ax

I'm not sure if it belongs here-so feel free to move it mods.

Does anyone know of any sites that contain info about matthew re-writing his gospel to fit in with
the o.t.?
any help app.

Monkeybot

I think this might work better in Biblical Criticism & Archaeology.

ax

Matthew seems to be doing the dodgey on us.In all the other gospels jesus rides in on A donkey, but in matt 21.1-7 its 2! It seems that he read zech 9.9 and wrote this so as to fit in! Any body else
know of these faults?! <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Monkeybot

I've heard, but not actually verified myself, that Matthew wrote the two conflicting accounts to conform to two different prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures -- but I'm not certain about that.

cloudyphiz

i'd suggest you read all of Steven Carr's website.

<a href="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/" target="_blank">here's a link to it</a>

in particular, read
<a href="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp1.htm" target="_blank">this page</a>

-gary

CX

Hmmm...I'm not sure I agree with the implicit assumption in this question that "Matthew", whomever you mean by that, "rewrote" anything. On the other hand it is clear that AMt is most concerned of all the evangelists with tying the story of Jesus to the Hebrew Bible and establishing the validity of messianic claims. On what basis could we conclude that this was an afterthought and not part of the original construction of the narrative? I'd suggest reading a couple good intros to the NT and perhaps a commentary on GMt.

ax

I found this on a biblical page on the net somewhere..

The following factors may be cited favoring Matthean authorship:

External evidence. The second-century writer Papias shares the following concerning Matthew:

Matthew made an arrangement of the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each translated them as he was able...
Great debate has attended this phrase in terms of what Papias meant by "oracles" (a collection of sayings? a full narrative Gospel?) and what he meant by "in the Hebrew language." Some say that this may refer to an early Aramaic version of Matthew, which may be the source equal to the mysterious Q document. This is corroborated by the testimony of Irenaeus, who says that Matthew published a gospel among the Hebrews while Peter and Paul were in Rome, and perhaps also by the existence of a Hebrew version of Matthew attested in the 14th century (see George Howard, The Gospel of Matthew According to a Primitive Hebrew Text). In any event, we have here direct testimony that Matthew authored a document. That it is to be considered in some sense equal with or related to our modern Matthew is indicated by the fact that Eusebius, who quotes Papias on this matter, is discussing issues related to the composition of the canonical Gospels. The question of how it might be related, we will discuss shortly.

Special touches peculiar to who Matthew was. In line with the criteria that we would expect the claimed author of a document to reflect the vocabulary and interest of that author, there are certain touches that point to the figure we know as Matthew. The story of the fish and the coin (see below) would have been of special interest to Matthew as a tax collector. Matthew also lays special emphasis on monetary amounts (18:21-35, 25:14-30), although not with what can be called an "insiders" knowledge ([CarMoo.Int, 72]; but see [Heib.Int, 60] - Matthew does use a technical monetary term in 22:15-22 where Mark [12:13-17] and Luke [20:20-6] in parallels use a common one).

Subtle self-identification. In the story about a publican called to follow Jesus, the publican is called "Levi" in Mark and Luke, but "Matthew" in Matthew; in the same vein, Mark and Luke refer to "his house" whereas Matthew refers to "THE house" [Stone.OSG, 19-20] as one would when writing of their own house in a third-person narrative context.

Internal evidence. If Matthew was a tax collector, and as suggested by his alternate name a Levite, the content of his Gospel fits with what his expected life experiences would be [see Sen.GM, 80-1; Alb.Mt, clxxvii]. A Levite like Matthew would normally be a Pharisee, and would receive training for Temple service. In line with this, Matthew shows signs of proper Jewish religious training: His "rich use" of OT quotes; his use of typology; his concern with Jewish issues. But because there would be room for only so many Levites at the Temple, someone like Matthew might be forced to seek employment elsewhere -- and if he found work as a tax collector, he would be rejected by his Pharasaic cohorts. (It has not been suggested, but I wonder if perhaps Matthew's choosing to feature controversies with the Pharisees might, in this light, reflect a personal interest rather than problems within his supposed "community" with the Pharisees; see below.) Matthew also shows through his writing that he is a Hellenized Jew: he has good Greek style, and would appear to be "at home" in the Roman world. Again, this fits right in with the idea of Matthew the tax collector as our seminal author.

more stuff at:
<a href="http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_02_MT.html" target="_blank">matthew evidence</a>

cloudyphiz

i thought that we had no extant writings of Papias, just fragments of quotes from Eusebius. correct me if i'm wrong.

and if anyone was convinced by the preceeding post, please follow the link posted above to Steven Carr's website. much stronger arguments are to be found there.

-gary

CX

The problem is we only have excerpts of Papias from Eusebius writing in the 4th century. That notwithstanding there are a few other problems with this evidence. Firstly it is extremely unclear what Papias means. Most scholars have rejected the idea of an Aramaic proto-Matthew because canonical Matthew has no indication of being translational Greek. Whoever wrote our canonical Matthew did so originally in Greek. The second problem is that we do not know where Papias got his information from. He claims it was from a &lt;i&gt;presbyter&lt;/i&gt; of his acquaintance. Papias was considered unreliable even by other early church fathers. At best what we have is hearsay evidence several degree removed from the original source of the quote.

This is more likely post hoc analysis and confirmation bias. If we read the text with the idea that it was written by Matthew the tax collector we see clues that confirm our understanding.

The biggest problem I have with Matthean authorship is his use of GMk. Why would an eyewitness like Matthew called Levi use so much material from a written source whose author was not an eyewitness? Furthermore AMt seems to do some pretty sloppy exegesis of the OT trying to shoehorn Jesus into that story (Isiah 7:14 for example). And lastly the OT quotes AMt uses come from the LXX. If it was truely written by a pharasaic Jew wouldn't he have used a Hebrew text of the OT for quotations?