede’s claim, elaborated upon in 1995 in a scholarly article and a best-selling book (with Matthew d’Ancona), has prompted much discussion, however it has not been widely accepted by the academic community.

Today most scholars support Head (1995), and favour a dating to the late second century or c.200 A.D. This still makes our fragments among the earliest dozen surviving fragments of the gospels, and the oldest book in our collections by almost a thousand years.

http://www.magd.ox.ac.uk/libraries-and-archives/treasure-of-the-month/news/magdalen-papyrus/

 

[JimR-OCDS]

And yet it still seems to be an unresolved mystery. Theide holds fast to his dating, and the site provides a link to his thesis.

Jim

 

[Spyridon]

I’m not against it. I wish it was true.